Gentle readers, I am still on Sabbatical However I will be changing the format for a while. There are so many areas to address that we are going to point out our thinking about the sheep being led to the market. I have no ax to grind but I am fed up with those who try to take advantage of you. So you may not like what we are going to present but I guarantee you that it will raise your awareness and you blood pressure as we expose these vultures for who they are.- see below
I will be finishing the Book of Genesis soon, have you read my work yet? Teaching through the entire Bible on our wee study site http://scripturestudies.spruz.com ("Where scholarship and study meet". A study and social network an outreach of Scripture Institute) on the Christianity 101 Group I would like to invite you to join with us for this perhaps last of my teaching through the Bible Under the heading "Doc's notes."
For the continuing study of "What your father didn't know and your mother wouldn't tell you" please see our study site called Scriptural studies (see below) where you can enjoy many other studies as well as mine. I will continue to write on both but here you deserve the benefit of Irish insights on a variety topics
“May those who love us, love us; and those who don't love us, may God turn their hearts; and if He doesn't turn their hearts, may he turn their ankles so we'll know them by their limping.”
Today's offering:
Sex, lies and video tapes [Sept 1)
The Great Paradox (Aug 29)
Turn off the Cartoon Network (Fox News)[ Aug 25]
Stupid Politicians and others (Aug 24)
When SNL meets stupid they get on board (Aug 20)
"You can't fix stupid" Ron White
Don't call yourself a Christian if . . . (Aug 16)
a change of plans:
xenophobia the wave in your future
(Psychology, hatred or fear of foreigners or strangers or of their politics or culture)
Recommended Reading for your mind
The Kite Runner (August 13)
The Canon of Scripture by F. F. Bruce (August 10th)
AWOL: The Unexcused Absence of America's Upper Classes from Military Service -- and How It Hurts Our Country (August 8)
Adam, Eve and the serpent: Sex and Politics in Early Christianity by Dr. Elaine Pagels (August 1)
The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament July 31st
How good do we have to be? A new understanding of Guilt and forgivness (July 30th)
The Unvarnished New Testament (July 29th )
Early Christianity Orthordoxy and Heresy (July 28th)
"I don't want to remember 2010 as a year that the GOP heaped unnecessary burdens upon American families. Stealing from the poor and middle class and giving to the rich, while increasing the deficit, is hardly responsible".
Discovering the original gospel of John - July 25 By Dr Jerry W. Bernard
Crazy for God by Frank Schaeffer
Not for the weak of mind or heart-the portrait he paints amounts to a death-dealing charge of hypocrisy and insincerity at the very heart of what passes now for Christianity!
The Birth of Christianity July 22
A Old Testament word for the day July 21
The Lost apostle July 20
Reading with Heart and Mind - July 15
How God changes your brain - July 16
Papal Sin The structures of deceit By Garry Wills Pulitzer Prize winning author July 19
Obama’s enemies have painted him as an alien threat. Can he fight the flight from facts?
“I’d like to burn them off,” says the Illustrated Man in Ray Bradbury’s 1951 science-fiction classic of that name. “I’ve tried sandpaper, acid, a knife.” Nothing works. More than a half century before head-to-toe tattoos, a time-traveling witch had painted colorful images on nearly every part of the man’s body. The elaborate stories they told made it hard for him to hold a job.
President Obama is our era’s Illustrated Man. His enemies—and even some of his ostensible allies—have been busy for three years painting Obama as some kind of alien threat. His name, race, exotic upbringing, and determination to reach out to moderate Muslims have given those who would delegitimize him a fresh palette of dark colors. The caricatures are almost comical, as the president himself recognizes. “Some folks say, ‘Well, you know, he’s not as cool as he was,’?” Obama said at a May fundraiser in California. “?‘When they had all the posters around and everything.’ Now I’ve got a Hitler mustache on the posters. That’s quite a change.”
Our maddening times demand that the truth be forthrightly stated at the outset, and not just that the president has nothing in common with the führer beyond the possession of a dog. The outlandish stories about Barack Hussein Obama are simply false: he wasn’t born outside the United States (the tabloid “proof” has been debunked as a crude forgery); he has never been a Muslim (he was raised by an atheist and became a practicing Christian in his 20s); his policies are not “socialist” (he explicitly rejected advice to nationalize the banks and wants the government out of General Motors and Chrysler as quickly as possible); he is not a “warmonger” (he promised in 2008 to withdraw from Iraq and escalate in Afghanistan and has done so); he is neither a coddler of terrorists (he has already ordered the killing of more “high value” Qaeda targets in 18 months than his predecessor did in eight years), nor a coddler of Wall Street (his financial-reform package, while watered down, was the most vigorous since the New Deal), nor an enemy of American business (he and the Chamber of Commerce favor tax credits for small business that were stymied by the GOP to deprive him of a victory). And that’s just the short list of lies.
The latest NEWSWEEK Poll tells a disturbing story. Obama’s approval rating is 47 percent, slightly better than in the spring and not terrible for a president facing disturbing economic news. (Ronald Reagan touched bottom with 41 percent approval during the 1982–83 recession.) The problem is that some of the lies about Obama are gathering strength. In 2008, 13 percent of Americans were under the misimpression that he was a Muslim. Now the figure is 24 percent. One explanation may be that Obama’s connection to his Chicago church was fresher in the public mind then. But the deeper problem is a growing number of people who think the president is not just disappointing or wrongheaded but dangerous. More than half of Republicans surveyed (52 percent) think it’s “definitely true” or “probably true” that Obama “sympathizes with the goals of fundamentalists who want to impose Islamic law around the world.” This says more about the mindset of the GOP than about Obama. It reflects not just the usual personal and partisan animus of the age (George W. Bush was subjected to exceptionally nasty attacks from the left) but a flight from facts—a startling disconnect between a quarter of the country and what some of Bush’s aides once disparagingly called “the reality-based community.”
The blame for this extends from Fox News and the Republican leadership, to the peculiar psychology of resentment in public opinion, to the ham-handed political response of the Obama White House. Whatever the cause, if smash-mouth tactics are validated by huge GOP gains in the midterm elections, then Big Lie politics may be with us for good.
In some ways, it has always been with us, going back to the 18th-century calumny of James Callender against John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton. More recently, the Rev. Jerry Falwell sponsored a film that falsely accused President Clinton of ordering murders and dealing drugs. What’s changed about politics as a contact sport is the reach of the lies. With the exception of Father Charles Coughlin, the anti-Semitic “radio priest” of the 1930s, reactionaries haven’t generally had big audiences. But now the cranks who once could do little more than write ranting letters to the editor on the red ribbons of their typewriters (loaded with exclamation points and in all caps, of course) can spread their venom virally, with the help of right-wing billionaires underwriting their organizations. And while the cable network they watch, Fox News, might not actively promote the idea that the president is a foreign-born Muslim, it does little to knock it down. Fox often covers Obama’s place of birth and religion more as matters of opinion than of fact.
Meanwhile, the right-wing and left-wing backbenchers who once sharply attacked each other in Congress, then walked off the floor arm-in-arm as colleagues, now barely speak. And the congressional leadership is getting into the venom game. When the racist Gerald L.K. Smith charged in 1937 that FDR was a secret Jew (he later called Dwight Eisenhower a “Swedish Jew”), no one could have imagined that the Senate minority leader would be asked about it, much less tacitly endorse the claim. But there was Mitch McConnell last week saying that “I take the president at his word” when he says he’s not a Muslim.
That’s what’s known in politics as a “dog whistle”—a coded message to followers. Many conservatives don’t accept Obama’s “word” on anything. McConnell was thus giving them permission to consider the president’s faith an open question, even as he said it wasn’t in dispute. Beyond validation by politicians and the right-wing media, the best explanation for why growing numbers of Americans think the president is a Muslim is that more and more voters don’t like him personally, and so are increasingly ready to believe anything critical (and to them, being Muslim is a negative) about someone they are already inclined to resent. Call this associational distortion. It’s a good bet that if the economy improves, so will the percentage of voters who say that Barack Obama is a Christian.
But that doesn’t mean Obama can’t do more to combat the lies. Stephen Colbert joked that “he needs to go to church harder.” After a decent interval, expect to see him taking Colbert’s advice. While “the president is not going to calibrate his devotions according to our political needs,” as senior adviser David Axelrod puts it, the White House made sure to issue a statement after the polls on his religion saying that Obama is a “committed Christian.” And aides quietly reminded reporters that he reads a daily devotional message, talks to pastors on the phone, and sometimes attends services at a small military chapel at Camp David, where he won’t inconvenience worshipers with Secret Service magnetometers.
Axelrod argues that one of the reasons the public seems to know less and less about Obama personally is that governing is different from campaigning. “The campaign focused on his biography,” he says, noting that in 2008 Obama had the time and money (for ads) to “paint on a blank page.” Now, with the president besieged by complex issues and external events, the personal narrative has faded. “Into that void comes mischief,” Axelrod concludes. “He hasn’t talked as much about himself since becoming president, and maybe that’s a mistake, but it’s not an irreversible one.” One way to get personal, the White House believes, is in nontraditional media like ABC’s The View and late-night talk shows.
The deeper problem isn’t the personal narrative but the political story he’s failing to tell—the story of a government committed to rescuing the American middle class. The White House hasn’t been creative enough in telling it and seems hobbled by timidity in the cut and thrust of politics. The hasty firing of USDA official Shirley Sherrod depressed many Obama backers. “They run away after the slightest criticism—unless it’s criticism from our side, which they ignore,” says one prominent Democratic consultant. “Everyone there [in the White House] is overtired, burned out, and defensive.”
For Axelrod, the challenge is to choreograph adept responses to media feeding frenzies but not confuse them with something deeply important and lasting: “So much of governing in this hair-trigger media environment is not chasing rabbits down a hole. We have to react to the kerfuffle of the moment but not buy into the hysterical notion that every story is a defining event, because they’re not.” The BP oil spill, for instance, while still serious, has not turned out to be “Obama’s Katrina.” Health-care reform was seen by many cable chatterers as shaping the outcome of the November midterm elections but almost certainly won’t. Nor will the flap over the planned mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero. To make sure, Obama defended the constitutional principle at stake, but backed off on the specific siting. Why get tied down by another hot-button distraction, especially one that keeps the Muslim story alive in ways that help no one but the media? The collapse of the Greek economy, by contrast, is an example of something real, not hyped by cable news, whose reverberations first spoiled Obama’s PR plan for a “Recovery Summer” and now could sink the Democrats in the midterms.
Since America began as a Republic, here are some Interesting thoughts about Democracy
At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinborough) had this to say about "The Fall of The Athenian Republic" some 2,000 years prior.
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From Bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage."
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law believes the U.S. is now somewhere between the "apathy" and "complacency" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy; with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
But wait Gentle Reader isn't there a wee bit more to this?
Read on Gentle reader,
There are four main pillars of today’s Republican Party: 1) Small government – especially with respect to those aspects of government that are designed to help people who are especially in need of help; 2) Yet large enough government to pay back their wealthy campaign contributors; 3) Militarism and imperialism – i.e., foreign conquest; and 4) “Christianity” – which I put in quotes because the brand of Christianity advocated by today’s Republican Party is, quite frankly, bizarre.
The great paradox
The great paradox of today’s Republican Party is that the first three pillars noted above are almost totally inconsistent with the last one – Christianity. Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. As pointed out by the Christian evangelical minister Gary Vance, in his article “Wasn't Jesus a Liberal?”, everything Jesus stood for was inconsistent with those first three pillars:
He aligned Himself with the poor and the oppressed. He challenged the religious orthodoxy of His day. He advocated pacifism and loving our enemies. He liberated women and minorities from oppression.… Jesus was the original Liberal. He was a progressive, and He was judged and hated for it.
Today’s Republican Party is tightly aligned with the wealthy – not the poor.
That is evident in their contempt for laws and government programs which are meant to alleviate the burden of the poor, such as laws for the protection of working people, minimum wage laws, supplemental nutrition programs for infants, Social Security, health care for the aged, public education, and protection against national disasters, such as the building of levees to prevent flooding.
It is evident in their tax policies, which have dramatically reduced taxes on the ultra-wealthy, at the expense of all the programs described above.
It is evident in the millions of dollars of campaign donations that they receive from wealthy contributors.
It is evident in the wholesale abandonment of government checks and regulations to prevent the wealthy and the powerful from taking advantage of less fortunate citizens.
And it is evident in the ever widening income gap between rich and poor, with the addition of millions of American citizens to the ranks of poverty, concomitant with greatly expanding wealth for the already wealthy, which has grown to record breaking levels in this country under a Republican President and a compliant Republican Congress and Judiciary.
Rationalization
Of course, because of their need to court the Christian vote, the Republican Party won’t admit to any of this.
The reason that they fight for “small government”, so they claim, is to “get government off the backs” of ordinary citizens. I doubt that the people of New Orleans would have considered the repair of their levees as having government “on their backs”, but that’s the Republican talking point on this issue, and they stick to it.
The acceptance of millions of dollars in campaign contributions from wealthy individuals and corporations is necessary in order to protect our First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, so they claim – since everyone knows that money is speech. And they act indignant at the suggestion that favors were expected in return for those contributions.
The invasion of a foreign country, resulting in tens of thousands of dead civilians and soldiers, was justified first on the lie that that country posed a threat to us, and when that lie was exposed our Republican government decided that the invasion was necessary in order “spread democracy”. And similarly, that government justifies the abuse and torture of its prisoners of war on the supposed threat that those prisoners pose to us.
Christian values
To rub in the point of how far REAL Christian values deviate from the values of today’s Republican Party, consider these Christian political accomplishments in our country, as described by Vance:
The labor movement of the early twentieth century was aided significantly when major Christian denominations got behind it. No average American would have a fair wage today if it weren’t for liberal Christians and labor activists. Liberal Christians and civil rights activists fought and still fight against conservative America for racial equality. Child labor laws were enacted because liberals fought for them. Medicare and Social Security exist today because of Liberalism. “Bleeding heart liberals” have long advocated for the homeless, the hungry, the less fortunate, and the disenfranchised. The women of America owe liberals a big thank you for their almost equal rights. “Tree hugging liberals” fight for clean air and water standards instead of favoring industrial polluters and short term profiteering that destroy God’s green earth.
The blending of Christianity and liberalism in the above passage is no accident. The fact of the matter is that, to a very large extent, Christian values ARE liberal values. And anyone with a good understanding of both Christianity and liberalism should know that.
But Republicans also have some Christian values
Yes, Republicans not only have Christian values, but they never let you forget it either. The problem with Republicans as Christians, however, is that they are VERY selective about the Christian values that they embrace. Here are the favorite “Christian values” of the Republican Party: Gay people should not marry each other The abortion of a fetus is a crime Embryonic stem cells should be thrown away rather than used for research No effort should be spared to salvage the life of the brain dead Creationism should be taught in public schools Christian prayers should be said in public schools
Do you notice any big differences between the set of Christian values that Republicans have contempt for and the other set of Christian values that Republicans base their political campaigns on? I’ll offer two huge differences: 1) The first set of Christian values are the ones that Jesus based his ministry on, whereas Jesus never talked about the second set at all – as far as I know; and 2) The first set of Christian values are expensive and therefore would cut into the profit margins of the wealthy contributors to the Republican Party, whereas the second set cost nothing at all.
Then why are the Republicans the “Christian” Party?
Given that Christian moral values, as exemplified in the teachings of Jesus, greatly resemble the moral values of the Democratic Party, whereas they are flatly inconsistent with the moral values of the Republican Party, then how did it come to be that the Republicans are known as the “Christian” Party, whereas the Democrats in many circles are considered the anti-Christian Party?
No, I’m not stupid. I recognize of course that today’s Republican Party wants Christian votes, that there is no limit to the hypocrisy that they are willing to practice in order to appeal to those votes, and that governments throughout world history have cynically appealed to religion as a means of maintaining their power.
But still, it seems quite odd that Republicans would pick as one of the main pillars of their party a religion that is against everything that their party stands for. Here is my explanation for that bizarre phenomenon:
Today’s Republican Party is a party of insatiable greed, selfishness, corruption, and even immorality. It’s pretty difficult to generate political appeal on a platform like that. Yes, they have their rationalizations, as I noted above. But it’s pretty difficult to get people with a modicum of intelligence to buy into those rationalizations, given how far the actions of the today’s Republican Party deviate from general standards of human decency.
Consequently, the Republican Party has adopted the bold strategy of turning logic upside down and pretending to be the exact opposite of what they truly are. They claim to be strict followers of a great moral religion. And to prove it, they adopt a bunch of strict moral codes that cost them nothing, and at the same time which appear to have some resemblance to that religion. By so doing, they hope to turn attention away from the fact that the true “moral code” of their party, as measured by their actions, is actually empty of morals. And unfortunately, they’ve been quite successful in perpetuating this fraud in recent years.
What to do?
It’s hard to know how to combat this deceit and hypocrisy, given the energy, organization, and viciousness with which the right wing propaganda machines, assisted by the corporate news media, perpetuate the myth that Republicans are the party of morals and religion, while Democrats are anti-religion and immoral.
But the effort has to be made. The myth that the Republican Party is the party of Christian values is so far from reality that a vigorous effort to combat that myth surely should have some substantial effect.
As Gary Vance asks at the end of his article, posing questions to Christian Republicans that the Democratic Party probably should be asking as well:
I have some questions for the Christian Right. Why have you not held our current elected majority officials accountable for their failure to address the full spectrum of Christian issues? Why would you vote for them again? … It is time for Christians of conscience to stand up to religious and political hypocrisy.
A year ago, Glenn Beck called the President a racist who had a deep-seeded hatred for White people.1 In just over a week, he says he will "reclaim"2 the legacy of the civil rights movement by holding his "Restoring Honor" rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC — on the same day and place as Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech.3
You can get mad at Beck. You can protest and try to prevent him from stepping on Dr. King's honor for one day. The reality is that the next day — and five days-a-week from there on out — Beck will be back on Fox News, speaking to millions and spreading hate, lies, and fear, as he does every week.
The real problem is Fox News. Fox News gives Beck his platform, and Fox promotes his events — all despite Beck losing virtually all of his major advertisers in the last year.
Fox's rhetoric is not just divisive; it's dangerous. Last month, a heavily armed man got into a gun fight with police after he was pulled over on his way to kill people at the Tides Foundation4 — a non-profit that was little known until Glenn Beck repeatedly demonized it, claiming it to be the center of a great conspiracy.5 Last year, Kansas doctor George Tiller was gunned down while at church6 after Bill O'Reilly called him a Nazi, a "baby killer," and warned of "Judgment Day."7
It's why today we’re launching TurnOffFox, and we hope you'll join us. TurnOffFox is the first step in our overall effort to beat back the poison, hate, and division of Fox. We'll get Fox turned off in stores, restaurants, and other public places — places where Fox pulls in new viewers and gains legitimacy. But we need your help.
Click below to declare your household "Fox free" and at the same time call on establishments in your community (and across the country) to follow your lead and turn off Fox. Then invite your friends and family to do the same. Armed with thousands of signatures, including yours, ColorOfChange members will then visit businesses in their community that play Fox, explain how divisive and dangerous it is, and call on them to stop. And you'lll receive a FREE Turn Off Fox sticker when you sign on — it takes just a moment:
Some people watch Fox at home because it reflects their view of the world; but there are others who see it on TV in public places and assume that it's legitimate news. Fox News is often on in bars, restaurants, airport lounges, stores — appearing to be real news, while spreading lies and fomenting hate and division.
The goal of Turn Off Fox is to reduce the number of public TVs showing Fox News, while spreading the word about Fox's poison (and how it works) to those who don't know.
Signing up for the campaign is just the first step. We make it easy for you to tell us about businesses playing Fox. If you're willing to talk with them, we'll provide you with straightforward materials that explain why they shouldn't be a party to what Fox is doing. And if there are businesses you know that want to tell the world they would never play Fox, you can help them declare themselves a "Fox-free zone."
As businesses Turn off Fox and stand up as Fox Free, and as we encourage our friends and family to do the same, we'll help make clear, to people across the country, what Fox is about. And we'll reduce their ability to do harm.
Click the link below to join myself and others in standing up to Fox, and you'll get you a free TurnOffFox sticker. And then please ask your friends and family to do the same:
Here are some gems for you to think about as you go to the polls.
Most of us assume politicians are pretty smart.
They use big words and phrases like "stimulus package," "incumbent" and "optical-scan ballot" when the rest of us simply say, "free cash," "the bum" and "election-night disaster."
But of course politicians are just like the rest of us, just with better retirement benefits. In other words, they often say the most stupid things.
A few years back, as the Louisiana legislature was arguing a bill to prevent flooding, state Rep. Sherman Copelin Jr. said, "This is the most important bill of the session. . . . I have not read the bill."
Alaska Gov. Walter Hickel once justified a plan to kill hundreds of wolves by saying, "You just can't let nature run wild."
Wisconsin author Ted "Dr. Politics" Rueter has compiled some of the best brainless comments by politicians in two new pocket-sized books, "185 Stupid Things Democrats Have Said" and "185 Stupid Things Republicans Have Said" (a whopping 94 of the 185 in the GOP version are from President Bush).
Here are some of the best:
Department of cold showers
Republican "The U.S. Senate is a special place. I love all of you and especially your wives." -- Strom Thurmond, U.S. senator from South Carolina
Democrat "I would never approach a small-breasted woman." -- President Clinton, denying that he had sexually harassed Kathleen Willey
Strongly against making sense
Republican "Desert Storm was a stirring victory for the forces of aggression and lawlessness." -- Vice President Dan Quayle
Democrat "We will not close any bases that are not needed." -- Les Aspin, secretary of defense
Do you know who I am?
Republican "It's not your job to stop me for speeding." -- Darrell Issa, Cleveland native and U.S. representative from California, after a border patrol officer stopped him going 90 mph through an interstate construction zone
Democrat "I could be an incredible voice in the Senate. Why? Because the media will cover me every single day." -- Jerry Springer
Hasta la vista, Hispanic votes
Republican "I don't understand how they can call me anti-Latino when I've made four movies in Mexico." -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
Democrat "Do you own sombreros? Do you know the Mexican hat dance?" -- Sidney Yates, U.S. representative from Illinois, addressing Hispanic high school students
We'll have what they're having
Republican "There are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know." -- Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defense
Democrat "In our soul's magnificence, we become conscious of the cosmos within us. We hear the music of peace, we hear the music of cooperation, we hear the music of love. In our soul's forgetting, we become unconscious of our cosmic birthright, blighted with disharmony, disunity, torn asunder for the stars in a disaster." -- U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich
Careful what you wish for
Republican "I think that gay marriage should be between a man and a woman." -- Schwarzenegger
Democrat "I am working for the time when unqualified blacks, browns and women join the unqualified men in running the government." -- Frances "Sissy" Farenthold, Texas state representative
Don't let the facts get in the way
Republican "For a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of the great and enduring alliances of modern times." -- President Bush, a history major
Democrat "If the King's English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me." -- Miriam "Ma" Ferguson, Texas governor
Depends what "is" is
Republican "Only one thing would be worse than the status quo. And that would be for the status quo to become the norm." -- Elizabeth Dole, U.S. senator from North Carolina
Democrat "This isn't rocket science here." -- Tom Daschle, U.S. senator from South Dakota, denouncing spending on space-based missile defense
What a country!
Republican "We're no longer a superpower. We're a super-duper power." -- Tom DeLay, U.S. representative from Texas
Democrat "In America, anybody may become president, and I suppose it's just one of the risks you take." -- Adlai Stevenson two-time Democratic presidential nominee
Department of misogyny
Republican "Women are best suited for secretarial work, decorating cakes and counter sales, like selling lingerie." -- Larry Koon, South Carolina state representative
Democrat "I am not a chauvinist, obviously. . . . I believe in women's rights for every woman but my own." -- Harold Washington, mayor of Chicago
You're joking, yes?
Republican "I think incest can be handled as a family matter within the family." -- Jay Dickey Jr., U.S. representative from Arkansas
Democrat "Schwarzenegger is going to find out that, unlike a Hollywood movie set, the bullets coming at him in this campaign are going to be real bullets." -- Bob Mulholland, campaign adviser for the California Democratic Party
Wow, can you believe it?
Republican "Do you have blacks, too?" -- President Bush, to Fernando Cardoso, president of Brazil
Democrat "These people are just like us. They love their children and keep themselves clean." -- Paul Hardy, Louisiana gubernatorial candidate, after visiting a housing project in New Orleans
She's is the reason Christians are thought to be stupid, put me on a different bus please. the following is true but as always this will offend some one who thinks a part time governor wannabe president is just what we need.
Read on:
Sarah Palin has used Twitter to share some advice with Dr. Laura Schlessinger, the talk radio host who apologized and decided to retire from her highly-rated program after using the N-word on the air 11 times in 5 minutes.
Palin's advice: "don't retreat...reload!"
It's a breathtakingly tone-deaf bit of provocation -- even by Palin's standards.
Dr. Laura, as she's known on her radio program, quickly came under fire for her remarks of a week ago. She immediately acknowledged the mistake and soon announced that she would end the show once her contract expires later this year. She currently commands the largest audience of any woman in syndicated talk radio and overall her ratings are among the top five hosts in the nation.
Palin, once the governor of Alaska and Republican nominee for vice president in 2008, has been using social media sites like Facebook and Twitter to push her messages in recent months. She fired out two messages about Dr. Laura on Wednesday night, the first reading:
Dr.Laura on't retreat...reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence"isn't American,not fair")
Dr.Laura=even more powerful & effective w/out the shackles, so watch out Constitutional obstructionists. And b thankful 4 her voice,America!
The response was immediate and furious.
Joan Walsh, writing on Salon, pointed out that Palin was tweeting about feminists just hours before "embracing the anti-feminist traditional-values preacher Dr. Laura." (Incidentally, Dr. Laura was never a big fan of Palin.) Walsh then went after the sentiment and historical context of Palin's latest comments:
It's scary to think we just had a vice presidential nominee who doesn't understand the Constitution, who thinks Schlessinger's First Amendment rights "ceased 2exist" because she was criticized for haranguing a black woman who called for advice, using the word "nigger" 11 times. Again, Gov. Palin, the First Amendment protects us from government infringing on our speech rights; it doesn't take away other Americans' right to criticize.
This isn't the first time a Palin tweet related to the First Amendment has generated controversy. Last month, she called on Muslims to "refudiate" Park 51's construction of Cordoba House, the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque."
Palin acknowledged Park 51's rights. She acknowledged Dr. Laura's rights. She questioned Park 51's wisdom. So far, she hasn't questioned Dr. Laura's wisdom.
Dr. Laura's actions -- ending her show -- may have said more than Palin's words. And maybe even "refudiated" them.
And this is the spokesperson for the "tea Party" Lets all just quit thinking for ourselves and let Sister Sara think for us! Hmmmm!!!
"And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world -- our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand. To those who would tear this world down -- we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security -- we support you. And to all those who have wondered if Americas beacon still burns as bright -- tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from our the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope.
For that is the true genius of America -- that America can change. Our union can be perfected. And what we have already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow."
Gentle readers,
Don’t Call yourself a Christian if . . .you are full of hate for another!
As I reflect upon these words and think of the furor that has erupted over the "Ground Zero Mosque" proposal, I am appalled. Am I in a dream? I can't even believe, that in this day and age, we are even discussing this. I expressed my dissatisfaction for the reactionary response, which opposes the very nature of our nation's values: liberty and tolerance (is this Christian? Not as I understand Christianity).
In this country, the fact that we still have this type of hate is disheartening, to say the least. It is like we are living in a twilight zone. As the conservatives and the some on the right and left continue to preach that they are the ones who are on God's side, I am dismayed to see them behave in quite the opposite manner.
"And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will." (2Ti 2:24-26)
Must not strive - He may calmly inquire after truth; he may discuss points of morals, or theology, if he will do it with a proper spirit; he may "contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints" Jud_1:3; but he may not do that which is here mentioned as strife. The Greek word - μάχεσθαι machesthai - commonly denotes, "to fight, to make war, to contend." In John 6:52; Acts 7;26; 2 TiM 2:24 ; it is rendered "strove," and "strive;" in James 4:2, "fight." It is not elsewhere used in the New Testament. The meaning is, that the servant of Christ should be a man of peace. He should not indulge in the feelings which commonly give rise to contention, and which commonly characterize it. He should not struggle for mere victory, even when endeavoring to maintain truth; but should do this, in all cases, with a kind spirit, and a mild temper; with entire candor; with nothing designed to provoke and irritate an adversary; and so that, whatever may be the result of the discussion, "the bond of peace" may, if possible, be preserved.
During Ramadan dinner on Friday night at the White House, President Obama's stand opposing bigotry and supporting religious liberty sends a critical message to opponents of the Cordoba House Islamic Center. We must never tolerate hate and bigotry directed at any group, including Muslims. President Obama is right that we all must 'recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of Lower Manhattan.'
Yet we all have a sacred responsibility to defend the most vulnerable among us and minorities who are under attack. Not in our America will Muslims be targeted as second class citizens without the strongest and loudest protest. We welcome President Obama to this conversation. If nothing else, this president will be remembered for showing the most amazing leadership in the promotion of tolerance, love and compassion. And for that we will be forever grateful.
I am just one beggar showing another beggar where to find bread!
Dan Fanelli, thinks that only brown people should have to pass through security at the airports. Because all terrorists are brown people.
I'm not making this up. If you don't believe me, see for yourself (as 150,000 others have). If you can stomach it:
Apparently, Dan Fanelli is running against Alan Grayson because he's not racist.
Fanelli's "racist madness" was reported on MSNBC, the Washington Post, the Huffington Post, CBS, and Talking Points Memo. You can watch the ad on Keith Olbermann's show, which dedicated a whole segment to Fanelli.
But let's go through some pictures together, so Dan Fanelli can see some different faces of terrorism.
Does THIS look like a terrorist?
That's Timothy McVeigh.
Does THIS look like a terrorist?
That's Holocaust Museum shooter James Von Brunn.
Does THIS look like a terrorist?
That's white supremacistDaniel Cowart, who conspired to kill President Obama.
Does THIS look like a terrorist?
That's Jeff Berry of the KKK.
Terrorists come in all colors, shapes, sizes, and even genders. But Fanelli isn't really talking about terrorism. What Fanelli and his Republican bigot friends are saying is that American citizenship comes in two versions: white and nonwhite. That's why they want to put through laws that would require every single person to carry proof of citizenship, or risk arrest. Because they want to degrade and put down everyone who isn't just like them.
I have news for them. America is a nation, not a tribe.This impulse on the right toward racism, sexism, xenophobia, and homophobia keeps popping up over and over again. Just yesterday, "Dr. Laura" scolded a black woman, on the air, for marrying a white man. And then the good doctor used the N-word, on the air, again and again.
This person Gentle readers is a racist! A vote for him will return each us back to the 1700's
This compelling novel, narrated in the first person, shows how political and social turmoil in Afghanistan separated both family and love. Beautifully written with compassion and emotion, this book can be read no matter the situation or location. However, before beginning the novel, be prepared to isolate yourself for a few hours, because once you begin, the book is difficult to put down.
Situated in 1970 Afghanistan, Khaled Hosseini’s The Kite Runner reads like a nonfictional diary. The story, narrated in the first person, shows the relationship between two friends, Hassan and Amir. The two characters’ lives completely contrast each other; however, both embody a loving personality. The novel’s emotion grips the reader’s attention and leaves him curious, enticing him to continue reading. The plot then unfolds, introducing misery and sadness, yet despite its many ups and downs, the novel maintains its excitement.
Although friends and immediate neighbors, both Hassan and Amir live completely different lives before they come to play with each other every day. They vary in heritage and perspective, and thus, their roles in life differ. Amir, the son of a wealthy and successful businessman lives the life of an upper-class son; he is driven to school daily in the foreign “Ford Mustang” car and is educated to one day assume his father’s business. Hassan, on the other hand, lives an entirely different life. He wakes up early in the morning, irons Amir’s school clothes, prepares Amir’s breakfast, and places Amir’s pencils in Amir’s backpack. Hassan is illiterate and admires Amir’s reading capabilities. Amir is allowed to live the lavish life, and Hassan is solely allowed to prepare the lavish life for Amir.Despite their differences in daily routines, both Hassan and Amir enjoy each other’s company. Together, they fly kites, tell stories, and climb trees. However, rising political turmoil forces the two friends to separate.
Interestingly enough, Hassan and Amir’s relationship resembles Kellyanne’s relationship with Pobby and Dingan in Ben Rice’s novel, Pobby and Dingan. Both stories show how separations between loved ones affects these people’s future, especially their decisions.The novel is fantastic since it illustrates both love and conflict. Hosseini manages to provide an educational and eye-opening account of Afghanistan’s political turmoil while also developing characters whose heart-breaking struggles and emotional triumphs are remembered long after the reader turns the final page.
This story breaks the conventional books taught in English because of its modern time period as well as its gripping plot. Furthermore, the highly detailed imagery reflects the narrator’s strong remembrance for Afghanistan.Although the plot and characters in this novel were fictional, this novel could easily have been portrayed in a nonfictional setting. So profoundly did Hosseini describe the events with emotion and detail, that throughout the the good and the bad times, he left the reader emotionally shocked. Moreover, despite the many tribulations, you will soon be left without another page to read, as The Kite Runner will entice you start to finish.
A Vivid History of Canonical Traditions of Holy Scripture,
An Old Friend revisited
Gentle readers,
Some books never go out of style- this is one of them;
The Canon of Scripture: The dean of evangelical biblical scholars did a great service when he decided to get this work out of his system (Preface), since he made a very successful attempt indeed to communicate the state of knowledge on this tricky and sensitive subject. This book stands my Criterion: If I only have one book on the subject, I would buy this book. This book is methodical, written basically for Seminarians, still tickles your curious bone, but don't get tricked by the smoothness of his elaboration, being a top exegesist and a reference on biblical criticism.
Preface & Chapter one: Read the condensed preface attentively, it highlights Prof. Bruce intended strategy to leave the more controversial issues on the OT canon to R. Beckwith and J. Barton. The short chapter defines terms that became the vocabulary of the subject, their meaning and roots. 'People of the Book' conveys his cultural standing, but he avoids elaborating on the concept of the two testaments but will not but mention Jeremiah 31:31, and later how Origen was the first to use and propagate this Alexandrine terminology (p. 192 : on First Principles 4.1.1)
TaNaKh & Wider Canon: Bruce, who said will shy from OT canon, masterfully instructs us in his own way, starting from the authority of OT for a Christian: Jesus appeal to TaNaKh, going from the threefold division to the closing of the Hebrew canon in Jabneh. Now, with a firm foot, he delves into the Alexandrine wider Canon starting with Septuagint origin, order of books, and adoption as Ancient Churches OT, and NT evidence, but does not state citations or allusions to the Apocrypha (K. & B. Aland: The text of the NT, Eerdmans, 1979) that he mentions (p. 51)
OT Christian Canon: Prevalence of Alexandria The Rylands chair for two decades enlighten us on how one Church transmitted the light for all others. He starts by stating the authority of the early Uncials, Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus that are all products of the Alexandrine Scriptorium, and are the most reliable (contrary of Ehrman's thesis). Along side other easterners, he elaborates on Origen, and Athanasius, the first to use the term Canon, in relation to scripture. Very interesting is his review of 17th and 18th centuries accomodation of canon, and Biblical societies. The canon in the West: Tertullian, Jerome, Augustine, to the reformation: Luther, Erasmus, and Tyndale through Trentine Council to KJAV.
New Testament Canon: If I would propose any clarification to this enjoyable treatise, it would be to copy the names and order of the bible in Orthodox, Catholic, and protestant traditions from a good study Bible, say the Harper Collins NRSV, with Apocrypha. Although differences exist in OT books, NT books are the exact 27 books. Only that the order of books in a genuine Orthodox Bible follows the Order of St. Athanasius in his Pascal letter of 367, the Catholic Epistles precede the Pauline letters.
Hebrews and Apocalypse: The authority of Dionysius the Great, on the Apocalypse of John, followed by all the Orientals (p. 213) in spite of their Canonical diversity was never challenged by Athanasius letter, intended to compromise Rome with the eastern Church. He persauded the Romans to accept the book of Hebrews, next only to John's Bible in the Alexandrine NT theological priority (canon within the canon) of the Didaskalia and Catechetical School, compromising for the Apocalypse, then considered a liturgical text in the East.
Great Chapters to enjoy: The Alexandrian Fathers NT canon in the Age of printing Criteria of Canonicity A Canon within the Canon Canon ,Criticism and interpretation
Further Readings: * Barr, J. "Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism, Westminster press, Philadelphia, 1983 * Beckwith,R. "The Old Testament Canon of NT Church,..." Eerdmans, Gr. Rapids, 1985 * Metzger,B. "The Canon of the NT, its origin, development, and significance",Oxford U. Press, 1987
Frederick Fyvie Bruce (1910-1990) was a Bible scholar, and one of the founders of the modern evangelical understanding of the Bible. His work New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? is considered a classic in the discipline of Christian apologetics.
He was born in Elgin, Morayshire and was educated at the University of Aberdeen, Cambridge University and the University of Vienna. After teaching Greek for several years first at the University of Edinburgh and then at the University of Leeds he became head of the Department of Biblical History and Literature at the University of Sheffield in 1947. In 1959 he moved to the University of Manchester where he became professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis. In his career he wrote some thirty-three books and served as editor of The Evangelical Quarterly and the Palestine Exploration Quarterly. He retired from teaching in 1978.
Bruce was a distinguished scholar on the life and ministry of the Apostle Paul, and wrote several studies the best known of which is Paul: Apostle of the Free Spirit. He also wrote commentaries on several biblical books including Acts of the Apostles, 1 & 2 Corinthians, and the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Bruce was a dedicated member of the Open Plymouth Brethren, though he did not affirm the dispensationalism usually associated with that movement.
At different times Bruce was elected as president of the (British) Society for New Testament Studies and the Society for Old Testament Studies. He is one of a handful of scholars thus recognized by his peers in both fields.
Most of his works were scholarly, but he also penned several mainstream works on the Bible that were quite popular. He viewed the New Testament as historically reliable and that the truth claims of Christianity hinged on its being so. To Bruce this did not mean that the Bible was always precise, and this lack of precision could lead to considerable confusion. However he believed that the passages that were still open to debate were ones that had no substantial bearing on Christian theology and thinking.
He was honored with two scholarly works by his colleagues and former students, one to mark his sixtieth and the other to mark his seventieth birthday. He was elected a Fellow of the British Academy, and served as President of the Society for Old Testament Study, and also as President of the Society for New Testament Study.
AWOL: The Unexcused Absence of America's Upper Classes from Military Service -- and How It Hurts Our Country
These two authors, one a Republican and one a Democrat, have written a provocative and very timely book about the large portion of society that doesn't see military service as fit for "their" kind of people.
The book starts with an astonishing anecdote. The draft was initiated for World War I because Congress thought too many of the country's elites would rush to fight (and maybe die) for the country!
That concept simply could not even be comprehended today, where the children of our current elected leaders in Washington, DC, with a few noticeable exceptions, would rather avoid serving the country in the military.
The authors identify several symptoms of the problem: Recruiters who are discouraged from even bothering to look for potential troops at elite private universities, and instead recruit from state and small Christian schools in the south; the hostility of some parents to recruiters even talking to their children; and the rise of the "me" culture and the attendant devolution of the call to service (We certainly never heard that call after 9/11).
This is an important book. While the authors sometimes get bogged down or distracted--for example in their attempt to give a brief history of four different schools of thought of US foreign policy (leave that to Walter Russell Meade please)--their thesis is powerful and important. Besides, some of their most moving sections are from testimonials from current and former servicemembers on what duty and service means.
Frank Schaeffer, a terrifc writer whether in the world of military, religion, or fiction brings his considerable skills with Kathy Roth-Douquet to bear on this seminal work on this nations upperclass' failures to support the military in deed, but often provide support with pale words.(I must admit to finding Frank one of the most skilled populist writers around today, and whether in agreement or not, he is a great communicator)
The book provides observations and yes, research, and although I have very minor quibbles, (Kathy, gives Clinton too much credit, although she is at times critical as well and while the military did a fine job, the stopping of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo has in reality, just caused other problems in reverse; and Frank supports a lottery draft, potentially problematic, albiet historically, it works more often than not - I prefer Kathy's option) these two authors provide great analysis and insight.
The strengths of this book are many: one, on how the military recruits on college campus and spends its money on ROTC programs faults our leaders for not engaging the upperclass. While this is understandable due to ivy league hostilities, it still needs to be pursued; two, the lack of moral clarity among our upperclasses ("me" and my "choice") is staggering and since these are the people generally with money, they are ripe for politcal leadrership, therefore, possibly using military men and women for their gains in foreign worlds, while not always properly equiping this same military to do the job; thirdly, the "not for people like us" is insightful and speaks to a snobbish group, again, lacking any moral clarity, especially when sacrafices are needed from them.
Lastly, the authors make an important point that liberal elites in particular just do not get: That being in the military is not a job decided on "do I support this war or that war", but a calling to serve. Knowing that if one only joined in military operations one agreed with, there would not be a military that could responed to protect this country. Military members only obey the President, they do not serve him, but the America people and our founding documents. This point is leveled graciously, but forcefully, and thank goodness.
Now, hopefully, our political readers will read and heed, before middle-class and poor Americans decide they want to be selfish too, then who will provide our Country's security?
Bravenet Blog 
Blog Community
Get a Free Blog
Manage your Blog
on't retreat...reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence"isn't American,not fair")
bravenet.com