Open Thread

Have I ever mentioned how much I enjoy really good beer?

The Enlightened Ones

Some “enlightened” Christians (a term not used derogatorily) are of the opinion that once you go to Heaven, you are completely stripped of your bodily self, to the point that you no longer care about your former family and friends and have absolutely no personality characteristics linking you to your old self. It’s as if once you leave your body behind, you’re just an anonymous soul that goes to Heaven and does…I don’t know. I guess, crazy anonymous soul stuff, like standing around looking like a bright light. And praying, or something. Nobody’s ever really clarified that for me.

I’ve gotten this theory repeatedly whenever I ask Christians about whether or not my Christian parents would be sad if they knew I was in Hell. I was of the opinion that if my parents made it into Heaven and I didn’t, they’d be really sad and it really wouldn’t be Heaven for them. Or so I’d hope. And the same goes for everyone. Were the Heaven & Hell system to work the way many people believe it does, it’s unlikely that anyone in Heaven wouldn’t have at least one or two dear friends or family members suffering in Hell for eternity. And that just doesn’t seem right.

But when I’ve asked Christians about this in the past, many of them seem to believe that this is no big deal. That once you’re in Heaven, you drop all your earthly relationships and so you wouldn’t even care that you can’t remember your children, friends, and whatnot. And I guess that makes sense to me. I have no idea how these people would know any of this, seeing as how nobody’s ever been there. And unless I’m crazy, Christians can’t believe that people come back from Heaven, so this seems like a big guess to me. But whatever. If they’re willing to believe it, I guess that’s their business.

Effectively Dead

But the part that doesn’t make sense is: Why are they cool with this? I mean, what’s the point of living in Heaven for eternity if it’s not us anymore? If we completely lose our identity, memory, etc; aren’t we effectively dead? I mean, if some evil doctor removed your brain and placed the brains of another person in your head, would it still be you? Would you be cool with that, knowing that it isn’t you anymore? Of course not. If some other dude was walking around in your body, you’d be pissed.

And so how is this any different with our souls? If my soul doesn’t have my memories, then it’s not me. It might as well be something else walking around in my soul. Our personalities are nothing more than our memories combined with our earthly genetics and chemicals. So if you deny us our bodies and our memories, we are nothing. We don’t exist. So what’s the point of that?

And what would be the point of Hell? If Hitler’s soul has no memory of who he was or what he did, is it really Hitler? Does God get some special kick knowing that these dudes have no idea why they’re suffering? But is it really Hitler suffering? Or is it yet another empty soul, unaware of its former self? And if my soul doesn’t have my identity, what the hell do I care what happens to it? Sure, it was my soul. But it’s not me. Without my memories and body, it’s no different than anyone else’s soul. If our souls really are anonymous, then I’ll just pretend that my soul went to Heaven. What difference does it make? According to these people, they’re all the same.

Punishing the Soul

And speaking of points: What’s the point of this whole earthly place, if we’re just going to lose all our experiences once we leave? Is our universe just a disposable test, which will someday be entirely forgotten once God is finished with it? Does God really need to put us through all this suffering, simply to find out if he wants to let us hang out with him for eternity? And after it’s all over, we’re not going to remember any of this? He created all this, just for a loyalty test? I find that unlikely. Could anyone really believe that God is allowing children to die and women to be raped, for no other purpose than to test our ability to love him? Really??

And honestly, if we’re sinners, we’re sinners because of our bodies and experiences. So how does it make any sense that those are the two attributes of us that won’t be getting the reward or punishment? Or are our souls somehow responsible for how we act, independently of our body and memory? If that’s the case, then that’s how God made us. And if he can make us with rotten souls, then he should just cut-out the middleman and just put us bad apples directly in Hell. That sure would prevent a lot of needless suffering and agony.

But I think that people’s personalities are based entirely on their memories and bodies, so I see no reason why the soul needs to be punished for anything. Punish Hitler’s body. Screw with his head for the things he did. That makes sense, though I refuse to understand how eternity is the proper length for any punishment. But come on, leave his poor soul out of this. I haven’t the faintest idea of what a soul could possibly be, beyond our life experiences; but if there is one, I refuse to see how it’s anything but an innocent victim in all this.

Stop-Gap Theories

Overall, I’ve got to give the memory-less soul theory a big D-minus on the sensible theory scale. It goes hand-in-hand with the theory that God doesn’t send people to Hell, but rather people send themselves there by rejecting God. And that the only punishment in Hell is that you exist without God. Sure, these sound like intellectual improvements over the traditional Fire & Brimstone version of life, but even a cursory exploration of these theories leaves us far more confused than if we hadn’t bothered thinking of them at all.

But these really aren’t supposed to be sensible theories. They’re supposed to be enlightened ones. You know, the ones your “enlightened” Christian philosophy professor feeds you, in order to quell the growing dissent between your new knowledge of higher ethics and the childish vision of the sulfury pit of Hell. Hell is an absurdity to all enlightened people, so this argument is designed to reassure newly enlightened Christians by giving them a less absurd Hell to believe in.

But this enlightened vision of Hell is even more absurd, for many of the reasons I mentioned above. But you’re not supposed to think about that. You’re just supposed to accept the new line of reasoning because it’s better than the alternative. But the truth is right there for anyone to see: There is no Hell. It’s just a dumb idea used to scare the rubes, but it really doesn’t make any sense.

Blessed be the Sinners

If we assume a kind and loving god, we cannot accept a cruel and judgmental god. If I’m expected to have the wisdom to understand my children’s mistakes, then any loving creator would surely understand mine. And of all people, he’s got the least right to complain. He made us. He created this world. He knew that some people would be born with bad parents. He knew that some people would be given bad experiences. He knew what those experiences would do to them. And he let it happen anyway. He knew what he was getting into. God is no victim in this.

So he owes it to the sinners most of all. Whether they were born with a bad soul, bad genes, or bad experiences; none of this was their fault. God was responsible for all of it. Sure, they had freewill. But what did they use to make their decisions? The soul, genes, and experiences that God was ultimately responsible for. And if a dumb schlub like me has figured this out, then there’s no way that our Almighty Lord hasn’t figured it out yet. People wouldn’t do bad things if they truly understood the consequences of what they were doing. And if they don’t understand, then God just wasn’t doing his job.

So he can’t punish these people. Nor can he allow them to banish themselves to Hell, as these enlightened Christians believe. He would understand why they made these mistakes. He would forgive them. Not because they asked. But because they were too ignorant to know how to ask. This shouldn’t be about finding Jesus as the savior. This is about an omniscient being showing how truly omniscient he is. I am expected to unconditionally love my children, even if they reject me. It is absurd to expect any less of God.

Mortal Threats

But the obvious truth is that this has nothing to do with God at all. This is about impotent humans trying to scare people into obedience. That’s where Hell comes from. All-powerful beings don’t need to rely upon anonymous threats of eternal damnation to get obedience. Humans do. And the reason why no two Christians have the same idea of Heaven is because they’re just thinking of the place they’d like to be. This isn’t about God and the afterlife. This is about humans, coping with what we were given in this life.

And maybe there’s a god. And maybe he wants us to obey his rules while we’re temporarily here on earth. But I’m quite confident that he’d certainly understand if we didn’t. And if he didn’t understand and really intended to allow me to be punished for all of eternity, then I fail to understand why anyone would want to love him in the first place.

But I’m willing to grant people their enlightened god. Just as long as we go all the way with it. Eternal damnation might be a fun threat to toss at those who disagree with us, but it sure isn’t very enlightened. Intellectual honesty requires more.

Negroes in Heaven

This is probably a stupid question, but shouldn’t Christian racists strive to keep black and Hispanic people from going to Heaven? Or are they happy with helping minorities find salvation? I’m in no way suggesting that most Christians are racist or anything. But of the Christians who happen to be racist, shouldn’t this be a real concern for them? That they’ll have spent all their lives keeping brown-skinned people out of their neighborhoods, pools, schools, and workplaces; just to find themselves stuck for all of eternity next to some darkie trying to play the blues on a harp.

Has that just never occurred to them? Or do they just assume that minorities can’t get into Heaven? Or do they think Heaven is segregated? And holy shit, what if they’re right? What if you got to Heaven and it was segregated by race. Wouldn’t you freak? Would you try to protest, or would you just go with it? And what if it turned out to be a test, which you failed by not protesting; and end up going to Hell? Wouldn’t that suck?

But back to the racists. I’m having trouble wrapping my head around this one. I’m sure they must have thought about it. They probably sit around their shitty little bars, drinking their shitty little beers, and having a good old laugh about whatever it is that they think the colored people have coming to them in the afterlife. But what could it be? Do they really think all the brown-skinned people go to Hell? Or might they believe that we’re all the same on the inside, and be perfectly happy hanging with the homies, once the skin comes off?

And what about from the other side? Can racists get into Heaven? And if so, how cool are the minorities in Heaven with all this? Do the racists have to give up their racist ways, or could they still be openly racist in Heaven? I’m sure there are quite a few racists who would not be cool with an integrated Heaven. Would God send them to Hell if they tried to create a Whites Only section of Heaven? And do you think Satan could possibly lure them down to Hell, were he to promise them it was segregated?

And finally, if racial inequality was rampant in Hell, would the Civil Rights leaders in Heaven stage protests and try to force God to end the racism? Presumably, he has power over the place; being omnipotent and everything. So would MLK expect God to create racial justice in Hell? Or do you think he’d just think that was all part of the punishment?

You have ten minutes to answer these questions. Good luck.

A Few Notes on Dick Cheney

Imagine that Dick Cheney really did have a respectable understanding of how the world actually worked. Combined with his penchant for manipulating the levers of power, would America be in excellent shape right now? Or are Cheney’s bullying ways completely incompatible with a true understanding of the world? Because from everything we’ve seen, all of his actions seem to coincide exactly with whatever it took for him to get more bullying powers; even if those powers were detrimental to his goals.

For example, torture doesn’t work. It just doesn’t. And even if you call it something else, it still doesn’t work. And we know the methods that work better: You treat them like humans and get them to want to talk about their plans. Act like they’re divulging nothing of importance and just get them to open up. That’s easier said than done, of course. But we have the know-how. We have experts in getting people to talk.

So why didn’t Cheney go with that approach? If he had any concern for getting terrorists to talk, why didn’t he bully Bush into expanding our niceguy interrogating techniques? Is it possible he hasn’t heard of them? Of course not. Is there no one in Washington who could have corrected him on that? Impossible. So the only conclusion is that Cheney really does prefer torture. Who knows. Perhaps he snapped after 9/11 and really just wants to torture Muslims for revenge. I honestly believe that the already feeble-minded Bush snapped after 9/11 and still hasn’t recovered. Maybe Dick suffered the same malady. But I don’t think so. I think he just likes to bully people.

Power for Power

Because I believe that part of the reason he wanted a strong torture policy was because he was denied it. Not necessarily that he ever wanted it used, but he wanted the bullying technique as a way of strengthening the hand of the presidency. To quietly assert that he had these powers and didn’t need the consent of the other two branches of government or the American people. This wasn’t about torturing people, per se. He took the rights because he wanted to assert his authority to do so. And in the short term, it worked.

Same goes for illegal wiretaps and everything else. It wasn’t just the bullying techniques that he wanted. He wanted them simply because grabbing them was all part of his bullying power politics. He could have had a working interrogation policy, but he preferred the illegal one instead. Because his ultimate aim wasn’t to torture people, wiretap conversations, or any of that stuff. His ultimate aim was to thoroughly establish the presidency as being above the law in every respect.

But in fact, the use of these powers has surely undermined Cheney’s power far more than had he used traditional means. Think of all the GOP marketing energy wasted trying to defend against Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, warrantless wiretaps, Cheney’s secrecy, and all these other issues. Sure, it can be argued that the GOP didn’t lose on any of these issues. But they did nothing to help the GOP and they kept the Republicans on the defensive. And for what gain? Can anyone honestly claim that information garnered from these abusive practices was significantly better than the traditional methods? Did they learn anything that significantly helped Cheney or the GOP? I doubt it.

And so for as much as Dick was wanting these powers solely to assert his right to have them, their actual use has only served to undermine his power. And at this point, his “legal” arguments in defense of them are turning him into a laughingstock. If Jay Leno hasn’t already been making jokes about Cheney’s feeble arguments, he soon will. And the more Cheney turns into a punchline, the less he’ll be able to BS his way into power. And in that regard, Cheney’s powergrab has inevitably undermined his ability to grab more power.

Dick’s Plans

And what exactly did Cheney have in mind after 2008? Could he really have been comfortable leaving the presidency with dictatorial powers and simply retiring to Wyoming? Everyone’s always insisted that he wouldn’t be president, but I just find that hard to believe. I’m sure he’d prefer to stay in the fourth branch netherworld of the Vice Presidency, but I’m sure even he has a strong enough grasp of reality to realize the unsustainability of that. As much as I wouldn’t mind a Giuliani-Cheney ticket in 2008, I don’t really see that happening.

So is it really impossible to imagine that he had plans to take the top spot himself? Say if Bush died in a nuclear strike on Washington, and Cheney finished the remaining term as Big Daddy Dick, reassuring the public with his bullshit manner of why times are too perilous to change presidential horses midstream. And if anyone has instituted policies making such an event possible, it would be Dick Cheney.


Oh, and one final note on this: I’m not sure if others have noticed this yet, but if one thing is clear about these Washington Post articles on Cheney, Rove got totally duped. I’ve argued that before, that Cheney was screwing up Rove’s game. But it’s all the more obvious now. Rove was Bush’s political brain, but Cheney was the policy brain, which has surely undermined everything Rove was trying to do. They both saw how policy issues should be used for political gain. Cheney just took it more seriously. And more importantly, he put loyalists in key positions and ensured that everything important got routed through his office. Rove was clearly in way over his head. He should have stuck to rigging elections in Texas and left the bureaucratic infighting to the big boys.

Oh, and here’s a decent post from February where I already covered Dick’s power grab: How Cheney Stole America

The Power of Magic

I continue to find it hard to believe, but people in magic. They really do. Even when a straight-forward understanding of an event is readily available, they’d still prefer to believe a magical understanding. Here’s a case in point, in reference to a new positive-thinking DVD called The Secret:

Amanda Jacobellis, 25, believes her life has changed for the better since she watched "The Secret."

Earlier this year, she was trying to turn a building in West Hollywood, Calif., into a makeup salon specializing in eyelash extensions and evoking the glamour of Old Hollywood. Her renovation was only half done, her credit card bills were coming due and her banker couldn't explain why the money for a $50,000 approved loan hadn't arrived in her account.

Sensing her despair, a friend suggested she watch Winfrey's upcoming show on "The Secret." Jacobellis did, and bought the DVD as well.

She spent a night diagramming what she wanted in her life, using a piece of paper and a Sharpie pen: happiness, security, freedom; good relationships with her friends and family; fitness and health goals; less stress — and in one corner, she wrote that she wanted her $50,000 loan by the next day at 3 p.m. She made a call to her banker the next morning: no news. But by 3 o'clock, the mail arrived, containing a letter saying she could call to get the funds transferred into her account.

That’s right. This woman got a $50,000 loan. It didn’t appear in her bank account and her banker couldn’t explain why. So she watched a DVD, wrote some words on a piece of paper, and the next day she received a letter in the mail explaining what she needed to do to get the money transferred to her account. A letter which most surely had been sent before she had done any of the diagramming. Yep, sure sounds like magic to me. And while some wild-eyed cynics might try to suggest that the credit should go to the bankers who helped her; let’s not be silly. This was all because she watched a DVD and wrote some words on a piece of paper. Right.

And what’s so amusing is that this same lady insists that the DVD isn’t just about positive thinking. As she says “I think where people are mistaken when they watch it is they think all they have to do is wish and it's going to happen. That wasn't exactly the case. This is something I had put a lot of energy and time into.”

That’s right. This wasn’t wishful thinking. She had to write stuff down. She had to think deep thoughts about things she wanted. Her own special needs. Like happiness, security, and freedom. That’s hard work, people. That took a lot of energy. She earned that letter.

To be fair, I really don’t think that’s what she meant. I think she just meant that it took a lot of work to do the renovations and get the loan. But then where did the DVD help? Everything that needed to be done had already been done before she followed the DVD’s advice. She couldn’t possibly believe that her positive thinking retroactively got a letter put in the mail that hadn’t yet been sent, could she? But if not that, then what? What the hell does she really think happened?

Mind Magic

And why exactly do people find it reassuring that mind magic can have such a direct impact on our lives? Doesn’t that also mean that curses work, and that our enemies can use mind magic against us? Isn’t it much better to believe in knowable cause-and-effect? Do people really like the idea that they have to censor their own thoughts, lest a negative thought send their finances into instant ruin? Are they really forbidden from thinking negative thoughts? Or is it enough to simply avoid writing them down?

Sure, loan processing often does resemble magic to most laymen, but isn’t it still better to believe that there is some human-known procedure at work, rather than straight-up magic? Because I don’t find that shit reassuring at all. Call me old fashioned, but I like to know why things happen. Even bank loans.

But I guess that really is the point of “The Secret”. This lady doesn’t know how bank loans work. She didn’t understand what was happening and felt hopeless. And this program has not only allowed her to pretend as if she does understand how these things work, but that she has some sort of direct control over things she can’t possibly have control over. And that allows her to feel better about the whole thing and relax.

And while that is certainly a positive thing, it still doesn’t do a damn thing to help her get a loan or anything else. And if anything, it can be quite detrimental. I mean, if a false sense of control is all that is necessary to relax, why not cut out the middleman and just learn to accept the loss of control? Because you can relax whether or not you’re lying to yourself, but if you don’t really have control over something, it’s best to understand that. Positive thinking is its own reward, but so is anticipating problems. I know of a few politicians who need to learn that lesson.

And hell, she’s a 25-year-old starting her own makeup salon on a $50,000 loan. If she thinks that she owes her success to a DVD, she’s really in for a rude awakening. Positive thinking is an important first step for anything, but it’s only one step. You've still got to do everything else.

The Fifth Branch of Government

As it turns out, I'm the fifth branch of government. It had something to do with this crazy auto loan I took out in the late 90's. As I'm sure you'll all remember, those were really heady times in the world of finance, and rarely a week went by that I wasn't signing some sort of wackjob promissory note or another. Long story short, I'm in this high stakes poker game in the bunker under Cheney's Hawaiian safehouse, circa Spring 2002, when in comes this chinaman carrying a briefcase which he incorrectly believed to contain Cheney's soul. Both Cheney and I were fully aware of where his soul really was, so I was intrigued to see Dick so keen to obtain the case. Fortunately for me, I happened to know his weak spot and after he cheated the chinaman out of the briefcase, I casually reached over and pulled ol' Dick's pacemaker out of his chest. Man, you should have seen the look on his face. Even in agony, the guy's got gravitas. Then I walked out of there with the briefcase and the heart machine, and even helped myself to one of Lynne's famous beef cookies on my way through the kitchen.

And what was in the briefcase? What else: The newly approved top secret fifth branch of government, with Monica Goodling's signature and everything. Cheney was going to use it to officially "disappear" himself so that he could spend more time with his shadow government, without leaving any possible means for people to stop him. He was to have absolutely all traces of his existence wiped from any official record, and thus become an invincible pseudo-god ruling from an unapproachable netherworld; Wyoming. But I've just been using it to get cheap concert tickets and free meals at Taco Bell. Power has its perks.

The Big 778

This is my 778th post. Congratulate me. I have not run out of things to say.

New Strategy for Success

I've decided to get rich. Wish me luck!

Charlie Daniels to the Rescue

Why are people so stupid? I just read this wonderful essay Charlie Daniels wrote last year on why he’s against Mexican people immigrating here: Because there are laws against it.

As he says:
I don’t blame anybody in the world for wanting to come to the United States of America, as it is a truly wonderful place. But when the first thing you do when you set foot on American soil is illegal it is flat out wrong and I don’t care how many lala land left heads come out of the woodwork and start trying to give me sensitivity lessons.

And so the obvious solution would be to legalize all immigration, so they could start off on a positive foot. We just open our borders and put Charlie on the Welcome Wagon, to greet all his new buddies. I’m sure he’d be overjoyed.

And I would be loath to not mention this gem:
And what ever happened to the polls guys? I thought you folks were the quintessential finger wetters. Well you sure ain’t paying any attention to the polls this time because somewhere around eighty percent of Americans want something done about this mess, and mess it is and getting bigger everyday.

That’s right, polls guys. You need to pay attention to your polls. Charlie’s done his finger wetting. He knows which way the winds blow. Somewhere around eighty percent of Americans want something done. Though in an odd twist of how democracy works, in the final paragraph, Charlie suggests that our elected officials won’t do anything because they only care about being re-elected. So I guess those eighty percent don’t vote? Or did we perhaps switch to the minority-wins system and nobody told me?

But whatever it is, Charlie has made his point clear: No more immigration laws!

Charlie 2.0

I liked that essay so much that I decided to check in on Charlie’s latest offering: A Nation of Laws or Not? It’s a year later, but Charlie’s pimping the same old message: No more immigration laws. But he’s got some new twists added to it.

For example, he claims that big business wants to bring in more immigrants in order to bring wages down and to move more factories overseas. Now, if they’re already planning to move the factories, why are they bothering with lowering the wages? Wouldn’t the lower wages, in fact, be some incentive for them to keep the factories here? That’s not to say that Big Business wouldn’t want both of these things; but the idea that more immigrants would somehow help move jobs overseas seems somewhat counterintuitive to someone living in reality. But I guess everyone’s entitled to their own set of logic; or lack thereof, as the case may be.

Even better: He rants repeatedly that the reason why politicians want to open immigration is because they want the easy votes. Not only are they counting on grateful Mexicans voting for pro-immigration politicians, but they’re actually planning to establish a new welfare state, so that the new immigrants don’t have to work at all; all in exchange for votes. And I guess that makes sense, if one were twelve. But when we consider that these same politicians are supposedly ignoring 80% of Americans on this issue and Charlie insists that the politicians don’t give a damn about what the voters think; why would they bother courting these new votes?

As Charlie said:
All these greedy politicians want to do is stay in power, the hell with the American economy, the hell with the small businessman and the hell with what most of the people who pay the bills in this country think and want.

Believe it or not, the sentence before this paragraph was warning of the “welfare state” the politicians were going to set-up to woo Mexican voters. But now he’s calling them greedy and insists that they don’t care about the economy or what voters want. Right. And where on earth did he get the impression that small businessmen don’t use illegal labor? In this context, I have no idea what he’s talking about. Awesome.

Gravel for President

Woweewow, I don't know much about Former Senator Mike Gravel, but I know what I like. I just saw a clip of him at a recent Democratic Presidential debate, and from what I heard, he's the guy for me. And I'm fairly certain that the only reason this guy is scoffed at is because the media and DC establishment are convinced that he should be scoffed at. But his stuff was pretty solid. I'd need to learn more about him before I'd officially endorse him for president, but he clearly looked better than any of the other leading contenders. I don't think I disagreed with a word he said.

My favorite line: You know what's worse than a soldier dying in vain? Is more soldiers dying in vain.

That's absolutely correct.

Here's the clip I'm talking about:


Your response to this post must be made in nine words or less. Begin.

Carnival of the Liberals #40

Alright Carnival readers, you’re in for a real treat. Rather than continue in the tradition of allowing some halfwit lib with the obligatory reading comprehension problem to muck-up yet another carnival, the hosts of Carnival of the Liberals have decided to once again turn over their lovely little wankfest to the hands of a real adult. That’s right. Doctor Snedley’s back, to once again restore dignity, honor, and respect to this pissant spectacle you jerkoffs call a carnival.

As a change from the typically incoherent “I’m Ok, You’re Ok” feelgood BS selections, I’m going to expand my power as Carnival Czar to go ahead and pick one clear winner. And the winner is…

Gavin R. Putland of /etc/cron.whenever for his magnificent opus The Corporate Solution to Rape. As Gavin conclusively proves, the free-market system out-performs intrusive government intervention at every turn. While the typical lib reaction is to treat “rape” as yet another law enforcement issue, Mr. Putland clearly demonstrates how even these darker areas of relationship disputes can have a much more positive resolution. In fact, Putland’s argument sounded so great, even I haven’t the vaguest clue as to what he was talking about. But his general point seemed to confirm everything I’ve wanted to hear, so I know it’s got to be true.

Congrats, Gavin! You’re the Carnival of the Liberals’ first ever solo winner.

As for the other nine entries, it was much more difficult. So I narrowed things down first by removing all of the ad hominem rant-filled hate-fests so typical of these liberal echo chambers. Sure, sure, everyone has a right to an opinion. But the instance I even suspected some jerkwad was badmouthing our Commander-in-Chief, I knew it was time to forward the post to the DHS and move on. I’m quite positive each of these traitors is now fully aware of the grave error they perpetrated upon humanity. I’ve always found that orange jumpsuits have a funny persuasiveness about them that is simply undeniable.

And after removing these blackguards and terrorist-sympathizers, I was only left with a meager nine posts which can most politely be described as being not entirely devoid of rationality and morality. So here they are, in no particular order.

The Best of the Worst

Barry Leiba at the aptly named Staring at Empty Pages has a problem with American democracy in his post The Primary Problem. Apparently, there’s some problem with having the sensible people of Iowa tell the zombie-like liberal masses of New York and California who they can nominate for the presidential election. He even went so far as to suggest that people can handle more than two nominees in a given election. Whatever. Try telling that to Bush v. Gore. Just two choices and we still needed the men in black to save the day.

C at C-Blog inadvertently puts the lie to the liberals’ fictitious claim that their efforts to destroy everything good, holy, and American has something to do with improving life in his post The Endlessness of Efforts to End the 'Net as We Know It. In this case, C gnashes his teeth at the obvious genius of getting rid of our tiresome personal harddrives and keeping all data on a centralized computer run by some unknown corporation with possibly hidden motives and abilities. What could possibly go wrong?

PZ Myers, the “biologist” and “professor” at the God-hating blog Pharyngula dares to tell a real-life neurosurgeon something about how the brain works in the absurdist rant Egnor’s Machine is Uninhabited by Any Ghost. Right. As they say, those who can’t teach, teach biology.

THIS ENTRY HAS BEEN ERADICATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401A(4g)).

(Ed. Note: Looks like another lib traitor has gone down the memory hole. And then there were eight...)

Greg Laden at his eponymous blog writes in Pennsylvania School Board Woes on why Leftist Propaganda should continue to be forced down the throats of America’s innocent. And with the immoral likes of Maya Angelou still being pimped to our children, it’s once again proven that literature is the Devil’s best friend. What’s next? Mandatory Marx readings to fetuses before each abortion? Simply disgusting!

Coturnix at A Blog Around the Clock uses Do Serbs Really Want to Join the EU? to prove yet again why the devil is always in the details. Because it’s a lot easier to bash America when you pretend to burrow deeply into nonsensical minutiae regarding the vast hordes of non-Americans in non-American places; in this case Serbia or Balka or some weird land I have no plans to visit. What a joke! Had God wanted us to care about non-Americans, he would surely have made them American.

Greta Christina at Greta Christina’s Blog has the audacity to suggest in Even if It's Wrong: Barack Obama, Religious Faith, and Same-Sex Marriage that morals are bad or some such thing. And why are morals bad? From all I could decipher, it has something to do with religious people using their faith in God to stifle Greta’s intent to destroy everything worthwhile and decent in this world. I betcha she hates ice cream too.

Jeremy Adam Smith at Daddy Dialectic writes in Equality vs Equality some sort of delusional fantasy that feminism isn’t a complete failure. Sure, thousands of years of clean-living (and god-fearing) history have taught us the proper role for us all to engage in. But, whatever. Let’s toss all that to the wind and try something new. What’s the worst that can happen; besides the end of humanity. But I guess that’s what it’s really all about anyway, isn’t it?

And just in case you people are still reeling from the large dose of truth-telling the people in the real world experience every day outside the liberal echo chamber, I’ve saved the last selection for a true wankfest. It’s liberal blogger Blue Steel from Pollyticks.com interviewing your very own Leo Lincourt, founder and permanent controller of your very own Carnival of the Liberals, speaking of this very Carnival. It’s a six thousand word screed devoted to the highest forms of wankery regarding liberals, carnivals, blogs, and all kinds of other stuff I couldn’t bother reading. Needless to say, it was literally dripping with anti-American venom. You'll love it.

Next week, CotL will be back to its regularly scheduled wankery, from some communistic conspiracy known only as The World Wide Webers. I'm sure my friends at the DHS can't wait for that one. Iraq ain't the only flypaper out there. Oh, and for all you libs out there who foolishly submitted posts which were not selected, don't worry. You're all losers in my book.

There, that should satisfy the little SOB’s.

American Badasses

President Vladimir Putin said Russia would go back to its Cold War stance of aiming its missiles at Europe if Washington went ahead with a plan to build a missile defence shield near Russia's borders.

Holy fucking shit, what a dumbass. Doesn’t he know that we’re American badasses who could totally blow his ass out of the water at any given moment? We’ve got all the cards in our hands and his petty bluffs and communistic blowhardery will get him nowhere. Good thing for him that we’re busy dealing with the real existential threat of one of those terrorist bastards getting their dirty Muslim hands on a suitcase nuke, or he’d really be sorry. This Putin guy just doesn’t seem to understand what real power is. All the more reason why we need this missile defense system in place.

Stupid Question

So if fundamentalist Christians believe that all animals and dinosaurs were peaceful herbivores in the Garden of Eden, then why aren't they all vegetarians? Shouldn't they at least strive for some of that idealism? I know, stupid question.

Liberal Call for Submissions

Guest Post by Doctor Snedley, Personal Assistant to Doctor Biobrain

Greetings libtards, and welcome to the call for submissions for yet another episode of the Carnival of the Liberals, the only blog carnival devoted to the unintentional mockery of all things liberal by the inflammatory fascists themselves. I’m Doctor Snedley, the personal assistant and true brain for the infamous liberal drunkard Doctor Biobrain. And what better time is there for me to host than the one year anniversary of the highest of all high holy liberal holidays. That’s right, I’m hosting the 06/06/07 Carnival of the Liberals, and there ain’t a damn thing you Satan worshipers can do about it. So suck it.

As for submission suggestions, I hold little hope you’ll be able to stay on task for this one, what with all your habitual pot smoking and rampant pedophilia, but I’ll give it a go. In honor of your high holy holiday, I’d like religious posts. But not just any religious posts. I’d like something that finally gets around to explaining why you people insist on screwing up your afterlifes in the same manner you’re screwing up your earthly ones.

And if that’s too much for you, here are a few suggested topics you can discuss:

Why do I hate myself so much that I reject my only lord and savior?

Why I won’t punch Darwin in the face when I see him in Hell.

What part of all-powerful do I not understand?

In Hell, is sunscreen enough?

Jesus hates me because…

You get the idea. Of course, I will accept other entries, though preference will naturally go to the very few who are willing to delve a little more deeply into liberal dogma and eventually reject every lie they’ve been spewing since 9/11. And don’t forget proper punctuation. I’m a big stickler for that kind of thing, but that just goes without saying. Good luck and god’s speed. You’ll need it.

MSM Obstructionism

WTF?? My brain has yet again exploded, having read this in an opening paragraph from the AP:
For years, the idea of increasing the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour has been stalled by partisan bickering between Republicans and Democrats.

Um, no. The minimum wage increase was not stalled by partisan bickering. It was stalled by the Republicans and only the Republicans. The Democrats wanted to raise it and the Republicans stopped that from happening. It’s that simple. I know that the Republicans’ stalling tactics often took the guise of partisan bickering, but this is just stupid.

But this isn’t even the typical case of reporters trying to seem even-handed. Sure, there’s probably some of that at play here, but I think there’s more to this than that. I think this is the MSM’s love of blaming “partisan bickering” for all the problems. If only the two sides could just get along and solve all our problems together.

But no. In this case, the legislation was stalled solely because the Republicans wanted it stalled. Sure, they came up with their excuses. But it wasn’t that the bill wasn’t perfect enough for them. It was that it did anything at all. They just wanted a obstructionist poison-pill and that’s what they got for years.

And hell, if the MSM really wanted this issue to be solved, they’d stop with this incessant attack on “partisan bickering” and actually tell people who was to blame for the problem. But that’s just the point: They don’t actually want anything solved. They just want to blame "partisans" for our problems, in order to convince themselves of their own unbiased holiness. To make their laissez-faire cynicism appear to be solution-oriented and objective. So for as much as they attack "partisans" of all stripes for obstructing our legislative needs, much of the blame lies with no one but themselves.

Timeline Questions

If I told you that the Dem's “compromise” on the non-timeline Iraq spending bill made me want to cry, would you think I was a pussy? Or would you just be offended that I had used that word in that context? What if I told you that it made me want to shoot someone in the face? Would that help?

Declassified Intel: The Bushies Still Suck

Sometimes I just don’t know what to think anymore. Like take the latest story of the Bush Admin declassifying select intel to help themselves politically. I’m not sure why that alone isn’t a bigger story than the lame intel they actually declassified, but if the Bushies are still good at one thing, it’s bluffing the newspeople into not knowing right from wrong. After all, why would they want something written in a news story if it was a bad thing for them to admit to?

But even the intel itself doesn’t make sense. In case you hadn’t read it yet, apparently, in 2005 Bin Laden sent a dude to Iraq to tell Zarqawi to form terrorist sleeper cells to attack inside the US, and this is proof that Iraq is an important staging ground for Al Qaeda to wage attacks on the US, which is why we can never leave Iraq.

Huh?? What the hell sense does that even make? All I can imagine is that Osama’s been watching Cheney on Meet the Press and somehow has bought into the idea that Iraq is a really great place to stage attacks from. Perhaps he’s even using Cheney’s same maps, which place Iraq where Canada is or something, I don’t know. But I fail to see how Iraq is a particularly good place to stage attacks on the US from.

I mean, first off, it’s fucking far away; which is has traditionally been considered a big negative when staging attacks; with military strategists tending to prefer closeness instead. Though I suppose it’s possible the Bushies have yet to declassify the intel that now tells us that Al Qaeda has teleporters or perhaps magic dragons that allow them to overcome that complication.

And then secondly, Iraq is chock full of American soldiers, which serve both as obvious targets and dreaded obstacles. In fact, of all the places where you might want to recruit terrorist sleeper cells able to attack inside the US, I’d have to say that Iraq might be one of the worst places; second only to Gitmo.

And one of the best places? Inside the US. I hate to give away that big secret, in case Bin Laden hasn’t already figured that one out, but I kind of think he already has. That he just puts out his message of anti-American hatred, easily justified in anti-American minds by our imbecilic invasion of Iraq; and there you go. After that, these sleeper cells form on their own and stage their own small scale attacks to scare the bejesus out of us.

And again, maybe I just gave away some secret, but I sort of suspect that I haven’t. That these are no-brainers that even the cunningly dangerous, yet simple-minded terrorists have realized. And that one thing they wouldn’t do is to send a dude to Iraq to tell Zarqawi to do something that would be fairly difficult for him to do. In fact, if I had to make a guess, I’d say that this intel may have been gained using our famed “non-torture” techniques which are more likely to get false confessions than real ones, and that the victims just said what they thought their interrogators wanted to hear.

That sounds far more likely than what we’re being told. But if the intel is right and this really is Bin Laden’s idea of strategy, then perhaps that might explain why we haven’t been attacked yet. It’s not that they haven’t been trying. It’s that they’re as fully dumb as Cheney needs them to be to continue to hoist his own lame-brained ideas upon us.

But I sort of doubt that this is the case, and that the real reason we haven’t been attacked is because our enemy isn’t nearly as all-powerful as we’ve been led to believe. They don’t have teleporters or magic dragons, but rather are stuck using the same set of realities that afflict all of us. And that means that Iraq isn’t a particularly crucial staging ground for Al Qaeda attacks on America and that, once again, the Bush Administration has shown itself to be entirely full of shit. Or says the now declassified documents that my personal intelligence agency has given me.

Too Busy

I'm much too busy to even bother with you. So sorry. What are you going to do about it? Read my Republian opponent blogger? Whatever.

Being Real

Digby highlights a mindnumblingly silly pseudo-religious wankfest from Tim Russert, the most embarrassing thing about which is that he allowed it to be read by people who weren’t himself. Having read it, I personally feel the immense shame that he’s too oblivious to notice. That’s real sacrifice, folks. And all for you, my loyal readers.

One of the parts that got me was when he was refers to:
The heroic selfless souls on United flight #93.

Now I respect what they did, but let’s not get stupid. They didn’t know they were going to die. They were trying to save their own lives. They had gotten word that the terrorists were going to kill them all and decided to do something about it. And there’s nothing wrong with that, but let’s not pretend this was something it wasn’t. Sure, if there’s an afterlife, I’m sure these people are happy that they were able to prevent more deaths. But they didn’t know they were going to die. They were looking out for themselves and would surely have landed the plane safely if they could have. That’s why the terrorists crashed it.

And I think the reason why people like Russert won’t say that is because that makes the passengers look like failures, or cheapens their actions. But that’s entirely backwards. It cheapens their actions to turn them into something they weren’t. To turn their deeds into some sort of heroic caricature which makes their real actions look somewhat petty. As well as making the passengers of the other 9/11 planes out to be selfish bastards of some sort, for not having risked their lives to save others.

And really, this has nothing to do with the people on that plane. This has to do with dipshit Russert and his inability to find purpose in his life. He’s paid millions for a job that could be better performed by a tape recorder and a kindly Labrador. And so he’s got to find some bigger purpose for it all. No longer is he a rich tool being used by Cheney & Co. No sir. He’s doing God’s work. He’s honoring the selfless memory of heroes he can only dream he could be. Sure, he does his part by not honking at people and by asking softball questions to the people responsible for destroying our country. But if only he could do more…

But he can. He can notice other people. Real people. People who sacrifice. People who do heroic things. And by doing so, it’s like he’s doing heroic things. It’s like he’s a real person. And by doing so, it’s like he’s actually earning all those millions that these real people could only dream they could earn. And by honoring them as he does, it’s like they too are earning it all.

So it all makes sense. He collects the stories and the money and makes sense of it all for them. Because they’re all such real people that they can’t even appreciate the realness of everything they do. They need a dork like Russert to allow them to comprehend how special they really are. Hell, if anything, they owe him bigtime. And I’m sure he’ll never let them forget it; hence the wankfest Russert displayed for us today. He’s writing it for them; the people too real to be allowed to ask Dick Cheney questions. And in return, they’ll allow him to hear their stories and not honk his horn, and most of all, to feel like he really deserves all the stuff that he never possibly could. And for a soulless hack like Russert, that’s the greatest thing of all.

Blaming the Base

In my last post, I mentioned conservative blogger Bill T, who had left a fairly indecipherable comment on an earlier post which suggested that all Republicans were to blame for the Republican corruption scandal. Bill responded by suggesting that if this is the case, then all Dems are responsible for Bill Clinton’s scandals. Specifically, he referred to Clinton allegedly selling missile technology to our dreaded enemy China (who as we all know is such a dire threat that they’re one of our biggest trading partners); as well as blaming corporate corruption and AQ Kahn on Clinton. Because as we all know, everything that happened during Clinton’s years were Clinton’s fault.

Of course, even if we were to grant Bill these three items, this hardly stacks up to the various scandals perpetrated by various Republicans. I mean, even Bush’s illegal actions alone can’t compare with Clinton’s meager offenses, and that’s not to include all of Congressmen who were forced to resign due to various scandals. Really, it’s not even close.

But I think the problem for Bill and many other conservatives is that they refuse to acknowledge these scandals. They insist that these scandals are invented or, at a minimum, are no worse than what Dems did. And that’s exactly the problem. They’ve already excused all of the activities. They don’t think it counts. And that’s exactly my point. That, in theory, conservatives denounce Republican corruption. But in practice, they just can’t see any. It doesn’t really exist. Or at a minimum, is no worse than what the Dems were doing.

And that’s exactly their problem and why they are culpable for the misdeeds that their politicians have done. To guys like Bill, any accusation that Bush has done anything illegal will automatically end the debate. It's not that they'd ever defend Republican wrongdoing. It's that they never allow themselves to see it. Somehow, it's always someone else's fault.

I wrote a response to Bill to post after that comment, but it got too long and it’s so late right now that I’ll just post it in its entirety. None of this is new to my regular readers, and had Bill read my other material on this, he might have saved himself the trouble. But I wrote it, so I’ll just post it here instead. Bill wrote that Republicans say negative things about other Republicans “all the time.” So I wrote:

The Republicans do not say negative things about other Republicans. Congressmen like Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley, and Tom Delay are defended until the day that they are forced to step down; and even then their scandals are somehow to be blamed on Democrats. This defense comes from throughout the entire Republican Party, from the politicians at the top, the radio-tv talkers in the middle, and the base at the bottom. Each one of them will be the first to tell you that they don't support corruption or wrongdoing, but then will go on to insist that the Republican in question has done no wrongdoing. Or that the wrongdoing doesn't warrant the punishment. In essence, they strongly disapprove of wrongdoing in general, but never seem to see any specific wrongdoing until after the conviction. And even then, there's always a Democrat who was clearly more deserving of punishment.

And it's this See No Evil approach that has green-lighted the entire way for Republican corruption. You list three disputable charges against Clinton, only one of which could be directly attached to him; while the list against corrupt Republican Congressmen is quite long. As is the list of Bush Admin wrongdoing. How do you consider these to be comparable? I mean, blaming Clinton for a bad corporate culture, compared with illegal wiretaps and the suspension of basic human freedoms? Compared with Congressmen being bribed with houses and yachts and hookers? Is there really some comparison here?

The GOP is corrupt to its very core, and it's because of people like you. Because every time a Republican is accused of something, they know that you'll be right there to deny the significance of the charges and will find a Democrat to blame for it. Sure, you rally against corruption in theory. But the Republicans have totally screwed you over, yet you continue to defend them. And that's why you're part of the problem.

So this isn't about blaming Democrats because they didn't attack Clinton for things after the fact. This is because the Republicans knew beforehand that people like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and you would defend them against almost anything. And it's still the case. Sorry to go "nihilist" on you, but Bush has got to be the worst president in modern history. Yet he can continue to count on the support of 30% of the population. Not because they like him. But because they know that their fate is tied to his, and to attack him is to attack their own actions. So they continue to defend a man who has betrayed almost everything they thought they stood for.

And that's why they're to blame for it. Not because of what they did after wrongdoing was uncovered, but because the wrong-doers knew beforehand that they'd never be blamed by you people. Bush does wrong because he knows that he’ll always have your support. And he still does. You may disapprove of what he does, but he’ll never completely lose you. And that’s why he doesn’t worry about it. He’ll always have you.

As a final note, while I haven’t read all of Bill’s blogposts (he started in early May), of the many I read, I read none that covered any Republican scandals or wrongdoing. While he rails against the “faith-based science” of Global Warming and some issue involving John Edwards and a hedgefund, he mentions Alberto Gonzales exactly zero times; while his only post mentioning corruption was a local story. For as much noise as he made regarding the not ignoring Republican corruption, he sure does do a good job of ignoring it.