Stuff I Should Have Blogged Already

Filed under:Church of Liberalism — posted by Anwyn on August 30, 2007 @ 8:17 am

1) Dear CNN/Christiane Amanpour: When a guy from the network that gives house room to Keith Freakin’ Olbermann tells you that your “documentary” on religious ideologues was biased, skewed, and downright dishonest in its comparisons of the other two to the poor victimized, driven-to-the-wall adherents of violent Islam, maybe you’ve got a little problem. Like “turn it off after five minutes” problem. And maybe I’ve got an even bigger problem than Amanpour, in that my church sent out an email encouraging people to watch this sham and then show up at church on Sunday ready to finish up and discuss a program by … Bill Moyers. I passed.

2) Are you really telling me that the difference reported in the study between the book-reading habits of liberals and conservatives, the one the president of the American Association of Publishers (I’m so proud), Pat Schroeder, cited in order to crow like the queen of the yard (h/t Slublog) was one book? One? Without reference to what else liberals and conservatives do with their time or even what they actually read? And that the guy who actually did the study says the one book is within the margin of error?

Ace: Yes, dummy, that’s what I’m telling you. Learn to read, for goshsakes.

Eah. Even if it were statistically significant, I would have put up my John Adams and The Last Lion and Team of Rivals and The History of England against The Audacity of Hope any day.

3) You mean doctors prefer charging what the market will bear for a service, and getting paid up front, to charging what a market interference says they must charge and getting paid much later? I’m shocked. (H/t The Headlines of the Creator of Worlds.)

Sign a Petition, Get Posted to a Witchhunt

Filed under:Church of Liberalism,Jerks,Wacky Oregon — posted by Anwyn on August 23, 2007 @ 8:35 pm

Perusing today’s articles linked in Oregon Reddit produced this little gem: a plan to post to the web the names and addresses of anybody signing petitions that run counter to the homosexual lobby’s agenda.

In addition to holding petition signers accountable, Stewart explains the underlying idea behind the project’s name, Know Thy Neighbor. “To me, it’s important as a queer woman to be able to look up people and see, are the people in my neighborhood on this petition? Are there people in my zip code on this?” she says. Finding out that people she knows—like friends or coworkers or even a boss or local business owner—signed the petition is valuable information, “if for no other reason than protection.”

“If” for no other reason? Do tell, what could be the other reasons? Leaving aside the laughable premise that people who oppose gay marriage, by definition, wish, and will perpetrate, harm on gay people, that is.

Privacy for me, but not for thee if you oppose me. Where have I heard that before?

Support Obama, Portland, Says UCC Minister

Filed under:Blogging,Church of Liberalism,Jerks,Politics — posted by Anwyn on August 22, 2007 @ 6:54 pm

Because no way he’s even sniffing that sweet “special interest money.”

This guy’s personal blog post was linked off the front page of the website of The Oregonian, Nice when you don’t even have to bother to pay your editorialists.

Update: Turns out that has a feature called “Oregon Reddit,” which appears to work much like Digg, et al, in that registered users can post links to stories they like. That’s where the link to this post appears.

Riddle Me This

Filed under:Bumper Stickers,Church of Liberalism,Language Barrier — posted by Anwyn on August 16, 2007 @ 2:28 pm

Bumper sticker seen this morning: that quote of Gandhi’s that says (unsourced at the Wiki), “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

Bumper sticker seen about two minutes afterward: “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”

Guess who said it?

But Gandhi wasn’t the first to repudiate “an eye for an eye.” Wait, if I think hard, I might get it.

Right, okay, Gandhi already stipulated that he admired Christ; it was his followers he had trouble with. Well, tell me something: Why is it that the people in our country today most strident against any form of religion even in public view, much less in the government, are some of the very people most strident in their demands for our government to act as Jesus said it would be best for individuals to act in their daily lives? You cannot remain an effective government if you allow individuals to tyrannize over other individuals, nor other governments to tyrannize over your own. Or, in select cases, over still other governments. It is simply not a feasible plan for the ordering of the globe.

Why are the biggest anti-religionists also frequently the biggest fans of complete nonviolence, no matter the harm it causes to people in either their own country or others?

Update: More tales of taking Jesus out of context:

Q: Is it morally meaningful for people who have no guilt to apologize to people who are not victims?”

A: No.

And Watch Your Language, Too

Filed under:Church of Liberalism,Language Barrier,Need a Good Editor? — posted by Anwyn on July 20, 2007 @ 4:15 pm

Nevermind HRC’s arrogance in badgering the DoD about planning for a withdrawal that, as yet, has not been forced on them by the shrillers in the legislature. What I want to know is, when did people start talking like this, and why are they still?

Clinton has privately and publicly pushed Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace two months ago to begin drafting the plans for what she said will be a complicated withdrawal of troops, trucks and equipment.

“If we’re not planning for it, it will be difficult to execute it in a safe and efficacious way,” she said then.

Emphasis mine. I see this usage all the time, from writers and speakers on all topics. Why? They’re called adverbs, and they are stronger, more efficient words than “do this in such-and-such a way” (or worse yet, “such-and-such a manner”).

“…execute it safely and efficiently,” are the words you’re looking for, Senator. Or “efficaciously” if you must.

So pretentious and annoying.

Oh, speaking of arrogant, how much chutzpah does it take to accuse the DoD of a political response to a serious inquiry when your whole motivation in asking was A) throwing your weight around and B) political grandstanding? Let’s see how “political” DoD’s response was:

“We are always evaluating and planning for possible contingencies. As you know, it is longstanding departmental policy that operational plans, including contingency plans, are not released outside of the department.”

Ouch. Yawn.

Let’s Hear About Her Quarterly Fundraising

Filed under:Church of Liberalism,Jerks — posted by Anwyn on July 5, 2007 @ 7:45 pm

Oh, this is just gonna be fun:

The other day I came out of my short retirement due to yet another Bush flagrant abuse of power. We decided that we would walk from Atlanta to DC to gather a people’s movement for humanity. The longer BushCo are in office, the less chance we have of recovering the heart and soul of our nation, saving our soldiers and the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, and saving the planet from corporate and individual waste and pollution. Impeachment, removal from office, and in a perfect world, incarceration for the criminals against humanity, are urgent and necessary steps that need to be taken today.

If by “today” you mean “after we start our walk, once enough congresspeople take note of our demands.” I gotta say, if a “flagrant abuse of power” like the commutation of sentence of a relatively insignificant political pawn, the unfortunate Scooter Libby, is enough to bring her out of “retirement,” Sheehan’s giving herself away with her flagrant inability to stay out of the spotlight.

Malignant bitch.

Since I announced the Journey for Humanity, I have received a lot of support and encouragement, and many “I’ll be with you in spirit.” We appreciate your moral support, but we need your bodies and your dollars if you can’t participate. Our world is in an environmental, political, and humanitarian state of emergency at this point and participation in a People’s Movement for Change, Justice, and Humanity is becoming mandatory by our membership in the Human Race.

The only “emergency” is going to be for people in your route to make sure they don’t have to look at you or your butt kissers, Sheehan. And I wouldn’t take for granted your membership in the capitalized Human Race, either.

H/t Hot Air, Allah with the sick-making Jim Carrey vid.


Filed under:Church of Liberalism,Language Barrier,Television — posted by Anwyn on July 3, 2007 @ 8:55 pm

Isaiah Washington’s version of what happened on the set of Grey’s Anatomy–that he used the word in the course of a fight with Patrick Dempsey–is far more credible than T.R. Knight’s, that he used it directed personally at Knight. Unless Washington is difficult to work with in general, that show booted one of its best characters for very shabby reasons. Word to the wise, Grey’s–Drs. Burke, Yang, Bailey, Karev, Webber, and Torres are a hell of a lot more likeable than the titular Dr. Grey or Drs. Shepherd, O’Malley, or Stevens. Hope you’ve got some stellar stuff lined up for next season with no more unfortunate cast depletion.

Lessons My Father Taught Me, #2

Filed under:Church of Liberalism,Politics — posted by Anwyn on May 29, 2007 @ 12:16 pm

I thought I already told you, never vote for a damned socialist.

Lessons My Father Taught Me, #1

Filed under:Church of Liberalism,Politics — posted by Anwyn @ 10:15 am

Don’t vote for a socialist.

Church has “Tension” over “Speaker,” now Cancelled

Filed under:Church of Liberalism,Cool,Priorities — posted by Anwyn on May 12, 2007 @ 8:58 am

If by “tension,” you mean the members of the church threatened to picket if the speaker used the church space.

If by “speaker” you mean “anti-war mom” Cindy Sheehan.

If by “anti-war mom” you mean “crazy nutty loon.”

If by “crazy nutty loon” you mean “somebody who is being ‘talked into’ running for a seat in congress.” (Via the rock star at Hot Air.)

Seriously, how great is it: This is a California church, one that a friend told me his in-laws left because it was getting too liberal and “creepy.” No wonder the pastor “didn’t anticipate” his congregation’s unrest. Emphasis mine:

[Veterans for Peace guy] Swann said he understood [Pastor] Green’s position, especially when parishioners threatened to form a picket line.

The church didn’t invite Sheehan to speak there, Green said. Veterans for Peace just asked if they could use a space for the event and he approved, he added.

“I didn’t anticipate it was going to be as big a deal as it was,” Green said.

I’d take a flier on the idea that there’s probably more than a quiet minority at that church who are almost as anti-war as Sheehan is. I’m betting it’s less about that than about her general lunacy, her cozying up to dictators like Chavez and her fantasy of killing G.W. Bush in his cradle. When you’re too outspoken for “the greater good” for a church in California, you’ve officially wacked off the charts.

Fortunately for Sheehan, there are still places in California more welcoming to her particular brand of folk-rock-loony charm. After the church pulled her platform, she landed at … City Council.

H/t: My friend with the in-laws opposed to creeping creepy in their church.

What I Learned Over Spring Break

Filed under:Children's Books,Church of Liberalism — posted by Anwyn on April 5, 2007 @ 11:29 pm

Dr. Seuss apparently believed that Soviet communism differed from American capitalism no more than eating one’s bread butter-side-down differs from eating it butter-side-up.

I believe that’s what Allah would refer to as nuance.

Of Course She Should Be Allowed to Wear Her Shirt

Filed under:Church of Liberalism,Politics,Priorities — posted by Anwyn on March 24, 2007 @ 12:00 am

I have a different issue: How exasperated must it make the teachers when kids can refuse to speak in class or answer direct questions by hiding behind a school-sanctioned–and thus by the standards of the church & state crowd, government-sanctioned–political opinion?

On the Day of Silence, students can refrain from speaking as an effort to protest discrimination against homosexuals.

In response to a Day of Silence event at the school in April 2006, Zamecnik wore a shirt that read “MY DAY OF SILENCE, STRAIGHT ALLIANCE” on the front and “BE HAPPY, NOT GAY” on the back, according to the suit filed Wednesday.

According to the suit, one school administrator ordered Zamecnik to remove the T-shirt and another official ordered her to cross out “NOT GAY” with a marker.

Sauce, goose, gander. If the school sanctions a “form of speech,” again lifting from the crowd that is the most zealous about defining the terms, that supports a particular viewpoint, surely they must allow speech on different viewpoints as well. A T-shirt does not rise to the level of “discrimination,” and gee, even if it did, wouldn’t that just give the protesting students somebody to practice their silent treatment on? Win-win! (Sarcasm, for the humor-impaired.)

Let the girl wear her shirt or kick the whole thing to the boundary line of the school property. Who’s being silenced here?

Is That Stunt-Bunny in the Union?

Filed under:Church of Liberalism,Cool,Politics — posted by Anwyn on March 23, 2007 @ 11:04 pm

It’s official: Mary Katharine Ham is too cute for color TV.

previous page · next page

image: detail of installation by Bronwyn Lace