This and that *UPDATED*

I don’t have any coherent thoughts of my own this morning but, thank goodness, others have pulled together wonderful stuff.  Here’s a list, in no particular order, of things I found interesting:

Herbert Meyers writes that this presidential election may be the decisive battle in the culture war that has been raging in American for several decades.

Barack and Michelle Obama’s organization, Public Allies, which you may be funding soon, has a much more radical agenda than the current soft-soap sell reveals.

The New York Post enthusiastically (its word) endorses McCain for President.  Read why here.

Byron York examines old Palin debate footage and discovers some good things — including the definitive answer to the Lib’s attack against her on contraceptive grounds.

Jay Nordlinger’s Impromptus are always delightful, but his reprinted comment from a reader is wonderful, and truly describes a major difference between the two candidates and the two parties:

A reader had an interesting observation about the two conventions: “Did you get the impression that McCain’s message was that the government needs fixing, while Obama’s message was that the country needs fixing? Quite a difference there.”

There are crimes, and then there are crimes.  This last one isn’t quite ready for prime time.

Sarah Palin put on the front of the burner an important question about Obama’s big resume item:  “What is a community organizer?”  Byron York wa asking that question months ago, and he wrote about it here.  It’s a lengthy and interesting article, with a key paragraph giving the short form job description:

Perhaps the simplest way to describe community organizing is to say it is the practice of identifying a specific aggrieved population, say unemployed steelworkers, or itinerant fruit-pickers, or residents of a particularly bad neighborhood, and agitating them until they become so upset about their condition that they take collective action to put pressure on local, state, or federal officials to fix the problem, often by giving the affected group money. Organizers like to call that “direct action.”

Myrna Blyth, who rose through the ranks of the women’s magazines, dissects the overt and subtle attacks those Manhattan rags ran immediately upon learning of Palin’s selection.

Okay, I admit to having skimmed rapidly over Michelle Cottle’s anti-Palin rant, but I still found what I sort-of read amusing.  According to Cottle, Feminism has nothing to do with removing institutional obstacles against women, thereby allowing each individual woman to realize, in her own way, her full potential as an American citizen.  Instead, it has to do with unlimited abortion, unlimited contraception and nationalized health care.  Now you know.

John Hawkins, who is no McCain fan, has looked at Obama’s and the media’s performance over the summer, and concluded that McCain is so much the lesser of two evils that it has become a no-brainer to vote for him.

Biden, bless his lying little heart, now takes credit for success in Iraq.  Wait.  I take it back.  I suddenly realized why Obama picked Biden of all possible non-Hillary VP candidates.  It’s one narcissist calling to another.  Remember, narcissists never lie.  Because they are the centers of their own universe, because every narcissist is his own be-it-and-end-all, there is no absolute truth.  Instead, truth is what the narcissist wants it to be at the moment he is opening his mouth and emitting words.  In other words, Biden’s internal truth just shifted, he is his own reality, and the words he spoke are not, in his mind, a lie.

Good reading!

UPDATE: Tammy Bruce has written what stands as a good rebuttal to Michelle Cottle’s hysterical anti-woman diatribel.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. David Foster says

    “Did you get the impression that McCain’s message was that the government needs fixing, while Obama’s message was that the country needs fixing?”

    Someone once remarked that when people in the U.S. don’t like the government, they change out the government–and when the government in the Soviet Union didn’t like the people, they changed out the people.

    It is very clear the the Obama wing of the Democratic Party expects the people of America to change radically in order to meet their expectations.

  2. suek says

    >>Feminism has nothing to do with removing institutional obstacles against women, thereby allowing each individual woman to realize, in her own way, her full potential as an American citizen. >>

    You’re mistaken in this. This is what the feminist movement was orignally. Suzanne Hoff Sommers* calls it “equity feminism” as opposed to the radical “gender feminism” that we see today.

    >>Instead, it has to do with unlimited abortion, unlimited contraception and nationalized health care. Now you know.>>

    That’s what it is now. No question about it. What Rush calls Feminazis.

    *I was checking my book “Who Stole Feminism” and realized that I’ve been spelling it wrong. I mentally interchange Suzanne Somers – which I know she’s not – and Suzanne Hoff Sommers, so my mind changes the o to u so my little brain knows they’re not the same. Brains do weird things sometimes!

  3. says

    Sorry, suek, I wasn’t clear there. I meant that, according to Cottle, feminism…. I amended the post to make that more clear. I adored Hoff Sommers’ book (which was one of the books that led me to conservatism even though I didn’t realize it at the time), and fully appreciated her point about the differences between traditional equity feminism and wacko gender feminism.

  4. Mike Devx says

    To me the big news here is Biden’s desperate attempt to change his own narrative.

    As this article points out, Biden wished to retain only the weakest of central governments, allowing the three regions of Iraq near-complete autonomy, as indicated below in the comments concerning Bosnia-Herzegovina. It’s true – as I hadn’t realized – that Senator Biden did not advocate a complete division of Iraq into three separate fully sovereign states…

    From:
    http://articles.latimes.com/2007/sep/27/nation/na-warvote27

    “Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has argued that his plan does not endorse partition but simply recognizes that Iraq’s communities need to separate to stem the cycle of ethnic and sectarian violence.

    He and other supporters point to the Balkans, where the U.S. helped craft a federated system in Bosnia-Herzegovina that separated Serbs, Croats and Bosnian Muslims after years of bloody civil war.

    “It is possible that the present structure in Baghdad is incapable of national reconciliation because its elected constituents were elected on a sectarian basis,” said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), one of the measure’s cosponsors. “A wiser course would be to concentrate on the three principal regions.””

    Also interesting is that as Biden fully opposed the Surge, so apparently did Kay Bailey Hutchison. But heck, many, many opposed the Surge. I remember myself fully throwing up my hands in frustration, believing it could never work. More kudos to McCain, Petraeus, and others who understood how counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism really work. In the face of all opposition, including Senators Biden and Obama (and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi), McCain and Petraeus were right, and the Nobel Peace Prize for fully understanding how to defang insurgencies should be soon forthcoming. (Hah! As if)

  5. dg says

    Interesting article from the Anchorage Daily News: http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/511471.html.

    It seems that while Sarah Palin touted her cancelling the bridge to nowhere for political purposes, it is now coming out that she only was against it after two years of protests had made it unpopular. She kept the money (is that wrong?) and continued building a road to the site of that infamous bridge. She has also overstated her budget balancing credentials given how flush her state is.

    If this were a Democrat the GOP and Karl Rove’s minions would be calling her a compulsive liar (e.g., Gore) or a flip-flopper (e.g., Kerry). Where are the conservative outcries for such dishonesty????? Oh, I forgot. The first casualty of any war is the truth, and that includes cultural wars and political battles…

  6. Danny Lemieux says

    I can imagine that Obama probably screamed like a little girl who just saw a spider when Palin gave her speech at the convention.

    The crescendo of howling, moaning and whining from the Left may yet reach that of a Cat 5 hurricane, if this continues. McCain-Palin has completely knocked the opposition off their game and into a defensive crouch. I expect that there are still many more uppercuts and hooks to be delivered.

    Earlier threads raised the importance of experience and character in Presidential candidates. This race is demonstrating just “why” character and resilience in the face of tough odds are essential requirements of leadership.

    I think that many are discovering that fighter/bomber pilots and Arctic moose hunters don’t blink under pressure. The community organizer, on the other hand, is already stuttering, flip-flopping (the effect of taxes on the economy, the surge – all key-stones to the opposition’s attacks on Bush/Cheney), blathering without thinking (“My Muslim faith…”) and segueing into rhetorical cul-de-sacs such as attacking Palin’s experience (the pot calling the kettle?) or how he would take her on the basketball court. You are running against McCain, you twit!

    The more time that goes by, the more that Obama-Biden distance themselves from their “change” theme and scramble furiously to shore up their levees against the pounding of Hurricane McCain.

    I can just imagine, as I imagine most Americans are imagining, how well an Obama-Biden ticket would hold up under the pounding of Al Qaeda, Russians, Chinese or even Venezuela. Eeeek!

    The fun has only begun and I predict that the mistakes from the Obama-(who, again?) campaign will only get more outlandish with time. Let’s see what happens at the debates.

  7. dg says

    Danny, he actually didn’t cry. He just called out the lies. Yesterday, Team McCain chanted “change” scores of times. How does a candidate that voted with the incumbent administration 90% of the time constitute change? Good thing Republicans cannot or will not count, because that stat is rather inconvenient for a “change” candidate. Meanwhile, Palin was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it, and she’s still patting herself on the back for her fiscal discipline. Talk about dishonesty. And while conservatives call her the anti-socialist candidate, she comes from a state that collects $1.71 in money from the federal government for every dollar it puts in –the highest in the country, and up from $1.38 two years earlier. I’d say Palin is a bigger socialist than Obama and Biden, who come from states that collect less than $1.00 for every dollar of tax money sent to Washington, D.C. You won’t see those figures anytime soon either. The dishonesty is breathtaking. The GOP follows the tactics of Goebels (the famous Nazi propagandist) to a tee: repeat the lie often enough and the masses will take it as truth… Hopefully, at least one-half of the country is wise enough to see the deceit.

  8. BrianE says

    dg,
    Two things come to mind–
    The federal government owns 65% of Alaska, 1/3 of all the federal land is in Alaska. Much of that land could be productive– drilled, mined or logged which could provide revenue for Alaskans. Since we have chosen to lock up the land, it is reasonable to provide a revenue stream for Alaskans. I’d be all for removing restrictions on the land up there, and reduce federal payments to Alaskans.

    It is the Washington corrupt culture and Congress in particular that need changing. John McCain and Sarah Palin represent the best chance of real reform. You’re only kidding yourself if you think a democrat congress and and democrat president are going to anything but consolidate power, pay off their base, and push the country closer to the edge of the nanny state.

  9. dg says

    BrianE, just because the argument comes to mind doesn’t mean it is correct. The money going to Alaska is not payment for the “locking up of resources.” Do you just make this s**t up?? Why do McCain and Palin represent the “best chance of real reform” when McCain has been part of that Washington establishment and Palin established herself as a queen of earmarks and supporter of the bridge to nowhere? Let’s be honest, you start with the a priori assumption (desire?) that McCain and Palin should be elected, then you make up whatever to support your conclusion. A reading of the facts would show that McCain is 90% likely to continue Bush’s policies, which even Republican economists would say have been bad for the economy (e.g., the housing crisis–see my “rumor mill” post), while Palin is not the reformer she says that she is.

    By the way, this nanny state rhetoric is really just a red herring. You have Palin receiving $0.87 in subsidy from the Federal Government even as it pays negative taxes to its citizens. You have all the red states collecting subsidies from the federal government and you complain of a nanny state. The Republicans are benefiting from that nanny state and then they decry it. Reminds me of Palin’s quote (and I paraphrase): the fires of hell feel like snowy glaciers compared to the evil that is the American government. And now she want to be the number two in that infernal institution. Usually when I am applying for a job in a company, I try not to malign it so…

  10. Danny Lemieux says

    Dg – your favorite tactic appears to be to throw-up a radar clutter of half-truths and distortions designed to distract the reader from the issue(s) at hand.

    Personally, I don’t know what Palin’s thinking was when the “Bridge to Nowhere” was being debated. Whatever that might have been, however, she nixed it at crunch time, which is all that matters.

    As far as McCain voting “with” or “against” Bush 90% of the time – tell us on what bills and or issues. If President Bush authors a declaration honoring the NYC firemen for their heroic actions on Sept. 11, 2001, is the correct response to oppose it? Why don’t you focus on the issue instead of using broad-stroke snipes …uh, swipes to make your point.

    You go on and throw up charges about Federal tax dollars going to Alaska with cute little quips about Alaska being socialist without providing details or context (BrianE is absolutely correct on his points). However, two seconds on Google yields this U. of Alaska report:

    http://alaskaneconomy.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/FedSpendSum.pdf

    Surprise, surprise – much of the Federal monies going to Alaska are directly or indirectly defense related (hmmm….why would that be?) and social welfare benefits, especially to Native American populations, many of whom live in appalling conditions (I know).

    Fundamentally (get it?), though, it’s a non-sequitur. Palin did not create Alaska’s economy and its interdependence with the Federal Government. She ran and won as a reformer against an entrenched corrupt political machine (Democrate and Republican), much as we have in Illinois, and was successful in not eliminating but very significantly rolling back the wealth of earmarked Federal monies that the opponents of her ire had been steering to her State at American taxpayer expense.

    Finally, DG, we recognize your tactic and, to a point, it is kinda sorta fun to pick-apart your ripostes. When you descend into silly MoveOn.org-type rhetoric like “Bush lied, people died, Bush = Hitler, Republicans = Goebbels, blah, blah, blah), you are bottom trolling and the adult discussion really is over at that point.

    You’ve already shown us that you can do much better than that. C’mon, give us some really good, honest arguments to work with, will ya? You can do it.

  11. dg says

    Addressing the points in order…

    So Obama’s distancing himself from Reverand Wright at “crunch time” was ok too… Wow, you give politicians way to much credit, or at least those belonging to the GOP.

    Also, what are the half-truths? She is on the record and on tape saying that she supported that bridge and the earmarks that she later was against. The only half-truths are that she is unequivocally against government handouts. Let’s be a little more honest here.

    On the 90%, it is true: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_john_mccain_voted_with.html

    Your article/link on AK is very interesting. The last bullet shows that Stephen’s position on the Senate appropriations committee has led to more pork rolling into his state than any other (“…Finally, one of Alaska’s U.S. senators, Ted Stevens, has since 1997 chaired the senate appropriations committee, giving him considerable power to bring project money to Alaska. And grants have in fact been the fastest-growing federal expense in Alaska since the late 1990s…”). You will note that the grants are the travesty that falls outside of the military or native health programs you cite as the bigger expenses (actually native health care is only 6% of the total federal spending in 2002). The fact remains that an 87% greater-than-average subsidy cannot be explained by military spending, sparse population or native population alone, if you run through the numbers in your own cited link. The rest is from corruption from a GOP controlled state government.

    You are wrong to mention the Dems as being corrupt up there, but they haven’t been in control for quite some time. As this article highlights, the state remains heavily GOP even after the shameful scandals: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/07/whats_the_matter_with_alaska.html.

    Of course Palin did not create the system, but she is being dishonest about her impact in rolling it back, as well as how that experience will translate to the national level where subsidies from a larger government and a huge coffer of oil money makes budget decisions rather easy. If it turns out that we need tax hikes to make the national budget work–as most economists and the capital markets believe–then how will her experience help? It won’t.

    What exactly is her record on rolling back the earmarks? Which did she roll back taht wouldn’t have been rolled back anyway given that voters were at a point of revolt against Stephens, Murkowski and the rest of the crooks up there? What courage is that to follow the wishes of an angry electorate after it is in revolt? This is overstating her virtue, and the fact that she was for those earmarks before she was against them is proof positive that she follows political winds rather than standing up when change is unpopular. McCain stood up in Iowa and told farmers that the farm subsidies are wrong. That was great. Palin would never do that, based on an honest assessment of the record.

    It is not my tactic at all. It is the tactic of CRAZY PEOPLE ON THE RIGHT AND LEFT who prefer ideology to empirical fact. Just because MoveOn.org printed lies (although, in fairness, they believed that they had evidence of Bush’s lies on Iraq; and new evidence that the CIA, on WH orders, manufactured false Iraq intelligence means that they still might be right…but I digress…) does not excuse Palin from lying about her own record. But Goebels, the father of modern propaganda, has shown the McCain team that the repeat-the-lie strategy works. That you refuse to believe that she flip-flopped despite printed and videotaped evidence to the contrary proves old Goebbels correct. This is not my tactic, it is Rove’s and now McCain’s.

    Speaking of Rove, did you catch John Stewart’s wonderful contrast on how he characterized Dems and Republicans’ experience? He is not only a professional liar but a huge hypocrite: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYNfJ9SabFU.

  12. dg says

    And what exactly, Danny, are the issues at hand? Here are mine: First, do not misrepresent what you have done. People are fired for lying on resumes all of the time, and Palin’s little white lies about being against the bridge and earmarks qualify. Second, remain open and forthright. McCain upbraided a reported yesterday on CNN merely for asking what actions Palin took as commander of the AK National Guard, telling her she crossed the line with such a question. We cannot make good judgments as voters if candidates are hiding their past actions. Third, do not lie about the other candidate or misrepresent their record or use ad hominem arguments to misrepresent what they stand for. No one on the left is saying that Palin is a seccessionist even though she is apparently married to one, but lots of conservatives including people on this blog are implying that Obama is a thug or a terrorist or somehow has questionable judgment for arm’s length associations with ACORN or Ayers. If you want to criticize the fact taht Obama did not improve test scores, fine. But that is as far as it should go. If we could just get the left and right to at least honor basic rules of honest and logical consistency we’d be far better off. Instead, the folks that brought you the rumor that McCain “fathered a black baby” in the 2000 SC primary are doing it again…and you cheer them on. Shameful.

  13. dg says

    SueK, thanks for the article. It definitely gives a more nuanced view of her history with that bridge. But I honestly don’t think that it proves she is a maverick or reformer, but rather, reveals yet another ambitious politician following the public’s mood. That she hedged her bets as a candidate and spent a bunch of time analyzing a project that was grossly overfunded for local needs hardly shows someone who rankled at obvious pork-barrel corruption or took the brave, say-no-to-ethanol-subsidies-in-Iowa stance that McCain once did. More importantly, she kept the money for other pet projects, including some in her own hometown. That she kept the money speaks volumes about her real record on pork, earmarks and reform. I guess Alaska receiving the nation’s second or third largest per capita dole-out from Washington, D.C. was not enough…

  14. dg says

    Also, note the response from Lois Epstein, Director and Engineer, Alaska Transportation Priorities Project, in response to the blogger’s article you cite. She seems to have a less favorable impression of Palin’s reforms, and she appears to be in a position to know. Her post comes after the article. In case you missed it:

    The Juneau Road project was not canceled by Governor Palin. During her first days in office, she cancelled a “pioneer” road contract for the first few miles because of its rushed nature by her predecessor.

    See http://www.aktransportation.org/mega-projects/the-juneau-road-ferry-mega-project/ for more information on the problems with this project. So far, $24 million in mostly federal dollars has been spent on this road for planning.

    She also spent approximately $25 million for a 3 mile “road to nowhere” on Gravina Island, to the place the bridge would have gone. There are a few cabins there — that’s all — and swampland along the route. That was federal earmark money that she spent, rather than getting it reallocated for better transportation projects or returned to the federal government.

    lois@aktransportation.org
    Director and Engineer, Alaska Transportation Priorities Project

  15. BrianE says

    dg said:

    No one on the left is saying that Palin is a seccessionist even though she is apparently married to one, but lots of conservatives including people on this blog are implying that Obama is a thug or a terrorist or somehow has questionable judgment for arm’s length associations with ACORN or Ayers.

    There you go again dg.

    That’s classic. I’ve never read anyone call Obama a thug or terrorist. Questionable judgment– yep that’s your boy!

  16. Ymarsakar says

    No one on the left is saying that Palin is a seccessionist even though she is apparently married to one

    You obviously don’t know as many Leftists as you claim you do.

  17. dg says

    BrianE, Bookworm has posted a blog entitled Obama the baby-killer. How much have your read on the Obama attacks anyway? There are well-known and well-paid conservative pundits calling Obama a thug/terrorist (see below).

    SueK, I despise the litigation lobby’s attempts to defend questionable lawsuits over asbestos, but what about the corporate give aways to Halliburton and other favored industries or the tax repatriation holiday given to corporations in general by the Bush administration. Compared with the billions in lost revenues associated with those moves, the asbestos cases look rather small actually. Why don’t you decry the corporate tax loopholes that Warren Buffett has decried?

    On the California marriage license article, clearly the state should not discriminate against those who want traditional weddings. But let’s have some perspective here. Who is more likely to be discriminated against? The traditional heterosexual bride and groom or the homosexual couple?

    Y, which respectable commentator or news organization on the left is saying that Palin is a seccessionist? Meanwhile, Hannity and Coulter on Fox have likened him to a terrorist of the Muslim or Black Panther variety: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/26/obama-terrorist/

  18. BrianE says

    dg, just read what you said, “people on this blog”.

    dg, you credibility would go up from a 1, if you just said it was hypocritical of Biden to represent the lawyer union. He is the No.2 pick of the candidate of Hope and Change.

    Suek,

    While you’re reading about the impending theocracy, check this one out, Colorado’s SB200

    A lawmaker in Colorado who challenged the authors of SB200, a new law that bans discrimination based on the “perception” of gender, contends it was written to give a wide open door to anyone who wants to banish Christian beliefs or the Bible.

    WND reported earlier that one of the supporters of the bill, Cathryn Hazouri of the American Civil Liberties Union, told the state House Judiciary Committee: “One may practice one’s religion in private; however, once a religious person comes into the public arena, there are limitations in how the expression of their religion impacts others.”

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68542

    Can’t see how this could pass muster, but who knows? I do know that secularists want to push Christianity inside the walls of a building.

  19. dg says

    BrianE, I thought I did denounce the lawyers waging disproportionate lawsuits, as well as the lobby that is around them. If Biden has passed laws that help facilitate unjust lawsuits (like mesothelioma), then he should be denounced also. I just don’t know what specific bad laws he’s passed in this regard. I am not happy he took lobbyist money, but which politician hasn’t? Also, I do believe that you need to balance out the need for access to the courts against the economic costs of open-ended liabilities (and fraudulent ones) associated with some class action lawsuits. It is very hard for an individual to sue a major corporation or the government, but the fact that one even can try in this country is a key tenet that makes our system superior to China’s or even Germany’s. So while it’s fun to criticize with broadbrush the “lawyers’ lobby” the issue is more complicated than this. And, again, I don’t know what Biden’s position has been that has hurt this balance.

    On the religious versus secularists stuff, I am a secularist who wishes that people would use more logic and science and stats and less Matthew and Luke and John to understand and frame issues. I don’t mind people falsely believing the Earth is 6,000 years old but get angry when they want to “teach the controversy” in schools. You have a right to be dumb but not to make other people–especially young minds–equally stupid. But if they are their kids, I have to bite my tongue and recognize that the government shouldn’t say what values are passed onto one’s children. I do, however, want to prevent religious groups from denying people their civil rights (e.g., gays seeking marriage, controversial people expressing free speech, non-believers being free of an established religion…) and would like to push Christians THROUGH A WALL OF A BUILDING when they attempt to do this. This is not tantamount to outlawing Bible’s or their right to practice religion, however. That ACLU quote you reference is likely/should be referring to attempts to use the public square to communicate a particular religious view, which the Establishment Clause prohibits. That small minority that may be attempting to subvert religious expression in the non-public sphere are wrong but are also likely engaging in a futile practice, since the majority of the country is religious and have the votes to counter such attempts. Finally, I wish the religious would stop pretending that they are a persecuted minority when they are clearly in the majority and are not in any danger of having their religion forced underground.

  20. Ozzie says

    “You have a right to be dumb but not to make other people–especially young minds–equally stupid.” – dg

    Yes, and it seems that at least one person on the GOP presidential ticket has to believe in the Rapture.

    I was raised a Christian, but never heard of the Rapture. Maybe Catholics have a different Jesus?

    I’ve listened to speeches from the Eisenhower and Kennedy eras, and have been shocked at how different (i.e. smarter and more complex) their speeches were when compared to those delivered today.

    And I wondered: Did Americans used to be smarter? Or did our presidents merely sound brighter?

    And then I read this today:

    On Stupidity:

    “The Anti-Intellectual Presidency: The Decline of Presidential Rhetoric From George Washington to George W. Bush (2008), by Elvin T. Lim, examines speeches and public papers — noting shortened sentences, simplified diction, the proliferation of platitudes — to show a pattern of increased pandering to the lowest common intellectual denominator, combined with a mockery of complexity and analysis.

    http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2008/08/2008080101c.htm

    It wasnt just my imagination.

  21. dg says

    Ozzie,

    Thanks for the link to that piece. I have felt this too sometimes, but was always hesitant to voice it for lack of evidence. I’ll have to read some of those books to evaluate the arguments. I do wonder, however, whether there are really more anti-intellectual/poorly educated people today or whether the democratization of the media has given their voices wider currency than in prior generations, and thus allowed them to become more acceptable as “experts” on news programs or even as vice presidential candidates…

  22. BrianE says

    Ozzie said:

    I was raised a Christian, but never heard of the Rapture. Maybe Catholics have a different Jesus?

    The doctrine of the Resurrection comes in part from I Corinthians 15:

    12 But tell me this—since we preach that Christ rose from the dead, why are some of you saying there will be no resurrection of the dead? 13 For if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised either. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your faith is useless. 15 And we apostles would all be lying about God—for we have said that God raised Christ from the grave. But that can’t be true if there is no resurrection of the dead. 16 And if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is useless and you are still guilty of your sins. 18 In that case, all who have died believing in Christ are lost! 19 And if our hope in Christ is only for this life, we are more to be pitied than anyone in the world.
    20 But in fact, Christ has been raised from the dead. He is the first of a great harvest of all who have died.

    21 So you see, just as death came into the world through a man, now the resurrection from the dead has begun through another man. 22 Just as everyone dies because we all belong to Adam, everyone who belongs to Christ will be given new life. 23 But there is an order to this resurrection: Christ was raised as the first of the harvest; then all who belong to Christ will be raised when he comes back.

    24 After that the end will come, when he will turn the Kingdom over to God the Father, having destroyed every ruler and authority and power. 25 For Christ must reign until he humbles all his enemies beneath his feet. 26 And the last enemy to be destroyed is death.

    40 There are also bodies in the heavens and bodies on the earth. The glory of the heavenly bodies is different from the glory of the earthly bodies. 41 The sun has one kind of glory, while the moon and stars each have another kind. And even the stars differ from each other in their glory.

    42 It is the same way with the resurrection of the dead. Our earthly bodies are planted in the ground when we die, but they will be raised to live forever. 43 Our bodies are buried in brokenness, but they will be raised in glory. They are buried in weakness, but they will be raised in strength. 44 They are buried as natural human bodies, but they will be raised as spiritual bodies. For just as there are natural bodies, there are also spiritual bodies.

    45 The Scriptures tell us, “The first man, Adam, became a living person.”[h] But the last Adam—that is, Christ—is a life-giving Spirit. 46 What comes first is the natural body, then the spiritual body comes later. 47 Adam, the first man, was made from the dust of the earth, while Christ, the second man, came from heaven. 48 Earthly people are like the earthly man, and heavenly people are like the heavenly man. 49 Just as we are now like the earthly man, we will someday be like[i] the heavenly man.

    50 What I am saying, dear brothers and sisters, is that our physical bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. These dying bodies cannot inherit what will last forever.

    51 But let me reveal to you a wonderful secret. We will not all die, but we will all be transformed! 52 It will happen in a moment, in the blink of an eye, when the last trumpet is blown. For when the trumpet sounds, those who have died will be raised to live forever. And we who are living will also be transformed. 53 For our dying bodies must be transformed into bodies that will never die; our mortal bodies must be transformed into immortal bodies.

    54 Then, when our dying bodies have been transformed into bodies that will never die,[j] this Scripture will be fulfilled:

    “Death is swallowed up in victory.[k]
    55 O death, where is your victory?
    O death, where is your sting?[l]”

  23. Ozzie says

    The doctrine of the Resurrection comes in part from I Corinthians 15:- Brian

    I was raised Catholic and never heard of the Rapture until I was an adult.

    I even went to a Catholic College, where the Jesuits spoke to philosophical and moral concerns and were not prone to taking the Bible literally.

    If people want to take the Bible literally, that’s their perogative.

    I dont think that shoudl be a prerequisite for becoming President, however.

  24. BrianE says

    If you don’t take the Bible literally, what’s the point. You might as well read a Batman comic book, to paraphrase dagon.
    Paul made the case right there. The Christian faith hinges on Jesus’ resurrection.

    Jesus made the claim to be God.
    In Matthew 16:
    When Jesus asked his disciples who do people say he was, and then asked his disciples, “Who do you say I am?” Peter replied, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “You are blessed, Simon son of John, because my Father in heaven has revealed this to you…”
    Jesus told of his death and resurrection
    Again in Matthew 16 it says “From then on Jesus began to tell his disciples plainly that he had to go to Jerusalem, and he told them what would happen to him there…He would be killed, and he would be raised on the third day.”

    It certainly isn’t a requirement to be President.

  25. Ozzie says

    If you don’t take the Bible literally, what’s the point. You might as well read a Batman comic book, to paraphrase dagon.- Brian

    People who take the Bible literally have long felt that Catholics were wrong to read it metaphorically.

    They can think what they like.

    To me, the Rapture is as real as “72 virgins.” I dont think it is going to happen. Others are counting on it.

    But the people who are pushing Relgious Right agenda believe that even the Book of Revelation is the Word of God and that we’re in the End Times and the president should consider Biblical prophecy when setting foreign policy.

    The Bush White House catered to this crowd.

    I find it alarming. Others find it comforting.

    “It certainly isn’t a requirement to be President.”- Brian

    Once again:. The GOP needs the Relgious Right to win and the Relglious Right won’t vote for anyone who doesnt agree with their End Times/ Rapture Ready views.

    The GOP has become the political arm of Christian Conservatives.

  26. BrianE says

    Ozzie said:

    People who take the Bible literally have long felt that Catholics were wrong to read it metaphorically.

    They can think what they like.

    I’m not Catholic, but I think a lot of catholics take the Bible literally.

    Once again: The GOP needs the Relgious Right to win and the Relglious Right won’t vote for anyone who doesnt agree with their End Times/ Rapture Ready views.

    Now Ozzie, that may be the least informed opinion I’ve heard from you. Most Evangelical Christians won’t vote for a candidate that supports abortion on demand.

    I’m not sure what you or dg even mean by “end timers”. There have at times been groups that thought they discerned the actual rapture event, but those folks have always been disappointed.
    The New Testament has an admonition against doing that, in fact. Christians have looked for the return of Christ since the first century, but that hardly means they were trying to affect political events to hurry it along.
    If there is a marker, it is that the gospel has been spread to the four corners of the earth, and the state of Israel has been established.

    I had heard that neo-conservatives in the Bush administration had as a ME strategy the idea that by removing Saddam, forcing a regime change in Iran and Syria, which would de-fund Hamas and Hezbollah, we could stabilize and promote a two-state solution.

    I think the strategy was to establish peace in the ME, by eliminating the funding for terror groups whose goal is to exterminate the state of Israel which, by the way is exactly opposite of the ‘end time’ scenario.

  27. dg says

    Suek, do you actually want to understand the FNM-FRE situation or do you just want to pin that-thing-you-do-not-comprehend-but-know-is-bad-somehow on the liberals you viscerally hate? Your “interesting articles” on the GSE’s are all political hit jobs that do not illuminate the situation at all. I’ve heard a dozen partisans on the right blame the housing crisis on liberals and the Clinton administration, but their logic is totally flawed (and I am still waiting for someone to intelligently debate the issue, if they dare). If the problem started because of a “socialist” government charter, then why are the worst balance sheet problems to be found amongst the private firms (e.g., Merrill Lynch, Countrywide, Lehman Brothers, Citigroup, Washington Mutual, et. al.)? Who sold the worst crap into the market? Who did the most accounting shenanigans to hide it? It was not FNM and FRE but the wholly private banks. The problem was caused by inadeqate regulation and overly lax monetary policy, both of which were caused by the GOP controlled Congress and Federal Reserve. That you find completely irrelevant articles “interesting” suggests to me that you have no idea what the sources of the problem are. The analogy is this: your doctor tells you that you have lung cancer from 20 years of smoking, and you blame it on the Monica Lewinsky scandal. That is how unrelated your political explanations are to the underlying economic causes of this very grave problem. Thank God the Secretary of the Treasury is not as ill-informed and partisan as you, and the fake experts writing in NRO and other conservative wings of the media…

  28. Ozzie says

    I’m not Catholic, but I think a lot of catholics take the Bible literally.- Brian

    Based on what?

    (and if you say Mel Gibson, his brand of Catholicism isnt exactly main stream)

    Priests would read from the Gospels in church, but during my 13 years of Catholic catechism, (up until the time I was confirmed and didint attend Sunday School anymore) I never oncer heard of the Rapture.

    I went to a Catholic college, too and once again, no mention of the Rapture.

    Personally, i’m more interested in the lost Gospels of Peter, Mary, Thomas, Phillip, Judas, etc and why the Roman Catholic Church left them out than I am in other parts of the Bible. Who was the real Jesus and what was he trying to say? And why were some Gospels deliberately left out?

    Then too, Thomas Jefferson referred to the Book of Revelation (which I also never studied in the Catholic Church) as “the ravings of a madman,” while hardcore Christian conservatives are eagerly awaiting for the events described to come true.

    “Now Ozzie, that may be the least informed opinion I’ve heard from you. Most Evangelical Christians won’t vote for a candidate that supports abortion on demand.” — Brian

    It goes well beyond Roe vs Wade, Brian. There are activists, including James Dobson, who are actively seeking to undercut the Supreme Court and turn America into a “Chrtistian Nation.”

    I posted information on this on another thread, but if you want to see what I’m referring to, I’d be happy to do it again.

    “I’m not sure what you or dg even mean by “end timers”. There have at times been groups that thought they discerned the actual rapture event, but those folks have always been disappointed.” — Brian

    Those who believe in dispensationalism and believe that we are currently facing the end times. One such group, the Apostolic Congress, met with the Bush White House to make sure that the Middle East policy was alligned with End Times theology.

    One such example, from 2004:

    The Jesus Landing Pad
    Bush White House checked with rapture Christians before latest Israel move
    Rick Perlstein

    It was an e-mail we weren’t meant to see. Not for our eyes were the notes that showed White House staffers taking two-hour meetings with Christian fundamentalists, where they passed off bogus social science on gay marriage as if it were holy writ and issued fiery warnings that “the Presidents [sic] Administration and current Government is engaged in cultural, economical, and social struggle on every level”—this to a group whose representative in Israel believed herself to have been attacked by witchcraft unleashed by proximity to a volume of Harry Potter. Most of all, apparently, we’re not supposed to know the National Security Council’s top Middle East aide consults with apocalyptic Christians eager to ensure American policy on Israel conforms with their sectarian doomsday scenarios.

    But now we know.

    http://www.villagevoice.com/2004-05-11/news/the-jesus-landing-pad/1

  29. BrianE says

    Ozzie said:

    Then too, Thomas Jefferson referred to the Book of Revelation (which I also never studied in the Catholic Church) as “the ravings of a madman,” while hardcore Christian conservatives are eagerly awaiting for the events described to come true.

    You don’t have to quote Jefferson. Dagon believes the same thing.

    “Now Ozzie, that may be the least informed opinion I’ve heard from you. Most Evangelical Christians won’t vote for a candidate that supports abortion on demand.” — Brian

    It goes well beyond Roe vs Wade, Brian. There are activists, including James Dobson, who are actively seeking to undercut the Supreme Court and turn America into a “Chrtistian Nation.”

    What does this have to do with your original statement of this:
    Once again: The GOP needs the Relgious Right to win and the Relglious Right won’t vote for anyone who doesnt agree with their End Times/ Rapture Ready views.

    Ozzie you’re spouting a lot of stuff that you really don’t know much about.

    Those who believe in dispensationalism and believe that we are currently facing the end times.

    Do you even know what dispensationalism is?

    You really should stay away from making characterizations about the beliefs of people you don’t know and whose opinions of them were formed by people who might not be neutral.

  30. Ozzie says

    Once again: The GOP needs the Relgious Right to win and the Relglious Right won’t vote for anyone who doesnt agree with their End Times/ Rapture Ready views.

    Ozzie you’re spouting a lot of stuff that you really don’t know much about.- Brian

    Fundamentlists are more excited by Sarah Palin than they have been with any candidate in recent history.

    And it goes beyond Roe V Wade.

    2004-2006 were very busy years for Christian Right activists who’d love to cut out the Supreme Court and topple the wall between Church and State.

    I dont want to live in an offocial “Christian Nation.”

    With McCain, I was relieved that the ‘Fundy years’ were over. Sily me!.

    “You really should stay away from making characterizations about the beliefs of people you don’t know and whose opinions of them were formed by people who might not be neutral.” — Brian

    Nobody is nuetral when it comes to religion. And yes, my beliefs stem from reading and reading and reading, as opposed to attending servies where people beleive in the Rapture because, in all honesty, I could not sit and listen to such stuff.. It makes NO SENSE to me.

    I lump it with the “72 virgins” dogma and believe that, while people should believe whatever it is they like, religious beliefs and government do not — and should not — mix.

    If Muslims, on the other hand, got so far as to introduce legislation calling for the U.S to become a Muslim nation and a U.S policitian could not get elected without being vetted and endorsed by Muslims, I’d be freaking out even more.

    I dont want Catholics (who tend to be more abstract vs concrete-minded, and are therefore less frightening to me) to have such clout, either, and think the U.S public was right to have concerns about J.F.K’ – just as he was right to assure them that his faith would not be a factor

    If Sarah Palin said something similar, the Religious Right would NOT be happy and the McCain/Palin ticket would be D.O.A.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply