Thanksgiving was nice. In fact, I still feel a little full as I’m sure many of you do. So let’s ease back into the political scene with a quick catch-up post on what you missed over the holidays.
Item One: There Is No God! Guess who left “God” out of the annual Thanksgiving Day address? If you guessed Obama, then you win a prize. So Obama makes sure the White House honors Islamic holidays, but he won’t mention God on a holiday that honors Christians who came to the New World to find religious freedom? I guess we shouldn’t really be surprised, the left has waged a war against religion for decades now.
Item Two: Let’s Not Be Frank. Barney Frank announced today he will retire. His reasons were the usual, wanted to spend more time at gay bars and politics is too nasty now that the Republicans are in charge. He also hinted at the real reason: he was going to lose. Last election he almost lost his seat to a no-named token Republican. Since that time, his district has been re-districted so that he lost a chunk of supporters. Rather than blow his money in a possibly embarrassing loss, he decided to abandon ship and make off with his ill-gotten booty.
Item Three: Colon Powell. Did I misspell that? Nope. Old Rectum’s latest bit of stupidity is to blame the Tea Party for the “divisive tone” in Washington. Forget that this has been the case since the MSM went to war against Nixon and went full-retard against Reagan and almost went blind from their hate against Bush II. . . yep, forget all that. It’s the Tea Party! Those average Americans who want their government to stop spending so much, are the reason everyone in DC hates each other.
We should be thankful the Republicans never fell for the idiotic idea of drafting Powell to run for President. Powell is a turkey. He’s not a great general (in fact, he was the guy who whined we would lose 60,000 troops if we attacked Iraq), he has never shown much in the way of brains, he’s liberal on all issues, and he’s shown tremendous disloyalty. In other words, he’s the ideal RINO and should be tossed out of the party.
Item Four: Tebowmania. Speaking of the war against religion, I have to mention Tim Tebow. I’m not a Florida Gators fan, nor a Denver Broncos fan. I knew little about Tebow before he was drafted and I cared even less. And I don’t care what anyone’s religious beliefs are. That’s all up to you and it’s none of my business.
But I don’t like the way Tebow’s being treated. From the very beginning there was a real wave of venom aimed at him. People, especially sportswriters, HATED him. Why did they hate him? Here's a clue: every single article they wrote or comment they made on the air went out of its way to attack him for being religious. Sure, they denied religious bias, but they couldn’t help themselves. . . they had to keep mentioning it. Now they’re even trying to project their obsession onto his fans by claiming the fans are the ones who keep bringing up his religion, which just isn’t true. They keep saying the fans are claiming that just because Tebow is religious, he should be allowed to play quarterback. Only, no one has ever said this. To the contrary, it’s the sportswriters who are saying he shouldn’t be allowed to play quarterback precisely because he is religious.
I know obsession when I see it, and this is obsession.
What’s interesting is that if Tebow were black none of this would be a problem. Ray Lewis (who has murdered a man) and others regularly profess their faith in all their interviews and the media praises them for it. But let Tebow be seen giving a quick prayer and heads begin to explode.
Moreover, I find the criticism stunningly hypocritical. Tebow is now 5-1 as a starter. That’s better than most black quarterbacks in their rookie years, yet criticism of those quarterbacks for failing to win was called “racist.” We're told Tebow can’t throw, yet he has a higher completion percentage than Mike Vick did in two of his seasons and has already thrown for more yards than Mike Vick did in his rookie year -- yet the same people who hate Tebow and say he can’t play were verbally fellating Vick and calling his critics “racists.” These are also the same people who now write articles condemning the rest of us for not forgiving Vick for his dog fighting crimes even though he never showed any contrition. So we're the intolerant ones, huh?
What is going on here is liberalism in action. The affirmative action mentality says that any criticism of black quarterbacks is racist and must be shouted down. And Christianity is oppressive, so it must be oppressed. How else do you explain that full-on obsessive, public hatred of a white Christian kid simply because of his religion is suddenly acceptable? It's despicable.
Item Five: Supercommittee Fails. And no one cares. In fact, Pat Toomey pointed out they can just ignore the deal’s requirements to impose the draconian cuts. More false Washington drama.
Welcome back!
Monday, November 28, 2011
Happy Post-Thanksgiving!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
89 comments:
Welcome back indeed! Obama's a turd. Barney Frank is a turd. Tebow's not a turd though, he's a good kid and I agree liberal sportswriters are just obsessed with hating him. I hope he keeps right on winning.
Ed, I hope so too, which is a rather strange feeling hoping the Broncos win. But it would be great if these people had to eat their words.
And speaking of eating their words, I hope Obama gets to do the same in 2012.
You and me both! Repeal Obama 2012!
That's the ticket! :)
Maybe it's because of my secular Jewish upbringing (actually, that's exactly what it is) but Obama's non-mention of religion doesn't bother me. Oh, I understand the complaints when it comes to him favoring one particular religion over the predominant religions in this country... but I admit I read the criticism and my first thought is, "Really? This?" Of course, when Ben Shapiro chimes in on a subject (and he has), I'm automatically inclined to thumb my nose at it. :-) It's damn Pavlovian.
I had a nice Thanksgiving as well, as well as my 10-year high school reunion on Friday night. It was at a sports bar and 80 of us were crammed into one corner. It's funny - we all have a little more perspective but so many of us are exactly the same. Some guys have filled out, some hairlines are slightly receding, but most of the girls who were hot then are still hot now.
All in all, I enjoyed it. Some parts more than others. (Ahem.) ;-)
P.S. Despite only attending FSU for one year, it's nice to know you're not a Gator fan!
Andrew, I'm not sure why anyone should be surprised that the supercommittee failed. It was all for show in the first place. I'm also not surprised Obama forgot God. I would actually have been surprised if he'd remembered.
Scott, Nope, not a Gator fan. LOL!
On the religious thing, I think there are three things at work here. First, there is the bias of it -- he favors Islam and talks about how much we should respect it blah blah blah and how important "faith" is to people, but then he disrespects Christianity.
Secondly, how do you avoid mentioning religion on what is basically a holiday centered around religious freedom? That's like giving a speech about Memorial Day without mentioning soldiers.
Third, is the intent of the whole thing. Obama has a track record of ignoring, minimizing, and sleighting any sort of traditional American/Christian values. So while it may not offend that he omits any mention of God any one time. . . this wasn't anywhere near the first time. This has been a consistent pattern which plays into the leftist anti-Christian dogma of the past couple decades.
Think of it this way. Imagine if someone got in the White House and then said "get rid of all the Jewish symbols," went out of their way to never mention Judaism or its holidays, and yet specifically made a point of celebrating the Holidays of every other religion. At some point, it will become pretty obvious this is meant as an insult.
And then factor in the utter hostility of leftist to Christianity and what you have is Obama taking sides in a culture war.
That's why people are upset.
DUQ, The Supercommittee, like so much else in Washington was all for show. Everyone could claim they tried, they could blame the other side, and in the end there was no real risk that anything would actually be changed. It's a scam.
Scott, I have no problems with secularism. In fact, I get annoyed at people who want to bring their religion into everything. But Obama isn't being secular, he's actively being opposed to one religion -- Christianity. He's only picks on and neglects Christianity, never the others. There is a big difference between ignoring and issue and taking sides and he's taken sides.
I understand (that was for Ed and Andrew), and at the very least, I am 100% sympathetic with your first point.
On Barney Frank (that didn't sound good), Fred Armisen did a pretty good impression of him on SNL in one of the only pro-Bush bailout-related sketches they ever did.
Andrew I am going to do this in reverse order.
Super Committee was destined to fail. Stupid Idea in the first place.
One possibility is the sports writers are trying out for Keith Olbermann's show. The problem is that no one told them that he had been cancelled for derangement problems. Another possibility is they are desperately trying to keep their day jobs and feel that if they so much as mention one accomplishment of Tebow that they will get fired. The only other possibility is that they are hypocritical scum and hate any religious man.
I think the last one is most probable.
High colonic needs to learn that once a man is identified as a racist nutcase, he words lose any meaning. "Who listens to the wind?"
On Bwarny Fwank. Gay bars tremble at his approach. Look for him to be appointed to some high office if one of our RINO candidates gets in.
Darn!! I thought it was Moochelle that said it. What was the prize?
Ed and Scott, I think the key word is "disrespect." I agree that there's nothing wrong with a President choosing to be secular. I know some disagree, but I frankly don't care what they believe in or don't believe in when it comes to that, BUT if they're going to start playing favorites that's when I have problems with it. Just like with the Tebow thing, I don't care what his religion is and I don't really want him telling me, but I respect his right to believe what he wants and he has a right to speak his mind -- just as I have a right to ignore him. But for the sports media to apply hypocritical standards and to blast him for things they would NEVER accept as criticism against other players is where I draw the line. That's religious bias and they should be called to account for it.
Being free means letting others have freedom too.
I almost lost my turkey reliving all of this. ALMOST!
Next Novemeber is gonna take forever getting here...
Scott, The job of our President is to represent everyone -- Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc. And the only way to do that is to respect everyone. That's why I have as much problem with Obama disrespecting Christians as I would with a religious right President disrespecting atheists or Muslims, or a Nation of Islam President blasting Jews. And I suspect you would be feeling the same if we had Pat Robertson as President and everything was suddenly a religious crusade or if we had Louis Farakhan as President and he was ranting about Jews.
The President's job is to protect and lead the country, not just lead his friends and abuse his enemies.
And I suspect you would be feeling the same if we had Pat Robertson as President and everything was suddenly a religious crusade
I shudder when I remember he actually tried running for president.
All points taken. :-)
I for one am not looking forward to the next 11 months. It's going to get ugly.
I think the Tebow item is pretty much the lynchpin of the Thanksgiving weekend wrap-up: the hypocritical left grows ever more obvious about it.
I can hardly wait for the White House to celebrate Ramadan, Kwanzaa, Winter Solstice, Bodhi Day, Pancha Ganapati, Festivus, and the New Year.
No, I didn't leave anything out.
Joel, The supercommittee was a fraud from the outset because anyone who knows anything about the law knew right away that the "sanctions" were meaningless because one Congress cannot bind another. Yet, every one of these people (pundits, Congress critters, etc.) played this up like it would really happen. Keep that in mind when you hear then give warnings in the future....
On Tebow, I think it's bias pure and simple. Sportwriting has really gotten to be about hate lately -- everything is instant hate. In fact, it's stunning how hateful most sports sites have become. It's like the worst stereotypes of talk radio on steriods.
And Tebow is the antithesis of that. He's a genuinely nice guy. That makes him an easy target and it makes him something the sport-community-trolls can't stomach. It's like seeing someone who is everything you can never be. Add in the fact he's in an approved hate-able group (white, male, Christian) and they are just letting fly. It's truly become a derangement syndrome that rivals the left's hatred for Bush. In fact, I could point to article after article where people are just foaming at the mouth about those stupid religious yoakles who think Tebow can be a quarterback blah blah blah.... It's sickening really.
Yeah, Colon Powell = the wind. LOL! It's time he left politics or came out of the closet as a Democrat.
The prize was a link to yet another Obama speech. If those are good enough for the Queen of England, then they should be good enough for us, right? ;)
patti, Next Thanksgiving is going to be so sweet! :)
I can't help but consider what sort of wind breaks from the Colon.
Scott, I hate to say it, but it already is ugly. Our country has lost its mind on so many issues that it's a wonder we haven't started killing each other in the streets... and not just politics. Look at those lunatics attacking each other on Black Friday over toys? Death threats to public figures. The utter hate you find all over the net.
Something is very wrong these days.
And from what I've read, Obama is planning "to run he most negative campaign in history," so yeah, expect it to get even uglier.
Yeah, Robertson tried. Fortunately, he didn't get very far. I have no desire to elect someone who thinks we would be better off in a theocracy.
tryanmax, I think the Tebow thing is more representative than people realize. The left long ago crossed over from favoring religious freedom to opposing religion and this is the consequence -- a world where it's acceptable to tear apart a kid because he's religious. It's pretty sickening.
And the hypocrisy of it is stunning because these same people talk about "tolerance" how the rest of us aren't tolerant enough of whatever groups they favor and "forgiveness" (especially of crimes by NFL players) and then they go on a hate Jihad against Tebow who has never hurt anyone. That's unacceptable.
The White House already honors those and has in fact had Muslim holiday dinners.
tryanmax, an ill wind indeed! ;)
The wonder of leftist hate is that it is justified by declaring the victims to have brought it down on themselves. The left brands certain ideologies as inherently "hateful," so that they excused for merely hating it back.
The left does not believe in turning the other cheek any more than it believes in identifying a tree by its fruit. The standard illustration is "2 + 2 = 5," but I think a more apt illustration would be "apple trees bear oranges."
Andrew, I was referring to Hanukkah and Christmas with my comprehensive list. I did not leave those out because I don't expect them to be celebrated at the White House.
I am just glad Barney Frank is going bye bye.
tryanmax, That's exactly what's playing out in the Tebow situation.
First, they attacked him for being Christian. But they explained it as "he's too publicly Christian," so it was his fault they were mentioning it.
But this wasn't true. He's no more public than other athletes and besides, so what? If he's that annoying, then ignore him, don't hate him.
Then they switched to, "it's his fans who are making us hate him because they claim we should declare him a hall of fame quarterback just because he's a Christian."
But again, this was never true. No one said it. They create this as a straw man as a reason to justify their hate.
Now they've switched to, "I never mention his religion, it's those crazy religious-nut fans who keep bringing it up."
But the truth is, every one of them will mention it EVERY TIME they speak about him -- they will preemptively insult Tebow's fan as they are delivering the criticism, e.g. "Look Tebow sucks and I know you religious nuts aren't smart enough to understadn that but it's true." Then they act surprised that people accuse them of having anti-religious bias, and they use that accusation as proof that the fans only support him because he's religious.
It's twisted, obsessive thinking and it's exactly the kind of false transference in which the left routinely engages when it levies criticism. It is designed to give cover to their own hate by pretending it is only a response to the hate of others.
tryanmax, I'm sure they will celebrate Winter Holiday (formerly known as Christmas), they'll just ignore any part of the holiday that doesn't involve a fat guy in a red suit. :(
It's the same thing with Google, by the way, they will list every single holiday you can imagine.... except the Christian ones.
But since they are a private company, I don't care. They can be assholes all they want. But Obama is the President, he's not allowed to act that way.
ACG, You and me both! I don't care what reason he's leaving. Let's just hope Joel isn't right and that some RINO doesn't appoint him to be something like Secretary of Defense.
Andrew: Excellent post-holiday roundup.
Andrew, Joel and AGC, Barney Frank as Secretary of Defense would be the end of this country.
Barney Frank appointed as anything scares me.
Lawhawk, Yep, lot's of info over this holiday weekend.
Ed, I think Frank as Secretary of Defense would be an utter disaster. They guy needs to be forgotten.
DUQ, I can't think of anything I would appoint him to either.
From dictionary.com
sec·u·lar·ism
noun
1. secular spirit or tendency, especially a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.
2. the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.
Andrew
what I do not seem to understand is why being scular is anymore offensive than being Religious.
Yes religion usually teaches that one is subject to an all knowing God or gods that you must follow. but not always. Jainism in India is a spiritual faith that has no God or gods. There are spirits to guide you (if my religion of asia knowledge does not fail me but they are just "holy" people helping others to enlightenment. In china Ch'ein or the will of heavan comes from the order of the universe but is not personified. The chinese gods and everyone else was subject to its all encompassing rule.
However religion also teaches morality and philosophy. Both of which have served mankind well in many cases. Why then must the only philosophy that is allowed to be taught those that are godless and not of a religious bent.
To my mind given the definition above I beleive the majority of those who follow Christianity are more open and tolerant that secularists. After all they will argue their beliefs but accept others rights to their beliefs. Not all of them no but I beleive the intolerant christians the left glorifies to make their points to be a minority.
This is my problem with secularism. If I worship or discuss my religion I somehow must be warned not to offend those who choose not to believe but the secularist is allowed to discuss their belief without regard to whether it offends me. Point is though that I for myself will willingly embrace the study of other religious philosophies and what people beleive because I feel it will only strengthen my own.
To my mind the problem with this is it is more Orwellian thought control.
Sorry for the long post but it got me thinking.
It bothers me how they treat Tebow, but I can't root for the Broncos because I'm a raiders fan.
The most maddening thing about how liberals regard their media is that whatever was stated most recently is deemed to be true, regardless of what was said before. Therefore, if an anchor claims he is only discussing Tebow's religion because the fans keep bringing it up, then that is what is considered true, regardless of the fact that the fans, if they have said anything about his religion, would not have done so if the anchor hadn't first.
Plus, a la Behar, liberal talking heads are allowed to obsess over any topic while simultaneously declaring they don't give a $#!+ and not just be believed, but be held in higher authority on the subject. Somehow the left has concocted a belief that the only trustworthy experts of a subject are those who don't even care about it. (But disinterest is established merely by claiming it.)
Of course, that might explain a lot. Paul Krugman is considered an expert in economics, a field he clearly has no interest in.
ScyFyTerry, I can see where that's a problem, but believe it or not, I do know some Raiders fans who have said they hope Tebow succeeds to show these people up.
somebody may have mentioned it, but in addition to the "Christian" thing, they hate Tebow because of the anti-abortion ad that a group tried to run during the superbowl. Rule #1 in liberal land, "Thou Shalt Not Mess with a liberal woman's right to choose."
Snerdley came up with the Barney Frank line of the day when he suggested Frank resigned because he wanted to get into coaching football.
LINK
Indi, No problem on the long post -- you make an excellent point.
With a few minor exceptions (cultists and extremists), religion has a long and excellent history of providing solid moral teachings that brought tolerance and comfort to the people. Even Islam did this until recently. There is no legitimate reason to hate or fear religion, except the religion preached by extremists, who use it to divide and close minds rather than open them.
The problem with religion is that it stands in the way of what the left wants to do. It encourages people to think beyond the government as their savior. So the left has waged a war against religion for many decades now. In the 1960s and 1970s, this war was waged within the Catholic Church as liberation theology was trying to force its way into official church teachings, but that failed. When the left realized they couldn't co-opt the church (and protestants were too varied to co-opt easily), they set about trying to ban religion instead.
Thus, they took up the cause of "separation of church and state" and they redefined it away from tolerance for all and no official sanction to "banning any public mention of religion."
That's where we are now. The left has been brought up to believe that it is illegal for people to show any trace of religion in public. They have been taught that religion is for stupid people and suckers, unsophisticated rural types. And we need to evolve beyond religion to become better people.
They have pointed to cults, fundamentalist Christian rhetoric, religious strife in Northern Ireland, and Islam as examples of "what religion really is," i.e. violent and exclusive.
Then the culture machine picked this up and decided to ridicule anyone with faith.
So now it's acceptable for normal people to blast people who believe. And that is what you are seeing. It's the exact same thing that generated open racism in the past, only now it's focused on the majority of the population.
tryanmax, "a field he clearly has no interest in!" LOL! Bravo!
It is rather interesting isn't it that the left accepts frauds like celebrities as "experts," even when they claim they have no interest in the subject. But I guess that's what you get with propaganda -- your source just needs to be popular, not capable or knowledgeable.
And I think they see the "disinterest" claim as proof that they should be trusted because they are somehow "impartial," which is a joke. It's also hip right now to be apathetic... unless it's about something like Obama, then you should get tingles.
You're right too about the short term memory in our media. It's amazing how one guy can write an article one day and be completely on the other side of the issue the next day and then claim two days later that they were always right from the get-go, were never wrong, and were the only person in the room who was right. I see that A LOT these days.
In fact, I have to laugh at how liberalism keeps traveling in circles. Thins that are now liberal dogma were racist/sexist a generation ago and will be again in 10-15 years. There is no consistency to liberalism... just anger and a lot of self-righteousness.
Jed, Wow!!! That's a jaw dropping line indeed.
I have to say, I'm sadly shocked as hell at what is being revealed at Penn State and now Syracuse. How in the world can this go on for so long and no one ever said a thing? It's stunning.
(Also, it must be pointed out, these are 100% liberal domains. So it probably shouldn't surprise us that personal responsibility was not valued at those places.)
On the abortion thing, that certainly inspired much hate. In fact, what I thought was really insanely hypocritical was I saw a lot of articles at the time about how Tebow needed to shut up because football and politics supposedly don't mix... this from the same people who pimp a whole hose of leftist candidates and causes.
Unrelated: It looks like they're still trying to get Cain. Now a woman has come forward claiming she had a 13 year affair with Cain.
Cain denies it.
Indi, if I may interject, another issue with the secularism vs. religiosity problems is that secularism is a rather scant philosophy as far as philosophies go. It is merely a preemptive rejection of certain possible conclusions that philosophy might arrive at. Secularism is a philosophy that does not seek to understand, merely one that rejects what is not understood.
tryanmax, I think you've put your finger on a real problem. There is no reason secularism must be that way. It's the same thing with atheism. Belief in God is not a prerequisite for morality or philosophy or anything of the sort. In fact, you could argue it's the better basis to start with because it requires you to "help yourself" and find answers that work rather than relying on answers provided by people in the past who claimed they heard it from God.
BUT... that's not really how either secularism or atheism seem to work anymore. Instead, they have become devoted to being anti-religious and little else. But that's neither useful nor constructive. Indeed, what good does it do to just stand up and say "not what you think!"
I think the progressives are suffering from this too -- intellectual failure. In the past, they at least had ideas of things they wanted to achieve which they believed would improve the world. These were based on economic and social theories. But now they are just opposed to things -- anti-capitalism, anti-Americanism, etc. And when they are pro-anything, it's just greed and spite. In effect, their movement has collapsed as a legitimate intellectual movement and it's turned into a mob... hence, OWS.
Indi and tryanmax, Let me add something else....
I find it amazing that many people who claim to be secularists and who attack religious people will then suddenly start speaking in religious tones and become almost messianically obsessed when they encounter someone like Obama. It's downright startling and pretty darn creepy. It's one thing to believe there is order in the universe and there is a being that provides this order.... it's quite another to worship a human being as a god.
Andrew -
You probably figured this out already but when I mention my own secular upbringing, I simply mean that religion didn't play a big part (or part, period) in the household. I still identify as Jewish, I was still bar mitzvahed (as was my brother) and confirmed, and I plan on sending my future kid(s) to Hebrew school.
Religion simply doesn't play a role in my daily life as it does in that of others. I wasn't raised to actively dislike religion and while it's hard for me to take some of it seriously (thanks to the talking heads and loudmouths on TV), I have to remind myself that religious people run the gamut from good to bad and back again. And I should know since I went to film school with both kinds. :-)
What I never understood, and this probably deserves another article, is why do people automatically assume that those who don't believe in God will instead shift their belief to the state? I don't think it's a binary equation.
Scott, That's a good point and let me clarify that I'm not talking about the group you are talking about and count yourself part of.
You are like most people I know, who just don't really think about religion much. They have faith or they don't, but either way it just doesn't affect their day to day lives very much. Those aren't the people I'm talking about in my comments above.
I'm talking about (for lack of a better word) "aggressive secularists." A good example of that would be Nancy Pelosi, who constantly professes to be a "good Catholic" but not only rejects everything the Church requires, but she is constantly looking for ways to yank religion from the public sphere or to force it to bend to her will. That's who I'm talking about: people who object to the word "God" on the currency and who want crosses removed from graves or religious statues removed from public parks where they've been for a hundred years because they claim they have a right to keep others from mentioning their faith.
Those are the people who are trying to eliminate religion because it stands in the way of the government. Those are the people who want government to become savior and provider. These are also the people who seem intent on mocking people like Tebow for his religious belief.
To me, it's not the belief/non-belief/or indifference that matters in this debate, it's whether or not the person respects the rights of others to make up their own minds. Indeed, I have no more tolerance for someone looking to ban religious people from speaking their minds than I do for religious people who claim atheists are sick. To me, that's all crap. Everyone has a right to their own beliefs and we should respect those rights and I don't respect anyone who can't deal with the fact that others have different beliefs.
Good overview of the long weekends happenings.
But, Item Two: The double entendre’s gave me a chuckle whether intentional or not.
I’m not a particularly religious person, but I find myself cheering on Tebow, because it pisses off liberals.
Thanks Stan!
It was intentional... I couldn't resist. :)
I agree with you on Tebow. If it upsets liberals this much, then it's worth supporting! LOL!
On the anti-Christian/radical secularism thing:
I think this quote by Unknown Friend best sums up these radical leftards:
"All forms of radical secularism can create only the wings of Icarus."
Ironically, radical secularists, along with militant atheists (many which call themselves humanists, although they are actually infra-humanist) are indeed religious.
It's just that their religion or cult, if you will is their ideology.
And their ideology, since it has no God or gods make them gods.
A hierarchy from the bottom up.
Which largely explains why they wanna control people so much and force them to do what they think is best.
I consider Obama to be a radical secularist despite his claims of being a Christian.
Let's face it, no Christian would ever go to the church he went to for 20 years.
That church was merely a stepping stone in his career.
Just look at how quickly he threw his "spiritual advisor" under the bus!
I think Obama's fetish for Islam is a result of Islam's popularity among the PC/multi-cult left.
His actions while in office have also been anti-Israel, so it's not just Christians he has disdain for.
As for the leftist sportswriters and reporters: It is sickening how they have singled out Tebow and I think it's hilarious how close to a breakdown many of them seem to be that the kid is defying their idiotic predictions and inspiring his team to win.
I think most football fans see through their hypocritical BS and thinly veiled hatred for Christianity.
Great post Andrew!
On Frankenweenie:
"Rather than blow his money in a possibly embarrassing loss, he decided to abandon ship and make off with his ill-gotten booty."
IRT Frank's boyfriend,
I'm surprised anyone would want to share in Franks ill-gotten booty.
I mean, seriously. Frank did to our economy what he did to his booty.
Just sayin'.
On the super-con-mitee:
I concur with Thomas Sowell, this ended up hurting the GOP more than the democrats.
Plus, it's always a bad idea for Congress to abdicate their responsibility and give it to some stupid group, super or not.
That's how we ended up with all these alphabet agencies that now ignore Congress and the will of the American people, and do not represent us since they can't be voted in or out.
On Clon Powell:
Yep! He's an ass. And yes, I would like to see the GOP disown RINO's like Powell.
I'm all for a big tent, but we don't want sabateurs that seek to tear down our tent and that have absolutely nothin' in common with conservatives.
Why does Powell even bother to call himself a Republican? Can't get a gig as a democrat?
Thanks Ben! I agree, it's been fun watching the near-break downs as well. There are some sportswriters who are just twisting themselves into pretzels trying to explain why Tebow can't be doing what he's doing. . . and always blaming his idiot "Tebowmaniac" fans in the process. It must suck when reality isn't your friend.
(By the way, I read a really good analyis the other day on why Tebow can do what he's doing -- he's basically doing something which has worked in the past in the NFL. (LINK)
I know a lot of people think Obama is a secret Muslim or whatever, but I don't. I think he's a militant secularist. And I agree with you about his church. I don't think anyone who was looking for anything other than a hate-group would have spent time at Wright's church.
The word "humanist" has always confused me because I see nothing "humane" about their beliefs. It seems to be merely a word for "angry skeptic without intellectual rigor."
And let me add, I'm a big fan of skeptics. I don't think anything should be taken on faith. But it's amazing how often these particular skeptics just substitute one "faith" for another.
Ben, Don't forget that Frank's boyfriend got caught running a gay brothel out of Frank's DC condo.
Very true about the alphabet agencies. Those are the direct result of Congress abdicating its responsibility and that needs to be undone.
I don't know if it hurt the GOP or Dems more, or if it just turned into a non-event. I suspect it's just another forgotten issue that represents more of a lost opportunity than anything.
Ben, On Powell, I've always said that there's plenty of room in the party for conservatives and moderates... but there's no room for disloyalty and Powell is disloyal. He is constantly attacking the party, supporting the Democrats, and then even endorsing the Democrats. That's disloyalty and he should be dumped post haste. If the Democrats want him, they can have him, but we should not be sticking with him.
I used to wonder how ancient peoples could form societies around the worship of men. I usedto.
I think the messianic adoration of Obama, esp. by the secular left, is just evidence of a very real human need to worship something. Psychology certainly recognizes this as real, devoting much study to the issue--interestingly, some psychologists have even suggested that sports may be replacing religion.
To this extent, secularism does nothing to prevent what its proponents claim it is the antidote for: blind acceptance of unproven authority. The charismatic secular leader can just as easily enchant the masses to follow his bidding. Neither is he a more honest spellbinder just because he has discarded a particular tool from his belt. He may instead invoke his superior mind, his stronger hand, his number of friends as his claim to authority, though none may be greater than any other man's.
You know, the more I consider it, the problem that I personally have with the notion of secularism is that, given to scrutiny, it more and more resembles a religion itself.
Funniest post eva!
tryanmax, I am often shocked at how easily people fall for a charismatic leader. Everything from cult leaders to presidents to fuhrers, a large portion of the population simply locates an authority figure and follows them "religiously." This is the troubling story of human history. I guess it's the herd instinct gone wrong.
In fact, I've even noticed people who do this in their daily lives -- people who assume that if they are told something by an expert on television, then it must be true because only someone smarter and better would ever be designated an "expert" by "the authorities".
I find this highly disturbing thinking.
On secularists, I've known both kinds. Some simply replacing one God with another, but others actually are trying to be purely rational. But those people also aren't out there insulting other people or advocating stupid theories just because people they worship are telling them to. Unfortunately, the rationalists are much fewer in number than the other group.
Thanks CrisD! :)
Andrew:
Yes, you are right about humanists today. Originally, I believe they were for universal human rights with our Constitution as a blueprint, but it has been hijacked by (who else?) leftists and has become a hotbed of militant, angry, suckular atheists.
BTW, I have nothin' against atheists that also respect everyone elses rights.
I only have a problem with those who seek to take away mine or anyone elses rights and liberties.
Real atheists don't give a fig about religion nor do they hate it and obsess about doing away with it.
Why hate something they don't believe in?
Whereas militant atheists who have an irrational anger towards religion have unresolved issues, to put it mildly, and really do need therapy.
Ben, The truth is we don't know what's true and what isn't when it comes to big questions like the creation of life or the universe. So there's no point in getting upset when people disagree with us. And there's really no room for people to insist that anyone who doesn't agree with them is sick or stupid or crazy.
I think you're right about humanists originally. Originally, they were about human rights, secular constitutions and expanding the freedom of the individual as compared to the institutions of state, i.e. the government and the church.
But over time, they've drifted into something different. These days you have rationalists, who are similar to what humanists started as and you have anti-religion humanists who really don't believe in much except "not-God."
You are right about the rationalists being few and far between. I consider myself a Christian rationalist and I have been remanded by more than one pastor on more than one occasion for having "dangerous" ideas. I shudder to think what might have become of me in a darker age. I suspect my crime is in believing that God might reveal Himself to me if I seek Him in earnest.
It is my simple logic that a rational God would not demand irrational behavior from His creation, nor would he foist illogical ideas upon them. Thus, I search for rationality in Hebrew and Christian scripture and expect to find it. In a way, I feel a kinship with the honest atheist and hold the highest hope for him.
But as you said, the rationalists are few. It seems that far more are content to go through motions they do not question, pledging allegiance to powers they desire not to comprehend. I guess that comes back to it being hip to be apathetic. Even Obama tingles are predicated on an apathy toward who the man really is.
The so-called humanists are ironically moving toward utilitarianism, the least humanist philosophy ever devised.
tryanmax, I share your view on this. And that is exactly what has bothered me for years -- the number of people who profess beliefs (religious, atheistic, political or otherwise) but don't understand their beliefs and never question their own beliefs or what they are told. We have tremendous abilities to think and reason and we should always use those.
And like you, I cannot believe that a God who has given the universe order and given us the power to understand that order would then want us to ignore that power and blindly accept irrational things. I simply do not accept that. That to me, is user error -- it is human misinterpretation.
You're right too about what would have happened in the Middle Ages (or in Saudi Arabia today) -- you would be branded a heretic and probably killed. Sad, isn't it? But even more sad is that many people even in the West would probably accept the same conclusion today if it were levied... look at how liberals want to treat global warming "deniers."
I don't dislike anyone (religious, atheist or otherwise) but I intensely dislike people who won't think.
I had a college professor who was big on utilitarianism. It definitely has its appeal, but it doesn't really make for a very structured society or a structured set of rules. And I think of most of the philosophical milestones, it's probably one of the easiest to twist.
Tryanmax:
I'm of the same mind in that regard towards metaphysics, religion and philosophy.
In the Meister Eckhart vein towards religion (he had quite a sense of humor but it was lost on most of the Church and political authorities of his time).
I think the biggest reason we are seeing more sheep than sheepdogs (more than there used to be at any rate) is because our public education system discourages critical thinking.
In fact, it's become, in large part, merely a propaganda institution that not only discourages critical thinking but teaches mostly garbage (and punishes those who question the status quo).
That's in stark contrast to our classically educated Founding Fathers, who, I dare say were not only wiser but much smarter (and more informed historically) than virtually all of our leaders today.
Only some private and some religious schools still teach kids how to think and how to think critically.
It would be nice if we got more politicians effectively communicating the need for school choice, and it would be easy because most Americans want it.
They know our public education system sucks.
Randians and conservative, secular Jews are the only rationalistic atheists I have found for the most part (also not on a jihad to eradicate religion).
One easy way to determine where secularists (or anyone for that matter) is coming from is to ask them where our rights and liberties come from.
Conservatives will say God or Nature whereas everyone else will say the State or government.
Those that say the State are the ones that are dangerous to liberty and, consequently, civilization.
Ben, I suspect it's actually a combination of things. First, it seems that no matter what the issue, 80% of the public will join the herd. Another 10% will lead in a positive way, and the other 10% will try to create chaos. This seems to be true in all human endeavors -- even how people respond during airplane crashes.
Secondly, I think as our society has gotten more compartmentalized, people need to use their own judgment less. In the past, if you didn't use your own judgment (and it wasn't good), you would starve or get eaten by a bear or die in the wild somewhere. But these days, you can literally go your entire life without ever having to use your own mind -- you just plug yourself into the system, pass paper from one cubicle to the next, draw a check and never once have to make even the smallest decision or take the smallest risk.
I think these two factors have allowed the 80% who are sheep at heart become complete sheep.
Add in a media that helps these people engage in self-deception by assuring them that they are being their own person as they follow the herd, and you've got a recipe to turn most people into mindless followers who don't even realize they are no longer individuals.
Andrew:
That was a superb article on Tebow and the triple option!
This part was particularly insightful:
“While many wondered whether Tebow might be the guy to bring the spread option to the NFL,” Brown wrote, “few thought it would be because his team was terrible, his coaches were too scared to let him pass, and the organization didn’t believe in him enough to care whether he got beat up doing it.”
"Actually, if you think about it a little, these are the only conditions under which any organization in any sport would grudgingly grant a chance to succeed to an unconventional approach like Tebow’s approach. Innovation--including Yeoman's veer option, Royal's and Bellard's wishbone option, and Walsh's West Coast Offense--only gets a chance when everything else fails and an organization has absolutely nothing to lose by saying, "What the heck, go ahead and give your crazy idea a try."
If Bill Walsh were still alive, he undoubtedly would agree with the QuantCoach, as Walsh himself turned to the wishbone triple option on one dire occasion."
The whole thing was very well written. I also like that he mentioned the coach who designed the counter:
Coach Tom Landry's 4-3 flex defense which he designed to stop Coach Lombardi's power sweep which is similar to the triple option.
Of course it's still depends on the execution of the plays.
And it's amazing how much morale, motivation and confidence make such a huge difference.
Often that's how a "terrible" team defeats a very talented and successful team.
As Coach Ditka said:
It's not always the best teams that make it to the Superbowl, it's the teams that play the best in the playoffs.
I doubt Denver will get that far but I think they can make it to the playoffs and win the AFC West.
And who knows? It is possible to go further.
It would be fun to watch all the sportswriters and sportcaster meltdowns so although I'm not a Bronco fan I hope they win the rest of their games.
For the schadenfreude, lol.
Ben, I thought it was a great article too -- very interesting to see the historical context and that this is hardly something "new." And it's extremely interesting to see the Tom Landry connection.
I like that site because they do a lot of really deep analysis rather than the puff stuff you find at places like Yahoo or ESPN. They're especially good at bringing up historical parallels and at taking the fame bias out of their analysis and telling you who/what is really working and why rather than just telling you "they have this famous guy and so we think they're cool." (Plus, they have a pretty funny sense of humor.)
P.S. I don't know if Denver can get to the playoffs or not, I kind of doubt it. But it would be great to see that and watch the critics' heads explode. Can you imaging the horror! LOL!
Thanks for the link!
Kevin Braig sets a standard that all sportswriters should aspire to.
It's refreshing to see a well researched, interesting and informing article that doesn't devolve into the bottom feeding that most sportswriters and sportscasters resort to out of laziness, pettiness and envy.
Because I don't care about a reporters opinion of Christianity. I just want the facts.
Braig goes further by weaving the facts and history of the game into an interesting story.
Brilliant! :^)
Yes, very good Tebow article. Braig clearly has an appreciation for the game that most commentators lack. Clearly he cannot be an expert as he demonstrates an abiding interest in sports.
Just heard Michael Savage drop a funny line against all those who tout the "nominate the most electable" baloney.
"If you think a fat, old, white guy is more electable than a thin, young, black man, you're nuts."
Ben, I'm glad you like it. I definitely recommend the site. It's not your typical site with lots of pictures and fast stories, but it's got some truly fascinating analysis... and I mean that word literally for once.
Too often the analysis at sports sites is "I looked up the names of the famous players and I check out two stats that proved my point." These guys go much deeper and actually crunch some numbers, delve into the history, and tell you what they think it means without shading it to get the generic talking points. It really is what the pros should be aiming for instead of just repeating conventional wisdom like it's something they just came up with.
I first found the site maybe 5-8 years ago and have visited it every week. A couple years back, they got famous enough that Sports Illustrated actually partnered with them -- before that they were just amateurs. Fortunately, they didn't let that change them and they've kept right on doing what they were always doing.
tryanmax, That just means Braig is overqualified! ;)
That is a pretty funny line.
Commentarians, be aware: We have had our revenge. T-Rav has fallen victim to our Black Friday Sockpuppet Aisle ambush. Let's just say, he never saw that flagpole coming. Don't expect him around this week, he's got to find his way out of the crawlspace first. Unless there's a debate coming up, then maybe we'll think about tossing him the key. Perhaps he'll have learned his lesson. It's called karma, baby.
Dear sock-Cats,
I thought T-Rav got arrested for pepper spraying shoppers? Maybe that was the Boiler Elves?
Don't even tell me there's another debate! I need a debate-break. In fact, I think all of America needs a debate break! Or maybe we should change the format.... have them all use Muppets or dress like sports team mascots?!
Ha! I thought this line by Nate Winkler (at Cold Hard Football Facts) was hilarious!
"Watching Tim Tebow play quarterback is like getting a root canal at a strip club. Excruciatingly painful yet wildly entertaining at the same time. For the fifth time in the last six weeks, the quarterback - incarnate has led the Denver Broncos from temptation and delivered them from defeat."
Okay, now I hafta watch the next Bronco game. Mostly because I've never had a root canal at a strip club...and it does sound wildly entertaining, lol.
I also like the new nickname for the Broncos offense:
The Orange Rush
Dear Karma Kitties,
Thank you for the update. Can you tell us if T-Rav has been brain damaged from the flagpole fuwhumpin'? More than usual I mean.
Thank you and long live the Karma Kitties.
Ben, I read that too and laughed quite a bit at that. It's oddly accurate! :)
Cats rule the world!!!
There was a phrase being tossed about that I thought was particularly apt: "evangelical atheists". Esp. after a good friend went from being a Indep.-Baptist-pastor's-wife/Christian to a purposefully-divorced atheist... there is no one so committed as the converted!
Anyway, while I think that the term is a little unfair in connotation to Evangelicals, I think that there is some truth to the concept of atheists/ secularists/ humanists pushing their agenda - they are more "theocratic" than even Pat Robertson! (with god being the state or the process or whatever they feel is important this week)
good to be back!
Totally OT-
lawyers & doctors (and others with opinions)in Commentarama:
in your wide experience, are pedophiles ever really "cured"? with Penn State, Syracuse, and other local topics, this question was raised...
rlaWTX, On the converted, you're absolutely right -- the converted are usually the most aggressive about their new beliefs, whatever those beliefs are (be it religion, anti-religion, sports, politics, etc.).
rlaWTX, Not only are they never cured, but in my experience, they aren't even remorseful. People think they get beaten to a pulp in prison, but I've had clients tell me that the prisons are full of these guys and they are proud of what they did. It's really sick.
But the answer is, no, they are never cured. In fact, like all "addicted behavior," I think it gets stronger over time and it demands greater intensity.
What do you think?
I think that you are right, esp since it tends to be about power more than sex...
and that's pretty disappointing about prison! (probably the wrong reaction...)
Thanks for the viewpoint.
rlaWTX, I agree with you, it is disappointing. And when you hear that these guys don't find prison miserable, you start to realize how little prison really works as a deterrent to bad people. It's only a deterrent to good people who probably won't commit crime anyway.
Post a Comment