Sorry to have slackened the pace on posting. Pretty much unavoidable.
I’m in a hospital in Savannah. I had sinus surgery late yesterday. (You know that headache I’ve had for the past year? It’s about that.)
Anyway, I’m sitting here having been dismissed by my physician, but waiting for the hospital gears to finish grinding to the point that they’ll let me go. You know the drill.
I hope to be back in the normal swing of things in a day or two. Just not today.
Take care, folks. And as your mama might have said, Be sweet to each other.
Related Posts
Even if you’re a misguided extremist ideologue, I’ll still wish you a swift recovery and hope that this will solve your sinus problems.
Maybe Mary Rosh is right about SC being backwards, seeing that you have to go out-of-state to Savannah for what would seem to be a simple operation. Maybe Jake Knotts should have pushed for a sinus surgery center in Lexington County instead of a heart surgery center.
Hopefully the operation cures what ails you and soon.
Curl up in your best hidey-hole, eat lots of stuff that’s bad for you, read stacks and stacks of your favorite trashy novels, whine a lot, and insist on maximum petting from all your favorite people. Happy recovery!
Sounds like an excellent plan, Lily.
Brad, at least it’s not a turn your head and cough procedure.
Brad, at least you weren’t at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Which one of these doesn’t seem to fit?
“rebuilding the family by rebuilding the man.” by Rev. Peterson
The ‘systematic de-Christianization’ of our public schools and public policy – Pat Buchanan
“the world that God made is back,” – Bill Bennett
“I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot'” – Anne Coulter
Amusingly, she also stated, “Liberals are total sexists.” after she had approached the podium to Roy Orbison’s “Pretty Woman”
Randy,
Coulter’s comment might have been tasteless and inappropriate but try as she might it’s hard to beat Bill Maher’s being disappointed that our vice president wasn’t assassinated!
Brad,
the ersatz Gandalf beard is gone — hallelujah!!
Was Maher invited to speak on behalf of a democratic group?
Coulter didn’t speak on behalf of anyone. She simply did her regular shtick.
Now what about Bill Maher who is closely identified with the Dems?
She’s a mouth piece for the Conservatives which is why she was a key not speaker.
If he’s so “closely identified” with the dems, which major democratic faction invited him to be a key note speaker?
Bill Maher is a mouthpiece for the Dems. Coulter was repudiated by several Reps today. Which Dem repudiated Maher for his much more offensive comments?
What democratic faction invited Bill Maher to be a key note speaker so he could do his “shtick”?
He doesn’t need to be invited. He’s a Dem.
I also note that Coulter has been roundly condemned while I have yet to hear anything but defense of Maher from you.
I’ve defended Maher? LOL, he’s a vitriolic in sharting his anti-Catholic views. I simply stated that he has not been invited to be a key note speaker for a major democractic faction.
Anne Coulter was invited by CONSERVATIVES to do her “shtick”. Using your rationale, why was she invited if she’s a republican, Lex?
Technically, Coulter did not call Breck Boy anything, so what’s the fuss all about?
Dave, as a Christian you find no fault in the use of that hateful term?
Bill Maher was playing devil’s advocate. He didn’t specifically say he wished the assassination attempt had succeeded. Maher’s timing and the words he chose should have been more carefully chosen but the message he was trying to convey was not out of line. He simply suggested that because of the policies of the VP people are dying needlessly. Everyone who opposes the Iraq war accepts that premise. Frankly, the evidence supporting that is overwhelming so why not say it? Context Lex and Dave. Context.
As for Coulter. She’s been spouting off her vile crap for years and she keeps getting invited to GOP events and appearing on right-wing TV and radio. She goes out of her way, even to the point of writing books, to smear democrats with the most outrageous charges.
Yes, that’s a part of her schtick. That’s the point. Her regular schtick is hate speech and should be condemned by everyone in the GOP. People like Sean Hannity should not have her on their shows.
Bill Maher is a mouthpiece for the Dems
That’s a load of crap, Lex.
Why in the world would anyone care or be the least bit concerned about how the left views conservatives in light of this? The same people that think Bush knew about the 9-11 attacks in advance, or carried them out himself, and wish we lose the war in Iraq, or proudly proclaim they hate Republicans, or never, ever, criticize one of their own in public, have no standing to offer criticism on this matter. None.
Brad,
I feel for you. I know how painful chronic sinusitis can be and how difficult the surgery can be as well. I hope your recovery is a speedy one and that you get a good result. BTW, how have all your detractors missed the opportunity to make some crack about you being snotty?!
Thanks, Dr. Paul. But I’m probably doing better than you think.
There’s a new procedure, just a couple of years old, called balloon sinuplasty. Just like the angioplasty, just in a different place. Much less invasive, much less fuss, much less recovery time. That’s what I went there for. The specialist down there was recommended by an allergist here.
Still too soon to know what the result is. I know already it’s unlikely to cure all my problems, but I’m hoping for improvement.
Randy, Ann Coulter isnt spending our tax dollars. I am more perturbed by my tax dollars funding Piss Christ, aren’t you? I believe in free speech so she can say what she wants, as long as I’m not paying for it. She’s a pundit, not an elected official.
Mitt tells CPAC wingnuts to cheers:
“I’m happy to learn that after you hear from me you’ll hear from Ann Coulter. That is a good thing.”
Then Coulter, again to exuberant cheers, endorses Mitt as “our best candidate.”
Run, Mitt, run!
I’m more perturbed that my tax dollars are being spent on the Iraq “War” with injured soldiers in Walter Reed being mistreated.
This doesn’t preclude criticism of our elected officials, in attendance for typical Coulter shtick, who let her hateful statement pass – particularly Dick Cheney. I wonder if Romney will accept Coulter’s endorsement which is close at hand.
I find it sad that some will nuance her statements with red herrings about unrelated issues.
I’m more perturbed that my tax dollars are being spent on the Iraq “War” with injured soldiers in Walter Reed being mistreated.
This doesn’t preclude criticism of our elected officials, in attendance for typical Coulter shtick, who let her hateful statement pass – particularly Dick Cheney. I wonder if Romney will accept Coulter’s endorsement which is close at hand.
I find it sad that some will nuance her statements with red herrings about unrelated issues.
It constantly amazes me how liberals rage on about every inefficiency of big government bureaucracy; re: Defense Department, HUD, Transportation, Health (flu shot mess), FEMA and on and on. Yet, their solution to every potential problem in the US is turn to another US Postal Service lookalike be it Universal Health Care, Education, whatever. Can someone explain the inconsistency here?
Randy, Coulter is getting rich selling books, not making public policy. You have to admit she has the knack for the sound bite. She is great.
Dave, it’s a free country and Ann Coultergiese is free to say what she wants about public figures. She has the freedom to say the 9-11 widows enjoyed their husband’s deaths. She’s free to call John Edwards a faggot. She’s free to suggest we should take over middle eastern countries and convert them all to Christians. And yes, she’s free to make money by spouting off this stuff.
But what conservatives should understand is that when someone that vile is invited to speak at supposedly main stream GOP events, such as CPAC, it reflects on that organization. Or when that she’s invited, repeatidly to discuss policy issues on Fox News then Fox News is likewise tainted by her appearance. To introduce her in the manner he did (at CPAC) suggests a character weakness on the part of Mitt Romney.
The only conclusion I can reach is that CPAC, Mitt Romney and Fox News don’t consider her remarks offensive. Otherwise they would not continue to accept her in the context of a mainstream policy analyst and/or speaker. That shows that right-wing organizations are themselves offensive conduits for pushing insidious ideas, even to the point of policy, into the public arena. This suggest that the GOP itself is nothing but a biggoted party that caters only to the interests of a few well-healed individuals and the rest of the American people be damned.
The only solution is to support the Democratic party. With all its flaws the Dems at least represent the American ideals as set forth by the founding fathers. Unless you’re filthy rich to vote GOP is to vote against yours and the country’s best interests.
“The only solution is to support the Democratic party. With all its flaws the Dems at least represent the American ideals as set forth by the founding fathers.”
Does that include killing unborn children and enslaving generations of people through entitlements, along with the Marxist concept of income redistribution?
Man, I need to re-read that Constitution.
Wrong country.
Maybe wrong planet.
You’d better check your solar system first.
Taken together the culture of life issues strongly favor the liberals over conservatives. Dems support removing our troops from Iraq, oppose the death penalty, support reasonable gun control legislation, support policies that prevent unwanted pregnancy (and hence reduce the population of women who might seek abortion), support single payer national health insurance, support worker safety regulations, support tough pollution laws, and support public smoking bans. All of these policies would lead to fewer pre-mature deaths.
On the other hand, the only policy supported by conservatives that even addresses the so-called culture of life is their zealous opposition to abortion. Even that issue may actually lead to additional deaths for women getting dangerous, illegal abortions. And most conservatives actually have exceptions that would allow abortions.
The Democratic party is the only party that currently has both the power and the core policy positions that will lead to a positive difference in the lives of most Americans. Sadly, the GOP is run by people that have only their own or their rich friends interests at heart. Don’t be fooled by their grand platitudes made on the stump. It’s all just a well coordinated marketing scheme.
^^ LOL!!!
“Culture of life issues?”
I’ve got milk spewing out of my nose.
If you find abortion “okay”, then you’ve pretty much lost any credibility when it comes to the “culture of life” issues.
No where in your litany of goodness was the term “personal responsibility.” And why should there be.
Liberals are largely secular, moral relativists who disdain, if not outright hate anything religious, which is really at the heart of their collective bitterness.
Their goal is to make everything the same, so that nothing is wrong.
Trajan writes:
”
Liberals are largely secular, moral relativists who disdain, if not outright hate anything religious, which is really at the heart of their collective bitterness.
”
Prove it. Besides who’s bitter? Not liberals. With the good guys in charge of congress things are slowly moving in the right direction. I think it’s the conservatives who are acting like a bunch of sore losers.
Of course you don’t address the points I brought up. Conservatives are good at dodging legitimate questions, especially when it comes to the culture of life. Take the death penalty. Now if ever there was an issued that defined life it’s the death penalty. There isn’t any evidence that the death penalty deters crime, yet conservatives persist in promoting it as if it did. The end result is dozens of ghastly and unnecessary deaths each year to satisfy some blood lust impulses of conservatives.
The bottom line is this: If liberal policies were fully implemented there would
actually be far fewer abortions than there are now and far, far fewer than what would occur if the far right were to have complete control. We’ve been down this whole abortion thing lots of times on Brad’s blog and not one conservative has outlined a workable anti-abortion plan. It simply sounds good to say you’re pro-life and bash liberals as baby killers. But when it comes down to the nuts and bolts of designing a policy it quickly becomes apparent that the fundemental morality of this issue quickly leads to the logical conclusion that the best place to handle this difficult decision is with the mother to be.
On the culture of life issues the liberals win by a country mile.
“She is great.” – Dave in reference to Coulter and her deragatory comment.
Dave, how can you as a Christian support such a comment?
Look at who’s running in the democratic party and who’s running in the republican party. Which represents the diversity of our country? The dems have a Hispanic, an African American, and a woman running for PRESIDENT!
Does that include killing unborn children and enslaving generations of people through entitlements, along with the Marxist concept of income redistribution? – Trajan
The entitlement enslavement is nice hyperbole. There are problems with the system and the head of the GAO is warning about the US going broke because of the excesses.
Regardless, the culture of life should include care for those who are down and out. I lost my job once and filed for unemployment. It helped me tread water until I was back on my feet.
Trajan, I believe religious faith would entail both care for the unborn children and for those who are down and out. Certainly that is Jesus’ position. He speaks more of poverty than any othe issue. Tell him your position on “income redistribution”.
Well said, Randy.
There are some passages, that, in my experience, rarely get touched on in the average Sunday morning sermon. Here is one of them:
Communism actually had its origin in the early church:
The actual application of it didn’t hold more than a generation–it never can without renewed spiritual vision. But a Christian can never get away from the principle–which St.Paul urged in his mix of Jewish-Gentile church plants.
Our problem is that we lack any real sense of spiritual fervor, I fear. We are slaves to money more than we know.
Randy, I don’t know but it seems to me that Jesus would take a decidedly dim view of hypocritical politicians taking his name in vain in this fashion:
Edwards: Jesus Would Be ‘Appalled’
CHAPEL HILL, N.C. (AP) — Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards says Jesus would be appalled at how the United States has ignored the plight of the suffering, and that he believes children should have private time to pray at school.
Edwards, in an interview with the Web site Beliefnet.com, said Jesus would be most upset with the selfishness of Americans and the country’s willingness to go to war “when it’s not necessary.”
“I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs,” Edwards told the site. “I think he would be appalled, actually.”
Going by this picture of his 28,000 Sqft mansion, Our boy Edwards certainly doesn’t seem to have done much suffering himself!
“Communism actually had its origin in the early church:
All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. (Acts 2:44-45)
There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold.(Acts 4:34)
The actual application of it didn’t hold more than a generation”
Of course it didn’t, and even a generation is way exaggerated. There wouldn’t have been any “lands or houses” to be sold if they hadn’t first been accumulated, and who would accumulate a bunch of lands and houses if they couldn’t be kept to dispose as he/she saw fit? The only result communism has ever had is that everyone was equally miserable, except the elite, of course, which is always a little “more equal” under any system.
Communism has never worked in the long run, anywhere, anytime. In the short run, of course, communists could survive on what was accumulated before they took over. After a year or two, though, it was endless misery.
Even the Mayflower pilgrims started out with a communist-type system where everything was community property. Once they almost starved to death because people saw no need to overly exert themselves (after all, the hardest worker received just as much/little as the laziest), the new colony quickly converted to individual ownership and capitalism and the world has been a much better place ever since.
I would also point out that once Christianity became dominant in the 4th and 5th century, the Western World went through a thousand years of the Dark Ages and stagnation before reformers like Calvin started emphasizing the individual ownership and responsibility parts of the New Testament. The results over the 500 some years since then have been absolutely stunning.
Lex, spin as much as you might, you’re not going to paint Christianity as an endorsement of capitalism.
Clearly Jesus directed us to look after orphans, widows, and others who are down and out. In the Bible there is admonishment for storing up wealth that can “rot away” and a call to give our “first fruits”.
Speaking of Calvin, Deacons in his church played the role of overseeing “anti-poverty” programs. The responsibility to which you refer includes the responsibility to look after those in need.
Finally, the beginning of the “Dark Ages” also coincided with the fall of Rome. It ended with the Scientific Revolution. Current academics use “Dark Ages” as a neutral term, with Medieval as a common alternative. There has been wide reevaluation of this period with a conclusion that this was not a time of backwardness. The negative connotation seems to refer more to the lack of communication between parts of the post Roman and pre-Gutenberg world.
Regarding Edwards, I am put off by his message of two Americas with his America including a NC version of Versailles. It reminds me of William Bennett gambling away $3 million – a terrible mixed message.
As a Catholic, I am repulsed by his handling of the anti-Catholic blogger issue. If they had simply taken a very critical and even harsh view of the Catholic Church, retaining them would have been appropriate. Their vile postings were hateful and profoundly innappropriate and required more than an almost glib response, “everyone deserves a fair shake”.
We are probably closer to one another on this issue than we realize, I would think. Lex is right, in that coercion is never Jesus’ way, which is what I meant in reference to “renewed spiritual vision.” Legislating sharing is always a tricky business.
Which brings us down to the main issue at hand, I believe, which is that of church and state. The two don’t mix well, as seen in the Catholic church burning Jan Hus at the stake, or in Calvin’s likeminded treatment of Servetus. The church does best when it has little or no political power, but at the same time seeks to influence the political situation for good. It there was a “Dark Ages,” as such (and Randy makes good point on this), it was essentially caused by a church that achieved political power, and used it to maintain the status quo.
The church should primarily be the state’s critic, and not its ally. It is possible to carry the church-state separation too far. For a Christian to totally separate church and state is to deny that Jesus is Lord of all, which we clearly cannot do. Jesus speaks to the powers that be, just like the OT prophets spoke, not only to Israel, but to the surrounding nations as well. And they didn’t mince words. Try this:
To hand government over to the libertarians and their free markets is clearly unbiblical and naive–it assumes that man is basically good and will always treat his fellow man well, if you just leave him alone. He will not–as history gives ample evidence.
Equally bad is handing government over to the despots, for the same reason. Working out a balance is the hard job we have to do in each generation, each with it’s own unique context and challenges.
Jesus was quite a liberal.
Isn’t it a bit disingenuous for Edwards to harp on “Two Americas” when it’s clear which America he’s residing in?
When Pat Robertson describes his “conversations with God” he’s dismissed as a looney.
When Breck Boy does it, he’s some type of wise old sage with Jesus’ ear.
Just seems a bit phoney, kinda like Hillary’s southern accent mixed with ebonics.
The difference between the top Dem candidates compared to the big 3 of the GOP is quite remarkable. For the Dems we have:
A former first lady with 6+ years experience in the senate. She is incredibly bright, articulate and very well qualified. Also, she’s been scrutinized endlessly by investigation after investigation by ruthless, partisan hacks who have come up empty. Try as they might the right wing spin machine has nothing to smear her with. But they will certainly try.
An extremely articulate, brilliant Illinois Senator. Although inexperienced, Barack Obama is exceptionally well gifted and would make a fine president.
A former North Carolina senator who stands head and shoulder above anyone in his vision for the future.
A long-term Delaware Senator who is very astute and knowledgeable in practically every phase of politics. Although lacking the charisma of Obama, Mr. Biden’s experience should not be overlooked when deciding on a president.
Campare this fine slate of choices, any of whom would be an enormous improvement over the Decider, to the laughing-stock bumpkins from the GOP:
A septagenerian war-monger.
A flip-flopping pandorer.
A cousin marrying creep.
This should be not contest.
The last line in should read:
This should be no contest.
My assignment for the day has been completed. I’ve got the infamous board troll “telling me about me”.
What is almost scary is that I sense that you guys actually believe yourselves.
Mary, shouldn’t you be changing sheets at the VA?
For anyone who doesn’t understand the references to the Breck Girl, here’s a great video to clue you in.
Did anyone hear Oxymoron Limbaugh yesterday? Now there is a guy who has completely lost touch with reality. He’s claiming the president and VP didn’t fight for Libby harder because they feared prosecution from the partisan prosecutor. He’s also claiming the Libby conviction will arouse the ire of the dormant right-wing majority in America and the left should expect a backlash.
Bud, the conservative rags are calling for a pardon. I’d like to see the voter backlash to that.
Limbaugh’s comments about Fox and calling Obama a “Halfrican American” reflect some serious hate. I think he’s in competition with Coulter. Great respresentative for the party of “family values”.
Personally, I think Libby got a raw deal. Cheney should have been on trial. Nonetheless, the jury made great efforts to weigh the evidence and found him guilty.
It’s kind of funny. For six years, all the GOP could say to the Democrats was “You lost. Get over it.” If the Repubs don’t get over their loss soon, the country may give them something to really cry about in ’08.
I think Wilson and Plame should have been on trial for their serial lies. Even the far-left Washington Post seems to agree. That whole bogus prosecution should have been over in a minute, just as soon as Fitzgerald found out that (1) Plame wasn’t covert and (2) Armitage, not Libby, blabbed about her identity.
But that’s OK. I remember how disgusted I was when Slick Willie was acquitted by the Senate even though he was undoubtedly guilty. My initial disgust turned very positive when Gore was defeated even though he should easily have won by all past yardsticks.
With a little luck this will be yet another example of the Dems overreaching which will bite them in the rear end next year.
Lex, you bring up some of the phoney right-wing talking points. First of all Valerie Plame was very much under cover and her cover was blown by the Bush Administration. Second, Armitiage was a member of that same Bush Administration so to say that because he was the first to blow her cover that somehow exonerates everyone else is simply absurd. Third, Libby lied and obstructed justice. The facts of the case are not really in dispute and the jury correctly reached that conclusion. To suggest Libby was anything but a common criminal is to ignore the law. But of course that’s something the neo-cons are good at.
What is still somewhat in dispute is why the Bush Administration went to such great lengths to try and discredit Wilson. There is some evidence to suggest the administration was trying to plant evidence to support the absurd Niger uranium story and Wilson got in the way. If true, they probably got away with a serious crime. If only the dems had a bit of a spine maybe we could learn the truth.
The Washington Post piece is full of the same discredited claims that right-wing spinners have pushed for years. For one Wilson never claimed he was asked by the VP to investigate the Niger story. That false claim continues to circulate in the press. And why does Armitage as the leaker suddenly render the remaining investigation not worthwhile? There is abundent evidence to suggest that Armitage intentionally leaked her name rather than his claim that it was accidently mentioned in passing.
But even the Post story, sorry as it is, acknowledges the guilt of Mr. Libby. That is one fact that should no longer be in any dispute.
I was amused at whom Michael Sniffen of the AP designated as a “winner” or “loser” after the conviction of VP Cheney’s fall guy, Scooter Libby.
Somehow Sniffen separates Tim Russert from “Big Time Washington Reporters” AKA Bushbot stenographers. This is the same Russert who stands common journalistic practice on its head by treating everything said by Bush Administration officials as “off-the-record.” This is the same icon of D.C. “journalists” who rolled over on his “sources” with apparently little encouragement. Somehow his reputation survives enhanced by the fact that the Bushies thought him an easy patsy.
Valerie Plame also is judged a winner after four or five top U.S. government officials broke the law for petty political retaliation. I wonder how Sniffen would feel if he were forced to trade privacy for unsought notoriety; and, his career for a “book and movie deal.”
Dick Cheney avoids prosecution both for falsely manipulating intel to take the country to war and for orchestrating the outing of a CIA operative. (Ditto Karl Rove and Richard Armitage.) How Cheney is judged a “loser”, in this case, at least, is a mystery.
Finally, how does Libby fall into the “loser” category? Sure, he endured the trial and a few slings and arrows in the press. However, his legal fees will be covered by grateful Republican fat cats. If the conviction isn’t overturned by Bush judicial hack David Sentelle then der Decider himself will pardon Libby. Libby will never serve a day in jail for obstructing the prosecution of his fellow henchmen in outing a CIA operative. He’ll almost surely be hired by a rightwing foundation or think tank. Heck, he’s proven that he’ll take the fall for fellow Rethugs. He may be hired in future Rethuglican administrations like the pardoned felons of Iran-Contra.
RTH, I have disagree with one point you made. I don’t think the Plame story is about “petty retaliation”. It’s much more sinister than that. The Bush administration was terrified at the prospect that they had ongoing plans to invade Iraq and in order to make it palatable they needed evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program. This evidence was planted in Niger and Wilson was on to something. In a desperate attempt to hide this evidence they aggressively sought to discredit Wilson. And it worked! The press was diverted from this potentially blockbuster and very impeachable story. The president got his war and the only head to roll was Libby’s.
You are absolutely correct, bud.
I’m sorry to have minimized the nature of the crime and the probable damage done to our national security and Plame’s contacts.
OK, no one asked for this but here is my perfect strategy scenario. Cheney steps down due to health issues. Bush appoints Condi Rice as VP and turns over a handful of winner projects to her domain. At the GOP convention, Condi is drafted to run for Prez based on her super credentials, success as VP, and the chance to make history as the first black woman Prez. Wow, I want the movie rights!!!!!!!!
Oh, please!
A Condi candidacy would be like a gift wrapped present to the Dems.
The national security adviser on 9/11 and a charter member of the administration that brought us the Iraq meat grinder and a failed Afghanistan policy.
Nope,nothing could go wrong with that campaign.