Good god

Danger indeed.

Danger indeed.

I see the noted humanitarian Jeb “The Smart One” Bush (see Schiavo, Terri) has weighed in on Indiana’s god-bothering asshattery.

If this keeps up, there’s not gonna be any room in the Wayback Machine for Sherman and Mr. Peabody. It’ll be nothing but GOP presidential candidates in there, and standing room only.

 

Tags:

36 Responses to “Good god”

  1. Steve O Says:

    Can someone tell me what is called a restoration act? When I was sleeping over the last six years, did Obama slip in the constitutional amendment banning religion?

    I totally get everybody wanting their rights protected… Although it’s funny that everyone seems concerned about everyone else’s special interests, without acknowledging that their own interests are special to someone else.

    Anyway, I totally get the desire to codify protection for all rights. But this idea that religion is under attack is the biggest load of horse hockey since I don’t know when.

    And I swear, the GOP’s biggest problem is that none of those folks ever get out of their own little insular neighborhood. Folks need to travel a little bit more, see the world… Might find out that they like some stuff other then the Thursday night blue plate special at the local diner that they’ve come to rely on. Get outside, see the world, and you’ll quickly learn that there are a few places more religiously tolerant than the USA. I mean, last time I checked, Baptists aren’t walking into Catholic churches and gunning down everybody. Presbyterians aren’t putting up barricades around Methodist neighborhoods. Whenever I hear “under attack,” I got to wonder how many layers of tinfoil it takes before they feel safe going outside.

    Beyond ridiculous.

    • Patrick O'Grady Says:

      Ed Kilgore has a nicely thought-out post on this topic.

    • khal spencer Says:

      word, steve

    • Pat O'Brien Says:

      The legal eagles have weighed in on this issue by sending a letter to Representative Delaney who I assume was the sponsor of this legislation.

      http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/gender-sexuality/law_professors_letter_on_indiana_rfra.pdf

      My opinion is that the legislature and governor did this to appease the radical right for the next election, and they simply thought they could get away with it and no one would notice except the intended audience. The legislation wasn’t needed. It was an overt act of political window dressing. And, no, you don’t want to know my opinion on organized religion or what part it should play in government. Much too radical for the sensitive and sensible folks, like me, who frequent the dog house of Perro Loco.

      • Patrick O'Grady Says:

        Another bit of the governmental overreach that our friends on the right find so turble bad that they load the basement up with expired MREs, .22 LR ammo, and tinfoil for the relining of beanies as necessary.

        Same shit, different day, is what. We Serve Whites Only. No Irish Need Apply. No Dogs, Negros or Mexicans. Japs Keep Moving. And so on. You never think one of these keep-out signs will apply to you, until suddenly it does, right here in The Land of the Free™.

        What we need is a No Dumbshits enclave. Wouldn’t need much space. It’s a mighty thin herd.

    • Larry T. Says:

      I laughed/cried when I read this from asshat/Senator Tom Cotton “I think it’s important we have a sense of perspective,” Cotton said. “In Iran, they hang you for the crime of being gay.” Did anyone remind this dunce that the Romans used to feed Christians to the lions?

  2. Steve O Says:

    Is it just me, really crazy stuff always happen right after midterm elections?

    If I recall correctly, we get around 65% voter turnout for presidential elections, and around 45% for midterms.

    And we know old white crazy people vote in stronger numbers during those midterms.

    Maybe 538.com or Freakonomics has something on this … but I will bet that it is moderates and independents who failed to show up at significant rates during those midterms. Hence, the crazies from both extremes can run wild.

    • Patrick O'Grady Says:

      Yeah, I think the lefty-moderate-indy apathy toward midterms — and, frankly, toward voting and other forms of political participation in general — enables the dingbats. They come to believe that they’re in the majority.

    • Pat O'Brien Says:

      Hi Steve. I did a little research on voter turnout. If you calculate turnout on votes cast from a total of registered voters you can get a little over 50% in presidential election years and around 40% for midterms. That is pretty bad as it is. But if you use the number of elibigle voters instead of registered, those percentages drop, country wide by about 10%. The last election where registered voter turnout was over 60% was 2008. Guess that’s why the plutocrats and oligarchs have had their minions stonewall Obama for the last 6 years. They think voters are stupid, and us electing Obama surprised them, and they didn’t like it.

  3. Jim isaacs Says:

    I think it must be tough to be a flaming liberal and not have the freedom and not able to think out side the liberal dogma. I ask this question: Why are homosexual couples allowed to sue mom and pop stores in too oblivion. And not let them choose who they wish to serve. The government and some populace are cow towing to a small group of people or the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

    • Patrick O'Grady Says:

      Do a little studying up (on spelling, for starters), then come back and try again, this time without the Faux News talking points, please. No plagiarism. Show your work. I’ll mark you down a letter grade for each typo.

      • Pat O'Brien Says:

        You really are starting to hate editing, aren’t you? Plus, that mind is locked up (here it comes again) tighter than a gnat’s ass stretched over a rain barrel.

      • Patrick O'Grady Says:

        Editing is a deadly dull chore that I perform for the filthy lucre. One must do one’s share to keep the lights on.

        Oh, I’ll whip a courtesy edit on the regulars here now and then, on the rare occasion that they need one, but mostly this is supposed to be playtime.

      • Pat O'Brien Says:

        I’ve noticed when you helped me out a time or two. And I appreciate it.

    • Steve O Says:

      Jim,
      Classic argument, but it doesn’t pass the common sense test, because this bill is in fact liberalism. It’s a one-size-fits-all bill, handed down from up high, big government knows more then you and will prescribe the right way to do things. All social conservative legislation is in fact liberalism. Under every definition of conservatism, you just cannot shove a bill in that says that there is only one right way to do things without it being, dogmatically and doctrinally, liberalism.

      Another hallmark of liberalism is passing bills addressing perceived, imagined, and theoretical threats, which is exactly what this is.

      Liberalism and conservatism are both out-dated modes of operating. All ideologies are excuses not to think for oneself. And to paraphrase Nietzsche, you can’t be a party man and a thinking man at the same time.

      And for too long, right leaning religious types have been told that the GOP brand of conservatism is the only style they are allowed to practice. So when bills like this come up, everyone gets in lock step behind them without questioning it in anyway.

      But this bill does not protect religious freedom. It creates a security blanket so folks who think they have strong religious values don’t have to make hard decisions. If you want to photograph weddings, but there are certain types that you don’t like, then your religion really doesn’t mean very much to you if you continue to photographing some weddings, and you count on lawyers and congressmen and political activists to protect you from the boogie man you don’t like. Someone with real, actual religious values would do the hard thing and pick another profession. If you don’t think folks should be using birth control, then don’t pick a career field where handing out birth-control is on the job description. Folks want to pick and choose the things they do and don’t do, and then go crying to lawyers and legislators and television pundits to back them up when the going gets tough. That’s not religious freedom; that’s religious laziness. Folks think they’re taking a stand, but they’re going to be in for a rude awakening and when St. Peter pulls out his clipboard.

      Just something to think about: by all measuring sticks, we are a center right country. And yet, the Democrats have won the popular vote in, what, five out of the last six presidential elections? When you break the boat down in clusters, like Malcolm Gladwell did with spaghetti sauce, you see a trend, that the GOP pushes for stunts like this during midterms, and it scares moderates and independence to the left, the next presidential election. The Democrats think that they are actually attracting these motors, but when you look at favorable versus unfavorable ratings, it looks a lot more like they are picking the lesser of two evils

      So when Field Marshal Clinton get selected next fall, I want you to remember this Indiana bill. And ask yourself, was it worth it?

      • khal spencer Says:

        Steve, as it happens, I used to be a moderate, liberal, Northeast Republican, in the philosophical camp of folks like Jacob Javits or even Jack Kemp. I am not a very comfortable Dem. The GOP, starting in the eighties (more specifically, when Alfonse D’Amato ran a dirty campaign against Jake Javits), drove me batshit crazy.

    • khal spencer Says:

      Actually, Jim, its “kowtowing”. Nothing to do with cows and everything to do with the Far East. The reason for the lawsuits is that mom and pop stores are included in the class of things known as “public accommodations”, as follows (link here: http://civilrights.findlaw.com/enforcing-your-civil-rights/discrimination-in-public-accommodations.html )

      “…Privately-owned businesses and facilities that offer certain goods or services to the public — including food, lodging, gasoline, and entertainment — are considered public accommodations for purposes of federal and state anti-discrimination laws. For purposes of disability discrimination, the definition of a “public accommodation” is even more broad, encompassing most businesses that are open to the public (regardless of type)….”

      Its not just gays, and tell me sir, how do you know whether or not I am gay? Imagine, instead, that you are running low on gas at 0300 on the Interstate, 50 miles east of a rock and 40 miles west of a hard place, with a sick kid in the back seat, and the gas station says it will not serve you because of the color of your skin, a Sikh turban or yarmulke on your head, or a crucifix around your neck. Sucks to be you, eh?

      Where I think there is a lot of room to disagree on how far the law should go is in something like, for example, wedding photography shops. One is not usually in dire need of immediately finding a wedding photographer, at least unless you are in the Ozarks with a shotgun prodding you in the ass and your wife-to-be a tad hapai. That case from New Mexico that is, I think, headed to the Supremes, comes to mind. If it was me, I would tell the reticent photographer to fuck off and take my dead presidents elsewhere.

      The basic rule of civility is to be nice to people. I don’t ask who you vote for and you should not ask who I sleep with.

      Your flaming liberal friend,
      Khal

    • Steve O Says:

      Jim,
      While we are on the subject… Exactly which religion is this bill supposedly restoring? Because it sure ain’t Christianity. Which passage of the four Gospels would indicate that Jesus would refuse to take a picture of a gay wedding? Mr. Turn-the-Other-Cheek get all petty over a photograph? Or would he use his participation in the wedding as an opportunity to lead by example, share the good news with someone who might really need it?
      I really don’t have any hope for the next 20 years in this regard, but I strongly believe that in 50 years or so, Christians across this country will look back to the Nixon era, where they were co-opted for political purposes, as one of their biggest failings. Totally got away from doing good work and became preoccupied with political power. Forgot about living a good life and became cyst with what everyone else was doing. Another words, took the “Christ” out of Christianity and replaced it with Old Testamentarianism.

      (read all about it in my soon-to-be still unpublished novel, Buddha Shrugged.)

      • Larry T. Says:

        Since most of these ass-hats in the US of A claim to be some flavor of Christian, my favorite question to ’em is “Um..to whom would your hero Jeebus deny rights to? Wasn’t he the guy who hung out with the hookers and money-changers?” Their eyes look like pinwheels. How these jerks like Cruz and Bush get elected? Well, you all know what my wife says…

      • khal spencer Says:

        Here in the Land of Entrapment, it has been said this year that the NM Catholic Bishops pressured the new GOP majority in the House to push through a bill banning abortion after 20 wks. All it did, at least the way they tried to do it, was get people’s knickers in a knot on both sides of the issue. I think midterm elections bring out the Marx Brothers in politicians.

  4. Hurben Says:

    American politics scare the shit out of me.

    (Please ignore this tiny island at the end of the Earth, no WMDs & certainly no oil, please move on, nothing to see here).

  5. khal spencer Says:

    And now for something completely different

  6. Pat O'Brien Says:

    Speaking of silly, the April’s fool piece at VN is really lame. Not up to the standards of the golden years at VN when the April 1st piece would have you scratching your head and say, “did that really happen?”

    • Patrick O'Grady Says:

      Well, in their defense, I’ll note that they’re down an editor in chief, a tech editor, a reporter, and an art director, and CGI “management” — decidedly Stalinist on its best days — is busily airbrushing various apparatchiks out of the Party photos. So maybe they’re not feeling all that funny these days.

      We did do a few beauts back in the day, though.

      One of my all-time favorite April Fool’s gags wasn’t at VN, but at what then was called the Gazette Telegraph, in Colorado Springs. A reporter equipped with planter’s hat and pipe was photographed socialist-realism style examining the El Paso County pickle crop, which was said to be booming that year (the pickles were hung from a tree at the hospital next to the newspaper).

      That wasn’t the funny part, though. The funny part was that the Greeley Tribune — whose circulation base was and is Weld County, at the time one of the top-20 agricultural counties in the nation — picked the photo off The Associated Press wire and ran it on their farm page. Good times.

    • khal spencer Says:

      Harvest of Shame is still one of my favorites. Back in the Daze, that was a good magazine. The boarding of the SS Velo News by the capitalist pirates did not result in good things.

  7. DownhillBill Says:

    I’m old enough to remember when the exact same arguments were made to justify continuation of racial segregation. Only difference in those days was that some of the fine religiously motivated folks actually wore their white sheets in public. At least then they were a bit more honest about it.

  8. Weaksides Says:

    Isn’t jeb being “the smart one” out of the bush family a lot like winning the special Olympics?

  9. flings Says:

    flings

    Good god | Mad Blog Media

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: