joyfulchristian

What are the odds?

One for the end of the road? Merry Clinton knocks back whisky on campaign plane| News | This is London

Earlier in the campaign, Mrs Clinton regularly took time out to enjoy a drop of the hard stuff with voters but she avoided informal contact with reporters

Earlier, she took a couple hours out of her not-so-busy schedule for a little sightseeing, driving in her 7-car motorcade up to Mount Rushmore.

Her appearance startled the handful of tourists at the shrine to the presidency on a cold and overcast morning.

One woman approached her and said: “Thank you for running.”

Mrs Clinton replied: “I need your help.” Another, who happened to have a copy of Mrs. Clinton’s “Living History,” handed it her to be inscribed.

What are the odds that a woman shows up with a copy of Hillary's book, not exactly a a new release, that she can get signed when she stumbles across Hillary at Mt. Rushmore?

That is angry

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Bob Dole says that Bob Dole doesn’t like Scott McClellan

How angry did Bob Dole get over Scott McClellan’s new, dishy memoir of his days in the White House? Dole forgot to use the third person, that’s how angry.

The 1st time in history?

Huh?

Michael, over at Save the GOP, after quoting several of Bob Barr's recent about face policy pronouncements, says this:

The War on Drugs, The Patriot Act, and now The Defense of Marriage Act. Barr is showing he will change his long held beliefs for political gain.

And he didn't even mention Barr's new stance on the Iraq war. Still, I'm confused. What exactly is the "political gain" involved in getting the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination? Clearly it's not going to get him elected president, nor does it seem a likely stepping stone to anywhere else.

Barr's slew of 180 degree turns is truly dizzying, but I don't see what he's getting for it politically.

I have only one word

Couple abandons IVF 'wrong sex' babies | NEWS.com.au

HOSPITAL workers in Britain were left stunned after a couple reportedly abandoned IVF twin girls immediately after giving birth because they weren't boys.

The couple of Indian heritage but who live as British citizens in the city of Birmingham told medical staff directly after the Caesarean section delivery they weren't going to accept the girls as they were the "wrong sex", UK tabloid The Sun reported.

"Disgusting" is that word.

Today we celebrate Memorial Day. I want to take this time to thank all those who have served to protect our country. I also want to thank the families of all who have fallen on behalf of that cause.

Road rage hammer attack?

Somebody shoot me

Oh for crying out loud:

Columbus — Georgia Republican Party chairwoman Sue Everhart said Saturday that the party's presumed presidential nominee has a lot in common with Jesus Christ.

"John McCain is kind of like Jesus Christ on the cross," Everhart said as she began the second day of the state GOP convention. "He never denounced God, either."

Everhart was praising McCain for never denouncing the United States while he was being tortured as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

"I'm not trying to compare John McCain to Jesus Christ, I'm looking at the pain that was there," she said.

Someone needs to introduce Everheart to the English language. She says that McCain is "like Christ" but she's not comparing McCain to Christ? What does she think the word "like" means. Buy this woman a dictionary!

What would possess someone to say something like this? She's either attempting to shamelessly pander to religious conservatives, doesn't know the meaning of her own words, or I don't know what.

And this is the better of the two major parties.

This is bizarre

You ever get dragged into an argument that, as far as you can tell, has nothing to do with you?

I followed a link on my tracker to this article.

One of the most enduring stereotypes spread by religious people about atheists is that we are "angry". Some particularly creative apologists add the detail that what we are truly angry at is God - which is impossible, by definition, since a person must first believe in God as a precondition of being angry at God - or that we react with anger or hostility to the mere mention of the religious beliefs of others. However, many theists who make this claim leave it at stating that atheists carry around some kind of generalized, diffuse anger at everything and nothing.

I don't really know if this is accurate or not. That is to say, I don't know if religious people actually "spread" these stereotypes or not. While I've personally met some angry atheists, I wouldn't say it's not a general quality of being an atheists. I can't say that I've ever heard anyone say these things either, but that certainly doesn't mean they aren't being said.

The closest I've ever come to hearing any of these is the "angry at God thing". I've not ever heard anyone say that actual atheists are angry at God. I have heard of, and actually met, people who had previously been very religious and later abandoned their religion when something bad happened in their lives. They claimed to be atheists, but when pressed it was obvious that the truth was that they still believed in God, they were just very pissed off at him.

None of that, however, is what this post is really about. One of the arguments, and I summarize greatly so I hope I'm not misrepresenting things, that is is put forth in this article is that there's actually a great deal of hate from religious people directed at atheists. Perhaps moreso than the other way around. To make this point the author quotes a lot of really vile hate messages directed from people who purported to be Christians (or at least religious) at very atheists.

To serve as contrast, the author then quotes a post I put up several years ago.

Ironically, the evidence that religious people adduce to prove that atheists are angry usually never even approaches this level of vitriol. Consider the following e-mail, held up by a Christian blogger as an example:

You think you know the truth? Do you talk to god? Why are you blindly supporting bush, and his boys? Because bush is a christian? That's the problem with christians. They take a fairy tale (the bible), and make it the truth. Since you know the truth, this is a waste of my time writing you. But I had to vent, because you people (all religions) are ****** up this planet.

This e-mail is certainly harshly worded and none too polite. But does it even approach the level of hate on display above? Does it display the drooling lust for violence that much of the religious hate mail shows? Does it threaten the poster personally, or attack his sexuality or personal appearance? No. It criticizes his beliefs and his actions, heatedly to be sure, but that is still a far cry from the psychopathic spasms of rage regularly targeted at atheists who speak out. However uncivil the language, this was neither a threat nor an ad hominem attack, whereas atheists regularly experience both. Too many religious individuals, when criticizing atheists for their supposed anger, confuse strong criticism with personal attacks.

The problem is , of course, that I never said this e-mail proved anything of the sort. Here is the post, in it's entirety.

After more than 2 years of blogging, I got my first genuine piece of hate mail today. Say hello to [email protected]

You think you know the truth? Do you talk to god? Why are you blindly supporting bush, and his boys? Because bush is a christian? That's the problem with christians. They take a fairy tale (the bible), and make it the truth. Since you know the truth, this is a waste of my time writing you. But I had to vent, because you people (all religions) are ****** up this planet.

Well, on the bright side he's got better grammar than your average hate mailer. But here's a tip, he complains that it's a waste of my time talking to me because I think I already know the truth, yet he makes no arguments of any kind. What exactly do I have my mind made up about? Well, obviously he dislikes both Bush and God, but we have no idea why.

Oh well, I'm officially hated now. Must be doing something right.

From the author's comments, you'd think that I was holding up this post as evidence that atheists are haters. I certainly didn't "adduce [the e-mail] to prove that atheists are angry." In fact, I specifically state that it's the first piece of hate mail I'd ever received. (And even now, years later, I rarely receive e-mail of any kind.)

I don't doubt the author that their are religious people who go around accusing atheists of hatred, but I'm not one of them. I certainly have met a few angry atheists, but I've never held that up as proof of anything. In fact, I thought the whole posting was pretty flip and I thought the whole "must be doing right thing" made that pretty evident.

In short, I have no earthly idea why I got dragged into this.

Since I'm here, let me note a few other things. This article involves a classic case of arguing from anecdotal evidence. The author quotes lots of examples on one side and a single example on the other. (If you can even count my post, which I don't.) Plainly this was designed to build up the impression that hate mail against atheists is far more common than hate mail from atheists. That may be true, but his argument certainly doesn't prove it.

Also, most of the people being attacked in his examples are prominent, or at least in the public eye in some respect. Who am I? I'm nobody. Just a random obscure blogger. I certainly wouldn't expect to be able to generate much vitriol. This is clearly an "apples an oranges" comparison.

If you want to use anecdotal evidence, consider that the phrase "I hate Christians" generates over 11,000 hits on Google. The phrase "I hate atheists" appears less than 1,300. Does that prove anything? Not at all, but if I wanted to I bet I could use that fact to generate a decent sounding argument.

Shoot, for that matter people have been known to kill Christians just because they are their Christians. Does that prove anything? No.

Anyway, the author may be right, but he doesn't prove his point and I certainly don't understand why I got dragged into it.

After more than 2 years of blogging, I got my first genuine piece of hate mail today. Say hello to [email protected]

You think you know the truth? Do you talk to god? Why are you blindly supporting bush, and his boys? Because bush is a christian? That's the problem with christians. They take a fairy tale (the bible), and make it the truth. Since you know the truth, this is a waste of my time writing you. But I had to vent, because you people (all religions) are ****** up this planet.

Well, on the bright side he's got better grammar than your average hate mailer. But here's a tip, he complains that it's a waste of my time talking to me because I think I already know the truth, yet he makes no arguments of any kind. What exactly do I have my mind made up about? Well, obviously he dislikes both Bush and God, but we have no idea why.

Oh well, I'm officially hated now. Must be doing something right.

So I knew Obama was arrogant

But to think that a speech by Bush blasting appeasement before the Israeli Knesset was a political attack on Obama smacks of hubris of the highest order.

Political Radar: Obama Takes Issue With Bush Foreign Policy Speech

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," the President said to the country's legislative body, "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

I watched this part of the speech and Obama isn't mentioned. You know, typically when someone blasts a generic group and you take it as a personal affront, it's because secretly you know you're part of that group.

From Obama's policy statements it seems obvious to me that he would, in fact, be an appeaser. However, given that a big part of Israel's problems over the years have stemmed from a significant minorities appeasement instincts, wouldn't it be much more logical to assume that Bush was talking about appeasers there, in general, than one over here in specific?

The new talking point

Democrats propose taxes to fund veterans' benefits - Yahoo! News

"What we're talking about is a one-half percent income tax surcharge on incomes above $1 million," said Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., a leader of the Blue Dog group. "So someone who earns $2 million a year would pay $5,000. ... They're not going to miss it."

So, it's OK to tax people if "they aren't going to miss it"? By the same logic, if someone breaks into a celebrity's home and steals some paintings from a little used room, is that OK? They're not going to miss it! No one even uses that room!

You've got to be kidding

3 suspended for not standing for Pledge of Allegiance

Three small-town eighth-graders in Minnesota were suspended by their principal for not standing Thursday morning for the Pledge of Allegiance, violating a district policy that the principal now says may soon be reworded to protect free speech rights.

This is absolutely ridiculous. There's no sensible justification for this.

Heh

New and improved Obama 57 star lapel pin.

Just to be clear, Obama claiming to have visited 57 states is not, and should not, be a campaign ender.

It is, however, rip-roaringly hilarious.

If this pans out, it's very good news

Iraqi Forces Arrest al Qaeda Leader - WSJ.com

BAGHDAD -- Iraqi security forces have arrested the head of al Qaeda in Iraq in the northern city of Mosul, one of the few remaining insurgent strongholds in the country, the Iraqi Defense Ministry said Thursday.

It is unclear how much the detention of Abu Ayyub al-Masri would affect the extremist group or security in Iraq. U.S. military officials describe al Qaeda in Iraq as a resilient organization that can quickly replace leaders. Mr. Masri became head of the group after its former leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was killed by the U.S. military in June 2006.

Of course, that doesn't mean the al-Qaeda threat in Iraq is over, but good news all the same.

Must be getting old

When on earth did I become "sir"?

Related thought: Why do I keep finding myself saying things about new staff like, "She's a good kid"?

When did I start thinking of 22 year olds as "kids"?

I've kinda given up on the GOP figuring this out this election.

In Defense of RINO Hunting - WSJ.com

Winning for the sake of winning is an excellent short-term tactic, but a lousy long-term strategy. Just look at the consequences of the 2006 congressional elections, when the GOP lost control of both houses of Congress.

A Republican majority is only as useful as the policies that majority produces. When those policies look a lot like Democratic ones, the base rightly questions why it should keep Republicans in power. As the party gears up for elections in the fall, it ought to look closely at the losses suffered under a political strategy devoid of principle. Otherwise, it can look forward to a bad case of déjà vu.

Wow. Now there's a hero!

FOXNews.com - Illinois Father Dies After Shielding Daughter When Car Jumps Curb - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

CHICAGO — Chicago police say a man died as he tried to shield his four-year-old daughter from an auto allegedly driven by a man under the influence of a controlled substance.

Joseph Richardson was walking his daughter Kaniyah to a McDonald's for burgers late Monday when a car jumped the curb. Police say the 39-year-old Richardson grabbed his daughter just before the car slammed the two into a fence.

Five hour energy-A product review. (sort of)

A friend of my wife died last week.  Friday night we headed out after work on the 10 hour drive to get back to New Mexico in time for the 10 AM funeral service.

Given how tired I was, I tried some Five Hour Energy.  It definitely helped me stay awake. However, when I tried a second one (it was a long trip), I found that you can't get ANOTHER five hours out of another shot.  (Hardly surprising.)

Downside. It tastes AWFUL! I tried berry and lemon lime. They were both absolutely awful. However, the lemon-lime tastes so bad it definitely gives you a head start on staying awake.

I wouldn't go that far

Scott at Powerline, notes that Al Franken's accountant, who Franken claims is responsible for his failure to pay various state taxes, refused to comment saying he'd been told to say "No comment." Scott implies that this is part of a cover-up.

That's quite unfair to the accountant. Regardless of whether Franken told him not to comment or not, it's almost certain that his accountant is ethically and legally bound not to disclose any information about Franken's tax situation without Franken's express permission. The AICPA, of which most accountant's are members, has a code of conduct that forbids releasing this type of information. Likewise, many state boards of accountancy expressly forbid releasing this type of information. Further, most firms I'm aware of have express policies forbidding disclosure. I would no more expect an accountant to publicly comment without permission on a client's tax troubles without permission than I would his attorney. It's true clients typically do allow their attorneys to speak out in high profile cases, but attorneys have training in making their clients look good to the public, while accountants generally don't.

On another note, I've certainly had clients who received poor advice from former accountants about state tax filings so his explanation is plausible. I've also had lots of clients who never bothered to tell me they were doing business in other states.