The Founding Fathers (FF's) were smart guys -- but they weren't right about everything and their logic had many internal inconsistencies (3/5ths compromise just to name one.) It is really of passing interest to me what or why the FFs believed this or that. Judging their level of delusionment about the reality/nature of god seems pretty pointless to me. As a progressive/liberal/whatever, I would not point to their Deism (or lack of evangelicalism generally) as supporting my view of separation of church/state. Rather, to me, it is simply offerred as evidence that the rightwingers' myth about the 'godliness' of the FFs is mostly off-base -- like so many of their myths -- and their judgement on the matter is, therefore, in question (as is their judgment on so much.)

To me, once you admit to a belief in a supernatural being, you have crossed a line into self-delusion. The degree to which you believe specific things about that Being is, IMO, just icing on the delusion cake.

I don't really care why the FFs wanted religion kept out of gov't (and vice versa). I'm glad they did because I want gov't to be as delusion-free as possible. If they did it in order to preserve the "purity" of religion -- to essentially maintain the quality of their chosen delusion -- rather than to preserve gov't from the meddling of those who are deluded fulltime (i.e., religionists), I don't really care. The practical result is the same.

Posted at March 12, 2008 2:24 PM in response to Militant Unitarians

I am not sad that this immigration bill has failed. But I do think it failed too quickly. I think it served as a wonderful vehicle for highlighting the fundamental racist attitudes of the Right. The issue smokes them out. Think of O'Reilly talking about "white male power." Lose the "male" and we've got what he was really talking about -- "white power."

In a country with growing ethnic groups more or less predisposed to vote Dem -- but perhaps only lethargically, it helps to remind people who the enemy really is. And no one does that better than the enemy himself in his own words. The Republicans have become very savvy in their use of language and they work hard at finding euphemistic ways to get their message out so that their followers understand without riling the unwashed. The immigration issue strips away a lot of their rhetoric because it hits them where they live -- their racist impulses take over and we begin to hear what they really think.

They try to couch it in terms of the "rule of law" and cry crocodile tears over the poor, poor wannabee immigrants who are patiently waiting their turn. But eventually someone like Bill O' spills the beans -- it really is about white power.

The law and order dodge is a red herring. But the whole issue is, imho, a red herring. Immigration should be seen as, at best, a 2nd tier issue for our country. I don't think immigration is worth spending much time on -- except to the degree that it reveals the dark recesses of Republican closets.

Posted at June 10, 2007 1:20 PM in response to The People's Medium

Wish in one hand, shit in the other -- see which one fills up first.

Face it -- Gore isn't running.

Posted at May 24, 2007 9:55 AM in response to Gore, Obama, And A Coalition Against The Politics of Fear

The real issue is: Will he actually say anything meaningful at the hearing?

I've seen Rumsfeld questioned on a number of occasions, don't ever remember him saying much that was useful.

Posted at August 3, 2006 11:04 AM in response to Spider Holes

It was pretty clear to me that Lieberman 'threw' the 2000 debate with Cheney. Then he rushed to essentially concede the 2000 election. IMHO, the only good thing that came out of Gore's defeat was the Lieberman never got anywhere close to being president.

However, the fact that he is willing and ready to defy his party's voters and run as an independent should erase all doubt that Lieberman is a fake Democrat. If this election results in a 50/50 tie in the Senate (with Lieberman winning as an independent,) it would not surprise me to see him renege on his promise to organize with the D's. He is a sanctimonious snake in the grass.

I also don't understand all the puzzlement about Joe's loyalties. Listening to the 2000 debate with Cheney told me all I needed to know about him. If Connecticut were a 'red' state, Lieberman would be a Republican.

Posted at August 1, 2006 3:39 PM in response to What Happened?

Another tidbit that came out of yesterday's hearing is that Gen. Casey stated, in response to Sen. Clinton's remark that we still can't seem to secure 6 miles of road, that the road from BIAP to the Green Zone was safe.  Apparently, if Ms. Harmon's experience is common, I guess it's safe because it isn't used anymore.

Posted at September 30, 2005 5:53 PM in response to The View From Iraq

GOPers are terrified of the idea of all those lazy, flooded out people getting a hand-out.  Can't feed the Welfare State, you know.

Posted at September 13, 2005 5:10 PM in response to Liberal vs. Conservative Crisis Management

I think it was Biden, not Leahy, that prompted the exchange.  Spectre wouldn't let anyone get up a head of steam 'cross examining' John Bob.

As to 'privacy right' -- I was impressed that he acknowledged ANY right to privacy.  All you hear from the wingers is 'there is no right to privacy.'  I gotta believe John Bob may have given them some reason for concern today.  Though the online redstaters seem pretty placid, so far.

Sure made me waiver a bit -- I don't think he's going to be a champion of women's rights or choice or whatever, but he sure didn't sound like a Scalia/Thomas clone.

Questions I'd like to hear asked:

1.  What do you think would be the real world ramifications of overturning Roe?

2.  Is is true that you were in charge of pushing the Republican political agenda in the Reagan Justice Dept?  Was there someone or group in the Party that gave you the issues to press?

Posted at September 13, 2005 5:00 PM in response to Quote of the Day (so far)

I wonder if someone might have a cause of action against Gretna authorities.  I don't see how you can legally restrict access to a US highway (90) the way they did.  Especially given the circumstances.

There are also stories that St. Bernard authorities passed up black victims to rescue whites.

Posted at September 10, 2005 7:22 AM in response to Gretna's Choice

Seems to me that the danger the toxic waste dump presents will be dwarfed by the hundreds of gallons of petrochemicals that have contaminated the flood waters.  Flooded cars alone would account for a huge amount of gasoline and oil.  Then there are all the other sources of chemical contamination, like flooded nurseries with stacks of herbicides, fertilizers and pesticides that are now part of the soup.

Most areas of New Orleans flood whenever there is a tropical storm.  The floods are usually handled by the pumps and don't cause major problems.  It is unlikely, though, that this is the first time that toxic waste field has been under water.  Then, as someone else commented, there is the high water table.  If you dig a hole that is deeper than, say, 5 ft., it will have water in it by the next morning.  I've seen it with my own eyes.

Posted at September 5, 2005 8:07 PM in response to Under Water