I've always had the vague feeling that the Democrats in the United States were a little more mentally and emotionally stable than the Republicans. Yes, the Republicans have the evangelicals, who are noteworthy for nothing if not for their absolute craziness. But on top of that, the party just seems more vicious. You don't see the Democrats devouring their own losers nearly as nastily as you see the Republicans doing it.
It goes to the heart of the same problem I see with the lack of realism in the Republican party. Sarah Palin was praying for a win, praying to wake up in the morning as "Vice-president elect" even when that was obviously outright impossible.
Crazy and vicious. Is it any wonder, after eight years of rulership by these people, that the country is bankrupt, hated by most of the world and in the middle of two confused, wasteful wars?
These people just aren't balanced. I'm glad the American population got rid of them, even if only just barely.
Now we can perhaps watch the Republican party fracture in to fiscally conservative and bat-shit insane evangelical factions, ushering in an error of democracy, public healthcare, peace and sanity throughout the world.
Well. We can hope.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Dion and Palin: Off the Record
Remember when Dion was lambasted for not being able to answer that incoherent and grammatically senseless question from a CTV interviewer?
Remember how the Conservative party - quite foolishly - tried to jump on the language problem as if it were an actual hole in the Liberal platform?
Remember how guys like this jumped on it, telling us that conservatives of any stripe would never get "do-overs" from the media, so why should Liberals expect it?
Heh. Try this:
The important quote comes up at 0:10 in to the video:
And what were the items put "off the record"? Palin didn't know that Africa was continent as opposed to a country. She didn't know what countries were in NAFTA.
So whereas Stephane Dion couldn't handle an incoherent question, Palin was actually vitally ignorant in important matters ... and the media kept it "off the record".
Nice.
Remember how the Conservative party - quite foolishly - tried to jump on the language problem as if it were an actual hole in the Liberal platform?
Remember how guys like this jumped on it, telling us that conservatives of any stripe would never get "do-overs" from the media, so why should Liberals expect it?
Heh. Try this:
The important quote comes up at 0:10 in to the video:
I wish I could have told you back at the time but all of it was put off the record until after the election.
And what were the items put "off the record"? Palin didn't know that Africa was continent as opposed to a country. She didn't know what countries were in NAFTA.
So whereas Stephane Dion couldn't handle an incoherent question, Palin was actually vitally ignorant in important matters ... and the media kept it "off the record".
Nice.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
They elected a black guy
I don't really have much more to say.
I never thought, all those years of seeing Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, that the American people could really go through with it. To actually watch this happen, even after seeing the polls so confidently predicting it, is still gut wrenching.
It'll be a different world when I wake up tomorrow.
Something else struck me, though, as I've just finished watching McCain's concession speech. Suddenly, I saw the John McCain who ran against the George Bush in 2000. The guy who got "illegitimate black baby"'d out of the race. Gone was the guy making up stupid lies about teaching sex education to Kindergarten students. Gone were the lies and the random religious associations. Suddenly he seemed a lot classier than the movement of belligerent fanatics that the party had put behind him. He had to repeatedly restrain the booing of his own followers.
Maybe he still has some class. At least he sounded authentic. Maybe he's glad to be free of the yokels he'd had to bow to.
I never thought, all those years of seeing Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, that the American people could really go through with it. To actually watch this happen, even after seeing the polls so confidently predicting it, is still gut wrenching.
It'll be a different world when I wake up tomorrow.
Something else struck me, though, as I've just finished watching McCain's concession speech. Suddenly, I saw the John McCain who ran against the George Bush in 2000. The guy who got "illegitimate black baby"'d out of the race. Gone was the guy making up stupid lies about teaching sex education to Kindergarten students. Gone were the lies and the random religious associations. Suddenly he seemed a lot classier than the movement of belligerent fanatics that the party had put behind him. He had to repeatedly restrain the booing of his own followers.
Maybe he still has some class. At least he sounded authentic. Maybe he's glad to be free of the yokels he'd had to bow to.
Liberals more Realistic
I speak to you not of the Liberal Party of Canada, but of liberals people in general.
When the Liberal Party was losing the last election, most of us on the left were pretty realistic. Our best hope at the beginning of the election was to run some sort of ABC campaign to somehow forge a left coalition. As the days wore on and it was obvious that Dion wasn't picking up votes, we understood that a Conservative minority was coming and the best we could do was prevent a majority.
It doesn't seem to work that way for Conservatives.
Look at this guy. Even though there's a monstrous number of polls showing Obama leading by insurmountable margins, a single Zogby poll is enough to sway him.
The other guy wants to pray for a McCain win.
I can't imagine what they're saying over at Free Republic. But they're always crazy there, so maybe it doesn't count.
My point is simply that, despite our apparently airy-faery, touchie-feelie crazy pinko communist way, we seem to be a lot more in touch with reality than our opponents.
That's got to work out for us, somehow, in the long run.
When the Liberal Party was losing the last election, most of us on the left were pretty realistic. Our best hope at the beginning of the election was to run some sort of ABC campaign to somehow forge a left coalition. As the days wore on and it was obvious that Dion wasn't picking up votes, we understood that a Conservative minority was coming and the best we could do was prevent a majority.
It doesn't seem to work that way for Conservatives.
Look at this guy. Even though there's a monstrous number of polls showing Obama leading by insurmountable margins, a single Zogby poll is enough to sway him.
The other guy wants to pray for a McCain win.
I can't imagine what they're saying over at Free Republic. But they're always crazy there, so maybe it doesn't count.
My point is simply that, despite our apparently airy-faery, touchie-feelie crazy pinko communist way, we seem to be a lot more in touch with reality than our opponents.
That's got to work out for us, somehow, in the long run.
Monday, November 03, 2008
That Sad Victimized Religious Majority
You've seen them pull this trick over and over again. The massive numbers of religious people in our country caterwauling about how victimized they are by teeming hordes of vicious, selfish, intolerant, immoral atheists.
Yes, the multibillion dollar religious empire of the 700 club, the Vatican, the Moral Majority, Focus on the Family and the Republican party is now being threatened by the awesome, irresistible force of the University of Alberta Atheists and Agnostics. Look at that website! Three posts in October!
So says Naomi Lakritz in the Ottawa Citizen and the Calgary Herald (where the subtitle is "Silent majority is awfully tired of being told to shut up").
Step one of the game plan is to minimize the actual desires of the pro-religious faction. All they want to do is just say "God". Why can't the evil atheists just let them say the word "God"?
Step two is to declare that atheists are intolerant because they want to stop religious people from even saying "God". Don't we have free speech in this country? What about tolerance?
Step three is to outright insult atheists as narcissistic, by which I'm sure she means "selfish". Then pretend that atheists want to stop people from being buried under crosses if they so choose.
Let's take them in order.
Step one. This is absolutely crucial. The desire at this convocation is not to "God Bless" the dentists (some of whom are atheists) but to instruct them to use their skills for the "Glory of God". If you don't understand why I wouldn't want to be told to use my skills for the glory of your god, then you haven't read the bible. I have read the bible. The last thing we should be doing is adding to continuous history of murder that is currently the "glory" of your god.
Step two. I am not being intolerant. Are you even aware of the sheer hypocrisy of looking me in the eye and telling me to worship your god while calling me intolerant? That's what you're doing. You're telling me to glorify your deity and then complaining because I object to your instruction. It is your intolerance that stands out here.
Step three: If you want "narcissistic", read about the cruelties supposedly ordered by your god. Isn't one of the commandments, "thou shalt have no other gods"? That's narcissism. Narcissism is usually associated with criminal behaviour and even sociopathy. Would you like to examine the prison statistics by religious affiliation and tell me which of us is underrepresented in prison? Go ahead. Have a look.
She finishes with one more comment that begs for a response:
This isn't about squelching your free speech or your expression of your views. I support your right to your religious beliefs along with my right to tell you you're wrong. I don't generally exercise this right, because I don't much care, until you insult me or knock on my door on a Saturday morning and disturb my game of Zelda.
This is about religious people, with control of a public ceremony, commanding people to worship their god. It's about loons like you, Ms. Lakritz, telling people that we're immoral if we don't share your beliefs.
That's intolerant. That's immoral.
Yes, the multibillion dollar religious empire of the 700 club, the Vatican, the Moral Majority, Focus on the Family and the Republican party is now being threatened by the awesome, irresistible force of the University of Alberta Atheists and Agnostics. Look at that website! Three posts in October!
So says Naomi Lakritz in the Ottawa Citizen and the Calgary Herald (where the subtitle is "Silent majority is awfully tired of being told to shut up").
Step one of the game plan is to minimize the actual desires of the pro-religious faction. All they want to do is just say "God". Why can't the evil atheists just let them say the word "God"?
Step two is to declare that atheists are intolerant because they want to stop religious people from even saying "God". Don't we have free speech in this country? What about tolerance?
Step three is to outright insult atheists as narcissistic, by which I'm sure she means "selfish". Then pretend that atheists want to stop people from being buried under crosses if they so choose.
Let's take them in order.
Step one. This is absolutely crucial. The desire at this convocation is not to "God Bless" the dentists (some of whom are atheists) but to instruct them to use their skills for the "Glory of God". If you don't understand why I wouldn't want to be told to use my skills for the glory of your god, then you haven't read the bible. I have read the bible. The last thing we should be doing is adding to continuous history of murder that is currently the "glory" of your god.
Step two. I am not being intolerant. Are you even aware of the sheer hypocrisy of looking me in the eye and telling me to worship your god while calling me intolerant? That's what you're doing. You're telling me to glorify your deity and then complaining because I object to your instruction. It is your intolerance that stands out here.
Step three: If you want "narcissistic", read about the cruelties supposedly ordered by your god. Isn't one of the commandments, "thou shalt have no other gods"? That's narcissism. Narcissism is usually associated with criminal behaviour and even sociopathy. Would you like to examine the prison statistics by religious affiliation and tell me which of us is underrepresented in prison? Go ahead. Have a look.
She finishes with one more comment that begs for a response:
Rather, it's about how, when you see or hear the expression of someone else's faith, you don't demand it be squelched because you don't like hearing it.
This isn't about squelching your free speech or your expression of your views. I support your right to your religious beliefs along with my right to tell you you're wrong. I don't generally exercise this right, because I don't much care, until you insult me or knock on my door on a Saturday morning and disturb my game of Zelda.
This is about religious people, with control of a public ceremony, commanding people to worship their god. It's about loons like you, Ms. Lakritz, telling people that we're immoral if we don't share your beliefs.
That's intolerant. That's immoral.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)