SearchSearch using pMachine
If everything seems under control, you're not going fast enough. - Mario Andretti
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Blame the Bushitler
Damn those pesky tax cuts!
Now, this good news does not absolve the president and his cronies in the Congress of the fact that they spend money like a drunken whore with someone else’s Amex. But, good news is good news, no matter how you slice it. If the Bush adminisration could couple thsi growth with a cut in spending, maybe we’d be getting somewhere.
Greetings Instapundit readers!
A question for the group. Imagine a country with a Democratic president, and a Congress controlled by Democrats. In Florida, a fight is underway over the life of a mentally disabled woman. The woman’s husband has kept her alive for 15 years, hoping she would recover, and despite the general agreement among doctors that she will never improve, he has decided to keep feeding her and keep working, always holding out hope that she might get better. Her parents, however, are horrified that their daughter has been alive for this long. They know that she would never have wanted to live in such a state, and are suing to have the husband’s rights terminated so that she can die in peace and with dignity.
The case goes all the way to the Florida Supreme Court, where the court finds that there is insufficient cause to grant the injunction requested by the parents. Shocked at the news, the Congress rolls into action, drafting legislation that would give the parents case a review in the federal court system, and the president returns from her womyn’s conference in Amsterdam to sign the emergency legislation.
Now, how many of you conservatives out there would have absolutely no problem with the actions taken by Congress and the president in this instance? I’m talking in the legal sense, not the moral. You would, obviously, disagree with the right-to-die motives of the Congress, but would you still rant and rave about how the Constitution permits this kind of federal intrusion into a state matter? Or would you, as I suspect, be railing against the injustice of a runaway liberal government meddling in the affairs of a sovereign state?
Update: The reason I ask this question is because I tuned into Limbaugh this morning to see what he had to say now that Terri is dead, and he was basically making the argument that the idea that this is a violation of federalist principles is absolutely preposterous. He kept railing on about how he “didn’t get it.” Well, here’s a very specific example. Do you think, for a second, that Limbaugh or Michael Medved or any of the other conservative pundits would not decry the actions of a Democratic federal government as being unconstitutional and a violation of states rights? Of course they would, and it is astonishingly disingenuous of them to claim otherwise.
Lie? No. Clueless? Yes.
What’s that noise? It’s the sounds of the world’s lefties screaming “cover-up!” in simultaneous, apoplectic ecstasy.
Allow me to channel the American left:
“No, this is bullshit. Everyone knew that Iraq had disarmed, and wanted nothing more to live in peace. But the eeeeeeevil fascist George W. Bush wanted their oil to enrich his corporate buddies and work to destroying democracy and installing a corporate-run junta in power. This is a cover-up, a whitewash, and just the latest in a long string of lies coming from the Bushitler!”
Sound about right?
Terri Schiavo is dead. Those of you who were invoking the name of God to keep her alive, now spend and minute and pray to that same God for Terri’s immortal soul. If you believe in Heaven, take solace knowing she’s there.
On a personal note, I believe Terri died fifteen years ago. Her body has now gone to the place her spirit has been for many years.
In recent days we’ve heard supporters of Terri Schiavo postulate a numer of theories regarding Michael Schiavo’s ulterior motives, reasons he “wants his wife dead.” With that in mind, take a look at this.
Now, I’m more than willing to stipulate that there is probably nothing more to this story than what it appears. However, I have a question for those of you who are more than willing to believe every possible theory about Michael Schiavo. If the story reported that he had sold the list of his supporters to a direct mail company, would you be as forgiving towards him as you are to the Schindlers?
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
In rejecting the Schindler’s latest appeal to keep their daughter “alive,” a fedral judge nails it.
Exactly. The protection of the separation of powers is more important than any single life. I realize that’s harsh, and that it might upset some of your delicate sensibilities. But that’s the cold, hard fact. In this case the cure is worse than the disease. We’re cutting off our head to cure a minor headache.
Explain to me, in four sentences or less, exactly what the core ideals of the modern Republican Party are.
The Story of Terri
Over at Right Wing News, one of my favorite sites, John Hawkins has done a great job compiling a FAQ about the Schiavo case. And even though he and I are on opposite sides in this debate, it’s worth checking out.
Well, it’s good to see that, in these times of terrorism and war, that these two numbnuts have their priorities right.
“Ewww! You touched a Clinton! You’ve got Clinton Cooties!”
Nobody seriously believes that either of these people has anything but the highest level of contempt for Hillary Clinton. It’s just a fact that, in the world of politics, sometimes you have to make nice with the opposition, no matter how built of pure evil they are.
Here We Go
Let me begin this by thanking everyone for all the emails. I got roughly 40 of them, the vast majority from people who have been lurking on the site for years, thanking me for having done what I’ve been doing all this time. Some asked me to reconsider.
I’ve also enjoyed all the armchair psychological profiles that people have been coming up with, especially my change in attitude having something to do with my father dying. Look, this is very simple to explain: I’ve become totally disillusioned with both contemporary conservatism and the Republican Party.
I’ve spent the past two years supporting religious people at every opportunity. I’ve stated a million times that we take the concept of a separation of church and state way too far in this country. The idea that there can’t be any discussion of religion in school, or a nativity scene on public ground; these are just asinine examples of rampant secularism gone haywire, and I am totally against fanatical secularism, which I believe is bad for society. The flip side of that is that I am also against fanatical religion. I believe there can be (and needs to be) a happy medium between religious freedom and secular government. There has never been a successful theocracy anywhere in the world, and I don’t want to see religion infused into the American system. This is not to say that I do not recognize the role that Judeo-Christian ethics played in the formation of our system, far from it. But because I recognize the religious underpinnings of our secular government does not mean that I think religion and politics should go hand-in-hand.
There’s one area of the world where religion and politics are fused, and right now we’re at war with it. QED.
When I have spoken out in support of religion and religious conservatives in the past I have done so gladly and honestly. I don’t say anything that I don’t believe. And I’ve also found that there were numbers of religious conservatives who shared my libertarian beliefs of limited government, states rights, separation of powers, and so on. It appeared that we were happy bedfellows, two sides of the same conservative coin. How quickly that illusion would be shattered over, of all things, a discussion of evolution.
If you go back and read through the evolution posts you’ll see that, in the beginning, I was much more receptive and respectful of those who disagreed with me. To summarize my point made at the time, religious beliefs should be encouraged and respected, but they should not be taught in a science classroom, because religious beliefs are, by their very definition, not scientific in nature. As expected there were a number of conservatives who immediately took me to task, which is fine. I’ve never shied away from a debate before and I’m certainly not starting now. But as the debate went on I noticed a peculiar trend. The creationists weren’t just arguing in favor of creationism or against evolution, they were arguing against the very concept of science itself. I actually found myself in the position of having debate with people who I thought were my fellow travelers in the political realm telling me, “Bah, you can’t trust what science tells you.” I actually had to defend the scientific process.
Could people I respect really be this astonishingly ignorant of how science works? I mean, argue the facts of creationism or evolution all you like, but to actually decry the scientific method, could someone in 2005 actually believe that? Yes, and there was more than one.
To say I was flabbergasted would be understatement of the century.
One point I made over and over is that the scientific method, of observation, testing, and the formulation of hypotheses based thereon has provided us with the sum total of human knowledge. There is not a single thing that we humans know that was not obtained via that method. So the very system that has provided us with, literally, everything in the world was now being attacked because it led people to believe that maybe, just maybe, the literal biblical story of creation just might not be true. HERESY! And not only was it heresy, but I was falling victim to the “lie” of evolution, which is a conspiracy by the liberal media and the entire scientific world to try and keep evolution out of schools.
In order to believe this astonishing drivel, you would have to believe that the entire scientific community, people who have devoted their lives to a search for understanding of the physical world around them, would all gladly ignore the evidence of creationism in order to keep up the front. This idea is preposterous on its face, yet people on this blog kept postulating this idiocy, and I kept having to refute it.
And thus began my alleged “hostility” towards religion. Let me state, for the record, that I was never hostile towards religion. What I am not supporting of, however, is people who are willing to ignore the sum total of human knowledge in order to literally believe a bunch of allegorical tales from a book written thousands of years ago. Religion can explain a great many things, and has immense value in creating orderly societies. But as a source of scientific fact it is, on the whole, worthless. If this means that I am hostile to religion then so be it.
There is one area of the world where ignorance of science is rampant and religion is taken literally, and we’re at war with it. What a coincidence. Many of you see a distinction between Christianity and Islam, but I don’t, at least in this context. Religion displacing science and secular politics is a bad thing, no matter what religion it is.
So, now we come to the Schiavo issue. I’ve argued myself to death over this. Anyone who wants to see the specifics of my argument can go back and read the threads. To summarize, I was shocked by the federal government intruding in a state matter. And I thought that my fellow conservatives, the vast majority of whom have continually been supportive whenever I have used a federalist argument in the past, would understand. Boy was I wrong. I was immediately assailed as a supporter of state-sponsored murder who wants to euthanize all retarded or disabled people, and rid the world of the untermenschen. Federalism is, apparently, a good thing when you’re arguing against abortion, but not when it would prevent your personal sense of right and wrong from being codified.
Look, I have no idea whether or not the actions by the Congress were constitutional. I tend to think they were, but just barely. There are constitutional scholars on both sides of this issue who can make logical arguments as to whether it was or not permitted, so I’ll gladly stipulate that I could be wrong about the constitutionality. My concern was that the Congress thought that this was an appropriate thing to get involved in at all. If the precedent is set that the federal government can intervene in any state court decision it finds undesirable, we open ourselves up to all kinds of interventions in the future.
What shocked me the most, however, was the astonishing degree to which conservatives were willing to excuse this gross violation of our constitutional system simply because they agreed with the outcome. How could this be? We all empathize with the Schindler family. Anyone who is not moved by their gut-wrenching situation has no soul. But moved or not, there are certain legal and governmental lines we simply should not cross. The ends do not justify the means. But that is exactly what the “conservatives” on this site were advocating.
A pattern emerged. Religion should trump science. Now religion should trump any limits on governmental power. What else should religion trump?
So, fast forward to today. A discussion develops concerning my post about the use of the bible in rendering judicial decisions. This, to me, is as obvious as gravity. A group of jurors pondering the fate of a criminal defendant turned to the Bible to see what God thought of the death penalty. My objection to this is not that the jurors consulted the bible, it’s that they considered any external source at all. As I said during the ensuing discussion, I would have been just as horrified by it if they had based their decision on Archie and Jughead comics. Laws exist for a reason, and the only thing that separates us from the savages is our respect for legal tradition. Whether or not you personally believe that consulting the Bible was a morally appropriate thing to do, it is not legally appropriate, and therefore the court decision throwing out the death sentence was righteous.
There’s one area of the world where religion has a higher station than the law, and right now we’re at war with it. As soon as I realized that, it became so obvious. Religion trumps science. Religion trumps the Constitution. And now religion trumps the law. The trifecta was complete.
So, I found myself in an argument with someone, explaining to them how the legal system works. And once again I was accused of being “hostile” to religion. And I just can’t fucking take it any more.
Let’s be honest here. Organized religion scares the shit out of me. It is a good thing, a very good thing, for people to have a personal relationship with the Creator of their choosing. But it is a bad thing, a very bad thing, when those people decide to take it upon themselves as some kind of anointed moral arbiters and ignore the rules of law, science, and government in order to satisfy their lust for spiritual self-congratulation.
This is what sickens me about the left. The always-brilliant Thomas Sowell wrote a book called “The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy.” In it he points out how radical leftist dogma is used in the political process, specifically so the leftists who advocate it can get a sense of self-worth and gratification for doing so. Sowell was right on the money with his analysis. Well, I see the contemporary conservative right doing exactly the same thing. There are no sacred cows, no limits, no roadblocks. There is only “the agenda,” and anything that stands in its way must be crushed.
It’s not the religious beliefs that scare me, it’s the organized political machine that cares less about my rights as an American than it does promoting a political ideology based upon those religious beliefs. If this makes me hostile to religion then so be it.
I despise extremists. I knew that voting for Bush was voting for evangelical conservatives, but I was okay with that. Living where I live I would hear people talking about how dangerous the Christian right was. “You’re crazy,” I’d say. “When I lived in Texas I knew a ton of devoutly religious people, and they were some of the finest folks you’ll ever want to meet. You’ve got them all wrong.” Well, maybe it was me that was wrong. Because as it stands now, I don’t see the religious right giving a good goddamn about my beliefs. It was, “Thanks for the vote, asshole! Now, stay out of our way!”
Sorry, folks, I’m not going to do that. If I think you’re an asshole I’m going to call you on it, whether you’re on the right or on the left. The doors to the blog will be open for business again tomorrow morning. Come in if you like, stick around as much as you choose. And if you don’t like what I write here, fuck off. Because if you’re tuning in for your daily affirmation of your conservative Republican beliefs you’ve come to the wrong place. I’m done being a Republican. They’re just as big a bunch of corrupt, big-government whores as the Democrats ever were. The distinction here, of course, is that the Democrats never claimed to be a small-government, individual rights, federalist party. The GOP has abandoned me, and I’ve never felt better about it.
See you tomorrow.
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
I can’t handle spending all day arguing with people whose opinions I used to respect. It’s quite obvious that there is no room in the conservative movement for someone like me. I’ve blogged in suport of the rights of the religious in America countless times, and over the past few weeks I’ve seen just how much respect those very same religious people have for me, my opinions, and the rule of law.
Fuck all of you.
Posted by Lee on 03/29/05 at 02:39 PM in Decline of Western Civilization • (3) Trackbacks • Permalink •
Allah Down South
Your government at work.
I don’t know about you guys, but I’m really starting to lose faith in the ability of our government to actually accomplish anything. THIS is who is supposed to be keeping us safe from Islamic fundamentalists?
I got the following email a little while ago.
I would have thought by now that my warped sense of humor would have been blatantly obvious. I engage in this sort of thing all the time. I spared no joke when Rachel Corrie was run over by the bulldozer. And I often engaged in gallows humor with my mom and dad when my dad was nearing the end of his life. Jokes are jokes, and often times the funniest jokes are the most tasteless. Gallows humor is how some people (of which I am one) deal with issues that are delicate or uncomfortable. How many times on here have I made self-deprecating jokes about my weight, or appearance, or my astonishing inability to meet a girl I actually like? This is what I do. I always encourage people to hit me with their best shot when it comes to insults, the more personal and wounding the better. That’s what I think is funny.
I always hate getting letters like this, but ultimately this site is about me. I have no editors, no subscribers. The site is free, and people are permitted to come and go as freely as they like. I hope that this reader, and anyone else who has departed recently, somehow find their way back here someday.
Oil and Water
Following up on the success of the intervention in the Schiavo case, I present the latest reason why there needs to be an explicit separation of church and state.
Quick, someone call Congress! Emergency legislation needs to be passed right now to make sure that this guy gets the death penalty! Fuck the Constitution, fuck the separation of powers, fuck states rights, and fuck the court system, this fucker’s gotta fry!
Note to religious conservatives: when you’re on a jury, forget what the Bible says. Just go with that pesky old law, okay?
Monday, March 28, 2005
Famous Last Words
Okay, I have to admit I found this tastelessly hilarious. A lot of you won’t, though. Be warned.
Who's Logged In
Total Members: 27587
Links and Info
The ACLU and Terry Jones
Most recent entries
This page has been viewed 42173642 times