kimmy

There are cases where the harm being caused is part and parcel of the teachings. That's not exclusive to Christianity, obviously. An example: religious sects that forbid modern medicine on religious grounds. There have been numerous recent cases in the news where children died needlessly of easily treatable ailments, because their parents were members of sects that forbid medical intervention for religious reasons. You can't separate the harm from the belief in that instance. Or how about the anti-vaccine movement? I consider Jenny McCarthy to be an idiot, a menace, and a clear danger to the health of children because of the anti-vaccination propaganda she is spreading. She's not spreading it on religious grounds. She's spreading it because she read a bunch of junk-science. Would those views become more respectable if they came out of somebody's interpretation of a holy-book instead of from www.naturalmedicine.com? I don't believe so. Jenny McCarthy says her views are based on some "research" she did. Anti-vaccination pastors views are based on the religious premise that only people who don't trust God would get vaccinations. And recently there have been outbreaks of diseases at some US mega-churches. Jenny McCarty read some crappy websites, Pastor Copeland read some scripture, they both convinced people to not get vaccinated. Is there a good reason to respect Pastor Copeland's views on vaccination more than Jenny McCarthy's? I don't think so. -k

I sure hope you're wrong, Bubber. I'm just trying to facilitate a discussion, and if some of our friends here at MLW have some issues they need to get off their chests, then I'm here to listen. Because I care. -k

Why would the tax exempt status of some political action groups affect Romney's voter turn out? You're suggesting that peoples' right to vote was taken away because some political action group didn't get a charitable tax exemption? I think that's a ridiculous idea, but feel free to convince me otherwise. -k

If the hundreds of millions of dollars that corporate America funneled into conservative superPACs couldn't get Romney into the White House, what makes you think the chickenfeed that the Tea Party bumpkins could have chipped in would have made a difference? Also, the IRS was right to investigate these political groups. Here are the criteria for what groups are actually supposed to receive tax exemptions: ...and anybody who thinks that Tea Party Patriots of Tuskaloosa fits those criteria would have to be borderline retarded. -k

One of our esteemed colleagues here at MLW has posted in his profile feed demanding that: Perhaps we should talk more about that. I'd like to propose that it's not "anti-Christian bigotry" to criticize ignorant or stupid people, even if those people happen to be Christian. I'd like to propose that it's not "anti-Christian bigotry" to criticize ignorant or stupid policies, even if those policies happen to be favored by some Christians. I'd like to propose that it's not "anti-Christian bigotry" to criticize extreme conservatism, even if some Christians support extreme conservatism. -k

Romney actually had about a million more votes than McCain (60,933,500 to 59,948,323). Also, while the conservative Republicans might not have been fired up about Mitt Romney, they were certainly fired up about defeating Obama. And, white evangelical Christians-- the core of the conservative vote-- turned up to vote in record numbers in 2012. So while the Tea Partiers may think they can win by nominating a hardcore conservative, I think it's a dubious claim. It's not really supported by any demographic information. -k

Obama has certainly f'ed it up bigtime, but not in the way you think. Obama won the election largely because of young voters... voters who traditionally didn't vote much until Obama came along. Now those voters are looking at the guy they put in the White House, and they are thinking "WTF is this crap? Pro war? Pro surveillance? Nothing done about Wall Street accountability, nothing done about tuition fees... why did we vote for this big fat phony?" Obama is in danger of convincing one of they keys to his election win to not bother voting in 2014 and 2016, which is bad news for his successor and for Democrat candidates in 2014. -k

One guy who used to be talked about as a contender for the Republican nomination in 2016 was Virginia governor Bob McDonnell. But with a major scandal on his hands, he is far more likely to end up in the Big House than the White House. McDonnell is being investigated for accepting lavish gifts from a private firm called Star Scientific. Hopefully clowns like Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann will stay home as well. -Chris Christie -Paul Ryan -Bobby Jindal -Marco Rubio -Rick "Santorum" Santorum -Ted "Undocumented Kenyan Canadian" Cruz -Rand Paul -Jeb Bush I was sure impressed with Chris Christie as a speaker during the Republican National Convention. I doubt his hefty build will hurt him either... it just adds to his "everyman" quality. I think it is worth pointing out that some Republicans consider Christie to be literally worse than Hitler. There was irate fury from the Breitbart Rimbaugh types when Christie toured the Hurricane Sandy devastation with Obama before the election. They claim he's a traitor, that he deliberately sabotaged Romney so that he could run in 2016, all these things. It is also worth mentioning that the Tea Partiers are convinced that they reason Romney lost is that he's too moderate, and that they need to nominate a Real Conservative ™ in 2016. The Tea Party is slightly less popular than Ebola among the general public, but they remain a powerful and well-funded group within the Republican party. -k

I am sure it will be worth the wait. -k

Did Pliny move to Ontario? -k

A big day for Senator McCain! First he delivered an epic smackdown of Steve Doocy and Other Guy on Fox News. When Other Guy plays an audio clip of Syrian rebels shouting "Allah Akbar!" after shooting down a jet fighter, Other Guy announces "I have a problem with helping those people!" In response, McCain asks "You have a problem with that? Would you have a problem with American Christians saying Thank God, Thank God?" I like the look of slack-jawed bewilderment on Other Guy's face. It suits him. Not content to stop there, McCain hit the headlines again when he was caught playing poker on his iPhone during hearings on Syria. McCain fessed up on Twitter, adding that the worst part of it is that he lost. Oh, John, you rascal! How could we stay mad at you? -k

That is exactly how I feel about it. Hearing their fake patriotism on the radio 5 times every hour made me want to puke. -k

The Arizona Republic is over 120 years old. It's the largest newspaper in Arizona, and the 16th largest newspaper in all of the United States. For somebody who considers the Wacky News desk at Yahoo.com to be "mainstream media", the Arizona Republic should meet your high standards. The reality is that Arizona's recent politics have been rife with right-wing extremism that makes an endorsement of "gay conversion therapy" seem like something they could do. Sarah Palin didn't actually say the things Tina Fey said in the skits. Sarah Palin demonstrated a level of ignorance so astounding that it made the things Tina Fey said in the skits amusingly close to the truth. And Jan Brewer didn't say the things the hoax piece said she did, but Brewer's world view is such that it wouldn't really shock people if she had. There's plenty going on in Arizona politics that makes this satire as plausible as Tina Fey's Sarah Palin. -k

Link To me, that's the funny part of the whole thing. Jewish groups, more than any other group I can think of except arguably gay rights activists, can demand to be taken seriously regardless of how trivial their concerns are. -k

That's standard practice. Visit The Onion or watch an episode of The Daily Show and you'll find no Photoshopped photos and news stories presented as if they were real. Ok then, perhaps he did have activism in mind after all. He certainly seems pleased with the amount of attention his story achieved, and "People Can Change" website still has a disclaimer on their website declaring that the story was a hoax. What of it? As the Arizona Republic reporter explained above, the whole reason this story took off is that Arizona's reputation for crazy stuff is well known, which led people to believe it could happen. If Arizona wasn't such a ripe target for being lampooned, this wouldn't have gone anywhere. -k

For all the Republican cheerleaders who were howling that Obama might take military action without the approval of Congress, a reminder that Willard said he'd do the same, a year ago: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/mitt-romney-says-he-could-wage-war-on-iran-without-congress-approval/258607/ Was Romney Right? -k

Oh? Did he say otherwise somewhere? I had a quick look for any statements from the author indicating this was anything other than comedy, and didn't see any, but I'd be interested to see anything he had to say. I did find this video, where two reporters from the Arizona Republic discuss the hoax, and why so many people believed it: http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20130822arizona-schools-not-implementing-gay-conversion-therapy.html?nclick_check=1 "...but it's also the fact that Arizona has done so much crazy stuff already. We would be the most susceptible state to something like this. If somebody saw this, they would probably be more likely to believe this about Arizona than about almost any other state. ...we have many, many, many issues here. But thankfully we're not *this* crazy." -k

This new Sony product combines high-quality binoculars with high-resolution video camera technology to create a "3d video" camera with insane zoom capability. http://howtospendit.ft.com/technology/34033-see-and-capture -k

Because the intent was humor, not activism. -k

If the objective, as they claim, had been to confiscate dangerous materials for the sake of public safety, that could have been accomplished in a matter of moments. If they had a legal basis to lay charges against Miranda, that also could have been accomplished in a matter of moments. Why, again, did they detain him for 9 hours? The law, as we recall, allows them to detain someone for up to 9 hours, and they held Miranda up to literally the last minute they were allowed to, before setting him loose. Miranda says that they spent that time attempting to intimidate and coerce him into turning against Greenwald. -k

Based on the kinds of news stories that emanate from the southern US on a regular basis, would it really be that surprising to have a state legislature endorse "gay conversion" for public schools? This wasn't a very good satire piece. "Mandatory" makes this improbable; they would know better than to make it "mandatory". And, had I been the writer I'd have set it in Mississippi or Louisiana instead of Arizona; this seems like more of a Deep South kind of a thing (it's been pointed out that Arizona isn't part of the traditional "South"; they've got their own kind of crazy.) I'd have also made it a fictional schoolboard rather than the whole state. Nonetheless, the premise was clearly to ridicule hyperactive social conservatism, and there's certainly plenty of it to ridicule. -k

Pertinent to the specific case of "gay conversion therapy"? Or pertinent to the broader theme of social conservatism gone out of control in the southern states? -k

While he claims the law would only be used to prosecute people who prey on minors, that doesn't change the fact that it certainly is a ban on oral sex. That's indisputable from reading the text of the law itself: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-361 Cuccinelli voted against an update of the law that would have restricted the scope to minors: http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?041+vot+S03V0137+SB0477 When Cuccinelli says he needs anti-sodomy laws to protect minors from sexual exploitation, what he's really saying is that he's incompetent, because he had other legal options to employ than the "Crimes Against Nature" law which was already known to be unconstitutional. "My view is that homosexual acts, not homosexuality, but homosexual acts are wrong. Theyre intrinsically wrong. And I think in a natural law based country its appropriate to have policies that reflect that. ... They dont comport with natural law." -Ken Cuccinelli on banning sex acts. It's a private project, run by Answers In Genesis. It has nothing to do with cashing in on "Evan Almighty" or any other recent movies (*what* recent movies, btw?). Ken Ham and his friends at Answers In Genesis have stated that their goal is to promote their belief that the Noah's Ark story is literal history. "What if we built the Ark (out of wood) today? Imagine the impact it could have on the world. What a powerful outreach to teach the world about Gods Word and the message of salvation!" While there's apparently disagreement on the question of whether tax incentives are a subsidy, there's no question that the Ark Encounter could potentially receive financial benefits from the government. There's no caveats, except in (as AW pointed out) the mistake regarding the claim about Arizona deputies being ordered to carry AR15s 24/7, and the dubious distinction between subsidies and tax incentives regarding the Ark Encounters. -k

Given the timing of this, I can't help wondering if this sudden interest in military action in Syria is a result of domestic political factors. Two possibilities that come to mind are: -the NSA controversy. A war would take that out of the news. It would also make it harder for people to criticize the NSA without having their patriotism questioned. -as leverage in debt ceiling negotiations. ("Our sons and daughters are serving our country in the Middle East and they need the tools to do their job!") Some politicians from both parties are banding together to say "wait a minute, what's the point of doing this, anyway?" and I wish them the best of luck. What can actually be accomplished by military intervention in Syria? What's the ultimate payoff: an Egypt type situation where either a brutal regime wins or Islamist forces win? What's so great about either outcome that America ought to be investing its resources? Intervening is a no-win situation... no desirable outcome is likely and criticism and controversy is guaranteed. Who, other than Raytheon has anything to gain from US military action in Syria? The other question to be asked is why can't countries in the Arab world take the lead on this? Why aren't Turkey and Jordan and Iran the ones who should be putting an end to the carnage in their own back yard? The Arab world continually howls that they want America to stop interfering in their affairs, yet when something like this happens everybody looks to the United States to make things right. It doesn't make sense. I hope that America lets them pound each other to ash to let them see what a world without American intervention looks like. -k