Author: Raymond

 
From North Carolina pastor John Pavlovitz:

I am grieving for whatever in your story made you this way; for the painful path you must have walked to arrive here so fully wounded that you now feel so compelled to wound people.

My heart breaks for a journey so filled with injury, that it has yielded someone that burdened by fear, that prone to vitriol, that easily manipulated into contempt for another human being whose pigmentation or nation of origin or image of God or income level may not match you own.

I wonder how someone with so many advantages and so much privilege, still manages to feel themselves oppressed, still imagines they are marginalized, still feels perpetually under siege.

And I’m sorry.

– More –
 

From Libertarian Michael A. LaFerrara:

…the Dems have been far more consistent – read, extreme – in cleaving to their collectivist “ideological purity”. Socialism has had a loud voice in the Democratic Party, but capitalism has yet to find its political voice. The two ideological extremes are the primary combatants. The Left knows it. The Right doesn’t. The result: The political “middle” keeps moving Left.

In this regard, Ronald Bailey has a helpful article at Reason How Political Extremism Sways Elections and Public Policy. Contrary to the dogma that political extremism is harmful; it not only works but shapes the political direction of a nation.

– More –

 
From Dr. Arif Ahmad at The Moderate Voice:

Youth, coming through all over the Globe look up to the American President.
Years ago, growing up in Pakistan, I was one such youth.

How can they be so gracious to their opponents, the ease with which they put the country before self, their better ideals translating the larger World issues, their standing up in the face of tyranny, genocide, and brutal dictators, their grace, poise and reflection, their push for excellence and always for a better tomorrow, the list goes on and on.

– More –
 

From Ted McLaughlin at jobsanger:

Now that the Democrats have flipped 40 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, and will control what that body does, there has been a lot of talk by pundits about what the Democrats should or will do.

Last Friday, House Democrats announced what their first action will do. House Resolution 1 will be an omnibus bill covering campaign finance, ethics, and voting rights.

This is probably a pretty smart move. There are problems in all three of those areas that need to be addressed, and the American public knows it. The bill is very likely to have broad support.

It also puts pressure on the Republican Senate.

– More –

 
From nojo at Stinque:

Impeachment isn’t the only game in the House. The majority party has the power to issue subpoenas and run investigations. Much light can be shined on an Administration if they care to exercise that authority. Impeachment isn’t needed to drive that process; the incoming committee chairs are already filling their calendars. Much fun will be had.

Nor can you just “impeach”: An impeachment is a case to be made, not a finger to be pointed. And, until now, there hasn’t been much of a case available: What we know is what newspapers and legal filings tell us, and those are inadequate sources of documentation and substantiation. Congressional hearings have been a sham to date, because Republicans are willing beneficiaries of the power bestowed by a treasonous president: They get their judges nominated, they get their bills signed. They collude in the conspiracy.

We have counseled patience in this respect: There is an honest investigation in town, and we no longer fear that its final report will be buried by an uninterested House. By policy — if not law — the President will not be indicted, but the facts that would support an indictment will be clear, detailed, and comprehensive.

The case will be made.

That is when you begin impeachment proceedings. Not because they have any chance of success across the Capitol, but because the case must be presented for its own sake, in public. The crimes against our elections and our sovereignty must be made clear, such that those who deny them can be seen for the collaborators they are.

– More –
 

Note from Raymond: Burr has the day off.

Atheist, once time pastor, Bruce Gerencser asks why Christianity needs so many apologists.

Astute reader Ryan provides this thought:

Indeed, I would expect much better than the Bible (or any other religious text) from an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent god who wants to teach us its nature, how to be good people, and how to achieve eternal happiness/avoid eternal suffering.

But the problem isn’t simply that it’s flawed, vague, and open to interpretation. Even if it were flawless and absolutely clear, it would still be unable on its own to prove its most significant (supernatural) claims. For that, we need undeniable physical evidence, which any god worth following would be able and willing to provide. In fact, any god worth following wouldn’t hide itself from humanity as some bizarre test of faith, especially if it chose to show itself to others in the past.

How have I heard Christians respond? First, that the Bible is sufficient on its own; second, that the actual presence of God and promise of Heaven/threat of Hell would distort our motivations. (The first objection is rather obviously false to anyone who doesn’t buy into it already, but never mind that.) But to object to having infinitely better, indisputable evidence because we already have evidence that is technically sufficient makes no sense. Many more people would be saved if their higher standards for truth were met. This should not be regarded as a game to see just how little it takes for people to follow Jesus, where those who don’t accept the minimum are sentenced to suffering. As for our motivations, the Bible itself already contains the promise of Heaven and threat of Hell and Christians use this carrot and stick to try to convert others all the time. Motivations have been “distorted” for as long as these beliefs have been around; God’s actual interaction with us would make no difference in the matter. In fact, as it stands, those with the most questionable motivations are the Christians who have bought into the Heaven/Hell story, since the rest of us aren’t motivated by what we don’t believe.

More damning than the fact that so many religious apologists are needed is the fact that they do such a terrible job of it even collectively. In any case, no quantity or quality of apologetics can replace hard evidence.

 
From Andy Borowitz:

BAGHDAD (The Borowitz Report)—The government of Iraq announced on Tuesday that it would seek to build an international coalition to establish democracy in the state of North Carolina.

Speaking to reporters in Baghdad, the Iraqi President, Barham Salih, said that Iraq had reached out to regional powers including Canada and Mexico to launch a military invasion of North Carolina’s Ninth Congressional District to “protect the North Carolinians’ right to self-determination.”

– More –
 

 
From Tommy Christopher:

Viewers looking for a break from the non-stop love fest around recently-deceased former President George H.W. Bush got the treat they were looking for on Monday night’s edition of All In with Chris Hayes, as conservative Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin and Esquire‘s Charlie Pierce went 15 rounds over the 41st president’s legacy.

After several minutes of Kumbayah over how terrible Trump looks in comparison to Bush, Pierce began utterly destroying the former president over a variety of issues, beginning with civil rights and racism.

– More –
 

 
From Jack Jodell at The Saturday Afternoon Post:

I never voted for him – he was much too in favor of programs which favored the rich and did little for the poor. Yet I admired him for standing up to the despotic Saddam Hussein and for liberating Kuwait in the first Gulf war.He didn’t admire and pursue dictators the way Trump has. Most importantly, he wasn’t a glutton for notoriety and attention the way Trump has been. He was secure with himself and didn’t crave constant adulation from the public. He remained faithful and true to his only wife, Barbara, and treated women throughout his entire life with the dignity and respect they derive. He didn’t pursue them as trophies or view them as prey for sexual conquest the way Trump has done.

Perhaps the very best thing about him was that he led with quiet grace and never resorted to self-serving braggadocio. He actually reached out across the aisle to work with Democrats rather than constantly trying to belittle them. He proved he was a forgiving and charitable man by working with the man who defeated him in the 1992 election by joining forces with him after both has retired to battle hunger and poverty worldwide.

– More –
 

From Our favorite Earth-Bound Misfit:

Bush was many things. His life showed that he believed in duty to his country and service to others. Against the wishes of his parents, he enlisted in the Navy when he turned 18. He was a pragmatist who not only despised ideologues, but he was willing to make a massive political sacrifice for the good of the nation.[1] The 1990 budget deal cost him a second term, yet it put the Federal budget on the bath to being balanced.[2]

Bush was an advocate of volunteerism. He believed in helping those who were less fortunate.[3] He believed in improving the environment.[4] He did not believe in bragging.

Contrast that, if you will, with the current President; a man who has three discernible motivations: Self-interest, vengeance and bigotry. It is patently clear that Trump and Bush had nothing but contempt for one another.

– More –