At Why do we have to do this, Sir? it's the faculty's turn to go insane as rumors flow of classroom reorganization within the building. Our erstwhile spiritual representative in Britain keeps on keeping on, waxing Shakespearean.
How ever does he make these random wanderings so entertaining? How does he bring them together at the last moment into a coherence that reminds one of a high wire circus performer saving himself at the last breathtaking moment? Vincent of A wayfarer's notes ponders what to reveal and what to keep private in biography and blogging, veers into adventures at an unusual worship service held by the Jubilee Church.
Michael Hawkins of Mad Mike's America takes on believers like ... well ... me, explaining gradations of agnosticism and atheism, but follows this with a cogent defense of atheism as a default position. The burden of proof is on believers. My own thoughts to a similar proposition can be found here.
I remember hearing of a preacher ranting against the popular image of "a namby pamby Jesus," suggesting that a carpenter's son must have been physically powerful and should be portrayed as such. PZ Myers, writing for Pharyngula, takes a similar approach to a cute-as-a-kitten ad for atheism, and suggests a heartier approach. Yikes.
Ryan at Secular Ethics evaluates each of the seven deadly sins from the perspective of an atheist. Pithy, instructive, entertainingly written, as usual. Ryan is worth a click and, for the discerning, a bookmark.
Infidel 753 traces human morality to biology. The Ten Commandments are a path to reproductive success.
Slant Right's John Houk is unimpressed with anti-Israel rhetoric that presents the frequently embattled country as an apartheid nation. Actually, if settlement policies don't change soon, the country will face either a future of becoming an apartheid nation, or of losing its Jewish identity. It's a matter of mathematics.
Tommy Christopher of Mediaite fame, brings up a racial double entendre used by the Romney campaign, allows that it may have been unintentional, and is called a racist by Fox News personalities because he noticed it. The logic is, if you catch onto a racial reference, you must be racist for thinking it refers to race.
As Fox targets Tommy, Ta-Nehisi Coates of the Atlantic Monthly captures the phenomenon earlier this week:
The conservative movement doesn't understand anti-racism as a value, only as a rhetorical pose. This is how you end up tarring the oldest integrationist group in the country (the NAACP) as racist. The slur has no real moral content to them. It's all a game of who can embarrass who. If you don't think racism is an actual force in the country, then you can only understand it's invocation as a tactic.
YAFB of Rumproast unpacks Romney's slogan by tracing its literal roots, policy message and the actual results in the country of origin. Tough message, meaner policy, harshest result. Severe conservatism can hit pretty hard.
Mike Tyson launches an irresponsible rant wishing deadly violence on accused Trayvon murderer George Zimmerman. Chuck Thinks Right sees it as a summary "all of the geniuses on the left" and, on that basis, decides his opinion of the killing itself. Why look at evidence or consider logic if you take Mike Tyson as an opposing guide?
Several years ago, in a chat room, I had an internet confrontation with a participant who was a little too violent in his rhetoric about George W. Bush. I asked him if we should be concerned about a potential threat to the President. He got the legal implication and quickly shifted his direction. I confess I was angry. It was not the first time. Manifesto Joe of Texas Blues is more gentlemanly as he takes Ted Nugent to task.
Dave Dubya contrasts popular reaction to Hilary Rosen's loose cannon rhetoric about Ann Romney with Ted Nugent's violent rants about the President. Threat? Threat? Who said I was actually gonna DO anything?
The Heathen Republican excoriates President Obama for arguing against, but not abolishing, increases in income gaps between wealthy and middle class. Actually, he quotes Obama's April 14 address arguing for tax fairness rather than income redistribution, but why quibble over mere facts? He does accurately remember an argument he himself made a while back, offering stats on filibusters to "prove" Republicans don't filibuster inordinately. A look under the hood pretty much destroys Heathen's filibuster arguments, but he repeats them anyway. Like a house of cards, discredited filibuster arguments are used to shore up income inequality arguments that are misapplied to a different tax fairness address . . . until, like London Bridge, the dominoes all fall DOWN.
James Wigderson believes the Wisconsin recall of Governor Scott Walker is hurting Democratic chances in the coming US Senate race. He casts it as Democratic effort that miscalculates the political effect. His analysis of the actual policy-driven anger by more than partisan participants appears in other articles.
- Papamoka at Papamoka Straight Talk has a girl friend (good for him) who has AT&T and had a routine request. Turns out to be an unexpected madcap adventure. Papamoka is unimpressed with AT&T.
Trackback address for this post
Leave a comment
|« Introduction - Ask and Seek and Knock||Mitt Defends His Dad from President's Brutal Attack »|