I was reading Free Republic and preparing one of my irregular "Freepology Today" posts. It was going to be entitled, "Obama's coming! Light the cross!" as that is the tenor of about 1 in 3 posts on FR right now. Reverend Wright? A footnote. It's just pointed out in passing that Obama's church hates white people (even the white members?!) as we are told new horrors about the Scary Black Man™ running for President. Did you know that Obama is responsible for the militant New Black Panthers organization? Well, Obama's black, and they're black, so do the math, pilgrim! Obama's church also supports Hamas, BTW — did we forget to mention that Obama's former pastor hates Jews? (He does?)

The Obama bashing on Free Republic doesn't even need a basis in reality. One Freeper posted an excerpt from Obama's book about how Barack Obama Sr. was a Kenyan immigrant (I'm not sure why; I think it was to point out that Obama's bio-dad is a scary black, Muslim, immigrant) and down-thread, there were Freepers who had misread that to mean that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and wasn't eligible to run for the Presidency. Even after someone helpfully pointed out that Obama was born in Hawaii, the conspiratorial whispering of "they lied about Obama's nationality" continued in the thread.

Overall the tone is overtly racist. There has been some posting here that has been called racist, but most of it was really just "racially insensitive," especially compared with what's posted on Free Republic.

How's Clinton faring? Not much better. Although she's not the leading target right now, the slings and arrows of Freeper bullshit are going full blast. Clinton talks about China as a security concern and the bogus charge about the Clinton's supplying military technology to China emerges (a Clinton supporter was fined for letting some classified technology fall into Chinese hands, but that's hardly the cause of China's ascendancy). Rest assured that in the unlikely event that Clinton pulls ahead of Obama, she'll be getting slimed 24/7 by Freepers and their ilk.

It just doesn't matter.

If it does, we're dead. We were dead before we started our primaries. We were dead when Mike Gravel had as much name recognition — and as many delegates — as Barack Obama. If the right wing noise machine is going to kill us, then we're dead, because it's not going to go away, ever.

Reading through the Freeper posts, I couldn't help thinking about how much worse things could be said about George W. Bush — who was elected; twice! Why didn't these astute observers of politics with all of their dirty background secrets on the Democratic candidates manage to miss out on what a crappy candidate Bush was? Why, for that matter, did the Freepers choose Fred Thompson as the candidate who would "go on to the White House in November," when in reality, Thompson barely bumped the electoral meter?

Because it just doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter what the pundits say or what the facts are, people are going to believe what they want to believe. That's the "gift" of the age of Aquarius and its Information Superhighway™. Somewhere in cyberspace, there is someone who is ready to tell you that exactly what you want to believe is true, is, in fact, true.

Obama will win in November if the net psychology of the country wants whatever they think he is. Otherwise, we'll get McCain. That doesn't mean that campaigning won't change things and that grass root won't change things. What it really means is that the people who wouldn't vote for Obama (or Clinton) in the first place are — surprise, surprise — not going to vote for Obama or Clinton and that — surprise, surprise — their explicit reasoning for this choice may be complete fucking bullshit.

So forget all this "electability" stuff that's based on what Sean Hannity and NewsMax have to say on the subject. Just forget it. It just doesn't matter. Also, dismiss a lot of the Obama-Clinton warring here that has the same tone. It just doesn't matter.

Something matters, but it's bigger than all that. Those gut feelings that say, "Wow, we (the Dems) are going to win this fall. The Republicans are going to get slaughtered." That matters. The sense you get when you're around your former Bush-loving friends, neighbors, coworkers and relatives, that they are ready for a real change. That matters.

And now, for your viewing pleasure: http://youtube.com/watch?v=FYHAEkaFThU

I mean, did you learn English before they invented punctuation?

You said in the OP that you voted for LBJ, but now, "who I vote for is none of your business that is my civil rights." So why did you bring up who you voted for in the first place if it's your "civil rights" not to have it discussed?

"If you don't want to read it then don't hang it out there..."

What, and miss out on the wonders of the Information Age? It used to be that rambling, incoherent rants like this could only be obtained from crazy people on street corners in New York City and now I can have them delivered digitally into my own home for a small monthly fee. That's progress.

There was a time when that was a respectful term for people with African heritage.

After a while, it had been used as an epithet too many times and it became disrespectful and a new term came into fashion. Once upon a time, "colored" was a respectful term, until it became a buzzword of segregation.

This linguistic history — how we have to keep adopting new language because the current terms inevitably becomes associated with bigotry — is a testament to a cultural wound that never been able to fully heal.

There is one version of Christianity. The one in the Bible. You can criticize Christians for getting it wrong, but you can't Christianity for their misapprehensions any more that you can criticize cosmology for the fact that they believe the Earth is 6000 years old.

For the record, the sole New Testament verse upon which you hang your entire point says this:

"απιστοις" (apisteo) is "apostate." An apostate is someone who claims to believe something but really follows a corrupted belief. If there is any truth to this verse, it is the people misinterpreting the Bible who should be worried about it, not the people who never subscribed to it in the first place.

This verse is not about the kind of unbelievers who buy Sam Harris books.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084

Jim Davis wrote a NewsMax article saying that Obama attended a "hate America" sermon on July 22nd last year. The problem is that Obama was in Miami when the sermon occurred. Now Jim Davis is saying "Oh, it was one of those sermons somewhere in a three-week period."

What else have Jim Davis written? Well, he's written a bunch of posts on Free Republic:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1...

Davis is apparently coming under attack for fucking up this story. Here are his Freeper forum posts:
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/posts-by:p... /

Edit: Oh this is rich: Yesterday, Jim Davis was concealing his identity on Free Republic:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1...

Edit: This just keeps getting better. Davis is hanging on to the possibility that Obama went to the 7:30 AM service. Unfortunately, that was preached by someone other than Wright. So now he's alleging that they must have doctored the videos and the schedule on the TUCC web site, but really, he doesn't remember anything very well.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1...

Important note: Davis is getting beaten up on Free Republic for his inaccuracy far more than his story was here. Shame on all the DUers who posted and defended it.

In the Spring of 1992, I knew very little about this "Bill Clinton" guy who was wowing people with his speeches and rising in stature toward the nomination. Democrats were excited by his enthusiasm, his articulate speeches and his charm. "What a great candidate to topple the lack-luster Bush," I thought.

Then, it happened. In late March, Bill Clinton said one of the stupidest things I've ever heard a candidate say. When admitting that he had smoked marijuana, he said that he didn't inhale. Clinton had already been dogged by questions about his character and this seemed like it was going to push it over the top. Nevertheless, he continued on, gaining support everywhere he went. Of course, he didn't bother going to Texas for any public event, so I never got a chance to see him. After 12 years of Republican rule, and living in a redder-than-red state, I pretty much gave up on the idea that this Clinton buffoon could ever win national election.

Then, in June, I finally saw the guy. It was on the Arsineo Hall Show and he made his entrance playing saxophone with the band. After that, he joined Arsineo for a Q&A in which the subject of "I didn't inhale," was brought up. Clinton said, "I was a little startled by the question and I said something stupid." Arsineo asked what he'd do if he could do it again, and Clinton responded, "I'd just say 'yes'." That's when I knew that the character issues (which turned out to have some merit) and the "I didn't inhale" bullshit weren't going to stick. This guy was a winner — and he won two terms.

Obama is continuing to accrue delegates and he is continuing to rise above the bitter rhetoric and mud-slinging. Americans have a long time between now and the general elections to see and hear from Barack Obama. Reverend Wright is not Obama's "Macaca" moment, it's his "I didn't inhale" moment. It will be endlessly flogged by the enemies of American democracy and soon forgotten by anyone who hears Obama address the important issues — the issues that matter to them.

These issues are also supposed to matter to us. Whether you are supporting Clinton or Obama, we owe it to ourselves to rebuke the politics of personal destruction and support our issues and the candidates who are promoting them.

Grover Cleveland had less than a year as Mayor of Buffalo and two years as Governor of New York.

He was a straight-talking populist who was unwilling to kowtow to the entrenched and corrupt elements of the Democratic status quo. He won an electoral landslide because the country was eager for reform.

Cleveland ran against a Republican who had 5 terms in Congress — three as Speaker of the House, four years in the Senate and a stint as Secretary of State. He was an aggressive politician and a formidable debater. Nevertheless, he lost to the plain-speaking populist newcomer.

I suppose that Cleveland isn't "modern" enough to meet your arbitrary criteria, but there's a story here — a story that could very well repeat this year.

I've logged a lot of hours on DU and I've enjoyed most of them, but now it is time to leave this community, maybe for good.

I expect give and take on Internet forums. I expect conflict. I realize that tempers can flare and that even when the moderators do a great job, people get away with saying some pretty fucked up shit.

Nevertheless I read something today on GD-P — something that remains unlocked — that made me realize that I can't, in good conscience, continue to post here. Today, a DUer called on supporters of one of the Democratic candidates to storm the Denver convention and bully the delegates into supporting that candidate. Not only did this utterly reprehensible and undemocratic call to action fail to incite universal disdain, but several people — prominent "Lounge Lizards" openly endorsed the plan. You can read the details here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...

I'm not associating myself with a forum where this kind of bullshit is given any quarter.

I know... "don't let the screen door hit me on the way out." I've seen all the snide responses to these posts before, but I still felt I had to let everyone know why I'm leaving. Will I be back? I don't know yet.

Recent polling data (end of last week) from SurveyUSA shows Obama winning more electoral votes than Clinton in the general election.


If you look at the underlying data at the site (http://www.surveyusa.com ) you will find that Obama wins states by larger margins and loses by smaller margins than Clinton. Obama is withing 1% of winning Texas. With time to shine against McCain, Obama could have an electoral landslide.

Edit: In this poll, Obama loses the following states by a margin that is within the margin of error. That means the following states are battleground states.
Florida
Nebraska
New Jersey
North Carolina
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas

As far as punditry goes, this prediction may end up turned on its head like most of the others. We'll see.

I did like the point that Catholics are already accustomed to thinking of women in leadership positions. It always gets under my skin when people bash the Catholic church for excluding women from the priesthood because that is hardly the be-all-end-all of Catholic veneration. There are more women who are Saints than men. Furthermore, there are female Saint who were scientists, doctors, warriors and all sorts of "traditionally male" roles. I can't think of an institution with a greater wealth of role models for girls and women than the Catholic Church — the alleged bane of egalitarianism.

I strongly suspect that the people who claim that they could never be Catholic because of its "sexist stance" on the clergy wouldn't be Catholic even if that were reversed. (I do know gay Episcopalians who would gladly return to the Church if they felt welcome, but that's a whole different story.)

Anyway, one of the "plus" points for Clinton (really, the Clintons) was Bill's involvement in resolving the ongoing strife in Northern Ireland. That was a great achievement that benefited both Catholics and their close Anglican cousins (aka "the Protestants"). Still, the Catholics in my state (Texas) are Hispanic. Senator Clinton has been doing well with Hispanics, but I'm starting to suspect that it is because many Hispanics have been apolitical and just weren't familiar with Senator Obama. That has certainly changed at this point. The racist "anti-immigrant" campaign of the right has politicized the Hispanic demographic and Barack Obama has enjoyed a great deal of exposure recently. We'll have to see if this results a change in Hispanic voting.

For my part, I'm not foolish enough to make any predictions in this election.

Almost nothing is know of St. Valentine. We know he was an early Roman Christian and that he was reported buried on the Via Flamina on February 14th. His name lived on as a list of early noteworthy Christians that was passed down orally for a the better part of a century until it was documented in 354. In 496, Pope Gelasius I gave St. Valentine a feast day, but noted that while he was worthy of veneration, known one but God Himself knew the details.

The connection of the feast day of St. Valentine to romantic love appears to have been invented by 15th century luminary Geoffry Chaucer. Due to the lack of information about St. Valentine, plus a long-standing smear that activities associated with St. Valentine were pagan, he was removed from the RCC liturgical calendar during Vatican II. Pope Benedict XVI restored authorization to officially commemorate St. Valentine with a "simple feast" July of last Year.

While I think it is highly appropriate to thank Valentine for risking — and probably losing — his life in dedication to the ministry of Christ, I am now officially sick of the essentially secular holiday that has sprung up to try and sell us things in his name. That would have been the end of the story, except for plans I wanted to make next week.

A new restaurant has opened that I want to visit. An old friend works there and offered an expensive dinner "on the house" — how could I refuse? The restaurant can be pretty crowded, so I thought of a great idea: get reservations on the 15th. Even though that's a Friday night, the restaurant shouldn't be too packed, as most people looking for a "special night out" this week will be doing it on Thursday, the 14th, as something to do for Valentine's Day. So, if I'm right, the 15th should be a fairly muted evening; the wife and I hate crowds.

While the feast days of Saints Valentine and Patrick have become fixtures of secular celebrate, every other day of the year is a feast day for some Saint — usually 3-20 of them, depending on where you are. So, on February 15th my wife and I will celebrate St. Claude's Day with a nice dinner. Additionally, as St. Claude is the patron Saint of toy makers, we're each going to buy a toy for each other. (And not the kind some people get each other on Valentine's day, although that would be fine if you're into that kind of thing.)

So I'm encouraging the popularization of St. Claude's Day. Have a feast of some sort and give a toy to someone special.

Now, does anyone have the faintest idea why St. Claude is the patron saint of toy makers because I can't find anything about that.

As it turns out my wife it writing a thesis on the effects of Greco-Roman astrology on early Christianity, so this is how she says the Greeks would have called it:

Pluto has entered the constellation of Ophiuchus (Ah-fyoo-kus).

This is a forgotten 13th sign that fills in the partial month that's needed to reconcile a lunar calendar with a solar year. Ophiuchus was a healer god, who was eventually killed by two giant snakes sent by Zeus (this is why there are two snakes on the healing staff of Mercury; it's an Ophiuchus reference). Ophiuchus had the ability to heal and raise people from the dead and his great crime was to start charging for his services; Zeus dispatched him with the snakes, so he ended up going to the underworld and serving as a judge under Pluto's realm.

Pluto entering Ophiuchus would signal that Ophiuchus is now under Pluto's realm, so it is a period where his crimes will be punished. His main failing was hubris (thinking that his gift could be used for his own gain), so from now until some time in 2017 is a bad time to have hubris (look out Repubs!). Also, it's a bad time to be running a profit-motivated health care system, as that will be torn down (or somehow destroyed by Zeus).

Pluto is not only the bringer of Karmic payback, but also the ruler of change (death and rebirth). If something needs to be changed, it will be; if it's been really ignored, it will be radically changed. Ophiuchus pissed off Ares because he brought life when Ares brought war and death. Hermes would show up to pick someone up for transport to Charon's ferry to the underworld and Ophiuchus would raise them from the dead and Hermes would be like, "I wasted a trip!" So, look for radical (and righteous) reversals over the next decade.

Anyway, that's what the Greek astrologers would say. Cross your fingers and pray over your lucky astrology mood watch that they'd be right.

P.S. Yes, the ex-planet Pluto was not discovered until 1920. Still, the Greeks always believed that Pluto must have a planet, but that they just couldn't see it (Pluto being a god of hidden things). This is why it's considered valid to assign this modern planetoid to the ancient Greek god.

In another response, I pointed out the desperate need for validation shown by the "New Atheists." The subsequent torrent of incoherent caterwauling indicates that I hit a pretty raw nerve. Methinks they doth protest too much.

One of the most substantive — and I'm being generous here — responses was to challenge my assertion that was any substantial faction of "New Atheist" who has exhibited this "need for validation." I would think that the OP and the overwrought responses to my observation would prove sufficient evidence, but I decided to do a little research and come up with some actual examples.

In 2005, a guy named Brian Flemming produced a film entitled "The God Who Wasn't There." Did it make a splash in theological circles? Yeah, much like a turd landing in the commode. A fair and succinct review from the Baptist Council on Ethics ends with this:

The films structural and factual shortcomings are discussed in much greater detail at other sites. Among many examples is the movie using an image of a amulet known to be a hoax. The film's maker responds that any claims about the validity of this artifact do not affect the overall truth of the movie. That may or may not be true, but they certainly affect the credibility of the movie. Obviously, if the film-maker had any clue that the artifact was a hoax, it wouldn't have been included, but the only thing Brian Flemming needs more desperately than a clue is VALIDATION.

After "they" came, "they" saw, and "they" ripped this shoddy film to bits, the religious community went back about their business — particularly since Flemming has steadfastly refused to engage any theologian or Biblical scholar in a dialog or debate (two years running!). Frustrated that his film wasn't getting enough attention, in 2006 Flemming announced his "war on Easter" which involved distributing 666 copies of the film (I get it! 666! That's awesome, Beavis!) to churches. Fans of the film were instructed to go into churches and leave copies of the film in the pews.

This puerile taunting produced no results. The people watched the films, consulted with knowledgeable clergy and scholars on the contents, discovered is was a load of Blavatsky and went on with their lives.

Not having sufficiently been an attention-seeking dick, Brian Flemming then launched to retarded "blasphemy challenge" in which people with similar emotional problems could taunt Christians via YouTube. Using a distorted interpretation of a single line of Scripture (always the hallmark of the intellectually bankrupt), he invited people to "blaspheme the Holy Spirit" on video, offering a copy of his "hit" film (which he seems to give away an awful lot of copies of) to the first 1001 contestants. Currently on the project site is a video of a guy wearing a T-shirt that says, "Fuck Jesus." What a rational adult.

You might be tempted to declare Harris and Dawkins to be above this circus, but, in fact, they contributed to Flemming's film, support it and promote it. Flemming has is also associated with the "Rational Response Squad," an organization promoted to "eliminating religion" — the site seems to imply that this will be done by harassing theist with more desperate attention-seeking behavior. One of their promotional images:

Another suggested "link to us" boilerplate offers the text, "The Rational Response Squad is my favorite atheism and religion site! It's got atheist radio and atheist forums and they know more about Jesus Christ and God than Christians do!" If this knowledge was gained from the widely debunked claims in "The God Who Wasn't There," then this claim is clearly false.

Some of you may claim that "I just live my live according to my own beliefs (or lack of beliefs) and don't care what the theists think of me." You can't claim that honestly, however, unless you haven't already posted in this thread with a shrill, emotional ad hominem-heavy attack on my observations that the "New Atheists" seem bent on defining themselves by their desperate need for a reaction from theists.

Well, my ill-advised foray into the cesspool of R/T is done. Later.

There's a lot at stake. Another four years of Republican rule could seriously destroy this country — not in a metaphorical sense, but in a tangible sense.

What if Obama really isn't tough enough to withstand the inevitable Republic slime assault? What if Clinton's negatives really will make her a loser? If John Edwards can't do better than 3rd in these primaries, will he bring out enough voters to clobber the Republican candidate? I think some of the stridency is driven by fear that if we pick the wrong candidate, we'll lose again.

Another factor is that many of us are sick of the compromise. We used to be a country that absolutely renounced torture, and now we're talking about how much torture is too much — it's upsetting. One example is the anger that some people have over Obama's association with an anti-gay gospel singer. Are the other leading candidates really going to be that much better for the gay community? I don't know, but I do know that a lot of people are sick of being betrayed by Reid and Pelosi and aren't in a mood to be forgiving anymore.

That's my take on it.