(x-posted)
So he was on the vanguard of the politicization of evangelical christianity in the 70s and 80s.
He was the patron saint of a group of people who are continually reminded that they are under attack from The Enemy (nevermind who this enemy is, suffice to say that the war is permanent), and who firmly believe, in the deepest and most sincere corners of their hearts, that all would be well, if only they were in charge.
He was one of the great demagogues of their movement, this ever-under-attack group who want power, influence, feeling that each one of them, though small and fragile and singular have plugged themselves into the Winning Team and will reap rewards for it.
He was one of the great hatemongers of this group, the more politicized each one in the group is, the more hateful they tend to be -- after all, are not the idealists, like all True Believers before them not comforted in the infallibility they feel when they renounce their critical thinking power to That Which Is Above? -- and the more frightened they also are of their chosen Other.
He was a forceful leader. Charismatic. Larger-Than-Life and hob-nobbing with the very rich and powerful who could grease the skids for their revolution to return their society back to some golden era that never actually existed, and they love him for it. You can see it over at Free Republic or LGF. He was their champion.
A champion for those for lust for power over others, who long for those very awful others to face retribution for their wrongs, a champion of bile and bitterness, champion of persecution, segregation, apartheid and punishment. He was the champion of a segment of society who is motivated out of nothing less than total, abject, paralyzing fear which was ingrained in them from the start, that fear of punishment eternal, and somehow, mainly because it is much more convenient and gratifying, they have their fear molded into a lust for power temporal.
If you believe in God, understand this: God will have nothing to do with this modern Pharisee, this venomous snake whose product was nothing more than bile and power pipe dreams. And those who followed him, those benighted dreamers who hang their hat on Avarice and call it Glory, well... God will have nothing to do with them, either. Unless and until they repent and learn what the message of the Gospel was truly about.
But for me, I don't believe in God. So all this man was was a fearmonger, a demagogue, one who padded his pockets and the pockets of hundreds of cronies on the backs of the poorest, most fearful group of believers who only wanted to feel a tiny part of the power of the winning side. And it is those people whom he has fleeced over the decades that I pity. For their hatred enabled his, which in turn spurred theirs on further. For their fear enabled his riches, and their desire for power which brooks no discussion has brought themselves into a deeper spiritual poverty than inhabited their coldest nightmares.
Would that all of the hatemongers, of any side, never achieve the status or the influence of Falwell. But I know better. Another head will sprout in his place. And they already have, with names like Reed and Dobson.
Eh, I'm over it now.
I still don't have any sympathy for people who scream about an injustice with half-truths. I'd say my initial suspicions were correct: they were intentionally hiding the facts to get people on their side.
It does piss me off when people resort to lies and half-truths to get me to support something I may have supported if they'd just come out with the truth to start with, it makes me feel like they were trying to use me.
After wading through as much of the detail as I could follow, my take on this is pretty much the same as Lara's.
The Nation and the small presses are screaming about a rate hike when, in reality, it is the loss of a discount.
I don't accept the logic that the discontinuation of a discount is the same as a targeted rate hike, just as I didn't accept the California Teachers' Association claim that a less-than-asked-for budget increase (even though the increase was greater than inflation) was a budget cut.
Am I sympathetic? Not as much as if they'd come clean on it from the start. Hardly at all, in fact. And if they're willing to play a bullshit PR "woe is me, the big bully is hiking our rates to put us out of business" card when the reality is "the big bully is taking away our discounts even though we need them to survive," well, I would've been more sympathetic to the second. But that's not what they said.
As far as I'm concerned, The Nation can choke on that $500k cost for lying to me about it.
I'd be more than happy to have an opinion on the matter, especially considering that my righteous outrage glands and muscles are in prime operating condition after the last few years of being worked out, but why aren't The Nation telling us how the new system is unfair?
All they're saying is "This OTHER proposal by $evil_conglomerate which was was adopted under $shady_deal is unfairly hurting us poor, honorable Tellers of Truth." If that's the case, then why not tell us any details of the change?
I love to get all riled up about injustices, but this sounds more like PR BS.
Neither plan is telling me what, precisely, the changes are. Are the price hikes on a "per unit mailed" rate, or on a "per pound mailed" rate?
I smell obfuscation to make a point.
Would a "per unit"-biased rate hike be disproportionate to small and medium-sized outlets simply because they tend to have physically smaller and lighter issues?
I'm not getting any details here, so permit me to withhold my outrage.
"Yeah, yeah. Whatever."
I dunno, but from here, it looks like HawthorneWingo just handed you your ass. Perhaps a gracious admission of defeat would come in handier than so-above-it-all dismissal.
Bloody hell.
There's going to be a major shitstorm over that 2 hour gap in which a shooting perpetrator was at large on campus and no apparent lockdown was in effect.
I have no problem with calling Newt out for his behavior, HawthorneWingo. Clearly he was being hypocritical. But the wording of the post seems to indicate that the impeachment was for the affair, and my contention is that it wasn't -- and it would have never happened if Clinton hadn't loaded the gun, cocked the hammer and handed it to the house Republicans himself.
And what bernockle said.
Perhaps I'm a bit touchy about the issue, having grown tired of being called a racist and fascist from the one side and a pinko socialist traitor from the other. Carry on, TenaciousP.
No matter what disclaimers I seem to put out there, everyone who hears me say that I was in favor of Clinton's impeachment seem to think that I'm just in lock-step with what his accusers did and why. When I say that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, apparently that's an endorsement of Clinton's involvement in Bosnia. When I say that I support the war in Afghanistan, now I'm party to lies about WMDs in Iraq. When I say I voted for Bush in 2000 and Kerry in 2004, all around me I hear heads asplode.
I've had enough of the my guys versus their guys mentality, and anyone who subscribes to that can go soak their head. It's called nuance, and it might be a good idea to look into it.
You're totally right, TenaciousPettle. There wasn't any other reason to ask about that. But if he were a greater person than he was, he would not have taken the bait.
And are you implying that I would support a pardon of Libby? Far from it. Clinton deserved impeachment and removal from office for perjuring himself. the current crowd deserves that and a whole lot prison time for treason.
I'm a bit of a purist about such things (being as I don't give a flying crap about the "my team versus their team" mentality), but I don't care if Clinton lied under oath about his golf score, he lied under oath. In my book, that's more than enough cause for impeachment.
Of course the Clinton haters wanted to put him into a position where he had to lie... But you see, he didn't have to lie. Soon as he swore that oath he should've admitted what he did, and he would've never been impeached. A standard media shitstorm's got nothing on an impeachment. It was the worst decision of his presidency.
But hey, go on spouting the party line that it was all about the adultery rather than the perjury. For some perhaps it was. I couldn't have cared less what he did with his cigar in his spare time, but lying under oath is another matter entirely as far as I'm concerned.
To perhaps elucidate my perspective, here, I should state that I have an extremely low tolerance for violence. The dirty looks, middle fingers, catcalls and insults are all right by me. Reasonable reaction to insulting provocation. But rather than respond in kind, they apparently chose to escalate -- and for that I have no sympathy for their poor hurt feelings.
Any person or group of people who condones crossing the line, escalating from antagonism to violence will get no sympathy from me, and are always MORE wrong than those who insult them in the first place. I see an awful lot of comments here to seem to have no problem justifying that escalation, and I find that frankly disturbing.
And yes, MCTs story was far more compassionate and mine less so, but that can be clearly placed to our separate and respective points of view on this issue. My point was that it is not possible to extrapolate beyond what we saw. Was the presentation biased? Sure. I'd love to hear another perspective from an eyewitness.
But I heard those rocks (or dirt clods) on the trucks, and a rock that makes that kind of noise on a car could easily require stitches on someone's head. And that sounds like assault to me.
And interestingly enough, MCT, I think your story and mine could be about the exact same guy, and what he is is a product of his culture -- the culture with which his family and friends indoctrinated him, and which, for various reasons, he never much rebelled against. Because like in nearly EVERY culture, the nail that sticks out gets pounded down.
(x-posted) So he was on the vanguard of the politicization of evangelical christianity in the 70s and 80s. He was the patron saint of a group of people who are continually reminded that they are under attack from The Enemy (nevermind who this enemy is, suffice to say that the war is permanent), and who firmly believe, in the deepest and most sincere corners of their hearts, that all would be well, if only they were in charge. He was one of the great demagogues of their movement, this ever-under-attack group who want power, influence, feeling that each one of them, though small and fragile and singular have plugged themselves into the Winning Team and will reap rewards for it. He was one of the great hatemongers of this group, the more politicized each one in the group is, the more hateful they tend to be -- after all, are not the idealists, like all True Believers before them not comforted in the infallibility they feel when they renounce their critical thinking power to That Which Is Above? -- and the more frightened they also are of their chosen Other. He was a forceful leader. Charismatic. Larger-Than-Life and hob-nobbing with the very rich and powerful who could grease the skids for their revolution to return their society back to some golden era that never actually existed, and they love him for it. You can see it over at Free Republic or LGF. He was their champion. A champion for those for lust for power over others, who long for those very awful others to face retribution for their wrongs, a champion of bile and bitterness, champion of persecution, segregation, apartheid and punishment. He was the champion of a segment of society who is motivated out of nothing less than total, abject, paralyzing fear which was ingrained in them from the start, that fear of punishment eternal, and somehow, mainly because it is much more convenient and gratifying, they have their fear molded into a lust for power temporal. If you believe in God, understand this: God will have nothing to do with this modern Pharisee, this venomous snake whose product was nothing more than bile and power pipe dreams. And those who followed him, those benighted dreamers who hang their hat on Avarice and call it Glory, well... God will have nothing to do with them, either. Unless and until they repent and learn what the message of the Gospel was truly about. But for me, I don't believe in God. So all this man was was a fearmonger, a demagogue, one who padded his pockets and the pockets of hundreds of cronies on the backs of the poorest, most fearful group of believers who only wanted to feel a tiny part of the power of the winning side. And it is those people whom he has fleeced over the decades that I pity. For their hatred enabled his, which in turn spurred theirs on further. For their fear enabled his riches, and their desire for power which brooks no discussion has brought themselves into a deeper spiritual poverty than inhabited their coldest nightmares. Would that all of the hatemongers, of any side, never achieve the status or the influence of Falwell. But I know better. Another head will sprout in his place. And they already have, with names like Reed and Dobson.
posted by chimaera 17 years ago
In "Are upcoming U.S. postal rate hikes fair?"
Eh, I'm over it now. I still don't have any sympathy for people who scream about an injustice with half-truths. I'd say my initial suspicions were correct: they were intentionally hiding the facts to get people on their side. It does piss me off when people resort to lies and half-truths to get me to support something I may have supported if they'd just come out with the truth to start with, it makes me feel like they were trying to use me.
posted by chimaera 17 years ago
After wading through as much of the detail as I could follow, my take on this is pretty much the same as Lara's. The Nation and the small presses are screaming about a rate hike when, in reality, it is the loss of a discount. I don't accept the logic that the discontinuation of a discount is the same as a targeted rate hike, just as I didn't accept the California Teachers' Association claim that a less-than-asked-for budget increase (even though the increase was greater than inflation) was a budget cut. Am I sympathetic? Not as much as if they'd come clean on it from the start. Hardly at all, in fact. And if they're willing to play a bullshit PR "woe is me, the big bully is hiking our rates to put us out of business" card when the reality is "the big bully is taking away our discounts even though we need them to survive," well, I would've been more sympathetic to the second. But that's not what they said. As far as I'm concerned, The Nation can choke on that $500k cost for lying to me about it.
posted by chimaera 17 years ago
I'd be more than happy to have an opinion on the matter, especially considering that my righteous outrage glands and muscles are in prime operating condition after the last few years of being worked out, but why aren't The Nation telling us how the new system is unfair? All they're saying is "This OTHER proposal by $evil_conglomerate which was was adopted under $shady_deal is unfairly hurting us poor, honorable Tellers of Truth." If that's the case, then why not tell us any details of the change? I love to get all riled up about injustices, but this sounds more like PR BS.
posted by chimaera 17 years ago
Neither plan is telling me what, precisely, the changes are. Are the price hikes on a "per unit mailed" rate, or on a "per pound mailed" rate? I smell obfuscation to make a point. Would a "per unit"-biased rate hike be disproportionate to small and medium-sized outlets simply because they tend to have physically smaller and lighter issues? I'm not getting any details here, so permit me to withhold my outrage.
posted by chimaera 17 years ago
In "20 Killed at Virginia Tech Campus"
"Yeah, yeah. Whatever." I dunno, but from here, it looks like HawthorneWingo just handed you your ass. Perhaps a gracious admission of defeat would come in handier than so-above-it-all dismissal.
posted by chimaera 17 years ago
Bloody hell. There's going to be a major shitstorm over that 2 hour gap in which a shooting perpetrator was at large on campus and no apparent lockdown was in effect.
posted by chimaera 17 years ago
In "Cuteness, lethal dose of."
Aww!
posted by chimaera 17 years ago
In "I can has cheezeburger?"
It's been quite a while since these have been around, on 4chan and other places... I doubt I'll ever tire of these.
posted by chimaera 17 years ago
In "Airborne cats"
This is chimaera, and I approve this thread. Flying Kitties '08!
posted by chimaera 17 years ago
In "Hypocrisy in politics? Whodathunkit?"
I have no problem with calling Newt out for his behavior, HawthorneWingo. Clearly he was being hypocritical. But the wording of the post seems to indicate that the impeachment was for the affair, and my contention is that it wasn't -- and it would have never happened if Clinton hadn't loaded the gun, cocked the hammer and handed it to the house Republicans himself. And what bernockle said.
posted by chimaera 17 years ago
Perhaps I'm a bit touchy about the issue, having grown tired of being called a racist and fascist from the one side and a pinko socialist traitor from the other. Carry on, TenaciousP.
posted by chimaera 17 years ago
No matter what disclaimers I seem to put out there, everyone who hears me say that I was in favor of Clinton's impeachment seem to think that I'm just in lock-step with what his accusers did and why. When I say that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, apparently that's an endorsement of Clinton's involvement in Bosnia. When I say that I support the war in Afghanistan, now I'm party to lies about WMDs in Iraq. When I say I voted for Bush in 2000 and Kerry in 2004, all around me I hear heads asplode. I've had enough of the my guys versus their guys mentality, and anyone who subscribes to that can go soak their head. It's called nuance, and it might be a good idea to look into it.
posted by chimaera 17 years ago
You're totally right, TenaciousPettle. There wasn't any other reason to ask about that. But if he were a greater person than he was, he would not have taken the bait. And are you implying that I would support a pardon of Libby? Far from it. Clinton deserved impeachment and removal from office for perjuring himself. the current crowd deserves that and a whole lot prison time for treason.
posted by chimaera 17 years ago
I'm a bit of a purist about such things (being as I don't give a flying crap about the "my team versus their team" mentality), but I don't care if Clinton lied under oath about his golf score, he lied under oath. In my book, that's more than enough cause for impeachment. Of course the Clinton haters wanted to put him into a position where he had to lie... But you see, he didn't have to lie. Soon as he swore that oath he should've admitted what he did, and he would've never been impeached. A standard media shitstorm's got nothing on an impeachment. It was the worst decision of his presidency. But hey, go on spouting the party line that it was all about the adultery rather than the perjury. For some perhaps it was. I couldn't have cared less what he did with his cigar in his spare time, but lying under oath is another matter entirely as far as I'm concerned.
posted by chimaera 17 years ago
In "Man dressed as elf robs lingerie shop."
No large piles of bills around? No money in large sacks? Well... Just a pair of knickers, then, please.
posted by chimaera 17 years ago
In "Cleanse thyself!"
Uh huh.
posted by chimaera 17 years ago
In "What's Opera, Doc?"
What's Opera Doc?, The Rabbit of Seville and Donald in Mathmagic Land are three of the best that I can think of.
posted by chimaera 17 years ago
In "Why God Favors America"
To perhaps elucidate my perspective, here, I should state that I have an extremely low tolerance for violence. The dirty looks, middle fingers, catcalls and insults are all right by me. Reasonable reaction to insulting provocation. But rather than respond in kind, they apparently chose to escalate -- and for that I have no sympathy for their poor hurt feelings. Any person or group of people who condones crossing the line, escalating from antagonism to violence will get no sympathy from me, and are always MORE wrong than those who insult them in the first place. I see an awful lot of comments here to seem to have no problem justifying that escalation, and I find that frankly disturbing. And yes, MCTs story was far more compassionate and mine less so, but that can be clearly placed to our separate and respective points of view on this issue. My point was that it is not possible to extrapolate beyond what we saw. Was the presentation biased? Sure. I'd love to hear another perspective from an eyewitness. But I heard those rocks (or dirt clods) on the trucks, and a rock that makes that kind of noise on a car could easily require stitches on someone's head. And that sounds like assault to me.
posted by chimaera 17 years ago
And interestingly enough, MCT, I think your story and mine could be about the exact same guy, and what he is is a product of his culture -- the culture with which his family and friends indoctrinated him, and which, for various reasons, he never much rebelled against. Because like in nearly EVERY culture, the nail that sticks out gets pounded down.
posted by chimaera 17 years ago
(limited to the most recent 20 comments)