This is just fantastic fun! The Republicans are devouring one another and making it a near certainty that Democrats (for some inexplicable reason given their utter incompetence to govern) will win widely in the general election in the Fall. This morning I thought the Tea partier people would be on top. Nope. Now they’re just as bad at bickering and backbiting as the Repub establishment.
Newly minted Republican Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell fired back at her GOP establishment critics today, condemning “cannibalism” within the party. O’Donnell, backed by “Tea Party” activists, scored a stunning upset victory last night and defeated veteran Rep. Mike Castle for the GOP Senate nod in Delaware. Castle, a centrist and popular fixture in Delaware politics for decades, was heavily favored to not only win the party’s nomination but also take the Senate seat long held by Vice President Joe Biden. O’Donnell, a marketing consultant who has twice lost Senate races, lashed out especially at Karl Rove, President George W. Bush’s chief political strategist. “Everything that he is saying is un-factual,” she told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos.
How’s it taste, Karl Rove, your own perverse methodology hurled back into your swinelike face and forced down your massive gullet? How do you like those ‘un-factual’ (!!!!!) facts? [And why do the teabaggers seem to delight so in making up words that don’t even exist like Sarah ‘The Grotesque’ Palin does?]
Anyway, I want to thank the Republican party for reinforcing my opinion that our political system is utterly bankrupt and perfectly contemptible.
Belongs to John Byron of Ashland Seminary up the road in Kentuck-eee Ohio (sorry). Pros: John’s got some good content and he knows early Christianity right well. Cons: No blogroll (yet).
Check it out and decide for yourself whether or not you’ll keep an eye on it. Me, I’m adding it to my feed reader so I can see if he continues to be worthy… and to see if he ever adds a blogroll… a, to me, virtual requirement for true biblio-theobloggers. (But that’s just me and contrary to the opinions of some (mostly my dead mother) I don’t speak for all blogdom… yet…)
Apparently this is how the editors at BAR see God.
Boy, talk about pandering to the baser instincts of readers, BAR has outdone itself with this informational tidbit which so utterly anthropomorphisizes God that we next expect to learn that he has a big old fat beer gut too…
Yahweh drank a six-pack per day
Says their email announcing the latest issue of BAR (which now must really be understood as bar instead of BAR).
According to the Hebrew Bible, the Israelite God Yahweh drank a six-pack of beer each day (through ritual libation offerings) and even more on the Sabbath. So why doesn’t the word “beer” appear in most English translations of the Bible? Author Michael M. Homan offers three explanations: (1) the Hebrew word for beer (shekhar) has been misunderstood and mistranslated; (2) there is a general snobbery among academics that causes them to scorn beer drinking as uncivilized and uncouth, preferring to paint the Israelites as sophisticated wine drinkers; (3) it is difficult to identify beer making in the archaeological record because the process so closely resembles bread production.
Thankfully Michael’s essay doesn’t follow the same pandering, attention grabbing and misleading path. Indeed, the title of the essay is ‘Did the Ancient Israelite’s Drink Beer?’ Though I hesitate to commend it to you because of its venue, Michael’s a good writer… what to do, what to do…
Anyway, if you subscribe to BAR you should probably cancel your subscription and send them the message that grossly misrepresenting God is not only offensive, but silly.
Image by Miss Millificent via Flickr
When women were interested in men for who they were and their characteristics and – well let’s face it – charm. Now it seems science wants us to believe that women are more interested in laid back ‘chill’ unstressed do-nothings (because the only people who aren’t stressed are people who do nothing).
Investigations into what makes men desirable often focus on testosterone. The hormone is linked with masculine facial traits, such as larger jaws and heavier brows, and is typically associated with better long-term health. As such, it might at first glance make sense from an evolutionary point of view if women found testosterone-laden men especially attractive. However, past studies have often revealed that men with high testosterone levels are not automatically appealing to women, who view such testosterone-laden men as having long-term drawbacks. For instance, the macho guys may lead a “player’s” lifestyle, or may also be bad parents. Instead, human behavioral ecologist Fhionna Moore at the University of Abertay Dundee in Scotland and her colleagues focused on the stress-linked hormone cortisol. Persistently high levels of cortisol can suppress not just the immune system, but also reproductive function. As such, it would make sense if women preferred men with low cortisol levels – that is, those who are not stressed out. Cool customers win out.
If you aren’t lazy, don’t worry. Science will change its mind in a couple of months when a new study overturns ‘everything we’ve ever thought’ about the subject.
The fact that some of the Tea Party people are racists is pretty firmly established. These people are proof positive. Such divisiveness is incredibly unhelpful and exceedingly unnecessary- and yet since it stirs up the aluminum hat people, it will undoubtedly be repeated as long as racism exists in this supposedly ‘Christian’ country.
Truly, truly despicable. And not in the least amusing. The people laughing at this depravity are themselves utterly depraved, along with the perpetrators of it. Video tip via Craig Martin on FB.
Here’s the headline:
Book-burning shelved, it’s time to commit atheists to the flames
Awesome, right? We’re back to the 16th century (the best century in all of human history) and those pesky and annoying atheists are going to be burned- consigned to the fires so they can get a jumpstart on their eternal suffering. Woo hoo! What’s not to love?
Alas, however, the press mucked up the headline because the article has nothing to do with burning atheists at all (what a bummer) but instead, is (a sarcastic piece, sort of like something that would appear in The Onion) about burning atheist’s books…
I respond- Nah- don’t burn atheist’s books. Unless it’s very cold and you’ve run out of firewood and you need to do so in order to keep from freezing to death. Instead, use them for toilet paper. That way they can be festooned physically with the same materials which they propagate intellectually. Dawkins, the toilet edition. Hawking, for the loo. Hitchens, when you just can’t reach the roll. That way at least their Dreck finds a fitting purpose. Burning books is for amateurs and is old hat. Toilet-ifying them, that’s the ticket to true happiness.
As much as Americans revere the family, they differ sharply on how to define it. New research being released Wednesday shows steadily increasing recognition of unmarried couples — gay and straight — as families. But there’s a solid core resisting this trend who are more willing to include pets in their definition than same-sex partners. How “family” is defined is a crucial question on many levels. Beyond the debate over same-sex marriage, it affects income tax filings, adoption and foster care practices, employee benefits, inheritance rights and countless other matters. The new research on the topic is contained in a book-length study, “Counted Out: Same-Sex Relations and Americans’ Definition of Family” and in a separate 2010 survey overseen by the book’s lead author, Indiana University sociologist Brian Powell. Between 2003 and 2010, three surveys conducted by Powell’s team showed a significant shift toward counting same-sex couples with children as family — from 54 percent of respondents in 2003 to 68 percent in 2010. In all, more than 2,300 people were surveyed.
When the word ‘family’ means anything that the user of the word wants it to mean, then it means nothing at all. When words are emptied of substance, they become non-words, empty and vapid. The belief that any arrangement at all between adults of all stripes or adults and children or adults and their pets for that matter can rightly be called a ‘family’ shows that in fact many Americans don’t revere the family at all. And they certainly don’t revere the God who in Scripture reveals what the word ‘family’ really means.
CNN covered the election and unsurprisingly, to me anyway, the Tea people are doing very well in the primaries and I personally think they will do well in November.
And I think this is the case because Dems and Repubs have both underestimated the pure rage out there across the Country against politicians. People by and large really are sick and tired of our elected officials doing the will of lobbyists and special interests to the detriment of the population at large.
Of course knowing that people are mad won’t change the hearts and minds of politicians. They are so utterly corrupt that they can no more change their behavior than a leopard can change its spots. There is none righteous, no not one.
So the Tea people are on the rise, whether anyone likes it or not, because the populace can only tolerate so much. The boiling point, it seems, is about to be reached. And the lobsters in the pot will be the status quo politicos.
Now he’s claiming that he’s a whistleblower… exposing the ‘plagiarism’ of Lawrence Schiffman! What absurdity, my friends, what foolhardiness.
A Manhattan lawyer accused of impersonating a prominent Dead Sea Scrolls scholar went on the offensive Tuesday – claiming at his trial that his alleged victim was a plagiarist. Real estate lawyer Raphael Golb, 51, faces up to four years in prison for a wacky 2008 Internet campaign aimed at getting NYU Prof. Lawrence Schiffman fired. He accused the prof of copying the work of his father, who also is an expert on the 2,000-year-old text. “Raphael Golb … is a whistleblower,” his lawyer David Breitbart told jurors, explaining what drove his client’s anger toward Schiffman.
No, R. Golb is no whistleblower, he’s a sychophant who wanted his dad’s theories to receive widespread acceptance and so went about pretending to be a number of people pushing daddy’s ideas. He’s no hero exposing the wrong of others, he’s a deceiver and pretender and falsifier. If the jury falls for the defense’s argument it really is blind and foolish and knows nothing about what Golb has been doing for years.