
Hobo jokes never get old.
Brian: "You have to be different." The Crowd: "Yes, we are all different!" Small lonely Voice: "I'm not different."
$605 million here. And $605 million there. Pretty soon, this change business is getting kinda expensive. And we haven't even gotten to the increased taxes part of any new administration.You know I wouldn't mind the hypocrisy if more Democrats or the media admitted what a joke campaign reform has become. If it was McCain raising all that money and going back on his promises we would certainly see the criticism everywhere. Personally I see finance reform as a joke, there will always be big money in elections. Curbing that money, is limiting our 1st Amendment right and it seems to never work. So how come we don't see articles like this one and not just in the Post, where Bob Kerrey admits to being a hypocrite.
John Galt of Ayn Rand Lane (zip code: a nonexistent 99999) was able to donate with no problem.
Despite the fact that the card holder's name and address do not match the name he provided.
John McCain's website? Rejected the same non-matching-information donation.
I guess when you're gathering up tens of millions from the Saudis and Gazans you have to be a little lenient on matching up credit card donations....
Again, though: If Obama were demanding that credit card information matched donor information, he couldn't draw in $150 million largely from fraudulent overseas donors.
Anyone see a pattern? Jennifer Brunner isn't bothered by "voters" with non-matchable information casting votes; Barack Obama doesn't take the most basic safeguard of ensuring that a donor's information matches the information on his credit card.
Try buying something anywhere with a credit card. You check to see if you can get away with entering false information about your name and address.
An automated check bounces all such attempts. Unless this safeguard has been specifically disabled.
The Left has not in general been known for its devotion to freedom of speech, unless that speech is from the Left. This is true not only in this country but around the world. Obama is more consistent than any other candidate I can recall in trying to stop the opposition by silencing it; either by legal means (his specialty), by smearing those who would speak out, or by organizing call-ins to shows featuring journalists such as Stanley Kurtz, whose only crime was to try to get the truth out about the Annenburg Challenge.
These things, of course, are Obama’s right. If he wants his lawyers to threaten FCC license challenges to stations that air ads against him that arouse his particular ire, he can do so. If he wants to organize his minions to overwhelm a talk show with critical calls, that’s not against the law either. If his followers want to dig up every nasty thing Joe the Plumber ever did in his life and publish it, they can’t be stopped from doing so.
But take a look at what it says about Obama and about the Left. And if you don’t feel a chill wind blowing, I think you better take another look. Hope and change, indeed.
Hope, expectation, Bright promises.
The Moon is a card of magic and mystery - when prominent you know that nothing is as it seems, particularly when it concerns relationships. All logic is thrown out the window.
The Moon is all about visions and illusions, madness, genius and poetry. This is a card that has to do with sleep, and so with both dreams and nightmares. It is a scary card in that it warns that there might be hidden enemies, tricks and falsehoods. But it should also be remembered that this is a card of great creativity, of powerful magic, primal feelings and intuition. You may be going through a time of emotional and mental trial; if you have any past mental problems, you must be vigilant in taking your medication but avoid drugs or alcohol, as abuse of either will cause them irreparable damage. This time however, can also result in great creativity, psychic powers, visions and insight. You can and should trust your intuition.
What Tarot Card are You?
Take the Test to Find Out.
Perhaps Maher's greatest misunderstanding of religion is his central indictment: that religion is responsible for the world's violence. It is not. Violence is a product of human nature. Before monotheism, the Assyrians were not kind; the Romans were bloodthirsty beyond the imagination of religious regimes. When religion became less potent in people's lives after the French Revolution, instead of making the world less violent, it became far more violent: World War I and WWII, communism, Nazism -- all shed blood on an unprecedented scale. None were religious regimes or religious wars.
Maher's dislike of religion is not reasoned, however, but visceral. He told Mother Jones magazine about the Jews praying on his plane to Israel: "Even on the plane over, they were, at a certain point, they all stood up in the aisle of the plane davening [praying] ... they just looked like crazy people, always bowing their head. It's disconcerting." No doubt had they worn Armani suits and been tapping at a keyboard, Mr. Maher would have found them rational; but seeking transcendence in coach -- crazy.
If faith is, in part, the summit of our hopes, a guide and an aspiration, then what does Maher's creed leave him with? Again, as he tells Mother Jones: "I'm telling you. I've got nothing." It should not be hard to understand why someone might choose ancient wisdom over modern nihilism. It is not heroic to believe we are accidents of chemistry.
Maher's view of human nature as essentially animalistic (he repeatedly wonders why anyone would curb their sexual appetites) is dispiriting and plain wrong. Animals we are, but we are much more than animals.
Maher misunderstands God as a projection of human need. This is a common atheistic trope -- your belief is based on psychological deficiencies, while mine is reasoned. In truth, the existence of God is not an antidote to fear but a consequence of wonder. God does not come about through faulty reasoning but through a worshipful and humble orientation of the soul.
"Religulous" repeatedly calls faith irrational. True, it is not a product of pure reason, but then what is, apart from mathematics? Reason does not get us out of bed, or move us to love or kindness. Religion is supported by reason, however. The marvel of values, ideas and consciousness -- nonphysical but powerful phenomena -- can reasonably be thought to have an origin in a nonphysical entity: that is, God. Centuries of people emboldened by, and ennobled by, faith can reasonably be thought to have something more than foolish illusions in their minds and hearts. Nevertheless, Maher calls religion a "neurological disorder."
In study after study, religion proves to make people not just happier but more likely to give to charity and have stable marriages, to reduce drug and alcohol dependence and improve mental health. That does not make it true, but it is worthy of thought: Why should something so "irrational," a mere "neurological disorder," be so helpful to society?
Many of us suspect -- or yes, believe -- that there is more to the world than we know, that there is a mystery at its heart. That mystery may evoke some unworthy speculation, attract some charlatans, occasion some cruelties. Faith is also the spur for everything from the poetry of Psalms to the Cathedral at Chartres to relief missions. "Religulous" is one-dimensional. Religion is as varied and colorful as God's blessed world.
Older islanders call them the 'Krutt-kynslotin' - the cuddly generation. Eco-aware, earnest but pampered, they drift from organic café to bar, listening to the music of Björk and Sigur Rós, islanders who have made it big abroad. 'They will have to get their hands dirty now,' says chef Siggi Hall, Iceland's answer to Gordon Ramsay, with an effusive vocabulary to match.
'That's good though, they are the I-generation; iPods, iPhones, everything starts with I. Well, we will have to go back to the basics now. Icelanders are risk-takers, but hard working, they will have to downsize. We will have to eat haddock and Icelandic lamb and forget these imports of goose livers and Japanese soy sauce. When everyone was extremely rich in Iceland - you know, last month, it was with money that they never have earned.
One last thought. It worries me that Obama argued that going into Iraq to remove Saddam created our problems today with Iran by taking away an enemy of theirs. I'm sure it's true, of course, that Iran becomes stronger when you take away their aggressive enemy, but is Obama really implying that we should have left a guy who was not only torturing and killing hundreds of thousands of his own people, but also participating in the largest scam in history (oil-for-food) in power simply because he might have kept his neighbor in line? That's genuinely scary. That's like the FBI saying "let's not bother going after Al Capone because he keeps the other families in check." First of all, I could make the argument that if we were to leave Saddam in power, that would have been an even more risky move as Iran still would have had plenty of reason (if not more reason) to pursue nuclear weapons with a psychotic dictator just over the border. Add to that that Saddam would likely have become even more aggressive in return, and you have a bit of a powder keg. Not good. Second, the only reason that Iran is stronger with Saddam gone is because the country (Iraq) is "in between" governments right now. I think the argument can be made that once a new government is firmly established in Iraq, especially one that is on friendly terms with the west, not only will Iran lose any strength they may have gained, they will lose some of what they originally had. Of course, all this is speculation, but as I said, that kind of logic, that kind of thinking, from someone about to take the oval office, really scares me. I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone else comment on it yet.