Stupid People Say Stupid Things

Stupid person #1: Joe Biden

Biden on getting things done post Trump: "With Donald Trump out of the way, you’re going to see a number of my Republican colleagues have an epiphany. Mark my words. Mark my words,”

— Liz Goodwin (@lizcgoodwin) November 6, 2019

For God's sake! This guy worked beside Barack Obama for EIGHT YEARS of Republican fuckery, and he honestly thinks that they're going to go back to being the party of Eisenhower after Il Douche is gone? How does he not remember 8 years of constant obstruction, of filibuster after filibuster, of constant threats to shut down the government if these petulant toddlers didn't get their way? Has he forgotten the entire Merrick Garland episode? Does he not remember the Tea Party? Has he forgotten Newt Gingrich? What kind of fantasy world does Biden live in? And can I live there too? Please? It sounds so very nice.



And speaking of Joe Biden, here's stupid person #2, Ana Navaro:

Disagree with him all you want. Support him or don’t. But after 4 years of Trump rallies, watching this @JoeBiden townhall feels like chicken soup for the soul. The man is decent, authentic and gives a damn about other humans. How refreshing.

— Ana Navarro-Cárdenas (@ananavarro) November 12, 2019

Yes, Joe Biden is like chicken soup. And chicken soup is great if you've got the sniffles. But their is an infection raging through this country's bloodstream and serious medical help is needed. Joe Biden is chicken soup when what the country needs is penicillin.

Also, Joe may "give a damn about other humans," but he will never love other humans as much as he loves the big banks and credit card companies. And he certainly didn't give a damn about Anita Hill.

Also, are you implying that giving a damn about other people is something that is exclusive to Joe Biden? Do you think that Warren, Sanders, Buttiegieg, Harris, Booker, etc. don't give a damn about other people? Of course they do. A lack of sociopathy would only be notable in a candidate running in the Republican primary. On our side, it's pretty much a prerequisite.



Stupid person # 3: Rep. Tom Reed (R-obvioulsy)

This is what an actual sitting Congressman had to say to Chuck Todd on the subject of impeachment:

REED: When you're talking about oversight and the roles in oversight, i think sharing that information and complying is something to do. but when you're talking about impeachment, over turning the duly elected decision of the American people. you know, you're going to have that separation of powers that rightfully needs to exist. That's at the heart of our democracy and sustainability of our government is to have that checks and balances and that separation of powers. So, you know, if they were pursuing oversight and not impeachment, that's a different conversation.

Ughhhhh. . . I don't even know what the Hell point he thinks he's making. That somehow an impeachment inquiry violates the Constitutional checks and balances and separation of powers? Impeachment - the process prescribed by the Constitution precisely for an occasion such as this - violates the Constitution?
Or is it just that Congress is within its rights to ask for information to be shared with them, but that impeachment is somehow some sort of violation?
I really don't get it. And neither did Chuck Todd.

TODD: I don't understand what the difference is between that argument you're making. I mean, the -- in order to make the decision about impeachment, in order to -- which is essentially a grand jury indictment, you do an investigation to get that. That's what they're doing here. So part of what they're doing is oversight. They haven't voted on impeachment yet.

Wow, pushback from Chuck Todd! Now that's something you don't see every day!

REED: Yeah but, Chuck, but oversight doesn't result in the turning back of the will of the American people from a duly held election. You are then destabilizing the American democracy because now people are going to say what? I voted for my president who was duly elected and the powerful in Washington wants to overturn that election.

You know, in 2000, I voted for my president who was duly elected and the Supreme Court in Washington overturned that election and Democracy wasn't destablized - scratch that, yeah it was. But I don't remember hearing a single Republican voicing concern over it. And the Supreme Court choosing the president is actually NOT a Constitutional check or balance and actually does violate the separation of powers.



And it's good to know that there are people in state government dedicated to insuring that the supply of stupid people never runs short:

Ohio House passes bill allowing student answers to be scientifically wrong due to religion

---

by WKRC Staff

Wednesday, November 13th 2019

This can't be what it sounds like, can it?

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WKRC) - Ohio lawmakers are weighing in on how public schools can teach things like evolution.

The Ohio House on Wednesday passed the "Student Religious Liberties Act." Under the law, students can't be penalized if their work is scientifically wrong as long as the reasoning is because of their religious beliefs.

Oh my God.
Wrong is wrong. Incorrect is incorrect. It doesn't matter why you got the wrong answer, the answer is still wrong.

This is the sort of thing that conservatives used to rail against. "Facts don't care about your feelings" as the loathsome Ben Shapiro likes to say incessantly. A = A was like the first rule of Ayn Rand's idiotic "philosophy." Now they want to make teachers pretend that wrong is right so that the children of religious fanatics don't get their feeling hurt?

 Under the law, students can't be penalized if their work is scientifically wrong as long as the reasoning is because of their religious beliefs.
Instead, students are graded on substance and relevance.

So. . . the words "substance" and "relevance" just don't have definitions anymore? What could be more substantive than the correctness or incorrectness of the answer? And relevance? Does that mean that even though the answer was completely wrong, it was an answer to that particular question? Like if the question is how many paws does a cat have? and I answer "seven," that's wrong, but if my book of scripture says that cats have seven paws. . . no, wait. If "seven" is AN answer to the question "how many paws does a cat have? then that's relevant? Is that it? Did my answer have substance? Fuck, I can't imagine being a teacher in Ohio trying to grade the papers of these little snake handlers!

Is this seriously got a chance of becoming the actual law?

Every Republican in the House supported the bill. It now moves to the Republican-controlled Senate.

We live in very stupid times

This might be the stupidest headline, the stupidest premise for an op-ed I have ever seen.

• OPINION 
•  COMMENTARY

Would Shakespeare Impeach Trump?

 

And this is in the pages of the Wall Street Journal which. . . well, the op-ed page was never really respectable, but geez, there was at least a sense of professionalism!


Oh, and check the sub-headline:

• OPINION 
•  COMMENTARY

Would Shakespeare Impeach Trump?

The president is no more corrupt than King Lear.

Oh my God! So, because there's a fictional character equally as corrupt as Il Douche, that means that an Elizabethan playwright would. . . not? vote to impeach? I don't know, what would Christopher Marlowe do?

The Democrats pushing impeachment simply don’t understand Donald Trump. Their latest theory—that Mr. Trump leaned on Ukraine’s newly elected President Volodymyr Zelensky to tarnish Joe Biden and ease the path to re-election in 2020—has one glaring flaw: it isn’t in keeping with Mr. Trump’s character.

Okay, first of all - they don't understand Trump? What's to understand? He's a malignant narcissist. Have Congressional Democrats not grasped this? Actually, knowing Congressional Democrats, that's possible.

But really, you think that asking a foreign government to investigate a political opponent is "not in keeping with his character?"




That's like saying "putting his name on the side of a building in giant tacky fake-gold letters would be totally out of character for Trump." or "Cheating on his gold-digging trophy wife with a porn actress is just not in keeping with Mr Trump's character!"

Anyone who observed this man during his 2015-16 run for the White House learned one thing: He doesn’t think he needs anyone’s help defeating his political opponents. 

Riiiiiiiiight. . . . 

 He doesn’t think he needs anyone’s help defeating his political opponents. He sees himself as Gulliver and his challengers as Lilliputians. 

Um. . .

 Trying to extort a mafia-like “favor” to defeat Mr. Biden would be an admission of weakness, likely the most odious of character traits to Mr. Trump. 

Oh my God. Do you read your own sentences before publishing them? How can an action be both "mafia-like" and an "admission of weakness?" How could one "extort" anything from a position of weakness? The ability to extort implies strength, leverage, the upper hand.  I guarantee that Cheeto Mussolini does not see acting "mafia-like" as any kind of "weakness." He would love to be described as "mafia-like."  He wants to be a mafioso so bad he can taste it. There are two kinds of guys that tRump repects/admires/wants to emulate. Mafia guys and dictators-strongmen. That's why he cozies up to the Kim Jong Uns and Erdogans and Putins of this world. And why he used to pal around with Roy Cohm, Felix Sater and Joey "No Socks" Cinque. Leaning on someone to extort a "favor" is exactly the kind os=f thing he would do. It wouldn't make him feel weak. It would feel like strength and power to him.

Even more ludicrous is the notion that he would reveal such need for assistance on a high-profile phone call being overheard by a dozen officials in both countries. 

Oh, of course. Because he's usually so scrupulous about not saying anything incriminating where he could be overheard!

 In Mr. Trump’s world, real warriors don’t connive, they conquer.

Really? The guy who's always talking about how great he is at negotiating and putting together "deals?" That guy would look down his nose at "conniving?"
Also, "warriors?" He's a failed real estate developer and tv game show host. He's not Audie Murphy.

The obvious explanation for Trump’s request of a “favor” springs from what seems to be the prime motivation behind all of Mr. Trump’s behavior—a profound sense of pride in his accomplishments and deep indignation when anyone calls them into question. 

Now who doesn't understand Trump?
Donald Trump gets infuriated when people don't praise him for his "accomplishments" not because he's proud of them, but because deep inside he knows that nothing he does will ever be good enough. Like most narcissists, he lives in fear of being unmasked and exposed as the fraud that, deep down, he knows he is. He knows his "accomplishments" are bullshit. He knows how many businesses he's run into the ground. He knows how many times he's declared bankruptcy.

He knows that everything he owns is leveraged to the hilt. He knows that models only marry and/or sleep with him because he's rich and famous. He knows how many times his father has had to bail him out. And this eats away at him so badly that he has to cover it up with layers of false bravado and braggadocio.

 He isn't indignant when someone calls his accomplishments into question because he thinks his true greatness is not being recognized. He is angry because when someone questions his record of phony achievements, he knows deep inside that they're right.

This is a man whose father was never proud of him. (Or never let his son know that he was proud.) That's why he feels compelled to put the Trump name on everything in big ugly fake-gold letters. It's his way of saying "are you proud of me now, dad? Am I good enough now? Look, dad. Look what I accomplished. Do you love me now, dad?" This is the pattern of his entire life, not just during his foray into politics.

Also, can we just go back one second to that last statement you made?

The obvious explanation for Trump’s request of a “favor” springs from what seems to be the prime motivation behind all of Mr. Trump’s behavior—a profound sense of pride in his accomplishments and deep indignation when anyone calls them into question. 

You just said that it was "ludicrous" to believe that Trump would have made this request for a "favor." Then, in the next sentence, you're giving an explanation for why he requested said favor. You really need to pick an argument and stick with it.

If Democrats really wanted to understand the president, they would read Shakespeare’s “King Lear.”

Geez. . . what kind of a whackadoo would look at this administration and see Shakespeare? This shit circus veers from Lewis Carroll to William S. Burroughs to John Kennedy O'Toole on a daily basis, and you're seeing the bard?

All the aging monarch wants is to be loved and appreciated by his three daughters. 

Yeah. . . that ain't exactly what Trump wants from his daughters.

Mr. Trump is Lear, and the country is the king’s daughters. What wounded the king more than anything was filial ingratitude. What seems to gall Mr. Trump most is the thought that his achievements—record low unemployment, substantial tax cuts, a booming stock market, deregulation, judges—go unacknowledged by his Goneril-Regan enemies, who instead seek to obstruct him at every turn. 

Okay, see. thoise aren't really accomplishments. Record unemployment? A booming stock market? He inherited an economy on the upswing and has modtly managed not to fuck it up. Although. . .

As U.S. stock market falls, the outlook is now bearish

Published: Oct 3, 2019 10:38 a.m. ET

Oct 2, 2019, 11:14am

October Has Started Dreadfully For The Stock Market And There Is More Downside Ahead

And substantial tax cuts? The House and Senate were both controlled by Republicans. Suggesting massive tax cuts to them is like suggesting Filet Mignon to a rottweiler. It takes zero effort to say "hey guys, pass a huge tax cut that mostly benefits the top 1% and I'll sign it." The only tricky part is remembering to sign the damn thing before leaving the room.

And judges? How is that an accomplishment? The Federalist Society gives you a list of names, you point to the least ethnic-sounding one and go "him!" Then the Senate confirms the pick because that was who they wanted in the first place, no matter how big a drunk or how egregious a sex offender he is, and bing bang boom, you got a judge! Any chimp could do it! Hell, George W. Bush did!

After a series of seemingly never-ending assaults on his dignity, Lear painfully observes out on the rainy heath: “I am a man / More sinn’d against than sinning.” It isn’t difficult to envision Mr. Trump saying the same.

It is, actually. It is difficult to envision Trump stringing a coherent sentence together, let alone indulging in Shakespearean English.

Even adamant supporters of the president aren’t blind to his annoying character flaws—the endless self-aggrandizement, the bravado, the hyperbole, the unpresidential disregard for language. 

Um, it's not so much a "disregard for language" as it is an inability to remember what words are or to know what they mean. His brain is turning into Swiss cheese.

Also, "hyperbole" is a weird way to spell "bald-faced lying."

Mr. Trump’s brashness invites his mistreatment to some extent.

When has he ever been mistreated? The press has two approaches to him, Either fawning sycophancy, or excusing his misconduct with what-aboutism and both-sides arguments. Even CNN, whom he regularly vilifies, has fluffed him nearly as much as FOX has. On the rare occassion when a Shepherd Smith or a Chris Wallace criticizes him, that is not mistreatment. That is how Presidents are supposed to be treated. They are supposed to have everything they say and do analyzed and evaluated. It's the most important job in the world, it should come with a certain level of scrutiny!

And like the king, Mr. Trump has been subjected to a daily barrage of indignities, distortions and outright falsehoods, which render him a folk hero to his followers.

Oh, wow. You're serious?
Indignities? What indignities? I honestly can't even come up with a guess as to what you are referring to here. I mean, would it be like the indignity of having a fatuous buffoon constantly claiming that you were a foreigner not eligible for the presidency? Would that be the sort of thing you're taking about? Or something like having a syphilitic orangutan leading crowds in calls for you to be "locked up?" Is that the sort of "indignities" to which President McCheese has been subjected?

Also, what renders him a folk hero to his followers is the racism.

In the Trump-Lear story, Mr. Trump’s champions resemble the faithful Kent, who called the monarch “every inch a king.” In Mr. Trump they see every inch a president. Impeachment may turn some against Mr. Trump, but it will only rally those who actually understand him.

So. . . the dullards dolts and dunces who "actually understand" him will only be "rallied?"
I assume by "those who actually understand him," you mean the MAGA hat-wearing rage-aholics that support this human cesspool? Like, is this supposed to be a warning that impeachment will somehow backfire by energizing these little hate-beasts? They're going to vote for him anyway. They can't wait to vote for him. They have been waiting their entire lives for the chance to cast their votes for a candidate this monumentally stupid, corrupt and blatantly bigoted. Those assholes are showing up on election day even if Trump gives his next speech wearing a prom dress while performing an abortion on Ivanka. Who cares if impeachment "rallies them?

Also, you never did answer the burning question. Would Shakespeare impeach Trump or not? I can't believe you're just going to leave us hanging.
I guess that's the sort of thing that everyone has to figure out for themselves, right? I mean, I guess when I think about it, I would say that since Shakespeare was a British subject and not a member of the US House of Representatives, that he would probably. . . not? impeach Trump? But who knows? And also, who cares? This is all just so stupid.

There are monsters among us.

Evangelical group wants gays removed from anti-lynching bill

O my God.

You know, you come to expect a certain amount of fuckery from these anti-LGBT bigots.

You expect a lot of assholishness, a good bit of prickishness, more than their fair share of just general stupidity and shittiness, but this? Holy fuck, this is monstrous!

The Senate passed a bill to make it a federal crime to lynch people, and your reaction is not to say "about god damn time, shoulda done this 150 years ago," but to say "yeah, but it's okay to murder someone if they're gay, though, right?" And you're just going to put this out there in public as if saying this didn't qualify you for tar, feathers and a free rail-ride out of town.



What is even the rationalization for this grotesque and obscene stance?

The U.S. Senate last month unanimously passed a bill that would explicitly make lynching a federal crime. Not everyone, however, is pleased with passage of the Justice for Victims of Lynching Act.
Liberty Counsel, an evangelical nonprofit that opposes gay rights, and its chairman, Mat Staver, are taking issue with the bill’s inclusion of LGBTQ people.
"The old saying is once that camel gets the nose in the tent, you can't stop them from coming the rest of the way in," Staver said

Huh?

The camel's nose? I'm trying to figure out how this analogy even would work. I assume that in this analogy, the camel is the gay people.  The tent is. . . I don't know, NOT being murdered, I guess? So if the gay people get a little taste of not being murdered, they're just gonna want to not be murdered ALL the time? And they'll just push their way into the "it's not okay to murder this person" zone? And this is bad? Somehow? 

Maybe if I let him continue it will make more sense.

"The old saying is once that camel gets the nose in the tent, you can't stop them from coming the rest of the way in," Staver said in an interview with conservative Christian news outlet OneNewsNow. “This is a way to slip it in under a so-called anti-lynching bill, and to then to sort of circle the wagon and then go for the juggler [sic] at some time in the future."

Ah, for one brief, beautiful moment, I forgot that Louis CK is a huge asshole.

It might make even less sense now.

Let's start with the phrase "a so-called anti-lynching bill."  This is a bill that makes lynching a federal crime. It is pretty much the dictionary definition of an anti-lynching bill. It's like calling LeBron James a "so-called basketball player,"  or calling Donald Trump the "so-called disgrace to the nation."

Then there's "circle the wagon." First of all, you can not circle A wagon. You need several wagons. Circling the wagons means taking all your wagons and forming a circle out of them, which is, as anyone who has ever seen a western movie or a television show or has the sense God gave a mule knows, is a DEFENSIVE maneuver.

You don't circle your wagons in preparation for going for the "juggler."

Also, what is it that they're "slipping in" to this bill? The idea that, even if you don't approve of someone's love life you still don't get to murder them? Because it seems like they're being pretty up-front about that. Nothing really sneaky there.

Maybe the original source has more context. Let's see, where was this interview? Some site called "One News Now?" Let me just click on over and . . .

Oh, dear God.

Staver: LGBT 'rights' sneakily added to anti-lynching bill
A constitutional law expert is asking Congress to block the latest attempt to force the LGBT agenda on the country.

Hmm. I'm not all that familiar with Mat "One T" Staver. Is he a "constitutional law expert?" If I were a betting man, I'd say no. He is not. And I sure don't feel like doing the research to find out.

The Justice for Victims of Lynching Act passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate but Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver says it passed without some senators realizing an amendment was added providing special rights for homosexuals and transgenders.

Oh, of course. "Special Rights." We've been hearing about "special rights" since the first day someone suggested that maybe the gay people should be treated as equal citizens and human beings. It's one more example of rule number one for conservatives. No conservative will ever argue anything honestly. No conservative will just say "I don't like those people, so I want them to not have rights." They will always come up with some sort of bullshit like "well why should they get 'special rights?'" or "if we let those people get married, it will damage our hetero marriages." or "look, I'd love to have equal rights for everyone, but I'm just worried that God might smite us."


So what "special rights" were snuck into the bill? Well, it may surprise you to learn that he doesn't say. I guess it's just so obvious that there's no need to waste time enumerating all the special rights that were secreted into this bill. Like um. . .  well there's. . .  uhhhh. . . hmm! You know what, I can't come up with anything. Weird!

"The old saying is once that camel gets the nose in the tent, you can't stop them from coming the rest of the way in," he explains. "And this would be the first time that you would have in federal law mentioning gender identity and sexual orientation as part of this anti-lynching bill."

Well, yeah. Good point. This bill would be the first time that gender identity and sexual orientation are mentioned as part of this bill. Can't argue with that.

No one can or should oppose a bill that bans lynching, says the Liberty Counsel attorney, and thus it's being used as back door approach 

Seriously, dude? A "back door" approach?

No one can or should oppose a bill that bans lynching, says the Liberty Counsel attorney, and thus it's being used as back door approach to pass legislation such as the controversial Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

Okay, first of all, no it isn't. There is no parliamentary trick that would allow the Senate to pass one bill and then go "aha! You fools! You passed one bill that prohibits people from being total pigfuckers towards LGBT people, that means that ALL the bills about not being total pigfuckers to LGBTs also pass!"
Also, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act is not controversial in the real world. Only in your stupid shitty evangelical hate-bubble. In the real world, if you ask someone "should your boss be able to fire you if he doesn't like who you date?" about 99% of people will respond "hell, no!"  It's controversial to you the same way that the RICO laws are controversial to La Costa Nostra.

"So far they've been unsuccessful over the many years in the past," Staver observes, "but this is a way to slip it in under a so-called anti-lynching bill, and to then to sort of circle the wagon and then go for the jugular at some time in the future."

Okay, we've already been over this part, but fucking hell! Who doesn't understand the expression "circle the wagons?"

Staver tells OneNewsNow that Liberty Counsel is talking to lawmakers in the House in an effort to convince them to strip the bill of the amendment before taking a vote.

You know, I'd like to think "you're too late, Staver, the Democrats have retaken the House and Nacy Pelosi has the gavel!" but if there's one thing I've learned, it's that trusting the Democrats to do the right thing is a recipe for heartbreak.

The federalist is a never-ending supply of weirdos.

Is there a bigger collection of weirdos than the Federalist?

Spoiler alert: There is not.

Check this out:

Why Even Non-Christians Lose From Growing Ignorance About The Bible

This is a loss not only of the Bible or Christian faith but a severing of his connection to all the other aspects of a culture that ought to have been ours.

By Colin Chan Redemer

DECEMBER 26, 2018

Okay, I normally like to begin at the beginning of these things, but I want to jump ahead to a section that is, in my opinion emblematic of the kind of work they do over at the Federalist:

Where in the past we could hope that the general population would pick up a good bit of biblical teaching from a book, film, or at least a department store, we now live in a world where that’s all in the past. Google willgladly doodle out about Hannah Glasse’s 310th birthday or the 30th anniversary of Pi day but, come Christmas time, it will merely say “Holidays 2018.” Come Easter, and it will celebrate nothing at all.

Now you might think that surely this guy has studied the Google Doodle archives before making such a claim, but you would be wrong. And why were you even thinking that? Did you think that little quote was going to turn out to be true? Then there'd be no blog post!  How would I get to be all sarcastic and snotty about a true statement? Come on, people. Think!

Anyway, I Googled Google Doodles and it took me about ten seconds to come up with these:
.

Google Doodle has churned out another festive design for Christmas with a decorated Google logo including Christmas ornaments. Check out important facts about the festival and the other doodles of he season.

Now you could certainly complain that Google's holiday doodles are all secular in nature, but that's not what he claims. He says " come Christmas time, it will merely say “Holidays 2018.” Come Easter, and it will celebrate nothing at all."


This, of course, illustrates the first law of conservatives: No conservative will ever argue anything honestly.

Okay. So now let's go back to the beginning.

One short conversation from graduate school stands out above all the others. It was during a cigarette break. (This was back when Californians could still have a cigarette break, having not yet been legally turned into the less-social smartphone break.)

And there it is again. You can still smoke cigarettes in California. You can't smoke in an office or a classroom or other enclosed area where other people have to breathe the air into which you are blowing smoke, but smoking has not been made illegal in the state of California.

The class had been discussing a modern novel and I had perked up with a comment about how the author had put an unattributed quote from the Psalms in a character’s mouth. It wasn’t the first time I had offered this sort of insight in class, but I tended to keep these observations casual so as not to draw too much attention.

During the break, my oh-so-hip San Francisco-dwelling classmate turned to me and asked, “How did you know that about the Psalms?” I explained that I was a Christian and sheepishly confessed that I read the Bible pretty regularly. He looked at me with longing and confessed in turn, “I wish I knew the Bible.”

Mm hmm. Yes, I'm sure that is exactly the conversation that occurred. This San Francisco hipster who had managed to graduate college and was working on a post-graduate degree had always wanted to know more about the Bible but had never been able to conceive of a way to learn about it. He never figured out that he could walk into any bookstore, purchase a copy of the Bible and, you know, read it. Oh how he envied you and your knowledge of how to avail oneself of book learning!

I didn’t know how to respond. I had spent most of my young life avoiding letting people know just how well I knew the Bible. In thousands of veiled and unveiled ways, it had been clear to me that having spent evenings and weekends reading, studying, and memorizing the Bible made me odd. 

Not exactly. Being odd made you spend your nights and weekends memorizing the Bible.

The lack of biblical literacy has been catalogued by various polling firms and lamentedfrom countless pulpits (or at least at pastor support groups), but no one is cataloguing the emptiness of a culture without a sacred rock at its foundation. It isn’t catalogued because it isn’t quantifiable.

It isn't cataloged because it doesn't exist.

I’m not talking here about the value of religious belief, although I’d be interested in discussing that on wholly other grounds. I’m talking solely about about education and culture. My graduate school friend desired a particular educational experience of being formed as a child by a tradition that included the biblical authors, plus Dante, Shakespeare, Milton, Fielding, Dostoevsky, Melville, Faulkner, and so many more. My friend was sad that he, being now older and done with his education, couldn’t go back and be formed the way these and countless other authors and artists were formed.

Oh, God! Are we doing this again? Is it 1992 again? Are we seriously going to trot out the old "Boo hoo, kids aren't reading enough dead white men anymore" bullshit?

Good heavens, the Canon! Why, if children aren't required to read every bit of the sacred Canon, society will disintegrate! What if they read James Baldwin or Alice Walker or Isabelle Allende? Think of the consequences for society!

This formation is a tradition that he, not possessing, cannot pass on. This is a loss not only of the Bible or Christian faith but a severing of his connection to all the other aspects of a culture that ought to have been his. Studying the liberal arts without any knowledge of the Bible is to dine without salt. 

So. . .  it's good for your blood pressure?

Yeah, that checks out.




Then he goes through the part where the Google doodles aren't doing enough to educate the young about the cultural and social implications of the Hebrew scriptures. Then on to his next silly point.

Thankfully, however, with just a little bit of intentionality, most people can enter into this tradition of learning. My kids, for example, really get a kick out of the “What’s in the Bible” DVDs, which are instructive and entertaining, even for adults. But the real McCoy is to dig into the Good Book itself.
For that I recommend finding a local organization that runs Bible-reading groups like Bible Study Fellowship or Intervarsity Christian Fellowship. These groups tend to have plenty of non-Christians in attendance

No they don't. No they fucking don't. What non-Christians are attending Bible-reading groups? It's like saying there are a lot of heterosexual men in attendance most nights at the Nob Hill Male Theater.





These groups tend to have plenty of non-Christians in attendance and are often led by enthusiasts who make for better teachers than your average theology professor. The Good Book is also a pretty good book.

Oh, yes. It's riveting!

5 The sons of Japheth were Gomer, Magog, Madai, and Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras.

6 Forsooth the sons of Gomer were Ashchenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah.

7 And the sons of Javan were Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.

8 The sons of Ham were Cush, and Mizraim, Put, and Canaan.

9 And the sons of Cush were Seba, and Havilah, Sabta, and Raamah, and Sabtecha. And the sons of Raamah were Sheba, and Dedan.

10 And Cush begat Nimrod; this Nimrod began to be mighty in [the] earth.

11 And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim,

Can't wait for the movie!

For me, the paradigm has shifted. I’m glad for all the sword drills I did as a youth and for all the Scripture I was forced to memorize.

Wait.

SWORD DRILLS?





What are SWORD DRILLS? Please tell me they are what they sound like!

sword drill n. [*sword ‘metaphor for the Bible’ + drill ‘an exercise, practice’] A competitive game for children in which the first person to locate and correctly recite a given verse in the Bible wins.

The format of the sword drill varies widely. Generally, the person leading the drill begins by saying, “Attention” and the players hold their Bible down at their side or tucked under one arm—as if the Bible is “sheathed.” Then the leader says, “Draw swords” or “Present arms” and the players hold their Bibles up in the air or straight out in front of them, as if the Bible were an unsheathed sword. Then the leader calls out a book, chapter, and verse of the Bible, and the players immediately search in their Bibles to find it. The first player to find the verse and read it aloud correctly wins.

Ugh. I should have known.

I am glad not only because I’m a Christian and because in Jesus’ death and resurrection I live, move, and have my being. I am also glad because as I continue to study and teach literature, art, philosophy, music, and history, I do not have to do so as a stranger in a strange land. Rather, I am an insider to a conversation that’s been taking place for thousands of years.

Yes.
Imagine if you will, someone who has never studied Christian theology, who has never memorized large chunks of the Scriptures. Someone who has never done a sword drill. Imagine that person trying to understand a work of art like this



Why, that poor fellow would be baffled!
"Who is that unfortunate man suspended from the wooden T?" he might ask. "And why are none of those people helping him? And why do some of the people have wings?" Oh, he'd just be lost. There is no way to appreciate the work of El Greco without a firm understanding of the New Testament!

I look at my college students now and think about that cigarette break. If you want your kids to thrive in graduate school, send them to Bible study.

And there you have it. The worst possible reason to send your kids to Bible study. Because this nitwit seems really to think that a grounding in Jueo-Christian mythology is essential for success in graduate school!

Good News For a Change

Trump Evangelical Adviser Says You Don’t Need Flu Shots When You Have Jesus

“Inoculate yourself with the word of God,” says Gloria Copeland.

Halle Freakin' Lujah!

A controversial minister linked to President Donald Trump said flu shots aren’t necessary when you have Jesus.

“Inoculate yourself with the word of God,” urged Gloria Copeland

: (  It won't fit in the syringe : (

“Well, listen, partners, we don’t have a flu season,” Copeland said

Well that's just true. There's four seasons: Fall, Winter, Spring, and Summer. Ipso facto, there is no season of "flu."

“And don’t receive it when somebody threatens you with, ‘Everybody’s getting the flu.’ We’ve already had our shot: He bore our sicknesses and carried our diseases. That’s what we stand on.”

**sigh** That is NOT how it works.

Seriously, do you think that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, left his throne in Heaven, came to Earth for 40 miserable non-heavenly years, and allowed himself to be killed by slow torture so you wouldn't get the fucking flu? The whole point of Christianity is that Jesus came to earth to for some reason get punished for the sins of everyone else even though he didn't do anything wrong because God has a weird idea of what justice is and someone needed to die if He was gonna start letting people into Heaven. The goddamm flu doesn't enter into it.

Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus died for your immune system?

She said the faithful who don’t have the flu can ward off the infection by repeatedly saying, “I’ll never have the flu. I’ll never have the flu.”

Wait. Seriously? Do you have to click your heels three times while you say it?

 

Why you had the power to not have the flu allll alonggg! 

All you had to do was repeat this idiotic phrase over and over!

You know, like in the Bible!

For those who are ― somehow ― sick anyway, she offered a prayer. 

“Flu, I bind you off of the people in the name of Jesus,” she said, “Jesus himself gave us the flu shot. He redeemed us from the curse of flu, and we receive it and we take it, and we are healed by his stripes, amen.”

 Oh.
 Sure.
Speak directly to the flu.
I'm sure that must be awfully effective.

 

 All those little nubs are ears!

So, the good news?
Looks like we might start thinning the herd a bit.

Bad Ads - Liberty Mutual (I fixed the video)

Liberty Mutual Insurance has recently been running a series of ads featuring the whiniest bunch of mopes complaining about their insurance coverage. They are so annoying I actually find myself on the side of the insurance companies. I find myself yelling things at the screen like "you got into an accident, of course your rates went up, idiot!"




Yeah, the accident is "no big deal" to you, but the insurance company has to pay out, so naturally your rates go up because you are a worse risk than they originally thought and goddammit, you just made me defend a fucking insurance company!




Jeezus Christ, you had the car for what, one hour, and you wrap it around a fucking tree? How is that not your fault? That tree wasn't moving, ya know. And what, the insurance company is just supposed to pretend like this is just one of those things that happens to people? You've made one payment on your policy and they're already out like 20 grand because you can't avoid a fucking tree! And you're going to whine about this? Like it's so unfair that your rates went up after you did the most cartoonishly irresponsible bit of driving possible? You're a menace! You're lucky they didn't cancel your policy, notify the DMV and make it their goal in life to prevent you ever buying another car. But sure, be a big baby about a rate increase, that's super endearing.

Then there's this moron:





So it's insurance for people who can't grasp the concept of depreciation?
That's a hell of a target market.

People Who Will Never be President, Chapter 3

Chapter 3: Louisiana Governor Piyush "Bobby" "Bubba" Jindal.



One would have thought that after the State of the Union fiasco Jindal would no longer be considered even a dark-horse candidate, but there does seem to be at least the possibility of presidential run in his future, even if it is just a Gingrich/Cain book deal kind of run. Which for his sake, I hope it is because there is no way in Hell that Bobby Jindal will ever be President.

First of all, no matter what they may say to pollsters, the Republican base is not about to hand the keys to the White House to a guy whose family tree doesn't have it roots in Western Europe.

You can whitewash the portrait all you want, "Bubba."

Secondly, can you imagine this feeble little milquetoast in a debate against the Republican flamethrowers? Chris Christie's walking out of there with Jindal's lunch money.

And then there's the way he runs an economy:

Louisiana governor: Sell tobacco settlement for upfront cash

Wow. It's the J.G. Wentworth approach to macroeconomics. What's plan B, a payday loan? Auto pawn?
Maybe just buy some time until the check comes in from that Nigerian prince?
Gawd!  What are you, running the state out of a trailer park?

BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) — Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's administration moved ahead Tuesday with a plan to sell the state's remaining share of a massive tobacco settlement, despite criticism the move would waste a valuable asset for a quick fix to budget problems.

A board that oversees the settlement agreed to the idea, though several more approvals would be needed before any sale. Treasurer John Kennedy objected, saying Jindal's plan is driven by desperation to find money for a budget awash in red ink.

 

Red ink, huh? You know, there's a thing that you can do to get money, um. . . what's it called? It rhymes with "snacks." Um, oh yeah, tax! You could maybe have some sort of a tax, then you'd have monies to pay for things. 

 As the Republican governor has stuck to a pledge against raising taxes, Jindal and lawmakers have refused to match the state's spending to its yearly revenue. They have plugged budget holes with short-term financing like money from property sales, legal settlements and trust funds, creating continued shortfalls year after year.

Ah, the party of fiscal responsibility! All you have to do is sell off like a billion dollars worth of property each year, and then, um. . . 

  

Step Three: Profit!

 Well, you know Republicans are always saying they'd run the country like a business, and Jindal is running his state like a CEO who knows he won't be around in a year when it all hits the fan.

Kennedy, also a Republican, called the tobacco settlement plan more of the same maneuvering, as the state faces a $1.6 billion budget gap next year.

 Commissioner of Administration Kristy Nichols said the Jindal proposal doesn't involve a one-year cash infusion, but $750 million that could be spent over eight years

 Oh! Well, why didn't you say so? The $750 million isn't just getting thrown at the billion-dollar shortfall, that would be silly! It's spread out over 8 years, so it's only about 100 million to offset the on and a half billion. . . wait, how is that better?

 Louisiana is one of many states that settled lawsuits for claims of smokers' deaths and health costs against tobacco companies in 1998 in return for installments of money each year. The annual payments extend as long as the companies involved in the settlement are viable.

So, you would be getting money from this settlement for infinity years? That's what you're selling off? An infinity-year annual payment?  Who would sell that? I mean, unless you're getting magic beans in return - wait, are you getting magic beans?

 No, wait. Wrong fairy tale. You're killing the golden goose.

The state sold 60 percent of its settlement to investors for $1.2 billion in 2001, rather than risk tobacco companies going belly-up later and not making their settlement payments.

  

Really? You're the second Louisiana governor to think this was a good idea?

 The Jindal administration proposal to sell the remaining 40 percent would be structured differently. It would spend all the dollars that are received over seven to eight years — eliminating the yearly $55 million revenue stream after that, until the bond debt is paid.

Oy.

Thank God Bobby Jindal will never be President!