« November 2007 | Main | January 2008 »
Does this translate into votes? Who knows? But if nothing else at least voters are learning a few things about a new (old) way to look at politics, civil rights, government abuses and media censorship. And, with any luck, some of Ron Paul's beliefs and perspectives will make their way into future political and social dialog.
Oh, and check this out. I caught a screenshot of my latest donation. This is not a photoshop - real deal.
Holy crap. My friend Coola went to cheer on Ron Paul at his appearance at Meet the Press in DC yesterday. He stuck around outside the studio hoping to get a quick glance, maybe a short handshake.
Perhaps he got a Touch of the Spirit - a touch of the rEVOLution. Watch him lay hug on Ron that would make a hooker blush. Jesus, you'd think he met his real father for the first time or something.
Of course, you remember Coola.
UPDATE - It's been called "The Hug Heard 'Round the World' and it already making it's way around the internet. Be sure to vote it up in DIGG. Hugs not bombs?
Oh, man. I heard about this a few days ago and didn't bother to post. I believed it to be a clumsy nod to a grumbling constituency - nothing that would go anywhere. But I overestimated our congress yet again. I figured that they'd have more important things to do than process fluff legislation that, besides being non-binding, is downright silly.
People are getting killed in Iraq, families are starving right down the street, our elderly are increasingly forgotten (and stashed away in musty backrooms and Budget Inn-style hospices) - and our youth are wearing realllly baggy pants.
The Basics: Congress hereby declares that Christmas and Christians are important. That is pretty much it, actually.
Read the full (and brief) text here.
UPDATE: Ha, the story is gaining traction. Watch the bill's author explain the legislation. The comments after the story are a good read, too.
"Definitely the worst wipeout I've seen," said photographer Frank Quirarte, whose stunning still images (on www.mavsurfer.com)
captured a session not even visible for fog-shrouded spectators on
land. "There was a lot of stoke in the air, guys hooting each other's
rides, but when Flea went down, everything just stopped. We all thought
he was dead."
Holy shit. You see his board up in there?
Is AOL cool again, yet?
That is, is it time for me to get an .aol email address?
I would have figured that getting an AOL email address would be all the rage by now. "So you have your own domain name and several email address? Who cares? I'm rockin' A-O-motherfuckin'-L." All it would take is the guys from The Bravery to get .aol emails and the scene kids would eat it up.
Disclaimer: the word 'atheist' is thrown around a lot these days. Ignore it of you can - switch it out with the word 'other' and it'll still work.
++++++++++++++++++
I didn't think much of Mitt Romney's Big Religion Speech until I read this guy's blog. It got me to thinking...again.
So, Mitt Romney is running for President of the United States of America. Romney is a Mormon. Being a Mormon rankles some folks - especially serious Christians. Indeed, most evangelical Christians (about 30% of the Republican voting bloc) believe that Mormonism is a cult.
This is a problem. But certainly not one that the Romney camp hasn't been wringing their hands over for years. They've had tons of time to craft the perfect counter to these fears and misunderstandings. And Romney's testimony in The Case Against A Mormon President was the culmination of years of forensic research, historical reference and whatever Book of Quotation that happened to be handy. It was pretty darned crafty.
I'm not going to deconstruct the entire thing. There really isn't anything interesting in there from a rhetorical standpoint. Basic, clear and obvious. Just like how the American voter likes it.
But the one blinding keystone to the entire speech was this:
“Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.
Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most
profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure
together, or perish alone.”
Nice, eh? There is so much in those sentences that scares the crap out of me. And confuses me. Freedom 'requires' religion? Huh? I may not be a history expert, but from what I recall freedom has continued to exist despite centuries of Organized Religion's efforts to curtail, if not criminalize, the very thought of personal freedom. I can appreciate the 'discover his most profound beliefs' line, but I wish he didn't snap it onto the qualifier of communing with God.
(UPDATE: I would like to add something to balance out easily misinterpreted statement condemning religion for crimes against freedom. For the opposite is true, as well - a squashing of religion by more a more secular freedom. That is, the success of religion despite no freedoms at all. For example, Christianity and the Romans. And surely the Jews haven't basked in freedom for the last 5,000 years or so. Seems that both religion and freedom do not require each other to survive.)
Mitt throws the tent poles out as far as possible on this one in an attempt for inclusion - inclusion for all 'believers.' He attempts to bury concerns regarding his Mormon beliefs by simply mixing it in the spicy queso that is called Believing. "No matter what I believe," he seems to say. At least I believe in something."
While he mentions Judaism, Islam, Catholicism and other "Christ-y" religions, he neglects to mention the Others. He glosses over the large percentage of our population that simply doesn't believe any of it (Freethinkers, Brights, Atheists, Agnostics, Michael Boltan fans) or holds less traditional (although certainly no less serious) beliefs.
And by doing so, falls into the old American political trap of Us vs. Them. Either you are with us or against us. Sound familiar? Either you love Jesus or fuck-off (OK, that may be a bit much but you can see where I'm going with it.)
Obvious Big Questions left unanswered in this cursory analysis:
- How 'different' would a candidate's religious beliefs have to
be in order for people to put the kibosh on any hopes of office? Hindu? Scientology? Buddhism?
- Well, what is that the Mormons believe that Mainline Christians do not?
- Can one be an honest, beneficent loving person - and a good leader - without belief in A God?
- What do I believe?
Damn. I can't resist: South Park vs Mormonism. Quite honestly, the ending pretty much sums up the entire discussion. Suck my balls.
"Ron Paul isn't running this campaign. The People are running the campaign through him."
Of all the fact, figures, charts and anecdotes that I have seen online, this is by far the most impressive. This truly represents what the Ron Paul Revolution has become - an honest political movement created, organized and maintained by tens of thousands of terrified and disgusted voters from across the country. Hell, there is even a Ron Paul MeetUp in Auckland, New Zealand, Prague, Czech Republic ,Verona, Italy and Cape Town, South Africa.
Take a quick glance at Romney and Guliani's MeetUp maps. Calling them a bit sparse would be too generous. They are all but empty. Much like their campaign promises. But, yet, here they are in the forefront of a race to run the country. And they have no fans? Well, of course they have fans - powerful corporations, lobbying groups and religious organizations. But does anyone really care about them or their platforms. I mean, are people actually excited on a personal level about what these people can bring to the table or what they stand for?
Like him or not, Paul has tapped in to a powerful cell of disenfranchised citizens - people like myself- that feel that our government has gone too far for too few, has done too little with so much and has taken far more than it has given.
