Ach! I'm chalking this up to your youth, but I have to say I expected you to be the first one to crack a joke about control of the Senate coming down to the performance of Burns & Allen. "Good night, Gracie."

JA;

"He was speaking yesterday afternoon, when Democrat Jim Webb held a lead of about 7,000 votes over Republican incumbent senator, George Allen."

Um... Howsabout "7,000 votes over the Republican incumbent, Sen. George Allen."

:-)

I expect the recount to go smoothly. We're talking Virginia here, not florida.

I've always been happy to be a Virginian, but these days I'm also happy to not be a Floridian.

Except on Virginia's biting cold days. Then I don't mind being stupid. As long as I'm warm. :)

I'm ashamed I didn't check the byline when I read it. Nice article, I'm just not used to stumbling over Joel in the Style section. Elections must be serious 'all hands on deck' events if they can drag Joel out of Carbucks for irony free reporting.

Ballot tampering is a Class 5 felony? Can you get the death penalty for that? Does that make it more or less serious than child porngraphy? What about jaywalking?

Details, Joel, details.

If what you say about Virginia is true Pat, I am comforted. I think we've all had enough of contentious recounts. Apologies for my sporadic sky reports of late. Bad but boring weather and finishing touches on the new kitchen have distracted me. It is cloudy, soggy and foggy this morning. I can barely see the river, which looks to be an hour or so past high tide. A few trees are stubbornly holding onto their bright leaves, like an old woman desperately trying to hold onto youth by wearing garish makeup.

Those ballot printouts on the Diebold AccuVote systems are typically on cash register paper tape, which I find highly amusing and appropriate.

Should be pretty easy to give folks a receipt for their votes (should they desire one) using that mechanism when you think about it.

bc

Hey Joel, I'll be at the Post today. Don't wack me, OK! ;)))

Fortunately, it appears as though Montgomery County got its election act together this time. I'm sure there were the occasional machine glitch, but not the widespread craziness that occurred during the primary. We went ahead and voted absentee anyhow, so did not have to hit the polling place and run the gauntlet of poll volunteers. Instead, spent the dry part of the day planting day lillies alongside the house.

Sky report--clear, blue, with a few scudding clouds rapidly headed east. A warm breeze from the southwest is bringing down more leaves to blow out to the gutter tomorrow before the County pick-up gets here.

Advertising on the voting machines. What a great idea. As long as it isn't political advertising. "This machine sponsored by Pepsi." "Cast a vote with Coke." "The secure machine, sponsored by Master locks." "Vote in your underwear, by Hanes." Brilliant.

Our county has new electronic voting machines. Waiting to vote was akin to being in the recieving line at the funeral home. The only time we need recounts is when the election is so close that dead people vote, although that strategy was more prevalent during the paper ballot era.

mostly, good to know that you are warm and dry.

Wilbrod, I keep meaning to get this to you. The book I am reading, the one where I keep bumping into St. Wilibrord is A Brief History of the Anglo-Saxons: The Beginnings of the English Nation by Geoffrey Hindley, a good read for pure history. I have an english translation of the Domesday book, and this is making that work much clearer.

Aren't there any voter sobriety laws? If voting drunk, you could vote for the wrong candidate! Maybe that's what happened in 2000, too many in Florida voted while drunk. Instead of scrutinizing voter "intent", voter sobriety should be monitored - a breathalyzer in every booth.

Election Day never ends because, if it did, at some point campaigning would in decency have to end as well. Campaigning -- focusing your actions to stay in power -- is much more interesting than governing -- focusing your actions to responsibly exercise power on behalf of your constituents.

Election Board officials are classic heroes, flawed as all humans but with stout hearts. These voting machines sound amusing; we have special pens to mark ballots, which are read by an optical scanner. This allows for that physical thrill of casting a vote, plus potential mountains of paperwork afterwards. We do occasionally have recounts here, but they're never important on a national scale.

By the way, this "red" state has Democrats as governor, lieutenant governor, treasurer, attorney general, insurance commissioner, labor commissioner , superintendent of public instruction, and one of three corporation commissioners. Republicans barely control our House but lost seats, and D & R are tied in the Senate, leaving leadership in D control and with a D tiebreaker. We even have a sort of Democrat in Congress. Does this make us pink? Yes, we have too many elected officials, but at least a few years ago we abolished elective office for the superintendent of mines. Thank that 148-page constitution, brought to you by anti-railroad progressives. I can imagine what they'd say about "paperless" voting, and it isn't good.

Ha, far from beltway!

IIRC, distribution of spirits was a key campaign tactic in the days before secret balloting. Voting was a party event.

Not too bad a story, Joel, although I thought it could have benefited from an interview with The Very First Person Who Voted In Maryland If Not The Entire Eastern Seabord Notwithstanding Those Who Voted By Absentee Ballots Of Course. This might have offset the article's pretty obvious Fairfaxocentric point of view.

Just my opinion, for what it's worth, though I wouldn't be surprised if the Pulitizer Prize committee felt pretty muich the same way.

Meanwhile, in a somewhat related matter, I didn't realize until late yesterday afternoon that Cheney apparently left town Monday to go hunting out west somewhere. Basically what this means is that he left town in a huff, and was sulking out in Montana or wherever he was, following Bush's decision to fire Rummy over his (Cheney's) objections. There is also the pretty clear implication that in making his turn-around, Bush pretty much repudiated Cheney's leadership and strategy of the war. So how does Cheney handle it? He leaves town in a huff.

Memo to Cheney: when you are the frickin' vice president and they have an election, dude, you damn well stay in town; you don't go off in a huff.

I cannot conceive that this decision-making, change of personnel and change of strategy occurred without a LOT of yelling between Cheney and Bush, and my guess is that Bush started it by basically saying, "OK, this isn't working and you guys have screwed up my presidency and my war, and now we're going to Plan B." I bet it was really ugly.

I cannot wait for Woodward's next book.

Ivansmom, I believe what you have is purple, not pink!

After the last one, Mudge, do you think Woodward will get the info for another book?

Going completely off-topic here, I need input on Christmas presents for my six-year-old niece and nephew. Months ago, somebody mentioned good magazines for kids. What were they? I figure subscriptions will be something good for the whole year and not contribute to the Christmas toy chaos.

In fairness to Chaney, though, he probably has a lot of pent-up aggression to work off--it's not like you can tell the President to f- himself. I'm sure he's working off that aggression and asserting his power and authority by blowing the heads off some bunnies--or his hunting partners, whichever happens to be in his sights.

Mudge, I read that opinion you posted last night. What was wrong with it?

Mudge,
That is exactly how I picture it. It's like you were a fly on the wall. A very perky fly. I'm starting an over/under on how long before we hear an official soundbite from His Darthness after unearthing himself from his undisclosed location. I'm taking four days from now. Mark.

Curmudgeon, Darth Vader left in order to give the impression that Arbusto, not he, was calling the shots and had made this decision. Darth exercises the power then takes cover, leaving Arbusto to hold angry press conferences and explain why the electorate just didn't get his message.

"Voter sobriety" laws ha! On this most recent ballot, we just voted to amend the constitution to allow liquor stores etc to remain open on Election Day, and two more counties voted to allow liquor by the drink. I think in the early days of our state alcohol may have played a part in voting. Of course, the rumor in recent past elections in the southeast part of the state is that certain local candidates traded methamphatamine for votes, but there were only a handful of convictions for that. Heh.

Sky report: blue, eighty degrees, a real Indian summer. Just enough wind to blow the brown leaves and rustle the colorful ones. We're living in a fool's paradise this week. To prove it, I invited three fifth-grade boys to sleep over with the Boy tomorrow. Foolish indeed, or perhaps just foolhardy.

Pat and Cassandra, my thought are with you. Funerals and memorial services are always difficult.

Small public service announcement for everyone who commutes on mass transport. There was an incident on an escalator at Union Station in Toronto this morning, a mechanical failure on the escalator caused it to speed up resulting in a pile up of people at the bottom of the downward escalator.

I had a similar experience, fortunately not too severe at this same station. The escalator I was on was narrow 1-1.5 people wide and full, one person fell just at the bottom and with little room to manouver had to attempt to get over the victim or back up, neither easy to do. I think I remember it so well as I was pregnant at the time and also realized the situation could get serious quickly.

Quick note also saw that Allen may concede today?

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1163070109886&call_pageid=968332188492&StarSource=RSS

Hey, I'm no technophobe, but I've got some serious problems with voting machines that aren't, or can't be, voter-verified. I understand the wish to reduce paperwork, but I think that's a small price to pay for an auditable election.

The paper ballots would only have to be looked at if there were a challenge to the electronic results, and if the voter can look at the physical ballot and confirm it before it goes into a locked box, then the vote isn't being tallied in the dark of a black box.

Slyness, I recommend you go to the web site of Carus Publishing and look at their various magazine offerings, then you can make a choice matched to the interests and reading level of your niece and nephew.

Also, try August House Publishers, where you can find lots of good storytelling on tape or CD. Literature without straining a new reader's abilities.

And don't forget the fine storytelling work of this guy: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/timtales/
I happen to know that he has a recording available with 61 minutes of good work, although he has neglected to say anything detailed about his recording on his web site. You might e-mail him for further information and the price, which I could not give out here, since that would violate the rule about posting commercial information.

slyness, Vote Party sounds like fun, as long as what's passed around isn't of the Rev. Jim Jones variety, where voter intent would NEVER be determined ! Highly undemocratic....

Something else that's been bothering me about The Rise of the Voting Machines (tagline: The Diebolds are Revolting!). Are we getting to a point where we have a sort of informal systematic discrimination against voters who aren't comforable in this newfangled InformaticTechnologicalComputerized age? Sure, there are write-in ballots if you can find out how to get them on the county websites, but that leaves some questions unanswered:

1. Could the GOP have taken PA and Ohio if the Amish had come out to vote?

2. And what would have happened at the polls if they did?

3. Can the GOP convince the Amish to fight, er, - strain mightily against resistance - for their right to vote *on their terms*?

In many cases, write-in votes may not even be counted in the results because they take a relatively long time to tabulate, and if one candidate has a lead larger than the number of write in ballots...

Geez, someone needs to publicize this problem. Who Blogs for the Amish?

Where are the Luddite YouTube sites?
These people have rights, to voting and representation just like everyone else.

Maybe I should start a Blog and Video site, targeting teh hawtness.

GOP marketers will love it.

bc

LOL, bc. Who blogs for the Amish? Why, haven't you ever seen Elmer Yoder's blog, YahDisIsDerDistelfinkTankYouFerAskingJustAMomentWhileIPutOnMyGlassesMargaretHaveYouSeenMySpectaclesOhMyGoodnessLookAtAll DemEmailsCominInByGolly.com? The recipe section is killer, just killer.

Ticklish, I didn't quite understand your question in your 10:18. Elucidate?

Who's this new Elucidate fella, anyway? 'Mudge keeps asking him/her/it questions but gets no reply...

:-)

bc, what does "...targeting teh hawtness" mean?

GOOD MORNING, TEAM -- this morning's mental potpourri:

PAT AND CASSANDRA -- my thoughts and prayers are with you both. I hope they comfort.

YOKI -- (from many boodles ago): You are a writer. (This is *not* the good news.)

MARTOONI -- it works if you work it.

BIG CRANKY -- assume your question was rhetorical, right? I mean, you don't *really* want to know what anyone's thinking, if you open the dialogue by branding them a bigot? If you're convinced it's one of those stories that doesn't have two sides, why ask?

WILBROD -- what's your reaction to all the Gallaudet news (trustees resigning, allegations of academic chicanery)?

For 6 year-olds who may be making gains in reading during the year..
Some popular magazines are always:
Jack and Jill
Highlights for Children
Ranger Rick
National Geographic World

Myself, I like World because it has lots of great photographs of animals and good facts and it can be renewed for a few years without going stale.
However this would depend on what your nieces and nephews like.

Highlights is nice, too but the day I picked it up for the first time it was already way too young for me (I was 7, I think).

Look into local magazines for kids, as well, since the magazines I mentioned above can be found at so many libraries to start with.

And its' caruso publishing-- cobblestone is the kid's division. http://www.cobblestonepub.com/index.html

Mudge: Last night, on the previous kit, you posted a link to a WaPo opinion article. You said you found it ridiculous and infuriating. What didn't you like about it?

I just want to know what's wrong with being Fairfaxocentric?

I was at that same Government Center (also known locally as the Taj Mahal) last night to see Jane & Michael Stern speak. It was great.

My family uses their Roadfood and other books (including our favorite, Eat Your Way Across the U.S.A) as guidebooks on our roadtrips. If you ever get a chance to see them or read their books (they also write a column in Gourmet Magazine), do it. Very entertaining.

And delicious.

I hadn't read it but a friend e-mailed me the story.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/08/AR2006110802401.html

I will say this: deaf teachers are often much tougher on their students than some hearing teachers are, because they don't buy the excuses.

The exam determines whether the student goes into remedial Math or English to start with. It makes sense for the student to pass the exam to pass the class.
If a student has a severe learning disability that prevents the student from attaining basic math skills, which does happen, that should be certified and the student given an audit option for the course. The teacher's grading should not be overridden by a dean, just because some students made puppydog faces.

I will say I have no personal familiarity with Kimmel, but she replaced a deaf dean who had a Ph.D. in Microbiology and certainly would never downgrade the importance of numeracy for careers in this world.

That said, if students are coming in so deficient in basic skills that they can't begin to pass an algebra class, that is not good news. Anyway the point is not that there's pressure, the point is it's coming from ABOVE.

That's not appropriate. If there's a need to bend rules, it shouldn't come from administrative officials yielding downward pressure.

Right now Gallaudet also admits HUGS (hearing graduate students). In my time, there was a definite need to have a certain level of deafness.

Students who had good hearing but had communication disorders-- such as stuttering or other issues so bad they found it neccessary to communicate in sign were admitted. I knew such students who qualified.

As for the academic standards, it is a shame. Before PLS 501 (I think) in the 1970's that mandated all education institutions receiving federal money to provide accessibility of education to the disabled (mainstreaming act), Gallaudet got all the deaf students.

I've read quotations from (hearing) teachers who said that Gallaudet had the highest concentration of geniuses of anyplace that they'd ever worked at because only the best and brightest went to Gallaudet-- and there was noplace else for them to go.

In my time it was certainly true that I took classes with a lot of bright deaf people, and I think this is still very true at Gallaudet.

They shouldn't be scraping and bending the rules that much for substandard students, in my opinion.

His Darthness announced on Sunday he would be huntin' in SD on Election Day. So Gates probably accepted the job on that day. SD in November, hummmm it's probably the pheasants that are getting "peppered pretty good" by the Dark One. Wouldn't let him use a rifle at this stage, so whitetail deer is probably out of the question.
I just can't get over it. Dickey without Rummy is like Robin without Batman, Booboo without Yogi, Jerry without Tom, Bullwinkle without Rocky... This is a divorce that is more heart wrenching than BS and K-Fedex's.

Tim mentioned some specific children's magazine a while back, and I can't remember the name. I did tell it to my daughter, and her kids thought it was great --- Tim?

I'll catch up with the boodle topics later. Wanted to share this quirky little piece from the NYTimes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/opinion/09wayne.html

For all the single boodlers -- male or female

And many of the professors quoted at that time, I certainly remember from my day and I'm pleased they're speaking out. They have been at Gallaudet a LOT longer than Fernandes, and they know things have changed considerably.

I'm surprised enrollment is down over 400 students since my time and they're still scraping the bottom of the barrel.

This is NOT simply a matter of a smaller pool to select from.

It's a matter of failed recruitment and not meeting the needs of the better students.

And Mrs. Plum did it to Mr. Boodle in the Library with a candlestick!

Slyness: Sorry, don't have suggestions for magazines, but have you thought of getting them books? I don't remember when I started reading on my own, but my mom definately used to read to me when I was that age. A couple suggestions would be "Trumpet of the Swan" by E.B. White or " The Chronicles of Narnia"- C.S. Lewis. Those were, no, "are" some of my favorites.

LOL. Now I see why most successful politicans are married (even if they're gay).

A colorful take on Rummy's firing.
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/opinion/09dowd.html

Allen to concede at 3pm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15635543/from/ET/

Ah, now I'm with you, ticklish. Let's see, just the highlights. First, I don't think evangelicals are being especially or unfairly stereotyped.

Second, the authors claim there are 100 million of them. If that's a worldwide figure (which I doubt, but I suppose its possible) then no one is sterotyping based on that concept; discussion refers pretty much to U.S. Evangs only, and there aren't 100 million of them. The demographic I'm familiar with is usually about one-third of Protestants are evangelicals. That's not 100 million.

Third, I found the phrase "evangelicalism's deepening social conscience" absurd. Either it means E's didn't have much of one in the past but are now developing one (evidence, please?) or it means they've had one all along, but it is somehow becoming deeper, whatever that means. To my mind, these are people who oppose stem cell research, are WAAAY anti-gay and anti-gay marriage and anti-anything else remotely gay-related, who wanted Terry Schiavo to stay alive indefinitely, anti-abortion, pro-abstinence (to the exclusion of other options), school prayer, creationism and intelligent design, etc., and who are led by idiots and hypocrits like Hazzard, Pat Robertson, Swaggart, Jimmy/Tammy Baker, Jerry Falwell, and that crowd of televangelists, (and need I throw in a handful of well-known politicians?) and I utterly refuse to classify their positions under the name of "social conscience." They are entitled to believe whatever they want to believe, but they are NOT entitled to co-opt a phrase that means pretty much the opposite.

There is this sentence, which sent me just through the roof: "Even the Moral Majority in its most belligerent form amounted to nothing more terrifying than churchgoers flocking peacefully to the polls on Election Day." What crap. All they did was flock peacefully to the polls, my a--.

And this: "The only people who want a biblical theocracy in America are completely outside the evangelical mainstream, their influence negligible." Other than hanging the 10 Commandments on the walls of every classroom and courtroom in America, that is.

"Evangelical megachurches, virtually unheard of 30 years ago, are now vital sources of social welfare in urban America." To whatever extent this may be true, where were these people in the 1960s? Answer: they were the ones holding the firehoses and blocking the schoolhouse doors. Don't even TRY to tell me otherwise.

How about this: "As anyone familiar with these organizations knows, they help people regardless of creed, race or sexual orientation -- another democratic (and evangelical) ideal." Sexual orientation? What freakin' PLANET are these guys writing about? 'Cause it ain't this one.

Yes, churches do LOTS of good, charitable work. Mazel tov. But they do it not because they are EVANGELICAL but because it is part of the overall Christian practice. Do NOT try to tell me that an evangelical church does any more (but admittedly not any less) charitable work than say, a liberal Episcopalian church. Or a Catholic church. Or a synagogue, or a mosque. The phrases "holier than thou" and "sanctimonious" come to mind, and make me crazy.

Or this: "Indeed, probably no other religious community in the United States is more connected to the poverty and suffering of people in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia [than Evangs]." If Evangs want to help feed the poor and starving and ameliorate hunger, poverty and disease, that's fine. But if their primary motive is to convert the heathen savages and save their souls for Jesus first (which I believe their primary motivation is), and feed them secondarily, then I have a problem with that.

Or: "Of course it's true that a handful of Christian figures reinforce the worst stereotypes of the movement. Their loopy and triumphalist claims are seized upon by lazy journalists and the direct-mail operatives of political opponents." Of course, a handful of blah-blah (see Falwell, Robertson, Swaggert, Hazzard, Baker, et al.). "Lazy journalists"? Oh, I get it. Let's just blame the MSM. Wonder where they got that ploy?

"Yet it is dishonest to disparage the massive civic and democratic contribution of evangelicals by invoking the excesses of a tiny few." The excesses of a tiny few. Well, let ME be the judge of how "tiny" those few are. And anyway it is a false argument; no one is disparaging the work the rank-and-file may be doing, though I have to dispute the loaded adjective "massive." It's what's called special pleading. But be that as it may, no one is attacking or stereotyping it or the work. They are attacking the "tiny few" in the leadership, and the sterotyping speaks for itself.

My biggest problem is this: evangelicals want to enter the political arena, which is their right. But if and when they do so, they must expect opposition. What these guys are asking for is to be able to enter the political arena and GET NO PUSHBACK because after all, they are evangelicals and therefore anything they do is above criticism. And they don't get to decide what the nature of the opposition should be. And above all, they don't get a pass.

buenos dias senoras y senores! and what a buen dia it is! we won Va!!! *whew!* (but that amendment still makes my blood boil!)

wilbrod - that was a great article! i saw the speech yesterday and was wondering about when bush said "I thought when it was all said and done, the American people would understand the importance of taxes and the importance of security." - i thought, he didn't REALLY just say that did he? i kept trying to find the replay of it but couldn't...

Note to ticklishturtletoe:

"You cannot reason a man out of a position he was not reasoned into."

Jonathan Swift

I strongly urge you not to waste your time. It is the stuff life is made of.

"Mudge,

Here is this footnote to your large piece re Evangelicals. Note: I am a Liberation theology-leaning, Jesuit-trained, liturgically conservative (sheesh the folk music is unsingable), R. Catholic, raised among mining union Dem community long ago and far away.

But my buddies of more than 20 years at Sojourners -- intentional, evangelical community evolved into a movement -- has always identified as evangelical.

Funny thing, though, Sojourners has never been embraced by the broader evang. community.

Sojourners are more aligned with the historic peace churches, Unitarians, liberate-moderate Catholics, but Sojourners are at their heart, evangelical.

So, for fun, check them out at.
www.sojourners.org

Jim Wallis is their fearless and greying leader.

33% of 151mil is ~ 50mil

I guess everyone is at lunch. Got the boodle all to myself.

Cassandra -- I'm sorry for your losses. You seem to be having a number of them lately. I know you have a stong faith that helps you.

mudge -- I read the evangelical piece -- was left rather astonished at the claim that all is love, brotherhood, and good works for the poor.

Left out, of course, was the rather un-Christian bashing of gays (and now in Virginia even unmarried heterosexual couples), the attempts to force on all of America the narrow "moral" agenda of the evangelicals, etc.

It was a piece in tune with the current administration -- a bit delusional, and certainly not in line with all the facts.

Martooni -- KEEP IT SIMPLE!! don't get bogged down in the Higher Power complexity. It's enough to know that you ain't it! Use the group as your HP if you need to. Don't get hung up here --

I'm very glad Allen didn't go for the protacted mess that I expected him to.

Wilbrod -- I read Dowd -- actually i think she's spot on. I've read way too many nutty articles taking Arbusto at his word that he's now a humble bipartisan kind of guy.

Dana Milbank has the only written version of the press conference yesterday that agrees with what I viewed.

The idea that the Democrats might actually want to keep their country safe -- that W has gotten away with this kind of talk -- leaves me gasping at the reporters who don't ask him the obvious --"Mr. President -- don't you think the Democrats have families and loved ones they might want to keep safe? do you really believe there are people in this country who don't want to be secure?"

To steal a line from Sting -- "I hope the Democrats love their children too."

It's amazing that no one calls him on this kind of rhetoric.

MoDo was conspicuously absent from TimesSelect yesterday, so I'm glad she had a great column full of zingers for today. Still not worth a buck a week.

Thanks for the in-depth analysis of that proslytization editorial, mudge. Since it didn't seem to describe people I knew either personally or by reputation, I was wondering what definition of Evangelical was being used.

mudge -- I posted before your excellent dissection of the evangelical piece was up.

Thanks

Ed Bradley died

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15638692/

Yeah, we should be sure not to tax the rich dry so they can build big fences and dogs and anti-aircraft ammo and buy up baseball fields, while the barbarian invaders sweep America, killing all 'em terrorist-loving liberals who are just too poor to be American anyway.

Okay, I know almost nobody in America really believes it, but when you see an overemphasis on cutting taxes for the rich and cutting the safety net for the poor, I don't know what is really going on.

Here are the facts: Rich people make money off organization, deals, contracts, profiting by being able to merchandise to a mass market.

Not many rich people have ever picked up a hammer to build a house with their bare hands. Not many volunteer for the local fire company to put out the fires, risking their lives in the process. Not many rich people lay their lives down in Iraq. Not many rich people will be around to walk your dog for you when you're in the hospital. Not many rich people will sit and ump baseball games for the kids.

And America in fact is about that kind of thing as much or much more than sheer capitalism-- it's about the social networks that form the fabric of this country, that drives politics and the need to get things done.

Now, since its inception, America has suffered from a puritian ethic that always implied that wealth and good things in THIS life is your reward for being better in spirit than others, something like casteism in India.

Now, this is not what Christ taught. Nor is it even what the Old Testament teaches, exactly. Just see the Book of Job to see that the best and most faithful will also suffer without any real reason.

But it's a belief that always serves people in authority well. The Divine Right of Kings, for one. That slaves should obey their masters, for God has Ordained it, for another.

I also believe this attitude of the Puritians also influenced the eugenics craze in the early 20th century that lead to the sterilization of so many that happened to have the wrong sort of faces or abilities.

Tim, "teh hawtness" is Internet slang as commonly used by people under the age of 25 who use the Internet more than 3 hours a day for personal communciations.

A literal translation would be "the hotness" (note intentional misspellings), but the common usage implies very attractive ("hawt") young people.

Mudge, I know too many folks in the Evangelical GOP camp to have an unbiased opinion about that piece. Folks who have no problem asking, no, demanding, nay, belligerently bullying people to their face (in public), "How can you possibly call yourself a Christian and still be a Democrat?"

bc

With all due respect, CP, liberation theologists may claim to be evangelicals, but they are not. {I'm not familiar with Sojourners, so can't say.) And that's why they haven't been embraced by the broader Evang community. You are different from them. They [the Evangs] seem pretty clearly to know that, hence their lack of acceptance. I'm very familiar with the "historic peace churches"; I spent many years in and among them, and like and respect them. But they aren't evangelical, no matter what they call themselves. Yes, some of this is semantics, and some is doctrinal, and some is behavioral.

As it happens, the couple who are my wife and my best friends are conservative Christians and believe themselves to be evangelicals--but they aren't (and I never argue it with them; we virtually never talk about religion in any way, shape, or form, which in part is why I claim they aren't "good" evangelicals, though they'd be shocked to hear me say it [so I don't]).

People and institutions often claim to be things other people may reasonably dispute. The Ku Klux Klan, for instance, claims to be a highly Christian outfit. I beg to differ, and I suspect you and many other Christians would too. The Catholic Church sometimes claims to be "universal," but even a thousand years ago it wasn't. The trouble with religious language is that it sometimes doesn't mean what it thinks it means. Hence Evangs now claiming to have these expansive "social consciences" that allow four states to pass anti-gay-marriage amendments on Tuesday. They may be entitled to their opinions, but don't try to tell me that falls under the definition of "social conscience."

nelson, I was just going to post that link about Ed Bradley. A shame about the guy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/09/AR2006110900820.html

bc

nelson, I also wonder why reporters don't ask better questions. Even Washington Post Radio is a good example:

Tuesday I listened to an interview on WaPo radio with neocon Richard Perle. I don't remember when I heard it, but it was probably in the morning, so it was likely Mike Moss doing the interviewing (I'm not a lazy journalist, just a lazy listener).

Perle comically objected to the idea of a "neoconservative agenda," saying that there is no neocon movement and that the only thing they really want is democracy around the world.

Perle actually said, "Democracies don't start aggressive wars."

And Mike Moss didn't call him on that. Let him actually get away with saying that without a word.

That's why they think they can lie. And to be honest, that's why they CAN lie. Because no one says anything about it.

nelson:
You seem to see Christians all at once. "Christian" is just as abstract as "American." Some Americans would consider certain actions by others as un-American just as some Christians would consider certain actions by others as un-Christian.

What gay bashing are you talking about? Who bashed gays? The writers of the opinion?

Which points did you find delusional?

yellowjkt:
How was the editorial proselytizing?

Nelson thank you for posting about Ed Bradley.

I do not have a lot to add about the Evangelical discussion as I have little experience with it. Perhaps because I am less knowledgeable I tend to lump all the conservative ideologies together, including factions of the Catholic church that are more extreme in their views.

I saw an article this morning on the Pope stating he was against the gay parade in Jerusalem.

Now I was raised Catholic, were everyone was taught that we were created in Gods image - I fail to see how people created in God's image could offend him. Hence one of the many reasons I am a lapsed Catholic.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15627783/

BC, that's why I study the bible-- to remind them of what the bible says.

I Corinthians 13:13
"And now these three remain: faith, hope and CHARITY-- agape, love. But the greatest of these is Charity."

I Corinthians 3:4-5.
"Love, (Charity) is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs."

And then say "I also happen to believe in not pointing out the mote in my neighbor's eye." (Slamming door).

I had to talk my way out of being faith-healed in a fashion that made sense to a believer. I happened to tell her some words she needed to hear at that very moment, without realizing it, as well.

http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/let_us_start_with_a_quote.htm

'Mudge,

What are the best working definitions of evangelical?

Here are my tentative stabs: First a negative case.
Catholics are NOT evangelical because telling others about the "Good News" is very optional. In fact, it is mostly counter to our culture to tell others about, say, Jesus, the Gospels, salvation etc. (The church is moving right in some leadership circles, but that is not the same thing as evangelizing.)

Evangelicals seems to operate under the command to "tell others." About what? Well, Jesus, salvations, etc.

Unless Sojourners reinvented themselves and did not send me the new mission statement, they claim evangelical status. In fact, my quibble with these good buddies and buddesses (did I write that?) is that I prefer "good works" WITHOUT any "good news." Feed the poor, clothe the naked, etc. But don't pass out tracts, etc.

A relative worked in Bhutan for years, invited by the King circa 1950, to build from scratch a school system. This distant relie was a Jesuit. He was invited because roughly, the record of Catholics missionaries had been works-focused, rather than proclaim the Gospel. He built schools and lived in this high Himalayan kingdom for more than 40 years.

(This is all very rough and quick! Pardon me, all my Prot. imaginary friends.)

nellie, the magazine that I had previously recommended is MUSE, jointly published by Cricket and Smithsonian. It is for children age 9-13 (although I like to read it, too), so it would not be appropriate for a 6 year-old. Maybe.

Disclaimer:

I don't speak for Sojourners. I am not a member, although I subscribed to the mag for more than 20 years.

And I sense this is getting to be dangerous ground. Ticklishturtletoe, just don't go picking fights.

Evangelical comes from the Greek, meaning "bearing good news".

By definition and implication it means those christians who put a great emphasis on spreading God's word, which means proselytizing, as an article of their faith, to attempt to encourage personal conversions and strong adherence to the Gospel among others.

This is ultimately incompatible with a respect for religious freedom, because those people are motivated from a belief that all people will go to hell if they do not personally convert. Unfortunately their belief also tends to conflict somewhat with the doctrine of charitas, since they often work out of fear rather out of sincere love of God.

And before anybody rebuts me, I personally know somebody who converted overnight after having a delirum tremens and seeing the Devil. He is one of the most aggressive evangelicals I have ever met. He walked out of a class after claiming that Tai Chi was new age and dangerous and that he wouldn't be in the same room with such evil. Last I heard, an old college acquaintance was telling me he had founded his own baptist church and OF COURSE his church was the best and the most right one.

I guess he never stopped to think by running away from the Devil into the arms of Christianity, he might in fact be driven like a sheep by the Devil. There's no proof that he ever felt God in his heart. I hope he lets himself be found by God eventually, But to this day I consider him one of the most dangerous "Christians" I have ever met, because he is in fact gifted with some charisma and easily swayed people at college to HIS way.

Any christian can be evangelical.

However, I find this error of zealotry to be more common in the newer churches rather than in the more mainstream churches, including Catholicism, because they have a much more mature theology for their congregations to learn.

Many baptist preachers don't even need seminary degrees at all to preach, they don't even need to show they know one inch of theology. And one wonders why they preach a distorted version of christianity and commit all the vices Christ and Paul warned us against?

They also warn against actual study of theology by spreading propaganda against the Catholic church, and painting the Pope as the Antichrist and other delightful stuff that makes being Catholic a ripe target for all who would "save souls."

Been there, heard the slander about the nuns and priests being in group orgies and doing abortions and such. Turns out this is from a propaganda pamphlet printed in Texas-- read a book about Catholicism vs Fundamentalism which helped me really understand where those shocking assertions came from. Now I am more prepared to rebut those lies.

CP, good works certainly go a long way, because, in my experience, someone eventually asks why you're doing so much for them. It creates an excellent opportunity to share what Christ has done for you.

That said, I'm also extremely glad some folks had the audacity to pass out tracts, because I never even knew about this choice that I had until I read one. And I'll be eternally grateful to an old, old man who was passing out Gideon bibles one very cold winter's day. I snubbed him when he offered me one, so he has no idea that I walked away wondering what was keeping him warm when he should've been at home warming his old bones.

Now I know very well what (Who) kept him warm. It will be my pleasure to do for him whatever he asks when I see him one day -- after I spend a few dozen millenia on my face worshipping at the feet of my savior.

Not being evangelical in the capital e sense, I agree with much of what you say, Mudge. I can't imagine being so incredibly certain about everything, especially in that you reject most of the human race. I remember a quote from Francis of Assisi that goes something like this: You should witness all the time, but only sometimes should you talk. The point, of course, is that the conduct of one's life is the best witness.

The drift from politics to religion here is a little startling. Of course, I take it on faith that my vote will be counted, but applaud the Election Board's role in assuring this to be true. I trust folks in other states feel the same way. Trust but verify.

So basically, you have "every man is his own pope, and don't dare read all the brilliant theological thinkers of the last 2000 years because they're all catholic and evil."

The minute anybody has done significant, deep study of said theology and come to a mature viewpoint, they rarely remain the same ones who are running around telling other people to convert or face hell.

There are people in baptist and other evangelical churches who may have a theology, if they think about it, fall close to Catholicism. They are not the one who are telling people to vote republican or burn.

I know because I have asked and listened to various peoples in various churches and gotten a wild array of theologies.

The most skewed theologies come from those who converted to that church as teens or adults and who lack the tools to delve into theology on their own, and are not provided such tools by the leaders (who again are not theologicans), who basically depend on charsmia and evangelical appeal to win believers, rather than nourish them.

I have seen people who converted from catholicism to fundamentalist and then went on to atheism when they found the excitement wearing off to be left with a lot of disillusion and disgust at those leaders who are "saved" and still act rottenly.

I can't believe a reference to a Pez dispenser went by without comment. I love the one with the little Santa head, even if it can only be used a few weeks a year.

Ticklishturtletoe, there's nothing wrong with passing out material. All christian churches do it, whether evangelical or not.

It's when you get people targeting you for "conversion", continually talking to you, trying to get your roommates to convert, having people disrupt your classes, having people paint other christian faiths as evil or wrong, that I find myself repulsed by their actions.

Let's be very clear on this. I am not anti-christian, I'm very much against hypocrites, wolves in sheeps' clothing, and others who would use religion to further their agendas and fatten their wallets-- in all religions there are wolves in sheeps' clothing.

tickleturtletoe -- I did use the word "Christian" very loosely -- you're correct.

I have gotten used to using the word "Christian" by dint of the self-referential use of it by evangelicals.

To wit: in the local "Books-a-Million" bookstore, there are rows and rows of books on "Christian" topics -- and "Christianity."

All of this literature is evangelical.

In the World Religions section, there are a few books on Catholicism, as well as a couple on Judaism, and Islam.

Buddhism, Hinduism and any other religion gets shelved in the Philisophy section -- the Dalai Lama right next to Sun Tzu.

As someone who was raised Catholic, I've had a good laugh at this -- but it's also seeped into my thinking. Last I knew, Christianity started with Jesus, and his disciple Peter is considered the first Bishop of Rome. Not sure when Catholicism got kicked out of the "Christian" religion -- but it is most certainly not part of it down heah in the South.

Evangelicals refer to themselves as Christians -- implying that Catholics, Episcopalians and other non-evangelical Christian denominations aren't. I see it in the above mentioned bookstores, on bumper stickers (Christians aren't perfect: just forgiven) -- I see it everywhere.

About gay-bashing: The whole intent of the article was to imply that evangelicals aren't really political, aren't out to influence the politics of this country -- which is simply not true.

In Virginia the lovely amendment that just passed -- one sponsored by the Christian Right -- denying not only gay couples, but unmarried heterosexual couples any protection under the law. Wills, end-of-life decisions, children -- if a couple is not married -- they have no legal control over any of this.

I believe we just went through a very tellng period of the gay "problem" with Mark Foley. Christian (and again, I use this word the way it is used by the evangelical groups) leaders such as Dobson and others (including Haggard -- that poor confused guy -- and I mean this), have such a stranglehold on the "base" in GOP politics that the non-threat of gay-marriage is used cynically by the GOP leaders to appease them. Please see the book by David Kuo for more affirmation of this practice.

All of these state ballot initiatives on gay marriage are driven by the Christian Right.

Ditto with abortion. Stem cells. And now, yes, even unmarried couples. Last Sunday in the WaPo Outlook section, Dahlia Lithwick wrote about a court case in Utah. A man abused his unmarried partner. Beat her up good. But Utah has on the books a law just like what Virginians just voted for two days ago.

The partner has no rights to file a case under domestic abuse (I'm not sure what happened to good old fashioned assault and battery). because she is not married to the man who beat her up.

Evangelical Christian groups in the state are actually on the side of the guy who beat up his partner.

Delusional: a reference to the fact, again, that the writers of this article decided to overlook the huge, political muscle that the Christian Right has waged in trying to reshape this country in their own image. The very fact that they wrote this defensive piece gives the truth about political evangelicism.

They portrayed an evangelicism that seems very nice. I've read a bit about some of the changes in evangelical churches -- Rick Warren, for example -- and other pastors and parishioners beginning to pick up on environmental issues.

This is all good and well. But it is not the reality of the Christian Coalition, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, etc.

The article was misleading. This is what I meant by delusional.

I am not a basher of religion. I have a core set of my own beliefs, and when push comes to shove, seem to have much in common with many religious people.

But I am also a student of politics.

I hope I have explained my comments in more depth.

LostinThought, it went by without comment, but not unnoticed - made me smile.

I'm on delicate turf here, but as Wibrod and CollegeParkian mention, it's right in the word Evangelical. My wife went to a Baptist affiliated college, so I've learned much of the lingo and jargon. To a hard-core evangelical, everything, even a letter to the editor, should be done to glorify God.

I used 'proselytizing' in the broadest since of the word since they didn't directly ask me to take Jesus as my saviour right in the article. Still, it was a sales job and meant to cast themselves in the best light possible, as is their right. It is my right to take their claims with a grain of salt.

I know many very devout and sincere evangelicals, but their particular emphasis and worldview don't appeal to me.

I'm not sure there's anything to be read into Books-A-Million's division of religions and philosophies. While browsing in my local store, I found Don Quixote under Q, by author.

Paul certainly said doing good works is a good strategy to win attention to God's word. But that's not the reason to do good works.
The reason to do good works is because it is GOOD, because it gives back to God as well and keeps you continually reminded that we are all made in God's image.

That people who you might never have talked to normally are souls just as deserving as you are, that they may be as evolved or more evolved to God's grace than you are.

It's about lacking pride, about being poor in spirit. Good works should be connected to your PERSONAL faith, yes, but they also should reflect charity-- the divine love of God, not an effort to further your own cause.

Work for your "faith" and your ego will get in the way of actually doing God's work. Of Faith, Hope, and Charity... Charity is the greatest of all.

God gives his salvation. Nothing we can do, no words we can say, really changes that fact.
I don't think it's up for us to judge who has been saved and who has not been. That's human definitions, not God's definition.

SCC: Since "Sense of the word" would make a lot more sense.

Wilbrod: This is an intellectual discussion. Not an emotional debate.

I only want know the objections to that editorial, rather than a flat dismissal of its points without mentioning them specifically.

Christianity is replete with very poor examples of Christ-likeness. It's also replete with beautiful examples of agape (love).

Some of you have mentioned some bad examples of Christians. Am I the only one who knows some good examples of Christians?

But I liked the repetition of "since", Yellojkt ;). You are forgiven your lapse into the pin-pen accent of the South.

I would recommend "Fundamentalism vs Catholicism" as an introduction to why many bible christians have their theology just a tiny bit wrong, even though they read the bible.

http://www.marianland.com/catholicism_fundamental.html

Also, a comparative religion primer and talking to people across different faiths might be enlightening.

Sikhism does not believe that theirs is the only path to God nor their book the Word of God. They believe that God has given people many paths to receive His grace. Thus, people can achieve enlightenment and salvation in almost any religion.

When I see a 'bible christian' who is also a practicing Catholic say very similar words to a hard-line Sikh guy about God, I know the Sikhs have a point there.

I'll shut up about religion right now. I just want to say, is very beggarly and cynical to teach people religion is only found in a few places, or if you act in certain ways. We are all limited in our understanding in one way or another.

ticklishturtletoe, by good examples of Christians - do you mean all Christian faiths?. Funny story, we recently moved and my children have been having fun meeting the kids in the neighbourhood. Shortly before Halloween my daughter ran over to the neighbours to invite them to help decorate for Halloween and to invite them to her party. A visiting friend of theirs replied that they were Christian and did not celebrate Halloween.

The spoke a little more and my daughter returned home somewhat perplexed. Her question was mom we are Catholic doesn't that mean we are christians? I tried to explain how we can be both and others can classify themselves as just christian.

To answer your question I know many good examples of Christians, but like much in life the bad examples tend to get more attention, particularly if they are in positions of power or influence.

CP, I agree with everything in your 1:29.

For me, the biggest bugaboo is proslytizing. I don't care what people worship and practice, just keep it to yourselves, or at very least, stay out of my face. I don't go door-to-door asking people if they've heard the good news about the Philadelphia Eagles and giving them tracts of Tom Boswell. It is especially infuriating to me to have someone ask me, "Have you heard about Jesus?" Yeah, I think I've come across that name somewhere in my reading, you twerp, possibly in my Comparative Religions Class, or maybe it was my 2oth Century Theology Class (Buber, Tillich, Bonhoffer, John A.T. Robinson, et al.), or maybe it was the half dozen books on Higher Criticism I read, or, oh, yes, the 10 years or so I was forced to go to Sunday School, or maybe it was during the hundred or so weddings, christenings, funerals, baptisms, confirmations, and various other church services I've attended. I believe I may have seen a crucifix, oh, maybe a couple of hundred thousand times in my life. Jesus. Yeah, the name rings a bell. Hispanic guy, right? Beard? Sandals? That him?

It is just so condescending and sanctimonious of somebody to think that they have not only "an" answer, but "THE answer, the ONLY answer, and that you-- an apparently intelligent, somewhat educated adult person, are so effing stupid that you are utterly incapable of forming your own conclusions and thoughts about complicated ideas that you need some kind, helpful person to explain it all to you so you get it right.

But I never say anything like this to people; I just smile politely and say no thank you or something, because I believe a certain amount of respect and civility comes first, and if I don't want them getting in my face, I won't get in theirs.

For one thing, it's why I like and respect Cassandra: she doesn't proselytize, she doesn't try to convert anybody, she just says her thing, which is always pleasant and positive, and I look past some of the specific theology to what's in her heart, and I like that part best, and I like knowing that someone's out there thinking about us. I'd trade one Cassandra for a hundred Jerry Falwells, fifty Pope Benedicts, 200 Jimmy Swaggarts, a first-round draft choice in 2007 AND 2008, and two players to be named later. In a heartbeat.

Historically, most proselytizing and conversion work was done at the point of a sword, viz. the Spanish Inquisition, etc., so the whole field has kind of a bad taste for me anyway. Of course, I'm so old I remember some of that stuff personally. That Torquemada, what a pistol. We sure had some laffs.

I couldn't agree more about the "good works" without the "good news," CP. If someone wants to go abroad and work on fighting hunger, building schools, fighting disease, or whatever--that's great--join the Peace Corps. I would just take it as a matter of mutual respect that poor people in South America or Africa or Asia are entitled to their religious beliefs and shouldn't have to sit through a lecture in order to get a hot meal or a well dug in their village.

We all know some good examples of Christians, ticklishturtletoe.

All good christians know they are sinners and work to do the best they can. No good christian would honestly believe themselves to be wonderful. As for me, my brother is one of the best christians I know. He did extensive volunteer work as a teen and got the Congressional silver medal of honor for volunteerism, but that's not the point. He majored in bible study.

He walks the walk. He has evolved in his understanding of God and religion as his life has evolved. I am so proud of him for being able to believe so strongly and live it. He's evolved in his spiritual journey over the years, as well, leading to a more thoughtful interpretion of Christianity.

And this is WHY I am able to be so adamant about "wolves in sheeps' clothing." It not emotion.

It is a fact that most evangelical churches permit people who are ill-trained in theology to lead congregations, and that their beliefs in salvation are simplistic, and that they further attempt to convert Catholics and other targeted christians by feeding them hateful propaganda.

Nelson, your 2:04 was excellent--much better than all my raving.

I have seen people's faith in God altogether destroyed by such people like that. And you pass it off as "emotion" not "intellectual debate".

The day somebody say "excuse me, I'm an evangelical and I understand you were raised Catholic and that all your family and ancestors son on were raised Catholic, way back to roughly 300 A.D..

Yes, I know that I am going to tell you that none of your family and ancestors who thought they were practicing christians and faithful actually found salvation, and that you may be angry, but I have a very good reason for saying that without my church, nobody can find salvation.

Unfortunately, since the esteemed leader of our church was only called to form this church 6 months ago, that means there only have been 5 people saved so far, and none of them were Jesus Christ or his disciples, so you see we're working on a time travel machine to convert everybody in history to fix all this, so spare me some money for that? I don't mean to offend your beliefs about being "christian", but we really do care about everybody's souls, and we need to fix the flaw in history right away."

Then maybe I'd give the evangelical 10 bucks just for being polite and respectful and wish him luck.

There's good news about the Iggles?

:-)

Joel (remember him?) has written a depressing article. The scene he describes makes me all weepy nostalgic for those crazy days of Twenty-Oh -Aught. I mean, where are the hanging chads? That bug-eyed guy with the magnifying glass? The hordes of maniacal partisans? Is there no one in the Old Dominion brave enough to assert that excessive handling of the USB drives will selectively degrade the flash memory in favor of Webb? It seems so, well, civilized. Where's the fun in that?

And Nelson's comments are far superior to my ravings, as well.

I cannot believe the INSOLENCE of evangelicals for labelling Catholics "nonchristian" and thus in need of salvation. This is why so many of my catholic friends are scared to tell people they're Catholic. They dread the religious debate that follows.

Of course, most cults or new churches or even new religions always claim they've been around since Jesus H. Christ, they just were persecuted and in hiding all that time, and who knows, maybe even time machine stuff.

Okay, I was just shot with a tranquilizer gun now.

I'm going out to enjoy the beautiful day that God gave to all, sinners and saints alike. Toodles.

*quietly placing Anaesti-Dart gun back in my gym bag*

:-)

nelson : bravo
I find the self righteous smugness of those proselyting "Christians" unsufferable. It just turns me instantly off. We have of bunch of those gals&guys using their lunch time to harass the good citizenry around here with the Jesus question. Fortunately they are seasonal Christians, we are mostly free of them when the cool season sets in.
So, Mudge, may I reuse your "Jesus. Yeah, the name rings a bell. Hispanic guy, right? Beard? Sandals? That him?"

And the boodle is not at its best in religious discussions. I kind of remember some people stomping off in a huff. Pulling a Cheney we may call it now.

Wondered who shot that one... I'm all happy now.... I have two computer screens for some reason ....'
ngtr htmx"

*wondering what I'm going to do with this biscuit Wilbrodog gave me to get Wilbrod away from the PC*

:-)

LostInThought: I actually have a modest collection of Pez dispensers. They are just too cool to throw out.

What is your favorite dispenser RD?

Thanks, Scottynuke. And thank you RD for elucidating how this system may result in inaccurate counts ("excessive handling of the USB drives will selectively degrade the flash memory"). I needed a gadget-literate type to articulate it, so I can start engaging in conspiracy theories. Of course, my guy, broadly speaking, was the beneficiary of the conspiracy so maybe I should just take note for next time.

That "flash memory" thing is much better than the old Diebold-programmed-to-set-the-vote conspiracy. That one's old news.

Unless Diebold WANTED the Republicans to lose their majority. Hmmm, the Dow did soar yesterday afternoon, and one report said this was because business thought the Dems would be busy and leave them alone. Maybe that explains the results after all.

They signed Trent Cole to a 5-year deal, scotty.

Nice shooting, by the way.

Throw out?!? Don't even think it! There's a green witch Pez dispenser on sale at yahoo for the bargain price of $259.99, and a complete disney collection on ebay for $1383.00. But then you'd have to shell out for a bottom-lit glass cabinet for displaying them.

dmd - My favorite is a Bugs Bunny dating all the way back to the Nixon Administration. It has such a look of rakish insouciance. Plus, it still smells all lemony.

Lemon Pez rocks.

Loading a Pez is a pain in the glutes. Always has been, always will be.

What slyness said. The way one lives life is the best example, regardless of your stripes. Hopelessly stripey in a manner of speaking.

Indeed jack. It is a skill that is hard to master. My younger brother, philistine that he was, used to just skip it and eat the stuff straight from the container.

I suppressed the memory for years.

RDP how do you manage to keep your Pez dispensers with kids in the house? Clicker training? Water spray? Used to have one more kid ?

You know you are in a redneck business when you are invited to speak at a conference that includes a pre-conference event that is a Sporting Clays shoot, and I quote " (the Shoot) includes 100 Sporting Clays plus 25 targets of your choice of skeet or trap. 125 rounds of ammo will be provided...bring your own shotgun or loaner shotguns will be available for a nominal fee."
I don't know if this guvmint humble servant should chance it.

SD - There are only a couple hundred or so, and I stopped collecting them years ago. I keep them in a hermetically sealed box in a low humidity environment. Ironically, I have tried to interest the offspring in them in the hope that they might continue the tradition. Alas, since I like them, the dispensers are, by definition, boring.

Plus, they resented my insistence that they wear the protective cotton gloves.

None of you have a Hitler Pez dispenser? Lightweights.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/WolfFiles/story?id=92796&page=1

I see Allen has conceded.

Yes, RD. The revolution is now complete.

Mr. Stripey Pez Dispenser. I got em, but only in my dreams.

I find the discussion here about religious and denominational stripes quite civil and interesting.

Caritas -- implies not only charity, but charity-in-action. The old distinction of "spiritual works of charity" -- prayers, kind thoughts, and interior consideration of another's needs -- are one case of caritas. But the one that I find more compelling as a way to live faith fully, are the "corporeal acts of charity." Don't think or wish; provide needed "manna" to relieve suffering.

Someone here, Tickle... liked getting a tract. I understand this, but Tickle...what about the subtle but liberating difference that you might ask your loving and generous neighbor about why they help? Live the love, and share your heart-felt motivation if asked.

Chime in, oh brethran/sistren Buddhists: to work to relieve the suffering of all sentient beings.

---
In academia, the dominant culture is very postmodern, deconstructed, and uber-intellectual. You can "embrace" a religious affiliation butEastern stripes. If you are Western -- read Judeo-Xtian, better if you feel a strong cultural affliation for your faith community.

Bespected, corduroy-clad colleagues tend to raise an eyebrow, "what's a smart person like you doing in that intellectualy bankrupt pablum?"

As a Catholic, though, I get a much warmer welcome, indeed tolerance, than evangelical faculty and students.

Some of my favorite students these days are Sikh. Like what they share about their creed and discipline.

I think it was even televised, TBG...

If you don't want the biscuit, Scottynuke, maybe you could give it to a certain deserving dog?

Apologies for Wilbrod. Unfortunately Wilbrod suffers from post-evangelical stress disease and is subject to flashbacks whenever the subject is brought up.
Apparently baptists really screwed with a depressed friend's head. She went from depressed yet moral to somebody with a spinning head and demonic impulses.

Total change of subject:

My husband recently began working for a gummint contractor and has learned these wonderful new expressions...

Swapping blue ones for green ones--exchanging one budget item for another

Self-licking ice-cream cone--proposing work for yourself

Getting on the bus to Amarillo--going with the herd, as in getting on a hot, dusty bus when you could be back on your front porch sipping lemonade

Another day in Paradise--another day at the office

Indeed, TBG.

The Revolution's over.

Uh, now what do we do?

******************************************
SD, skeet and trap are *not* so redneck. Almost as genteel as a fox hunt, really.

Going to a quarry (directions: "...turn off of the paved road...") and shooting beercans from the bed of a 25 year old pickemup (so's ya don't have to venture very far from the cooler containing the next round of targets, don't cha' know), on the other hand...

bc

Oh sure, Wilbrodog... First give me the biscuit, then just sit there all innocent, politely panting.

*L*

And that trip to the quarry's just target practice.

The sun's goin' down, and the pickemup's got spotlights on both doors...

bc

Just a gentle reminder from my 10:25 today, (OK it was mindless rambling) but still..

Quick note also saw that Allen may concede today?

Had to step out for a bit to handle some biz.

Anyways, Wilbrod, it seems that I miscommunicated earlier. You said:
"And I sense this is getting to be dangerous ground. Ticklishturtletoe, just don't go picking fights."

And I said: "This is an intellectual discussion. Not an emotional debate."

My intention in saying that was to convey agreement with you: it's a dangerous discussion, so let's keep it intellectual.

Anyhoo...I can see that I stirred up some stuff here. People's pasts are starting to bubble to the surface, kinda like that cauldron of stew that JA's neighbor was cooking a couple of weeks ago.

And I now see that I should've heeded Annie's wise counsel.

We are in agreement on one thing, Mudge: Cassandra does seem to have a loving spirit. I pray that her present sadness be turned to joy. And I pray a special blessing on the TV preacher who had the audacity to evangelize and proselytize one day for her salvation.

Cassandra, I know that you know what I know, so I can send a holy cyber-kiss to my sister in hopes that your aches subside enough to have some fun with your g-girl.

I know bc, I know. I have to assume my roots; I spent quite a few sunsets shooting rats at the dump with sub-sonic .22 short. If you keep on making clean kills they keep on munching away.

TBG: another one for your hubby but I don't know if DoD uses the same code as DND. grenn money=army allocated money, blue money=air force, grey money=navy and purple money=interarm money

Just beeping in for a nanosecond to report that Allen has officially conceded. So, we got BOTH houses. May we fervently not squander it.

BTW, apropos an earlier kit and discussion about the "hon" thing -- they do that in New Jersey, too.

Don't know what to make of that, honestly.

Gotta go.

RDP, you never struck me as a Pez collector kind of guy. And yet I am not surprised at all. It matches the shirt.

That people on this board who most of the time pretend to be science-oriented can even pretend to discuss "faith" is mind-boggling.

The problem is not evangelicals or whatever they're called. The problem is religion itself, which is the expression of faith in something that has no relation whatsoever to facts and evidence and reason and reasonableness.

Sure, there's a difference between someone who say they believe in the tooth fairy and someone who insists their beliefs in the tooth fairy should be the rule of law, but to any rational mind, those beliefs are pretty much equally insane, even if the latter is certainly more dangerous!

Other than that, I agree with Mudge (cough, cough).

//and now I see I should've heeded Annie's wise counsel//

Oh, if only the rest of humanity would get with that program, what a sweeter and finer place this world would be. ;-)

Um, dmd:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/09/AR2006110900775.html

bc

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

BTW, is it possible to lurk at a BPH?

Sorry, have I mentioned before about not being able to get names right, now picture how my kids feel. :-)

dr - So I probably shouldn't mention my extensive collection of sugary cereal boxes from the 1980s and 1990s including the hard-to-find "Barbie/Hot Wheels" matched set.

Ah, I apologize. You said "Wilbrod, this is an intellectual debate, not an emotional discussion. It looked directed at me, rather than a reply, so I took offense.

As far as I am concerned, TV preachers have very little to do with true conversion. It's a compilation of many little things. Good christians living their lives say so much more than any TV preacher can, nor missionaries.

I had wonderful discussions with many devout people of all stripes. I had a civil discussion with an seminary student who was interpreting my math class in high school.

He didn't believe in evolution and um, he got some wrong propaganda which didn't sound correct to me. It wasn't until years later that I found the source of the misinformation, which was a caricature of Stephen Gould's "punctured equilibrium" theory of evolution-- something about dinosaurs laying chicken eggs. Then I wished I had known the source of his information so I could have discussed that.

That's the danger of propaganda, people who have such beliefs fostered in them by propaganda can't even tell you where they read it, nor are they familiar with the sources they twist the meaning of.

Basically Gould's idea was that evolution happens much more quickly after a catastrophe and a bottleneck and subsequent habitat change. That is, the equilibrium of the species' adaption has been punctured.

And in fact, there is some evidence for this in bacteria and other organisms; stress and nutritional insufficency raise the rate of mutation, allowing for greater genetic diversity, and a population bottleneck can raise the incidence of a stray mutation dramatically, as well inbreed an advantageous trait until it is 100% fixed in the population.

Humanity shows traces of such bottlenecks in the past, especially when you look at the mitochondrial DNA.

Gould never said dinosaurs would lay chicken eggs. I've read plenty of his books and I'd have noticed. His books are worth reading for their analysis of developmental biology.

Nowadays there's a category of biology nicknamed devo-evo= meaning developmental and evolutionary. It's very fascinating-- it's not just the "shared code" but the shared architecture and how minor changes make a difference in the end result.

LostInThought.. yes, it is more than possible to lurk at a BPH, but it's way more fun to join in (just like the Boodle!).

Of course, if you want to stumble over, drink in hand, and ask us in a sloshy way, "My friends and I are trying to figure out what BPH stands for..." that's OK, too. We're used to that.

Speaking of BPH... I'm pretty sure we're having one tomorrow night at 5:00.

Did anyone make the pre-BPH last night?

Lost: //The two aren't mutually exclusive.//

I'm not sure if it's addressed to me and the incompatibility of science and faith, but assuming it is, my response would be this:

Of course, it's mutually exclusive!

Either you require evidence for your beliefs, which is what you do for pretty much every single one of your "beliefs", not just science but to the exception of religion, or you don't, and in that case anything goes, the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, living after you're dead, a God who is omnipotent but can't even stop a tsunami, a guy born of a virgin, etc...

That people in the 21st century would still beleive in those ancient superstitions and mythologies, and that they would be deemed acceptable conversation topics amoong adults is frightening and mind-boggling.

(Pfew, I'm sure I just made a few blog-friends... ;))) )

Ah, I think I see, SF.

*You're* the final and absolute arbiter of "facts and evidence and reason and reasonableness" for *everyone*.

Excellent, excellent. I appreciate the excuse to stop thinking for myself (not that I'm particularly good at it).

So, thou art God, SF.

And do I ever have a bone, no, - a platypus bill - to pick with YOU, mister.

Someone please tell Wigner's friend that he won't be needed. We've got SF to tell us what's what. w00t!

bc

Annie, that would be refreshing, wouldn't it. I often note how well things would run if I were Queen. I mean Elizabeth I-type Queen, not one of these poor powerless monarchs (might as well be butterflies).

Hey, Scottynuke, where's that gun?

Y'all enjoy that BPH tomorrow. Hoist one for me. Better yet, eat a cheeseburger for me. I'll get the vicarious pleasure and you can have the calories!

Doesn't this headline just stick right in your craw?

Bush Urges Bipartisanship

dr, I think you'll find that Padouk has deep chasms of complexity and sophistication. Collecting Pez dispensers, growing Mr. Stripey, sartorial splendiferousness, and doing fine woodworking barely scratch the surface.

Superfrenchie, I can discuss it only from the outside, but I grew up with some major examples of how much facts can be distorted to serve the purpose of fundamentalist faith, and others who certainly managed to combine faith and reason, so I'll have to differ with you on this subject.

That logical analogy is something like equaling my choice not to drink to:

I telling you because some people drink to excess, all alcohol should be banned and you should be reviled and stoned to death for having offered to buy me some wine.

Because you know, I'm all about truth and keeping people sober and rational. How can I be wrong? ;).

I think they call one Science and the other one Faith. Sort of comparing apples and chairs, or, in my case, bar stools.

bc, you had me all confused, my note about the reminder was that I had stated in my 10:25 am this morning about the concession. When I saw your note I figured I got the name wrong - which I normally do.

Yes TBG - it is a bit like becoming a pacifist because you are out of ammo.

bc: //*You're* the final and absolute arbiter of "facts and evidence and reason and reasonableness" for *everyone*.//

No I'm not.

I am certainly not pretending to be. All I am saying is that I do not rely on faith for my beliefs. I rely on facts, evidence, and reason.

Sometimes my facts turn out to be wrong, my evidence gets contradicted, and my 'reason'ing turns out to be faulty. That's fine, I can change my beliefs. I can also accept that they are not necessarily the final answer.

Which is that much more than someone who relies on faith, and thus won't accept any facts to contradict them.

And how anybody can dare pick up a glass of booze, knowing what it does, what wars and gang warfare have been waged in its name, has lost all creditability and claim to be a rational being, SF.

And I will take an axe to anybody who totes around the brew that destroys souls, tears families asunder, and causes endless suffering and mystery, the genocide of many, and then dare says it is good to drink.

(Relax, I'm just illustrating the Carrie Nation extreme attitude to alcohol versus simply "no thanks, I don't drink." Something like religious fundamentalism vs just being religious. )

Just to stir up the hornets' nest on a topic I know little about (in response to SF's 4:08):

If we take as a given that the existence or non-existence of a deity is untestible (ie not falsifiable), and that falsifiability is a requirement for an idea to be scientific,

then statements of belief concerning the existence of a deity are un-scientific (and maybe illogical?).

However, this applies to any belief concerning the existence of a deity, including the belief that there is no deity.

In other words, while proving the existence of God is not testable, proving the non-existence of God is also not testable.

Therefore, athesim could be logically viewed as being as unscientific as complete faith.

*agnostic affinities reaffirmed, switching back to Powerpoint, trying desparately to finish preparing Saturday's lecture*

And how do you rely on facts, evidence, and reason, when you're knocking back wine, SF?

Dooley, that's the exact position I find myself taking. It's the only rational decision to say "I don't know for SURE", and then to believe whatever as long as the consequences seem healthy to you.

I think Pascal was a smart*** though.

(I refer to Pascal's Wager, in which he argued that it was rational to believe in God, because there was no actual downside to it, as opposed to ticking off a God, if he exists, with atheism.)

Lost: //I think they call one Science and the other one Faith. Sort of comparing apples and chairs, or, in my case, bar stools.//

No, it's not apples and whatever. Both pretend to explain the world, its origins, its future, life, etc...

When a Christian says that the world was made a certain way, that someone can come back from the dead or be born of a virgin, or that prayer works, all those things can be scientifically tested.

In fact, except for the origin of the world, which remain partly unexplained (although what little we know differs greatly from what religions say happened), every one of those things, including the power of prayer, has been tested and proven wrong.

Someone who accept science takes notice, someone who relies on faith looks the other way. Which, IMHO, is deeply disturbing.

Mudge and Wilbrod thanks for comments re: my 2:04. I thought it may have been too much. Glad we've put it to rest for now.

Sky report" brilliant blue, late Fall sun's rays coming in at a low slant. Light flitting through the fallen leaves like gentle rays of glory (all right -- over the top, but what the hey!)

Went out to a local nature park. Played with a friend's dogs. Nothing like an afternoon spent in the fading colors of autumn leaves, with the air so clear my voice (singing Stevie Ray Vaughn's "the Telephone Song") carried all through the park. Dogs and people stared.

It's in the mid-70's. The dogs were having a blast and so was I.

It's so wonderful to be able to go out like this and shed politics and the sturm und drum of the last months (sorry -- I can't do umlauts).

gotta admit -- I never understood the pez dispenser thing. Am eternally grateful to the pez geek who founded ebay -- but I don't get it. sigh . . .

I too, love the gentle faith of Cassandra. She so obviously is imbued with agape -- I must admit my own practice is in need of an overhaul.

ticklish -- hats off to your 3:57.

Pure logic, Baby! Uh, that is, I'll have to finish that puzzle tomorrow... I'm a bit itpsy...

Well said Dooley.

SF You should read Weingarten to see how a strictly rationalistic position can be expressed in a respectful manner.

I know some propositions to be true, based on good evidence.

I believe in a few proposed ideas, based on interesting and temping gestures of people, culture, and perhaps the deity.

I celebrate all the stances we ta