Friday, February 24, 2012

Imaginary Man

How many times have I said the Rs are campaigning against a version of Barack Obama that doesn't exist? How much better does Jon Stewart say it above?

Meanwhile, for those who buy the outrageous (even for them) bullshit that Obama is "waging war" on religion, may I suggest they read this article:

That's not the sentiment at the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance (IRFA), which includes such perennial Obama critics as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Focus on the Family and the Southern Baptist Convention. It has taken the uncharacteristic step of siding with the administration.

"We commend your steadfast preservation of federal policies that protect the freedom of religious organizations to consider religion in making employment decisions," it informed Obama last year. "Mr. President, your appreciation for the good that religious organizations contribute on a daily basis to our society is evident."


The administration has also intervened in cases where prisoners are denied religious literature. ...

In doing all this, the administration isn't simply doing the politically appealing thing. Anything but. Those who endorse letting faith-based groups have a free hand in hiring are mostly religious conservatives who wouldn't vote for Obama if he resurrected the dead.

The congregations victimized by zoning regulations are too small to matter. Prison inmates generally can't vote. There is no detectable political gain in anything Obama is doing here.

University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock criticized the contraceptive mandate and opposed the administration in a Supreme Court case involving a teacher fired by a religious school. But on the faith-based hiring issue, he says, Obama has actually been "kind of heroic."

Every once in a while I take a look a right-wing blog or two. It's a pretty depressing and horrifying venture, from which it takes days to recover. I may be a partisan, but everything I say here can be backed up; and is. There, it's paranoia, conspiracy theories, racism, and fact-free aggrievement, lubricated with perseveration. I can say with absolute certainty that this sort of reality-based information makes not the least bit of difference to people like that, and it never ever will.


  1. Sorry, Frankie: I'm taking Cory's advice and being (minimally) selective when posting comments.

  2. An excellent decision, Sid.

    I've tried to find the meaning Frankie's comment several times since I started reading your blog. But then my brain feels what the egg frying in the anti-drug ads must feel -- if it had feelings, of course.

  3. Hey, even Elvis got censored...
    and the Surgery Program at my Pubic Med School, occasionally they'd have a Resident who decided to quit and go into a less demanding(ie more lucrative) field, and they'd actually cut his face out of the annual Department Photo, just like they used to do in the former E-vile Empire...
    and its like I said about this blog becoming a wasteland, the only comments are my censored one, and 2 comments ABOUT my censored one...


  4. Yeah, I suppose it's pretty pathetic. On the other hand, I think the reason is that, compared to teabaggRs and right-wingers in general, liberals don't need as much affirmation, given or received. Something about being right, I guess; having thought things through, based on reality.

    It's like saying the grass is green. People don't need to chime in; and the only reason I feel the need to point it out so often is that all the Rs are saying it's red, and I hold out the liberal's optimism that given enough exposure to truth, even people like you will eventually take off the blinders.


Comments back, moderated. Preference given for those who stay on topic.

Popular posts