chucK

Back to the subject! I certainly would not want a(nother) religious nutball to enter the Whitehouse, but I am happy for the state of religion in our country that Huckabee is doing what he's is doing. From what I've heard, this guy Huckabee is a saint. He's using his religion to stump, but he isn't planning on "using" his supporters once he gets elected. He's actually for the social program stuff that seems a no-brainer from the aspect of religion, but has been removed from the calculus in the current administration since it conflicts with traditional GOP baby-eater values. I'm talking primarily about major GOP platforms of "buy your own healthcare" and "kill/jail/deport all aliens because they are the source of our problems, heaven knows it's not us". Huckabee seems relatively liberal on these two issues. He seems to be more on par with the church than Bush is, though I will acknowledge that Bush's stand on illegal-immigration actually seems more reasonable than most. I'd much prefer McCain over the Huck. Giuliani is scary. Romney is basically Clinton (though with a different paymaster). Obama versus Huckabee, now there's a deathmatch!

The National Research Council report referred to in the article talks about levels of fluoride resulting from natural runoff and industrial polution. The lower levels produced by artificial fluoridation are "beyond the scope of this report". So right away the Scientific American article is twisting the truth there. It referenced current scientific studies. A quick search of pub med didn't find anything besides high doses in rats. The most current one was a negative result. So in short, Scientific American has lost credibility in my book. Basically fluoride does have related toxicities in high doses. Like salt, chlorine, and dihydrogen monoxide. Should we ban the addition of chlorine to our drinking water?

What is reality is a big subject indeed. The quote above does not try (nor will I) to define that. What I think it says though is that if you get in the habit of abandoning what you truly believe is correct because it is an easier road, then you'll be more easily manipulated. Seemed pertinent to a discussion about religion.

Do not ignore reality in order to comfort yourself, for once you do, you make it easy for others to deceive you.

Try this place EZ parking. They're great. http://www.e-zairportparking.com/

The darkest day of the year.

How about those folks that yield for you when you have a stop sign and they don't? Simultaneously unbelievable and incredibly annoying.

I haven't noticed the blinker attractant thing in Seattle at all. In fact, totally the opposite. In Nothern Cali #9 was very applicable. Up here, most people are pretty polite about it. Sure, you get the occasional dickhead aggro numbskulls who feel the need to control as much area as possible, but compared to other places I've driven, PNW is relatively free of this type. My sister moved from Portland to the Bay Area a while back and she remarked that she wondered if her blinkers were broken, as in Portland, you put your blinker on and people actually opened up a space for you. No such luck in Oakland.

The Dems are just too goddamned timid, and don't give the voters credit for knowing whose fault it is. They are worried that if they let the GOP obstruct raising the limit in a fiscally responsible way that there's a chance that those wily GOP'ers will successfully blame them with the voters. Probably wouldn't happen, but it could. The Dems are guarding their lead, playing the prevent defense. They suck. The Dems could let the GOP'ers obstruct changing the AMT. Who would it hurt? The upper middle class, people who are generally well-educated and would see through the GOP trying to spin it as the Democrats raising taxes. Bush has zero (OK 30%) credibility. Why can't the Dems use that? Yes Bush and GOP are responsible for this, but I'd love to see the loyal opposition try a little harder. Also what a non-partisan solution? Could anyone claim taxing big oil and hedge-fund managers an equal burden on both sides of the aisle? If they really wanted to try "unity" they could propose some across the board earmark cuts to make up that $50 mill. That would blunt any cries of "more taxes". Oh well (It's all so easy from where I sit )

Again, I say, "what would you have the drivers stuck behind you do? Yes you may be a fast biker, but I'll bet there are times cars are going faster. As NTM replies, it's not cool to endanger the biker by passing too closely. What would you have a driver do when it is definitely not safe to pass? And what about when a right turn is coming up? I know bikers get all kinda crazy when cars speed up to pass a bike only to cut right in front of them at the next intersection. Would you have the driver hold back and TAIL the bike, or would you rather the usual driver-dick habit of speeding up then cutting off the biker making the turn. Even better, speed up, then slow down at the intersection, put the blinker on and wait for the biker to pass. I would fucking hate that situation biking, because you really have no way of knowing whether the driver is planning on cutting you off, so you'd have to slow down even more. Basically, whether you're biking, driving, climbing, or walking slowly, if it bothers you when someone stuck behind you follows at a safe distance, the problem is in your head.

Didn't they have another proposed offset that would have made the hedge-fund managers bonuses be counted as regular income instead of capital gains? I liked that idea too. Personally, I'd go for siding with fiscal responsibility by not increasing the AMT limit if they aren't going to offset it. Or how about decrease spending? Like maybe reducing the $200 billion war outlay by $50 million. That's 1/40 of a percent! Think they could handle it?

...and Jimmy Carter. Don't forget Jimmy Carter. (in terms of a Christian we like, not hypocrite)

Great post! Nice read, thanks. Put a big rock in his pack.

They did give it to Hitler (1938) you moron. Happy?

just some of 'em

Exactly! If you're a biker (or motorist) that doesn't like it when someone is safely following you, then the obvious win-win solution is GET OUT OF THE WAY!

My understanding is that Christmas is celebrated at this date because a Christian emperor way back in Roman days wanted to tone down the out of control partying associated with the Winter Solstice. He fixed his "problem" by turning it into a religious holiday.

Curious about this one. Could you elaborate? Do you mean the cars that are hanging behind a bike waiting for a safe place to pass? If so, WTF are the cars supposed to do? Take an alternate route? Just pull over and wait for bike to get out of the way? Go home, skip work? Perhaps plow right through, endangering/killing the biker? Or do you mean more specifically, cars that follow too closely for your comfort?

Speaking a Christopher Hitchens, here's a pretty good quote,apropos to some of this thread, today in Slate Isn't it amazing how self-pitying and self-aggrandizing the religious freaks in this country are? It's not enough that they can make straight-faced professions of "faith" at election times and impose their language on everything from the Pledge of Allegiance to the currency. It's not enough that they can claim tax exemption and even subsidy for anything "faith-based." It's that when they are even slightly criticized for their absurd opinions, they can squeal as if being martyred and act as if they are truly being persecuted.

MoveOn is a Political Action Committees and thus donations are not tax deductible. Churches are tax except and donations a tax deductible. If a church starts telling it's congregation how to vote then they should lose their tax exempt status and donations should not be tax deductible. Agreed. IRS has been going after a couple such churches the last year or so. It's been in the papers.

I think if you go all the way back to your grumpy old guys with wigs, you'll find that religion plays a lot less of role as a political litmus test nowadays than it has over most of our history. Now if you shrink your window to the last 50 years, then your argument might hold a bit more water, but it's still debatable. I'm not so scared about having religion in the politics. The constitution and our system has been keeping us pretty safe from govt. imposition of religious doctrine. What's more scary is the goddamned politics in religion. This of course, has been going on for millenia, of religious leaders abusing their positions to gain more wealth and power in the political realm. When Christian churches start preaching hate (walling off the border, deporting people, putting people to death, starting wars) and greed (big business anti-environmental legislation) that's one more powerful force for good corrupted. It sucks.

Sounds like your FiL's pastor just gave him some information on the candidate. First amendment baby! Unless you're leaving a very important part of your story out, he didn't tell him how to vote. And why shouldn't churches be able tell people how they think they should vote? Moveon.org does it! Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee have been doing it multiple times a day for the last several months! (heh, I hope that last sentence get's taken out of context somewhere )

His perspective doesn't have to be money vs. no money, but instead why money is important to him. He's got great riches in his two cute kids. Framing the dollar chase around supporting them to thrive (versus new car, stereo, etc.) can make the rat race a much more fulfilling quest. Happy Birthday Rob! Glad you're here to celebrate it.

Ivan's guy gets his family trapped on snowy mountain road, is a perenial favorite too. It's got drama, and again, there's that condenscension factor. No sustained headlines when a family of four is killed in a headon, but if someone dies because of a bunch of screw-ups that "I wouldn't do", it gets sustained appeal due to the outrage.