Who is John Sheridan?

Who is John Sheridan?

WP: Pat Robertson = Nutjob

From The Washington Post:

What do Hugo Chavez and Harriet Miers have in common?

Pat Robertson: The rhetorical hit man who opined several weeks ago that Chavez, the Venezuelan president, should be assassinated now has thrown down the gauntlet for senators who oppose Miers's nomination for the Supreme Court.

"Now they're going to turn against a Christian who is a conservative picked by a conservative president and they're going to vote against her for confirmation?" he said Thursday on "The 700 Club," his voice sarcastic with disbelief. "Not on your sweet life, if they want to stay in office."

It's becoming almost routine, this strident talk. Indeed, Robertson, 75, has a long history of controversial statements, dating at least to his infamous 1991 conspiracist tract, "The New World Order." And he shows no sign of slowing down.
This week, he accused Chavez of sending money to Osama bin Laden, making nice with the jailed terrorist "Carlos the Jackal" and negotiating with Iran for nuclear materials. And after Katrina, Rita and the spate of global earthquakes and floods, he's raised the biblical end-of-the-world scenario. Or could it be, he's also offered, that it is God's wrath against abortion?

Sometimes it's hard to keep up with this man who once equated feminism with witchcraft, who said of the State Department: "You've got to blow that thing up."

That the Republican Party continues to coddle this man and lend him any credibility at all is out and out embarrassing for our country.

WP: Pat Robertson = Nutjob

From The Washington Post:

What do Hugo Chavez and Harriet Miers have in common?

Pat Robertson: The rhetorical hit man who opined several weeks ago that Chavez, the Venezuelan president, should be assassinated now has thrown down the gauntlet for senators who oppose Miers's nomination for the Supreme Court.

"Now they're going to turn against a Christian who is a conservative picked by a conservative president and they're going to vote against her for confirmation?" he said Thursday on "The 700 Club," his voice sarcastic with disbelief. "Not on your sweet life, if they want to stay in office."

It's becoming almost routine, this strident talk. Indeed, Robertson, 75, has a long history of controversial statements, dating at least to his infamous 1991 conspiracist tract, "The New World Order." And he shows no sign of slowing down.
This week, he accused Chavez of sending money to Osama bin Laden, making nice with the jailed terrorist "Carlos the Jackal" and negotiating with Iran for nuclear materials. And after Katrina, Rita and the spate of global earthquakes and floods, he's raised the biblical end-of-the-world scenario. Or could it be, he's also offered, that it is God's wrath against abortion?

Sometimes it's hard to keep up with this man who once equated feminism with witchcraft, who said of the State Department: "You've got to blow that thing up."

That the Republican Party continues to coddle this man and lend him any credibility at all is out and out embarrassing for our country.

It's 1:30...

Has Pat Robertson said anything crazy today?

-The Oklahoma Hippy

It's 1:30...

Has Pat Robertson said anything crazy today?

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Richard Cohen...

He's now officially on my shit list.

Let me save you the bother.

On the Valerie Plame matter, Dicky C suggests:

Let's stick out head in the sand and pretend that the there is nothing wrong with what happened.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Richard Cohen...

He's now officially on my shit list.

Let me save you the bother.

On the Valerie Plame matter, Dicky C suggests:

Let's stick out head in the sand and pretend that the there is nothing wrong with what happened.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

James Dobson is a Liar...

Lie Lie Lie.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

James Dobson is a Liar...

Lie Lie Lie.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

An Obit for the Republican Majority...

David Ignatius in today's Washington Post:

The Republicans come to their present troubles from different directions: President Bush thought he was making a safe, pragmatic choice in nominating Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, but this soulless maneuver enraged the party's right wing and set it on a fratricidal binge. Tom DeLay thought he was ramrodding a permanent Republican government, but he managed to get himself indicted and, well before that calamity, had angered House Republicans who concluded that "The Hammer's" leadership style was marching them off a cliff. Looming over all these little problems is the crucible of Iraq.

What's interesting is that most of these wounds are self-inflicted. They draw a picture of a party that, for all its seeming dominance, isn't prepared to be the nation's governing party. The hard right, which is the soul of the modern GOP, would rather be ideologically pure than successful. Governing requires making compromises and getting your hands dirty, but the conservative purists disdain those qualities. They swim for that beach with a fiercely misguided determination, and they demand that the other whales accompany them.

The bickering over the Miers nomination epitomizes the right's refusal to assume the role of a majoritarian governing party. The awkward fact for conservatives is that the American public doesn't agree with them on abortion rights. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll in late August found 54 percent describing themselves as pro-choice and only 38 percent as pro-life, roughly the same percentages as a decade ago.

That's the political reality that Bush has been trying to finesse with his nominations of John Roberts and Miers. That's why he said in the 2000 primary campaign that he wouldn't impose any litmus test (when other Republicans were demanding one) and would instead focus on a nominee's character and judicial philosophy. The realist in Bush understands that he can't easily force a nominee who is openly antiabortion on a country where a solid majority disagrees.

Read the whole thing. It's an excellent piece of work.

The fact is that the Republicans aren't willing to compromise. The Republican Majority has spent the last 25 years courting Evangelical Christians. For the Republican Party it was about creating a majority to obtain political power, and not about truly sharing the values of this constituency.

The sad part is that the way the Republican Party has manipulated Evangelical Christians for a quarter century. Evangelicals have lived under the false impression that they were the movement. They were not. The goal was to obtain political power. They did that. They did so using a team of people that came out of Nixon's administration and Acolytes that joined them during the Reagan years, people who were not Movement Evangelicals.

Evangelical Christians in this country are suffering from a form of abused wife syndrome. The Republican Party has never taught them to love the Republican Party, but rather to hate the Democratic Party. Once the Democrats were thoroughly demonized, the Republican Party knew they could behave any way they wished, because of their absolute certainty that the Christian base would not defect to the democrats, and that's all they cared about.

Cronyism, Corporatism, a shrinking middle class, a lack of health care... The kicker is that abortion is still legal, and even Pat Buchanan is now saying that he believes that Bush doesn't want Roe overturned.

So, all of you "movement conservatives" need to start realizing that you got played. Say what you want about the Democrats, but you always knew where you stood with the Democratic Party.

It's soul searching time.

An Obit for the Republican Majority...

David Ignatius in today's Washington Post:

The Republicans come to their present troubles from different directions: President Bush thought he was making a safe, pragmatic choice in nominating Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, but this soulless maneuver enraged the party's right wing and set it on a fratricidal binge. Tom DeLay thought he was ramrodding a permanent Republican government, but he managed to get himself indicted and, well before that calamity, had angered House Republicans who concluded that "The Hammer's" leadership style was marching them off a cliff. Looming over all these little problems is the crucible of Iraq.

What's interesting is that most of these wounds are self-inflicted. They draw a picture of a party that, for all its seeming dominance, isn't prepared to be the nation's governing party. The hard right, which is the soul of the modern GOP, would rather be ideologically pure than successful. Governing requires making compromises and getting your hands dirty, but the conservative purists disdain those qualities. They swim for that beach with a fiercely misguided determination, and they demand that the other whales accompany them.

The bickering over the Miers nomination epitomizes the right's refusal to assume the role of a majoritarian governing party. The awkward fact for conservatives is that the American public doesn't agree with them on abortion rights. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll in late August found 54 percent describing themselves as pro-choice and only 38 percent as pro-life, roughly the same percentages as a decade ago.

That's the political reality that Bush has been trying to finesse with his nominations of John Roberts and Miers. That's why he said in the 2000 primary campaign that he wouldn't impose any litmus test (when other Republicans were demanding one) and would instead focus on a nominee's character and judicial philosophy. The realist in Bush understands that he can't easily force a nominee who is openly antiabortion on a country where a solid majority disagrees.

Read the whole thing. It's an excellent piece of work.

The fact is that the Republicans aren't willing to compromise. The Republican Majority has spent the last 25 years courting Evangelical Christians. For the Republican Party it was about creating a majority to obtain political power, and not about truly sharing the values of this constituency.

The sad part is that the way the Republican Party has manipulated Evangelical Christians for a quarter century. Evangelicals have lived under the false impression that they were the movement. They were not. The goal was to obtain political power. They did that. They did so using a team of people that came out of Nixon's administration and Acolytes that joined them during the Reagan years, people who were not Movement Evangelicals.

Evangelical Christians in this country are suffering from a form of abused wife syndrome. The Republican Party has never taught them to love the Republican Party, but rather to hate the Democratic Party. Once the Democrats were thoroughly demonized, the Republican Party knew they could behave any way they wished, because of their absolute certainty that the Christian base would not defect to the democrats, and that's all they cared about.

Cronyism, Corporatism, a shrinking middle class, a lack of health care... The kicker is that abortion is still legal, and even Pat Buchanan is now saying that he believes that Bush doesn't want Roe overturned.

So, all of you "movement conservatives" need to start realizing that you got played. Say what you want about the Democrats, but you always knew where you stood with the Democratic Party.

It's soul searching time.

Advice from Dr. James Dobson...

The Hippy: Dr. Dobson, do you have any suggestions on how a man should help his son from going gay?

Dr. Dobson: Why yes Hippy, I do!

Meanwhile, the boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger.

Based on my work with adult homosexuals, I try to avoid the necessity of a long and sometimes painful therapy by encouraging parents, particularly fathers, to affirm their sons' maleness. Parental education, in this area and all others, can prevent a lifetime of unhappiness and a sense of alienation. When boys begin to relate to their fathers, and begin to understand what is exciting, fun and energizing about their fathers, they will learn to accept their own masculinity. They will find a sense of freedom—of power—by being different from their mothers, outgrowing them as they move into a man's world. If parents encourage their sons in these ways, they will help them develop masculine identities and be well on their way to growing up straight. In 15 years, I have spoken with hundreds of homosexual men. I have never met one who said he had a loving, respectful relationship with his father.

Thanks Dr. Dobson!

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Advice from Dr. James Dobson...

The Hippy: Dr. Dobson, do you have any suggestions on how a man should help his son from going gay?

Dr. Dobson: Why yes Hippy, I do!

Meanwhile, the boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger.

Based on my work with adult homosexuals, I try to avoid the necessity of a long and sometimes painful therapy by encouraging parents, particularly fathers, to affirm their sons' maleness. Parental education, in this area and all others, can prevent a lifetime of unhappiness and a sense of alienation. When boys begin to relate to their fathers, and begin to understand what is exciting, fun and energizing about their fathers, they will learn to accept their own masculinity. They will find a sense of freedom—of power—by being different from their mothers, outgrowing them as they move into a man's world. If parents encourage their sons in these ways, they will help them develop masculine identities and be well on their way to growing up straight. In 15 years, I have spoken with hundreds of homosexual men. I have never met one who said he had a loving, respectful relationship with his father.

Thanks Dr. Dobson!

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Remember the Terror Alert in NYC?

It's now official. I was right about it being bullshit.

It was a hoax.

Has the House finished writing the Articles of Impeachment yet?

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Remember the Terror Alert in NYC?

It's now official. I was right about it being bullshit.

It was a hoax.

Has the House finished writing the Articles of Impeachment yet?

-The Oklahoma Hippy

I love Irony...

Boston Globe:

RALEIGH, N.C. -- Venturing into foreign policy, Governor Mitt Romney yesterday told a largely Republican audience that Islamic terrorists ''want to bring down our government" and ''want to put in place a huge theocracy."

''We're under attack, as you know, militarily," Romney told about 150 people gathered at an exclusive Raleigh country club. ''They're not just intent on blowing up a little bomb here and there at a shopping mall, awful as that would be. They want to bring down our government, bring down our entire economy. They want to put in place a huge theocracy."

So, it's our enemies who want the Theocracy? Sounds like Freudian transference to me.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

I love Irony...

Boston Globe:

RALEIGH, N.C. -- Venturing into foreign policy, Governor Mitt Romney yesterday told a largely Republican audience that Islamic terrorists ''want to bring down our government" and ''want to put in place a huge theocracy."

''We're under attack, as you know, militarily," Romney told about 150 people gathered at an exclusive Raleigh country club. ''They're not just intent on blowing up a little bomb here and there at a shopping mall, awful as that would be. They want to bring down our government, bring down our entire economy. They want to put in place a huge theocracy."

So, it's our enemies who want the Theocracy? Sounds like Freudian transference to me.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

I couldn't agree more...

Here's a bit of good sense from Cenk Uygur:

Where does order come from? Is it created? Does it exist outside of time and space? What is its nature? I do not believe that these are unknowable questions. I think we can.

However, the first step to rationally figuring out the reality of an existent order is to put aside the nonsensical mythologies of yesteryear. The major religions of the world were concocted at a time when we had almost no scientific knowledge. They were our guesses in the dark about what might have created us. With the benefit of hindsight and what little scientific advances we have made, they now appear to be comically bad guesses.

They were adopted because they provided some degree of hope in an otherwise cold and unforgiving world. They were sustained because the human child is particularly susceptible to being programmed at an early age.

The fact that a great percentage of us happen to believe in the specific religion we were born into is a testament to the power of brainwashing. What were the chances that you happen to be born into just the right religion? Could it be instead that you believe what you were born into is the best answer for universal questions because that is what you were brainwashed to believe ever since you were born?

The fact that e=mc2 does not translate into woman must have been created from the rib of man. In fact, it takes a great deal of brainwashing to make that entirely irrational leap of faith.

What I am saying here is that there is a logical reason to have faith. But there can be no faith without reason. Without reason how could we determine what to have faith in? And when you use reason, you cannot justify any of the organized religions. Ironically, it's time to get beyond religion, so that we can focus on God.

Seems right to me. To me, God has to be something beyond a giant man in the sky who will burn me with fire for eternity if I disobey him. That's on par with Zeus hurtling lightning bolts at cringing Greeks.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

I couldn't agree more...

Here's a bit of good sense from Cenk Uygur:

Where does order come from? Is it created? Does it exist outside of time and space? What is its nature? I do not believe that these are unknowable questions. I think we can.

However, the first step to rationally figuring out the reality of an existent order is to put aside the nonsensical mythologies of yesteryear. The major religions of the world were concocted at a time when we had almost no scientific knowledge. They were our guesses in the dark about what might have created us. With the benefit of hindsight and what little scientific advances we have made, they now appear to be comically bad guesses.

They were adopted because they provided some degree of hope in an otherwise cold and unforgiving world. They were sustained because the human child is particularly susceptible to being programmed at an early age.

The fact that a great percentage of us happen to believe in the specific religion we were born into is a testament to the power of brainwashing. What were the chances that you happen to be born into just the right religion? Could it be instead that you believe what you were born into is the best answer for universal questions because that is what you were brainwashed to believe ever since you were born?

The fact that e=mc2 does not translate into woman must have been created from the rib of man. In fact, it takes a great deal of brainwashing to make that entirely irrational leap of faith.

What I am saying here is that there is a logical reason to have faith. But there can be no faith without reason. Without reason how could we determine what to have faith in? And when you use reason, you cannot justify any of the organized religions. Ironically, it's time to get beyond religion, so that we can focus on God.

Seems right to me. To me, God has to be something beyond a giant man in the sky who will burn me with fire for eternity if I disobey him. That's on par with Zeus hurtling lightning bolts at cringing Greeks.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

David Frum Reporting...

Heheheh... Let them chalk this one up to the liberal media!

One commented on this news story that Miers' favorite reading was John Grisham novels: "Look, it's inevitable these senators are going to ask you some obviously stupid questions. You just can't give them obviously stupid answers. How hard is it to say that you are reading Jean Smith's biography of Chief Justice John Marshall?"

Another told me of a briefing session to prepare Miers to enter into her duties as White House Counsel. A panel of lawyers who had served in past Republican White Houses was gathered together. After a couple of hours of questions and answers, all agreed: "We're going to need a really strong deputy."

It's been reported the reason Miers was named White House Counsel in the first place was that she had proven incompetent as Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy. Her boss, Chief of Staff Andy Card, badly wanted to get her out of his office - but couldn't fire her because she was protected by the president and the first lady. So he promoted her instead. Now we learn that it was Card who was the strongest advocate of moving Miers out of the West Wing altogether and onto the high court - raising the question of whether the ultimate motivation for this nomination is to open the way to hiring a new Counsel by kicking a failed Counsel upstairs.

But she's against abortion right? That's all that they care about, right?

This is just getting embarrassing.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

David Frum Reporting...

Heheheh... Let them chalk this one up to the liberal media!

One commented on this news story that Miers' favorite reading was John Grisham novels: "Look, it's inevitable these senators are going to ask you some obviously stupid questions. You just can't give them obviously stupid answers. How hard is it to say that you are reading Jean Smith's biography of Chief Justice John Marshall?"

Another told me of a briefing session to prepare Miers to enter into her duties as White House Counsel. A panel of lawyers who had served in past Republican White Houses was gathered together. After a couple of hours of questions and answers, all agreed: "We're going to need a really strong deputy."

It's been reported the reason Miers was named White House Counsel in the first place was that she had proven incompetent as Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy. Her boss, Chief of Staff Andy Card, badly wanted to get her out of his office - but couldn't fire her because she was protected by the president and the first lady. So he promoted her instead. Now we learn that it was Card who was the strongest advocate of moving Miers out of the West Wing altogether and onto the high court - raising the question of whether the ultimate motivation for this nomination is to open the way to hiring a new Counsel by kicking a failed Counsel upstairs.

But she's against abortion right? That's all that they care about, right?

This is just getting embarrassing.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Howard Kurtz has the blues...

I can't say that I disagree with him:

I can't tell you how frustrated I've been feeling at all the horror stories about the bumbling government efforts to aid the victims of Katrina.

It's enough to make you shout, as Casey Stengel did at the 1962 Mets, "Can't anybody here play this game?" (I was also yelling that at the 2005 Yankees last night.)

The bureaucratic bungling here is simply beyond belief. Since the average DMV is a mess, you wonder how federal and state agencies can deal with a massive crisis. And according to recent newspaper accounts, they can't.

More than 7,000 firms have applied to the Small Business Administration for help-- only 20 have gotten loans.

FEMA was giving out those $2,000 checks for household assistance, and suddenly it wasn't.

The government sent 91,000 tons of ice cubes to cool food, medicine and sweltering storm victims at a cost of $100 million, says the NYT. And most of it was never delivered, as truck drivers kept being redirected. What a meltdown.

As of Oct. 1, more than 100,000 people were still living in makeshift housing, and another $400 in hotels costing up to $100 a night.

Lobbyists for big industries are helping write the clean-up legislation.

Oh, and did I mention there's no federal contract to pick up the dead bodies ?

Then I got to thinking: Why do government agencies have so many hoops to jump through? Usually, it's to prevent cheating. And shockingly, there's been no shortage of fraud as well.

Another NYT piece reported on a Louisiana woman who used her aunt's New Orleans address and brother's name to file a claim. Red Cross contract workers accused of cashing in on benefits for fictitious hurricane victims. Two Florida residents who asked for help for nonexistent Louisiana houses. How pathetic can you get?

I thought it was crazy when I read about (New Orleans Mayor) Ray Nagin saying he'd have to lay off 3,000 city workers. Just what a sinking economy doesn't need. Couldn't the feds just give the city a grant or loan, so those folks could keep their jobs for a few more months? But where do you draw the line? The people who worked in restaurants and dry cleaners and drugstores also lost their jobs, and in some cases their houses. There's no way to guarantee those jobs. And why should victims of Katrina and Rita get more aid than those who suffered in previous hurricanes? One answer is that previous storms didn't cause a major city's destruction, but it's awfully hard to draw such distinctions.

Whatever the government chooses to do, though, it's going to have to do a better job. This is as depressing, in its own way, as the initial botched response to Katrina.

Read the rest of his Media Notes column here.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Howard Kurtz has the blues...

I can't say that I disagree with him:

I can't tell you how frustrated I've been feeling at all the horror stories about the bumbling government efforts to aid the victims of Katrina.

It's enough to make you shout, as Casey Stengel did at the 1962 Mets, "Can't anybody here play this game?" (I was also yelling that at the 2005 Yankees last night.)

The bureaucratic bungling here is simply beyond belief. Since the average DMV is a mess, you wonder how federal and state agencies can deal with a massive crisis. And according to recent newspaper accounts, they can't.

More than 7,000 firms have applied to the Small Business Administration for help-- only 20 have gotten loans.

FEMA was giving out those $2,000 checks for household assistance, and suddenly it wasn't.

The government sent 91,000 tons of ice cubes to cool food, medicine and sweltering storm victims at a cost of $100 million, says the NYT. And most of it was never delivered, as truck drivers kept being redirected. What a meltdown.

As of Oct. 1, more than 100,000 people were still living in makeshift housing, and another $400 in hotels costing up to $100 a night.

Lobbyists for big industries are helping write the clean-up legislation.

Oh, and did I mention there's no federal contract to pick up the dead bodies ?

Then I got to thinking: Why do government agencies have so many hoops to jump through? Usually, it's to prevent cheating. And shockingly, there's been no shortage of fraud as well.

Another NYT piece reported on a Louisiana woman who used her aunt's New Orleans address and brother's name to file a claim. Red Cross contract workers accused of cashing in on benefits for fictitious hurricane victims. Two Florida residents who asked for help for nonexistent Louisiana houses. How pathetic can you get?

I thought it was crazy when I read about (New Orleans Mayor) Ray Nagin saying he'd have to lay off 3,000 city workers. Just what a sinking economy doesn't need. Couldn't the feds just give the city a grant or loan, so those folks could keep their jobs for a few more months? But where do you draw the line? The people who worked in restaurants and dry cleaners and drugstores also lost their jobs, and in some cases their houses. There's no way to guarantee those jobs. And why should victims of Katrina and Rita get more aid than those who suffered in previous hurricanes? One answer is that previous storms didn't cause a major city's destruction, but it's awfully hard to draw such distinctions.

Whatever the government chooses to do, though, it's going to have to do a better job. This is as depressing, in its own way, as the initial botched response to Katrina.

Read the rest of his Media Notes column here.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Ass-hat of the day...

Louis Freeh.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

UPDATE: After allowing him to sell his book for 2 or 3 minutes, Katie Couric proceeded to clown our man Louis this morning on the Today Show. It was pretty funny.