A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by backbencher
One man's tragedy is a nation's blessing. Turns out G-d is a Republican after all.

Prediction, JP Stevens is next and Cheney breaks the 50-50 R-D tie to vault Janice Rodgers Brown to the big bench! Woo hoo!

Hope you dimfucks enjoyed that majority status......lol.

So does this mean Penske is socking again?

Or just that he's sold a sock to someone?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So does this mean Penske is socking again?

Or just that he's sold a sock to someone?

Whatever it means, it's predicated on bad information. The man had a congenital arterial malformation which started to bleed. I read this morning that those are fairly common and usually have a good prognosis, and that his critical status is just what they list you at after you've had brain surgery.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Josh Marshall reads the Washington Post:

The Post has an article on the president's and vice president's meeting Wednesday with the Joint Chiefs. It's a long article but this is what jumped out at me:

• "The chiefs do not favor adding significant numbers of troops to Iraq, said sources familiar with their thinking, but see strengthening the Iraqi army as pivotal to achieving some degree of stability. They also are pressing for a much greater U.S. effort on economic reconstruction and political reconciliation."

So the military brass does not favor 'double down', as it's come to be known in the wingosphere. They also appear to be signaling that they do not believe there is a military solution to the crisis.

It does appear you've got a basic division in the country: the public and the military brass on one side and President Bush and the DC war pundits on the other.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
The Real Hanukah: A Celebration of the Religious Right By Michael Medved 1/13/06 townhall.com

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/M...eligious_right

Who are the bad guys in the Hanukah story? And who are the good guys?

These are serious questions with serious consequences.

Most Jews (and certainly most Christians) dismiss the winter holiday as a trivial, feel-good festival about candles, potato pancakes, spinning tops (dreidls),and eight nights of gifts, without coming to terms with its serious, relevant and distinctly uncomfortable messages. While frequently (and fatuously) described as a “celebration of tolerance,” Hanukah is more properly designated as an annual re-dedication to the values of the Religious Right.

No wonder that so many American Jews (with their reflexive, often ignorant liberal instincts) refuse to acknowledge the real Hanukah and its politically incorrect messages. In last week’s Washington Post, a householder from Potomac, Maryland named Kenneth Nechin proudly explained that his home attempts to honor the “deeper meaning” of the holiday: “Religious tolerance, the freedom to practice religion, minorities overcoming majorities who are trying to take your rights away.”

Actually, far from celebrating “diversity” or “tolerance” or “respect for every faith,” Hanukah (the name means “dedication” in Hebrew) marks a singular display of intolerance— when religious zealots, exalting the values of “that old time religion,” came into the Temple in Jerusalem and drove out all alternate, “creative” forms of worship. In the “For the Miracles” (Al HaNissim) prayer recited at least three times a day by religious Jews during the eight days of the festival, we salute this uncompromising assertion of absolute truth: “Your children came to the Holy of Holies of Your House, cleansed Your Temple, purified the site of your Holiness and kindled lights in the Courtyards of Your Sanctuary.” No, the fervently faithful rebels did not assign a special area for other religious impulses as part of some ancient commitment to multiculturalism.

The confusion and ignorance about the Jewish winter holiday stem in part from unreliable, inconsistent information about the “wicked oppressors” whose overthrow has been celebrated in this season for more than 2000 years. The Washington Post article, for instance, misleadingly summarized Hanukah as “a Jewish holiday celebrating the ancient victory of the Maccabees over the Syrians.” In countless articles and discussions about the origins of the festival, the enemies of the Jewish faith are variously identified as “Syrians,” “Greeks,” “Assyrians” (totally wrong!), “Assyro-Greeks,” “Syro-Greeks,” and so forth. The inability to come up with a clear answer about who fought to suppress the Judean rebels in 165 B.C. makes it harder to take seriously the history behind the holiday and increases the likelihood that even serious people will focus instead on pleasant but puerile aspects of contemporary celebration.

Actually, Hanukah is hardly unique among religious holidays in highlighting evil-doers whose schemes and cruelty God helps to overcome. The corresponding Christmas celebration recalls the tyrannical King Herod, who wants to kill the Christ child at the very moment of his birth and ends up slaughtering “all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under…” (Matthew, II.16). No one experiences confusion or doubt in identifying the chief bad guy (Pharaoh) of the Passover holiday, or the various wicked figures (Roman authorities and the High Priest’s Temple establishment) in the Easter story. In the Jewish festival of Purim (rightly viewed as a parallel “deliverance” celebration to Hanukah) the Book of Esther unequivocally specifies “the evil Haman” as the enemy who plans to destroy the people of Israel.

Ironically, the historical sources for the Hanukah story are far more authoritative, substantive and complete than any non-Biblical records of the Exodus, the tale of Esther and Mordecai, or even the Nativity or Crucifixion. The Hasmonean Revolt – in which Jewish “Puritans” (and that would be an appropriate designation) won an unlikely triumph against those who embraced or accommodated “enlightened” Greek culture— looked like a significant event even at the time and numerous contemporary historians took note.

Two centuries earlier, Alexander the Great had swept through the Middle East on his way to conquering most of the civilized world. At the time of his death (323 B.C.) three of his Greek-Macedonian generals divided his empire and one of them, Seleucus (originally known as Nicator) took control of Babylonia and the surrounding territory (eventually including Judea). His successors built a powerful, cosmopolitan capital city (Antioch) in present-day Turkey, but it’s confusingly identified as the center of the ancient, Seleucid (named after Seleucus, obviously) kingdom of Syria.

This kingdom, by the way, bears no connection to current day Syrians – who are proudly and unequivocally Arab, and whose ancestors didn’t arrive in the area until 800 years after the events of the Hanukah story. Silly contemporary comments that try to parallel present-day battles of “Israelis and Syrians” to similar struggles between “Israelites and Syrians” in the second century B.C., count as utterly dishonest and off the mark.

In any event, the great-great grandson of Alexander’s general Seleucus was a megalomaniac named Antiochus IV, who had himself proclaimed “Antiochus Epiphanes” – the Illustrious, or Magnificent. He felt so intoxicated with the glories of humanistic Greek culture (which had come to dominate most of the civilized world) that he determined to crack down on his retrograde Jewish subjects with their old-fashioned, monotheistic faith and stubbornly anachronistic folkways. Like today’s secularists, the followers of Antiochus took special aim at the rite of circumcision – which, to the enlightened Hellenists, unforgivably marred the “divine perfection” of the human form. Wealthy children of the Judean elite embraced up-to-date Greek culture so completely that they even submitted to profoundly painful operations to hide the impact of their infant circumcisions, allowing them to wrestle nude at the gymnasium without embarrassment. That nude wrestling suggested another area of impassioned disagreement between the broad-minded humanists of that era and their implacable opponents on the Religious Right: the conservatives and puritans who eventually rebelled against the assimilationist establishment, refused to abandon their old, judgmental, intolerant and restrictive attitude toward the male homosexuality so casually and proudly accepted in Greek-influenced societies.

Eventually, a hillbilly priest (Mattathias) from the backwoods town of Modin led his five war-like sons in a bloody revolt against the compromises and betrayals and degeneracy of the local Jewish establishment. The bad guys of the Hanukah story weren’t so much foreign occupiers as they were indigenous traitors who junked the demanding faith of their forefathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, for the trendy, hedonistic, easy-going relativism of Aristotle, Alexander and Antiochus. By placing Greek gods in the Temple in Jerusalem, the Hellenist Jewish leadership didn’t try to exclude or prevent the old worship – they meant to open up the Holy of Holies to worshipers of every nation and of every deity in a grand celebration of diversity.

Anyone who takes even ten minutes to read the actual history of the Maccabean revolt will see similarities between its priestly leaders (most conspicuously, the great commander Judah Maccabee, son of Mattathias) and today’s prominent figures in the Religious Right. The Maccabees insisted on re-affirming ultimate right and wrong, and saw their battle as part of a timeless struggle of good and evil. They demanded a return to the old ways, to the authentic, uncompromising laws of God and the Torah, and they felt only contempt for the Hellenizing modernists who fought against them. The rebels represented the common people – the poor and the humble artisans and the struggling farmers who remained loyal to the ancient faith – while their enemies represented the pampered urban elites, over-educated in the cosmopolitan ways of Judea’s Greek overlords. Again, the basic prayer of the holiday makes clear the essential nature of the struggle, “In the days of Mattathias….and his sons, when the wicked Greek kingdom rose up against your people Israel to make them forget Your Torah and compel them to stray from the statutes of Your Will, You in Your great mercy stood up for them in the time of their distress. You took up their grievance, judged their claim, and avenged their wrong. You delivered the strong into the hands of the weak, the many into the hands of the few, the impure into the hands of the pure, the wicked into the hands of the righteous, and the wanton into the hands of the diligent students of Your Torah.”

In other words, the Religious Right of ancient Judea won a startling victory and we’re meant to celebrate its lessons some 2200 years after the fact.

At an odd moment of history when many leaders of the Jewish people are again displaying the ancient, Hellenistic fascination with homosexuality, humanism, relativism and diversity, it’s not surprising that many left-leaning sects and organizations want to hide the genuine themes of Hanukah. But at a moment when both America and Israel face crucial cultural conflicts that echo the holiday’s ancient struggles, those who know the truth need to broadcast the light of the long-ago miracles and affirm our annual rededication to authentic and undiluted faith.

It's so nice to know that there are also Jewish religious warriors fighting to hold on to the traditions of hate and intolerance in these troubled times.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
Maybe my history is off, but because Bork was turned down didn't we get Kennedy? You prefer Kennedy to Bork?

I even prefer Scalia to Bork. And I view Scalia as one of the most dangerous men in America.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by backbencher
One man's tragedy is a nation's blessing. Turns out G-d is a Republican after all.

Prediction, JP Stevens is next and Cheney breaks the 50-50 R-D tie to vault Janice Rodgers Brown to the big bench! Woo hoo!

Hope you dimfucks enjoyed that majority status......lol.

Hi, Penske.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I even prefer Scalia to Bork. And I view Scalia as one of the most dangerous men in America.

he misuses Orwellian as often as Ty. Plus you should have heard his ass on the major patent case argued late November. Okay, it's a niche area, and you don't get it- but then shut the fuck up. We are actually as scared as minorities were waiting for the U of M law school case to come down.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I even prefer Scalia to Bork. And I view Scalia as one of the most dangerous men in America.

I am clearly no Supreme Court watcher. But I had a really good contracts professor in Law School who was also pretty liberal. He knew Bork and really liked him and thought that Bork’s replacement would be more likely to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Of course I took his course before Thomas was even nominated. However, it seems that his predictions of Kennedy’s position on Roe turned out to be wrong and that is maybe why I warped Kennedy into Thomas in my mind, to make his prediction more accurate. I am sure a therapist would have a field day with that one.

Even though my professor thought that Kennedy would turn out be pretty conservative I don't think he has turned out that way. However, I still find your preference of Scalia over Bork surprising. I don't see Scalia as a strict constructionist (I am sure that will send Slave into an epileptic seizure) but as an activist judge who just pushes for conservative policies from the bench as opposed to liberal policies. Do you think Bork would fit into that catagory?

One of the problems I have with Bork was the fact that the guy can't grow a beard yet he didn't (doesn't?) shave. What is up with that? If a beard just won't come in full, don't grow one at all or you end up looking really creepy. How hard is it to understand that?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
It's so nice to know that there are also Jewish religious warriors fighting to hold on to the traditions of hate and intolerance in these troubled times.

Who is this Medved character anyway? Where did he come from? The guy seems to be a theocrat. I may be on crack, but I could swear I once saw him do a show as a film critic. Why does he get so much ink?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
A bit premature for all the "sky is falling" lefty blogs, no?

It's only a matter of hours before the folks at KOS accuse rove of injecting Johnson with Polonium 210.

It's times like this when I feel bad for you, Slave. We're living in the wrong generation. Here we have an unpopular war and everything, and for a variety of reasons the streets refuse to be flooded with antiwar numbnuts. If the worst angst that can be summoned is directed at a bunch of posters on Daily Kos, what is this crazy world coming to?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Mitt Romney, busted.

Its seems a few people were a little to quick to assume guilt here, doesn't it?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Spanky
Its seems a few people were a little to quick to assume guilt here, doesn't it?

How so? From the reports I've seen, just looks like he entered into an agreement which might (if the new governor allows it to stand, which appears unlikely) increase Romney's costs for having his gardening done. Or do you have inside info on the immigration status of Romney's household help?

[SlaveNoMore]

Gattigap
It's times like this when I feel bad for you, Slave. We're living in the wrong generation. Here we have an unpopular war and everything, and for a variety of reasons the streets refuse to be flooded with antiwar numbnuts. If the worst angst that can be summoned is directed at a bunch of posters on Daily Kos, what is this crazy world coming to?

The crazy world is apparently coming to this - despite this board's suggestions to the contrary, the Democratic party really does support the terrorists:

One piece of legislation in the works is the End Racial Profiling Act. It is an important priority of Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, whose district includes one of the largest Muslim populations in the country. Conyers introduced the bill in 2004 and 2005, but it went nowhere. Now the alignment of forces may be changing. Conyers will probably be chairman of the House Judiciary Committee when the new Democratic-controlled Congress convenes next month.

Nancy Pelosi, who called herself a “proud” cosponsor of the Profiling Act in 2004, is the incoming House speaker. And in January, Ellison, who represents the district where the imams incident occurred, will take his seat in Congress.

The act, although it doesn’t as yet impose large penalties, would bar any federal, state or local law enforcement agency from “relying, to any degree, on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion in selecting which individuals to subject to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities.” That would include questioning, searches and seizures.

One of the act’s central features is its definition of illegal profiling. Under it, if airport security personnel question passengers who are disproportionately Muslim or of Middle Eastern descent, this alone would constitute a presumptive violation of the law. Law enforcement agencies would bear the burden of proving that discrimination was not the cause.

What would the effect of such a law be?

“A law that would compel security professionals to focus on keeping their statistics within certain norms rather than on their mission keeping airline travel safe would have a devastating effect on our ability to ensure airline safety,” said Daniel Horan of the Los Angeles Police Department in an interview. He worked at the Los Angeles airport on profiling-related issues for 6 years.

In the past few weeks the public relations campaign for the Profiling Act has moved into high gear. On Tuesday, the Council on American-Islamic Relations advised American Muslims to beware of the dangers of “flying while Muslim.” In light of recent allegations of “airport profiling,” it said, the council has set up a toll-free hotline for pilgrims traveling to Mecca for the hajj, or annual pilgrimage, who believe that their rights have been violated.

The End of Racial Profiling Act has languished until now. What did it need to reinvigorate it? New congressional leadership, and that’s coming in January. But it needed something else in this media age: a high-profile incident to jump-start it.

It's hojnestly going to take another 9/11 on American soil before these dim (or should I say dhimm) fucks get it

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The crazy world is apparently coming to this - despite this board's suggestions to the contrary, the Democratic party really does support the terrorists:



It's hojnestly going to take another 9/11 on American soil before these dim (or should I say dhimm) fucks get it

1- everyone forgets that the Senate has an independant that votes R on terrorism issues.

2- if passed it won't be signed for at least the next few years.

3- if voted on EVERY Dem who votes for it will be at risk in 08 (maybe not conyers and Pelosi, but the others)

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Spanky
Who is this Medved character anyway? Where did he come from? The guy seems to be a theocrat. I may be on crack, but I could swear I once saw him do a show as a film critic. Why does he get so much ink?

Medved does do movie reviews. However, he also has a conservative radio program, and has, in the past at least, sat in for Rush when the fat druggie took vacation.

aV