“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Friday, June 26, 2015


Pope Francis is at it again, applying the Gospels to today’s sin-soaked world as if he’s some kind of expert.
The pope’s new encyclical on the moral and material impacts of climate change and income inequality is ruffling the self-righteous feathers of right-wingers who would prefer that God’s spokesman stick to the GOP party line: Climate change is a hoax, the poor are lazy and gay marriage is the greatest threat to the American Way of Life, after the Kenyan Muslim Socialist Black Panther in the White House.
A sampling of the wingnut response, beginning with Rush Limbaugh, who believes so much in the sanctity of marriage he has tried it four times:
“You know, when this guy came out with his economic statements and I said it’s Marxism, the world erupted in outrage that I would dare characterize the Pope as a Marxist,” Rush whined. “But his economic policies and philosophies as he explained them were completely that.
Jeb! (Bush), who is Catholic and doing his family duty and running for the GOP presidential nomination:
“I hope I’m not going to get castigated for saying this by my priest back home, but I don’t get economic policy from my bishops or my cardinals or my pope,” he said. “And I’d like to see what he says as it relates to climate change and how that connects to these broader, deeper issues before I pass judgment. But I think religion ought to be about making us better as people and less about things that end up getting in the political realm.”
Never to be outdone when it comes to breathtaking hypocrisy, Rick Santorum, R-Torquemada, who is clearly running for vice president, actually said:
“The church has gotten it wrong a few times on science, and I think that we probably are better off leaving science to the scientists and focusing on what we’re really good at, which is … theology and morality.”
I couldn’t agree more with Rick’s deference to scientists — the overwhelming majority of whom say climate change is real and being worsened by human behavior. Also, Pope Francis happens to hold a degree in chemistry. That doesn’t make him an expert on climate change, but if the day ever comes when Pope Francis needs advice on theology and morality from Rick Santorum, we will truly be living in The End Times.


  1. Posted: Thursday, June 25, 2015 6:00 am
    By Chuck Thompson, community blogger

    Whenever I hear right-wing zealots proclaim they live their lives based on their Christian values, my head explodes.
    I take my blood pressure every day, but have to give myself some time to settle down after one of these idiots twist the Christian faith to fit their agenda. My wife can tell you how often I end up yelling at the television when some politician professes his love of Christianity and then ignores the number of children and poor in America who go to bed hungry each day.

    These pseudo Christians will tell you that they believe in the literal word of God as written in the bible. Heads up guys. The Bible wasn’t written in English. Portions were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and there are different translation methodologies for how to best render the original texts into English. I was a pre-theology student my first two years of college. During those two years, we spent hours learning New Testament Greek and then arguing over the best English translations of those texts. So which of the some 36 versions available is your “literal word of God?”

    One classic story we found ourselves arguing over rather frequently is the famous tale of Jesus’s cleansing of the Temple. At the Jerusalem Temple during Passover, Jesus went ballistic over the presence of money changers and merchants selling sacrificial animals for the celebration of Passover. It was common knowledge that they took advantage of travelers who had come from all over to exercise their faith. Accusing merchants of turning the Temple into a den of thieves through their commercial activities, Jesus made a whip of cords and drove them all out of the temple along with the sheep and oxen. He poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables.

    1. {...}

      Whew, that dude could get angry.

      The modern den of thieves can, of course, be found on Wall Street and in the back halls of the Republican Party. Every GOP primary candidate is seeking a blessing from the titans of banking, a blessing that includes boatloads of cash. How can any of these poseurs call himself a Christian? Right-wing Republicans believe that Christianity is a badge they can put on their lapels and then – as long as they attend church once in a while – go out into the world and plunder at will.

      Fortunately, we finally have a church leader willing to call out the GOP on its un-Christian-like behavior. From the moment he was elected in March, 2013, Pope Francis has been shaking up the world of self-righteous Christians. As the leader of 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide, Francis is gaining the admiration of non-Catholics as well as those already in the fold.

      And, he doesn’t pull his punches. Francis was asked during impromptu remarks with reporters while returning from World Youth Day in 2013 what his views were on homosexuality. His answer demonstrated a compassion that is beyond the understanding of right-wing Republicans: “If they accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them? They shouldn’t be marginalized. The tendency [to homosexuality] is not the problem…they’re our brothers.” The grinding and gnashing of teeth you hear emanating from Pennsylvania is coming from Rick “dog on man” Santorum. He’s looking for a different form of Catholicism to follow. I am sure you will hear a host of GOP primary candidates weeping and gnashing their teeth when the Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage.

      And look out Wall Street, Francis isn’t about to give you a pass. During remarks at the Vatican in June 2013, Pope Francis proclaimed, “We have created new idols,” and the “golden calf of old has found a new and heartless image in the cult of money and the dictatorship of an economy which is faceless and lacking any truly humane goal.”

      Addressing the Republicans’ disdain for providing “hand-outs” for the poor, the Pope wrote in November 2013: “Charity is more than mere handouts, it means working to eliminate the structural causes of poverty and to promote the integral development of the poor. This means education, access to health care, and above all employment, for it is through free creative, participatory and mutually supportive labor that human beings express and enhance the dignity of their lives.”

      I don’t think there is one among the dastardly dozen running in the Republican primary who could endorse this basic statement on human compassion.


    2. {,,,}

      And now, finally, the coup de grâce to the idiot Republicans who deny the earth is warming – the pope’s encyclical on the environment. Among some of the most significant statements:

      "A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system. ... A number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and others) released mainly as a result of human activity."
      “Never have we so hurt and mistreated our common home as we have in the last 200 years."

      "The Earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth. In many parts of the planet, the elderly lament that once beautiful landscapes are now covered with rubbish."
      "We are not God. The Earth was here before us and was given to us."
      “The idea of infinite or unlimited growth, which proves so attractive to economists, financiers and experts in technology ... is based on the lie that there is an infinite supply of the earth's goods, and this leads to the planet being squeezed dry at every limit."

      Bob Cesca, writing in for Salon, noted this has created a dilemma for the GOP: “Republicans love to flaunt their religion, but only if it conforms to their politics. Francis just made that harder.”


    3. {...}

      “This actually brings up an important point,” Cesca continued, “because if there’s one crucial aspect of this which ought to be hammered by anyone within shouting distance of the Catholics in the race, it’s the issue of faith and consistency. Simply put: If it’s okay for Bush, Santorum and Rubio to simply waive the Church’s teachings on the climate crisis, why is it impossible for them to do the same when it comes to their religion-based positions on abortion, contraception and same-sex marriage?”
      He concludes: “The Pope has consistently, though not always, illustrated exactly how people of faith can serve the common good, while the GOP is more interested in exploiting religion to oppress, restrict and demonize. This is really what’s freaking them out. And [now], the rage will be thick and it’ll set new records for ugliness.”
      Oh, and lest you think he’s done, he’s not. On Sunday, during a rally of thousands of young people in Turin, Francis chastised those involved in the weapons industry, saying they can’t claim to be Christians. "It makes me think of ... people, managers, businessmen who call themselves Christian and they manufacture weapons. That leads to a bit of distrust, doesn't it?"
      And for those who have investments in the weapons industry, “Duplicity is the currency of today ... they say one thing and do another."
      It will be interesting to note the demeanor of Republican candidates and leaders this fall when Pope Francis arrives in Washington, although I don’t really expect many to be there. They will be kissing the rings of their true leaders, like Sheldon Adelson, the Koch Brothers, and NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre.

      Chuck Thompson is a former Middletown Township supervisor, journalist and retired marketing consultant. He has worked on a number of political campaigns and most recently was a team staging leader for the Obama campaign. He is also the author of McCurry’s War, a novel based on his experiences as a voice intercept operator in Berlin in the late ‘60s. Contact him at

  2. There is no Catholic vote but every Catholic has heard the “Christian” bias, fear and loathing of Catholics and the Pope. The GOP is the party of The Christian Right. Reagan formed a coalition that included a significant Catholic vote but that is over. The Republican Party and the Christian Right are on the decline. They have achieved Loathsome on their way to Lonely. Good riddance.

    1. The Donks are the party of the thoughtless Marxist left.

      They are incapable of reading history and learning from it.

      Thankfully, according to an article I almost put up here yesterday, we are now at 'peak leftism' here in the USA.

      Deuce is a brand new convert to this 'cause', a newby looking for meaning where it cannot be found.

      He and his fellow travelers have nowhere to go but down from here.


  3. The 'poor' aren't blameless in polluting and over-population, imo.

    The Pope would understand that peace without virtue will destroy our planet.
    Just by the amount of people that would be here if it weren't for all the death that has occurred up until this time.

    I'm seeing the unseen.
    The generations of people not inhabiting this limited earth.

    Thank 'G_D' for death, and Allah for enemies.
    The Pope can lay down like a lamb if he so chooses, but according to the writers of the new testament, Jesus has already made that sacrifice.

    Sorry for the incoherent rant. It's early and I'm one of the uneducated 'Poor'. But when I stop and think about my lot in life, I am really quite well off. :)

  4. Fuck the Pope. When he embraces Birth Control, I'll take another look at him.

    1. No one in advanced countries listens to the Pope on such matters anyway.

      Even in Mexico they are listening less and less.

      Abortion is a serious issue, but birth control is a given to anyone with half a brain........

      I struggle to recall the relevant New Testament passage(s) that condemn birth control..............;)

  5. I'm disappointed in this new political Pope.

    If a Pope gets into politics he ought to at least do us all the favor of getting it right.

    Liked him at first, still like him on a personal level, the kindly befuddled old fart.

    But he has zero real world experience, and it shows.

    1. Hmmmm......on the other hand, he did sound good on fighting the Islamics there for awhile.

      Guess I will amend, and reserve judgement for awhile.......and I haven't heard him say something truly boneheaded such as Iran is fighting for civilization.

      He isn't that far gone.....

  6. The Democratic Party = The Party of Slavery

    >>>During the first half of the 1800's, slavery was a contentious and persistent issue. Many slave owners and Democrats viewed slavery as a necessary evil, and abolition as unnecessary contention. Thomas Jefferson advocated for mass emancipation and deportation, for he viewed the black race as too childish, and based on the 1791 Haiti rebellion, unable to handle the anger engendered by their enslavement. Another common view held that the black race was simply unable to care for itself, and thus slaves were better off under the care of their masters, and that slavery only needed greater compassion, a view still held by the Democratic Party to this day. Why do you think Democrats promote government assistance programs for African Americans? If Democrat-advocated programs are taking care of blacks, then who is the master?

    Even if they publicly stated that slavery was wrong, Democrats consistently worked against abolition and emancipation, often by compromising: abolitionists get a free state, slavers get a slave state. In this way, Democrats could publicly side against slavery, while obtaining the support of wealthy slave owners. Does this tactic seem familiar, on other issues? No slaver ever supported a Republican; they meant what they said and did what they meant, and it started a war.<<<

    June 26, 2015
    When Erasing Symbols of Slavery, Don't Forget the Democratic Party
    By Anthony J. Ciani

    In the aftermath of the mass shooting at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, SC, there are increasing and ever louder calls for the removal of all symbols, objects and persons connected to slavery or the Confederate States of America. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, and so all honors given him should be renamed, and all copies of the Declaration of Independence shredded. Robert E. Lee fought for the South, so all his effigies should be melted down and his rebel flags shredded, even though the Confederacy had nothing to do with the shooting. The Confederacy is no more; however, there still exists an organization that gained power from instituting slavery and segregation: the Democratic Party...............

  7. Same Sex Marriage is The Law of the Land.

    1. Same sex marriage is the law of the land.

      May they have divorce, alimony, child support and the marriage tax penalty just like the rest of us...

    2. The queers are gonna find out marriage ain't all it's cracked up to be.


      Shaking up is often much better.

    3. Take extreme care what you hope for - you may just get it.

  8. The bigots, and haters, are not going to like the 21st Century.

  9. Eddie and Allen can now get married.

    Nevertheless, if they don't clear up the back rents by July 5th, 2015 they are getting an eviction notice from my wife.

    She's had it with their horse shit excuses.

  10. This ruling must leave Deuce scratching his head.

    His beloved Iran, fighting for civilization, has had a program to rid the entire country of queers via crane hangings for years.

    And his beloved Democratic Party has been for gay marriage for years.

    What's a confused old dude to do, where to turn ?


    1. The Mormons have never given up on polygamy. They just made a strategic decision to put it on the back burner until the time was right.

      Polygamy is up next. Watch for it, hope for it, pray for it.....


    2. (Disclaimer: More than one wife would be a living hell, in my view)

    3. Can you even begin to imagine what Mr. Duggar could accomplish with multiple wives ?

  11. .

    Lordy, lordy.

    The Pope is the head of an organization that has been around for over 2,000 years and continues to grow at a rate higher than the world population. The growth continues even in the US where it is the largest amongst the various religious sects.

    Somehow, I doubt he will be worried too much about bitter philippics launched by a few crusty old iconoclasts at the old EB.



    1. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic, eh, Quirk-O - Lapso !

      ha ha

      "Jesus may have been a Jew, but Mother Mary sure was not, she was a Catholic"

      (and a Polish one, too !)

    2. bitter philippics is good.

      Rarely used around here, you should use it more often.

  12. Justice Scalia is saying the gay marriage ruling shows 5 People are dictators to the entire country.

    He's right too.

    States rights are deader than a doornail.

    Though I couldn't care less about gays and what they do, all this shit from the courts goes too far.

    I kinda hope some state somewhere votes to secede one of these days.

    Maybe Utah, maybe Texas............

    Don't you get tired of it, all this manure from Washington, D.C. getting dumped in your back yard ?

    I do.

    I realize there's no answer to it, but it sure is irritating to me.

  13. NAMBLA is said to be thrilled by the ruling.

    They feel things moving their way.

    What's a little age difference, they argue, in a universe that is 12 billion or something 'years' old.

    Of young, or whatever....

    1. At the rate we are going down the sewer another decade and we will join ancient Greece, and 'modern' Islam, and many a Catholic priest and Bishop, in the time honored practice of buggering little kids.

    2. .

      Actually, I agree.

      Although as usual you stop short on analysis, a logical fallacy we have come to expect from you.

      After ..."Catholic priest and Bishop..." you should have continued "...and pastors, ministers, and rabbis" not to mention, scout leaders, coaches, etc., or the much higher numbers amongst school teaches and educators or family members in the general population."

      But what the heck, at your age, I doubt you will come to any further comprehension of reality.


    3. .

      Or you could have summarized it "or to one degree or another any group of individuals having an authority relationship over children".


    4. Was just trying to stir you around a bit, Lapso.

      And I succeeded.

      In other news, daughter has a new half breed mutt she's named "Raul Luke", Raul for short.

      Rescued from the dog pound, he has an implanted chip for location, and an excellent 'attitude'.

  14. Some of the relevant quotes didn't copy so you must read the original to get all of it -

    John Roberts: I … can’t help but think this decision opens the door to legal polygamy
    posted at 12:41 pm on June 26, 2015 by Allahpundit

    What would have ever given Roberts that idea?

    That’s a lot of gauzy schmaltz for a High Court decision, even by the more relaxed standards of the summing-up paragraphs in a majority opinion. The striking thing about Kennedy’s ruling isn’t that he came down the way he did, which was a mortal lock, but that he didn’t concern himself with trying to narrow the reasoning to meet the core objection of SSM opponents, that there’s no way to get traction on this slippery slope. “That would have been beyond the scope of the decision,” Kennedy fans will say; polygamy wasn’t at issue here so he had no business addressing it. True — he had no business addressing it explicitly. But he could have added language that he knew would be pointed back to later when polygamy inevitably lands before the Court. “Unlike some forms of marital relationships, a marriage of two members of the same sex is a partnership of equals” — something like that, or rhetoric about how other forms of marriage might be exploitative by their very nature. Anything to signal to polygamists that if they try to make their play at the Court anytime soon, they may not like which way Kennedy goes on that.

    But he didn’t. And, via the Federalist, Roberts couldn’t help noticing:

    Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one. It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.

    1. Dignity and self-determination are the cornerstones of Kennedy’s championing of gay rights throughout his many landmark opinions on the subject. You could argue, when the time comes, that polygamist marriages are inherently undignified because they place women in a position of de facto subservience to men, but that’ll be a hard argument to make when you have sister-wives in front of TV cameras swearing up and down that their relationships with their husband are 100 percent equal and that they’ve never felt exploited even for a moment. Imagine the feminist reaction: How dare a man try to tell an adult woman what is and isn’t “dignified” for her to do, especially on a matter as intimate as marriage? That’s the sort of logic that’s already produced the surreal spectacle of some feminists defending Muslim women’s “right” to wear the veil. Why shouldn’t it also protect their “right” to share a husband with two or three other women?

      A lefty friend makes a smart point:

      Once you make marriage a matter of state concern, all the rules of fair and equal treatment for citizens by the state eventually come into play. Which means social cons can fight the polygamy slippery slope in two ways. They can try to draw the line here at gay marriage, a highly risky play even according to the Chief Justice of the United States, or they can go full libertarian and start pushing the idea that the government should get out of marriage altogether. I’ve never quite understood what that would achieve for social cons, since if marriage is entirely a matter of private contract then all contractual marriage relationships, polygamy included, would be enforceable in court. The point, I guess, is that removing the state’s sanction would free social conservatives to say that private “marriage” contracts between gays or polygamists aren’t real “marriage,” just an expropriation of the term. But there’s really nothing stopping them from saying that now either, even with the state sanctioning gay unions. The touchstone of a real marriage, I thought, is what’s recognized in God’s eyes, not what the state recognizes. Most churches, in accordance with Christian teachings, refuse to recognize gay marriages, so who cares what the state thinks? And how would placing gay marriages on an equal legal footing with straight ones via privatization substantially change what we have right now thanks to SCOTUS?

      Exit question: Is John Roberts schizophrenic?

      Suddenly he believes in a modest judiciary and a “government of laws”? Was I hallucinating yesterday when this same guy rewrote part of ObamaCare to spare Congress a tough decision on federal subsidies? Hello?


    2. Exit question: Is John Roberts schizophrenic?

      On the evidence so far presented, yes.

    3. .

      No, merely a panderer insecure in his post.


  15. .

    Dignity and self-determination are the cornerstones of Kennedy’s championing of gay rights throughout his many landmark opinions on the subject.

    There are times when I wish rat was still around. Most of the time he was insufferable with his constant repetition of the same quotes, as well as, the silly lengths he would go to to make a point. At other times, he did offer up some real, although often stretched, insights. The Yinon Plan was one such instance. While the plan as outlined by its author was flawed from the beginning and the rat seemed to view it as the number 42 of all events in the ME, certain parts of it did act as kind of a shorthand for what I perceive to be Israeli policy at present.

    Likewise, when Deuce put up a post about Quaker Oats selling the concept of individualism which struck a cord with the growing evangelical movement in this country, the rat recognized the truth in that concept. IMO, he once again attempted to create another number 42 of the phenomena giving the impression it explained everything. While I disagreed with him on specific cause/effect relationships, it could be he was more right than wrong.


    1. .

      Another example came when I offered up the following observations on the formula being used by various minority groups to gain acceptance in our society. The example I used was the gay rights movement (GRM).

      Starting in the 50's and 60's, the GRM started a campaign to gain acceptance and 'normalize' their lifestyle in the perceptions of the majority population. The campaign could be best described as one of 'incrementalism'. Whereas, in the past a good portion of the gay community had attempted to hide their predilections, more and more of them started 'coming out of the closet'. Activist promoted the concept of the gays as victims. This in turn led to demand for greater police protection, new 'hate laws', etc. There was a concerted effort to present gay lifestyle as being more prevalent than it was by exaggerating their numbers. There was the creation of a whole new language to transfer guilt to anyone who disagreed with the lifestyle. One example is the etymologically incorrect neologism 'homophobe'. Originally, corned to describe the fear of the homosexual in being 'outed' it eventually evolved (devolved?) into a useful negative to be used against any that either disapproved of or failed to recognize the gay lifestyle as 'different but still normal'.

      As society changed and acceptance of gays grew, there were increased demands. First for legal equality. The demand for civil unions. As acceptance for civil unions grew, there was a demand for more. There was the need for a societal affirmation of the lifestyle. When the religious community balked at single-sex marriage, the activists set out to change the very meaning of the word marriage which had been around for a few thousand years. This ongoing campaign finally culminated in the Supreme Court decision we see today. It was a very effective campaign to 'normalize' what is objectively a small an alternate lifestyle.

      We see the same incrementalism used by other groups, blacks, feminists, and now more and more by atheists. Of course, every element isn't always there. For instance, women are hardly a minority. But the basic incremental approach is being used and it's hard to argue it is ineffective.

      At any rate, when I put up a post like the one above on the same stream that Deuce put up the one on 'individualism', the light went off in rat's head and he shouted 'Eureka! It's all because of the trend to individualism'. Naturally, I disagreed with him, citing instead a well-designed although evolving plan of incrementalism.

      Now, after further thought I have to agree that the rat was at least partially right. While I still believe the movement towards today's decision was the result of an effective strategy, I also am forced to admit that it would never have come so far or so fast without the trends to individualism in this country we have witnessed over the last sixty or so years.


    2. .

      As is my wont, the previous was merely my lengthy preamble to the following (well that and a grudging half-apology to the rat).

      Why Don’t the Poor Rise Up?

      “Why aren’t the poor storming the barricades?” asks The Economist. “Why don’t voters demand more redistribution?” wonders David Samuels, a political scientist at the University of Minnesota. The headline on an April 7 National Catholic Reporter article reads: “Why aren’t Americans doing more to protest inequality?”

      There are legitimate grounds for grievance. For those in the bottom quintile, household income in inflation-adjusted dollars has dropped sharply, from $13,787 in 2000 to $11,651 in 2013. According to the Census Bureau, 64 million Americans currently live in the bottom quintile.


      Still, it’s possible that poverty is less grueling than in the past...

      First, although incomes have declined, the cost of many goods ...has fallen...

      Second, people nowadays marry and have children later in life than in the past...

      Third, some economists contend that commonly used inflation measures result in excessively high estimates...


      But there is another reason that there has not been broad public insurrection.

      Society has drastically changed since the high-water mark of the 1930s and 1960s when collective movements captured the public imagination. Now, there is an inexorable pressure on individuals to, in effect, fly solo. There is very little social support for class-based protest – what used to be called solidarity.

      Describing a process that sociologists have termed “individualization,” Christopher Ray, a researcher at the University of Newcastle in England, makes the point that individualization is, on one hand,

      a positive, enabling and democratic phenomenon. On the other hand, the same dynamic generates the conditions of omnipresent and ever-changing risk, perceived as new obligations or burdens, and new forces bearing down on the individual and on local life.

      People today, Ray continues, “are not only able to make choices in an ever-expanding range of situations, but they are also compelled to do so.”...



    3. .

      The article above is rather lengthy but it goes into further detail on how the trend towards individualism has pretty much destroyed to general cohesion and 'solidarity' in our society, the ability to move events through consensus that most of us grew up with. It points out the positive benefits of individualism for most of us but also points out the negatives not only for the individual and society but particularly for the poor.

      The end of the article points out a truth we can observe every day.

      All of which brings us back to the question of why there is so little rebellion against entrenched social and economic injustice.

      The answer is that those bearing the most severe costs of inequality are irrelevant to the agenda-setters in both parties. They are political orphans in the new order. They may have a voice in urban politics, but on the national scene they no longer fit into the schema of the left or the right. They are pushed to the periphery except for a brief moment on Election Day when one party wants their votes counted, and the other doesn’t


  16. Toward the end of his Eulogy, Barack Obama broke into an A Cappella "Amazing Grace."

    That's gotta be a first for a sitting President.

  17. hmmm, it seems the EU is willing to fund debt service costs for a short period to keep Greece in.

    "The creditors laid out terms in a document handed to Greece on Thursday. It said Athens could have €15.5-billion in EU and IMF funding in four instalments to see it through to the end of November, including €1.8-billion by Tuesday as soon as the Greek parliament approved the plan.

    The total is slightly more than Greece needs to service its debts over the next six months but contains no new money."

  18. .

    Why Four Justices Were Against the Supreme Court's Huge Gay-Marriage Decision

    Highlights from the Court's dissents


  19. check out Obama's Eulogy. I saw excerpts and looks pretty good.

    1. excerpts here

  20. The 'poor' don't rise up because they are not poor in the old uprising sense.

    Many of them, especially the female 'poor', got it made in the shade, so to speak.

    I can hear the criticisms coming now, but they all got TV's, Government Debit cards, most have automobiles, and now 'free' health care, not to mention housing subsidies, courtesy of those that work for a living.

    None of this existed 100 years ago.

    They are smart enough not to bite the hand that feeds them, but to simply whine for more and more...and vote accordingly.

    One would have to be an idiot to put this all at risk, and one's freedom and life too, by 'rising up'.

    1. .

      Only if they have been beaten down to the point they see no hope or if you happen to be an Idahoan English major that would rather read a book he doesn't understand than go to work. Some of the latter say they go to work but sitting in a lawn chair in the Walmart entrance greeting people with talk of wolfyotes or directing them to the rest rooms is not what most people would consider 'work' work.

      This is not to demean retirement when the time comes but there is a value to work, both physically and spiritually.


    2. So says The Ad Man.

      there is a value to work, both physically and spiritually

      Both Aristotle and Plato would disagree.

      And so would most Americans who love the motto:

      let the machines do the work

      When's the last time you saw a Priest, Bishop or Pope actually work ?

      Their motto is:

      let the faithful do the work

    3. .


      The wisdom of the Idaho English major. Take it for what's worth, folks.


    4. Hey I'VE WORKED - HARD !

      Just between you and me, I knew I shoulda gone into advertising, or, as was once said on 'Miami Vice' - I knew I shoulda gone into podiatry.......

      I much rather sit and read, than WORK.

  21. Hopefully ratass will never come back but I did get some laughs when he would quote philosophers 180 degrees opposed to one another on some deep issues, and not even a glimmer of recognition on his part of the incongruity involved.

  22. .

    My wife called me in to look at the news.

    We were both metagrabolized by a screen dominated by a multi-colored White House. I kid you not.

    Evidently, it was intended to represent a rainbow which would have been lame enough. But not only was it a lame display of...well, I'm not quite sure...but in addition it wasn't even aesthetically pleasing. The colors were bold when they should have been more muted and there was no transition between colors. All in all, a sorry display.



    1. The Confederate Flag is much more aesthetically pleasing.

    2. By the way, the Confederate Flag has 13 stars.

      I assume these represent the states in the Confederacy ?

      I wouldn't have guessed the number was that high.

    3. Another by the way -

      Wife just got done with a book about Custer.

      Custer got the bad rap.

      It was Reno, that drunk, that was the villain of the piece, he and that Custer hating turd Capt. Frederick Benteen, who was in charge of the supply wagons, and let Custer die on the vine.

      Reno was supposed to lead the attack, the spear so to speak, but he took one look at the multitudes of Indians and threw his forces into reverse.

      Not only did Custer go down but two of his brothers, a nephew, and a brother-in-law as well.

      It was a bad day for Family Custer.

      And, don't forget, Custer was a good officer during the Civil War.

    4. The episode was just a minor skirmish in the long lasting conflict between the paleolithics and the farmers/city folks that has taken place everywhere on earth.

      This displacement of the paleolithics by the farmer/city folks is one of the only two big events that have actually occurred in human history, the other being the coming of the machine age/scientific/method/industrial revolution/computer complex.

      It is still occurring to a minor extent in Brazil to this very day.

      And if you don't think well of these developments, don't piss and moan, turn off your computer and go foraging for your food. And get in tune with the older spirituality, which some writers on these subjects feel was deeper, more authentic and of greater realization of the meaning of things than our own.

    5. This displacement of the paleolithics by the farmer/city folks is one of the only two big events that have actually occurred in human history, the other being the coming of the machine age/scientific/method/industrial revolution/computer complex.

      "History' as found in the school books is just a long list of minor footnotes to these most basic developments.

    6. machine age/scientific/method/industrial revolution/computer/advertising con game complex


  23. We all might as well just come out and say it - Pope Francis is a jackass and a fool -

    Even Quirk would make a better Pope - Pope "Q" -

    Vatican validates jihad terror, signs treaty recognizing State of Palestine

    June 26, 2015 1:20 pm By Robert Spencer

    FrancisdovesFrancisdovecrowThere is no “State of Palestine” at this time. This is part of the ongoing pressure upon Israel to create one. Creating one will be a great victory for the global jihad force, as a “State of Palestine” will inevitably be a new jihad base for renewed attacks against what remains of Israel. Events will unfold just as they did when the Israelis withdrew from Gaza: while the international media hailed a new era of peace, the “Palestinians” gutted installations and prepared for jihad.

    This recognition could end up being as large a blot on the Catholic Church’s record as the Inquisition and the many Catholic clerics all over Europe who went along with the Nazi program against Jews during World War II. The “Palestinians” make no secret on official PA TV of the fact that they share that same genocidal antisemitic bloodlust. This recognition only validates that bloodlust, and enables it.

    As this recognition is given, Christians are being persecuted by Islamic jihadists all over the Middle East — Islamic jihadists with the same supremacist ideology as that which motivates the “Palestinians.” In response to this persecution, the bishops of the Catholic Church pursue a “dialogue” with Muslim leaders that makes everyone involved feel good about themselves, but doesn’t do a single thing to alleviate that persecution. And the bishops in the U.S. actively move to silence those who dare speak out about the true nature and magnitude of that persecution, and to prevent them from being heard in Catholic settings. Now, with this recognition, the Church is actively aligning itself with the jihad force, and demonstrating the great lesson of our age, that terrorism works: murder enough people and issue enough genocidal threats, and the whole world will cower at your feet.

    The Vatican, by recognizing the genocidal jihad entity that is or will be the “State of Palestine,” is creating a huge moral dilemma for those Catholics who believe that Israel, as being on the front lines of the global jihad, ought to be supported, and that jihad terror, as represented by the “Palestinians” as well as by the persecutors of Christians, ought to be opposed. This is a political decision that has nothing to do with the substance of the faith, but these Church policies are heading the faithful toward a disaster of which they are largely ignorant and for which, thanks to their bishops, they are completely unprepared. Do those who see this disaster coming still have a place in Francis’ progressive, ever-so-modern Catholic Church?

    “Vatican signs treaty recognizing State of Palestine,” Times of Israel, June 26, 2015:. .............

    1. This recognition could end up being as large a blot on the Catholic Church’s record as the Inquisition and the many Catholic clerics all over Europe who went along with the Nazi program against Jews during World War II.

      Ain't that the truth.

  24. The thread that keeps on giving. I knew that I would smoke you out with this post. Lock stock and barrel.