Some of my best friends

    are liberals....Gerard Alexander in yesterday's Times.

    Does cause one to wonder. About them.

    To improve Junior's chance of acceptance at the University of Virginia? Or perhaps to join its political science department which appears to need help? 

    Moving on.

    In the past few weeks, says Alexander Michelle Wolf and Kanye West either were A(....)unfunny or B(...)bravely n an ideological commitment.A quiz. Prizes will be awarded to the first 10,000 readers guessing which was which. When I get around to it. Hint, one of the two contestants is burdened by Maxime Waters' judgement "maybe he should not have so much to say". She knows how to counsel a guy.Probably will motivate a ton of sympathy.

    "Liberals" writes Alexander "energize people to vote  for the other side by their control of the commanding American cabl..".




    True. that would generate animosity. Fortunately  (for him) his supporters only dominate the electronic media. Nothing like the potential downside of dominating the Correspondents  Dinner.

    Moving on

    Some people have cavalierly leveled the charge of Racism against ....more than 60 million people who voted for Mr. Trump

    Oh? References ,please. Who were those cavaliers? Name and rank and serial number where applicable.Or withdraw the unsubstantiated charge in the interests of Jefferson's beloved achievement.

    Personally I differed with the Trumpers for many reasons-not because  I actually  believe the whole 65 million of them believed  it when they chorused "lock her up" ,mindless campaign rhetoric at the level of a high school Pep Rally .A vicious one.

    So who were the Racism mongers?

    Let's review the bidding.

    Were any of Hillary's voters racists?  Sure. Where any sizable group of Americans are you'll find racists whether they are Republicans, Democrats or Flat earthers. Racism is as American as apple pie. 

    Which party has the highest proportion? I leave that to 538. None of my democrat friends are racists. How about you Gerry?

    Moving on Alexander attempted a piquant comparison

    Pressing a political view from the Oscar stage


    declaring a conservative campus speaker unacceptable

    As a pretend parallel it was a stretch. At least this liberal feels that no views from the Oscar stage merit consideration whereas the only campus speakers declared unacceptable should  those inciting violence.

    But more than being  a stretch , it was a cheap shot linking

    banning speakers


    Feeling convinced that conservatives were their intellectual and moral inferiors


    without providing any  basis that such a link exists any place other than the  mind of G. Alexander

    I have certainly heard my share of intellectually inferior arguments advanced by liberals as well as University of Virginia professors. AOBTW by Hannity&Co. I'm not your best witness on whether conservatives advance better ones.. Whatever.

    But with respect to moral judgements, for me it's a whole 'nother ball game. 

    Alexander's counsel is

    People determined to stand against racism can raise concerns

    I like determined and raise concerns.

     About groups that espouse hate

    without smearing huge numbers of Americans many of whom might ....otherwise be Democrats


    If that's the price , I ain't buying,



    From the comment section:

    Our once-democratic republic has drifted ever further to the right. We see a resurgence in racism, white nationalism, backlash against women's rights, punitive attitudes toward immigrants, the obliteration of the line between religion and civic life, a sell-off our democratic institutions to a growing cadre of plutocrats and more.

    So, you think we should be more subdued? I suspect I am not alone in committing myself to be more strident. You write as though the political right and left are just reasonable points on an ideological spectrum. That, Mr. Alexander, is the most dangerous false equivalence in American history. We have lying, anti-democratic charlatans controlling the White House and Congress. The President is a liar and fool. Some members of Congress are treasonous (Nunes, for example). And you think we should be polite?

    The problem is that the primary basis of Republican action is to cause Liberal brains to explode. Religious morality and fiscal responsibility are no longer Republican goals. If people see clear suggestions of Russia tampering in United States politics and pass it off as the work of the Deep State, how can you not consider them intellectually challenged?

    Once they were morally challenged but that was settled long ago. Morals lost.



    There is a post about the embassy move to Jerusalem here at Dagblog.. A rabbi who blessed Javanka once compared blacks to monkeys.

    An Evangelical pastor invited to speak at the embassy opening says Mormonism is wrong and Jews can’t be saved.

    This is their version of religion.


    The things done in the  name of God must make Her weep,

    John 14:6 and 15:6 say that only Christians can be saved. So it isn't just "their" version of religion, it is the Bible's version(the NT, I mean).

    Romans 11

    25I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you will not be conceited: A hardening in part has come to Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

    “The Deliverer will come from Zion,

    He will remove godlessness from Jacob. 

    27And this is My covenant with them

    when I take away their sins.”f

    28Regarding the gospel, they are enemies on your account; but regarding election, they are loved on account of the patriarchs. 29For God’s gifts and His call are irrevocable. 

    30Just as you who formerly disobeyed God have now received mercy through their disobedience, 31so they too have now disobeyed, in order that they too may now receive mercy through the mercy shown to you. 32For God has consigned all men to disobedience, so that He may have mercy on them all.


    The nice thing about being a Christian is no matter what your views, no matter how moral, murderous, or even pathological, you can always find a passage in the bible that supports your view.

    Yes, you don't even have to be that picky about which passage. Just pick one and claim it says something that is not at all obvious to others. Because like Aaron and some preacher or liturgy he got the idea from, you just take passages like John 14:6 and 15:6 (no matter what version you use) and say they mean something when it's not at all clear when you read them that they mean that something he's saying they mean.

    Back to square one: this is belief by choice, not by literal biblical command as Aaron claims. They chose that those vague words mean that.

    All those citations say to me, for example: John recounts that Jesus implied he was the messiah, and to follow his teachings to get good with God. Doesn't say anything about any Christian religion. There was no such thing at the time! John was working on it, is all, didn't even finish.

    Christians are sinners. Christians battle among themselves. Institutions split during the Civil War. We have the Religious Right supporting Trump, and a Poor People’s campaign formed by Christians on the Left. Bishop Curry and Reverend Barber led a protest at the White House just this week. The beauty of the Bible is that you can find passages that support MLK, Curry, and Barber.

    And the problem with the bible is you can also find passages that support the Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK, and every other right wing hate group.

    People twist words. Nothing new. 


    John 14:6
    Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me

    John 15:6

    If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.


    Apparently there is a direct message to physically harm Jews.

    Well no rmrd. No one needs to twist words. The message of hate is quite clearly stated in many passages of the bible. You do what every other christian does. You chose the parts of the bible you like and discard the parts you don't. Then you pretend the hate filled parts aren't there.

    Different Christians receive different messages from the Bible. That is why there are Baptists, Southern Baptists, and National Baptists,for example. Baptists and Methodists split on the issue of slavery. No one pretends that the message cannot be twisted. During the Jim Crow era, churches were battling each over over white supremacy. The argument is about the takeaway message of the Bible. You can take way a pro-slavery message or you can take away an anti-slavery message. 

    There is a passage in the Old Testament that suggests parents take a disobedient, drunkard child out to the public square, present him to village elders, and stone the child if that were the decision of the elders. Most Christians would label should action insanity. Christians have free will. The law is insane. I think it is a positive thing that Christians reject the act. By the way, the law applies to Jews of the Old Testament. Most Christians see themselves as New Testament folk.

    You appear to be upset that Christians express free will. Catholics often reject Catholic doctrine. Ireland appears to have overturned its Catholic inspired anti-abortion law.

    I'm not upset at all since it's clear to anyone rational that the bible is bullshit. I'm just pointing out that you, like all christians decide what is true for you, in large part due to your secular education and culture, then use the bible to justify the decisions you made.  Different christians don't receive different messages from the bible. You all just choose the parts that agree with you and discard the rest.

    Latest Comments