Benghazi? Benghazi?

Wednesday, December 11, AD 2013

10 Responses to Benghazi? Benghazi?

  • The woman is a lawyer-lobbyist whose book consisted of representing a range of state-dependent sectors (social work, education, medicine) both in transactional law practice and to the New Hampshire state legislature. My guess would be that representing the medical sector was paying the bills and that representing the social work industry was where her heart was. Foreign policy was never in her skill set and I would wager she is not interested.

  • To Rep Hank Johnson’s defense, I think he was making a feeble attempt at a joke. In doing so he joined Al Gore and Sarah Palin in the ranks of politicians who will be forever followed by misunderstandings.

    This display by Rep Ann Kuster is of a different order of magnitude. One hopes that the people of New Hampshire will give her the time to pursue the social work she apparently so loves.

  • Tom,
    You are indeed a very kind man to so characterize Johnson’s statements. I like to think of myself as kind too, but just can’t quite convince myself that you’re right.

  • End of video: Just put the mic down. Put it down now. LOL!

    Tom D, Um yea. A joke. I think that is Biden’s excuse for everyone of his displays of stupidity. “Stand up Chuck!” And yes, Palin was right. You can see Russia from Alaska. Our acute investigative mainstream media sent real reporters to the far reaches to Alaska just to make sure. No word on an investigation into the likely hood of Guam capsizing. It could capsize any day now.

  • I would like to point out that Sarah Palin never made that statement, true as it may be, that you can see Russia from Alaska. It was made by a comedienne on Saturday Night Live. The low information crowd ever after believed the actress was actually Sarah Palin.

  • You’re right, Bill, and the same low information crowd still thinks that Dan Quayle believes that Latin Americans speak Latin.

  • Bill Sockey, That is incorrect. She said you could see Russia from Alaska. SNL turned her comment into “And I can see Russia from my house.” Her original statement to ABC News is “They’re our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska,” which sounds far more intelligent than what SNL’s version.

  • Representative Kuster demurred to discuss Benghazi because she did not consider it to be located in the Middle-East, the region which she was there to discuss. Her perception of mere geography is incidental to the over-arching fact that events in Libya are inextricable from any evaluation of events in the Middle-East. Foreign affairs may not be her forte but she certainly revealed a foible at this event.

  • Kyle, thanks for pointing out the correct history of the Sarah Palin comment. It shows how unbelievably unhinged certain people became during the 2008 election.

    I think a similar thing happened to Al Gore. I don’t think that he ever claimed to have invented the internet, but he was certainly a tech-minded politician who did sponsor legislation to further develop the internet. BTW, I consider Gore to be one of the great tragedies of American politics: a good and intelligent man who sold his soul to Planned Parenthood and then to the Clintons. His devolution from 2000 on was just the fruit of his moral errors.

    I think that your introduction of Biden is a bit of a straw man argument, but I can’t disagree with your comments about him. To paraphrase Freud, sometimes a straw man really is a straw man. Biden is so off the scale it is impossible for a voter to know when to be charitable and when charity would be stupidity. Remember the Star Trek episode with the twin but opposite Kirks? Imagine the same thing happening to a politician, and you’d get Joe Biden and Spiro Agnew.

  • Mike, yes, Dan Quayle was another politician who got criticized for episodes that were harmless, and some of which were possibly attempts at humor.

Our Divine Pope

Monday, August 8, AD 2011

Hat tip to the Midwest Conservative Journal for finding what might be the dumbest thing ever written by a journalist about Catholicism.  Considering the competition, that’s actually saying quite a lot.

Though most in the Coptic Orthodox community send their children to Catholic school, they are not Catholic themselves. The differences are slight — they use the same liturgies, though Orthodox Christians differ from Roman Catholics in their belief that the Pope is a human being, not a divine figure — which has meant Coptic Orthodox children most often are sent to Catholic school.

Approximately one-third of Toronto’s citizenry is Roman Catholic.  Even granting the large number of nominal Catholics, this means that Murray Whyte, unless he has truly lives in a sheltered environment, must encounter a decent amount of Roman Catholics.  Sure, this doesn’t mean that he’s going to know or understand the finer details of our faith, but are you kidding me here?

Continue reading...

11 Responses to Our Divine Pope

  • Paul, Whyte is a member of the liberal MSM. I think the MSM’ers are trained from birth not to understand religion. How else can you explain their continued stupidity? It takes training to be that dmb!

  • Pingback: Our Divine Pope « Feeds « Theology of Ministry
  • Perhaps he believes that Catholics are really closet budhists.

  • When it comes to many members of what is laughingly referred to as the Mainstream media, their religious bigotry is only exceeded by their religious ignorance.

  • “Orthodox Christians differ from Roman Catholics in their belief that the Pope is a human being, not a divine figure”

    Maybe I’m feeling particularly charitable today, but I wonder if this was simply the writer’s extremely clumsy way of trying to say that Orthodox Christians do not believe in papal infallibility, or do not regard him as a divinely INSPIRED figure protected from teaching error by the Holy Spirit. The Orthodox (for the most part, and as I understand it) regard the Pope as a fellow patriarch, the Patriarch of Rome who is “first among equals” with other patriarchs such as Alexandria, Antioch, Moscow, etc. — having no more and no less authority than they do.

    There are times when otherwise intelligent and conscientious people simply don’t know the correct terms to use.

  • “There are times when otherwise intelligent and conscientious people simply don’t know the correct terms to use.”

    As always Elaine you are being the soul of charity. Assuming that he was bone ignorant of Catholicism, one would think that before making such a statement about a religion he knows little about, he would have spent a few minutes curing his ignorance by doing basic internet research. Bigotry, Ignorance and Laziness: the hallmarks of what we have come to expect from much of what passes for modern journalism.

  • Contemplating the sufferings of Orthodox Churches in Egypt, Greece, Turkey, Russia, Asia Minor, the Holy Land: were/are they being “punished” for the Great Schism?

    Are Armenians Orthodox?

  • There is an Armenian Orthodox Church, but be wary of talking of whom God’s punishment falls: read the Book of Job, or the Parable of the Dragnet.

    Also: The Coptic Orthodox refer to the Patriarch of Alexandria as “Pope” (though without any claim to the authority of the Bishop of Rome). Actually, the Patriarch of Alexandria was referred to as “Pope” before the Popes (of Rome) had the title!

    So that might also have confused the author. If they were really, really stupid. And ignorant.

  • Murray Whyte is risking the wrath of God: Father, Son, Pope, and Holy Spirit.

  • Forgive the initial reaction, I thought folks might get a giggle from this:
    the Parable of the Dragnet

    …I should really not read just after waking up from a nap, Joe Friday figured rather heavily in my initial interpretation of that warning. >.< I think the author probably just didn't understand very solidly-- and none of the editors who saw his writing did, either. Would've been much better to say “they use the same liturgies, though Orthodox Christians do not share the Roman Catholic belief in the Pope’s special authority.“

Twirling, Twirling Towards Freedom

Wednesday, October 6, AD 2010

On Monday night there was a debate between Connecticut Senatorial candidates Richard Blumenthal and Linda McMahon.  During the debate Linda McMahon asked Mr. Blumenthal, “How do you create a job?”  Blumenthal’s answer was, well, see for yourself.

Watching this, I couldn’t help but be reminded of another example of genius on display.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Twirling, Twirling Towards Freedom

  • The frightening thing is that Mr. Blumenthal is merely a reflection of his party. I doubt more than 2 out of 10 congressional Democrats, and 0 out of 1 Oval Office Democrats, would have been any more successful in answering the question than Mr. Blumenthal was.

    Even among Democrat governors, who should at least know SOMETHING about job creation, I see little evidence that more than a handful could have coherently answered the question posed by Mrs. McMahon.

    An entire political party made up of people who, on the one hand, hate employers, but, on the other hand, claim to love jobs, and without a clue about how said jobs are created.

  • “McMahon slams Blumenthal into the turnbuckle–and he’s looking dazed!”

  • Mr. Anderson’s proportions are precise.

    Upstate New York has a congressional delegation of eleven. Ten are Democrats. Of the ten, precisely one was a businessman; one other has some academic background in economics; a third was a professional musician who had some exposure to the business world. (The solitary Republican is a businessman, wouldn’t you know).

  • As someone who has to answer questions on the spot in public for a living, I don’t really think that fumbles like this signify much. Frankly I’m amazed that it doesn’t happen more often.

  • Miss South Carolina has a great future ahead of her in politics. Like Blumenthal she didn’t let raw ignorance stop her from blathering on.

  • Oh, no!

    Lessee: tax, no that doesn’t sound right; regulate, no; pay for abortion, no; ban oil drilling, no; call a union boss . . .

    Oh, yeah! When I came marching home from Vietnam . . .

  • Linda McMahon is exactly right.

  • the thing about truth… you don’t have to memorize it, its always there.

  • Blackadder, about 70% of the man’s work history has been in public employment. Another 17% has been in law practice, specifically as a trial lawyer. (That particular firm now does commercial and real estate law as well). He spent one year as a newspaper reporter. Summer employment and part-time employment between 1961 and 1973 would make up the balance. Newspaper reporters (per Stanley Rothman) often consider themselves the antagonists of the business community and that sort of self-understanding is evident from his career as Attorney-General of Connecticut. That he could not answer the question is no accident. He thinks of the business community as shady characters out of whom you extract fines.

  • If character counts in Connecticut, and I by no means conclude in the affirmative (having spent a number of years in/around the state some two decades ago), then the man is toast. Whether or not he can succinctly (or at all) answer the job creation question, his character is warped by persistent fabrication. In no way could I begin to form the words in my mouth “We’ve come a long way since the days I served in Afganistan…” Because I have never been anywhere near the place, this simply couldn’t accidentally escape my lips.
    This man is not a gaffe machine, he is a depraved liar.

  • The sad thing is, McMahon did no better. She had her stump speech talking point memorized very well, but a third-grade understanding of economics is OK only if you’re still in the third grade and not running for the US Senate. Both sides pandering to and betting on our ignorance: no wonder this looks like a race to the bottom. Is this the best Connecticut has to offer?

  • Pingback: Filtered news 10/4/10 « Russ' Filtered News