Saw this over at the Rott and thought I would share it here on Rantburg - particulary after the brain-twisting discussion on other dimensions and subatomic particles the other day.
CERNs Large Hadron Collider is getting close to its first run.
Hurry up and watch it before they fire this baby up and we all get sucked into a tiny black hole. (Which I guess is one way of dealing with the Islamists.... there... a WOT link...)
#1
The report's author, Dr Kristin Aune, a sociologist at the University of Derby, said: "In short, women are abandoning the church.
"Because of its focus on female empowerment, young women are attracted by Wicca, popularised by the TV series Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
ROFL!
Has nothing to do with the CoE becoming rudderless, gutting faith as a force, and really standing for anything. Nope, couldn't be the CoE's clergy's fault, after all they are Liberals, and Liberals are automatically right.
Christina Rees, chairman of the pro-women bishop campaign group Watch, said the report highlighted the damaging effect that traditionalist attitudes within the Church of England are having on women.
After all thier liberally oriented abandonment of orthodox Christianity had nothing to do with it - by liberal thought, the discarding of orthodoxy and pandering to femists and homosexual activists should have made the CoE MORE popular!
So it has to be Buffy and the Pagans fault. Therefore, as the article says, the CoE needs to do more things like Saturdy Morning Breakfast clubs that women want, instead of returning to its former standing as a strong moral voice.
And nevermind that the Catholic Church is still growing with youth (now larger than the CoE in England at last report), and appears to be picking up a large slice of CoE folk who are fed up with the antics of the US parts of the church, and the Archdruid's pandering liberalism and heterodoxy.
No, all they need to do is more and more socially and politically leftist stuff, and that will cure all ills. No need to worry about morals, right and wrong, or any of that icky theological stuff, like the Trinity.
#2
It's true that Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Friends have more integrity than the Church of England at the moment.
The Cof E, once described as 'The Conservative Party at Prayer' has become 'NuLabour at Prayer' under Rowan 'Hairy Lefty' Williams - and its message has moved from what was once clearly based on individual responsibility to an unconvincing fudge of amoral collectivism, feelgood inanities and old fashioned irreligious socialism. It's abandoned its flock and wandered into the wilderness.
What alternatives would women see for the future within the CofE? On the one hand, the odious intolerance of the anti-gay Africans, and on the other, the unChristian moral vacuum represented by Williams and his ilk? What's the point of the CofE any more? All it appears to be interested in is obsessing over gay men and/or undermining the fundamental messages of Christianity.
#4
The problems with the CofE has been a long time coming.
From the very funny 90's BBC show "Yes, Prime Minister":
Sir Humphrey: "The Church is looking for a candidate (for Bishop) to maintain the balance."
Master of Baillie College: "What balance?"
Sir Humphrey: "Between those that believe in God and those that don't."
Hacker: Even though one (candidate for Bishop) wants to get God out of the Church of England, and another wants to get the Queen out?
Sir Humphrey: The Queen is inseparable from the Church of England.
Hacker: And what about God?
Sir Humphrey: I think Hes whats called an optional extra.
Sen. Joe Biden should be named an honorary soldier in Irans Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Were all familiar with the IRGC: Irans unique corps of Islamist fighters who have been directly involved in deadly attacks against U.S. soldiers in Iraq even Afghanistan threatening our ships in the Persian Gulf; and organizing, training, equipping, funding, and providing direct operational support to Lebanon-based Hezbollah (perhaps the most dangerous terrorist army on earth). And thats just for starters.
Also known as the Pasdaran, the IRGC is not Irans conventional territorial armed force, but the military force of the Khomeinist-inspired Islamic Revolution. The organization fields an army, a navy, and an air force, as well as an extranational special-operations force known as the Quds (Jerusalem) Force.
Iran, of course, is a state sponsor of terrorism, so-designated by the U.S. State Department back in 1984. And the IRGC and its Quds Force were both designated supporters of terrorism in October 2007. Though the latter two designations would not have been so had Biden had his way.
On September 26, 2007, Biden voted Nay to Senate Amendment 3017 (S. Amdt. 3017) a piece of legislation amending S. Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585 to express the sense of the Senate regarding Iran.
In a nutshell, S. Amdt. 3017 called on the Senate to: Support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies.
And most importantly for the sake of sanctions and the unequivocal denial of any form of support to terrorists and terrorist supporters the amendment said, the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists.
The text of the amendment included Congressional testimony from then-commander of Multi-National-Force Iraq Gen. David Petraeus, who said, Iran, through the use of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps Quds Force, seeks to turn the Shiia militia extremists into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq.
The amendment also included corroborating testimony from U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker; retired Marine Gen. James Jones, who chaired the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq; Defense Department and independent reports; the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq at that time; captured Iranian documents; even the public comments of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, who said: The political power of the occupiers [the United States and allied foreign forces in Iraq] is collapsing rapidly. Soon we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course we are prepared to fill the gap.
Nevertheless, when it came time to vote on the measure, Biden said, no. Instead, he went on in forthcoming speeches and blustering to threaten Pres. George Bush with impeachment if the president unilaterally attacked Iran.
According to an article in New Hampshires Seacoast Online: Biden said the best deterrent to prevent pre-emptive military action in Iran is to make it clear, even if it is at the end of his final term, action will be taken against Bush to ensure his legacy will be marred for all time.
So Biden threatens a sitting president of the United States with impeachment and the marring of his legacy for all time. He warns against striking Iran a rogue terrorist-sponsoring nation that kills American soldiers, refuses to curb its nuclear development program, serves as the primary benefactor to Hezbollah, and threatens nations with annihilation. And he flatly refuses to designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization.
Obama, who didnt participate in the vote on S. Amdt. 3017, spoke out against the amendment, calling it excessively provocative. But in an attempt to cover himself and appear strong, pointed to his co-sponsorship of the inconclusive Iran Counter-Proliferation Act (March 2007), which calls for the terrorist-designation of the IRGC (There were actually 72 co-sponsors of that bill). Fine. Its one thing to propose and talk about countering terrorism. Its quite another to actively and aggressively counter terrorism, pressing actions to conclusion, which Obama failed to do and Biden blatantly refused to do.
Still Bidens refusal to name the IRGC a terrorist organization had its supporters: Surely, the ayatollahs backed Bidens nay vote. And among Bidens colleagues was Sen. John Edwards who in a Nov. 2007 campaign speech said he applauded Bidens vote, and in the same breath referred to the IRGC as just a government-run militia. That was just a few days after the IRGC and its Quds Force had been designated supporters of terrorism by the U.S. State Department.
At any rate, S. Amdt. 3017 passed: No thanks to Biden who by his rejection of the amendment and threats aimed at a sitting president clearly provided indirect support to terrorists. Perhaps the word, indirect, is letting him off the hook
"On Thursday, as the convention moves from the indoor Pepsi Center to Mile High, an open-air football stadium, Democrats will have to balance their desire to spotlight Obama's enthusiastic following with concern that images of a cheering throng will ratify Republican attacks on the candidate as a glitzy but untested celebrity."
-- The Washington Post, Aug. 14 Tell me again how glitzy images overcome an empty suit?
It's not completely crazy for a political party to worry that a campaign event could be too successful. In Britain in 1992, the Labor Party was leading in all the polls until just a few days before the election, when it also staged a huge rally in a football stadium (different kind of football, of course). British voters punished Labor's leader, Neil Kinnock, for seeming complacent and overconfident and delivered an upset victory to Conservative Prime Minister John Major. The rally was regarded as "too American."
But nothing can be too American for American political parties at convention time. So the notion that "images of a cheering throng" could backfire on the Democrats is pretty remarkable. As a matter of logic, it's hard to see any connection at all between Obama's ability to attract a crowd and the question of whether he has been sufficiently "tested." And yet, it's true. Even though Ronald Reagan might have found it hard to believe that there was something wrong with cheering throngs, Republicans are making an issue of Obama's popularity, and the Democrats have to be careful not to overdo things. All's the Dims have to do is show some substance, and it'd overcome the worries about being too glitxy.
With so much going their way in this election, at least when I started writing this, last month, the biggest challenge the Democrats face is simple: The Republicans just play the game of presidential politics so much better. They play it with genius, courage, creativity and utter ruthlessness. As opposed to William J. and Hillary R. Clinton?
Most amazing among the principles of the Republican Way of War is: Don't waste much time and energy probing the enemy's weaknesses. Go directly to his biggest strength. Four years ago, it was easy to imagine any number of ways the GOP might go after John Kerry. You would not have guessed -- or at least I would not have guessed -- that they could successfully attack his service in Vietnam. Especially when the Republican candidate, George W. Bush, not only had avoided Vietnam by joining the National Guard but had avoided much of the National Guard by skipping the meetings and then had grown up to start an unpopular war that even four years ago seemed to have been going on forever. Tired yet? It gets better.
A lesser party might have said, "You know what? Let's just leave the whole military-record thing alone." But not the Republicans. They conjured up the Swift boat campaign and managed to turn Kerry's military service into a negative. As is usually the case, the media helped. Bwahahahahaha! The media helped Bush!
They didn't intend to. But journalistic convention makes it hard for reporters to deal with a big, complicated lie. They can't call it a lie, so they end up giving the impression to all but the most obsessive followers of politics that, well, it's complicated, and the Republicans are probably exaggerating, but there must be something there.
Or take 1988, when it was Gov. Michael Dukakis vs. Bush the Elder. Once again, there were many options available for attacking Dukakis, most of them variations on the undeniable fact that he was a liberal from Massachusetts. What also seemed undeniable when the campaign began was that Dukakis was an unpretentious man from a modest background with an appealing, all-American, immigrant-family success story. His opponent, by contrast, seemed like a parody of an upper-class Republican: son of a senator, fancy prep school and Ivy League education, rich from oil.
A lesser party might have decided to take a pass on the whole born-in-a-log-cabin or Harry Truman-look-alike aspect of a traditional presidential campaign. But the Republicans were fearless. They jumped in and turned Dukakis into an arugula-loving elitist, which you can be regardless of your birth, while repositioning George Herbert Walker Bush as a pork-rinds-and-country-music-loving good ol' boy. In their most daring act of legerdemain, they even made an issue of Dukakis having gone to Harvard (for law school -- he attended the wonkish Swarthmore as an undergraduate), even though Bush himself had gone to Yale College and was a member of the ludicrous, aristocratic anachronism the Skull and Bones. Aristocratic? Sure. Anancronistic? Maybe. Ludicrous? Grow up. The greatest strength of this year's Democratic candidate, Barack Obama, is his eloquence, his charisma, his ability to create excitement and draw a crowd. This could be a legitimate debating point if the Republicans were saying that, on some particular issue or even many, Obama is using his charm and way with words to disguise a lack of substance in what he says. That's what I'm saying. Which Republicans are missing that boat?
But Republican ambitions are grander: They are attacking Obama's charisma, as if popularity itself were a disqualifying factor and whoever draws the larger crowds is by definition the lesser candidate. This is truly perverse. It comes close to being an attack on democracy itself. Can the Republicans possibly score with such a preposterous argument? If they believe all this tripe?
Oh, probably.
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/23/2008 12:24 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
I will leave you at this late hour with my description of Biden from a while back, which I see little need to embellish:
He says interesting things, from time to time. I think he makes a fair point here and there. He was correct, for example, that Congress needed to have a real deabte over the war. I think he has some obvious verbal intelligence.
But, again, what's fascinating -- and what might be distracting some folks from seeing his underlying-yet-occassional smarts -- is that he lets his ego and vanity get in the way.
The man loves his voice so much, you'd expect him to be following it around in a grey Buick, in defiance of restraining order, as it walks home from school.
He seems to think his teeth are some kind of hypnotic punctuation marks which can momentarily disorient the listener and absolve him from any of Western civilization's usual imperatives to stop talking.
Listening to him speechify is like playing an intellectual game of whack-a-mole where every now and then the fuzzy head of a good point pops up from the tundra but before you can pin it down, he starts talking about how he went to the store and saw a squirrel on the way and it was brown which brings to mind Brown V. Board of Ed which most people don't understand because [TEETH FLASH] he taught Brown in his law school course and [TEETH FLASH] Mr. Chairman I'm going to get right to it and besides these aren't the droids you're looking for..
#1
I like Obama's selection, it just made the campaign interesting to me.
Stupid Joe is just about the most vapid piece of crap in the senate. Although watching that moron is endlessly entertaining. I'm certain he is going to provide some real (unintentional) comedy over the next couple of months. I can't wait for him to start telling us how smart he is.
There was a time not so long ago I considered sitting this election out because I could never pull the lever for McCain, now the Messiah has picked stupid Joe, I have to vote McCain, those other two knuckleheads can't be let anywhere near the whitehouse. McCain would have to chose Pelosi as a running mate for me to sit it out now.
#4
I think Obummer picking Biden makes is much more easier for McCain to pick a VP that he likes personally and has a history of working with in Senate, Congress or administration. He doesn't know have to pick someone that is key to a battleground state. He can pick who the hell he chooses to be comfortable with and is relatively safe - background, boners, slips, etc. Me, I think he should pick Giuliani, but then that's me not McCain. So, it has to be Romney. Even a Mormon guy is safe with Biden on the other ticket.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
08/23/2008 8:56 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Seems like BO chose Biden to serve as a lightening rod, keeping the critical attention off Barrak and on Joe. The question becomes, how good will John be at refocusing the heat back on the man? It's shaping up to be the greatest show on earth.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
08/23/2008 9:04 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Biden was meat for the Donk traditionalists. No matter what face they're putting on, there's deep apprehensiveness in the upper echelons. I suspect that their best guess is they're either going to squeak by [the optimal] or they're going to go down big in November [the possible] losing not just the Executive, but also the Legislative. Biden is an anchor to get the old party faithful to at least show up at the poles, cause I'm getting feedback that a big chunck OPF is McCain's at the moment or a no show.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
"On Thursday, as the convention moves from the indoor Pepsi Center to Mile High, an open-air football stadium, Democrats will have to balance their desire to spotlight Obama's enthusiastic following with concern that images of a cheering throng will ratify Republican attacks on the candidate as a glitzy but untested celebrity."
The greatest strength of this year's Democratic candidate, Barack Obama, is his eloquence, his charisma, his ability to create excitement and draw a crowd. This could be a legitimate debating point if the Republicans were saying that, on some particular issue or even many, Obama is using his charm and way with words to disguise a lack of substance in what he says. 
