One part of the Clinton mystique maintains: Deep down journalists think she's a political Rasputin who will not be dispatched. Prince Yusupov served him cupcakes laced with cyanide, emptied a revolver, clubbed him, tied him up and threw him in a frozen river. When he floated to the surface they found he'd tried to claw his way from under the ice. That is how reporters see Hillary.
"She does grace the way George W. Bush does nuance" was a close runner-up.
Huh? OK, Gary's been hitting the cooking sherry again.
I've been thinking about this the last week trying to figure out how John McCain got the lion's share of votes and delegates to date because I used to really believe that - when the rubber met the road - the level (or lack thereof) support for McCain could not possibly result in his getting the nomination. Clearly, that instinct was based on a fallacy.
(continued below the fold)
1
"...John McCain can win - and win big."
*******************
And you are high on something. McVain will get trounced by either Cankles or Obama-llama-ding-dong in the general. Doesn't matter which stinky turd runs on the donk side. The MSM has been sharpening their knives in anticipation of McVain's GOP nomination and now you will start to see the beginning of the full court press to bring out ALL the skeletons in the closet. Age factor, pissy temperament, racism and/or sexism charges, financial shenanigans (Keating 5 anyone?)....You name it, they will find it or invent it and pronounce it from the highest mountain-top.
And the sad part about it is, so-called "Conservatives" will piss and moan and do their best to defend this flaming arsehole from the press, but will fail quite miserably. They will attempt their best to deflect criticism away from the most liberal GOP candidate running in a century as well as berate those of us who have simply had enough of "supporting" the lesser of two evils.
*******************
"Come November, let's vote John McCain."
*******************
Sorry, at least in this Presidential election cycle, NONE OF THE ABOVE will get my vote, however, I will still vote for conservatives on the down ticket. Call me names, berate my character and lack of "party unity"; I've read it all on a dozen other blogs and it does not phase me. No McVain, no way, no how.
You are right on one thing...We'll try again in 2012. Maybe by then the GOP establishment (aka the Blue Blood Country Club Republicans) will realize it is THEY who need to moderate some of THEIR views; that it is THEY who need to "reach across the aisle" to REAL CONSERVATIVES to nominate a candidate more palatable to a wider range of people. I guess they don't call it The Party of Stupid for nothing....
Posted by: Cold Fire at February 08, 2008 12:46 AM (cmQ2W)
2
Hey, worst case scenario we get another shot in 2012. I'm willing to take the shot. What say you?
No, worst case scenario is that McCain cooperates with the Dems on another amnesty bill, which passes this time, and confers citizenship on the illegals within four years. As citizens they can vote. And they will vote overwhelmingly D. Ten or fifteen million new D voters will permanently change the balance of political power, resulting in permanent Democrat control of the White House and both houses of Congress. And I mean permanent, for as long as the USA lasts. Which it won't for very long, under Democrat economic and social policies. I give it thirty years, no more.
Posted by: wolfwalker at February 08, 2008 04:50 AM (zVUhV)
3
I'd love a more conservative candidate who could win. Unfortunately, he doesn't exist. So that makes it a non-starter as an argument.
So I'm with you on this one, Gary. McCain is the candidate, and there are no alternatives.
Since Romney is out, I'm with McCain to the end.
Posted by: The Abbot at February 08, 2008 07:26 AM (QBuXz)
4
Gary,
That was one of the best posts I have seen yet on the convservative/Conservative issue and McCain. I think you are on to something!
Posted by: April at February 08, 2008 07:50 AM (E9OZu)
5
Cold Fire - you sound like my eleven year old when I tell him he can't play his Wii and has to do his homework.
Whatever, stay home. Nobody cares.
Don't underestimate McCain's appeal in Blue States. You'll have to take my word for it but based on a ton of anecdotal evidence I've accumulated, McCain will crush SWMNBN OR Obama in CT. It's seven measly Electoral votes. But if he can win big in CT, imagine WI, MI, PA, OH...the list goes on.
Wolfwalker, tell me how much better an "amnesty" bill will be with a Democrat-controlled Congress and a Democrat President helping to write it. The scenario you describe is pretty gloomy. But, really, if the second coming of Reagan was in the White House for the next eight years wouldn't that future be merely delayed. Like it or not, you can't hold back the dam from bursting. The best you can do is campaign for Congressmen/Senators who will fight it off for the time being.
Posted by: Gary at February 08, 2008 08:26 AM (cRgWk)
6
I was banging my spoon on my high-chair, too, but it took this brief but well-reasoned piece by Cliff May on NRO to settle me down (grudgingly). The GOP shares the blame for this, so maybe it can regroup over time. Meanwhile, let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, as May writes.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2VmYmE4M2U0NzhhYmI3YzdmY2VjMDg0YjA5MDFkNDc=
Posted by: Monica at February 08, 2008 08:43 AM (LJ3TJ)
7
Gary, you wanted to know what the worst-case scenario was. I told you. Assuming that McCain is still in favor of immediate amnesty and a path to quick citizenship for illegals, then there's no difference between President McCain, President Obama, and President Bitch. They all lead irrevocably to disaster.
The best case scenario I can think of is that something happens between now and the election that really lights a fire under the issue of national security and border security -- for example, a major terrorist attack launched by foreigners who came in, and brought their weapons in, over the southern border. The media then discovers and trumpets the fact that a lot of the illegals have no intention of assimilating and essentially constitute a foreign army on American soil, here to wage economic warfare by leeching off our economy and real warfare by facilitating terrorism. As a result, we get a Congress and a President who mean it when they say "secure the border," and just-by-coincidence are also spending hawks who mean it when they talk about controlling spending. We get real reform on Social Security and Medicare, and at least for the moment, all is well again.
Is it likely? No, of course not. It requires that our political class show intelligence and leadership. But it is a possibility, and you're right that the only way it could become reality is with President McCain. Obama and the Bitch are too stupid to do anything sensible about security, even with a mushroom cloud rising over New York City or Chicago.
Posted by: wolfwalker at February 08, 2008 09:33 AM (zVUhV)
8
Actually, Gary, I prefer it as an adverb myself.
Posted by: Steve-O at February 08, 2008 10:26 AM (4/H9X)
9
Gary, you can call me and the tens of thousands of others like me names (let's see, there's childish, idiot, stupid, selfish, stubborn, etc, ad nauseaum) but it does not phase me. You obviously live in one of those northeast squishy liberal states and are "sure" McVain will beat out either of the other two clowns. Unfortunately, you don't quite understand the power of the fifth columnists in the MSM. They will bury McVain. I will take no satisfaction in his election-day drubbing. I just hope to be able to support real conservatives on the down ticket so we can limit the damage the donks will do to the country.
Sir, I live in San Antonio. I see FIRST-HAND the problems of the illegal alien invasion. So much so, I am planning on moving further into the heartland of America as soon as I possibly can. When a jerk like McVain calls me a racist, a nativist; when he has big agriculture and the construction industry backing him with millions of dollars so they can continue to keep illegal alien invaders employed on the cheap...well, sorry, your name-calling will not overcome my principled opposition to this hypocrite.
Best of luck with your electioneering for McVain. You will need EVERY vote you can get.
Posted by: Cold Fire at February 08, 2008 01:33 PM (GKXfS)
Doesn't matter which stinky turd runs on the donk side.
defend this flaming arsehole
Actually, I don't recall calling you any names but now that I think of it "juvenile" sounds about right.
Do what you want, dude. Vote. Don't vote. Protest at the polls. Stay home and play "World of Warcraft". Whatever will help pull you out of this bitter funk of yours.
Posted by: Gary at February 08, 2008 02:07 PM (cRgWk)
11
At risk of getting shot by all sides, I'd like to propose that both parties are full of Gary's nouns. Conservatives and Liberals, wiht capital letter. Both have established organizations that exist because of full-throated shouting. That's how they raise money (think NARAL on the left) and keep themselves in business. Every minor issue becomes the Fight of the Century, and all negotiated settlements a grievous sin.
Just think back to how petrified the olde-tyme GOP establishment was when Teddy Roosevelt became President. Today we've got loudmouths on both sides who'd rather lose an election and still have something to shout about than win and have to (horror) bear partial responsibility for coming up with a negotiated solution to problems. Of course, continuing to ignore problems like immigration or our vast crumbling Medicare program remain an option. Just a really bad option.
Posted by: tdp at February 08, 2008 05:14 PM (7CsBg)
12
Just for the record, I have no expectations of "electioneering for McVain". As I said, my enthusiasm (or lack thereof) for his candidacy depends entirely on one man - the good Sen. from AZ. I'm just not planning on going to Kos-kid training school to aspire to be an unhinged pain in the ass.
All in all, I'd rather be in our position than theirs - a divided party whose nominee could be decided by "superdelegates". Can you say "selected not elected" anyone?
And I do understand the power of the MSM, but if John McCain can survive that onslaught it'll make him a better President. Yes, I am concerned about this obstacle but I also understand that the average voter is not as stoooopid as some of us think they are. The MSM doesn't have a monopoly on information anymore.
All I'm suggesting is that we - as GOP voters - chill a bit and consider that nine months is a long time in politics. This is the hand we've been dealt (and the will of the voters). You don't have to slap a "McCain 2008" sticker on your bumper but you can hold back on the personal attacks. He's won it. Nothing is going to change that.
Time to mount that horse and yell "charge". Let's recognize who the real enemy is, shall we?
Posted by: Gary at February 08, 2008 10:42 PM (cRgWk)
Hey, I know I've pledged not to bad-mouth any Republican candidates but Huckabee doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell anyway. It ain't happenin'. On behalf of many a disappointed GOP voter, allow me to extend a sincere "thanks for nothing". Oh, and no thanks.
A post over at Race42008.com says it all.
Since kissing evolved, the act seems to have become addictive. Human lips enjoy the slimmest layer of skin on the human body, and the lips are among the most densely populated with sensory neurons of any body region. When we kiss, these neurons, along with those in the tongue and mouth, rocket messages to the brain and body, setting off delightful sensations, intense emotions and physical reactions.
Of the 12 or 13 cranial nerves that affect cerebral function, five are at work when we kiss, shuttling messages from our lips, tongue, cheeks and nose to a brain that snatches information about the temperature, taste, smell and movements of the entire affair. Some of that information arrives in the somatosensory cortex, a swath of tissue on the surface of the brain that represents tactile information in a map of the body. In that map, the lips loom large because the size of each represented body region is proportional to the density of its nerve endings.
"Uh, when we kiss my somatosensory cortex brain-dump! system overload! Whooneeeeguhh! Wowwweee!!!! can't help noticing the size of your lips as represented in a figurative tactile map of your body Oooooboy! goodbye holodeck come to papa neeeerrgggh!!!"
I jest. It's actually an interesting article. But there is a certain amount of the Duh Factor. To wit:
According to new findings, kissing may play a crucial role in the progression of a partnership but one that differs between men and women. In a study published in September 2007 Gallup and his colleagues surveyed 1,041 college undergraduates of both sexes about kissing. For most of the men, a deep kiss was largely a way of advancing to the next level sexually. But women were generally looking to take the relationship to the next stage emotionally, assessing not simply whether the other person would make a first- rate source of DNA but also whether he would be a good long-term partner.
As James Taranto is wont to say, what would we do without findings. Hell, I was an English major and even I knew that.
Via Arts & Letters Daily.
A bright spot out of the recent bout of nasty weather:
The Super Tuesday tornadoes killed at least 48 people, including four in this town. But a year-old siren system in the rural Arkansas county may have saved lives. Sirens blared 20 minutes before the tornado hit, enough time for Mr. Austin and his family to find shelter in his brother's basement.
With better weather monitoring and the wider use of sirens and other warning systems, the number of tornado deaths per million Americans has been decreasing in the United States for decades. Yet the tornadoes that swept the mid-South served as a reminder, experts say, that better public education and new technology, such as text-messaging on cellphones, could augment traditional warning systems.
I smell sequel here: Twister 2: D.O.R.O.T.H.Y.'s Revenge. In this one, that whacky pair of squabbling storm jocks Jo & Bill must fight their way into the sooper-sekret NOAA lab buried under Mt. Rushmore where all the data from the first successful encounter of D.O.R.O.T.H.Y with the killer F-5 is held by top men. (Who? Top. Men.) However, little do our heroes and their rag-tag band of meteorological BoHos know that the Guv'mint has actually already figured out a way not only to breed tornados, but to steer them. Further unbeknownst to the good guys, the Guv'mint has managed to pull the remains of Dr. Jonas "Nightcrawler" Miller from the Oklahoma field where he was splattered by the same F-5 and rebuild him as an all-but-indestructable killer cyborg. And NOAA knows they're coming.........
The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable".
Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.
Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.
For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.
He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".
I suppose that by "maintain social cohesion," the Archbish is trying to politely say, "keep Johnny D'himmi from blowing up St. Paul's."
Let me be absolutely brutal about this: It is a simple fact of history that a society which no longer believes in itself dies. Sometimes it simply withers away. Usually, it is devoured by another society that very much does believe it itself. Hint: there's no isolated withering going on here.
As much as I admire much of what Britain has stood for over her history, when I read of this kind of tripe coming out of the mouths of her leaders (and Church politics aside, the Arch-Freakin'-Bishop of Canterbury is supposed to be one of the mainstays of that society), I'm not really sure any more that she isn't about to get exactly what she deserves.
Once the Caliphate is established, we'll see just how much the new state will be willing to grant autonomy to those not willing to go along with its cultural mandates as well. My guess? It'll bring a whole new meaning to the policy of "hands off".
Yips! (for first sighting) to TitusOneNine.
WELL AT LEAST THE ARCHBISHOP DOESN'T THINK HE'S A COWGIRL YIPS from Steve-O: Giddyup!
I guess papal infallibility doesn't extend to fashion choices, either.
And yes, I'm going to pshop that picture together with Uma Thurman next time. The time after that? It's with Rosie. Them's the stakes.
Weapons-Free Yips! back from Robbo: Well, I thought I'd made it clear that I was commenting on the collapse of Brit culchah, not stirring up the Ecclesiastic Authority debate again. However, as Steve-O has run up the black flag, you may fire at will.
YEAH, I WENT THERE YIPS from Steve-O: Consider it nailed to the mast.
Mr. Chekov, set phasers on "mirth"
Puzzled Yips! Back from Robbo: No, folks, I dunno where he's going with that one either. And ironically, if you believe Mark Steyn's data on the shifting demographics and declining native populations across Europe, this clip becomes funny in a way perhaps not intended by its writers.
BTW, and this has nothing to do with religious opinion, but I've never understood why people fall all over themselves about this clip. The idea is funny for about the first five seconds, but then the Team proceeds to drive it into the ground with a sledgehammer, a flaw notable in most of the humour in this movie.
Thank you for your post. Yes, I agree with as you have written, "It is a simple fact of history that a society which no longer believes in itself dies."
What seems to be lost here (from the news reports) is that the Archbishop of Canterbury, along with the most senior bishops of the Church of England make up that faction on Parlaiment that as been known since about the time of the English Reformation, as The Lords Spiritual. (the other Lords are the hereditary ones and the non-hereditary that are made Lords intheir lifetime for poltical donations) The ABC's position is two-fold - head vicar of the English Church and full voting member in Parlaiment. His two-fold role was precisely why our framers created separation of Church and State. If these comments he has made are examined in the ight of his true posish, the story of England's fall to certain 'acceptable' aspects of Sharia law (the law that advocates the beating of women) is a big one and most breathtaking.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, with his speech, has failed not only his flock, but England, and, most importantly, the God he undertook to serve.
Also compared to the Arfican Primates in his Church who have fought off sharia law in their own provinces, he must appear to be a joke.
Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at February 07, 2008 01:40 PM (uTaIH)
2
Right now Sir Winston Churchill is spinning in his grave.
And how in bloody Hell do you have social cohesion with differing legal systems for various citizens?
Posted by: rbj at February 07, 2008 01:59 PM (ybRwv)
3
Steve 0- While I appreciate your continued contribution to this blog, I fail to see why the Pope in a "Cowboy hat" has anything to do with this.
The C of E has absolutely gone off the rails and turned on its parishoners in totality. What else to make of sponsoring Sharia law in any form? Is this the law of the C of E? What must the parishoners make of this statement?
The elites of British politics have capitulated to Islamic culture and law. It is now only the "flock" that needs to be guided... The whole thing makes me sick quite frankly and we are way past joking about it.
Again, I have no idea what you think the Catholic Pope has to do with this. You might want to explain.
Posted by: Babs at February 07, 2008 03:10 PM (iZZlp)
Me, I wish he's go back to the Papal Tiara, though. Just to see the press reaction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_Tiara
Posted by: The Abbot at February 07, 2008 03:17 PM (b1/bF)
5
You don't have to Photoshop the Archbishop to show him next to a terrorist.
But as the Rev. is not given to dressing like a cowgirl, at least he won't adopt the shmata-head look along with the jihadist talking points.
When Prince Charles is crowned king the Church of England will have a head to match.
Posted by: Mark S at February 07, 2008 03:27 PM (207tw)
6
Over at the Telegraph's Holy Smoke blog, Damian Thompson weighs in with both barrels on the archbishop's latest:
This is the most monumentally stupid thing I have ever heard an Archbishop of Canterbury say, and I’ve heard a few. In fact, it’s more than stupid: it’s disgusting.
And then:
What will the Archbishop of Canterbury's fatuous remarks about Sharia do to his authority as head of the Anglican Communion? Pretty well finish it off, I should think.
Posted by: Mark S at February 07, 2008 03:54 PM (207tw)
7
Right you are, Abbot! Moreover, His Holiness has the shoes to match the hat. A very "fashion-forward" Pope is our German shepherd.
As to the Archbish, didn't he accept the status of being a "White Druid" a few years ago? Any Christian clergyman who would do so outside of a game of "Dungeons and Dragons" doesn't strike me as someone you can count on to stoutly defend Christianity against threats from any direction.
Of course, he is not the only leader of the CofE to lack apparent confidence in the Christianity. If I recall correctly, some CoE bishops have openly derided many elements of the Creed--e.g., the Virgin Birth.
Posted by: Old Dominion Tory at February 07, 2008 04:23 PM (AmDb2)
Although I think the coverage was probably overblown. Seems pretty harmless to me. Kind of like the whole native-American smudging thing in the American church. More silly than anything else.
Posted by: The Abbot at February 07, 2008 04:33 PM (b1/bF)
9
Abbot, ODT, here's a direct link to the Telegraph piece on the archbishop's induction into the Gorsedd of the Bards at the National Eisteddfod, which appears to be the druidic version of the Wizengamot. The BBC coverage also pictured him in his habit.
I would say that in mufti the archbishop has a fine taste in Panama hats, though that might lead to confusion over the term mufti. Then again, maybe that usage would be appropriate.
Posted by: Mark S at February 07, 2008 04:59 PM (207tw)
10
I would be interested in how the The Queen, and Prince of Wales regard the title "Defender of the Faith" ("D.F." on Her Majesty's coinage).....
Gold Stars to anyone who knows the irony of the title's origin...
Posted by: markdriscoll@cox.net at February 07, 2008 06:23 PM (3i2Pe)
11
The title, ironies of ironies, was bestowed on Henry VIII in 1521 by Leo X, as a result of the young king's efforts, both in books and on the battlefield, to turn back the Protestant heresy.
Am I right, professor?
Posted by: Mr. Peperium at February 07, 2008 07:23 PM (S11oG)
12
I'm with Mrs P on the Defender of the Faith note.
And I should add, that I've always found that whole Python piece really really funny.
Posted by: The Abbot at February 08, 2008 07:52 AM (QBuXz)
15
I see what you mean, Abbot, about the nature of this "white Druidism." Looking at the picture, however, I cannot help but think, "Behold, the White Rider!"
Posted by: Old Dominion Tory at February 08, 2008 09:48 AM (AmDb2)
Via our Maximum Leader I came across this little prezdents quiz. If I've done it before, I don't remember. Perhaps that's why I scored the way I did:
Which Great US President Are You Most Like?
You scored as a Ronald Reagan
40th President, in office from 1981-1989 Born: 1911 Died: 2004
Ronald Reagan..........76%
Thomas Jefferson.......71%
George Washington....69%
Abraham Lincoln........57%
Dwight Eisenhower.... 55%
Franklin Roosevelt..... 53%
Theodore Roosevelt...50%
Harry Truman............48%
Woodrow Wilson........38%
John Kennedy........... 33%
Lyndon Johnson........ 31%
Frankly, I'm a bit surprised TJ slipped into second place. Probably because of my belief in the necessity of beating the crap out of all pirates. Otherwise, I pretty much loathe the man.
Cashmere Mafia-trashy and every bit as addictive as Melrose Place
Tonight's plot summary: Mia gets frisky with Zoe's "manny"; Zoe thinks about having a fling with her "work husband" but winds up jumping her real husband on their tenth anniversary; Juliette tries to retain the best lawyer in town but discovers her cheating husband beat her to it; and the sexually confused chick's girlfriend reveals she is pregnant but our would-be lesbian is proving herself to be an equal opportunity skank. Meanwhile, the teasers for next week's episode reveal that the lesbian girlfriend's ex is none other than Audrey, Jack Bauer's girlfriend! So, the CHICOMs did not grease her after all . . .
Prediction 2: Have you actually looked at the calendar after Super Tuesday?
Holy smokes, talk about a diversified table. Here in Virginia, the media schedulers are already in full mojo mode with the Virginia primary next week, but looking ahead:
this weekend: Washington, Louisiana, and Kansas;
next Tuesday: Virginia and Maryland
two Tuesdays: Wisconisn
March 4: Texas & Ohio
March 11: Mississippi
and then, NOTHING FOR FIVE WEEKS
April 22: Pennsylvania.
and then NOTHING FOR TWO WEEKS
until NC and Indiana go in mid-May.
It looks like Maverick is in need of @400 delegates to wrap it up, which isn't really mathematically possible until Wisconsin in two weeks. The key for the eventual nominee is to wrap it up before Mississippi on the eleventh, because that hiatus is going to be the real Thunderdome of the campaign. The Donks are going to be eating each other alive, when a media machine fueled to high octane by a compressed schedule suddenly hits a no real news zone. Expect bimbo erruptions on the HRC side, as well as the long-awaited "Messiah Stumbles" reaction against Obama. The trick for the Republicans is to enter the dead zone with a clear nominee, and let the shredding occur on the other side, as the Donks march to the inevitable "Selected, Not Elected" nominee.
TO KEEP A TRUE LENT. by Robert Herrick
IS this a fast, to keep
The larder lean ?
And clean
From fat of veals and sheep ?
Is it to quit the dish
Of flesh, yet still
To fill
The platter high with fish ?
Is it to fast an hour,
Or ragg’d to go,
Or show
A downcast look and sour ?
No ; ‘tis a fast to dole
Thy sheaf of wheat,
And meat,
Unto the hungry soul.
It is to fast from strife,
From old debate
And hate ;
To circumcise thy life.
To show a heart grief-rent ;
To starve thy sin,
Not bin ;
And that’s to keep thy Lent.
Prediction 1: Today, from behind the Golden Microphone...
MCCAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIN!
Yips! from Gary:
EIB lockdown today? Should be interesting.
McCain hasn't reached the brass ring yet but it's in his sights. Had no idea just how well the Huckster would do. I just pray there's no side deal for the VP slot. That would be just...a disaster. McCain may want to consider giving his CPAC speech tomorrow behind chicken wire. And start off with something simple, like a Tammy Wynette song.**
**spot the gratuitous movie reference
YIPS from Steve-O:
McCain 08---We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
London - Two senior Church of England bishops called on Tuesday for Britons to cut back on carbon, rather than the more traditional chocolate and alcohol, for the Christian period of Lent this year.
The Bishop of London, Richard Chartres, and Bishop of Liverpool, James Jones, have teamed up with aid agency Tearfund to invite the public to take part in a "carbon fast" for the next 40 days.
During Lent, which starts on Wednesday and lasts until Easter, Christians are supposed to fast and pray. In the bishops' green drive, those taking part can choose how they reduce their carbon footprint on a daily basis.
"For example, on the first day, people can take out one of their light bulbs and whenever they go to turn that light on, and it doesn't work, they can remember why they are fasting from carbon - to help the poor of the world.
"At the end of the fast they can replace it with an energy-saving light bulb," Jones - who is vice-president of Tearfund - explained.
Other activities include avoiding plastic bags and insulating the house.
The bishops and Tearfund said they had launched carbon fast because of the urgent need to cut emissions and protect poor communities, who are already being affected by climate change and will be the worst hit in the future.
"There's a moral imperative on those of us who emit more than our fair share of carbon to rein in our consumption," Jones said.
Chartres added: "We all have a pivotal role to play in tackling the stark reality of climate change.
"Now is the time for individual and collective action in addressing the unsustainable way in which we are exploiting the earth's resources."
Yadda, yadda. Know what? As far as I'm concerned, there really isn't anything wrong with seeking to conserve resources and being better about not wasting them (although to me this is simply a matter of common-sense stewardship, not a response to global climate change alarums). But leave that kind of hectoring to the enviro-groups. Bishops are supposed to be concentrating on, well, higher matters. (I wonder does anybody go to Confession with a laundry list of the number of times they've forgotten to turn off a lamp, used plastic bags or failed to separate their paper and glass recycling?)
BTB, as this is as good a place to mention it as any, I may note that after this evening I am laying off both the bottle and coffee until Easter. Since this will be the first time I've done so since I was about twelve, I'm not quite sure what effect it's going to have on me. If my posting gets somewhat...screwy, you'll know why.
1
"Does anyone go to Confession with a laundry list of the number of times they've forgotten to turn off a lamp, used plastic bags, or failed to separate their paper and glass recycling . . . "
I suppose I could confess to all of these things, but Father has a half hour before Saturday afternoon Mass and I've usually got a few things ahead of them on the list . . .
Posted by: The Abbot at February 05, 2008 03:40 PM (b1/bF)
2
I've proven I can lay off beer for a year without ill effects but I am not ready to roll the dice on going "cold turkey" on the coffee.
Posted by: LMC at February 05, 2008 03:44 PM (61/Yb)
3
Are the bishops slipping? They did not suggest in cutting down on the consumption, or use, of johnnys during Lent, did they? Yet it was the C of E bishops who first made them socially acceptable for use among decent people at Lambeth 1930. Johnnys are made of rubber so the C of E is responsible for much of the global warming that is occurng now. They should repent. And tell their men to go commando.
However, in the bishops' minds, the creation a baby would be seen as increasing the parishonner's carbon footprint therefore it does not meet the standard of a proper fast in the Christian sense, does it?
Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at February 05, 2008 06:09 PM (JbYf4)
4
Other activities include avoiding plastic bags and insulating the house.
Insulating the house???
As far as taking out light bulbs is concerned... Our electric bill is $220/month and that does not include heat. About a year ago, I got the bright idea that I would go on a "one light" policy while my husband was away on business in order to save energy/money. One night I went to the back door to let the dogs in, tripped on them in the dark and cracked my head open. It bled like a SOB and scared the hell out of me. Since then, I have lights I keep on all through the night when my husband is out of town. I think of it as an insurance policy against having to crawl to the phone and call the ambulance. So, to anyone out there in a similar position I say, the hell with the "Lenten" light bulb thing.
Posted by: Babs at February 07, 2008 11:07 AM (iZZlp)
Swell. I have to take my town to the woodshed for the way they set up my polling place today.
It was at my oldest son's school (which is in session today) so I figured I'd drive him instead of having him take the bus since I was headed over there anyway. Smart, right?
Wrong. For some inexplicable reason they moved the student drop off from the front of the school to the back, where all the buses go. The result was I ended up sitting in a line of cars for twenty-five minutes while I waited for all the buses to unload their cargo.
Figuring I was late for work anyway, I stopped for a CNN/ABC/CBS/WSJ, etc. exit poll (the first one I've ever done). In hindsight my answers will be a little confusing as some would seem a little contradictory. I voted for Romney but listed the War on Terror as my number one issue. I chose experience as the qualification most important in my decision yet I also listed as important agreement on the issues.
Turnout was pretty sparse, which probably helps Romney, but I expect McCain to win CT pretty handily. Even my son's teachers (they have two "team teachers" in the sixth grade) are enthusiastic McCain backers, which I found a little strange. One of his assignments this year was to write a letter thanking him for his service to this country. And they have an autographed photo on display in the classroom.
CT seems also to be shaping up as Obama country.
Stay tuned.
1
"CT seems also to be shaping up as Obama country."
Why else would Hillary have turned on the tears again there yesterday?
Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at February 05, 2008 09:44 AM (ihpf1)
2
Voting was light to mod in my town in central Massachusetts. I also went with Romney -- I have heard word of mouth that he is expected to carry Massachusetts, but I'm dubious, remembering how well Mad Mac did here in 2000. We'll see.
Two men enter! One man leave!
Posted by: The Abbot at February 05, 2008 11:00 AM (b1/bF)
3
Just voted in Georgia's open primary:
I chose to vote Republican,
(while praying Obama carries the state and not Clinton),
all ten Republicans were listed on the ballot, I voted for Romney, but it was tempting to vote for Fred.
Posted by: Marvin at February 05, 2008 11:03 AM (Gbtn3)
4
Well, you all voted, which is the important thing.
OH's primary isn't until next month...
Posted by: GroovyVic at February 05, 2008 01:51 PM (DVkb2)
5
Was sit morally reprehensible of me to send in an absentee ballot in the last presidential election, when I live across the street from my polling place? The parking situation is fine; the workers at the polling place, however, are as slow as they are old, and they will NOT let you help them. The last time I voted there, I found my name on the registration listing four full minutes before they did.
Not looking forward to 2/19.
Posted by: Diane at February 05, 2008 02:25 PM (jc9oB)
Before Gary starts in on Thunderdome Tuesday Posting in earnest, let me here throw out some Fat Tuesday Yips! to the good folks of Mobile, Alabama.
It wasn't until I was down there a couple years ago that I discovered Mobile strenuously insists that it was the site of the original Mardi Gras celebrations in America and that johnny-come-lately Noo Orleens hijacked the whole business and stole Mobile's limelight. The Mobile natives I talked to about this were mighty prickly on the whole subject.
BTW, I should mention that when I visited, I did not actually get there in time for Mardi Gras, but instead found myself on the streets of downtown Mobile early in the morning on Ash Wednesday. The trash, and above all the smell, boggled the mind. I should think there was enough post-debauch clutter to send the entire population scuttling off to church in shame and remorse.
1
"The trash, and above all the smell, boggled the mind. I should think there was enough post-debauch clutter to send the entire population scuttling off to church in shame and remorse."
Which means, of course, that they're doing it right.
These lovely and talented ladies are the Brook Street Band, an up-and-coming young period instrument group. The other day I heard a selection from their recording of Handel's Opus 5 Trio Sonatas on the radio while headed for work, and immediately dashed off to the devil's website to order the CD as soon as I got to the office. Having just got it into my hot little hands and heard it all the way through, I can say that it does not disappoint in the least.
I used to have a cassette recording of these pieces performed by Trevor Pinnock & friends. I was never able to find a CD version of it, nor have I until now found what I considered to be a really good alternative. I'm happy to report that the ladies of the BSB fill that bill very well indeed.
Well, I've been pretty bad with predictions but I might as well keep trying.
Polls in the "winner-take-all" states favor McCain and California - which awards delegates by congressional districts - looks to be trending Romney, who is also leading in Western states.
I'm guessing that the Huckleheads are bound and determined to still vote for their guy in sufficient numbers to damage Romney pretty badly. I wish I was wrong but I'm guessing that McCain will come out of tomorrow with at least a two to one advantage in delegates.
On Wednesday, the Romney camp will look at the remaining states and delegates up for grabs and make a call. Only if it looks promising enough will he continue. Romney doesn't strike me as the kind of candidate who would pursue a brokered convention. If the writing is on the wall, he'll pull out by the end of the week. If he makes a surprise showing and remains a lot closer in the hunt, he'll probably go a bit longer hoping for his own momentum.
I don't see it, though. So, Thunderdome Tuesday: McCain and Romney enter. McCain leaves and runs bartertown.
The Dems? This one should really be interesting. Things must be getting tight because SWMNBN is turning on the water works again. Hey, whatever works, right? My guess is that Obama will win enough to keep going and the focus after this week will be all on the protracted fight in that race.
Me? Tomorrow, I'll be pulling the lever for GiulianiThompson Romney, despite the fact that McCain has anywhere from a 16-28 lead in the polls here in Connecticut. So, let the chips fall where they may.
I was just getting my haircut in downtown Hartford, and learned that Obama is having a rally at the Hartford Civic Center today at 5:30 PM. I walked over and talked to the people in line. I should say 'the line that went over 1/2 of the way around the building 3 hours before the event begins'. Anyway, the people in front of the line had been to a Hillary event in Springfield. In a regular old auditorium. He's already on his way to filling a 16,000 seat coliseum.
Anyway, about 1/4 to 1/3 of the people in line had on Obama gear of some kind. Most with whom I spoke said they were undecided but excited to see him speak.
Gut reaction: he's peaking at just the right time. Not quite Giants/Patriots here, but he's really hit a chord. And the final fall of the axe: my barber. This barbershop has been there for 1927 years, and a lots of the pols in Hartford go there. His take: Obama's going to take down Clinton in Connecticut.
Always go with the barbers. (Especially in a year when the pollsters can't count above three without removing a mitten.)
Posted by: tdp at February 04, 2008 03:47 PM (7CsBg)
Which Great US President Are You Most Like?
You scored as a Ronald Reagan 
