back in the water again

Workout notes 2650 yard swim (1.5 miles); 500 free, 10 x 50 on 1, 5 x 50 (fist/free), 5 x 50 (fly/free), 6 x 50 (drill/free), 200 in 3:35 (flip turns), 5 x 100 IM, 100 side, 50 free. Then 3 mile run on the treadmill (9:50 pace, varied the incline a bit).

I am still sucking wind a bit.

Politics Ok, I know why Cal Thomas is doing this; he wants to set up the Republicans to accept Giuliani or Romney (or possibly McCain?). But it still bothers me when I find myself agreeing with him.

Ok, his latest column starts off typically enought

Atheists are the only people who appear to have been offended by Mitt Romney’s speech about his Mormon faith. Judging by the reaction contained in some newspaper columns, editorials and letters to the editor, atheists are said to have felt “excluded” by Romney’s failure to acknowledge that tolerance of the anti-religious is part of America’s tradition.

Most everyone else thought it a good speech and that Romney had the correct view of the proper roles of church and state while refusing to compromise his personal convictions. [...]

Ok, so far, he is still the Cal Thomas that I love to hate.

But…

What no one mentioned (so I will) is the curious practice by a substantial number of voters who require our presidential candidates to acknowledge faith in God. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution prohibits a “religious test” for office, but that hasn’t stopped many, especially in Iowa, from requiring statements of evangelical faith before deciding for whom to vote.

Does one expect to know the spiritual bona fides of an individual, other than pastor or religious worker, for any other job?

In the 1970s, a curiosity called the “Christian Yellow Pages” made the rounds of churches and certain businesses run by evangelicals. It contained names of professions one finds in the regular Yellow Pages – plumbers, taxi drivers, auto mechanics, dry cleaners – except these were owned and operated by certified, God-fearing, Bible-believing Christians. The clear implication was that businesses found in the Christian Yellow Pages would do a better job at a better price than the presumed “heathen” who advertised in the bigger yellow book.

I never saw any data that proved a connection between faith in Jesus and the ability to repair a car at a reasonable cost, so I usually went with the shop that did the best job at the lowest price and didn’t bother to ask if the repairman went to church. [...]

What? He is actually MAKING SENSE here (or throwing a bone to the Bourbons?) He then goes on to take predictable shots at Carter and Bill Clinton. No surprise there.

While requiring politicians to express belief in Jesus and the Bible, many evangelical voters ignore Christ’s statements about the source of genuine power. They also conveniently forget what Christ said about how they would be regarded and treated by a world that had rejected Him (and still does as the best-selling atheistic works of Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins attest).

Awwww, cry me a river! Those HORRIBLE atheists…they actually say that you are delusional. What a cross to bear!
(side note to funides: THIS is bearing a cross for your religion. Yeah, I think that you are delusional (“you” meaning those who let their religious myths overrule things like science, or those who think that their deity will “save” them (from what?) and “damn” others; I am NOT talking about most “believers” here)

But then Thomas makes a brief brush with sanity:

This election should be more about competence and less about ideology, or even faith. It shouldn’t matter where – or if – a candidate goes to church, but whether he (or she) can run the country well, according to the principles in which the voter believes. [...]
If a car hits me, I care more about whether the ambulance driver knows the way to the nearest hospital and the skills of the emergency room doctor than where they stand with God. That’s the attitude we should have toward those who desire to be president of the United States [...]

Oh don’t worry; the religious wingnuttery is there. But there really are bits of sanity in this article here and there, and that is in and of itself a miracle!

You might say I did to his column what Jefferson did to the Bible (Christian Part).

The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was an attempt by Thomas Jefferson to glean the teachings of Jesus from the Christian Gospels. Jefferson wished to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists.[1] In essence, Thomas Jefferson did not believe in Jesus’ divinity, the Trinity, the resurrection, miracles, or any other supernatural aspect described in the Bible. [...]

(note: of course, facts like this won’t shut up the ignorant fundies who claim that our country was “founded by Christians”; the fact is that our founders had a wide variety of beliefs. Some where nominal Christians, some were theists, some deists, others were merely skeptics).

Democrats
This Clinton video bears watching. She cautions against a “Rush to War” against Iran but never rules it out. Yes, I know, there are possible scenarios in which we might be justified in fighting Iran (e. g., they attack us directly), but when one says “I am against going to war with Iran”, everyone knows that you are excluding such unanticipated circumstances. But she never says she is against war with Iran, only “against the Rush to War with Iran”.

Again, if you want to back Clinton in the primary, that’s fine. Just don’t pretend that she is a “peace candidate”; in fact, she is the most hawkish one.

A couple of other points of view:

I think that the poster of these videos gets it right:

Why not Hillary?
I’d vote for Hillary over a Republican in a heartbeat, but I don’t think she represents the future of the Democratic Party. I think she’s become a part of the system which she once sought to change, and that system isn’t working for America. Of the three major candidates, she’s taken the most hawkish positions on foreign policy issues, including continuing combat missions in Iraq and taking a hard-line on Iran. Finally, I don’t think she is a popular enough leader to help expand the Democratic majority in Congress.

I don’t know if I agree with the last sentence, but I agree with the other three points, and most certainly with the part I’ve highlighted.

Ironically, the reason she isn’t my first choice is because she is the “most conservative” of the Democrats that have a chance, is also the reason I believe that she is also the most electable! Seriously, I think that she has the best chance of winning the general election; nevertheless I will vote for the candidate I think is best in the primary (Barack Obama).

Update: I got this from a site that supports Hillary Clinton. Still, this is a good example of why it is sometimes good to say “oh well, we might disagree on X, Y, or Z, because our similarities outweigh our differences (they might be insulted to hear that! )

You know, I used to enjoy bashing Thompson, but that is getting so boring; there is no challenge in it. Huckabee is loads of fun though!

If you want to know why I don’t pick on Thompson so much anymore, check this out:

Senator Fred Thompson has fallen short of the 500 signatures required to be on the ballot for Delaware’s Feb. 5 Republican primary.

Wow. Talk about incompetence. This is most significant not for the loss of potential delegates, but for the negative light in which it places the entire Thompson campaign. I mean, they couldn’t get 500 valid signatures?!? (Apparently they got over 800, but only ~300 of them were registered Republicans.)

The only reason I still pay attention to this clown at all is to have an excuse to post Jeri photos.