Zombie of Joseph McCarthy Rises from the grave!

The zombie of Senator Joe McCarthy crawled out of his grave, with his mouth drooling for some fresh brains to munch on. Unfortunately, he seems to have munched on the brains of leading republican thugs.

Apparently, Colin Powell and others who don't want to vote for John McCain are part of a different America, according to several Republicans (the ones who apparently had their Brains eaten by Joe McCarthy's Zombie). There are "REAL AMERICANS" (I.E. rural Republicans who love JEE-ZUS and don't have college educations), and those other (apparently not real) Americans (College educated, liberal, tolerant of diversity). Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin, whose lack of a brain probably left Joe McCarthy's Zombie unsatisfied, and hungry for more brains, recently said:

"We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation. This is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday Americans. Those who are running our factories and teaching our kids and growing our food and are fighting our wars for us. Those who are protecting us in uniform. Those who are protecting the virtues of freedom."

Her devisive propaganda, implies that people who don't agree with McCain and the Republican Party are all not really Americans. Yeah, this is the kind of rhetoric that we always hear from Fascists and Communists -- "Those who are not with us are against us." Apparently, if you're not from a small town, not living in poverty, and not voting Republican, you're not really pro-American. But perhaps because this is a horror movie, Palin really means that there's been an Invasion of The Body Snatchers, and the pod-people are turning "real Americans" into Democrats! It could very well be, but Zombie movies have more potential for fun, so let's stick to our theme.

On the trail of the Zombie McCarthy, we followed some chunks of brain from Sarah Palin's campaign stop to Minnesota. There, Zombie McCarthy took a large bite out of Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann". Bachmann recently echoed the sentiments of McCarthy when she said:

"What I would say — what I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look. I wish they would. I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America? I think people would love to see an expose like that."

This has the classic mark of McCarthy written all over it. Yeah, we're about 50 years too late for that. We tried that back in the 50's, and we called it a Witch Hunt. You can tell that zombie McCarthy was the one that ate her brain, because the sentiment is the same -- the belief that we have enemies within America, and we need to seek them out and expose them. Having grown up in Salem, Massachusetts, I'm quite familiar with how witch hunts get conducted. When you run out of actual witches, historically, the next targets of suspicion are Communists, Jews, atheists, liberals, and so on... Ah, Witches... Another Halloween theme! But let's get back to tracing the path of Zombie McCarthy's feeding frenzy...

So from the gaping hole in Bachmann's head, we did not find any brain dripings. Apparently there just wasn't enough there to leave behind any clues. But we got a hot tip from McCain's campaign. We heard that McCain Campaign advisor Nancy Pfotenhauer was speaking on behalf of the McCain campaign, when she said:

"The Democrats have just come in from the District of Columbia. The rest of the state, the real Virginia, if you will, will be very responsive to Senator McCain's message."

The unmistakable divisive speech. Yes, another case of "Real Americans" versus "fake Americans". Clearly this is the mark of Zombie McCarthy, or another warning about the pod-people! Unfortunately, I wasn't able to confirm any zombie tooth-marks on her skull, but if she's been wearing hats in public lately, you can be sure that's the reason. The trail of Zombie McCarthy went dry after that, and I think that he may have either been re-killed, or that he isn't hungry for brains anymore. But I did notice that the rotting corpse of George Lincoln Rockwell made an appearance.

Rush Limbaugh, in a clear sign that the Zombie of George Rockwell had a taste of the fowl contents of Rush's skull, recently said, about Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama.

"Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race. OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I'll let you know what I come up with."

Remember folks, Uncle Rush says that Black people can't endorse black candidates without being called racist, themselves. Apparently, we need to check everyone whom a black person has ever endorsed or associated with to ensure a lack of racism. That is what Mr. Limbaugh is saying. Proof that George Rockwell is back? Or is Limbaugh suffering from an attack of the zombie Joseph Goebbels? There could be a sequel to this horror story, as it is traditional for horror movies to have multiple sequels, no matter how bad they are. I'll admit that my horror movie plot is lacking, but look at the characters I had to deal with here, folks...

Sean Hannity: Racist or just a friend to Racists?

Many people may recall that Sean Hannity was recently forced to wear his own ass for a hat on his own show, by Robert Gibbs, an Obama supporter. Essentially Hannity had been hammering away at Obama for weeks for an alleged connection to former radical William Ayers. The relationship was being described as sinister in nature by many right wing radicals, and Hannity's program on Fox had essentially become a platform for them. Realizing this was simply a "guilt by association" tactic, Gibbs masterfully steered Hannity into a question about his relationship with the guest on his last broascast, Andy Martin. Essentially, Hannity was reduced to a stuttering mess, trying to back away, but the more he talked, the stupider he looked.

Hannity claimed:

"When I interview, when I interview -- hang on, I'm going to answer your question. When I interviewed Malik Shabazz, when I interviewed Al Sharpton, when I interviewed all these controversial figures -- you see, on Fox, we actually interview people of all points of view, whether we agree or disagree.

Yeah, Sean, whatever you say. You're the one wearing his ass for a hat, so you must be speaking the truth.

Hannity did not just interview Andy Martin on the his program. He actually presented him as a credible, legitimate journalist, and actually had an introduction where Hannity himself narrated Martin's claims, uncritically. Hannity never questioned Martin's claims, nor did he present any opposing views and ask Martin to respond to them. Hannity essentially crafted a program that literally promoted Martin's views, as legitimate investigative journalism.


Now who is Andy Martin, anyway? Here's a few facts. Andrew Martin has been a long time anti-semite who has been crusading against Jews for decades now. He's run for public office, unsuccessfully, in various states, since the 1970s. His 1996 run for the Florida State Senate came unraveled when it was revealed that he'd named his campaign committee for his 1986 congressional run "The Anthony R. Martin-Trigona Congressional Campaign to Exterminate Jew Power in America." Of course, none of this stuff gets mentioned on his website, but his actual record is recorded for posterity elsewhere.

Okay, so some of you might be thinking that this is a one-time occurence, or something. Some might be tempted to think that one little interview can't hurt. Well, there's more. Sorry.

Hannity is a long time fan and associate of Bob Grant. Hannity said, himself, in his own book:

"I'd grown up listening to Bob Grant...one of the most entertaining hosts I'd ever heard," (Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty Over Liberalism, Reagan books, 2002)

He not only grew up admiring him, he got a job taking over his radio spot!

Grant, for those not in the know, is a long time racist, who has made plenty of contraversial comments over the years. Hannity has had the guy appear on his own show from time to time, as well. As with Martin, Hannity never questioned Grant's views on the air, or presented other people's opinions of grant in order to get a response; it's always been friendly promotion.

Hal Turner is another problem dogging Hannity's past. Turner is yet another antisemitic ultra-conservative whack-tard. Turner is an outspoken white nationalist -- yeah, the guy is a freaking Nazi retard! He developed a long term friendship with Bob Grant, and later with Hannity, and appeared on both Grant's and Hannity's radio programs a number of times. Hannity tried to deny it, but was later forced to admit it. Read the idiot's Racist Blog for yourself.

On December 6, 2006, Turner announced on his website:

We may have to ASSASSINATE some of the people you elect on Nov. 7! This could be your LAST ELECTION CHANCE, to save this Republic... Sorry to have to be so blunt, but the country is in mortal danger from our present government and our liberty is already near dead because of this government. If you are too stupid to turn things around with your vote, there are people out here like me who are willing to turn things around with guns, force and violence. We hope our method does not become necessary.

There's plenty more on Turner and his connection to Hannity, though, in The Nation. Oh, of course, because the author's last name is Blumenthal, Turner supporters can just say he's part of the Jewish-Liberal conspiracy, as they reach for their tin-foil helmets and lock their bomb shelters...

Lastly, because he's such a minor figure, but this is important because of what happened, Duane "Dog" Chapman, Fox TV's famous "Dog, the Bounty Hunter", himself a former felon, and not known for being a political or intellectual bright light by any means, had a little problem. He was caught making a few extremely racist remarks about his son's African American girlfriend, and his show was temporarily taken off the air because of complaints.

Hannity rushed to Dog's defense. On November 6, 2007, Hannity flew to Los Angeles and even cut short his radio show, in order to devote the full hour of his Hannity & Colmes to rehabilitating Dog’s image. This is not unusual. Hannity also rushed to defend the racist slurs of Mel Gibson, in a similar manner, devoting a whole show to trying to explain that he was just under stress, and abusing alcohol, so he wasn't himself. Actually, from what many people close to Gibson say, he was himself. Mel Gibson has a long history of behavior that can best be described as mental illness.

So there we have it. Not only was Hannity mentored by a racist anti-semite radio host, but several long-time friends of his, who are antisemites and racists, were given uncritical segments on his program, and Hannity himself rushed to do shows to rehab the images of famous conservative friends who had unfortunate slips of the tongue. Guilt by association? Or substantial evidence of where his loyalties lie?

Questions for Atheists, Answered

Questions for Atheists...

Okay, I thought I'd compile a sort of FAQ file for all the people who ask the same questions about atheism all the time. I took the questions from a variety of Christians who posted their "questions for atheists" in various forums, blogs, and newsgroups.

1. If you were in a hospital and knew you were going to die, would you consider asking Jesus to save you? Would you really have anything to lose?
   
   No. I would have nothing to lose, and nothing to gain, since I know from the best scientific research that the afterlife is a myth.

   
   

2. What is the point of being moral if God does not exist?
   
   There is no point in being moral at all. There is a point in being ethical, however. Morality is not the same as ethics. Morality usually has religious overtones attached to it, where ethics are more secular and concern society and an individual's relationship with the rest of society. The point in being ethical is that everyone else in your society is watching you, and that if you behave in an ethical manner, people will trust you, and you will have friends. If you are unethical, it is more difficult for you to form relationships with people that last, because eventually, they will find out that you are not someone they can trust. essentially, it's in your best personal "selfish" interest to behave in an ethical manner, because friends are an advantage, and enemies are a risk. Essentially, your life, and indeed, your society, is a better place to live in when people are ethical.

   
   

3. If there is no God, and no moral authority from him, Why not steal, kill, rape, do drugs, get rich, and have lots of sex?
   
   Because doing so would likely anger people in society, who would then come after you for revenge, and they would hurt you, or at least imprison you and make your life less enjoyable. Also, It seems that anyone who lives that kind of life will likely not have any friends, and not be very happy...except for the having lots of sex part...

   
   

4. What truth does the atheist have that Christians don’t?
   
   All except "there is a God," I guess. See, if you believe in objective facts, objective truths, and objective reality, then the truth I have shoud be the same as yours. The only truths I do not hold are the speculative ones that are not reasonably proven. If we all agree that observing the world we live in gives most people the exact same truth -- that the sky is blue, that water is wet, that rocks are solid, that trees grow, and that getting cut hurts, the only truth that I would not have in common with you is the one about God.

   
   

5. When you say, “I’m an atheist” what does that mean?
   
   I just means that I do not beleive in gods, or any of the stories and myths associated with them. I do not believe in gods, angels, devils, magic spells, love potions, curses, ghosts, or any of tens of thousands of other things associated with the religions of the world. It certainly appears that none of those things exist, and until someone provides irrefutable proof of any of them, I'll continue to not believe in them.

   
   

6. Why are you an atheist?
   
   Because I have found nothing valid in any religions that merits belief in them.

   
   

7. Why do you think a belief in deity has permeated almost every society and culture since the dawn of mankind?
   
   Because people are superstitious, and the less educated and experienced in the world a person is, the more superstitious they tend to be. People have a strong tendency to assign mythical supernatural powers to things that they do not understand. People worshipped mountains, the sun, the moon, the Sea, bears, elephants, lions, and other things, merely because those objects seemed to have power or strength beyond human comprehension. Now that we've conquered or learned about them, they are not frightening or mysterious to us any more. I believe that all of man's gods have their origin in the minds of men.

   
   

8. Have you ever, even for a moment, believed in a God(s)?
   
   Yes. When I was young, I believed in God, and was given religious instruction. Now I am older and wiser, and I do not believe in gods.

   
   

9. Why, if you are an atheist, do you spend so much time speaking about religion (especially the christian faith?)
   
   Probably because mentioning atheistic points of view in public attracts religious fundamentalists like flies to dogshit. Also, many times in my life, I've seen religious people attempt to pass legislation that infringes on religious liberties, such as blue-laws, laws that attempt to persecute gays, force kids to say Christian prayers and receive Christian indoctrination in public schools, or laws that attempt to shove religion into science classes. I feel compelled to speak out against these things not just because they are unethical, but because they are idiotic, as well.

   
   

10. Am I correct in my assumption that Atheists believe that there is nothing other than the physical measurable realm?
    
    Well, no. That is materialism. Atheists can be materialists, but not all materialists are neccesarily atheists. I happen to be a materialist, however. I believe that everything in the universe is a property of matter or energy, or directly relates to them.

    
    

11. If materialism is correct, how does an Atheist prove thinking? I mean, you can’t see it or touch it or measure it, so how do you know it exists?
    
    The only thinking we can examine is our own. However, consider the following facts:
    
    
    • Thinking is something that a brain does.
      
    • Brains are made of matter.
      
    • Brains need to be alive, have a blood supply, and nutrients, in order to think.
      
    • Thinking is a neurochemical process described by neurophysiology as communication between groups of neurons in the brain.
      
    • Neurons, and the chemicals that they use to communicate with, are all made of matter.
      
    • Neurophysiologists have mapped out most of the brain's specific parts which perform certain tasks in responding to stimuli and making logical decisions. All of these parts are physical.
      
    • Therefore, thought requires matter in order to exist.
      
    
    If you think I'm wrong, find one scientifically verified instance of thought existing without a brain to think it.
    

    
    

12. Do atheists believe that all of life, mankind, animals, trees, etc, are purely accidents with no purpose to their existence?
    
    No. The idea that evolution is an accidental process is a completely wrong and bogus interpretation of the facts. Evolution is not random, but it is not guided by a mysterious being's invisible hand, either. Nothing in nature happens at random, or by accident. Everything is the result of cause and effect. This is the basic principle behind science. For someone to claim that evolution is random is to ignore one of the basic tenets of Science.

    
    

13. How would you define “atheism”?
    
    Lack of belief in gods and/or the supernatural.

    
    

14. How would you describe “Intelligent Design”, using only one word?
    
    Bullshit. Well, you did only ask for one word...

    
    

15. What scientific endeavour really excites you?
    
    Space Exploration, Aerospace, Information Technology, Archaeology, subatomic particle research.

    
    

16. If you could change one thing about the “atheist community”, what would it be and why??
    
    Have there be more atheists where I live, and have us be as organized as various political groups are.

    
    

17. If your child came up to you and said “I’m joining the clergy”, what would be your first response?
    
    I'd ask them how they came to their decision.

    
    

18. What’s your favorite theistic argument, and how do you usually refute it?
    
    I don't know if I have a favorite or not. There are "the most frequent", and for me, the most frequent is "how do you explain how everything in the universe got here?" I of course point out that saying "God Did it" is not an explanation, and is really just a cop-out answer. Then, I go on to point out what the world's physicists and cosmologists have said on the subject, and that essentially we still don't have enough information to anything about the origins of the universe with certainty. What we are certain about is the Big Bang, that matter and energy are interchangable, and that matter cannot move faster than light.

    
    

19. What’s your most “controversial” (as far as general attitudes amongst other atheists goes) viewpoint?
    
    Well, it's not one that is uniquely mine, but I generally agree with Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens that Religions tend to cause more harm for mankind than good, and that they do so by fostering and promoting ancient superstitions, prejudices, anti-science, anti-intellectualism, and dogmatism. I also beleive that the US government should end tax examptions for religious organizations unless they can actually prove that they perform some sort of community service that helps people. I believe that churches should pay taxes on their property.

    
    

20. Of the “Four Horsemen” (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) who is your favourite, and why?
    
    I like Dawkins because he performs well in discussions, and I thought he made an excellent host of the programs he's done for the BBC and ITV, such as this, that, and this.

    
    

21. If you could convince just one theistic person to abandon their beliefs, who would it be?
    
    I would think that any of the extremely high-profile evangelical ministers, with megachurch and telecommunication empires, such as Pat Robertson, Billy or Frank Graham, Paul Crouch, or Don Wildmon. These high-profile people have a lot of influence, and if convinced that they were wrong, it would likely be sensationalistic, and they'd write books and do TV interviews detailing unpleasant things about their religious organization's past, and dirty secrets about their former colleagues in the evangelical megachurch/multimedia empire community. This would sour a lot of evangelicals and make them seek new churches or at least question their faith. Questioning one's own faith is simply introspection -- and introspection is good.
    

---

Well, that's all the questions I found today. The following links are where I got most of them. I eliminated duplicate questions from the lists on these pages when compiling, and re-worded some of the questions into better English.

• http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=134938
  
• http://www.videokit.org/2008/10/07/quick-atheist-survey/
  
• http://theballoonman.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/12-questions-for-atheists/
  
• http://dotherightthing-cyberpastor.blogspot.com/2008/04/4-questions-for-atheists.html
  
• http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2008/06/questions-for-atheists.html
  

McCain's connection to a terrorist

The McCain campaign is trying to out Barack Obama's alleged ties to William Ayers, and there has been quite a lot of reports from various newspapers on Ayers, but the bottom line is that the connection he has to Obama is so thin that it doesn't merit investigation. Essentially, the relationship is sort of like you and your co-worker, who you'd occaisionally meet on the way to the water cooler, or at official company functions. They were merely both working for the same board of the Woods Fund of Chicago. That's about it.

Now, if people wanted a REAL juicy story about shady conenctions to a terrorist, why not go after John McCain's self-described "Old Friend", G. Gordon Liddy? Remember him? People's memories are a bit foggy, so let me give you some simple facts about Liddy, in my usual heavily-hyper-linked research.

1. Liddy served four and a half years in prison in connection with his conviction for his role in the Watergate break-in and the break-in at the office of the psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, the military analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers.
   
   
2. Liddy has acknowledged preparing to kill someone during the Ellsberg break-in "if necessary".
   
   
3. At CRP (The Committee to Re-Elect the President, appropriately nicknamed "CReeP"), Liddy concocted several plots, some far-fetched, intended to embarrass the Democratic opposition. These included firebombing the Brookings Institution in Washingon, D.C., where classified documents leaked by Daniel Ellsberg were being stored.
   
   
4. He plotted to murder journalist Jack Anderson.
   
   
5. He plotted with a "gangland figure" to murder E. Howard Hunt to stop him from cooperating with investigators.
   
   
6. He plotted to kidnap anti-Vietnam war protestors at the 1972 Republican National Convention -- a plan he outlined to the Nixon administration using terminology borrowed from the Nazis.
   
   
7. During the 1990s, Liddy reportedly instructed his radio audience on multiple occasions on how to shoot Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents and also reportedly said he had named his shooting targets after Bill and Hillary Clinton.
   
   
8. Liddy has donated $5,000 to McCain's campaigns since 1998, including $1,000 in February 2008.
   
   
9. In addition, McCain has appeared on Liddy's radio show during the presidential campaign, including as recently as May.
   
   
10. An online video labeled "John McCain On The G. Gordon Liddy Show 11/8/07" includes a discussion between Liddy and McCain, whom Liddy described as an "old friend."
    
    
11. During the segment, McCain praised Liddy's "adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great," said he was "proud" of Liddy, and said that "it's always a pleasure for me to come on your program."
    
    
12. Additionally, in 1998, Liddy reportedly held a fundraiser at his home for McCain. Liddy was reportedly scheduled to speak at another fundraiser for McCain in 2000.
    
    
13. The Charlotte Observer reported on January 23, 2000, that McCain's campaign vouched for Liddy's "character":
    

    
    His [McCain's] campaign officials said Liddy's character will appeal to many voters because he was following orders from President Nixon and kept silent afterward.
    
    "His (Liddy's) judgment might be in question, but I don't think his character is," said Ed Walker, the York County chairman of McCain's campaign. "He was following orders just like any good soldier, and he didn't tell on anybody. He felt like he was on a mission and kept his silence."
    

    
    

I think that McCain's connection to a creep like Liddy should be far more of a concern for Americans than a pretty much non-existant connection to a former terrorist. Remember, Liddy was plotting terrorist actions as a part of secret government responses to critics and a blatant attempt by Richard Nixon to supress voters and steal the election. This is a guy we're asked to be proud of, and to honor as a good soldier who did his job. Sorry -- McCain is a soldier who did his job. Liddy was just a hired thug working to help a president break laws and undermine the constitution.

Nuff Said?

How specific are Biblical End-Times Predictions?

Okay, once again, I saw another ridiculous attempt by an Evangelical to proclaim that we're living in the end times. You know, I see this kind of stuff all the time, and it's always posted by an idiot who doesn't know Jack or shit about history.

Here is a text version of what the usual claims are:

In the end times, there will be...
(1) people Claiming to be spiritual leaders
(2) Persecution of Christians
(3) Wars and Unrest
(4) Earthquakes
(5) Rise in Law-breaking
(6) Famines
(7) Diseases
(8) lack of sincere Love
(9) Sun and Moon darkened
(10) Stars falling
(11) Gospel preached around the world
(12) Jesus returns...

So I have some questione for all the Evangelicals out there who trully believe that the current time is the end times. These are all easy questions, but I'm willing to bet that nobody can answer them. Here goes:

1. Can you name one single year or decade in the last 2000 years when people haven't claimed to be great spiritual leaders?
   
2. Can you name one single year or decade in the last 2000 years when there was no perceived persecution of Christians.
   
3. Can you name one single year or decade in the last 2000 years when there were no Wars and Unrest.
   
4. Can you name one single year or decade in the last 2000 years when there were no Earthquakes.
   
5. Can you name one single year or decade in the last 2000 years when there were no people perceiving a rise in Law-breaking.
   
6. Can you name one single year or decade in the last 2000 years when there were no Famines.
   
7. Can you name one single year or decade in the last 2000 years when there were no Diseases.
   
8. Can you name one single year or decade in the last 2000 years when people were not perceiving a lack of sincere Love on the part of other people.
   
9. Can you name one single year or decade in the last 2000 years when the Sun and Moon were darkened (I'm assuming this is about eclipses, which happen nearly every year).
   
10. Can you name one single year or decade in the last 2000 years when there were no Stars falling (Meteorites, novae, comets, etc)
    
11. Can you name one single year or decade in the last 2000 years when there were the Gospel was not preached around the world.
    
12. Finally, is there one single year or decade in the last 2000 years, when any one of the above 11 conditions was not happening?
    

I can prove to all of you, by simple historical facts that anyone can look up on the web, that all of the above questions must be answered with "No." in order for you to be honest and consistant with history. Anyone who claims any answer other than "no" is cordially invited to prove me wrong. If anyone can prove me wrong, I will post a mesage to that effect, proclaiming that I was wrong, and acknowledging that you beat me.

The only rule will be that you can't win by listing a year for which not much was written about. In other words, if you pick a year, and there literally is almost no history written about that year, it doesn't count. You will need to establish your claim as a searchable historical fact, such as on Wikipedia or another reliable source, and you must post the link.

Sarah Palin Debates someone else...

I'm seriously disappointed in the Vice Presidential Debate of October 2nd, 2008. Yeah, I'm disappointed that Sarah palin did not give us more vapid moments, as she's given us for the last month or so. Keith Oberman of MSNBC has a collection of her most vapid moments Here. Check them out, as they give you a comprehensive idea of just what a dumbass she really is. I'm disappointed that she just stood there with her beauty-contest vapid smile glued to her face, as though this were just another chance to charm a bunch of men who see her as a piece of meat. I'm disappointed that she didn't answer a damn question that she was asked -- yeah, in a way I'm disappointed that she didn't do a good job of actually debating, and that she didn't surprise me. I mean, every question she was asked was given a patented pre-written-and-memorized talking-points answer, just as though she spend the last few nights cramming and memorizing a bunch of specific answers that her handlers have been writing for her. It sounded just like that, too -- not spontaneous at all, just like a kid in grammar school blurting out a memorized paragraph.

The only thing that had me laughing was her yokel way of speaking, like I was watching Margie Gunderson from the Cohen Brothers movie, Fargo. All the "Yah. You Betcha" and "gosh darn" was so quaint that it made her appear to completely lack any sense of modernity. She was like June Cleaver on prosac, only without brains (June Cleaver was actually a well-educated, smart character).

What I was disappointed about was on so many levels that I can't pick just one. I mean, I wanted to see her either have a mental meltdown and look like a dumbass, or I wanted to see her suddenly, and uncharacteristicly actually be sharp and incisive, but what we got was less than either extreme. I could feel Biden's frustration as she just kept saying what sounded like the same 3 or 4 paragraphs over and over again, never actually answering any questions, as though she was oblivious to what was being asked. I kept wanting him to jump out of his character and say "Are you going to answer any of these questions, or what? I kept wanting to see him pulling his hair out, like I was about to do, every time I heard her piercing voice saying "Maverick... Maverick... Maverick".

After the debate was hilarious. Right wing bloggers, media pundits, and others, proclaimed that "she held her own", and actually said that her debating skills were great, "because she successfully avoided answering the questions she didn't want to answer." Since when is not answering the questions you're asked in a debate a sign of strength?! Pat Buchanan, sexist as ever, on Keith Oberman's show, commented that she won because of her good looks and smile. Yeah, that's pretty much what he said. It's hard to believe that American political debates have become so vapid, provincial, and just plain dumb. It was embarrasing watcing a debate between a college educated long-time US Senator, who is respected by many world leaders whom he has met, and a college drop-out who has been hastily groomed and propped up like a new Barbie doll, completely unprepared, completely outclassed, and completely incompetent. Who would even consider pairing such an uneven match? Oh, yeah... I just remembered. Most viewers are dumber than Palin, and wouldn't know that she evaded any questions if they had it pointed out to them. Oh, well... I doubt that Palin has helped McCain's campaign at all. He will lose. Perhaps he wants to lose, because he can't bear the pressure from his party anymore, and he's just sick of it all. Perhaps he chose Palin because he knew she'd prevent him from winning. Let's wait and see!

The Top Ten Signs that your Church is Insane

I know, this is very short, and probably not too humorous, but it had to be done, as the idea has been in my head for a while...

1. They preach the end of the world is nigh.
   
2. They tell you that just thinking about sin is just as bad as committing it.
   
3. They preach that creationism is science while evolution isn't
   
4. They preach that women shouldn't have leadership positions over men.
   
5. They tell you to home school your kids
   
6. They tell you that you may need to move to a safer town, usually in another state, to avoid the next war.
   
7. They tell you who you should vote for.
   
8. They speak in tongues.
   
9. They handle poisonous snakes, drink poison, etc.
   
10. Your Pastor proclaims that he's the second coming of Christ.