Segue

The most interesting thing about blogging, to me at least, is that unless you are devoting a post to a single topic -- such as the vast strides the Christianists have made in the biological sciences -- you're never quite sure where things are going to lead. With that in mind. . . .

Beginning to See the Light:

This commentary from a correspondent at Andrew Sullivan gives me some hope:

But there is one great dividing line here, between you and me on one side, and BushWmilitia0410 and his cohort (and the Christianists and the Islamists and the scientific reductionists, and all the other -ists) on the other: the humility of a faith based on love, with its attendant qualities of acceptance, inclusion and non-violence, and the arrogance of a faith based on fear, with its attendant qualities of judgment, exclusion and, inevitably, violence.

It's mostly about Iraq and what a mess it has been from its inception, but I found the section quoted very interesting.

Particularly in light of this news:

The Wave of the Future:

From WaPo:

The once-mighty Christian Coalition, founded 17 years ago by the Rev. Pat Robertson as the political fundraising and lobbying engine of the Christian right, is more than $2 million in debt, beset by creditors' lawsuits and struggling to hold on to some of its state chapters.

It seems that the organization's close identification with Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed, two tarnished angels at this point, was a real problem. And then there was its Voter's Guide.

After years of battling the IRS, the Christian Coalition reached a settlement a year ago that secures its status as a tax-exempt 501(c)(4) lobbying and educational institution.

But the settlement requires the Christian Coalition to allow candidates to write up to 25 words of explanation on each issue in the voter guides. In the past, the guides listed topics such as "unrestricted abortion on demand" or "adoption of children by homosexuals" and described the candidates' positions simply as "supports" or "opposes."

It's so much easier when you can mislead people without being accountable for it.

Duh?

This is one of those things that just stops me cold. From a story on an effective protest by the gay community in Philadelphia against an owner of a "gay-friendly" business who supports the Man-on-Dog Boy:

Gym officials noted at the time that Guzzardi was giving his own personal money

And where does anyone think his "own personal money" comes from?

And, since we're edging back into gay territory:

Feingold '08:

This column from Wayne Besen makes a lot of sense to me. The first comment just boils it all down into a comprehensible package (note to Wayne Besen: Brevity is the soul of wit):

When someone asks what Senator Feingold stands for it's there: Integrity even when it hurts; community because that means all of us - yes, even a place for the wingnuts, you gotta love 'em when they're where they ought to be, away from blunt objects and power switches, and told to be quiet when they get the least bit annoying; the American dream - being the envy of the world because we are creating a brighter future.

Remember when that was the promise of this country? Well, it's not too late. We will get there from being pragmatic, but not calculating, and from being true to our principles and never demeaning.

And maybe this is at least part of the answer to Scoot's little bit of nostalgia.

It's like I've said before. If it's going to happen, that means somebody has to do it.

This site is now officially endorsing Russell Feingold for president. And if there are any Democrats left who have any sort of balls, they're welcome to join us.