Why do I suspect that you spent the entire day reading the Lego bible. I used tremendous force of will to stop. But you, you might need a program or something.
There was a movie dramatizing this (not just this, but it included this sequence) taking place in sub-Saharan Africa, but, I can't remember what it's called.
NTM he left out "of mice and men". I don't see how you could forget "gang aft agley" if once you knew it; it's rather distinctive (I would havfe expected "awry" as a mistake, too).
Galactic Overlord Xenu: probably non-existent. Crazy middle-easterns who practice auto-circumcision as social bonding/prelude to massacre: entirely likely.
Ah, but the God who commands auto-circumcision and massacre: probably non-existent.
I don't think we're talking about the same thing. All I'm saying is what I've been saying: that Christianity is creepy too, probably as creepy as Scientology.
All I'm saying is what I've been saying: that Christianity is creepy too, probably as creepy as Scientology.
No, Kriston, what you are saying is that you are a heathen who fears not the firey hell-demons that will consume you in the Afterlife.
FWIW, I've heard at least a few priests say that it is not necessary to believe in the literal truth of the Bible to be a Christian. (And apparently there is one near me that says that it is all clearly hokum and we should admit it to preserve the Church; but that actually creeps me out.)
You'd still be hard pressed to find a sizable Christian denomination that acts as strangely as the Church of Scientology. Strange as the Bible may be, at least they give you the book from the start.
FWIW, I've heard at least a few priests say that it is not necessary to believe in the literal truth of the Bible to be a Christian.
This is not just a few priests -- I believe that it's either official Catholic doctrine, or at least what basically all Catholics believe. Most Protestants too. Biblical literalists are a very particular group of Christians, neither the majority not the mainstream.
I should make the Old/New Testament distinction. My understanding is that it's fairly mainstream Christian to regard the New Testament as accurate, miracles and all, even if not necessarily perfectly inerrant, but only particular groups of fundamentalist Protestants think of the Old Testament as inerrant.
Christianity has certainly become more flexible on the question of the Bible's literal truth over 2,000 years; frankly, I think it's a testament (if you will) to the applicability of the Biblical message to the human condition that the religion has survived in spite of its bogus material. I suppose Scientology is able to maintain a high noise-to-signal ratio as it were by requiring its adherents to be brainwashed before they get to hear the good stuff.
Sorry to intrude. I usually just lurk, but I have a small point. I remember asking a religious friend about what the hell that story could possibly mean and he had an almost decent explanation: Notice that the two sons who go apeshit get passed over in the succession. Without the story, it wouldn't be clear why a younger son gets to be boss later on. So there is a strong implicit criticism of their behaviour, even if it sounds like a casual recounting. Their behaviour is at least bad enough to disqualify them from a leadership position.
Not sure if that's true, but if it is it does bring them a *bit* closer to our own sense of what is proper. And perhaps they even come out looking better in some ways. I can totally imagine George W. Bush having played exactly the same trick on a rival frat in his wild youth, but I doubt it would have hurt *his* leadership chances if the story had broken during the election.
(My apologies in advance if this turns out to be a bogus explanation.)
I'm not sure if we want to be serious or flippant about this (or possibly, we don't really care enough either way) but: I've seen a fair bit of irreverent behavior from Jesuits, and certainly they're my favorite Catholic clergy.
Nevertheless, I think the Church is doctrinally reasonably clear about the Bible.
... since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.
Which is to say, reasonably clear that it wants to leave some wiggle room:
However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.
(Have you noticed the Vatican has one rockin' homepage btw?)
Protestants, your mileage may vary. Individual Biblical interpretation licensed but incorrect interpretation may subject you to stoning or exile from the colony.
47 to 45. 46: isn't there a lot of to-do about how the OT isn't to be taken literally, because the new Covenant overturned parts of the old one? Does this vary from sect to sect?
Is infinite size the perfection of the divine cock? Might the perfection of the divine cock not be a finite size (maybe, say 42 light-years long)? And if god's cock is infinitely big, is there room for the rest of god? (In addition to these serious questions, there's an angels/head joke in here somewhere.)
My thesis gains credibility when we reflect that perfect means complete. God's penis completely fills whomever he's with, just right, neither more nor less.
This brings to mind serious theological questions, of which I am woefully unprepared to address. It seems that the "god is perfect" school stems from "god is infallible" and perhaps other interpretations of the bible. However, if one comes to a belief in god through a variation of belief in Intelligent Design (not uncommon, I think) then I don't see any reason to assume perfection or infallibility. Which actually seems more compelling, because this is intuitively not the Best of All Possible Worlds, or Ogged's mom would call more often.
63: Hume runs something like that argument against the Argument from Design in Dialogues concerning Natural Religion--if we can conclude by an analogy with artifacts that the universe had a maker, shouldn't we conclude by analogy with makers of artifacts that the maker was a committee? And imperfect? Etc.
Given the social anxiety that attends commenting here, I should be clear that I'm not *displeased* with the attempts to be funny, given that a surprising number of them are successful, and make me laugh out loud--it's just that my sense of what's not funny (eg, Michael), has been honed to a fine edge.
"An O'Connor resignation was not one we took seriously," said C. Boyden Gray.... It makes me nervous," he said. "I'm not sure we are as prepared for an O'Connor vacancy."
"as prepared" suggests Gray thinks whoever they had lined up for Rehnquist's slot (or Scalia's, assuming he became CJ on Rehnquist's retirement) or Stevens's seems somehow unsuitable for O'Connor's. Why? Because it's not a woman? Or because it's not a moderate?
No, it means the talking points they'd mass mailed to Drudge and Fox News were about why the liberals were evil for blocking the Chief Justices replacement, not an Associate Justices.
Slol Erner - I thought there was a wide consensus that Antonin wasn't going to be appointed Chief, since it means two confirmation processes.
No, it means the talking points they'd mass mailed to Drudge and Fox News were about why the liberals were evil for blocking the Chief Justices replacement, not an Associate Justices.
Heh. Well, that's why I'm slo. And further on that point, I suppose there's nothing the WH thinks it can't do, so why not two confirmation hearings, so long as it's remaking the world in its image?
This is an authentic question--since the first wave of appointments (Powell, Whitman, etc.), has Bush nominated any moderate for any high-profile post? Danforth, maybe? "Not a woman" I could see.
Actually, I guess I count Ridge as a moderate. Incompetent, but a moderate Republican. But I think there's no worry that these guys have any moderates on their short or extra-long list. (From what I hear Michael McConnell might be a reasonable choice--conservative but actually principled. I'm predisposed in his favor because he's a former colleague of former colleagues who seem to think he's OK.)
How seriously should we take the campaign to overturn cases like Wickard v. Filburn -- the ones that gave Congress the power to pass New Deal legislation and federal business regulations (like, say, minimum wage)? Is that really possible? Can anyone tell me?
Too busy to reply in substance, and I don't have much of an informed response other than "Geez. I don't think so, that'd be crazy." Idealist is one of those people, a Federalist Society member and all that, so he would know better than I would.
79. I think the WH would like to see itself as omnipotent ('gotta lotta political capital to spend', etc.) but also likes to win. Sometimes these two wishes come into conflict. The draggy Bolton nomination proved an unpleasant surprise (more so since really, who cares who's the UN ambassador?) and so, we're led to believe, was the filibuster 'deal'. Under such circumstances, the WH might prefer to get someone through quickly rather than put forward the justicial equivalent of John Bolton.
Joe D, don't you think Bush/Rove would only appoint someone they thought likely to do that if they expected the Democrats to return to power anytime soon. Otherwise, they'd be doing something that would limit their power, and that's as anathema to them as anything could be.
Is your fleshly rod the wrong dong for the job? Then look no further than God's plenary johnson—as if you could! It's the be-all, the end-all, the one size fits all. Whether you're hankering for a mighty axis mundi, or a holy pole to raise a big, ecumenical tent, the Lord God of Hosts has the unit for you.
We return now to our regularly-scheduled handwringing, already in progress.
Apropos of nothing, I note that in the Soundgarden song "The Hand of God" we are informed
The Hand of God
Has Got a Ring About the Size of Texas
Working from this as our starting point, I think we can assume that the wang of God is approximately the size of the earth. The peehole of God is probably about the size of New Jersey.
I wonder if it has yet been addressed in Christian theology whether God was at least considerate enough to make Jesus look like Joseph, to avoid embarassing questions.
There's a great Joe Frank show that I wish were free online so I could tell you to listen to it, in which Joseph reflects on having been cuckolded. He knew his wife was a social climber, but with God?
I'm pretty sure the reason Mary came up with the "God done it" story was that she had a strong premonition that Jesus wouldn't bear much resemblance to Joseph.
Why do I suspect that you spent the entire day reading the Lego bible. I used tremendous force of will to stop. But you, you might need a program or something.
Posted by benton | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 2:57 PM
Believe it or not, I didn't. But I did go for the gory bits.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 2:58 PM
But, the parts of the bible that match our common sense intuitions about morality have much to teach us.
Posted by joe o | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 3:06 PM
Awesome, joe o.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 3:06 PM
Heh. Indeed.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 3:14 PM
There was a movie dramatizing this (not just this, but it included this sequence) taking place in sub-Saharan Africa, but, I can't remember what it's called.
I can remember that I thought it was good.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 3:14 PM
You know, I really need to meet more (and more annoying) Christians; I feel like I'm missing out on the authentic American experience.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 3:15 PM
The best-flayed glans gang oft astray.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 3:23 PM
Checl out Jay Pinkerton's "Back of the Bible." It'll make you plotz.
http://www.jaypinkerton.com/backofthebible.html
Posted by Ted Barlow | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 3:26 PM
you know, I've read Genesis, and I don't remember this at all. I may need to go back and review.
Posted by mike d | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 3:26 PM
Yikes. I need to bone up on my Burns.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 3:27 PM
You mean agley/astray? Meh, no one remembers that.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 3:31 PM
I would have spelled it "aglee." Which would have been worse on many levels.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 3:38 PM
NTM he left out "of mice and men". I don't see how you could forget "gang aft agley" if once you knew it; it's rather distinctive (I would havfe expected "awry" as a mistake, too).
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 3:38 PM
I left out "of mice and men" deliberately, since I couldn't adapt it well enough to the circumcision theme.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 3:39 PM
But now I'm imagining Andy Kaufmann lip-synching to the theme song from "Mohel Mouse".
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 3:41 PM
Don't buy the gribenes from Lefty the Mohel, SB.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 3:49 PM
Qui wolfsoniet ipsos wolfsones?
It's "o' Mice an' Men". Those elisions? Distinctive.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 3:51 PM
Sorry, Ben. That came out pettier than I intended.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 3:55 PM
See what I'm saying? Sort of makes Galactic Overlord Xenu sound downright reasonable.
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 4:08 PM
Dude, look at the middle-east today; do you really doubt shit this crazy could have happened three thousand years ago?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 4:09 PM
Huh? Of course. I'm just saying, see, Christianity is fucking weird, too. For every Tom Cruise, a Mel Gibson.
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 4:27 PM
Galactic Overlord Xenu: probably non-existent. Crazy middle-easterns who practice auto-circumcision as social bonding/prelude to massacre: entirely likely.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 4:29 PM
Ah, but the God who commands auto-circumcision and massacre: probably non-existent.
I don't think we're talking about the same thing. All I'm saying is what I've been saying: that Christianity is creepy too, probably as creepy as Scientology.
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 4:41 PM
People are creepy. Religion is a symptom, not the disease.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 4:46 PM
Sayeth King God Bridgeplate. Yummmmmm.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 4:47 PM
Point taken, K-man.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 4:48 PM
All I'm saying is what I've been saying: that Christianity is creepy too, probably as creepy as Scientology.
Kushner, Angels in America, 1992
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 4:53 PM
All I'm saying is what I've been saying: that Christianity is creepy too, probably as creepy as Scientology.
No, Kriston, what you are saying is that you are a heathen who fears not the firey hell-demons that will consume you in the Afterlife.
FWIW, I've heard at least a few priests say that it is not necessary to believe in the literal truth of the Bible to be a Christian. (And apparently there is one near me that says that it is all clearly hokum and we should admit it to preserve the Church; but that actually creeps me out.)
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 4:56 PM
You'd still be hard pressed to find a sizable Christian denomination that acts as strangely as the Church of Scientology. Strange as the Bible may be, at least they give you the book from the start.
Posted by Ramar | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 4:56 PM
FWIW, I've heard at least a few priests say that it is not necessary to believe in the literal truth of the Bible to be a Christian.
This is not just a few priests -- I believe that it's either official Catholic doctrine, or at least what basically all Catholics believe. Most Protestants too. Biblical literalists are a very particular group of Christians, neither the majority not the mainstream.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 5:26 PM
Yup. I'm pretty sure the Jesuits don't think it's literally true.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 5:28 PM
I should make the Old/New Testament distinction. My understanding is that it's fairly mainstream Christian to regard the New Testament as accurate, miracles and all, even if not necessarily perfectly inerrant, but only particular groups of fundamentalist Protestants think of the Old Testament as inerrant.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 5:29 PM
Qui wolfsoniet ipsos wolfsones?
That should be "quis".
Posted by bza | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 6:27 PM
wolfsono, wolfsonere, wolfsoni, wolfsonus.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 6:47 PM
The movie I was thinking of is La Genèse.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 8:16 PM
Christianity has certainly become more flexible on the question of the Bible's literal truth over 2,000 years; frankly, I think it's a testament (if you will) to the applicability of the Biblical message to the human condition that the religion has survived in spite of its bogus material. I suppose Scientology is able to maintain a high noise-to-signal ratio as it were by requiring its adherents to be brainwashed before they get to hear the good stuff.
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 9:32 PM
"Mainly because Jews haven't gotten in my face about what an awesome book they've got."
It was never clear to me that God was a terribly nice dude, myself.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 10:03 PM
I'm pretty sure the Jesuits don't think it's literally true.
c'mon. Jesuits are all closet atheists.
As for my take on the larger issue of abu-Labs's post, I think it just a scheme by god to make sure no one had a bigger dick.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 11:47 PM
Bigger than what or whom?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 7:23 AM
Sorry to intrude. I usually just lurk, but I have a small point. I remember asking a religious friend about what the hell that story could possibly mean and he had an almost decent explanation: Notice that the two sons who go apeshit get passed over in the succession. Without the story, it wouldn't be clear why a younger son gets to be boss later on. So there is a strong implicit criticism of their behaviour, even if it sounds like a casual recounting. Their behaviour is at least bad enough to disqualify them from a leadership position.
Not sure if that's true, but if it is it does bring them a *bit* closer to our own sense of what is proper. And perhaps they even come out looking better in some ways. I can totally imagine George W. Bush having played exactly the same trick on a rival frat in his wild youth, but I doubt it would have hurt *his* leadership chances if the story had broken during the election.
(My apologies in advance if this turns out to be a bogus explanation.)
Posted by Chris | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 8:26 AM
Good point, Chris.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 8:38 AM
Yeah, and commenting ≠ intruding.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 8:45 AM
40.
bigger than God's, of course.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 8:48 AM
But by definition, God has a perfectly sized dick. I am going to hell.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 8:56 AM
I'm not sure if we want to be serious or flippant about this (or possibly, we don't really care enough either way) but: I've seen a fair bit of irreverent behavior from Jesuits, and certainly they're my favorite Catholic clergy.
Nevertheless, I think the Church is doctrinally reasonably clear about the Bible.
Which is to say, reasonably clear that it wants to leave some wiggle room:
Whole thing here.
(Have you noticed the Vatican has one rockin' homepage btw?)
Protestants, your mileage may vary. Individual Biblical interpretation licensed but incorrect interpretation may subject you to stoning or exile from the colony.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 8:58 AM
Than which no bigger can be conceived. Save me a seat.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 8:58 AM
47 to 45. 46: isn't there a lot of to-do about how the OT isn't to be taken literally, because the new Covenant overturned parts of the old one? Does this vary from sect to sect?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 9:00 AM
Is infinite size the perfection of the divine cock? Might the perfection of the divine cock not be a finite size (maybe, say 42 light-years long)? And if god's cock is infinitely big, is there room for the rest of god? (In addition to these serious questions, there's an angels/head joke in here somewhere.)
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 9:03 AM
A perfectly sized dick isn't one than which no bigger can be conceived, Weiner.
I think god's dick is all things to all women, and changes shape to be just right depending on whom he's boning.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 9:04 AM
W/d No, no, he's insecure, loves compliments. You'll probably become his "bitch". There's a place for you, too, Matt.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 9:05 AM
My thesis gains credibility when we reflect that perfect means complete. God's penis completely fills whomever he's with, just right, neither more nor less.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 9:07 AM
Yes, while God's cock may be finite, God's sexual prowess is surely infinite.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 9:07 AM
there's an angels/head joke in here somewhere.)
How many angels can work on the God head before one of them has to move to the balls?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 9:08 AM
That's not it.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 9:08 AM
God's sexual prowess is surely infinite.
Ergo, praying is like your friend calling you during sex?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 9:09 AM
wait, 56 doesn't make sense. 56 doesn't make sense!!
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 9:10 AM
56: Who's having it? You or your friend? Or both? With each other? That's a true symbol of modern alienation.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 9:10 AM
Ogged, why must you be such a little bitch?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 9:11 AM
While I can't be certain, I'm confident it has something to do with the fact that I read about 200 attempts to be funny every day.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 9:13 AM
1... 2... 3...
AWWWWW.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 9:14 AM
God has a perfectly sized dick.
God is omnipudent.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 9:15 AM
This brings to mind serious theological questions, of which I am woefully unprepared to address. It seems that the "god is perfect" school stems from "god is infallible" and perhaps other interpretations of the bible. However, if one comes to a belief in god through a variation of belief in Intelligent Design (not uncommon, I think) then I don't see any reason to assume perfection or infallibility. Which actually seems more compelling, because this is intuitively not the Best of All Possible Worlds, or Ogged's mom would call more often.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 9:17 AM
Do you think His cup runneth over, then?
ATTEMPT 178 and it's not even noon!
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 9:19 AM
63: Hume runs something like that argument against the Argument from Design in Dialogues concerning Natural Religion--if we can conclude by an analogy with artifacts that the universe had a maker, shouldn't we conclude by analogy with makers of artifacts that the maker was a committee? And imperfect? Etc.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 9:20 AM
thanks, matt!
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 9:21 AM
Given the social anxiety that attends commenting here, I should be clear that I'm not *displeased* with the attempts to be funny, given that a surprising number of them are successful, and make me laugh out loud--it's just that my sense of what's not funny (eg, Michael), has been honed to a fine edge.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 9:22 AM
what's not funny (eg, Michael)
Tout court? That's cold, man, cold.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 9:24 AM
I thought that "god is perfect" had more to do with finality and platonism than infallibility.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 9:24 AM
Unfunny is my online persona. In person, I'm hilarious.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 9:28 AM
Your online persona contains both Unf and Unny? Interesting.
So is everyone else sitting around quietly freaking out about Sandra Day O'Connor being a Justice no more?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 9:34 AM
Freaking out? Why, just because the country's fucked for the next thirty years?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 9:37 AM
So, can God have an erection so large that even he can't lift it?
God has a perfectly sized dick
I don't know that Dobson is perfectly sized, but eye of the beholder and all that.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 9:39 AM
I worry that Dems are going to support a "Torture Memo" Gonzales nomination. Which would be as cynical an act as I can imagine without more coffee.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 9:40 AM
I say it's John Cornyn, for maximum soulless evil.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 9:45 AM
I think this is interesting:
"as prepared" suggests Gray thinks whoever they had lined up for Rehnquist's slot (or Scalia's, assuming he became CJ on Rehnquist's retirement) or Stevens's seems somehow unsuitable for O'Connor's. Why? Because it's not a woman? Or because it's not a moderate?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 9:49 AM
No, it means the talking points they'd mass mailed to Drudge and Fox News were about why the liberals were evil for blocking the Chief Justices replacement, not an Associate Justices.
Slol Erner - I thought there was a wide consensus that Antonin wasn't going to be appointed Chief, since it means two confirmation processes.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 9:53 AM
No, it means the talking points they'd mass mailed to Drudge and Fox News were about why the liberals were evil for blocking the Chief Justices replacement, not an Associate Justices.
Heh. Well, that's why I'm slo. And further on that point, I suppose there's nothing the WH thinks it can't do, so why not two confirmation hearings, so long as it's remaking the world in its image?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 9:55 AM
This is an authentic question--since the first wave of appointments (Powell, Whitman, etc.), has Bush nominated any moderate for any high-profile post? Danforth, maybe? "Not a woman" I could see.
Actually, I guess I count Ridge as a moderate. Incompetent, but a moderate Republican. But I think there's no worry that these guys have any moderates on their short or extra-long list. (From what I hear Michael McConnell might be a reasonable choice--conservative but actually principled. I'm predisposed in his favor because he's a former colleague of former colleagues who seem to think he's OK.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 9:58 AM
Well, drat.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 10:00 AM
How seriously should we take the campaign to overturn cases like Wickard v. Filburn -- the ones that gave Congress the power to pass New Deal legislation and federal business regulations (like, say, minimum wage)? Is that really possible? Can anyone tell me?
LB, I'm looking at you.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 10:00 AM
More here
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 10:02 AM
Too busy to reply in substance, and I don't have much of an informed response other than "Geez. I don't think so, that'd be crazy." Idealist is one of those people, a Federalist Society member and all that, so he would know better than I would.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 10:05 AM
79. I think the WH would like to see itself as omnipotent ('gotta lotta political capital to spend', etc.) but also likes to win. Sometimes these two wishes come into conflict. The draggy Bolton nomination proved an unpleasant surprise (more so since really, who cares who's the UN ambassador?) and so, we're led to believe, was the filibuster 'deal'. Under such circumstances, the WH might prefer to get someone through quickly rather than put forward the justicial equivalent of John Bolton.
Or possibly, my name is Pollyanna.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 10:10 AM
Joe D, don't you think Bush/Rove would only appoint someone they thought likely to do that if they expected the Democrats to return to power anytime soon. Otherwise, they'd be doing something that would limit their power, and that's as anathema to them as anything could be.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 10:12 AM
The country would be great if we just returned to the glory days of the 90's. The 1890's.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 10:14 AM
w/d, excellent point.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 10:14 AM
Is your fleshly rod the wrong dong for the job? Then look no further than God's plenary johnson—as if you could! It's the be-all, the end-all, the one size fits all. Whether you're hankering for a mighty axis mundi, or a holy pole to raise a big, ecumenical tent, the Lord God of Hosts has the unit for you.
We return now to our regularly-scheduled handwringing, already in progress.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 10:31 AM
Yglesias is all over this.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 10:32 AM
But, the parts of the bible that match our common sense intuitions about morality have much to teach us.
Um, it should be noted that the Shechem incident is not portrayed in the Bible as a good thing. See verses 5 to 7 here.
Posted by JP | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 12:21 PM
Apropos of nothing, I note that in the Soundgarden song "The Hand of God" we are informed
The Hand of God
Has Got a Ring About the Size of Texas
Working from this as our starting point, I think we can assume that the wang of God is approximately the size of the earth. The peehole of God is probably about the size of New Jersey.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 3:20 PM
My thesis gains credibility when we reflect that perfect means complete.
So you think God's not circumcised then?
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 07- 3-05 9:23 PM
Why would god be circumcised? That makes no sense. He doesn't need to covenant with himself.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07- 3-05 9:28 PM
But the sons of Jacob seemed to be upset not so much that their sister was raped, but that it was done by one of them uncircumcised dudes.
So if God is uncircumcised, then how are supposed to feel about that whole Mary incident?
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 07- 3-05 9:39 PM
How'd Mary feel about it?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07- 3-05 9:43 PM
Joseph wasn't circumcised?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07- 3-05 9:44 PM
I wonder if it has yet been addressed in Christian theology whether God was at least considerate enough to make Jesus look like Joseph, to avoid embarassing questions.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07- 3-05 9:46 PM
There's a great Joe Frank show that I wish were free online so I could tell you to listen to it, in which Joseph reflects on having been cuckolded. He knew his wife was a social climber, but with God?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07- 3-05 9:51 PM
I'm pretty sure the reason Mary came up with the "God done it" story was that she had a strong premonition that Jesus wouldn't bear much resemblance to Joseph.
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 07- 3-05 9:53 PM
100!
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 07- 4-05 9:43 AM
Aren't you glad we have timestamps?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07- 4-05 9:48 AM