Thank You Senators Webb, Dorgan & Reed
by jhwygirl
These three guys are presiding over the Senate while the rest of ’em are taking a much needed rest.
Our own Senator Tester, though, is still at it – the man knows no rest it seems – having spent last Monday up on the border meeting with U.S. Customs and Border Protection
The three Senators above – Webb, Dorgan & Reed – are taking time away from their families in the name of – as Senator Webb (D-VA) put it – “an exercise of protecting the Constitution and our constitutional processes.”
This is because Bush had notified Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) that he intended to fill some appointments during the Senate recess.
Recess appointments are a favorite of George Jr. – he’s made 167 of them, notable amongst them the controversial John Bolton, as U.S. representative to the United Nations. Bolton had faced a successful filibuster in the Senate due to allegations of his use – and abuse – of wiretappings of U.S. citizens. The Bush Administration backed up his man by refusing to release documents related to said wiretaps.
Bolton was put into place during the summer recess of August 2005. He resigned in December 2006, just before the swearing in of the new congress – when he would have had to face the new Senate for confirmation.
This time around, it is assumed the objet d’affection is Dr. James Holsinger, Bush’s nominee for the post of Surgeon General. Holsinger was nominated back in May, but it seems time hasn’t been right to bring the nomination forward. It won’t be. Holsinger is a homophobic nutcase who founded a church that ministers to people who no longer wish to be gay.
Wonder how they were recruited for that position? Ye-shall-burn-in-hell preaching abilities? Bet those guys and gals were at the top of that game.
Has he tried out his ministry on Mary Cheney yet?
These pro forma sessions may look silly – a lone Senator and 4 or 5 staff, sitting before an empty Senate floor, opening and closing the Senate in the space of less than 30 seconds – but they are important to protecting our constitutional process. They’re also important in protecting us from nutcases like Dr. James Holsinger.
Thank you Senator James Webb, Senator Byron Dorgan, Senator Jack Reed. You are appreciated.
Recent Comments
Miles on A New Shelter for Vets or an E… success rate for In… on Thirty years ago ARCO killed A… Warrior for the Lord on The Dark Side of Colorado Linda Kelley-Miller on The Dark Side of Colorado Dan on A New Shelter for Vets or an E… Former Prosecutor Se… on Former Chief Deputy County Att… JediPeaceFrog on Montana AG Tim Fox and US Rep.…
4&20 blackbirds 
November 24, 2007 at 6:45 pm
“…a church that ministers to people who no longer wish to be gay”
Well, what’s wrong with that?
Don’t you think “people who no longer wish to be gay” need superstitions, too?
Maybe a green prayer cloth would be just the ticket.
November 24, 2007 at 7:02 pm
I’m sure it’s part of the required penance, goof.
November 24, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Okay, and “people who no longer want to be heterosexual” probably need some “miracle water”.
I’m hooked on all the products from the BET channel’s “Weekend Inspiration”.
Now, where’s my “mojo hand”?
November 25, 2007 at 8:17 am
You’re talking to someone here who believes that the God didn’t come to us with a requirement to use 4 walls with which to believe. And something about the “he created us all” keeps me thinking that he’s pretty accepting of everyone.
But that’s just me.
November 25, 2007 at 11:04 am
“When women understand that governments and religions are human inventions; that bibles, prayer-books, catechisms, and encyclical letters are all emanations from the brain of man, they will no longer be oppressed by the injunctions that come to them with the divine authority of “thus saith the Lord.””
EC Stanton
I shouldn’t be so flippant. But when I read a poster’s preference for a nation governed by biblical law, for theocracy, and then the President actively scheming to put a man of superstition in a position of science and medicine, I get riled up and sarcastic.
“I doubt whether the people of this country would suffer an execution for heresy, or a three months’ imprisonment for not comprehending the mysteries of the Trinity. But is the spirit of the people infallible — a permanent reliance? Is it government? Is this the kind of protection we receive in return for the rights we give up? Besides, the spirit of the times may alter — will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may become persecutor, and better men become his victims.” T Jefferson
November 25, 2007 at 1:00 pm
That was kinda my point goof, albeit without the gender reference.
Maybe we disagree? I don’t believe that ‘religion’ and a ‘belief in God’ are one in the same – thus my reference to 4 walls.
God is also somewhat intangible also – others have Allah, Buddha. Even aboriginal societies have worshiped the sun, the moon, the stars. One common theme has run throughout all mankind, and that is the acknowledgment of a higher being. None of which required 4 walls – i.e., religion.
November 25, 2007 at 3:41 pm
I’d say the person who started the women’s rights movement in this country is entitled to reference gender, so I left her quote as is. She was a dastardly free thinker as you can see.
“Even aboriginal societies have worshiped the sun”
Yeah, I’d say that’s my problem, and we probably do disagree.
The post enlightenment luddism and worship of the noble primitive that infects the left is no better a moral compass, imo, than the pre enlightenment “sun worship” whatever it’s guise.
This isn’t a country founded on such things, but rather, as Jefferson said, “the light of science” and “the unbounded exercise of reason”. When he incorporated into the Declaration the Lockean idea that humans are themselves capable or morality and moral action, “just powers” as it were, he opened the door for the respect for individual rights for which this country is well hated in the monotheistic theocracies and with those who espouse them. “None are righteous, no, not one” is the proclamation of five thousand years of priests, “inimicable to liberty” as Jefferson says.
Among those individual rights, chiefly, life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Such a belief in individual self righteousness and the resulting right of self determination is antithetical to those who would espouse top down morality.
Since it’s Sunday, I hope you’ll forgive me my sermon.
November 25, 2007 at 3:45 pm
“capable OF morality” excuse my typing.
November 25, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Your equation with aboriginal or native peoples being monotheistic theocracies is incorrect, I believe.
I believe that aboriginal societies worshiped the sun, the moon, the stars, the eagle, etc. as that is where they saw what we verbalize as “God.” Aboriginal societies did not solely worship only one thing – they held an individual respect for many things, as they all played an important role in their lives.
God – as you and I might say – created it all, no?
Perhaps our focus on a man-made entity – God – is misguided? Should we not have respect for all that God created?
Or maybe it is easier to respect only one thing – God. Maybe it’s too much work to individually respect all that he created?
Are you suggesting that aboriginal peoples have no moral compass?
November 25, 2007 at 6:00 pm
The creation is NOT the Creator, at least the way I believe. Again, I doubt a tree or a rock or a rat endowed individuals with their rights.
I don’t think middle eastern nomadic savages, or any other aboriginal peoples had the respect for individual rights that the United States of America espouses.
Instead, the rights of individuals were subordinated to the tribe, and that was justified using “god” or “gods” who decreed it. “Divine rights of kings” or chiefs, or priests, or medicine men, or whatever, because individuals were incapable of “just” or “righeous” decisions.
Neither Cortez the Killer nor his victims had it right.
November 25, 2007 at 6:52 pm
We worship God as the creator. The Middle East worships Allah, others worship Buddha. All symbolize the creator, a higher being.
If less sophisticated societies worshiped the sun, the moon, etc., it was their own symbol of the creator.
The Mayans, as you cite, worshiped the sun. It symbolized life to them – thus the sacrifice of life. I’m not saying it was right, but they weren’t sacrificing people just for the sake of killing – they were doing it with a purpose. It was savage, yes – but at the time, until it affected you personally (i.e., you were the one being sacrificed), it wasn’t a problem – and even that wasn’t probably a completely true statement. There were probably many who were honored (odd, don’t you say?)
“Victim”, as you put it, is relative. That’s your view, and not necessarily the view of those involved. I only say that based on the existence of the Mayan culture over millenniums.
Chiefs, kings, Popes – how much is different about any of those? Remember, we’re talking about civilization here – not just 2007.
November 25, 2007 at 7:59 pm
I don’t think right is relative, and I don’t worship “God” as the term is commonly used, as you presume in your inclusive “we”.
From my reading and thinking I do not consider all mythologies equally moral.
I think from almost any point of view, Cortez’ victims were victims. Perhaps you thought I referred to those sacrificed as victims of their culture? I did not, but will do so now. Cultural context does not mean that cannibalism or human sacrifice is moral.
Look how far you’ve gone to argue the “noble primitive” position, justifiying human sacrifice !
The enlightenment deists certainly argued that the Creator could be seen in Nature, but not that the Creator WAS nature. They balanced the innate savagery they saw in nature with the triumph of our reason over our susperstitious, aboriginal selves. In hindsight, they were quite optimistic in their views of the progress of man, but that doesn’t mean I’m giving up. I look at the progress we’ve made in human rights since I was born mid last century, in individual rights, in civil rights, in respect for the environment and still hold onto their hope.
There is no difference in Chiefs, Kings, Popes, or Ayatollahs, witch doctors, or televangelists for that matter. They all claim a heirarchy of righteousness that is the opposite of the Declaration.
November 25, 2007 at 8:21 pm
I used the term “we” rhetorically, as the concept of me “worshiping” God would be a bit of an overstatement.
I probably did go overboard in justifying the human sacrifice of the Mayans – but I did it in the sense that you seem to fail to put cultural and historical context into the worship of higher beings.
I think that assuming that “noble primatives” believed that the Creator WAS nature is too simplistic. They were less than enlightened, certainly – but the purpose was worship of a higher being – acknowledging that something was greater then themselves. Something intangible, something that couldn’t be explained.
Are all souls condemned, those that didn’t acknowledge a Creator? That’s a hell of a lot of souls – all created by the Creator himself.
November 26, 2007 at 1:23 pm
I don’t really think there is a mind/body duality, so I’m the wrong guy to ask about soul…other than the Smokey Robinson/Alicia Keys type.
Is the Creator tangible? Interesting question. I think so, and it’s no less hard to imagine the second before the big bang than it is to imagine the attributes of a Creator, so I’m guessing that at some point the physical and the metaphysical will join as we advance our understanding of the Creation. Like the aboriginal, perhaps more like an ant, I’m unknowing of that gi-normous answer.
However, some things I have tried to puzzle out using the best minds of each sides thought. The Westminster creed would tell you that only those predestined would be saved, while most would be foreordained to fire. It was on that rock that my presbyterian childhood beliefs began to founder.
I reject the “cultural/historical” concept rationalizing what I believe is evil, for three reasons. One, it’s a good place to learn what NOT to do, the past. Second, I do believe the motion of humanity is forward, and that just maybe, the answer lies in the quest. Historically, to have faith in the metaphysical solution is to give up looking for the physical reality. Third, I do think there’s a “Natural Law” that we instinctively know, like we know “the sky is blue on this planet”. Some people don’t know the sky is blue, true, just as some don’t know that murder is evil. Doesn’t change the reality.
November 26, 2007 at 1:44 pm
“Has he tried out his ministry on Mary Cheney yet?”
Has Mary Cheney indicated any distaste or dis-satisfaction with her homosexuality?
The guy’s shtick is to cure queers who have become unhappy with their choices, I believe?
Last I heard Mary was happy with her light-in-the-loafers condition–and her Dad and Mom were supporting her choices…
November 26, 2007 at 1:52 pm
“God is also somewhat intangible also – others have Allah, Buddha.”
And all this time, I’ve been thinking Buddhists were not hooked on any deities…