Democrats & Liberals Archives

Alright, I have heard enough.

It just makes me sick to think about the long term damage that this incompetent schmuck has done to this country. You know what schmuck I am talking about. When one uses the words; “long term damage to the country” and incompetent schmuck in the same sentence there could be only one - one - well one big dolt, surrounded by a host of little dolts…

They are like a nest of cock roaches running every which way. You can stomp a lot of them but a lot of them are going to get away. It is time to stomp the big one before he breeds more. Read this: Scandal puts spotlight on Christian law school If you read the above article you will see that apparently this Christian law school has improved, surprising in itself, since anything that Pat Robertson had his filthy hands on has to be tainted, but the improvement in the school is immaterial.

The people that this Regime has hired from there are the same people that the school itself is now ashamed to admit were alumni. The worst law school in the country is ashamed of its spawn - yet they were good enough for the Bush Regime to get preferential hiring. These people, some of whom where hired because of their fagaphobic religious beliefs, will corrupt the Department of Justice with incompetence for decades to come. Of course, twisted Christian theology also underpins the views of racist white supremacists. White supremacists generally see themselves as good Christians and believe that non whites are subhuman mud people. It would not surprise me to find out that some of the incompetent Christian nutters that they have packed the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ with are of that sort. Although, I am sure that most of them are just garden variety fagaphobic Christian nancys. That does not make it better. The Civil Rights Division should be protecting the civil rights of GLBTs. To place religious views, political views, philosophy, and loyalty above credentials and qualifications in hiring civil servants is a vicious attack on this country, and has played a role in many of the failures of this regime.

Are we to believe, in a Christian nation, there exists such a dearth of good qualified Christian conservatives, that we have to continually scrape the bottom of the barrel in order to find anybody to serve. Any barmy git with the bollocks to call himself a pro Bush Christian Conservative can land a high government position these days. I am a nihilistic atheist but I think I feel a conversion coming on to fagophobic Christianity, conservatism, and Bushism. There is money to be made. Maybe I could run the Peace Corp - turn it into a faith based initiative focused on abstinence and teaching third world gay boys to want what good Christian girls can't give them... We could recruit and deploy a bunch of missionaries to teach the missionary position. That would really help the starving masses.

Posted by Ray Guest at April 8, 2007 5:20 PM
Comments
Comment #215599

Ray:

Your treatise encapsulates the utter weariness of Bush fatigue across the land—normally well-behaved, law-abiding citizens are looking malevolently at the Washington ‘in-crowd’, whether they be politicos or the corporate news spinmeisters and the think-tank gum snappers. Frankly, this internal seething is overdue. Americans are much too well behaved.

I even detect a certain prediliction towards insurrection among us, with no concern whether it is ‘constructive’or not. But maybe that’s just me, he said with a sinister laugh.

Posted by: Tim Crow at April 8, 2007 5:46 PM
Comment #215600

Ray
All Christians are not bad. The Jim Bakers, Robertsons and Oral Roberts and even sometimes Jim Dobson are the ones who give Christianity a bad rap. Don’t think we all are like the crazy few.

Posted by: KAP at April 8, 2007 5:51 PM
Comment #215601

Ray:

KAP is lying. All Christians are crazy. There’s not a redeemable one in the bunch. I know, my father was a minister. Ha, ha, ha….

Up with wicca!

Posted by: Tim Crow at April 8, 2007 5:54 PM
Comment #215605
“We’ve had great placement,” said Jay Sekulow , who heads a non profit law firm based at Regent that files lawsuits aimed at lowering barriers between church and state. “We’ve had a lot of people in key positions.”

Damn. This is scary all by itself. But no real surprise.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 8, 2007 6:28 PM
Comment #215619

Well, I try not to be a “doom-sayer” about Dominionist Theocracy in the USA, but it’s the real deal:

http://www.theocracywatch.org/

I believe that Bush’s rise to power was greatly influenced by the “religious right”, as have been many of his decisions since taking office.

I do think they’ve lost some ground in the past year or two. No more Santorum, no more Frist!

Still too many loonies.

Posted by: KansasDem at April 8, 2007 7:10 PM
Comment #215620

What is scary is the extent of the bigorty against Christianity. It is the primary religion of the United States and the a religion with about 2 billion followers worldwide. Yet you characterize this all as evil.

I know you are emotional about all this and you do not want to hear about anything Christians, but if you recall the seven deadly sins, anger is prominent among them. It tends to destroy your judgement. It is not that the angry man will go to hell; he is already there. His anger is his prison.

Obviously you have empowered conservatives to control you. Your hate and anger ensure that. Have fun with that.

Posted by: Jack at April 8, 2007 7:12 PM
Comment #215628

As Gandhi said, “The worst thing about Christianity is the Christians”.

Nothing ignoble do I find anywhere in the Gospels. Instead I find things like:

- “turn the other cheek”

- “A camel can go through the eye of a needle sooner than a rich man enter heaven.”

- “You enter not the sanctuary, yet deny others entrance” (critiquing religious hypocrisy)


Yet American Churchianity has nothing to do with this. It preaches:

- Smite the evildoers

- Wealth is good

- Your religious experience (or non-experience) is less valid than mine.

Christianity as practiced by the minions of Bush (and throughout much of history) is a sick shadow of what it was meant to be.

Posted by: Rob Mann at April 8, 2007 7:45 PM
Comment #215635

Jack:

You are an intelligent man. There is no bigotry against Christianity. There is disagreement about what is radical about it, and the separation of church and state issue. That is not bigotry against Christianity.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 8, 2007 9:23 PM
Comment #215636

Show the Nation who you support ! The 2008 Presidential Election will be here soon. Join many of your fellow Americans in supporting your party. Democratic, Republican and Independent stickers are being seen across the country and more and more people are supporting their party each day. Be part of this march for “ineedapresident.” Do not be fooled, this is the original “ineedapresident” bumper stickers that come in 6 different flavors. Democrat, Republican, American, Pink, Camo & Support Our Troops Yellow. Go to http://ineedapresident.com now and SHOW your friends neighbors and loved ones who you support!

Posted by: - at April 8, 2007 9:41 PM
Comment #215638

Womanmarine, bigotry is on full display when somebody rants and raves using vocabulary like “a nest of cock roaches” (sic) “little dolts,” “spawn,” “schumuck,” “nutters,” “filthy,” and “fagaphobic Christian nancys” to define an entire group of people.

Using language like that about any group except Christians would automatically be labeled hate speech, and I’d be surprised if it was even allowed to be posted on this site.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 8, 2007 9:49 PM
Comment #215640

LO
#215638 I agree wholeheartedly.

Posted by: KAP at April 8, 2007 9:55 PM
Comment #215641

Lets see if I got Ray’s views correct.

Bush is a Christian, therefore being a Christian is bad.
Being a Democrat and being a Christian is not bad.

Or is it being a Christian and being a Democrat, I’ll look the other way?

Or is it Christian=bad.

Or wait the Love of Money is the Root of all evil. Opps that isn’t this post, sorry.

Posted by: KT at April 8, 2007 9:56 PM
Comment #215643

Woman

I am just surprised by the double standards. Terrorist blow up building. They say they do it in the name of Islam. We say, Islam is a religion of peace. The Islamic Republic of Iran hangs homosexuals. We must make the strong distinction between those who say the are supporting Islam and the religion.

It is part of the blame America first idea. The order goes blame America, blame the west, blame Christianity. They often overlap. Have any Christian groups recently bombed tall buildings in the name of religion? Has anyone been hanged for being gay under “Christian law”? No. We have to look for the meta blame. Anybody who commits violence who was brought up Christian is said to be doing in the name of religion, whether he says so or not.

I saw a demonstration and counter demonstration in San Franciso. The gay community had organized some kind of anti-Christian morality demonstration. A group of Christian youth came to counter protest. Most of the hatred seemed to be directed at the Christians. The most charitable thing from the gay side was that one guy said he just wanted to f**k the young Christians.

What we have is a culture class with bigotry on both sides. I travel on both sides and I hear both. homophobia among strict Christians is certainly matched by Christianphobia among the more radical gays. A strict Christian insists on displaying the symbols of her religion. A radical gay insists on displaying dildos in his shop windows. Most people do not really care, but they do not like each others lifestyles. I would not want to live the lifestyle of either strict religion or the gay scene.

Posted by: Jack at April 8, 2007 10:03 PM
Comment #215648

KAP,

I agree. I know that there are millions of real Christians out there. I thought that I made that clear in some of my rhetoric. Even many of the fagaphobs are just a little misguided - “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.”

Posted by: Ray Guest at April 8, 2007 10:37 PM
Comment #215649

Tim,

You wrote:

Ray:

KAP is lying. All Christians are crazy. There’s not a redeemable one in the bunch. I know, my father was a minister. Ha, ha, ha…

Up with wicca! LOL

Posted by: Ray Guest at April 8, 2007 10:40 PM
Comment #215650

Jack,

You wrote:

What is scary is the extent of the bigorty against Christianity. It is the primary religion of the United States and the a religion with about 2 billion followers worldwide. Yet you characterize this all as evil.
I most certainly did not characterize them all as evil. I wrote:
Are we to believe, in a Christian nation, there exists such a dearth of good qualified Christian conservatives, that we have to continually scrape the bottom of the barrel in order to find anybody to serve. Any barmy git with the bollocks to call himself a pro Bush Christian Conservative can land a high government position these days.
That means that I think that they are all evil??? I repeated referred to the bad Christians as nuters etcetera in other words there are special subsets of bad Christians as distinguished from real Christians.

Posted by: Ray Guest at April 8, 2007 10:49 PM
Comment #215653

First stomping cock roaches was meant for the Bush Regime and, including in the narrow context of this article, incompetent Christian conservative lawyers who where hired for being Christian conservative not for being competent. Some of them may be / probably are perfectly fine Christians. Some of them may be / probably are perfectly fine conservatives. They won’t get ahead in this corrupt regime but they got hired for being Christian conservatives not for being competent. Which part of that blatantly obvious subtext of this article do you not understand and how do you defend the Bush Regime’s policy of doing that? You defend it by blowing smoke up my duppa and talking about me attacking Christians when it it blatantly obvious that I am attacking the policy of hiring incompetent Christians just because they are Christian conservatives. What a crook.

Posted by: Ray Guest at April 8, 2007 11:06 PM
Comment #215654

Ray

I understand your anger however I think you may have taken it a bit over the top. You make it look as though all who practice christianity as being a pox on this nation. I will grant you that there are extremist factions that probably think they have good intentions but in reality are not what is best for this nation. But this can be said of almost any large association of people be them gays, christians, muslims, athiests etc. Your main anger should be focused on the man and his administration and his past legislature. I think at this point in time we are all well aware of their agenda to use the church as an avenue to political domination. They had and probably still have long term plans to extend republican dominance deep into the bowels of conservative christianity. But in lieu of embarasing scandal after scandal I have to believe they are their own worse enemy. Many who were once staunch supporters of their agenda now shy away in embarasment and admit no loyalty at the mention of these people.

No one wants to feel used and taken advantage of, and people do not forget these things so easily. Do not fret Ray it will be a long time before the republican party again establishes credibility and respect. And Bush will most likely never regain any great amount of the latter. An inability and unwillingness to admit and face up to an underhanded and deceptive agenda all but insures their demise for the immeadiate future. I guess one could say at this point that stubborn pride might be their worse enemy.

Posted by: ILdem at April 8, 2007 11:07 PM
Comment #215655

Ray

With the flow of insults toward Christians, it was hard to tell that you may have exempted some.

BTW - there are various types of lifestyles. I strongly dislike the flamboyant gay lifestyle, just as I strongly dislike the equivalent hetero lifestyles. I do not want to know about people’s sex lives. It is none of my business. They should just keep it to themselves in either case.

I think it is difficult for some people with alternative lifestyles to understand that most people just do not care as long as you do not push them on it. I have all sorts of habits that are none of your business. If I want to keep them private, that probably means not telling everybody. Some of these agressive guys should learn that simple lesson.

Posted by: Jack at April 8, 2007 11:16 PM
Comment #215656

Ray

“I understand your anger however I think you may have taken it a bit over the top. You make it look as though all who practice christianity as being a pox on this nation.”

Please ignore tha latter as the two posts above it were not yet posted when I typed my thread. I now understand the intent of your words.

Posted by: ILdem at April 8, 2007 11:19 PM
Comment #215657

I characterized Pat Robertson as having filthy hands. Pat Robertson, one specific person, one person, not all Christians, one person, one filthy corrupt person, one corrupt person who collects money for poor in Africa, loads a plane with with aid in front of the cameras, turns the cameras off, unloads the plane, then reloads the plane with mining equipment for his murderous, vicious, sadistic, brutal, dictator business partner, one filthy self professed Christian, not all Christians. No where did I say that all Christians had filthy hands. I said that one filthy man - Pat Robertson had filthy hands. But you mis-characterize that as hate speech against all Christians in order to distract from the obvious subtext of this article.

Posted by: Ray Guest at April 8, 2007 11:27 PM
Comment #215658

ILdem, All,

Thanks for your comments.

Posted by: Ray Guest at April 8, 2007 11:30 PM
Comment #215659

Ray, if you felt you were just “attacking the policy of hiring incompetent Christians” it sure didn’t come across that way.

It looked like you were saying that people are incompetent BECAUSE they’re Christians. You don’t cite examples, provide evidence of your claims, or even demonstrate that any such policy exists.

You simply attack Christians with a broad brush, even bringing in something as totally unrelated as the smear that white supremacists consider themselves Christians and call non-whites subhuman “mud people.” What does that have to do with Regent Law School or the Bush administration’s hiring practices, I wonder? Or more importantly, how do you feel that strengthens your case?

Condeleeza Rice? Alberto Gonzales? Do you suppose that Bush considers them “mud people” or hired them for them for that reason? Do you think that such a smear is consistent with the facts?

You say that Regent is the “worst law school in the country” but never say why—except that it’s a Christian school.

I can guarantee you that there are many times more Ivy league graduates in the Bush administration than graduates of Christian colleges, but I also happen to know that Ave Maria Law School in Michigan is a highly ranked Christian law school and that its students actually pass the state bar on their first try at a higher rate than the far more prestigious neighboring University of Michican Law School.

ONE individual who graduated from Regent was involved in a scandal, and that scandal did not relate to incompetence. So should we say that any university with any graduate who is involved in a controversy churns out nothing but “incompetent” people?

Goodbye Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Or do we just admit that we have a double standard for those who are associated with Christianity?

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 8, 2007 11:38 PM
Comment #215661

LO,

Thanks for your comment. The linked article states clearly that Regent law school was the worst in the nation at the point in time that this regime was hiring many of their alumni, that their alumni were being hired at a disproportionate rate, that they were being hired for espousing anti-gay Christian conservative views during their interviews, and that the quality of people hired at the DOJ has significantly deteriorated as a result of these Bush Regime policies. Since my entire article was a commentary on that article and I did not excerpt that article but requested you to read it in its entirety, the subtext of my article is crystal clear and well supported.

Posted by: Ray Guest at April 8, 2007 11:56 PM
Comment #215664

Ray, the article just says that Regent is (or was) a 4th tier law school according to US News and World Report. Even if you accept those rankings, that only means that a school is in the bottom 25%, not that it’s dead last. And don’t forget that a major criteria for those rankings is reputation as determined by the faculty in competing schools, something that will put any Christian school at a decided disadvantage considering the nature of law school faculty.

I noticed, looking at those rankings, that Ave Maria, another Christian law school, is also considered fourth tier. And that’s despite the fact that its graduates score higher on completely objective tests (bar exams) than the graduates of many first tier schools.

It seems that the bias runs deeper and is more widespread than we thought.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 9, 2007 12:25 AM
Comment #215666

LO,

Thanks for your comment. You wrote:

that only means that a school is in the bottom 25%, not that it’s dead last.

The linked Boston Globe article clearly says:

The graduate from Regent — which is ranked a “tier four” school by US News & World Report, the lowest score and essentially a tie for 136th place — was not the only lawyer with modest credentials to be hired by the Civil Rights Division after the administration imposed greater political control over career hiring.

So tell me, which part of: “the lowest score and essentially a tie for 136th place” - which part of of “lowest score” does not mean “dead last?”

Beyond that, you have a problem with professional per review? You would rather leave it to amateurs?

The next 2 block quotes from the Globe are just thrown in here to rub your nose in the extent of the problem.

Graduates of the law school have been among the most influential of the more than 150 Regent University alumni hired to federal government positions since President Bush took office in 2001, according to a university website.
The changes resulted in a sometimes dramatic alteration to the profile of new hires beginning in 2003, as the Globe reported last year after obtaining resumes from 2001-2006 to three sections in the civil rights division. Conservative credentials rose, while prior experience in civil rights law and the average ranking of the law school attended by the applicant dropped.


Posted by: Ray Guest at April 9, 2007 12:51 AM
Comment #215669

Ray, my point is that there are something like 200 accredited law schools in this country, and once you get past the top rankings on the four tiers (which each break down roughtly into a quarter of all schools) there’s no such thing as one school being “dead last” or the “worst school” as you said in your post. The rankings just don’t work like that.

There are probably fifty or sixty schools that are “tied” for 136th place.

I don’t have a problem with peer review, and I don’t think those rankings are completely off base.

They’re intended for prospective students who are trying to decide what law school to go to, and part of making such choices is always which school is most “prestigious.”

That does not reflect the quality of graduates by objective standards, however, such as can be measured by who passes bar exams. As I pointed out, the quality of graduates at lower ranked schools are OBJECTIVELY higher in some cases than those of higher ranked schools.

The Globe article you quote doesn’t say what you think it does. It only compares Regent law alumni to other Regent graduates and says that the “law alumni” are among the most influential in government as compared to Regent alumni in other fields.

Well, duh.

Show me any university whose law graduates aren’t the most influential in government as compared to the other graduates in different fields from the same school. It’s just as true for Regent as it is for Yale and Harvard. What does that prove?

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 9, 2007 1:22 AM
Comment #215671

Folks, you conservative apologists are missing the big point that both Ray and Robb Mann are saying while focussing on whether Regent is “dead last” or “next to dead last.” Essentially, as Rob might have quoted: “straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.”

Ray’s point is a rotten corrupt theocracy has come close to supplanting this democracy.

Rob’s point is that “Churchianity” as he puts it, is the opposite of REAL Christianity.

Obviously, if the second is true, than the first (given the evidence Ray cites - and more) is more likely.

So tell the truth — Is it or is it not true: What the Christians are now teaching is largely the opposite of what Christ taught?


Posted by: Brandon at April 9, 2007 3:04 AM
Comment #215674

Ray

I accept that you thought you were writing an article about the Justice Department and a particular law school. What you actually wrote was a hateful anti-Christian screed. It left me with the impression that you hate Christianity, or at least most of what current Christians do or say. I accept that is not want you wanted to say.

You know that in communications it is not so important what you want to say but what your audiences hears or reads. How can you interpret a thought like this? “Of course, twisted Christian theology also underpins the views of racist white supremacists. White supremacists generally see themselves as good Christians and believe that non whites are subhuman mud people.”

I can understand that you may have thought using the modifier “twisted” indicated you were not talking about mainstream Christians, but it could as easily been interpeted as merely modifying the word Christian or ignored entirly. What you come across as saying is that there is something in Christianity that is fundamentally racist.

I have been around Christians my entire life and have never met anybody who espoused anything like what you are describing. I understand there are SOME people like that, but either I have never met them or they are ashamed to talk about things like that. In any case you really have to dig deep to find them and it is not accepted by mainstream Christians.

AND your article re the law school is unrelated to the mud people anyway. You have an article that claims that the DoJ is hiring from a low quality law school.

You diverged significantly from the already weak argument contained in the linked article. You might want to consider why you so easily went down that road that led to mud people.

You should not blame individuals for the because of their group affiliations and you should not blame the group for the actions of individuals, most of whom would be rejected by the most individuals in the group.

Just try to consider how this kind of thing would look on a more PC subject. If someone wrote an article about hiring less qualfied gay men and then began associating them the likes of serial killers Jeffery Dahmer or John Wayne Gacy, wouldn’t you think it was a hateful attack? And what if the author said that he was just talking about employment? Would you believe him? Do you really believe yourself?

Posted by: Jack at April 9, 2007 8:20 AM
Comment #215682

LO,

You wrote:

There are probably fifty or sixty schools that are “tied” for 136th place.

Fifty or 60 tied for dead last - true - dead last none the less. True some schools in the lowest rankings may achieve good academics and be ranked lower because professional peer review leads to the conclusion that their program is unbalanced or that they are not turning out good citizens. In other words, even if their alumni have 4.0s, if they are wearing arm bands, then that is even more problematic. Point being, other non academic reasons for putting a school in the dead last tier are probably worse than academic under achievement.

Finally Regent alumni were not doing well on bar exams and other “objective” measures at the time that this Regime was hiring them in disproportionate numbers with clear indications of theocratic influence on hiring decisions.

Jack,

You wrote:

I can understand that you may have thought using the modifier “twisted” indicated you were not talking about mainstream Christians, but it could as easily been interpeted as merely modifying the word Christian or ignored entirly. What you come across as saying is that there is something in Christianity that is fundamentally racist.

Good critique of my writing - thank you. Applying adjectives to the noun “Christianity” could be interpreted 2 ways. One as describing all Christianity, the other as defining describing a subset of Christianity. I could have explicitly said that I was defining subsets. I felt that doing that would represent unnecessary wordiness since my article made many descriptive references to both good and bad Christians. My reference in the last paragraph to “good qualified Christian conservatives” should have made it obvious that I was using adjectives to define subsets of Christianity. I was writing in an extremely vehement and provocative tone. I was being a provocateur. It worked. I got you stirred up.

My reference to the theocratic underpinnings of racism was intended to drive home the “gravity” of packing a civil rights division on the basis of theocratic consideration. I know so called liberals who are racist. They are liberal about everything except race. They are not complete liberals but they hold some liberal views. I know conservatives who are not racist. Racist are far more likely to be conservative than liberal and far more likely to call themselves Christian or Muslim than atheist - because of the theocratic underpinnings of racism. When you pack a civil rights division on the basis theocracy and conservatism, you are playing a very dangerous game and I wanted to drive home the gravity of that. I probably should not have generalized the issue in that way. It is obvious that they are packing the civil rights division with the intent of discriminating against gays and I should have kept the focus on that, but I wanted people (many of whom are Christian) to recognize the generalized threat to American ideals that this represents.

Jack,

You wrote:

Just try to consider how this kind of thing would look on a more PC subject. If someone wrote an article about hiring less qualfied gay men and then began associating them the likes of serial killers Jeffery Dahmer or John Wayne Gacy, wouldn’t you think it was a hateful attack?

Very good point here Jack. By this, I am sure that you are referring to the way that many Christian conservatives try to paint gays as child molesters and generalize that to explicitly or implicitly claim that all gays are morally degenerate. As mentioned above however, a careful reading of my article clearly indicates that I was referring to subsets of Christianity - not all Christians.

You wrote that the Globe article was weak. Care to elaborate?

Posted by: Ray Guest at April 9, 2007 11:14 AM
Comment #215684

Jack:
“I accept that you thought you were writing an article about the Justice Department and a particular law school. What you actually wrote was a hateful anti-Christian screed. It left me with the impression that you hate Christianity, or at least most of what current Christians do or say. I accept that is not want you wanted to say.”

What a crock of horses—t and what obvious play-acting Jack is engaging in here.
Perhaps because I’m honest, I had no trouble seeing that Ray’s article is about how Bushco’s Justice Dept. became a cesspool of injustice because the hires were consciously chosen by Bushco (a group of half-wit Radical “Christian” Extremists) from a half-assed law school run by and for Radical “Christian” Extremists who want to tear down the Wall of Separation between Church and State. Bushco and the entire group of these Extremists wish to wipe out American Democracy and replace it with Authoritarian Theocracy — in utter and complete contempt and defiance of our Constitution.
This bears absolutely no resemblance to the majority of people who go to Christian Churches in America, or WHY they go to church.
Radical Rightwing “Christian” Extremists don’t attend church or enter politics to “Save Their Souls” or “Do God’s Work”. Their “Churches” are instead Clubs — dedicated to Political Action and Controlling People, rather than anything having to do with God.
They don’t love their neighbors. They don’t turn the other cheek. They believe they can serve God and Mammon. I could go on, but I’m sure most will get the non-religious drift.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 9, 2007 11:26 AM
Comment #215689
At the same time, the kinds of cases the Civil Rights Division is bringing have undergone a shift. The division is bringing fewer voting rights and employment cases involving systematic discrimination against African-Americans, and more alleging reverse discrimination against whites and religious discrimination against Christians.
Posted by: womanmarine at April 9, 2007 12:14 PM
Comment #215698

I do not find conservatives are more racist than conservatives. I know it is an article of faith among liberals, but it is not true. Your understanding of racism is probably different. Many liberal equate the opposition to affirmative action to racism. They demonize the difference in opinion about what works best.

The Globe article does not contain enough detail about hiring. The government does not pay very well. Even elite government jobs, such as the Foreign Service do not pull in proportionately large numbers of elite Ivy League applicants. If you examine the credentials on incoming government employees, you find that many of them come from what U.S. News might call a second or third tier schools. It really does not mean they are less qualified. It probably means they or their families are less well connected. If you think about it, half of all graduates come from the lower tier of schools. My undergraduate institution was the University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point. I do not think that even gets rated by U.S. News. Yet I scored in the 98th Percentile on my GMAT test. Some of the Ivy League boys did better, but no more than a couple percent.

When you look at hiring, you find clusters. Since the government no longer uses objective tests (this is a whole new thread) there are certain skill sets that help people get certified for interview. Sometimes a school gets somebody who figures this out. It is also possible that a “culture” develops. When one person gets in, he goes back and encourages his classmates to apply. One of the most important factors in getting a job is to KNOW about it. The government does a poor job of publicizing opportunities. This is not a plot; it is the way it has been for a long time.

I do not doubt that it helps to have some conservatives in hiring positions. People tend to hire those THEY think are most qualified. You know what I write on the other side. If I showed my best work to a very liberal guy and a conservative guy, who do you think is more likely to think I am qualified? I am talking bias in the true sense. It is easier to see the virtue in those who agree with you. There is no unbiased judgment. This is not a criticism.

Adrienne

See what I wrote above re bias. I have often seen you praise the argument of our liberal writers. Do you really believe that they have a monopoly on truth or good arguments? Do you really believe you that you catch all the nuances in the conservative writings? I have honest trouble in interpreting what Ray wrote in any way except a general attack on Christianity. As I wrote above, if I was to write an article about gay serial killers, it would be hard for many people to interpret it in any way but an attack on gays.

We are all shaped by our beliefs and experience. When I write, I sometimes include references that others do not get or misinterpret. I have concluded that there are some things I cannot explain to others who have not had the sort of experiences I have. I have to choose a different set of words or arguments. And there have been times when I have made what I thought was a perfectly reasonable argument only to find that others considered it insulting.

Most Christians are trying to do the right thing, but not succeeding. In this respect, they are like most other people. You might be surprised to learn that many of those people you think are not living up to their ideals share your opinion. Did you ever know anybody who did live up to all they thought they should?

I suppose it is possible to lower the bar far enough that everyone can step over, but if we set our ideals where they should be, we can never achieve them.

I was raised Catholic, but I am not a practicing Christian today. I did not reject it. I just kind of drifted off. But the thing I respect most about Christianity is the acknowlegement that all men (and women) are sinners.

Posted by: Jack at April 9, 2007 12:55 PM
Comment #215699

Jack:

Not long ago, it was rare for Regent graduates to join the federal government. But in 2001, the Bush administration picked the dean of Regent’s government school, Kay Coles James , to be the director of the Office of Personnel Management — essentially the head of human resources for the executive branch. The doors of opportunity for government jobs were thrown open to Regent alumni.

and

In an acknowledgment of the department’s special need to be politically neutral, hiring for career jobs in the Civil Rights Division under all recent administrations, Democratic and Republican, had been handled by civil servants — not political appointees.

But in the fall of 2002, then-attorney general John Ashcroft changed the procedures. The Civil Rights Division disbanded the hiring committees made up of veteran career lawyers.

Quite frankly, I believe you don’t miss the point being made. It is just an attempt at spin on your part. This is quite telling.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 9, 2007 1:06 PM
Comment #215703

Woman

The Bush Administration disagreed with the way Civil Rights was handled by the DoJ. In America we elect leaders to set policies. We have career civil servants as a way to ensure quality - not policy. Civil servants tend to become captured by the status quo. The president has the right to set policy.

Government hiring procedures have changed. Sometimes for the better; other times not. Some governent still has testing, but not many. Most of the time Human Resources determines the top qualified candidate and the manager in charge chooses from among them. Some set up committees; other do not.

The article creates doubts but does not really address them. There is significant discretion in hiring. Naturally, you would hire the people you think most qualified. If I was choosing an applicant, he/she would be different than the one you choose. That does not mean either of us is dishonest.

Let’s be very clear. The Bush Administration was trying to change the policy of the DoJ -as is their constitutional duty and right. That wsa among the reasons I and many others voted for Bush. I think that is what the article is saying. In the process they are trying to make it look nefarious. There is a big variety of “politically neutral” hiring. If DoJ violated procedures, the article could have said so. (The government has a very complicated procedure for determining qualified candidates. This is always operated by career civil servants.)Instead we have inuendo and the dog that didn’t bark.

BTW - This is the argument this post SHOULD have engendered. As I wrote, the initial post came off as just anti-Christian. We can have a reasonable disagreement re hiring procedures, not about Christianity.

Posted by: Jack at April 9, 2007 1:35 PM
Comment #215709

Woman,

Jack is a professed advocate of all things BushCo. Don’t expect truth. Expect only extraction, distraction, and, as you noted, Spin. All to justify the neo-fascist concept of a unitary presidency, promote a predatory free market, and to postpone (prolong) the death throes of the K-street coup.

I’d like to add this WaPo article to the original article:

Never before in U.S. history, we believe, has a president so readily exploited a crisis to amass unchecked and unreviewed power unto himself, completely at odds with the Constitution. This departure from historical practice should deeply concern those in both parties who care for the Constitution. Even in military matters, Congress has considerable authority. For instance, the Constitution specifies that Congress can “make Rules for Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” Military intelligence, military surveillance and military detention are all matters on which Congress can dictate the terms of how the commander-in-chief’s power is exercised.
Debates at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, and in the state ratifying conventions that ensued, conclusively undercut the current administration’s claim to unaccountable power. Alexander Hamilton, the founding era’s foremost advocate of executive vigor, disdained efforts to equate the new president’s authority with the broad powers of the English monarchs. And even assuming that Hamilton was wrong in asserting that presidents have less power than English kings, the British monarchy had in fact been stripped of power to “suspend” parliamentary laws after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, about 100 years before the Constitutional Convention. The Constitution simply contains no unfettered executive authority to annul laws on a president’s security-related say-so.
There is no reason to abandon the founding generation’s skepticism of unchecked executive power. The Constitution rests on a profound understanding of human nature. Hamilton, James Madison and the other framers and ratifiers knew that no single individual, whether selected by birth or popular vote, could be blindly trusted to wield power wisely. They knew that both the executive and Congress would make mistakes.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 9, 2007 2:00 PM
Comment #215714

Dave

If you know what a fascist is, and you read what I write, you know what you have written is not true.

And if you understand what how the free market works, and you have read what I have written about that, you must know the foolishness of your other comment.

You are right that I am an advocate, but not for all things Bush. I generally support the president, but not in all things. I think a Bush supporter could find lots of things not to like in what I have written. I have not actually counted, but I bet 80%+ of my posts have no reference to Bush at all, but if I write about riding my bike to work, within two or three comments will be an attack on Bush. I just respond to the silliness.

I am just not into the name calling and general negativity. Attacks on Bush often ger very hysterical and off the mark. Usually when I am dismantling attacks against Bush I am doing it more in service of reason than of Bush.

Posted by: Jack at April 9, 2007 2:13 PM
Comment #215716

womanmarine, Dave, nicely done.

Jack:
“Usually when I am dismantling attacks against Bush I am doing it more in service of reason than of Bush.”

Yeah, sure.
Look Jack, it is as plain as day that you’ve been play-acting in this thread, because it is totally obvious that Ray wasn’t attacking all Christians here. Read the article again, and it should become very clear that Ray took careful aim at the Neocon habit of hiring the worst people possible for government positions. But in this case he was referring to the Radical Extremist “Christian” Theocrats who are trying to destroy American Democracy and the Constitution that make up about half of their hires, not the Incompetent Cronies that make up the remainder.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 9, 2007 2:39 PM
Comment #215727

1) neo-fascist, See John Dean et al. Not quite the same as “fascist”

2) I didn’t say Bush, I said “BushCo” and “unitary Presidency.” You constantly hype up executive authority although you can at least admit their failures when you need to.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 9, 2007 3:46 PM
Comment #215735

Adrienne

Besides where they went to school, did this Ray even argue that these were radical Christian theocrats? What does that even mean? He and you assume they are all racists. I also did not see any supporting arguments.

You both also assume w/o any support that they have managed to subvert the usual civil service protections.

So let me get this clear. You contend that most Christians are good people. Some “radical” Christians are plotting to overthrow the government as we know it. In order to do so, they are coming in as civil servants. Because everybody knows civil servants have so much independent authority and make the really big bucks. And you would be worried about the guys who came up with a plan like this.

Dave


John Dean. I do not recall him being at the very center of Republican or conservative circles since the 1970s. I think you would have more chance of getting the inside story than Dean would.

I believe in free markets, letting people make choices, reduced government interference in the economy and liberal (hate to use the word) trade. Sure sound like fascism, if you leave out the free markets, choice, small government and liberal trade.

Posted by: Jack at April 9, 2007 4:40 PM
Comment #215745

Jack:
“Besides where they went to school, did this Ray even argue that these were radical Christian theocrats?”

Uh, Yes. Yes he did. Ray mentioned that Regent is Pat Robertson’s law school — and Pat Robertson is among the most powerful of Radical Republican “Christian” Theocrats.

“What does that even mean?”

Those who believe in tearing down the Wall of Separation Between Church and State. Of witholding Civil Rights, and practicing discrimination against anyone who that doesn’t agree with this agenda.

“He and you assume they are all racists.”

As womanmarine quoted earlier:

At the same time, the kinds of cases the Civil Rights Division is bringing have undergone a shift. The division is bringing fewer voting rights and employment cases involving systematic discrimination against African-Americans, and more alleging reverse discrimination against whites and religious discrimination against Christians.

As if reverse discrimination or discrimination against Christians was much more of a widespread problem in comparison to other types of discrimination.

“I also did not see any supporting arguments.”

It’s all there in the article, although womanmarine did a good job of pointing them out so that you didn’t actually have to read the whole thing.

“You both also assume w/o any support that they have managed to subvert the usual civil service protections.”

Yes, again see womanmarine’s selected quotes regarding the changes in hiring for the Justice Dept.

“So let me get this clear. You contend that most Christians are good people.”

As I said earlier:
Bushco and the entire group of these Extremists wish to wipe out American Democracy and replace it with Authoritarian Theocracy — in utter and complete contempt and defiance of our Constitution.
This bears absolutely no resemblance to the majority of people who go to Christian Churches in America, or WHY they go to church.

“Some “radical” Christians are plotting to overthrow the government as we know it.”

Yes, and they really don’t bother hide this agenda either.

“In order to do so, they are coming in as civil servants.”

You got it.

“Because everybody knows civil servants have so much independent authority and make the really big bucks.”

They don’t care about that. They’ve got their agenda: Subverting the Constitution and Controlling Americans.

“And you would be worried about the guys who came up with a plan like this.”

Absolutely, Jack. And it’s not “would be worried”, it’s that we ARE worried about how these people are already subverting the Constitution and Controlling America. Very much so.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 9, 2007 5:18 PM
Comment #215769

Ray ASSERTED he was a radical theocrat. Nothing in evidence backed that up. I did not quite get the guilt by association with someone who Ray asserts is a radical theocrat (whatever that means. I still am not clear).

Re what womanmarine wrote - so what? I think those are good things. Every civil rights action is not justified. We should judge a man by the content of his character, not the color of his skin. We have the right to question civil rights. Think Sharpton and Jackson. How much integrity do they inspire?

I do not think we should talk about reverse discrimination, just ordinary discrimination.

Re civil service - I read the whole thing. It does not mean very much. HR in the USG is a very complicated and rule based system. As I said to woman, I have no doubt that the Bush Administration wants DoJ to be managed more in tune with its priorities. This is his constitutional right. That is why president Clinton fired all 93 Federal prosecutors and appointed his own people. What do you think these guys did when they arrived on the job? You have to divide the idea of political direction (which is the president’s right) with political interference. You managed to prove the former (and sure hope it was happening) but not the latter.

BTW - it is nearly impossible to fire a Civil Servant. Even the most dedicated ideologue cannot simply create vacancies. They are hired over the course of several administrations and they hang on for about 30 years. At best you are in the situation of planting an oak tree under a picnic table and waiting for it to be toppled. Senior career managers came in during the Carter Administration or maybe early Reagan. There is no way to jump people up through the ranks in a short time, or at least not very often.

The irony of your complaint about the Civil Service is how much it parallels Republican paranoia on exactly the same subject. Studies consistently show that a majority of civil servants are liberals or Democrats. They are also much more heavily unionized than other workers. This upsets some of my Republican friends. I always assumed they were a bit too hysterical about this. Now I see the hysteria runs in both directions.

Posted by: Jack at April 9, 2007 7:32 PM
Comment #215770
When one uses the words; “long term damage to the country” and incompetent schmuck in the same sentence there could be only one - one - well one big dolt, surrounded by a host of little dolts…

I didn’t know y’all hated Pelosi that much!

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 9, 2007 7:34 PM
Comment #215775

Jack:
“Ray ASSERTED he was a radical theocrat. Nothing in evidence backed that up.”

Nothing in evidence backs that up?!!! You didn’t even read the article did you Jack?
Well, you know what? That’s the end of this whole argument then, because those who can’t even manage to see that Pat Robertson and his followers are indeed radical theocrats, when every freaking thing that comes out of their mouths screams that this is the case, simply aren’t worth arguing with.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 9, 2007 7:55 PM
Comment #215783

Here is your sourcing - “wrote a contributor to The New Republic website .” That could be you or me. It is always hard when anybody can claim expertise.

How about this mystery “Not long ago, it was rare for Regent graduates to join the federal government.” What did the article say a few lines before? “The American Bar Association accredited Regent ‘s law school in 1996.” So the school was accredited in 1996. It takes around three years to get a law degree. Surprise! There were not many graduates working for the Feds by 2001. This recent accreditation might also explain why not many people have heard of the school, don’t you think?

Since then, the school has contributed 150 students to the USG. The article does not specify where. So let’s go over this again. The school was accredited in 1996. Since that time 150 of its graduates have gone to work for the Feds, which employs millions.

The article goes on to say, “Even a prominent critic of the school’s mission of integrating the Bible with public policy vouches for Regent’s improvements. Barry Lynn, the head of the liberal Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, said Regent is churning out an increasingly well-trained legal army for the conservative Christian movement. ‘You can’t underestimate the quality of a lot of the people that are there,’ said Lynn, who has guest-lectured at Regent and debated professors on its campus.”

I cannot find what is not there. The threat of theocracy is not there. The article does not mention it, nor does it mention mud people. The articles used as evidence does not even prove the school is a particular threat to anybody. The extrapolation to a threat to the Consitution is just silly. It is a law school seeking to train Christian lawyers and succeeding in improving its scores.

Remember that all lawyers pass the bar. If the school produces only fools, they cannot pass the bar.

We will differ on this. You do not see that anything anti-Christian in the statement - “These people, some of whom where hired because of their fagaphobic religious beliefs, will corrupt the Department of Justice with incompetence for decades to come. Of course, twisted Christian theology also underpins the views of racist white supremacists. White supremacists generally see themselves as good Christians and believe that non whites are subhuman mud people,” which is backed up by nothing.

Yet you find evidence of theocracy in an article where it does not occur at all. I cannot see what is not there. Maybe this is a liberal thing. I have to go with the evidence.

Posted by: Jack at April 9, 2007 8:50 PM
Comment #215786

That’s right Jack, in your little bubble of love for Bushco there is absolutely no evidence of a theocratic bent that has been extremely well demonstrated by the Bush Administration, and no trace in who they’ve been hiring. None at all. Seeing one must be a liberal thing.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 9, 2007 9:24 PM
Comment #215791

Adrienne

You can make an argument for a theocratic state if you want, but you cannot make it with the evidence presented.

You should try to convice Ray to collaborate with you on a well sourced article. The sources should, BTW, support the arguments.

Posted by: Jack at April 9, 2007 9:58 PM
Comment #215800

Ha! Jack, since I’ve never been able to give you any source that you were willing accept, I find that comment absolutely hilarious!

Posted by: Adrienne at April 9, 2007 10:48 PM
Comment #215807

Jack,

First, Adrienne was correct. I am concerned about theocracy. I have been very busy remodeling my house and I wrote this article on the fly. It is not my best writing. I wish that I had spent the electronic ink to explicitly say that I was defining subsets of Christianity. That has been one of your most effective techniques of muddying what should be a clear issue, of course, I invited this by being a provocateur. Having written the article on the fly there are many things implied that are not explicitly said. Now I have to go reread my own article to figure out what I meant at the time. Adrienne is incorrect as to why I referred to Robertson. It is true that he is a major proponent of theocracy but that is not explicitly what I was thinking about when i referenced him. It is just some of the deep poetic truth that this article contains in spite of me. While the vague, one place expressing my concerns about theocracy was in the statement:

To place religious views, political views, philosophy, and loyalty above credentials and qualifications in hiring civil servants is a vicious attack on this country, and has played a role in many of the failures of this regime.
That statement is compact, yet it is clear statement of the subtext of this article and it clearly indicates theocratic issues is IMO one filthy aspect of this one filthy scandal of this filthy Regime and its filthy friends like Pat Robertson.

Posted by: Ray Guest at April 9, 2007 11:40 PM
Comment #215808

Adrienne, womanmarine, Dave1-20-2009,

Thanks for taking Jack on in my absence. He would have worn me out and won by default. He still may. He is nothing if not persistent.

Ron Brown,

LOL.

Jack,

Thanks for your exhaustive commentary here. You did good job of clouding the issue. That is why you are the arch-nemesis.

Posted by: Ray Guest at April 9, 2007 11:49 PM
Comment #215814

Jack,

There are at least three effective clouds that you have passed over this issue.

First, that my article appears to be anti Christian hate speech. Very effective strategy, I left myself open for it, but we have blown that full of holes. Yet in true Republican form, you continue to press the argument as if it had not been throughly debunked.

Second, the idea that civil servants are harmless and without power. It will take them thirty years to rise through the ranks. It other words, ignore the ticking.

Third, and most effectively, this is just an administration trying to impose its policy direction on the DOJ. This is so effective because it is true. They are just trying to impose their theocratic, corrupt, anti-government, anti-American, anti-Constitutional crap on the DOJ. The effective part of this strategy is to suggest that that is just business as usual for the DOJ. It is not. It is a radical departure from allowing qualified professional civil servants to hire qualified professional civil servants.

You keep trying to say that the school is improving its scores and it is - now. These people were hired before that. So are still left with an administration hiring incompetent people for theocratic, philosophical, and blind neo-con loyalism reasons. This is exactly what they did before Katrina in F.E.M.A. and in the Iraq provisional authority yet you continue defend this policy.


Posted by: Ray Guest at April 10, 2007 12:17 AM
Comment #215816

One thing that I would add here. Regent Law School is improving by giving scholarships and attracting more highly qualified students. The scary thought is that they might succeed in producing an army smart theocratic attack dogs which is just about the only thing that could be worse than stupid theocratic attack dogs. I don’t think that will be a problem though. If they succeed in producing good Christian lawyers, then what we will have is a bunch of good Christian lawyers, many of whom may well turn out to be liberals who believe America’s liberal ideals. It is just that Robertson’s prints are on that school. It is hard to imagine that anything good could come of it, yet it would be the most poetic justice of all, if he wound up producing some good Christian liberal lawyers.

Posted by: Ray Guest at April 10, 2007 12:39 AM
Comment #215846

Ray, glad I got most of your drift. :^)

“It is hard to imagine that anything good could come of it, yet it would be the most poetic justice of all, if he wound up producing some good Christian liberal lawyers.”

A nice thought, but I personally doubt there are many liberals could actually stomach going to Regent.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 10, 2007 11:24 AM
Comment #215859
“Thanks for taking Jack on in my absence. He would have worn me out and won by default. He still may. He is nothing if not persistent.”

“The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”

W.B. Yeats

Posted by: Tim Crow at April 10, 2007 12:12 PM
Comment #215881

I think it was Nova last night that recounted the run up to the Jonestown mass suicide (1978). I couldn’t help but see numerous parallels between the Rev and BushCo.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 10, 2007 1:38 PM
Comment #215939

Tim, Adrienne, Ray, Woman & Dave

Yeah, it takes five liberals to take on one conservative.


Re Yeats

It seems that liberals are full of that passionate intensity. As I wrote above, you could argue re theocracy, but not from the evidence in the article. Your passion finds evidence of conspiracies where none exist.

What I find interesting is that you all are often shocked, shocked to find that the President is trying to push his policy on the executive branch. That is what he is supposed to do.

Early on he replaced that nutty woman (whose name I forget) heading the Civil Rights Commission. Liberals screamed. It made me very happy. The President gets to decide these things. If a Dem is elected in 2008, will he/she just allow the Bush policies and personnel to continue unvexed?

Posted by: Jack at April 10, 2007 6:42 PM
Comment #215976

Jack:

Yup. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Prolific does not mean much.

I will say it again here:

The problem here is not with Bush deciding political policy. The problem is the appearance of choosing these people based on religious affiliation. Right or wrong, the fact that this school is openly fighting to undo what separation of church and state exists is the reason for much of the hue and cry here.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 10, 2007 11:44 PM
Comment #216034
Yeah, it takes five liberals to take on one conservative…Posted by: Jack at April 10, 2007 06:42 PM
I’ll take that advice and begin to reply in the same vein. To hell with truth and debate. Instead; talking points, irrelevent analogies, fanatical site links, ignore valid counterpoints, deride and snide, and advocate, advocate, advocate. Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 11, 2007 11:53 AM
Comment #216112

In case anyone cares:

Jack inaccurately throws me in the liberal kettle of fish. Actually, I consider myself left of liberal.:-)

Posted by: Tim Crow at April 11, 2007 7:40 PM
Comment #216212

All,

I thought was dead so I have been gone. Thanks for your continuing comments.

Jack,

Five of us to beat you? Yes, but we beat you 5 times… LOL.

Tim,

Sorry you got dumped in our kettle, but you are welcome there, we are the big tent people.

Posted by: Ray Guest at April 12, 2007 12:32 PM
Post a comment