So, when I returned from work,
I saw this story and wondered, why aren't Glenn Reynolds, Ann Althouse, and Stacey McCain, etc., screaming "bigotry"? Seems right up their alley,...
I saw Glenn also
agreed with a Walter Russell Mead screed about cultists who "believe utterly absurd things and are willing to act upon them," because Mead then went on to condemn "liberals who see theocracy behind every Mormon temple,..." As though only liberals are worried, Mormon beliefs would be welcome in any classroom not dedicated to
Cargo Cult Science, and nobody's heard of the American theocracy in Utah or the various oaths Mormons, like Romney, have swore to -
over those of this country.
The hypocrisy of Glenn Reynolds - the utter deceit this man dishes out to his readers - is galling.
"By the standards of retailing, Apple offers above average pay — well above the minimum wage of $7.25 and better than the Gap, though slightly less than Lululemon, the yoga and athletic apparel chain, where sales staff earn about $12 an hour."
So what's the problem? What's the issue? Why is this a story?
While everyone - the writer Ann's criticizing, the
NYT, and Ann - are leaving out that, to earn that $12 an hour at
Lululemon, the poor saps
have to go through "training" with
The Landmark Forum cult.
My bad - no it's not. Like the Mormons, all the groups and individuals, linked here, deny they're cults or cult apologists. (Or even NewAgers.) So there's no need to comment further. Their word is enough.
EVERYBODY'S spreading "the truth."
Just not the whole truth and nothing but - and especially not the law professors.
By the way, it's just been discovered that
Alzheimer’s is caused by stress. Which - considering what's going on in the blogosphere - leads naturally to an all-important question:
Is cognitive dissonance considered stressful?
So I guess when that creepy Litchfield guy said that "God guided him" to help the troubled teens out, that should be something we should all be saying "hallelujah" to, and we should all take the example of those fine upstanding Mormons who work in boiler rooms owned by wealthier Mormons, pushing diet supplements and get rich quick schemes.
ReplyDeleteAnd Ann Romney, with her persecution complex and her drugged up horse, is the shining example of female virtue.
The other side is the truly evil ones involved in abuse, scamming, and unethical/immoral behavior -- but this side is pure, holy, and has the "secret" to success, righteousness, and the general welfare of all.
Because according to the rightwing pundits (and I refuse to use the word "conservative" for them, just like I refused to use the word "liberal" for the left along time ago) have come down from on high and declared that this is "the American way" and also the key to catching the unicorn, a unicorn for everyone who will just believe -- for reasons all their own I'm sure.
Yeah, got it.
Mitt Romney has nice hair.
PW
Sunday was the Feast of John the Baptist in the Roman Catholic Church. Not that you are religious, but it is symbolic for what you do:
ReplyDeleteYou are Crack the Emcee, out in the blogger wilderness (your other platform being taken away), telling us we are fucked either way. And what pisses people off is they know you are mostly right.
Thanks for the link BTW. I got it originally from your comments so thanks for that (both you and your anonymous reader).
ReplyDeleteWhile I disagree with the underlying basis of LDS and Scientology, I do not consider them the same. That said, if you want to disqualify candidates on that basis alone you can do so. I would vote for a Mormon (if I thought the individual candidate was the best choice). I would be more skeptical over a Scientologist, but again it would depend on my choices. If you fell strongly certain faiths are deal breakers, I may or may not agree, but you have that right.
ReplyDeleteEBL -- I can only state for myself: I wouldn't have a problem with a Mormon who could question their faith enough to put it on the back burner (but then you get into the notion of -- if you question/don't follow your faith that much, then why are you still in it?) -- but the faith in question puts such emphasis on submission to authority (the prophets -- and they can proclaim anything) and suspension of critical faculty over "belief", "feeling" over reason, and ends justifying the means that I have a hard time trusting anyone who belongs to it because in order to be in you have to go along with this, and then the question becomes why. It's a religion that demands these things of people, with next to no room for any questioning. I'd say it's where the RCs were back in the Middle Ages minus the scholarship -- that's pretty freaking scary! The little people within the faith were fleeced (and if they or outsiders dared criticize, well, Torquemada...what a guy); the big honchos make out like bandits (see popes: Medici). If you believe in reason you can't go for this; if you believe in Jesus you can't go for this; if you just believe in trying to be a good person you can't go for this.
ReplyDeleteAnd Mitt's many faults (and they are pretty well laid out here) are disturbingly all in some way connected back to the leadership of his religion. He is considered "royalty" in his religion (and in our society) -- he is very much invested in these beliefs and how they have helped him attain power.
The dots are there to connect -- it may not be a pretty picture though when a person gets done...but sometimes in order to understand or do the right thing we have to be willing to look at ugly pictures.
That's my feeling on this. PW
I might add that I find it really disturbing that Republicans are basically doing the same thing that Democrats did back in '08 -- nobody can criticize or question the new knight in shining armor (white horse included!).
ReplyDeleteTo do so runs the risk of getting banned -- that's what left wing sites did in '08; plus given the stern warning that you'd better be voting for him...or else...the evil, bad guys win and the world explodes or something. (not to say the other side isn't bad, but really this is just cultish arm twisting and attempts to silence of a person's right to free will, which is un-American).
And by the way, if you do criticize you can also get labeled a bigot -- except this time it has to do with the guy's underwear rather than his skin -- but it's all the same.
So nobody dares or gets to point out where the new "savior" might be involved in some pretty crazy, ugly, even traitorous stuff because...bigotry!
It's horseshit, if you'll pardon my language.
PW
A lot of us want to defeat Obama. Not because he is black (God knows that only applies to a tiny minority of fucknuts who I soundly reject) but because he is leftist who is fucking the country up.
ReplyDeleteMitt Romney hardly gets anyone excited except for Hugh Hewitt and Ann Romney (and I suspect Hugh Hewitt gets excited more than Ann). Mitt Romney is a moderate Republican who has flip flopped all over a bunch of issues to get elected. But with all my concerns about Romney being a squishy establishment Republican, I think he is better than Obama.
Romney as President will need to be watched all the time (more for a tendency to go Establishment GOP than Establishment LDS), but he will not veto a bill to repeal Obamacare (unless SCOTUS does the right thing on Thursday), he is able to be influenced by the conservative base on SCOTUS picks, he will probably reduce government spending. If that happens, I can live with President Romney.
Is the current LDS prophet going to declare some revelation and create a constitutional crisis during Romney's term? Almost certainly not. Again, there is more likely harm with the Obama in the WH than Romney.
The establish GOP will be trying to maintain discipline for Romney over Obama (and not on a basis of priciples but because they want the benefit of controlling House, Senate and WH). Vote your conscience down the line. If that means no vote for Romney, so be it. I can vote in good conscience for him (at least now). I may change my view by November. We will see.
ReplyDeleteJust as important, vote for conservatives and principled politicians in every race you can.
"vote for conservatives and pricipled politians in every race you can"
ReplyDeleteso zero then?
Defeating Obama? Yeah, great, wonderful -- the guy's always been bad news; everyone associated with him has been bad news. I should know -- my state's suffered under them the longest and the mostest.
ReplyDeleteBut defeat him with Mitt? What kind of great deal is that? (and Mitt is hardly a moderate -- he's as much a narcissist as Obama).
And where the left pummeled everyone with "racist!!!" every time somebody dared breathe a word of criticism for their lightworker, what's the right doing right now? Speak a word against Romney, and bingo -- you're obviously a religious bigot or working for the other side, or some such thing.
Even when the guy deserves to be criticized, even when you're just trying to point out that you think he'll be just as much a disaster as Obama (which I do think he will, and while I could care less that the left is getting hoisted with their insane coronation of Barry, I really would like to see the right not do so).
But whatever...guess we'll find out.
Might I ask...just who is going to be watching Mitt and just how is he going to be pulled and kept to the right? Once he's in office you've given him his mandate -- and he's already showing his colors (he doesn't have a problem with executive priviledge and invoking the War Powers Act in the same way Obama has been doing). What makes you think he'll do erstwhile Republican voters' bidding?
You'll notice that this has very little to do with his religion (although maybe it does: maybe he does believe in that prophecy hogwash...great).
My advice: get as conservative and stiff spined a Congress as possible in...may be the only thing that saves us all no matter which of these jokers goes to the White House (if you can find such congressional nominees).