The Good Post Gallery

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I hope that it helps mark the end of all of this.. stuff.

I can't remember how it started, and I'm not blaming memphis alone for it.

[tik 🪀✨]

I hope that it helps mark the end of all of this.. stuff.

I can't remember how it started, and I'm not blaming memphis alone for it.

It sort of started with my post, then memphis's reply, in the confessions thread. And then it gradually snowballed into all of this. I don't think anyone on my side of things would apologise too much for the aftermath, though, but it was indeed exacerbated by everyone.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I hope that it helps mark the end of all of this.. stuff.

I can't remember how it started, and I'm not blaming memphis alone for it.

It sort of started with my post, then memphis's reply, in the confessions thread. And then it gradually snowballed into all of this. I don't think anyone on my side of things would apologise too much for the aftermath, though, but it was indeed exacerbated by everyone.

Yeah I stopped reading after the first 50 posts or so spread throughout the atlas domain.  As noted, it seems everyone contributed to the mess.

[memphis]

But aren't you nice to bad people in real life on a daily basis?

Yes, but I'm not convinced that is a virtue.

I think Gus and I would get along better if he would stop referring to those with whom he has differences as "bad people." It's easy to get emotional about politics, but nobody on here is a "bad person." I find that sort of comment to a demonstration of something very important about character and judgment.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Consider this my last word on the Memphis matter - something that I'd like to go for everyone, not just the man in question:

The true irony in all this is that memphis and virtually everybody trying to defend him from the lynch mob are all supporters of gay rights.  The actual bigots have remained silent this entire time.  C'est la vie.

Being decent to people who are different than you is better evidence of not being a bigot than is supporting gay rights.

You’re kind of missing the point and perhaps you can be forgiven for it for being pretty new here. What Joe was saying is that those who have been attacked for defending Memphis from attacks (which is different from defending what he says) are pro gay (for which read LGBT) rights. Joe certainly is.

you completely missed my point.


but this is the good post gallery and not the place to argue about this, so:

This is one of my favorites: a religion map. The data for Canada is from the 2001 Census, so it might be a bit old, but not too much. The data for the US is the most recent ARDA data with some adjustments I made: I took the adherents data and compared it to the ARIS survey of religious self-identification. I found that the data matched up nationally for Catholics and minor religions but not Protestants due to the about 14% of the population that identifies as generically Christian but doesn't attend any one specific church. So I adjusted for these "invisible Christians" to ARIS levels, and divided the new total adherents by the total adult population and fixed a couple other minor issues to get this map:



It's worth pointing out that "no religion" does not necessarily equal atheist or agnostic.

and the other maps in that thread.

[courts]

So, I guess we can we all agree that it's probably a bad idea to send PM's to women (or weird people like me) that you barely know on the Atlas alluding to the desire for sex?

That was really the only point to any of how this started before it morphed into this frightening behemoth.

I agree it's neither a good idea nor a demonstration of basic decency. But I also feel that the social acceptance for introductions has swung too far in the opposite direction where men are made to feel like predators for making any sort of compliment to a woman, no matter how tactfully done. And that's a shame both because people of both genders usually enjoy compliments and because most men are not vicious predators. It's extremely rude and presumptuous to suggest we are. Today's men are are caught in an unfair situation, which leads a lot of them to live lonely lives for fear of being labelled a slimeball or even a criminal. That's not to say life is perfect for women either. It's obviously not, but it irks me when womens grievances are accepted as gospel, but those of men are so callously dismessed because of assumptions that we are so privileged and bigoted and whatever. More broadly, there is an enormous stigma about men making any complaints about our lives, and that is a huge burden to live under as well. I very much wish that people could recognize, as I've stated earlier, that there are pros and cons to being either sex. The world is not as simple as female victims and male oppressors or vice versa.

[afleitch]

Consider this my last word on the Memphis matter - something that I'd like to go for everyone, not just the man in question:

The true irony in all this is that memphis and virtually everybody trying to defend him from the lynch mob are all supporters of gay rights.  The actual bigots have remained silent this entire time.  C'est la vie.

Being decent to people who are different than you is better evidence of not being a bigot than is supporting gay rights.

You’re kind of missing the point and perhaps you can be forgiven for it for being pretty new here. What Joe was saying is that those who have been attacked for defending Memphis from attacks (which is different from defending what he says) are pro gay (for which read LGBT) rights. Joe certainly is.

you completely missed my point.

Err, it was in response to Wyodon and his casual accusation of 'transphobia' against Memphis.

[Mechaman]

But aren't you nice to bad people in real life on a daily basis?

Yes, but I'm not convinced that is a virtue.

I think Gus and I would get along better if he would stop referring to those with whom he has differences as "bad people." It's easy to get emotional about politics, but nobody on here is a "bad person." I find that sort of comment to a demonstration of something very important about character and judgment.

I will admit it does seem to be a bit of a problem.

And if what you said in the bolded is true, I've clearly misjudged your character.  And for that I apologize.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Gustaf's post was excellent indeed. I wish he'd stick to these kinds of posts.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

As someone who is on the Atlas instead of at party talking to girls because there was simply too people there and I got bored quickly, I have to admire the bluntness of this:

Yeah, I've referenced sex a few times.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It certainly seems that way, and it's bizarre.  How can it work unless you think voters are really dumb?

How would the GOP continue to exist without making that assumption?

[Beet]

As someone noted earlier these aren't entirely rare.  In fact, if you look at the Congressional Representation or the List of Governors for some states, it almost seems to be an established tradition.  Outside of presidential families, there are those families in various states that become state fixtures.  I'm thinking of families like the Frelinghuysens of New Jersey, the Bayards of Delaware, the Cabots and Lodges of Massachusetts, the Stevensons of Illinois, etc etc etc.  Fact is, a lot of politicians come from generations thereof, mostly raised from birth to take their (usually) father's shoes.

Americans in general are attracted to this sort of dichotomy, because they are dumb, stupid, and lazy.  Not because they hate freedom (though, a very good argument could be made for that).  In politics it's all about name recognition and appeal.  It's what I would consider to be the "I knew your father" effect, which is what it says on the tin can.

However, at the same time, being a part of a political dynasty doesn't guarantee success.  The Adams family stopped sending men to the White House in 1829, with Charles Francis Adams Sr. and Charles Francis Adams Jr. both achieving fame as third party VPs (Sr. was VP on the Free Soil ticket, Jr. in 1848 was VP on the "True Democrat" ticket in 1872) being the last evidence of their political prestige.  The Harrison family was surprisingly good at elections, electing Ol' Willy before waiting forty plus years to elect his grandson Benjamin.  They haven't been heard from since.  Which brings me to the Roosevelts. . . . lolboy.
You would think that the most popular name brand dynasty would've had much success after TR and FDR.  However, the continuation of the line has proven that if anything, politics is not a genetic gift.  Several of TR's sons, god bless them, took up the very deadly occupation of being in war.  I think several of them died, though one of them, Teddy Jr, did try to run for office.  However, he took a pretty high level step in running for Governor against Alfred E. Smith, who was considered to be a pretty danggum good Governor and had the "street touch" to connect with urban voters and even Republicans to win office repeatedly during the Republican 1920's.  The fact that Smith took Bryan establishment favorite William McAdoo to 100 plus ballots at the 1924 Democratic National Convention speaks is evident of how successful and popular he was perceived, despite being a papist alcoholic (imagine if Jesse Jackson became Governor of Illinois in 1978 and tied Mondale in the 1984 Democratic Primaries and the Convention turned into 1968.  Yeah, that was Smith in 1924).  But damn, enough about Smith, this is about political dynasties.
Anyway, back to the Roosevelt kids.  Oh wait. . . . . what did Teddy do?  All I heard about was how great Al Smith was from Teddy's cousin Franklin Roosevelt.  Wait. . . . what?
So in a freak circumstance of history, FDR succeeds Smith and goes onto become one of the most successful presidents in history.  A former petty Assistant Secretary of the Navy, disgraced by scandal and by a paralytic illness, manages to turn it around in the span of a decade and get to the office of President in a landslide victory over the sexy boy Herbert Hoover though to be fair by 1932 Hoover was far from sexy.  You would think with such an acclimated career that the Roosevelts would've been able to have a strong family dynasty lasting well to the present day.
You'd be wrong.
First there was the old boy James Roosevelt.  A former army general who had enough gravitas in 1948 to be considered a replacement for Harry Truman, Roosevelt ran for the US Congress in California.  He held office for a decade in a "safe" urban Democratic seat in California.  He was kept there pretty much as a reminder of the good ole days as well as his multitude of extramarital scandals that he publicly admitted time and again.  You see, unlike FDR, James wasn't a cool enough motha to brush off sex scandals and thus was relegated to being a Congressman and then a useless cabinet officer for the rest of his life.  Okay, not the rest of his life, he did retire and make a book or two and got married several hundred times.  But still, he was a man who fell woefully short of the expectations for him despite being set up for success by pretty much every higher up in the party to follow in Daddy's footsteps.
Younger brother FDR Jr. was pretty much the same story, minus the military career.  His later run as the Liberal candidate for New York City Governor in 1966, which siphoned off liberal Democratic votes from Frank O'Connor and led to four more years of Rockefeller, probably left a bad taste in the NY Democratic Party's mouth.  As well, he ratted out his own brother Elliott as some communist sympathizer.  A pretty dick move if you ask me.
FDR was truly one of a kind out of his family.  So was Teddy Roosevelt, if you believe the 1994 Massachusetts Gubernatorial Election.
I'll let CNN News tell you about the Kennedys the next time one of them drops dead or is elected.
As for the Bush and Clinton families, who knows?  Maybe they will end up being long lasting dynasties with competent politicians like the Adams family was.  Maybe the Clinton family, with Bill already elected, will wait fifty years before electing another one like the Harrison family was.  Really, I don't know.  But it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't, considering history.

[Mechaman]

As someone noted earlier these aren't entirely rare.  In fact, if you look at the Congressional Representation or the List of Governors for some states, it almost seems to be an established tradition.  Outside of presidential families, there are those families in various states that become state fixtures.  I'm thinking of families like the Frelinghuysens of New Jersey, the Bayards of Delaware, the Cabots and Lodges of Massachusetts, the Stevensons of Illinois, etc etc etc.  Fact is, a lot of politicians come from generations thereof, mostly raised from birth to take their (usually) father's shoes.

Americans in general are attracted to this sort of dichotomy, because they are dumb, stupid, and lazy.  Not because they hate freedom (though, a very good argument could be made for that).  In politics it's all about name recognition and appeal.  It's what I would consider to be the "I knew your father" effect, which is what it says on the tin can.

However, at the same time, being a part of a political dynasty doesn't guarantee success.  The Adams family stopped sending men to the White House in 1829, with Charles Francis Adams Sr. and Charles Francis Adams Jr. both achieving fame as third party VPs (Sr. was VP on the Free Soil ticket, Jr. in 1848 was VP on the "True Democrat" ticket in 1872) being the last evidence of their political prestige.  The Harrison family was surprisingly good at elections, electing Ol' Willy before waiting forty plus years to elect his grandson Benjamin.  They haven't been heard from since.  Which brings me to the Roosevelts. . . . lolboy.
You would think that the most popular name brand dynasty would've had much success after TR and FDR.  However, the continuation of the line has proven that if anything, politics is not a genetic gift.  Several of TR's sons, god bless them, took up the very deadly occupation of being in war.  I think several of them died, though one of them, Teddy Jr, did try to run for office.  However, he took a pretty high level step in running for Governor against Alfred E. Smith, who was considered to be a pretty danggum good Governor and had the "street touch" to connect with urban voters and even Republicans to win office repeatedly during the Republican 1920's.  The fact that Smith took Bryan establishment favorite William McAdoo to 100 plus ballots at the 1924 Democratic National Convention speaks is evident of how successful and popular he was perceived, despite being a papist alcoholic (imagine if Jesse Jackson became Governor of Illinois in 1978 and tied Mondale in the 1984 Democratic Primaries and the Convention turned into 1968.  Yeah, that was Smith in 1924).  But damn, enough about Smith, this is about political dynasties.
Anyway, back to the Roosevelt kids.  Oh wait. . . . . what did Teddy do?  All I heard about was how great Al Smith was from Teddy's cousin Franklin Roosevelt.  Wait. . . . what?
So in a freak circumstance of history, FDR succeeds Smith and goes onto become one of the most successful presidents in history.  A former petty Assistant Secretary of the Navy, disgraced by scandal and by a paralytic illness, manages to turn it around in the span of a decade and get to the office of President in a landslide victory over the sexy boy Herbert Hoover though to be fair by 1932 Hoover was far from sexy.  You would think with such an acclimated career that the Roosevelts would've been able to have a strong family dynasty lasting well to the present day.
You'd be wrong.
First there was the old boy James Roosevelt.  A former army general who had enough gravitas in 1948 to be considered a replacement for Harry Truman, Roosevelt ran for the US Congress in California.  He held office for a decade in a "safe" urban Democratic seat in California.  He was kept there pretty much as a reminder of the good ole days as well as his multitude of extramarital scandals that he publicly admitted time and again.  You see, unlike FDR, James wasn't a cool enough motha to brush off sex scandals and thus was relegated to being a Congressman and then a useless cabinet officer for the rest of his life.  Okay, not the rest of his life, he did retire and make a book or two and got married several hundred times.  But still, he was a man who fell woefully short of the expectations for him despite being set up for success by pretty much every higher up in the party to follow in Daddy's footsteps.
Younger brother FDR Jr. was pretty much the same story, minus the military career.  His later run as the Liberal candidate for New York City Governor in 1966, which siphoned off liberal Democratic votes from Frank O'Connor and led to four more years of Rockefeller, probably left a bad taste in the NY Democratic Party's mouth.  As well, he ratted out his own brother Elliott as some communist sympathizer.  A pretty dick move if you ask me.
FDR was truly one of a kind out of his family.  So was Teddy Roosevelt, if you believe the 1994 Massachusetts Gubernatorial Election.
I'll let CNN News tell you about the Kennedys the next time one of them drops dead or is elected.
As for the Bush and Clinton families, who knows?  Maybe they will end up being long lasting dynasties with competent politicians like the Adams family was.  Maybe the Clinton family, with Bill already elected, will wait fifty years before electing another one like the Harrison family was.  Really, I don't know.  But it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't, considering history.

Damn it!  Did I really write "New York City Governor"?  I could shoot myself!

[Antonio the Sixth]

The universal welfare state.

And basically everything else follows. Society is based on the concept of equality. This is accepted by an overwhelming majority of the population, precisely because state programs aren't seen as "hand-outs", but rather something that everyone benefits from.

[Gustaf]

But aren't you nice to bad people in real life on a daily basis?

Yes, but I'm not convinced that is a virtue.

I think Gus and I would get along better if he would stop referring to those with whom he has differences as "bad people." It's easy to get emotional about politics, but nobody on here is a "bad person." I find that sort of comment to a demonstration of something very important about character and judgment.

I will admit it does seem to be a bit of a problem.

And if what you said in the bolded is true, I've clearly misjudged your character.  And for that I apologize.

I think plenty of people in real world and on here are bad people. If someone acts or talks in a way that I find unacceptable I'll say so. I don't see why I should be respectful of someone just because they happen to be a member here. And I can't think of anyone else who does that on here either.

There are opinions I can disagree with and respect (e.g. raising the minimum wage is great or the EU should be more integrated). And then there are those I don't respect. Memphis' views on women fall into the latter category.

If respect or the term 'good person' is to have any meaning it can't be bestowed upon everyone regardless of their behaviour.

Gustaf's post was excellent indeed. I wish he'd stick to these kinds of posts.

Well, Memphis response to it amounted to saying 'boo hoo'. Sbane insulted my intelligence in a ridiculous fashion. So, putting effort into a thoughtful post was essentially meaningless. I might as well have stuck to name-calling. See, the incentive for me to explain my thinking disappears when the other person seems too aggressive, stupid or morally vile to bother with a proper discussion. And such is often the case.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

One little thing that I have observed, is that all this gender war stuff fades as you get older. It's just so pointless - and stupid. And within each gender, there are a range of attitudes, and over time, those attitudes tend to come closer together a bit. On the emotional level particularly, experience, and having the endured the hard knocks, counts. In the end it is about compatibility, sexually and interests, and temperament. And we learn to tack to accommodate, as we learn that it is not all about me.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

If you have to take a knife to your face to avoid being oppressed, you're still being oppressed.

The way to avoid sexism is to stop judging people by their appearance or at least have more realistic expectations about appearance.

Not to mutilate women so they all conform to the sexists' standards.

[Napoleon]

No, Iraq should disqualify Clinton from becoming President, but apparently all the "liberals" seem to be suffering from collective amnesia.

Were "liberals" suffering from amnesia in 2008 when they supported John Edwards, even though he voted for the same Iraq resolution? Also, if you seriously believe that Obama would have voted differently on Iraq had he been a US Senator at the time you're delusional. This selective memory of only Clinton's vote and forgetting Edwards' and Biden's votes, or the fact that Obama and Clinton voted practically identically on foreign policy in the Senate, has always been illogical and absurd. If you want to take a stand on that vote as singularly disqualifying then great, but don't pretend that the majority of liberals were ever consistently with you.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Why is it that, unlike most of society, parts of the Atlas forum have apparently failed to grasp that there is such thing as oversharing?

[Marokai Backbeat]

The US healthcare system is basically an institutionalized organized crime protection racket.  You take some person that needs to get medical care.  You don't tell them what anything costs and then you bill them whatever you want. 

It's like in the movie Goodfellas where they sell their protection services to the bar.  They force the business to take their help, they frequent the bar and run up huge tabs and extort money and then when it goes belly up, they burn it down.  That's exactly our healthcare system.  They take the sick person, charge them $56 for a bottle of asprin without telling them and they leave with a gigantic bill.  After the insurance has paid, the person is broke and they don't have any more money to make, you have a medical bankruptcy (burning down the bar in this analogy). 

If you like the free market, you should hate our healthcare system.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

We would just stay in one of those motels along the beach in Cape May (the city itself).  I always looked forward to the skee-ball and the mini golf and the food (both highbrow and lowbrow) more than the beach itself.  Back then, politics was not exactly at the forefront of my mind, and neither was beer.

traininthedistance instantly became one of my favorite posters.  (describing what a childhood Jersey Shore trip was like for him)

[Mechaman]

I'd argue that living in a country with armed guards everywhere is inimical to freedom. It's a militarization of what was once a public space. The trend of equating public life with the security state / authoritarian life, is deeply disturbing. And the mentality of treating your neighbors as people whom you need to carry a gun because you might one day have to kill them, even in self-defense, I would argue is inimical to the idea of a secure society, as well.

The problem is that when you have an armed guard, the first person a mass shooter is going to off is the armed guard. That MIT policeman was armed, and it didn't make him a hero, it only made him a target. The deeper problem is that guns are fundamentally offensive weapons. That means that the person who wants to hurt someone else first will always have an advantage. You can carry as many guns as you want for self-defense, but the person who wants to kill you with a gun will have the advantage.

That's why freedom can't be enforced at the barrel of a gun. A gun is a tool of death, fear, and coercion, and as such it's fundamentally, I would argue, inimical to freedom, as well as to all other humanistic values. Only the cultivation of people through cultural norms to be good, moral, and to abhor coercion will be able to protect freedom in the end. In such a society guns would not be necessary. Although we are far from that ideal today, we know from the model of other countries like the U.K. that it is possible, that it is life-saving, and we should begin to move in that direction.

Not sure I agree with the last sentence, but about 95% of the rest of it I was like "damn straight".  So here ya go.

[Lief 🗽]

i don't like the term 'white privilege' for a lot of reasons. and i'm sure the forum considers me an 'extremist' on guns. but let's be honest here: it says a lot that a crowd of mostly white people would feel confident enough to press their luck like this. somehow i doubt a crowd of several hundred black men marching with guns would be received nearly as well by your typical movement conservative. in fact i seem to remember a certain b-movie actor banning 'open carrying' in his state for that exact reason.

[Mechaman]

Let's the record shows how tricky this is:


1896: William McKinley

Next: NYC Police Commissioner. Too young, too abrasive.

Next-to-next: A federal judge with no political temperament whatsoever.

Next-to-next-to-next: Some stiff egghead. Lulz.

1901: Theodore Roosevelt

Next: A nice lawyer freshly appointed as Governor-General of the Philippines. Sure he's from an important political family, but certainly not an electoral type.

Next-to-next: A political science Professor at Princeton who doesn't even hold an office.

Next-to-next-to-next: Some random Ohio state Senator.

1909: William Howard Taft

Next: Princeton University President, known in the political circles but would need some public office first.

Next-to-next: Former Lieutenant Governor of Ohio. Meh.

Next-to-next-to-next: A small town mayor from rural Massachusetts.

1912: Woodrow Wilson

Next: Former Lieutenant Governor of Ohio who just score a big publicity by delivering the keynote speech at the RNC. Still, needs higher office.

Next-to-next: Some state Senator from Massachusetts.

Next-to-next-to-next: A wealthy Quaker mining engineer with no interest in politics.

1920: Warren G. Harding

Next: His Veep, an obscure dude who, unlike good ole Warren drop dead (and who'd even think that), will be another forget Vice President.

Next-to-next: A famous humanitarian already considered a potential presidential candidate for both parties in 1920 and was just appointed Commerce Secretary. Why not?

Next-to-next-to-next: Failed Vice Presidential nominee on a ticket that just lost by the greatest landslide ever. There are some scandals too.

1923: Calvin Coolidge

Next: His Commerce Secretary and one of the most beloved men in America. Likely.

Next-to-next: Most recent failed Vice Presidential nominee struggling with polio. We don't talk about scandals anymore, but he's certainly not in condition to resume his career.

Next-to-next-to-next: An obscure failed haberdasher-turned-Missouri County Judge. Really?

1928: Herbert Hoover

Next: Freshman Governor of the largest state in the Union. Obvious candidate.

Next-to-next: The same obscure County Judge on a political machine payroll. Haha.

Next-to-next-to-next: A random Army Major.

1932: Franklin D. Roosevelt:

Next: Former Missouri County Judge as the next President? Hahahaha.

Next-to-next: Some Army Major.

Next-to-next-to-next: A rich kid from Massachusetts.

1945: Harry S. Truman:

Next: A celebrated Army General who led the allies to victory in Europe. If he wants the job it's his.

Next-to-next: A rich kid from Massachusetts-turned-war hero.

Next-to-next-to-next: A young but already quite powerful Representative from Texas.

1952: Dwight D. Eisenhower

Next: Freshman Senator from Massachusetts. Charismatic and photogenic, but way too young and inexperienced. Plus, he's a Papist!

Next-to-next: Freshman Senate Minority Leader. What a rapid rise! Certainly a dude to watch.

Next-to-next-to-next: His Vice President. Didn't expect to see him on the last place?

1960: John F. Kennedy

Next: His Vice President. Sure, Jack won't drop dead (he's too damn young and healthy), but LBJ is a powerful politician on his own and set his eyes on the White House.

Next-to-next: Outgoing Vice President who just lost the closest election in history. Will be back.

Next-to-next-to-next: An universally liked Michigan Representative. He's cool, but come on...

1963: Lyndon B. Johnson

Next: Former Vice President who just lost gubernatorial election in landslide. He's done.

Next-to-next: Michigan Representative. He doesn't even want a damn job.

Next-to-next: An obscure peanut farmer-turned-state Senator from Backwater, Georgia. Just STFU.

1968: Richard M. Nixon

Next: House Minority Leader. Great fellow but not a presidential material.

Next-to-next: Former Georgia state Senator who lost a gubernatorial bid two years ago. Not serious.

Next-to-next-to-next: Governor of California and leader of the New Right. Likely candidate in future.

1974: Gerald Ford

Next: Lame duck Governor of freaking Georgia nobody heard about. Lol.

Next-to-next: Outgoing two-term Governor of California. Very likely candidate.

Next-to-next-to-next: RNC Chairman. Well-positioned within the establishment, yet kind of sucks in getting elected for anything higher than Congressman. Maybe.

1976: Jimmy Carter

Next: Former Governor of California who just almost unseated incumbent President in primaries. You bet he'll run.

Next-to-next: Outgoing CIA Director. Mr. Establishment, but still sucking at electing himself.

Next-to-next-to-next: The new Attorney General of Arkansas. Rising star, but there are many rising stars.

1980: Ronald Reagan:

Next: His Vice President. Everybody and their grandma knows he'll run.

Next-to-next: The youngest former Governor in America, defeated after just two years in office. Come on.

Next-to-next-to-next: The Veep's oldest, drunk son. Lol.

1988: George H. W. Bush[/b]

Next: Young yet experienced Governor of Arkansas. Almost ran this year.

Next-to-next: The President's son. He needs to do something with his life first, but if there's any young Bush with political future, it's that brilliant Jebby.

Next-to-next: Some Black Chicago community organizer with a funny name. You've got to be kidding.

1992: Bill Clinton

Next: His predecessor's son. Just shut up.

Next-to-next: Black Harvard law lecturer. Seriously?

2000: George W. Bush:

Next: A state Senator that just lost a congressional primary in landslide? He's Black? What's his name again? B-Rock? Borat? Baruq? YOU ARE INSANE!

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I deeply disagree with Calvinism in many ways and, although I respect those who are strident in their faith, many manifestations of Calvinism lead us to a very flawed mindset where it doesn't matter what you do at all. On the occasion I do meet Calvinists up here north of the Mason-Dixon line, they sometimes take on a belief that since they said some prayer once, they're forever saved no matter what they do with their lives. To me that rings of a telemarketer weight loss type of scam: lose weight now with this little trick (!) and neglect the suffering that one must go through otherwise. Christ's life had suffering in it and ours likely will too if we are truly following him. Many of the issues I have with American style conservatism have roots in Calvinist thought. One idea that permeates though our discourse, especially on the right that is completely off in my opinion is the idea that the US is predestined for a sort of greatness, chosen by God to lead the world for the rest of time. Likewise, the idea that God rewards his people on earth with wealth and worldly success (ie. the prosperity gospel) also has Calvinist roots to it as well. In addition, Calvin was one of the main forces in the Reformation that argued a more complete jettison of the value of tradition than Luther did. None of these necessarily have to apply to Calvinism in theory, but in practice are the result of it in the US at least.

The other very significant problem I have with Calvinism, which many have mentioned already, is the lack of free will. It sets up God as a rather cruel figure, making people predestined for hell without the opportunity to choose to do otherwise. I was taught from a very young age that God loves us so much that He gives us the choice to follow him or not. This choice is deeply intertwined with the belief in the existence of the human soul; it is a piece of the mechanism by which God gives meaning to our lives. Without free will, we don't actually matter. We're just tools. Our lives don't matter. There's no point in having this conversation at all, since we couldn't change our minds if we wanted to anyway.

One of my personal struggles in life is against a despairing nihilism that says all humanity is hopelessly lost beyond any means I can see of turning it all around. But what breaks that idea is the intrinsic value of humanity, intertwined with the belief that God has created each and every one of us as fundamentally good beings, though in a fallen state. That difference shows the value of humanity and makes it much easier to love others no matter what state they're in. That's the model Christ showed us and the one we ought to emulate.