I Have No Words.

This woman, a fellow legal practitioner and writer; is arguing there is no evidence of torture.

Seriously; you have to help me find the words...

Update: found some from a Holocaust survivor in a response to that drivel, so I'm stealing them.

"Obeying the law doesn't necessarily mean behaving humanely. Laws can be
inhumane too, and it is up to every humane person to disobey laws that seem
otherwise."

Props well deserved

Ta-nehisi is a beautiful writer and friend of the Family. This is a blog to put on your favorite list darlings. (I've been reading him secretly forever, but his latest post featured NEW EDITION! it's time to come clean)

http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/

More Cool Booklearnin!!

One of my interests is Philanthropy. I've decided to bone up on the philanthropic marketplace, Get a mastery of key fundraising techniques and gain some comprehensive management skills (to get one of these gigs: Grants Program Manager, Director of Development, Donor Response Manager, Director of Fundraising, Director of Marketing Research, Director of Public Relations, Annual Giving Officer, any position in Planned Giving.)

I'll need two big skillsets: the essential tools of fundraising management and non profit administration. To get there I'll start with (1) the fundamentals of fundraising, (2) Major Gifts (3) Planned Giving (4) annual campaigns (5) Grants (6) Research for fundraising. Then onto Non Profit Administration information (1) marketing for non profits (2) non profit management (3) quantinative techniques for policy making and administration.

Doesn't that all sound like fun?

Another goal is to narrow down the amount of areas that interest me in order to focus. My interest list is Hella long:

1. African Amercan/blacks
2. Agriculture and food
3. Arts and Culture
4. Youth/Children
5. Civil and Human Rights
6. Civil Society
7. Community Improvement/Development
8. Disabilities
9. Education
10. Elementary and Secondary Education
11. Environment
12. Higher Education
13. Human Services
14. International Affairs/Development
15. Journalism Media
16. Minorities
17. Public Affairs
18. Philanthropy and Volunteerism
19. Social Science
20. Women

To that end I found a couple great online resouces to get started on my little crusade, The Foundation Center.

I'm off to the races. Wish me luck, I'll be posting what I learn :-P

Reading- Relations Among States

1. The Interstate System: Key Elements

1.1. Bruce Russett and Harvey Starr, World Politics, Chapters 3-4, pp. 46-98

1.2. Shively, Power and Choice, Chapter 18.

• What is the international system?
• What are its key elements?
• Who are the key actors and what do they do?
• Be sure you understand ways in which nation-states are not the only important actors in the international system.
• How is the organization of politics and choice within states similar and different to that of the international system?

2. Order and Disorder Among States

2.1. John Gerard Ruggie, "Interests, Identity and American Foreign Policy,"

2.2. Samuel Huntington, "The Clash of Civilizations,"

2.3. Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris. "The True Clash of Civilizations ,"

2.4. Thomas Friedman, Chapter 1-2,

• Mearsheimer argues that the structure provided by the Cold War was important in limiting many conflicts within the international system.
• He, like others, worries about the lack of structure in the present system.
• Although some of his initial assumptions will disturb many of you, see if you can find examples from the past two or three years to support his argument.
• Huntington suggests that ethnicity and religion now have replaced ideology as the basis of political divisions in the world.
• Is what he calls "the clash of civilizations" so new, and if it is what are the prospects for war and peace in the coming years?
• Friedman raises the issue of the importance of technology as a focus for integration and conflict.

3. International Conflict: The North-South Case

3.1. Charles W. Kegley, Jr. and Eugene R. Wittkopf, "The North-South Conflict: Roots and Consequences of Global Inequalities,"

• The conflict between the haves and have-nots, the north versus the south has the potential to be the most intransigent international conflict in the next twenty years.
• What are its key elements?
• Are the ways in which it can be limited effectively?
• How much inequality is compatible with a just solution?

4. Just War

4.1. Neta C. Crawford, "Just War Theory and the US Counterterror War."

Reading- Citizens and Modern States

1. The Individual, Groups, and the State

1.1. Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, "Pericles' Funeral Oration"

1.2. John Locke, Second Treatise, Selections

1.3. The Federalist Papers 10, 37 and 51

1.4. Shively, Power and Choice, Chapter 2.

• What is the relationship between the individual and the political community?
• Western thought gives particular attention to the idea of the individual as distinct from the community, but this is far from universal.
• Consider how this idea is imbedded in the notion of the contemporary nation state.

2. Citizen Participation and Daily Life

2.1. Jane Mansbridge. Beyond Adversary Democracy. Chapters 12-16, pp. 139-232.

• What is political participation and what are the different realms of people's lives it can touch?
• Consider the consequences of a theory of political participation as you read Mansbridge's discussion about participatory workplace.
• What are the problems in participatory organizations?
• How is inequality inherent in all organization?
• When and why is inequality not necessarily unfair?

3. Citizen Participation and the State: Parties, Interest Groups, and Elections

3.1. Jane Mansbridge, Beyond Adversary Democracy, Chapters 17-22, pp. 233-303.

3.2. Shively, Power and Choice, Chapters 11-13.

• Political participation, is to many, the hallmark of modern democracy. Yet beyond voting every few years most citizens are hard pressed to say what participation entails.
• Mansbridge's final chapters push us to think about different conceptions of democracy in general and to consider democracy’s relevance for our personal and work environments as well as the larger political world.
• Think about participation as a social, not just individual, political act, and the importance of institutions and practices such as political parties, voluntary associations, and interest groups in the process in terms of the examples Shively presents.

4.Democracy, Civil Society and Democratic Transitions

4.1. Edward Shils, "The Virtue of Civil Society." Government and Opposition, 26 (1991), 3-20 (on reserve)

4.2. Gerhard Lehmbruch, "Consociational Democracy, Class Conflict, and the New Corporatism," pp. 53-61, and excepts from Philippe C. Schmitter, "Modes of Interest Intermediation and Models of Societal Change in Western Europe," (on reserve)

4.3. Shively, Power and Choice, Chapters 8-9.

• The post-Communist transition in Central and Eastern Europe is more difficult and more complicated that many expected in 1989.
• Simply holding elections is not enough to insure PS 101- 7 effective, stable democracies.
• Much recent attention has focused on the idea of "civil society," the notion that effective democracy requires many intermediate institutions between the state and the individual and these are still absent in much of the region.
• Consider this argument and make sure you understand its key elements.
• Yet civil society (called pluralism in some cases) is only one democratic model.
• Consider how it compares with corporatism as Lehmbruch and Schmitter describe it.
• Why do you think that corporatism and corporatist thinking is so uncommon in the United States?

Reading- Politics in the Modern State

Here we go!!

1. Varieties of Political Organization: Cross Cultural Comparisons

1.1. Lorna Marshall, "!Kung Bushman Bands,"

1.2. Marshall Sahlins, "Poor Man, Rich Man, Big-Man, Chief: Political Types in Melanesia and Polynesia,"

1.3. Donald V. Kurtz, "Strategies of Legitimation and the Aztec State,"

1.4. Shively, Power and Choice, Chapter 10.

• Although politics is found in all human communities, it can take many different forms.
• These articles point out some of the diversity of political organization found in different preindustrial societies ranging from hunting and gathering bands to complex states.
• They also suggest important variation in political leadership styles and the organization of authority.
• In addition to identifying this variation, consider why it occurs and what its consequences are. PS 101- 5
  

2. The Rise of the European State: The Case of France

2.1. Shively, Power and Choice, Chapter 3.

2.2. Clifford Geertz "The Integrative Revolution: Primordial Sentiments and Civil Politics in the New States," (article)

3.3. Eugen Weber, Peasants into Frenchmen: The Modernization of Rural France, 1870-1914. Selections. (article)

• The nation-state is the quintessential form of modern political organization.
• It is clear that the nation-state is an organizational form, but it also can be the object of great emotional attachment. Geertz, an anthropologist, explores this loyalty in a classic article about the nations of Asia and Africa.
• Weber's study of France is instructive and important in raising important questions about the relationship between national identity and state formation.
• His detailed historical analysis suggests that the formation of the state preceded the development of a sense of "Frenchness," that the state power of the state was used to change identities among many rural people living in France, and that this could only occur with the technological changes in the later part of the 19th century.

It should suggest important questions about the nature of states today.

3. Decision Making and State Institutions: What Do States Do?

3.1. Shively, Power and Choice, Chapters 4-7.

• Modern states make and implement policies. But what exactly does this mean.
• Think about various areas of our lives and consider how they are affected by state action.
• How do different concerns compete for attention of the state?
• Shively raises the question of how we are to evaluate state action as governments make policy.
• What is your reaction to his criteria of efficiency and fairness?
• How do they sometimes complete?

Finally, how are we to think about the relationship between the state and its citizens?

3.2. Shively, Power and Choice, Chapters 14-17.

• Democratic nation states are organized in many different ways.
• The most striking contrast is between presidential and parliamentary systems.
• Make sure you understand not just what the key differences are between the two, but what difference they make.
• In other words, how might it matter if the US was a parliamentary, and not a presidential, democracy?

What is the role of the bureaucracy and the rule of law in each? Consider the contrasting examples Shively presents.

4. The Politics of Equality and Group Differences

4.1. Douglas Rae, Equalities. (on reserve)

4.2. Lani Guinier, "Groups, Representation, and Race Conscious Districting: A Case of the Emperor's Clothes,"

4.3. William G. Bowen and Neil L. Rudenstine, "Race Sensitive Admissions: Back to Basics,"

• There is social and cultural diversity in all modern nation states.
• What are its political consequences?
• These readings focus on different ways to think about the concept of equality and ask you to apply them to questions of ethnic and racial differences.
• To what extent are these differences the greatest source of political tension in modern states?
• To what extent can structural formulas protect minorities and ensure them full citizenship? Rae points out different meanings of equality.
• Make sure you understand the distinctions he makes between group and individual equality in particular.
• Guinier points out why majoritarian democratic procedures may PS 101- 6 not meet the needs of many majorities.
• In what ways are her arguments similar to Mansbridge's?
• Bowen and Rudinstine examine the theory and some data behind affirmative action in college admissions.
  
  

Reading- Thinking about Politics

1. Introduction: What is Politics?

1.1 W. Phillips Shively, Power and Choice: An Introduction to Political Science. Chapter 1 and Appendix.

• What is politics?
• What is political action?
• Compare the different conceptions of politics found in Shively
• Is politics associated exclusively with the state or is it found in all social units?
• What does it mean to talk about the politics of family relationships?
• How does our understanding of the political affect what we study and how we study it?

2. Politics as Conflict

2.1. Robert J. Spitzer, The Politics of Gun Control.

• A prominent feature of contemporary politics is conflict between groups with different ideologies and life styles.
• Perhaps no issue in American politics typifies this better than the issue of gun control (with the possible exceptions of abortion and gay rights).
• Spitzer provides both an overview and analysis of this issue and explains why and how it has become so divisive in American politics.
• Try to understand why proponents on each side understand the conflict so differently and are willing to commit such great resources to their cause.
• To what extent do opponents of gun control feel their identity is wrapped up on the issue?
• How and why is identity central to understanding the intensity of the dispute?
• Can you imagine a constructive solution to this divisive conflict?

3. Politics as Community Decision-Making

3.1. Jane Mansbridge, Beyond Adversary Democracy, Chapters 1-11, pp. 1-138.

• While political activity in all societies shares some common elements, politics occurs in and is studied in specific settings.
• Mansbridge examines two in detail—a New England town and a participatory workplace-- to understand what she calls unitary and adversarial democracy.
• The first eleven chapters present an initial statement about the two forms of democracy—make sure you understand what she means by each and how they help you understand the New England town and other small communities.
• Later, I'll complete the book.

Off to the internet!!

Off to the internet!!

1. Lorna Marshall, "!Kung Bushman Bands," Africa. 30 (1960), 325-354.

2. Marshall Sahlins, "Poor Man, Rich Man, Big-Man, Chief: Political Types in Melanesia and Polynesia," Comparative Studies in Society and History. 5 (1963), 285-303.

3. Donald V. Kurtz, "Strategies of Legitimation and the Aztec State," in Frank McGlynn and Arthur Tuden (eds), Anthropological Approaches to Political Behavior. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1991, pp. 146-165.

4. Eugen Weber, Peasants into Frenchmen: The Modernization of Rural France, 1870-1914. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1976, Selections from Chapters 1,6,7,12,15,16,29.

5. Clifford Geertz "The Integrative Revolution: Primordial Sentiments and Civil Politics in the New States," in Geertz (ed). Old Societies and New States: The Quest for Modernity in Asia and Africa, Free Press, 1963, pp. 105-128 and 153-157.

6. Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, "Pericles' Funeral Oration."

7. John Locke, Second Treatise, Chapter 5, Chapter 7 sections 87-90, Chapter 19 section 222.

8. The Federalist Papers 10, 37 and 51.

9. William G. Bowen and Neil L. Rudenstine, "Race Sensitive Admissions: Back to Basics." Paper adapted from the Chronicle review, February 7, 2003.

10. Douglas Rae, Equalities. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981, Chapter 1, pp. 1-19.

11. Lani Guinier, "Groups, Representation, and Race Conscious Districting: A Case of the Emperor's Clothes," in The Tyranny of the Majority: Fundamental Fairness in Representative Democracy. New York, Free Press, 1994, pp. 119-156.

12. Edward Shils, "The Virtue of Civil Society." Government and Opposition, 26, (1991), 3-20.

13. Gerhard Lehmbruch, "Consociational Democracy, Class Conflict, and the New Corporatism," pp. 53-61, and excepts from Philippe C. Schmitter, "Modes of Interest Intermediation and Models of Societal Change in Western Europe," pp. 63-68 in Philippe E. Schmitter and Gerhard Lehmbruch (eds), Trends Toward Corporatist Intermediation. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1979.

14. Bruce Russett and Harvey Starr, World Politics, NY: W. H. Freeman, 1995, Chapters 3-4, pp. 46-98.

15. John Gerard Ruggie, "Interests, Identity and American Foreign Policy," in Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International Institutionalization. London: Routledge, 1998, pp. 203-228.

16. Samuel Huntington, "The Clash of Civilizations," Foreign Affairs, 1993, 22-49.

17. Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris. "The True Clash of Civilizations ," Foreign Affairs, 2003, 62-70.

18. Thomas Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree, 1999, Chapter 1, pp. 3-24

19. Charles W. Kegley, Jr. and Eugene R. Wittkopf, "The North-South Conflict: Roots and Consequences of Global Inequalities," in World Politics: Trend and Transformation, 5th Edition, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994, pp. 90-130.

20. Neta C. Crawford, "Just War Theory and the US Counterterror War." Perspectives on Politics. 1, 2003, 5-26. PS 101- 4

Off to the library!!

Off to the library!!

1. W. Phillips Shively, Power and Choice: An Introduction to Political Science. 8th ed. NY: McGraw Hill, 2003.

2. Robert J. Spitzer. The Politics of Gun Control. Second Edition. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 1998.

3. Jane Mansbridge. Beyond Adversary Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983.

I'm tired of being slow on the uptake... I'ma start learning

DABBLE INTO POLITICAL SCIENCE

note: Among political scientists there is great disagreement about what the field's core questions are and how best to study them. It's typically introduced to through sub-fields (American Politics, Comparative Politics, International Politics, or Political Theory.) I'm going to stretch my muscle-- think analytically about politics, and the different ways of understanding it.

First Let's consider the way people think about politics. Then, how are political organizations constructed. Next let's look at teh citizen vis-a-vis the state. And finish of with a gander at international relationships.

To to that end let's read the New Yourk Times and the local paper every day. Check out some readings from basic college texts and articles, ann of course respond to them here. :-P

Because this is a self-study deal, I hope my blog entries provide a way to formulate thoughts about specific theories, to raise questions, to ask for clarification, and to make connections among ideas presented by smart people.

Wish me luck!!

Fast food joints need to bring back the all-you-can-eat-buffet. It;s not the way I eat, but it;s the way a lot of people luvvvvvvv to eat. It's been a while, so they should bring it back.

Your Darling Scrub.

The Papers finally made mainstream media

Man oh man, I bet you have great thoughts on this. Happy hump day.

Ok. If you had known me through the legal study years of my life, I'm sure back in the day you would have indulged me to one of my rampant discussions of the Torture Papers. Which I found not only academically instructional, but holy-shit-fascinating. I was uber-brand new to the legal game, and never seen raw documents before, so I figured, "with so many smart people around me, the Papers were beyond me too." It was clear as day the shit was illegal... but there had to be some bona-fide reason they are getting away with it. Cuz Americans were TORTURING PEOPLE and y'all just don't do that.

At any rate, years later, the subject is coming up mainstream again in the wane days of your President. Question: Is anyone new going to jail for this, and is it possible the practice is gonna stop?

I'll take the damn bar and a law gig just to help out if it is.

Sigh

You're invited.

My mind wandered to a pair of family traditions my father rocked: Christmas Eve breakfast and Christmas Brunch.

For December 24th. He makes pepper-pot.

Warning. This Breakfast is hard core. Pepper-pot is rustic and meaty and mollasses filled. It's Guyanese in that half the time you have no clue what kind of meat your eating, but it always has massive bones to knaw around. Don't even consider silverware, it's eaten with wonderbread. The more people you have in your company the better; but get it while you can get it... cuz the four of us (my brother, two younger sisters, and I) can kill an entire pressure cooker full in one sitting.

Told ya. There have been good natured fights and injuries.

Christmas brunch is civilized in the classic British-Guyana tradition. Unlike the previous morning's free-for-all, you're clean and dressed. Dad's Garlic Pork is the standout on the menu. Good garlic pork is marinated for a month in some brine you can clean space shuttles with; but you can get away with only marinating it for a few days if you're feeling lazy. It's white and fried, and no bones at all. The taste is intense.

Yummy.

As my family changes, I hope the four of us, (my older brother, two younger sisters and I) continue the pure raucus that is pepper-pot and the gratitude to be among the ones you love that is garlic-pork.

It's about time to start the marinate for December 25th.

:-P

Are you as politically aware as Sarah?

The Sarah-Palin-thought-South-Africa-was-the-southern-region-of-the-country-Africa thing made me gaze at my own navel and wonder if I have the common knowledge required to be politically saavy. So I nosed around the web to see if there was some kind of meter-stick to measure.

et voila.

The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press published a report, a Political Knowledge Update. The conclusion, "Most of the Public Is Familiar with Key Political and Iraq Facts"

It suggests that you take the quiz of questions for yourself before you actually read the report.

So, really really really hoping that I'd never embarrass myself at parties the way SP did on international television, I took the test to see if I was bright.

Apparently I am :-)

I don't mean to brag but I'm over the 80% tile compared to the rest of you yahoos.

More after the jump

Unfortunately, according to the report, the national average for women was below the national average at 39% (on one hand it means I'm doubly as smart as the average woman in the area, the bad news is that it's fuckin 39%!!!)

Of course, the Pew reports that the average person does not know enough, they normally pay attention as does the media. and as the war wained less knowledge was absorbed/learned/accumulated.

interesting. I wonder what Sarah would have scored.....

OH... that's it. she brought the average down. we should tabulate it like ice skating, you know you can drop her score as low (and mine as high, hee hee) and just average everyone elses... then I bet we wouldn't be losing to the boys.

so there!

I love this-- "God Angrily Clarifies 'Don't Kill' Rule"

It's so good and classic I had to dump the whole thing on here.

Enjoy :-P

God Angrily Clarifies 'Don't Kill' Rule

September 26, 2001 NEW YORK—Responding to recent events on Earth, God, the omniscient creator-deity worshipped by billions of followers of various faiths for more than 6,000 years, angrily clarified His longtime stance against humans killing each other Monday.

God.

"Look, I don't know, maybe I haven't made myself completely clear, so for the record, here it is again," said the Lord, His divine face betraying visible emotion during a press conference near the site of the fallen Twin Towers. "Somehow, people keep coming up with the idea that I want them to kill their neighbor. Well, I don't. And to be honest, I'm really getting sick and tired of it. Get it straight. Not only do I not want anybody to kill anyone, but I specifically commanded you not to, in really simple terms that anybody ought to be able to understand."

Worshipped by Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike, God said His name has been invoked countless times over the centuries as a reason to kill in what He called "an unending cycle of violence."

"I don't care how holy somebody claims to be," God said. "If a person tells you it's My will that they kill someone, they're wrong. Got it? I don't care what religion you are, or who you think your enemy is, here it is one more time: No killing, in My name or anyone else's, ever again."
The press conference came as a surprise to humankind, as God rarely intervenes in earthly affairs. As a matter of longstanding policy, He has traditionally left the task of interpreting His message and divine will to clerics, rabbis, priests, imams, and Biblical scholars. Theologians and laymen alike have been given the task of pondering His ineffable mysteries, deciding for themselves what to do as a matter of faith. His decision to manifest on the material plane was motivated by the deep sense of shock, outrage, and sorrow He felt over the Sept. 11 violence carried out in His name, and over its dire potential ramifications around the globe.

"I tried to put it in the simplest possible terms for you people, so you'd get it straight, because I thought it was pretty important," said God, called Yahweh and Allah respectively in the Judaic and Muslim traditions. "I guess I figured I'd left no real room for confusion after putting it in a four-word sentence with one-syllable words, on the tablets I gave to Moses. How much more clear can I get?"

"But somehow, it all gets twisted around and, next thing you know, somebody's spouting off some nonsense about, 'God says I have to kill this guy, God wants me to kill that guy, it's God's will,'" God continued. "It's not God's will, all right? News flash: 'God's will' equals 'Don't murder people.'"

Worse yet, many of the worst violators claim that their actions are justified by passages in the Bible, Torah, and Qur'an.

"To be honest, there's some contradictory stuff in there, okay?" God said. "So I can see how it could be pretty misleading. I admit it—My bad. I did My best to inspire them, but a lot of imperfect human agents have misinterpreted My message over the millennia. Frankly, much of the material that got in there is dogmatic, doctrinal bullshit. I turn My head for a second and, suddenly, all this stuff about homosexuality gets into Leviticus, and everybody thinks it's God's will to kill gays. It absolutely drives Me up the wall."

God praised the overwhelming majority of His Muslim followers as "wonderful, pious people," calling the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks rare exceptions. "This whole medieval concept of the jihad, or holy war, had all but vanished from the Muslim world in, like, the 10th century, and with good reason," God said. "There's no such thing as a holy war, only unholy ones. The vast majority of Muslims in this world reject the murderous actions of these radical extremists, just like the vast majority of Christians in America are pissed off over those two bigots on The 700 Club."

Continued God, "Read the book: 'Allah is kind, Allah is beautiful, Allah is merciful.' It goes on and on that way, page after page. But, no, some assholes have to come along and revive this stupid holy-war crap just to further their own hateful agenda. So now, everybody thinks Muslims are all murderous barbarians. Thanks, Taliban: 1,000 years of pan-Islamic cultural progress down the drain."

God stressed that His remarks were not directed exclusively at Islamic extremists, but rather at anyone whose ideological zealotry overrides his or her ability to comprehend the core message of all world religions.

"I don't care what faith you are, everybody's been making this same mistake since the dawn of time," God said. "The Muslims massacre the Hindus, the Hindus massacre the Muslims. The Buddhists, everybody massacres the Buddhists. The Jews, don't even get me started on the hardline, right-wing, Meir Kahane-loving Israeli nationalists, man. And the Christians? You people believe in a Messiah who says, 'Turn the other cheek,' but you've been killing everybody you can get your hands on since the Crusades."

Growing increasingly wrathful, God continued: "Can't you people see? What are you, morons? There are a ton of different religious traditions out there, and different cultures worship Me in different ways. But the basic message is always the same: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Shintoism... every religious belief system under the sun, they all say you're supposed to love your neighbors, folks! It's not that hard a concept to grasp."

"Why would you think I'd want anything else? Humans don't need religion or God as an excuse to kill each other—you've been doing that without any help from Me since you were freaking apes!" God said. "The whole point of believing in God is to have a higher standard of behavior. How obvious can you get?"

"I'm talking to all of you, here!" continued God, His voice rising to a shout. "Do you hear Me? I don't want you to kill anybody. I'm against it, across the board. How many times do I have to say it? Don't kill each other anymore—ever! I'm fucking serious!"

Upon completing His outburst, God fell silent, standing quietly at the podium for several moments. Then, witnesses reported, God's shoulders began to shake, and He wept.

I love this snark so much... it's old but classic His site is here.

Dear New Hampshire,

This isn’t directed at all of you. With most of your state’s 1.2 million residents, I have no quarrel. No, I’m talking just to the 39% of voters in the Democratic party primary election who cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton. You know who you are, and you have a lot of explaining to do.I thought we had an understanding. There was a certain way Tuesday was supposed to go. I think we all know which way that was. Yet, things didn’t go that way, did they? I wonder if you have any idea what you may have unleashed on the unsuspecting American electorate.A few years ago, this seemed inevitable. Hillary Clinton was going to breeze through the primaries to the nomination, and that was that. The Republicans being their usual reptilian selves were going to nominate either a ghoul (Giuliani) or a mannequin (Romney), neither of which would have been able to put up much of a fight against the massive coalition of women, minorities, incubi and succubi Hillary was sure to have assembled. After that, we’d get four (or most likely eight) years of soulless, detached, calculated political leadership that would make the last two terms of the Bush administration look like the salad days of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson by comparison. It was coming. There was simply no way to stop it.Then, lo and behold, a glimmer of hope. Barack Obama, a little known state senator from Illinois gives a speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention. Later that year, he absolutely murders Alan Keyes in their race for a seat in the U.S. Senate. People start to whisper about him, sometimes live on television. They call him the future of the Democratic party, a superstar in the making. Early in 2007, he announces his run for his party’s presidential nomination.It all sounds too good to be true. He’s only been a senator for two years. He’s the child of a white woman from Kansas and a black man from Kenya. His middle name, for God’s sake, is Hussein. But he is still relatively young, and a fresh face, not someone who has made his living spending tax dollars in Washington, D.C. He’s passionate, and optimistic, and able to stir those same qualities in others. He’s genuine, or at least able to fake genuine better than most. He can give one motherfucker of a speech, and make it sound like he actually, you know, cares about what he’s saying. He kindles a hope, futile though it was, even in those of us who are not and never have been Democrats, that there might be another way, that eight more dreary, depressing, disconnecting, alienating years might not be staring us in the face from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.Too good to be true is exactly what it was, and futile, and the mother of all long-shots. Until a month ago, when something completely unexpected started to happen. Obama’s presidential campaign, which had been running strong, but always a strong second to Clinton’s, started to catch fire. He snagged endorsements from newspapers, unions, and most significantly Oprah Winfrey, whose enthusiastic support reminded me that politics does indeed make strange bedfellows. Suddenly, he was giving his stump speech to thousands of people at a time. He was moving up in the polls, closing the gap between he and Hillary, both in key early primary states and nationally. And while Obama was suddenly soaring, Hillary was stagnate. Until January 3, that is, when Obama convincingly won the Iowa caucus. Hillary was no longer stagnating; she was fading away.New Hampshire, you were supposed to be the next nail in her coffin. Not the last one — too many people know her name, and the woman has way too much money for that to have happened — but a big one. Pre-election tracking polls gave all the momentum to Obama. While Hillary looked exhausted stumping in front of crowds of a few dozen, maybe a few hundred on a good night, Obama was playing to gymnasiums packed to the rafters and looking like a rock star. It was going to be a blow-out, a double-digit defeat to send Hillary slinking off into the shadows that had spawned her to rest and regroup.
window.google_render_ad();
So what happened? Explain this to me, because I would love to hear one logical motive, one reason why 39% of you decided to vote for Hillary Clinton Tuesday. You had a chance to take the one truly fresh and likable candidate running for either major party’s nomination this time around, and elevate him to undisputed frontrunner status. More importantly, you had a chance — perhaps the only chance anyone will ever get — to drive a stake through Hillary Clinton’s shriveled, evil vampire heart. Yet, you didn’t do it. I struggle. I struggle to understand why.Maybe you thought Hillary was the more qualified candidate. I can’t see how, since she is hardly a veteran of elected office, having served as a senator a mere five years longer than Obama, and since her few attempts at making policy during her husband’s presidency were all resounding failures. Her legacy after eight years as First Lady is being willing to ignore or forgive her husband’s continuous adultery, debasing herself in order to preserve their unholy political alliance (and also, incidentally, their marriage).

Maybe some of you would rather see the first woman president than the first black president. That possibility troubles me. The election of the first woman or the first non-white person to the highest office in the land should be a time of triumph, of celebration, of exultation, whether that person is a member of your political party or not. It should be a transcendent moment in American history, when those of us lucky enough to be alive to bear witness are able to exorcise ourselves of the sins and shortcomings of our ancestors which delayed this great day so long. It shouldn’t be the election of just any woman or just any black person. It should be someone worthy, someone we can all take pride in, whether we voted for them or not.

If Barack Obama is elected and inaugurated as the first black President of the United States, someday we will be able to tell our children and grandchildren that we were here when it happened, that some of us helped to make it happen by casting our votes, and that we are proud to have been so blessed to have lived through those days. If Hillary Clinton is elected and inaugurated as the first female President of the United States, someday we will have to explain to our children and grandchildren why, in 2008, we were unable to find a single female in the entire country more fit to hold our government’s highest elected office than a cold, conniving, uncharismatic woman that most of us despised. We will have no excuse.

You could have put Obama on the right track, New Hampshire, but you screwed it up. You screwed it up because 39% of your Democratic primary voters were either too stupid or too cowardly to do what was right. You guys could have put this dog down. Now she’s loose. We may not be able to catch her. Obama may still pull it out, and maybe he’ll be better for having to fight for it. But it’s just as likely that Tuesday was his last shot. If Hillary takes the nomination and goes on to win in November, we’ll all have you chowder-slurping sons of bitches to thank.

Those of you who voted on the Republican side at least showed some brains. McCain is the best of a shitty lot. At least you didn’t all come out and vote for Romney, that android. If Hillary does get the nomination, you’d better pray to God that McCain gets it for the Republicans and beats her ass in the general election. Because if not, I promise I will see each and every one of you maple syrup-eating bastards in Hell, where you will not live free, my snowmobile-riding friends, oh no — you will die all over again.

Yours in Christ,

Steve

Hee hee! Scrub