I couldn't resist you, I'm not deaf dumb and blind

[wombat_socho]

Do people like this student even realize how bigoted they sound? Makes me wonder how long we'll have to wait for a new Test Act that also bars evangelicals -or people who look and sound like evangelicals- from office. Judging from the confirmation hearings for Justice Alito last year, some people evidently think there's one in effect already.

Tonight I'll probably be working on my apazine for this weekend's StippleAPA, which as usual I've done absolutely nothing with in the last six weeks since Arcana. I did a little background work for Blood Red Skies today which should make writing the battle scenes in the middle chapters a lot easier, but I'm dubious about whether I'll actually get any actual writing done.

As for the weekend, aside from the Stipple collation, a stop by the library to pick up the new David Drake novel Some Golden Harbor (one of the Lieutenant Leary series, featuring the most lethal librarian in the universe) and a programming meeting with thaadd sometime Sunday, I don't have any plans, because those usually require money, and that's going to be scarce for a while.

Comments

[nornagest.livejournal.com]

> The right person for the job lost, and a woman, who is confused with politics and religion, won.

I sincerely hope that those commas are a sign of illiteracy, not an intentional part of the sentence's structure. Unfortunately, they're probably not.

[433.livejournal.com]

I don't think she is right for the office either. I don't think that anyone who is told what to do by God, Allah, Vishnu, Buddha, Flying Spaghetti Monster, or her husband should be in office. Stand up for your own beliefs, stand up for yourself.

You can be as religious as you want, that's fine with me. You can vote the way your religion tells you too, that's okay too. However, don't you dare vote the way your spouse tells you. I don't care if you're Bachmann, Clinton, or Knutson. Stand up for yourself.

[digex.livejournal.com]

seriously, there is a valid discussion to be had here, if we can keep emotion in check long enough to have it, since some of this is emotional some times. when we hire someone to do a politicians job, we are hiring them to use their judgement, and other things, in our place, sort of as our proxy, or a proxy melange of all of the represented. if a candidate says to me "my faith is part of who I am, and it gives me structure, guidance, and informs me in making decisions" then I can deal with that - if a candidate says "I talk to god and I will do what god tells me to do in performing my job" then I have a problem with it - I didn't elect god to the post, I elected the candidate. there are people out there who may not feel that "the closer to god the better" when it really means that someone is taking "the word of god" and trying to apply it directly to the reality without the buffer of a human mind. in addition, there are those who do not believe in god, or perhaps believe in some god(s) structure which may be very much different from what the politician believes in - these people may feel very much not represented. maybe ascii graphics? god ======= person ====== actions seems OK god ======+person +===== actions seems questionable | | to me +------+ doug