Revenge fantasies of the impotent

Sometimes the tools I use to keep on top of the information I need for my job send me on some wild trips through the ninth sphere of the blogoverse. And today I found Woody, who hepped me to this thoroughly satisfying little journey through the land of "What if?"

What caught my eye is that Woody approvingly cites the WTF? first paragraph of this Washington Times bit:

Call them the "Doomsday" scenarios -- On Nov. 5, the presidential election winds up in a electoral-college tie, 269-269, the Democrat-controlled House picks Sen. Barack Obama as president, but the Senate, with former Democrat Joe Lieberman voting with Republicans, deadlocks at 50-50, so Vice President Dick Cheney steps in to break the tie to make Republican Sarah Palin his successor.

As far as the Times go, they've certainly got my attention. That Woody gushes over the most unlikely, improbable scenario possible is just kinda creepy. Aside from the obvious point that the certification of the Electoral College vote would proceed under a newly-seated Congress (presumably with a majority (not necessarily working) that doesn't include Joltin' Joe), I simply don't see any reason Joe Lieberman would do that. Voting to confirm Palin wouldn't land him a job in the administration of the (previously confirmed) President Obama, and it would certainly be followed by the words "I will not be seeking another term as the Senator from Connecticut" for all intents and purposes. And that assumes he has the Joementum to survive the recall vote sure to await the man who put the Least Qualified Veep Candidate Ever over the top. The whole scenario is just obnoxiously far-fetched.

The rest of the Times article presents a fair, if somewhat wishful, presentation of the possible politics behind a tie in electoral votes - standard fare. But I just can't get over that first paragraph. It's like the hook must include something that their readers think really sticks in the craw of the Left, and then they slap the trappings around it. After that, we're blessed with the opportunity to witness Woody's arousal at the thought of liberals so driven mad with rage that the National Guard would have to be brought out, and yadda yadda yadda President Palin nukes us to Heaven!

Woody scores additional points for having admitted that this particular revenge fantasy was crushed by the batshit insane prognostications of DHo, who, through a quick look at some Zogby polls, predicts a McCain landslide. And thus begins the turgidity brought on by the thought of a massively popular President McCain who drives liberals so mad with rage that the National Guard would have to be brought out, and yadda yadda yadda Jesus go BOOM!

Before I end, I'd be remiss if I didn't inform you that no visit to Woody's site is complete without a glance at the "Random Obama Facts" generator. My current "fact":

FACT: Tony Rezko once offered Obama a sweetheart land deal, but Obama said "no" because he wanted his family to stay within the community of which he was the organizer.

Kinda reads like a really bad fortune cookie, huh?

New frontiers in constitutional thought

By now you're all surely aware of the Great Frackin' Cracker Desecration of 2008 (Cliff Notes version here). One of the pleasant byproducts of this highly entertaining sacrilege has been my making the acquaintances of some, shall we say out of the way organizations. Like the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy, for example, whose poorly designed web site leads me to believe that they're a small organization of right-wing priests.

I know I should probably cut them some slack because they're clergymen and not law-talkin' guys, but their legal reasoning, especially on constitutional matters, seems somewhat suspect:

We find the actions of University of Minnesota (Morris) Professor Paul Myers reprehensible, inexcusable, and unconstitutional...

[...]

The same Bill of Rights which protect freedom of speech also protect freedom of religion. The Founding Fathers did not envision a freedom FROM religion, rather a freedom OF religion. In other words, our nation's constitution protects the rights of ALL religions, not one and not just a few. Attacking the most sacred elements of a religion is not free speech anymore than would be perjury in a court or libel in a newspaper.

Lies and hate speech which incite contempt or violence are not protected under the law. Hence, inscribing Swastikas on Jewish synagogues or publicly burning copies of the Christian Bible or the Muslim Koran, especially by a faculty member of a public university, are just as heinous and just as unconstitutional. Individual freedoms are limited by the boundaries created by the inalienable rights of others. The freedom of religion means that no one has the right to attack, malign or grossly offend a faith tradition they personally do not have membership or ascribe allegiance.

It's funny how their understanding of the First Amendment is exactly the opposite of what it actually means. Yes indeed I have a right to offend any faith tradition I damn well please, so long as I'm not damaging anyone's property or person. I can tell you the Church coddles pedophiles. I can tell you your mystical cannibalism is so much bullshit. Hell, back in college I used a page from the Gideon's Bible to roll a joint (that Word of God gets you fucked up). And it's all constitutional (well, the rolling a joint part is obviously subject to debate, but the blaspheming is definitely constitutional). And to equate symbolic blasphemy with the Holocaust? That's just fucked up.

Not content to just demonstrate their utter lack of legal understanding, they also show their unfamiliarity with the university and with these little things called facts:

The Chancellor of the University refused to reprimand or censure the teacher, who ironically is a Biology Professor. One fails to see the relevance of the desecration of a Catholic sacrament to the science of Biology. Were Myers a Professor of Theology, there would have been at least a presumption of competency to express religious opinions in a classroom. Yet, for a scientist to ridicule and show utter contempt for the most sacred and precious article of a major world religion, is inappropriate, unprofessional, unconstitutional and disingenuous.

A biologist has no business 'dissing' any religion, rather, they should be busy teaching the scientific discipline they were hired to teach. Tolerating such behavior by university officials is equally repugnant as it lends credibility to the act of religious hatred.

That's so cute. They seem to have this vision of PZ standing before his Intro to Microbiology class, blood dripping from his beard, gleefully desecrating the Host while giggling manically, "Kill Jesus! Kill Jesus!" It's almost a shame to have to inform them that the desecration to place in PZ's private home, on his own time, and the results posted on his private blog - oh yeah, and that what he does as a private citizen is none of the university's goddamned business (which, fortunately, his employer realizes).

I'm sure one of these priests is praying for my soul right now. But if their theological skills are on a par with their grasp of logic or law, I'm sure there's a very confused Buddha somewhere wondering why these fucking Catholics won't leave him the fuck alone.