Deleted Messages Of The Day: If You Read The Bible, You'd Know How Real Demons Are, You Moron
Time for another trip to the comments queue well, where we skim off the finest of our would-be commenters' contributions. First up, a real treat: an actual good old-fashioned email sent to Yr. Doktor Zoom by "Vinbin76," who had a bone to pick with us after we made fun of that dumb WND piece selling DVDs by claiming that Robin Williams committed suicide because of demonic possession. It's a tad long, so we'll tighten it up a bit. Vinbin76 takes a dim view of most Christians and an even dimmer view of Yr Doktor Zoom:
Basically I think 90% of Christians don't know much about the bible or have a sense of it's practical application, good and honest intentions aside. I know most church is strictly social pew sitting for 2 hours then living whatever fucking way you want the rest of the time... hypocrisy, not able or caring to put the pieces together [...]
Criticizing that preacher or pastor or whoever he is, is fun after all cuz @ Wonkette every thing is fair game, I know that. Beside speaking of demons and such is ridiculous in a world that is going to hell in a hand basket.
However you don't know squat about the bible admit it. You are what an old timer would call a nay sayer. The bible does cover all this crap people deal with in excruciating detail but you wouldn't have a clue about that. More stuff than you will ever wrap your Boise Brain around.
Au contraire, Pharisee Face! Yr Dok Zoom knows a fair bit about the Bible, both squat and thrust. Like many others before him, it was reading the thing that helped make him an atheist. Your problem appears to arise from assuming that "knowing about" automatically results in "agreeing with."
Vinbin continues:
It only gets a bad rap because of the idiots preaching it. They only regurgitate the same handful of verses over and over with their hankys til it makes both you and me puke. So, you could only possibly know a handful of verses if that, so give up criticizing what you know absolutely nothing about. Why the fuck criticize what he is saying when you have no clue what the hell he is even talking about. You think you have it all figured out. I am lost for words at your spiritual stupidity at this point.
That's one heck of a paragraph, in which Vinbin starts with a false premise, piles on a couple more, and eventually ends up wholly disgusted at just what A Idiot Yr Dok Zoom has proven himself to be, all in Vinbin's imagination. Dude. Joe Schimmel said that Robin Williams "acknowledged that he had opened himself up to transformative demonic powers that aided him on stage," when Williams had been using a metaphor in talking about the energy of performance being like "possession." And While Yr. Dok Zoom is in fact quite familiar with Biblical claims about demons -- such as those possessed piggies in Matthew 8: 28-34 -- one doesn't really need a lick of that to say that Schimmel is an idiot.
Ah, but Yr Doktor Zoom's familiarity with the Bible isn't actually the main point, anyway. The real point is that demons actually are real, although presumably if we had just read the Bible, we'd know that:
Yeah, Yeah you think there are no devil spirits or that evil is not a living entity and a parent can kill their child without some extraneous source of coercion. Oh right, medical reasons for all that, right. If that's true why cant they fix it. Mechanics fix shit all the time when they see what's not working because they can see WHY it's not working.
Wow, that's pretty deep. We are at least convinced that we do not trust Vinbin to work on our car, let alone do surgery or work as a therapist. Also, since no cures have been found for cancer, ALS, or for that matter the common cold, we should lobby to require that health insurance cover exorcisms.
I guess when you just live for the day and 70 years and a hole in the ground, nothing of much depth really matters beyond that.
Any way, take care,
Vin
Aww, you have a nice day, too, sugar.
Back in the Comments Queue, we also heard from a few folks about events in Ferguson, Missouri. First up, "Mistermazzochi," who replied to our story about the need for protesters to show some R-E-S-P-E-C-T by asking if any of us filthy liberals had ever had to live around The Blacks in Ferguson:
First, do any of the commenters live in St. Louis? I don't think so. If you had spent any time in Ferguson, you might have seen a black adult man driving down W. Florissant Road in a convertible, swigging down bourbon from an open liquor bottle tilted into the air. If you had visited Ferguson, you would have seen black teenagers walk out in the middle of traffic across a 4-lane road, daring people to hit them. If you had gone to any community forums in Ferguson, you might have heard the crime statistic that 67% of the calls to the Ferguson police are about crime being carried out in the mostly-black apartment complex where the late Mr. Brown lived. If you were trembling and crouching down in your Ferguson house that sits 4 blocks from the riots , a house you had lived in since 1952, you might be terrified to leave and drive to Walgreens to pick up an important prescription you cannot live without. If you lived here, you might appreciate a police force that is often criticized for not doing enough to protect our citizens. I think the police are acting with exceptional restraint this week, especially considering the fact that the New Black Panthers have been pushing these riots forward. The Southern Poverty Law Center which tracks hate groups has identified the New Black Panthers as the black equivalent of the Klan. There are many dangerous forces swirling around inside Ferguson today. To reduce us to a Southern small town stereotype ignores the very real fear all of us, black and white, feel.
That's some pretty impressive first-person reporting, and we are now convinced that Mistermazzochi is good and scared of the New Black Panthers, and he apparently sees them everywhere. He even cites statistics, although he doesn't seem to have noted the other statistics about policing in Ferguson, such as the fact that while blacks make up about 2/3 of Ferguson's population, they account for 86 percent of all traffic stops, and are far more likely to be arrested than white drivers. Must be all that driving around in convertibles with liquor bottles.
"Celestewriter" was also pretty darn unimpressed by the protests in Ferguson, too. Here's her comment, which she will be very sad to know we did not approve, but at least we're mentioning it here:
lol...Don't hate me! I'm a new commentator. I love how blacks come together for interracial violence. No one gets shot. Self-respect first.
She really wanted us to read her blog so she could tell us more about it, so here's a sample. In response to the shooting of Michael Brown, she says:
All of these black people are upset, crying and looting…screaming racism.
What do they have to say about Chicago, Detroit and other cities that are in the news reporting massacres of black people by the hands of black people? Is that not considered a crime? Do we not care about the many grieving black mothers and families that have experienced loss via black on black crime?
Who cares about those situations?Apparently not many black people. Black people fear each other because they know that live amongst each other, and know who the killers are. They choose not to make a big deal out of death and murder for fear of being called a snitch. It’s embedded in our culture.
In other posts, Celestewriter notes that she is herself black, so she apparently is an authority on the black community, which is of course just one monolithic thing, and which can either protest racism or clean up its gangster-tolerating act. You should probably take her word on this. She also has astrology advice, if you're into that sort of thing.
On another topic, "wordserf1" was not a fan of Yr Editrix's piece on Maureen Dowd's weird column about how Robin Williams made her think of Hillary Clinton. Wordserf1 felt that we were unfair to the astute Ms. Dowd:
I'm not a big fan of Down [sic], but I actually read her entire piece and I think Rebecca's piece is a bit unfair. Dowd's piece was primarily about how Hillary stabbed Obama in the back with her criticism of his handling of Iraq and Syria and essentially blaming him for what's going on over there now. The other angle in her piece concerned Bill and Hil's political ruthlessness and how they will do or say anything to win. So, now that Obama is a liability to the Dems (as HIl sees it) and, by extension, Hillary's White House aspirations, she's distancing herself. Hence the current title of Dowd's piece: "It's the Loyalty, Stupid." I thought Dowd was spot on this time.
Which pretty much explains why it was perfectly logical of her to start the column by fondly remembering Robin Williams, who somehow reminded her of Hillary. Yes, we see that now. If only we had been fairer to Maureen Dowd, we would have written a sober assessment of her larger point and brushed aside her wierdass Hillary obsession.
And finally, our piece from a week or so back, about Ben Carson's worries that terrorists will pee ebola all over America, drew this comment from "ra44mr2" (we're pretty sure that username is a very obscure Babylon 5 reference), who scoffed at our naïveté:
I know RIGHT??!! Thats so crazy what people think these terrorists would do. Thats almost as crazy as actually taking over 3 jetliners with nothing but box cutters and crashing them into buildings!!! Who DOES that? I mean REALLY? They wont do anything so nutty for goodness sakes they would simply announce where they will attack us and probably use a bomb or something maybe show up with an explosives laden vest for all the world to see and do it that way, cause really thats the most efficient way to eliminate us.
Translation: since 9/11 happened, we need to be afraid of everything, especially if it sounds like the plot of a bad SyFy Original Movie. Are we ready for a sharknado? Well ARE WE?
Well my understanding of the situation might be limited by my non-trivial geographic, cultural and economic isolation. I am constantly tripping over and being reminded of that fact as I read the articles and comments here at this little mommyblog. Anyway it didn't seem to me that any evidence pointing to the proposed invasion's certain fiasco was so clear-cut at the time. It's easy to look back now and find things that foretold what would happen, because now it's history -- we do know how the whole thing played out. From our vantage point in 2014 we can easily connect the dots because now we know what the whole picture looks like. That wasn't really possible in 2002-2003 in part because the whole picture hadn't even been created yet. For instance, prior to the initiation of hostilities could it have been foreseen that Bush would appoint Paul Bremer as post-invasion administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority, and that Bremer would so spectacularly bungle the job? Yes we can easily see some of the seeds of the fiasco in that decision now, but with the possible (albeit far-fetched) exception of people in the Bush inner circle, could anyone have predicted that very development in late 2002?
If we are going to pursue a Great Purge of all the Democrats who failed to foresee the 10-year disaster that the Iraq invasion would degenerate into then we might as well disband the party because there won't be much of it left. And don't plan on replacing them with new members from the public because you won't find very many out there with the required clairvoyance either. The view of Operation Enduring Freedom that is very widely held in 2014 was only held by a very small minority of people nationwide back on the eve of the invasion. If we are going to point fingers then our first target should perhaps be the reflection we see in the mirror.
We could scour the party ranks until we found a suitable seer to support, but then we would have to hope that whoever we found would actually be a good leader and be electable. We could definitely do that. But perhaps the more realistic and productive way of approaching it would be to look at who concluded that the whole thing was a mistake and wanted to pull the plug on it, and when it was that they reached that conclusion: 2004? 2006? 2011? We shouldn't have left; let's go back in (aka the McCain-Graham delusion)?