What could a Muslim religious scholar, possibly know about Jesus?

Nattering Naybob: Greetings, The Red Ranger. I assume you saw or heard of the so-called “interview” conducted by Lauren Green of FOX News, where she spent nearly ten minutes repeatedly questioning author Reza Aslan on why a Muslim was qualified to write a book about Jesus (“Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth”) or if he or she were qualified, why would they then write that book at all. The fact that Ms. Green holds the title of “Religion Correspondent” for FOX News makes her “questions” even more absurd.

Red Ranger, I know that every single media source or website that I link to or quote from, you think is biased or not valid, so this time I am going to annotate the story by linking to an article from the American Conservative.com, that refers to the “cringe-worthy” interview featuring a “misguided line of questioning”. As our President is fond of saying, “Now…let me be clear”, because this bears repeating: This article is from the American Conservative. Good for them for calling out FOX News’s totally transparent agenda of fear-mongering. The article links to the entire video of the “interview”, which lasts almost ten minutes but is worth watching if for no other reason than Mr. Aslan’s cool, calm, collected, yet firm, reaction to the whole fiasco.

The Red Ranger: OK, so I was wondering why would the Nattering Naybob get so worked up about this relatively innocuous, pedestrian interview, Then through a little detective work I realized that the radical left was all abuzz over this interview and commentary about it had popped up all over the liberal blogsosphere.  As is usually the case the left never fails to crucify anyone who dares to defend Christianity.  Here is a link to something found on FOX News.

So I will agree that maybe the interview did not live up to the exceptionally high standards that the FoxNews network has become expected to deliver it is still better than anything put out by the schlock, faux journalistic MSM.  I guess when you are the best, people are ready to jump on even the slightest misstep.

Nattering Naybob: As a tribe, you Republicans are nothing if not lock-step. As you all invariably do, you defend the actions of someone on the Right, or who espouses Right-leaning dogma in an offensive and intolerant manner, by saying that it is an “attack” or an attempt to “crucify” that person’s advocacy for that issue. For example, if someone on the Right makes a speech or posts a blog saying that there should be absolute unfettered access for all Americans to assault weapons, and a Liberal replies by saying that might not be a good idea, the Right-winger will say that the Liberal hates the Constitution, or that they are are soft on criminality, or that they are unfairly savaging the Right-leaning blogger in a partisan fashion.

So it is with this issue, Red Ranger, when you claim that Ms. Green was “defending Christianity”. Only you are wrong on two accounts, achieving a kind of propagandistic daily double. First, Ms. Green’s question about “why a Muslim should be writing a book about Jesus” had nothing to do with defending Christianity per se’. Instead it was yet another attempt to demonstrate a deep mistrust of all things Muslim, which has been FOX News’s stock and trade since September 11, 2001.

Second, and perhaps most important, it is not the anchor’s job to “defend” Christianity in the first place, it is her job to bring out points and ideas from the author’s book that will enlighten or educate the viewers. Ms. Green did none of that, and when the author suggested that she did not even read his book, she did not disagree with or correct him. Instead of giving Ms. Green the title of “Religion Correspondent”, why doesn’t FOX News just call her “Christianity Correspondent– or sometimes Judaism Correspondent When President Obama Calls For a Two-State Solutions and So Hates Israel”?

The Red Ranger: As usual the liberal left’s paranoia and insecurity comes through.  Has there ever been any group that is so completely and utterly inept at defending there positions or supporting why they have those positions.

How does posing a simple question demonstrate a deep mistrust of all things Muslim.  I suppose that if I wrote a book on Islam and was questioned by an Islamic reporter about why I wrote it then they would be demonstrating a deep mistrust of all things Christian just because they asked the question.

I didn’t realize that you had written Ms. Green’s job responsibilities.  Does your emploiyer know that you are moonlighting at another network?

Breaking news: Black kid killed, white killer goes free. Again.

Nattering Naybob: Excuse my rather blunt post title, Red Ranger but I think it justified, given the verdict that was handed down on Saturday night. If I were African-American, I would be pretty pissed off right now. What do you suppose would have happened if a black security guard (or whatever Zimmerman’s title was), targeted a white kid who had no apparent intention of committing any criminal activity, and, ignoring his supervisor’s orders to stand down, caused an unnecessary confrontation that resulted in the black security guard’s shooting of the white kid. I’m sure FOX News and all its adherents would be just as anxious to give the security guard “his day in court”. I doubt it.

I do not watch FOX News. I would rather be tasked to find a lost dime from the muddy ground inside a nest of hungry Komodo Dragons. So since I know you do watch FOX News, maybe you can answer this: Did you ever see anyone on that station, between the time of the initial killing of Martin, up to the present moment, ever express the slightest remorse or condolence for the death of an innocent teenager? Rather than their exclusive focus on Trayvon Martin’s Facebook page or the fact that he was caught smoking marijuana?

The Red Ranger:  I am starting to think that you are just writing these blurbs in an effort to keep our blog vibrant.  You cannot honestly believe what you are writing here.

The only thing that I agree with here is that if I were an African-American I would be pretty pissed off right now.  That anger would be directed at my fellow African-Americans who only seemed to get riled up when a fellow African-American is killed by a white, Hispanic or even a white-Hispanic.  The dozens of black on black murders committed daily do not seem to cause any amount of angst in the black community.  They are just accepted and people move on.  Perhaps a little more concern within their own community could lead to a reduced level of crime and violence.  Instead, of worrying about the rare instance where an armed white-Hispanic is viciously beaten by a drug addled black man and then defends himself they should turn their attention inward and focus on their own community but as is the case within the liberal Democratic world it is always someone else’s fault and no one needs to take responsibility.

I am sure there are numerous instances where a black person shoots an innocent white person every day but this does not make the headlines in the MSM since it does not fit their narrative.  I would love to see a statistical breakout of every solved murder to see how many of the killers were white/black vs. whether the victims were white/black.   I am fairly certain that the numbers would show a larger proportion of black on white murders than white on black.

I know that you have fallen prey to the MSM’s portrayals in this case but let’s face the facts.  A jury found Zimmerman innocent so via the transitive property Martin must have been guilty of attacking him to allow him to defend himself with immunity.  Therefore, you cannot call Martin an innocent victim.  Perhaps if Martin were not high on drugs he could have handled the situation in a more mature manner.  Instead of violently attacking Zimmerman he could have just as easily introduced himself, thanked Zimmerman for trying to protect his neighborhood and maybe shared some Skittles with him.

In regard, to FOX News they certainly have had commentators come on who have said that this was a tragedy for all involved and  have expressed remorse over the situation.

If the DOJ seeks civil rights charges against Zimmerman the people of this country will need to take a long hard look at where this country is heading.

Nattering Naybob: Just as you cite cases of same-race murder or murders of whites by blacks, so can I cite many many instances of black suspects being railroaded over the years for victimizing whites. Last time I checked my history (a topic ignored by most Republicans except in the rare cases it suits their needs), very few whites were lynched over the past hundred or so years and if there were, I doubt that any all-black jurors failed to convict the black lyncher(s) despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I might also add as a point of fact that the vast majority of lynchings of blacks in the 20th century took place in the Deep South, which is also a Republican stronghold. I’m just sayin’.

The bottom line is that Zimmerman has a history of targeting African-Americans, he was told by his supervisor to stand down and not pursue Martin, and he ignored that direct order, and it was his gun, shot by his hand, that killed an unarmed teenager. And he walked away totally free on Saturday night, probably into a waiting job at FOX News as a criminality or security analyst.

The Red Ranger: Like any good Democrat you try to paint southern Republicans as the root of all things racist.  Weren’t some of the most racist figures in southern history democrats (George Wallace for example).   By the way did you see the instance on either CNN or MSNBC where when showing a clip of George Wallace they labeled him a Republican.  Of course, I am sure that any card-carrying liberal believed that since there this is no way a democrat could ever be a racist.  I think that this shows either the complete incompetence in the staff of these networks or indicates the total lack of ethics they have as they try to distort history to a gullible American public.

Southern democrats and southern Republican all voted against the civil rights act so it is not just a Republican thing.  A Republican wrote the voting rights act..  A Democrat put the Japanese in internment camps.  I could go on and on but history has time and again shown the Democrats to be the more racist party.  However, the MSM has taken it upon themselves to re-write history and portray the Democratic party as some long standing champion of minorities and immigrants when they were historically anything but that.

To me the bottom line is you have Trayvon Martin with a history of drug abuse and violent behavior viciously attacking someone who was just trying to make their neighborhood a safer place.  Martin misjudged his victim as I am sure he thought he could beat up some overweight white guy.  I am sure that if he Zimmerman was not legally carrying a weapon he would have become just another victim of black on white crime and Trayvon would have boasted on his Facebook page about how he beat up some “Cracker”.

Nattering Naybob: We have a fundamental disagreement on this one. Zimmerman and his family, especially his brother, have a history of racist attitudes that indicate a proclivity on George’s part to target out an African-American teenager. How in God’s name is it pertinent whether he had a “history of drug abuse”, meaning he was caught smoking pot. I guess that makes Zimmerman’s murder, justifiable homicide in your eyes. Yet Zimmerman was not even charged with that.  This article lays out a report released by the city of Sanford, which summarizes serial instances of Zimmerman acting recklessly and focusing much of his suspicions on African-Americans, some of whom may be he imagined. I find the whole thing disgusting.

Finally, your portrayal of Zimmerman as am “overweight white guy” is a little mis-leading. It is true that right now he probably could stand to ignore the recipes in the latest Paula Deen cookbook, but on the night he murdered Trayvon Martin he actually looked very fit.

The Red Ranger:  Martin not only had a history of drug abuse he had drugs in his system on the night of the incident.

What is your definition of fit?  He was described by someone during the trial as being a .5 and a scale of 1 to 10 in regard to fitness. I cannot comprehend how you reference everything in Zimmerman’s past but fail to recognize anything in Martin’s past as being integral to this case. Clearly, you are having a hard time accepting the fact that you are wrong in this instance since the jury found him not guilty. Why do you constantly fall victim to the MSM and liberal manipulation of the facts?

In the last paragraph Zimmerman did not call to report a black male.  He only identified Martin as potentially being a black male when asked by the dispatcher.  This is the exact misrepresentation of the facts that has gotten NBC, etc. into hot water.

The Nattering Naybob: I submit forthwith a before and after image of George Zimmerman. Compared to how he looks  now, I feel confident stating that he was “fit” immediately after the shooting. As an apologist for a de-facto law enforcement agent who deliberately disobeyed his supervisor’s orders, resulting in the murder of an unarmed teenager, I know that you will do anything to portray Zimmerman as being at a physical disadvantage on the night of the shooting. If he was in fact at a fitness level of “0.5” on a scale of 1 to 10, as you state, he should not have been on duty in the first place. I think we should give our small but loyal band of readers time to digest all our comments above, then we can continue with another posting during which I will respond to your latest “blame the victim” whining.

“This is now decided as a nation”

Nattering Naybob: The Red Ranger, I am curious what you think about the Supreme Court’s twin rulings yesterday that basically represents a sea change in the acceptance, both legally and socially, of same-sex marriage. I will allow the following typically pithy and eloquent quote by Rachel Maddow to summarize the importance of both rulings:

“Bottom line here: the federal ban on recognizing same-sex marriages is dead. California’s ban on recognizing same-sex marriages is dead. There are 12 states in the country where this is now legal, and the political winds on this are blowing so hard in one direction that the idea that we will go back is almost unimaginable in any state in the country … This is now decided as a nation. The argument is won.”

I admit that my stance on same-sex marriage has evolved over the last fifteen years. I suppose you could say the same of many thousands, I dare say millions, of other people across the country. I would like to think that my initial oppostion to it was based largely on what I believe is a basic human instinct of not publicly supporting a lifestyle in which you yourself would not engage; in other words, I could not ever conceive of marrying another man, or having sexual relations with another man, which must mean that I am against other people doing either or both.

And besides, like I said to my wife yesterday, why should heterosexual married couples be the only ones miserable? Although my wife has been a long-time supporter of gay rights, and same-sex marriage, I get the feeling that this rationale did not resonate with her. Since I said this yesterday, she has not spoken to me. I am not understanding this, did I say something wrong?

The Red Ranger: Like you, I cannot conceive of marrying another man (unless of course Sean Hannity comes out).  I am generally against the gay lifestyle but if allowing gays to marry tones down their in your face attitude about their lifestyle then that would be a good thing in my mind.  In general I do not believe that this will have a significant impact on my life.  I just worry that we cater too much to the fringe, deviant element in society while ignoring those who lead an honest, hard working, moral life.

Also, extrapolating this ruling out, shouldn’t I be allowed to have as many spouses as I want (one wonderful wife is not enough).  I am sure that in twenty years they will be saying that people are born with the need for multiple spouses and that they do not have a choice in the matter.

This ruling is just another step in the inexorable march toward a society that lacks any moral compass and is just another move closer to the downfall of society which is happening slowly over time with each of these seemingly small events.

Nattering Naybob: Thank you for using one of my favorite words,”inexorable”. However I do not understand your extrapolation about marrying multiple spouses as it pertains to same-sex marriage. What is the connection? At least you don’t say, “Same sex marriage? Good God, what next? Allowing people to marry horses?? [harumph, harumph]”, like most Repubicans say when asked about same-sex marriage. Maybe you had that planned in your rebuttal, who knows.

By the way, I think that another complaint about same-sex marriage–that it “cheapens” the institution of marriage–is patently absurd on its face. Think about it: If gay couples can now get married, and now DO in fact get married, how does that cheapen your own marriage, or my marriage? (Or the perfect marriage of peanut butter and chocolate?) Do you think it would prevent a young heterosexual couple from getting married? “Oh, darling, if it were ten years ago, I’d get an engagement ring and ask for your hand in marriage, but since same-sex marriage is now allowed, gee… I just don’t know. Maybe we should be just friends.”

On my way home from work each day I walk right past the Fox News headquarters on Sixth Avenue. If you want, you can forward to me a mash note to Sean Hannity, and I can drop it off at the reception desk of Fox News. Hmmm… “Red Ranger-Hannity”. Has a nice ring to it.

The Red Ranger: It is not in regard to same sex marriage per se but the expanded definition of what marriage is.  I was taking the revision of the marriage definition to an extreme.

I agree that it does not cheapen the institution of marriage.

Perhaps I can connect with Sean on e-Harmony.

Nattering Naybob: Good for you for not buying into the standard “cheapening marriage” theory. Regarding e-Harmony, whatever floats your boat, Red Ranger.

Kermit Gosnell

The Red Ranger: I am glad to see that Kermit Gosnell was convicted of his atrocious crimes.  As you know I am in general against abortion, however, I am accepting of abortion in certain situations.  I do not see how anyone could possibly defend his actions.  I can’t wait to see someone who does.  I guess I will have to watch Rachel Maddow’s show tonight.  Oh wait, they probably won’t even cover this story because it doesn’t fit with the progressive, left-wing narrative and talking points.

The flip side of this story is that he may be up for the death penalty.  So is it right for those who clamored for him to be convicted of killing these babies to then be clamoring for his execution.  Seems a little hypocritical to me.

Nattering Naybob: I too am happy  that he was convicted. I would think that anyone who wants to keep abortion safe, legal, and rare, would also be glad. For the benefit of any of our readers who may not be completely familiar with this case, Kermit Gosnell was (ostensibly at least) a “doctor” from Philadelphia who performed late-term abortions. The crimes with which he was specifically convicted involve literally murdering three babies that were newly delivered, by killing them with scissors in too grisly a fashion to describe further. According to FOX News (yes, I am taking an excerpt from a FOX News story)…  

“Authorities said the clinic was a foul-smelling ‘house of horrors’ with bags of stored fetuses, including jars of severed feet, along with bloodstained furniture, dirty medical instruments, and cats roaming the premises.”

Many commentators have asserted that this case demonstrates that Roe v. Wade should be struck down, and all abortion made illegal on a Federal level. However, the Pro-Choice advocate response is that the Gosnell case should be a cautionary tale of what many women would be forced to do if abortion really did become illegal, i.e. patronize an underground, unauthorized “clinic” whose safety and hygienic standards might not be much better than Gosnell’s. Count me as someone who agrees with that rationale.

You mentioned hypocrisy– while I appreciate the nuanced example you gave, my take is a little different, I think the more virulent hypocrisy is anyone who decries abortion, in all cases, and then opposes a law that would require Federal background checks on people who want to buy a gun that might be used to mow down innocent people who have already been born and are contributing members of society. And as I’ve mentioned before, it seems that many politicians and commentators who decry health care reform and want to eliminate the so-called social safety net, care more about a person while they are in the womb, then when they are born.

Regarding Rachel Maddow, I honestly have not seen her reaction to the ongoing story and trial but I seriously doubt that she or any other Pro-Choice people would literally defend Gosnell’s actions because there were the very definition of indefensible.

The Red Ranger: Well, I just heard that Gosnell is not going to get the death penalty so there goes that argument.  So now we will have to pay for him to sit in a jail cell for some number of years.

I don’t really see how it is hypocritical to be in favor of supporting constitutional rights.   After all just because you are against background checks doesn’t mean you support using your gun to go out and kill someone.
I agree that this example should not be used in an effort to outlaw abortion.  Gosnell was clearly outside the lines of acceptable abortion behavior.  The pro-choice advocates clearly want abortion to be something that people view as a simple, tidy little procedure that ends a life in the sterile conditions of a compliant abortion clinic without anyone ever having to see the little dead fetuses.

Nattering Naybob: Sarcasm is not very becoming on you, Red Ranger

Spelling Bee

The Red Ranger: Ryan made it to the finals of his Middle School spelling bee which were held today.  This is quite an impressive feat considering he got a “C” in English this term.  He made it a few rounds but was tripped up on the word “audacious”.  I would have expected him to nail this word since he hears it so many times on FOX News to describe Obama’s policy.

I give him a lot of credit for going up in front of the school.  I know that I would never have done that at his age.  I think the teachers today are much more proactive in getting students to feel comfortable speaking in front of a large crowd.

I was very surprised when he told me he made it to the finals since I know that he never studied any words.  It was funny to see the 6th, 7th and 8th graders on the stage and thinking back to our time in those grades.

Nattering Naybob: Good for Ryan. If the word was “Socialist” or “Muslim” or “arrogant”, Ryan also would have been expected to get that correctly because those are also words that are used on FOX News a lot to describe President Obama.

I do not have any daily contact with today’s teachers, either personally or observationally, so I cannot in good conscience agree or disagree about your statement that today’s teachers focus more on encouraging students to get out in front of people. But I suspect it is true. I remember when we attended Horace Mann School in New Jersey (I think this was the 6th grade), I actually misspelled a word on purpose in my class’s “qualifying round”, so there would be no chance of my having to appear in the actual spelling bee, because I feared I would be too nervous to appear in the final round in the auditorium, which was so big and imposing that I got pretty nervous just attending weekly music class there, especially when Mr. Menzer had one of his frequent fits of rage at our not grasping the finer points of St. Saens or Prokofiev. I’m sure you remember Mr. Menzer’s signature piece he would play on the piano every month or so, when he was in a good mood, “Hong Kong Rush Hour“. One of my most vivid memories of grammar school was hearing that song being played by him on the piano, echoing throughout the entire three floors of the school, each of which overlooked the 3-story tall auditorium by virtue of arched double doors that opened onto a railing you could lean over and look at the goings-on down on the auditorium floor. I attach this YouTube clip of a performance of the aforementioned “Hong Kong Rush Hour”, for your listening pleasure.

The Red Ranger: I also think he could have gotten the words, sequester, deficit, unemployment, Benghazi and golf.

Yes, Mr. Menzer’s playing of this was certainly a highlight.  I actually forgot some of the architectural details you mentioned about the auditorium.  The auditorium was certainly the highlight of the school.  I vividly remember my fourth grade performance as Jacob Marley in A Christmas Carol.  I wish I somehow had a recording of that.  If I actually saw it I would probably immediately destroy it though.

Nattering Naybob: I actually remember your appearance in “A Christmas Carol”. If I recall, you had trouble unlocking the chains around your wrists. Today those chains might be a metaphor for the shackles of Republicanism that is constraining you from enjoying the kind of re-birth that was enjoyed by the other protagonist in “A Christmas Carol”. I’m not saying you’re Scrooge-like… necessarily.

The Red Ranger: Actually, I believe the chains were around my waist.  Now I view those chains as a metaphor for the 47%’s (as I noted previously I believe this number is actually too high as those who have worked and contributed to Social Security should be excluded)  who are living off of my hard earned tax dollars.)

Nattering Naybob: Oh, is that what it was. I am having trouble understanding the purpose of chains around someone’s waist, and then the purpose of unlocking those chains, but what do you expect from a grammar school production ca. 1971? As much as I hated going to school in my youth, I would love to be able to sit in that auditorium (the way it was when we were of school age) just one more time. I remember our weekly visits to the (so-called) school “library”, which was jerry-rigged into the auditorium’s balcony (the librarian’s name was Mrs. Vergsuon, does that ring a bell?) I spent many of those library sessions musing about whether I could ever survive a leap from the balcony to the main floor of the auditorium, a la John Wilkes Booth (but a benevolent John Wilkes Booth, who in an earlier parallel life may have discovered a ticking bomb planted by a domestic terrorist, and determined that the only option to mitigate its explosive impact, was to bring it up to the upper reaches of the balcony, then leap to safety from the balcony just seconds prior to its detonation, while shouting some more humanitarian version of “Sic Semper Tyrannis”. These are the things I thought about in the 4th grade.)

Regarding your complaint about your own hard work being used for the benefit of others, I wonder if you think the reverse is true. I am referring to people who, for example, work in restaurants making minimum wage (if they are lucky) schlepping around trays of plates and other heavy objects all day. Are they too entitled to believe that another class of people may be unfairly gaining advantage from their back-breaking work, especially since they themselves work 40-hour weeks doing very hard work that does not, in most cases, offer them an annual wage that is above the poverty line? I have a feeling that this conversation will probably spin off into a larger debate about the minimum wage, which we surprisingly have not had yet on our little blog. I am eager to have that debate by the way.

The Red Ranger: While I do appreciate the fact that waiter/waitresses that is serving me my 24 oz. filet mignon is making below minimum wage, I do also realize that there is not someone holding a gun to their heads making them work in that job (unless of course it is some Mafia-run establishment).  Hopefully, they are all taking steps to improve their education and skills and will someday be eating that 24 oz filet mignon themselves.  At least that is the Republican way.

I know that the Democratic view is that this person really shouldn’t have to work harder to improve themselves all that needs to be done is to take more of the money from the person eating the 24 oz steak and give it to the waiter/waitress in the form of food stamps, free cell phones or whatever other government program they can avail themselves of.

Nattering Naybob: It depends on what you mean by “working hard”. Someone who is not blessed with perhaps the intellectual talents to go to Harvard University, so instead gets employment as a sanitation worker say in New York City, I would bet works “harder” than 99% of the people who in fact graduated from Harvard. I think you and a lot of other people are missing the boat when you constantly claim that the reason people do not have high-wage, high-vacation jobs, is they don’t “work hard” enough. I say the proper way of looking at it would be in many cases because the low-wage worker is not as “resourceful” as the Harvard grad, meaning that they do not have the time, ability, or mental energy to sit down and plot a life path which would enable them to be able to quit their job as a sanitation worker, go to Harvard, and get a white-collar “knowledge” job. And do you also think that someone who might live in the South Bronx or East New York or in rural Alabama, who has to work at a menial but back-breaking job for less than minimum wage, then has to come home and maybe care for a sick parent or sick spouse because there is no money for a nursing home… is that person in their predicament because they don’t “work hard”?

Your entire characterization of “The Republican Way” and “The Democratic View” is so cliched and structurally unsound that I think you may be beyond redemption on this topic.

The Red Ranger: I do not believe I ever said that these people weren’t working hard just that maybe they need to worker harder to get ahead.

While I fully appreciate the fact that there are people who are in unfortunate circumstances that put significant roadblocks in the way of their attempts to better themselves there are also countless stories of people who have overcome seemingly insurmountable odds to become successfully.  Do you really want to say to the person that worked two jobs and went to night school to get their degree when they are interviewing for a job, “We would really love to hire you but we have this person over here who didn’t have the time, ability or mental energy to do the things you did but we are going to hire him because we feel sorry for him?

Do you think the person who does not have the time, ability or mental energy should be hired for the same jobs as the Harvard grad you refer to?

Nattering Naybob: I checked the transcripts and you are correct, you did not actually invoke the term “hard work” or “hard working”, it was actually “hard earned”. The full sentence is below, when you were referring to the chains you haltingly removed from your waist in the 4th grade production (in more ways than one) of A Christmas Carol, as…

a metaphor for the 47%’s …. who are living off of my hard earned tax dollars.

Only through the most tenuous of technicalities did you wriggle off the hook, because the intent of your message is in my mind still the same, i.e. you claim that others are “living off of” your “hard earned tax dollars”… which basically implies that you work hard and the people to whom your tax dollars are supposedly supporting, are not. From that interpretation, I will not back down.

Of course I do not believe that everyone and anyone should not be admitted to Harvard or get the types of high-wage jobs that graduates of that august institution traditionally obtain. However, I believe I am safe in assuming that you are partly referring to a) people who get unemployment benefits and b) people who receive SNAP or other supplemental income because they find themselves under the poverty line even after working 40 hours a week. And I think that you are using too broad of a brush in saying that all these people are “living off” you, if “living off” implies lounging around the house doing nothing but eating box after box of Bon-Bons and watching Jerry Springer of The Steve Show.

Let me know if your Republican-centric mind cannot absorb the above nuance and complexity and I will try to help you out.

Was Sarah Palin right?

The Red Ranger: I know that putting her name in the subject line will immediately get your blood pressure up and you will be rifling through your card catalogue of trite remarks about her.  However, it appears that she may have been right when discussing death panels, as witnessed by some recent remarks by one of your favorite economists. While I do not have the audio of the session, I have to believe that what they are saying he said is actually what he said.

Just remember you turn 65 before me.

Nattering Naybob: As you know, Paul Krugman is, if not at the top, very near it, on my list of favorite news / opinion columnists. This is actually something that he has been saying as far back as 2010 and earlier. In one of his New York Times blogs from November of 2010, he himself acknowledges an almost identical comment he made on the previous week’s “This Week” program. He also links to EARLIER references he made to the “death panel” remarks, within the below blog posting. So I don’t know why it took the Breitbart website til now to come up with this. Typical sloppy “journalism”, if it can be dignified with that descriptor, by one of your Right-wing extremist gossip mongering websites.

And to answer your question, it is NOT possible for Sarah Palin to be correct about anything. You are taking the two references to death panels out of context. Sarah Palin claimed that President Obama would be including “death panels” in the Affordable Care Act bill (which was a typically Palinesque misunderstanding of reality), while Krugman chose to use it as a kind of short-hand, tongue-in-cheek label for what he thought was a necessary re-examination of how much we should spend on terminally ill patients with no chance of recovery. There is no scientific way that Sarah Palin could be correct on any issue, just like it is not possible for 2 plus 2 to equal 5. By the way, how is Palin’s career as a FOX News analyst going? Oh, I forgot, they did not renew her contract.

The Red Ranger: Yup, now that Sarah is out of a job she is just going to sit home and collect her unemployment checks, food stamps (oops, sorry Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) and sign up for her Obama phone.

Actually, she is probably out hunting a moose now to put food on her family’s table.

By the way, seen any drones lately?

Nattering Naybob: I predict that Sarah Palin will be named host of a Doomsday Prepper reality show on the Nashville Network within the year. That seems to be her niche. Then as they go to commercial, there could be a thirty-second “Sarah Palin Talkin’ Plain” segment where she is sitting in her living room (festooned with wall-mounted mooseheads) and speaks directly to the camera about how “Liberty-lovin’, gun-totin’, wolf-shootin’, momma and poppa grizzlies must band together and stop the Socialist agenda from President Barack Hussein Obama and the Harry Reid Senate, who are propped up by the lame-stream media”. She could have Christine (“I’m not a Witch… I’m You”) O’Donnell on as special guest co-host from time to time.

The only drones I see are the ones from the Republican House of Representatives, when they go on and on with their Right-Wing offal. Do you know what “offal” means, Red Ranger? It was probably on one of our SAT prep guide tests in high school, I’ll bet.

Drudge plays the Hitler card. Republicans stay quiet (again).

Nattering Naybob: Many Republicans (not necessarily you, Red Ranger, buy many Republicans), react with shock and indignation when anyone charges that the Right-Wing blamestream media complex, are on the extreme edge of what used to be considered common respect and decency. Matt Drudge is, as you know, perhaps the most influential Right-wing blogger out there today (The Red Ranger is gaining ground). Below is a screen shot of the homepage of the Drudge Report at one point late last week.

Prominent Right-wing personalities consistently get away with saying and writing things that would once have been considered so outrageous that it would have ended their career. Not so any more. I do not recall any high-profile Republican Thought Captains having condemned Drudge or his onerous homepage that appeared on the Internet last week.

There is a habit that has become something of a cliche, to say that “both sides are guilty”. Not so. Name me any example of prominent (emphasize: “Prominent”) Liberal-leaning bloggers who ever come up with anything resembling the kinds of outrageous horrible attacks that the Right-wing media complex ever do, and get away with regularly. The one episode that sticks out in my mind is that of Rush Limbaugh mocking the involuntary movements consistent with Parkinsons Disease about seven years ago, because Michael J. Fox had the audacity to make a campaign ad for then-Senate candidate Claire McCaskill, who was supporting stem cell research. Yet Limbaugh was never disciplined or suspended, nor did he apologize. That is why I laugh when I hear Republicans claim there is a Left-wing media bias in the country. What complete and utter boulderdash!!!

The Red Ranger: So I see you watched the Ed Show last Thursday night.  I had hoped you had something better to do with your time.

I have to laugh when the left gets all riled up whenever anyone has anything negative to say about Obama.  What about the eight years of vicious, vile attacks that George Bush withstood with such great dignity?  What about all the attacks on your favorite, Sarah Palin.  The left wing media darlings (not necessarily bloggers) Maher, Moore, Goldberg, Behar, etc. all get away saying whatever they want with nary a mention of it in any of the liberal, biased MSM.  This bias displayed by the left is so ingrained in society now that it has become their accepted norm and those on the left, yourself included, do not even realize it anymore.  You cannot see the forest for the trees (or whatever the saying is).

While I do not agree with the comparison to Hitler, from your outrage at this I am assuming that you are then comfortable with the President using an executive order to deny Americans one of their constitutional rights.  This time it may be the right to bear arms.  Maybe next time it will be freedom of speech because as you have indicated here the left cannot bear to take any criticism.

To not admit that the MSM has a liberal bias is confirmation of the fact that your mind has gone to mush and that you have succumbed to their brainwashing.  It is sad to see a once great mind operating in such a diminished capacity.

Nattering Naybob: NOW you tell me you think I at least has a great mind, once. To date you had never even told me that in all the 43 years we have known each other, so I consider that a victory of sorts.

I actually did not watch the Ed Show the night that this appeared, but you basically admitted that you did, by saying Ed Schultz talked about this. Is your insidious addiction to FOX News, weakening? We can only hope.

By the way, the Republican’s all-time favorite Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (whose oft-stated allegiance to the Yankees is his only saving grace), said that the Second Amendment does not imply, or grant, exemption from regulation of guns. This finding was contained in the 2008 Supreme Court case 554 U.S. 570, District of Columbia v. Heller, and was summarized as follows in this main article in Wikipedia.

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Therefore, since any sane-thinking person would acknowledge that President Obama would never attempt a sweeping confiscation of everyone’s guns, any Executive Order to implement rational limitations on large magazine clips, etc., would NOT be in violation of the 2nd Amendment. Is your heretofore moderate view on sensible gun limitations, eroding? Has the National Rifle Association implanted some kind of chip into your brain without your knowledge?

Obama wins Round 2

Nattering Naybob: I think even you, Red Ranger, have to admit that President Obama won the debate last night, by most objective benchmarks by which we evaluate modern Presidential debates. Whether it changed many minds either way at this late stage, who knows. Romney acquitted himself fairly well, but his demeanor was a little more surly and skittish than the first debate, and he came out with some head-scratching comments and verbiage. Two key moments from my perspective:

When Romney was describing how he sought to include more women in the interview process for his Cabinet in Massachusetts, he characterized the collection of resumes from qualified female candidates as having compiled “whole binders full of women”. This surely had to be one of the most unusual bits of imagery ever put forth in a Presidential debate. Romney also described one of the chief ways that he tried to be more inclusive of women in his administration by allowing them to leave early so they could get home and prepare dinner for the family. A noble gesture to be sure, but not exactly one that will help undecided women determine who better understands women’s struggles to be taken as seriously as men, in the workplace. An article in today’s online edition of The New Yorker summarizes Romney’s entire struggle with the original question posed to him of equal pay for equal work.

The second key moment was near the end of the debate when Romney foolishly insisted that President Obama never specifically called the Benghazi attack, and act of terrorism. Obama coolly let Romney tie a knot sufficient to hang himself and then allowed moderator Candy Crowley to point out, if somewhat sheepishly, that President did explicitly condemn the attacks in the opening remarks in his Rose Garden speech the day after the incident. I am not sure why Romney focused so much on this relatively semantical point when he might have benefited more by bringing the conversation more to overall question of how this was allowed to happen.

These two moments seemed to represent the demarcation of three distinct “sections” of the debate. From its opening thru the “binders full of women” comment, Romney seemed assured and confident. Between the “binders” remark, and the “did he call it terrorism” remark, Romney’s tone sounded a little more defensive and nervous. After the “terrorism” remark, Romney seemed like he couldn’t wait for the debate to end, which for his sake, did soon after. Your thoughts, Red Ranger?

PS: After the debate, most major news outlets featured at least one interview with an undecided voter who still said they needed more information and to learn more about each candidate, to make up their mind. Incredible.

The Red Ranger: I would rate the debate a draw. Both sides were able to get their points across. I think some fisticuffs when they got in each other’s face would have livened things up significantly. Candy Crowley could have then stepped in and smacked down both of them. The only reason that people are saying Obama won is because he looked so much better than he did in the first debate. I think people are getting confused as they are comparing Obama to himself in the first debate as opposed to Romney.

In regard to the terrorist attacks in Benghazi Obama did not specifically call the Benghazi attacks a terrorist attack immediately. He said something condemning acts of terror in general. Even many days after the attacks he was still blaming them on the video and not terrorist. If he did call them terrorist attacks in the Rose Garden then why did he not continue to do so. I believe that this is just a clever way for Obama’s team to try to wordsmith their way into convincing people that Obama called them terrorist attacks from the beginning. Why wasn’t this argument pointed out immediately when questions arose about what the president had called the attacks. After several weeks his team has had enough time to review all of his comments and then twist them around to make it sound like he said something that he didn’t actually say. I believe that the moderator was out of line here (as was also pointed out by media outlets).

I believe that Romney’s high point was when he laid out the litany of facts (higher prices, slowing GDP, etc.) about the economy during Obama’s term and how his policies are impacting the economy.

What is up with Michelle Obama leading applause during the debate? This is clearly a rules violation. She should be banned from the next debate and hit with a $25,000 fine.

Nattering Naybob: The Red Ranger rating the debate a “draw” is akin to your saying that Romney got creamed.

Why would Obama have opened his remarks on Benghazi with a reference to terrorist attacks, if he did not think it was a terrorist attack? And theoretically speaking, an attack on a consulate or anything else, could be BOTH a reaction to a YouTube video AND an act of terrorism. I really don’t know why everyone is so hung up on the semantics of the issue, but since Romney insisted Obama did not do something he did, then Obama might as well go ahead and reinforce the fact that Romney doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Obama’s uttering the phrase “terrorism” or “terrorist” in the opening remarks of his speech the day after the attack, should have precluded the Romney campaign from even suggesting that Obama did NOT say it was a terrorist attack. Whoever is doing the research for his campaign is asleep at the switch. But then again, Romney himself has said that his campaign is not concerned with fact checkers. His entire campaign has been one big continuous series of lies and flip-flops. Romney lies almost as much as Curtis Granderson strikes out in the playoffs.

And what are you talking about regarding Michelle Obama “leading” applause? There were only two very brief, fragmented bursts of applause that I can remember during the actual debate. What kind of evidence do you have that she was “leading” applause? Please forward it to the Committee for Presidential Debates, I’m sure they will be very eager and fine the First Lady your prescribed amount of $25,000.

The next and final debate on this coming Monday is about foreign policy. Given Mitt the Binder’s utter cluelessness about how diplomacy works, he should be very frightened by that prospect.

The Red Ranger: Here is the official list of debate violations currently under review by the Committee for Presidential Debates and video proof of Michelle’s clapping.

Nattering Naybob: Thank you for the links. Below is a quote from a well-known evening anchor on a cable news network that speaks to the charge that Michelle Obama applauded during the debate:

“Have you seen the articles? The First Lady got caught clapping? Oh my… is that REALLY an issue with some? Whether the First Lady broke a debate rule by spontaneously clapping one time?… If the nation is arguing about whether the First Lady spontaneously clapped, we have now gone off the deep end.”

Rachel Maddow, you guess? No. The above was from Greta van Susteren, of Fox News. However I must say that I am encouraged that you are looking at Slate.com these days.

Round 1

The Red Ranger:  Romney romps in Round 1.  Pretty much a unanimous decision.  Even your comrades on MSNBC  so say except for Rev. Al of course

Next week Ryan will annihilate Biden.

I hope you can get some sleep tonight.  You may be waking up with nightmares given Obama’s dreadful performane.

Nattering Naybob: How about those Yankees, huh? Despite all their injuries and runners left on base all year, they still wound up with the AL East, best record in the American League, and home field in the AL playoffs.

Romney did OK too I guess. Don’t get cocky, my Republican friend..

The Red Ranger: Yes, it was great to see both the Yankees and Romney win last night

Did you see Chris Matthew’s meltdown on MSNBC last night?  I hope he does not consider himself a journalist.

Nattering Naybob: I am surprised that you are questioning the journalistic viability of Chris Matthews because he actually was very complimentary of Mitt Romney last night. He said that Mittens was the more organized and cogent candidate and that he tried to “win” the debate, as he should have. If the scenario were reversed, and it was Obama who had the unexpectedly strong performance, Fox News would be saying that it was because the moderator (JIm “no, no, your time is up, ah, OK, go ahead) Lehrer, was to blame. That is the key difference between MSNBC and Fox News

I too thought that Romney was the more “organized” candidate. Obama looked tired and distracted. I believe he will do much better in the next two debates. The recent history of the modern debate (since 1976), tells us that an incumbent president seeking a second term, often turns in a lackluster debate performance in the first debate (Reagan 1984, Bush Sr. 1992, and Bush Jr. in 2004).

I first thought it might be a long night for Obama as early as the end of the first segment when both candidates were talking over each, and when Jim Lehrer said they were already going past their allotted time, Romney said “It’s fun, isn’t it?” That typified Romney’s level of comfort last night; he seemed to exude a much more positive energy. However. I expect that this will be the “high water” mark for the Romney campaign, especially since the “substance” of Romney’s performance is now being vetted by the fact checkers, and much of what Romney said, is being proven to be almost comically incorrect, especially in terms of what Romney said he believes is and does not believe in. What I want to know is what in the world was going on during Obama’s debate prep, it seemed like he had no plan and not prepared for some of the charges directed towards him by Romney. Hopefully this will be a wake-up call for Obama.

What are these people thinking?

Nattering Naybob: A recent national poll by Public Policy Polling has revealed the frightening level of ignorance demonstrated by many voters who control who is our next President. The question was “Who do you think deserves more credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden: Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?” The results showed that 62 percent of Republicans in Ohio, and 71 percent of Republicans in North Carolina, believe that Romney deserved more credit, or that they were not sure who deserved more credit between Obama and Romney. 

Please note that the other choice than Obama, was not George W. Bush, but Romney. Although I would not agree with the theory that George Bush deserved more credit (especially since he famously once said in a press briefing, “I don’t really worry that much any more about Osama bin Laden”), there at least is a rudimentary rationale for choosing “Bush” over “Obama”, perhaps by virtue of the perceived planning or groundwork supposedly previously laid by the Bush administration. But Mitt Romney had absolutely no connection whatever to any arm of Government, the CIA, or the Defense Department during the time that the raid on bin Laden’s compound was being planned. 

Red Ranger, I know you are a stickler for documentation, so below are the exact results of how Republicans answered:
 
Ohio
Obama: 38%
Romney: 15%
Not sure: 47%
 
North Carolina
Obama: 29%
Romney: 15%
Not sure: 56%

I submit that if a Republican President had taken the same action, and under that President”s overall command, the Navy SEALs had achieved the same success, that Republicans in Congress and on Fox News would be clamoring for an additional head to be carved onto Mount Rushmore. Check out this article from the New York Times  that discusses these poll results

I cannot help but be reminded of the classic segment that Rachel Maddow did during the 2010 Senatorial race between Lisa Murkowksi and Joe Miller (remember him?) when she asked some Miller supporters why they were supporting Miller. The two people she spoke to were absolutely convinced that Attorney General Eric Holder and President Obama were out to get their guns, except for one small detail: They could not explain what evidence they based this on. This exchange typifies the brand of mis-information that continues to be propogated by Americans who hate Obama. Your reaction.

The Red Ranger: The level of ignorance is equal on the Democratic side.  Please view this video and go to the last couple of minutes to see where these people get their information from. [Note: Some of the user comments contain adult language, as they, regrettably, frequently do on YouTube]

It is truly unfortunate that the vast majority of voters in this country do not take the time to educate themselves on the issues at hand. It is amazing how little people know about basic facts of this country and how it operates.

Nattering Naybob: Nice try, these “Obama voters” were all obviously actors recruited by Andrew Breitbart before his death, and paid for by Karl Rove’s SuperPAC.