"If I were starting a church, which way would I go--Jesus or Paul? It depends on how faithful I was to the original teachings of the Master versus compromising with the material world."

Exactly. I was trying to be droll, you understand. One way lies a life of self-abnegation, of washing the feet of the beggar. In the other lies a well-fed indolence and power over other people. Easy choice, right? Of course, I'm talking about the pre-Luther Catholic church; as delusional as Protestants may be overall, their organizations have generally been less lavish, more christian in the sense of trying to follow the teachings of Christ.

The Fundamentalists, who talk more about Jesus than anyone, seem the least interested in following his teachings, going for the salvation thing, the eternal life thing instead. And who can blame them? Following the teachings of Christ can be a whole lot of hard, unpaid work.

Thank you for the informative post. If Paul had not existed – and who knows if he really did? – The Church would have had to invent him. Without Paul, the christian clergy would be mendicant monks and poverty-stricken teachers, not very popular with the secular authorities. With Paul and his gift of the power of redemption, The Church has created a mighty bureaucracy full of men with no calluses on their hands nor dirt under their nails, dressed in fine linen and surrounded with beautiful objects, who aid and abet the politically powerful in return for protections of all sorts. I mean, if you were going to start a church, which way would you go – Jesus, or Paul?

Would one (or more) of you please provide a plausible, reasonable excuse for why Gov. Palin is unavailable for interviews? Can one of you say with a straight face that you would not be going ape-shit if the shoe were on the other foot and Obama's mystery-pick for VP was hiding from the press? Please, I await...no, we ALL await your response. Remember, it has to be credible (good luck!).

If only. More like wolves in sheep's clothing. They don't "let" the Republicans shape the story, they don't just happen not to be looking or listening when Palin's honesty or McCain's economics are being questioned by reasonable people using hard facts. For every Keith Olbermann there is a Ron Fournier who reaches tens of millions more people with slanted, carefully hand-picked "news" that elevates the McCain campaign versus the Obama campaign. They may not succeed. Then again, they may. As the election draws near, it's going to become even more outrageous.

But so far the Dems haven't been able to make much hay out of the despicable way McCain cheated on, then ditched, his first wife who waited faithfully for him to return from Vietnam. Any more than we were able to make anything of Bush's dereliction of military duty, his drug and alcohol use, his business failures, etc. As far as Republicans go, as long as it's one of their own, people are people: fallible sinners whose sins only show how down-to-earth they are.

We may have reason to wish, at some point in the future, that we had paid more attention to what Dick Cheney is doing right now. It's a banner across the bottom of the convention/Casey Anthony/etc., etc., coverage: "Dick Cheney assures Tbilisi They Have Our Complete Support," and "Russia Claims U.S. Fomenting Georgian Aggression." It's strictly page five news, everywhere. But does Dick Cheney really give two hoots what happens in Georgia, at this stage in his political career -- or as a human being? Of course not. So what is Dick Cheney doing? Is it not possible he's trying to stir up an international incident, perhaps even a shooting war -- one into which he will have promised to commit American military assistance? Let's face it, McCain's simplistic bellicosity will play far better in a world where there's a "danger" to point to. It's a big problem for the Republicans that the world doesn't feel particularly dangerous to Americans at the moment. I submit that Cheney is doing what he can to remedy that, and that we should be letting him know that the American people are watching, and that we are not willing to go to war with Russia over Georgia now, or ever.

Who said, in effect, that if 5 years of being incarcerated in a foreign country and horribly tortured confers the ability to run a nation, then Guantanamo Bay isn't a prison...it's a Leadership Academy!!

Don't bother with rupert. Name-calling is pretty much his only...well, talent, if you want to call it that.

Hard to believe the Republican campaign is being allowed to shelter Palin from interviews, the news shows, etc. It's just like the last eight years: they do whatever they want, we howl a little, and...they do whatever they want.

http://www.thepresidentialcandidates.us/about-sarah-palin-a-letter-from-anne-kilkenny/741/

Of course she sounded like Dubya -- her speech was written by the same sclerotic hacks who've been scribing the Rebumblican talking points for the last eight years.

By getting so overwrought about Palin, calling her "Dickless Cheney" and witch, bitch and Dubya's Double -- aren't we giving her a lot more stature than she merits? She's just what she says she is, a soccer mom from nowheresville. She's got a very slim resumay (why can't we use accents, after all we're all French-loving libs here, aren't we?), she loves her family, her gun and her snowmobile. That's all she is. It's a complete mystery why she finds her self where she does, completely out of her depth in the national spotlight. She's not stupid, she can deliver a speech; she takes rather well to sarcasm and nastiness, but as a youth soccer referee I've seen plenty of moms on the sidelines who were a whole lot worse. So, let's stop pumping her up on steroids. She's a nobody. And McCain is a senile nut-job for offering her the candidacy. All there is to it, folks.