Professor David Epstein, Columbia University Political Scientist, Charged With Incest After Three-Year Relationship With Daughter

Via Five Feet of Fury:

"Liberals Leftists: your moral and intellectual superiors! — Columbia prof, Palin hater and HuffPo blogger charged with incest involving 24-year-old daughter."

Seriously!

Where's the LGM academic decency brigade! This is an emergency!

404 error at Epstein's Columbia University bio-page, but the Department's faculty information page is still available (Screencap here.)

Epstein was the co-recipient of the American Political Science Association's 2005 Decade of Behavior Research Award. (Screencap here.) Plus, APSA has a special Decade of Behavior page here, with more information on Professor Epstein.

Five Feet links to Newsbusters and New York Daily News.

Elie Mystal at Above the Law is totally grossed out, "Columbia Poly Sci Professor Accused of Diddling His Daughter."

And at Gather, "Columbia Professor David Epstein Busted Following Three-Year Relationship With Daughter":

In Ivy League incest news, Columbia University professor David Epstein was arrested today on charges of incest in the third degree after it was revealed he and his now 24-year old daughter had a "consensual" three year relationship.

According to gantdaily.com, Epstein was actually quite well-liked at Columbia, and had a fairly prestigious and well respected career. It's always the ones you least suspect, right?

Epstein had authored several books, written pieces for The Huffington Post, and had previously acted as a political analyst for CBS!

Epstein was set to teach two classes this semester at Columbia; "Scope and Methods," and "Research Topics and Game Theory" ....

Sources say that Epstein's incestual [sic] relationship with his daughter began after some serious "sexting," which is somehow almost creepier than actually committing the act.

Esptein has taken a leave of absence and faces four years in prison if convicted.

And at PuffHo, "David Epstein Incest Charges: Columbia Professor Charged With Sleeping With Daughter." And a couple of Epstein's GOP-bashing essays at PuffHo, "Two Obvious Truths About the Torture Scandal," and "Palin Proves Voters Were Right in 2008."

Epstein's Twitter page is still available as well, although he's not currently using it.

Added: Robert Stacy McCain has more: "Palin-Hating Columbia Professor, Huffington Post Blogger, Busted for Incest."

And now an Instalanche!

Totalitarian Faith

I've noticed lately that radical progressives get particularly pissed when you call them out as nihilist. I discussed this recently in a lengthy essay, "Anti-Intellectualism and the Marxist Idea." At issue there were some of the objections of BJ Keefe from September, and he reissued them just last week, and I responded again, "Navigating Past Nihilism." While BJ claimed I had "twisted" the meaning of nihilism, he never did actually offer his own definition. The issue has popped up again, as Amanda Marcotte has gotten peeved at my descriptions of leftists as nihilist, and she's spouted off her frustration on Twitter and in at least two posts at Pandagon. She has, for example, attempted to smear me as a "moron" who "pretends" to know what nihilism means. It's fair to say that nihilism is deployed with a range of meaning, although it's not fair for leftists to attack me for ignorance while simultaneously refusing to provide a counter exegesis. As noted, my traditional usage focuses on leftist abandonment of historical norms of morality, along with the concomitant campaign of destruction on Judea-Christian ethics.

In recent posts I've focuses more narrowly on Friedrich Nietzsche's thesis of the social obliteration of God. And unbeknownst to poor Amanda, I've provided a dictionary definition at "Navigating Past Nihilism," and the link there goes to Professor Sean Kelly's recent piece at New York Times. So basically, leftist lamebrains cited here and elsewhere can just STFU.

In any case, I'm reminded of David Horowitz's The Politics of Bad Faith: The Radical Assault on America's Future. He writes, at pages 28-29, on a June 1990 forum held by the Organization of American Historians. The prominent author Christopher Lasch announced that the West had "won the Cold War," upon which he was immediately denounced --- with "outrage and scorn" --- by the radical historians in attendance. Horowitz indicates how the episode reveals the left's epistemic closure on the failures of revolutionary socialism:

The refusal to confront the past meant that leftists could resume their attacks on the West without examining the movements and regimes they had supported, and thus without proposing any practical alternative to the societies they continued to reject. The intellectual foundations of this destructive attitude had already been created, in the preceding decades, in a development that Allen Bloom described as the "Nietzcheanization of the Left" --- the transformation of the progressive faith into a nihilistic creed.

Nihilistic humors have always been present in the radical character. The revolutionary will, by its very nature, involves a passion for destruction alongside its hope of redemption. While the hope is vaguely imagined, however, the agenda of destruction is elaborate and concrete. It was Marx who originally defended this vagueness, claiming that any "blueprint" of the socialist future would be merely "utopian" and therefore should be avoided. The attitutude of the post-Marxist left is no different. Since the fall of Communism, radical intellectuals have continued their destructive attacks on capitalism, as though the catastrophes they had recently promoted posed no insurmountable problem to such an agenda. "I continue to believe," wrote a radical academic after the Soviet collapse, "that what you call 'the socialist fantasy' can usefully inform a critque of post-modern capitalism without encouraging its fantasists and dreamers to suppose that a brave new order is imminent or even feasible."

But how could a responsible intellect ignore the destructive implications of such an attitude? The socialist critique is, after all, total. It is aimed at the roots of the existing order. To maintain agnosticism about the futures that might replace the reality you intend to destroy may be intellectually convenient, but it is also morally corrupt ....

To raise the socialist ideal as a critical standard imposes a burden of responsiblity on its advocates that critical theorists refuse to shoulder. If one sets out to destroy a lifeboat because it fails to meet the standards of a luxury yacht, the act of criticism may be perfectly "just," but the passengers will drown all the same. Similarly, if socialist principles can only be realized in a socialist gulag, even the presumed inequalities of the capitalist market are worth the price. If socialist poverty and socialist police states are the practical alternative to capitalist inequality, what justice can there be in destroying capitalist freedoms and the benefits they provide? Without a practical alternative to offer, radical idealism is radical nihilism --- a war of destuction with no objective other than war itself.

And from page 57:

Totalitarianism is the possession of reality by a political Idea --- the Idea of socialist kingdom of heaven on earth; the redemption of humanity by political force. To radical believers this Idea is so beautiful it is like God Himself. It provides the meaning of a radical life. This is the solution that makes everything possible; the noble end that justifies the regrettable means. Belief in the kingdom of socialist heaven is faith that can transform vice into virtue, lies into truth, evil into good. In this revolutionary religion, the Way, the Truth, and the Life of salvation lie not with God above, but with men below --- ruthless, brutal, venal men --- on whom faith confers the power of gods. There is no mystery in the transformation of the socialist paradise into Communist hell: liberation theology is a satanic creed.

Amanda Marcotte has offered no definition nor defense of nihilism. She has however attacked those of faith as insane, citing atheist phenomenon Richard Dawkins as her source of authority: The God Delusion. It's easy to understand why, for by rejecting the eternal goodness of God, she can justify the destructive radical progressivism that drives her ideological program. That program is nihilist. It is, following Nietzsche, the utter abandonment of the social commitment to morality and right. She, like her fellow radicals, rejects morality in favor of hedonism and license, and hence rejects any larger meaning within a body of faith that is God.

Students Attack Royal Couple in Violent London Protests

And just minutes before, while in route to the Royal Variety Performance at the London Palladium, Prince Charles joked, "Hopefully we’ll be able to brave our way through, get there and be all right."

Added: From Glenn Reynolds, "ANARCHY IN THE U.K." And at WSJ, "Violent Protests Follow U.K. Fee Vote."

Leftists Chant for the Death of Ann Althouse — UPDATED!!

God have mercy on us all, for there is evil in the world.

I love Ann Althouse. She is my friend and I look up to her in many ways. I am thus horrified to see calls for her death at a leftist message board discussing recent responses to the death of Elizabeth Edwards:

I can't fucking wait for Ann Althouse to die. The only thing that would make that perfect would be if her husband cheats on her beforehand.

While I've already posted on all of this at length, I'm still shocked at how brazen are some of the leftist death chants, for Althouse — and for me too, from the genuinely demonic Tintin at Sadly No!, as just one more example:

RELATED: Recall that RepRacist3 has been retweeting all kinds of vile hatred like this, which once again demonstrates that his claims to Christian compassion are all just poorly executed acts of deception. God have mercy on him.

**********

UPDATE: Racist Repsac3 tried to comment, alleging that "no conservatives are behind you" on this. Not true, obviously — and hilariously so, since no sooner than I deleted RepRacist's comment did I find Althouse at the Sitemeter, linking with "Oh, the violent ideation of the lefties!"

It's so hypocritical!

Word.

I've been receiving praise and thanks all week, and it's just killing the nihilists, who have responded to my honest and very straightforward reflections on faith with an extremist jihad. So yeah, hypocritical, but typical for these Godless freaks.

Americans No Longer Think U.S. Economy No. 1

From Ronald Brownstein, at National Journal, "Down From The Pedestal" (via Memeorandum):

In the global race for jobs and economic prosperity, the United States is No. 2. And it is likely to remain there for some time. That’s the glum conclusion of most Americans surveyed in the latest Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor poll. Henry Luce famously labeled the 20th century the “American Century.” This survey suggests that most Americans now doubt that this new century will bear that name.

In the poll, only one in five Americans said that the U.S. economy is the world’s strongest—nearly half picked China instead. Looking forward, Americans are somewhat more optimistic about regaining primacy, but still only about one in three expect the U.S. economy to be the world’s strongest in 20 years. Nearly three-fifths of those surveyed said that increasing competition from lower-paid workers around the world will keep living standards for average Americans from growing as fast as they did in the past. Ruben Owen, a retired Boeing engineer in Seattle who responded to the survey, spoke for many when he said, “We’re still in a reasonably good place … but it’s going to get harder because other places are growing stronger.”

Across a wide range of issues, the poll found the traditional American instinct toward optimism straining against fears that the nation’s economic struggles may extend far beyond the current slowdown. On many fronts, particularly the quality of higher education and scientific research, large majorities of Americans still believe that we lead the world. And most say that the U.S. can remain a manufacturing leader.

RTWT.

We discussed exactly this topic in the conclusion to my World Politics course on Wednesday. China still has quite a ways to catch the United States on a number of measures. China's GDP in 2009 was roughly $5 trillion. The U.S. economy was nearly three times as large, at rougly $14.2 trillion. And while breathtaking, I doubt China can maintain its growth trajectory indefinitely (see, "China Is Not Another Ascendant Superpower"), and the nation's quality of life is still mired by its Third World standard of living for much of the population (see, "Cost of Living Increasingly a Struggle for China's Poor").

Especially problematic is Chinese authortarianism. I noticed today this piece yesterday at NYT: "China Moves to Block Foreign News on Nobel Prize." And earlier at WaPo, "On eve of Nobel ceremony, China cracks down and lashes out." The research on democracy and economic productivity suggests that non-democracies perform as well as democratic states, but given the information-driven nature of coming first-mover industries, I doubt China will compete effectively against the United States as long as it remains a closed, repressive regime.

That said, there's always the potential for increased conflict in U.S.-Chinese relations. The Economist reported on that this week: "The dangers of a rising China," and "Friends, or else: A special report on China's place in the world."

More on all of this later.

RELATED: "The Road to Ruin? American Profligacy and American Power."

Explaining Women's Taste in Men

Interesting piece, at The Economist, "Sexual Selection: Hunkier Than Thou":

WHEN it comes to partners, men often find women’s taste fickle and unfathomable. But ladies may not be entirely to blame. A growing body of research suggests that their preference for certain types of male physiognomy may be swayed by things beyond their conscious control—like prevalence of disease or crime—and in predictable ways.

Masculine features—a big jaw, say, or a prominent brow—tend to reflect physical and behavioural traits, such as strength and aggression. They are also closely linked to physiological ones, like virility and a sturdy immune system.

The obverse of these desirable characteristics looks less appealing. Aggression is fine when directed at external threats, less so when it spills over onto the hearth. Sexual prowess ensures plenty of progeny, but it often goes hand in hand with promiscuity and a tendency to shirk parental duties or leave the mother altogether.

So, whenever a woman has to choose a mate, she must decide whether to place a premium on the hunk’s choicer genes or the wimp’s love and care. Lisa DeBruine, of the University of Aberdeen, believes that today’s women still face this dilemma and that their choices are affected by unconscious factors.

In a paper published earlier this year Dr DeBruine found that women in countries with poor health statistics preferred men with masculine features more than those who lived in healthier societies. Where disease is rife, this seemed to imply, giving birth to healthy offspring trumps having a man stick around long enough to help care for it. In more salubrious climes, therefore, wimps are in with a chance.

Hmm.

There's hope in the world (and RTWT at the link).

Twitter Hatred

From James Urbaniak, and re-tweeted by stalking hatemaster RepRacist3. And this filth for expressing my opinion? So much for Christian love. Nihilist freakin' hypocrites:

We All Shine On...

Well over 100 comments at the big post this week. Sadly, they reflect little of His grace: "The banality, platitudes and cruelty of the comments reflect who and what we are."

And food for thought this evening: "John Lennon vs. Bono."

Who's the better activist role model? I'll take Bono, for ultimately we need pragmatism over inauthentic idealism.

Westboro Baptist Church to Picket Elizabeth Edwards Funeral

At least David Gibson's honest enough to make distinctions, although he still comes awful close to conflating mainstream Christians with Westboro Baptist Church, which will protest Elizabeth Edwards' funeral tomorrow.

Westboro's press release is here: "ELIZABETH EDWARDS IS IN HELL."

And to be clear: I reject Westboro's extremism.

WaPo has a report, "Westboro church to protest Elizabeth Edwards funeral." (And at Memeorandum.)

Please pray for Elizabeth Edwards.

A roundup of my previous entries is at Right Wing News.

And at Zion's Trumpet: "Donald Douglas Receives Hatred For His Compassion Towards Elizabeth Edwards," and in the mail from the author:

I agree with everything you said and I too am deeply saddened by her death and her seeming removal of God out of her life - especially at the end of life when it is most crucial. The reaction from the libtards towards you was pretty intense - though not surprising. Keep on speaking the truth. I appreciate all that you do and proud to call you my friend.

Hate Mail

From another member of the enlightened, tolerant left:

From: Kyle Lindskog [klindsko@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 6:51 PM
To: Donald Douglas
Subject: Elizabeth Edwards

Mr. Douglas,

People like you make me sick. You consider it a flaw that Ms. Edwards omitted "God" from her final correspondence? No. She is to be praised for this. Unlike you, she probably believed that her human experience on Earth was the best platform for happiness and fulfillment. You, on the other hand, are probably obsessed with saying the right words to the right "God" so that you can secure for yourself a spot in "heaven."

Also, for you to call someone a nihilist merely for omitting "God" in a "death letter" is disgraceful. I wish there were a hell for you to go to. But unfortunately, unlike you, I appreciate science and evidence, and do not accept such farcical, obviously man-made ideas.

With utmost contempt, I am

Kyle Lindskog
St. Petersburg, FL

Nihilism and Progressivism

Bosch Fawstin illustrated my recent essay, "Navigating Past Nihilism," which is cross-posted to NewsReal Blog.

And now I'm re-reading Sean Kelly's original essay at New York Times, but this time in light of the left's response to my thoughts on Elizabeth Edwards' rejection of God. Citing Nietzsche, Kelly suggests that those who have abandoned God are living in "self-deceit." The deceit is to hold out the possibility of the good life. The solution, suggested by Kelly, is to adopt an alternative set of commitments, as Melville would say, in a smaller, more local set of values. I don't doubt many could find a pleasing and satisfying life. But it would be materialistic and autonomously derived, i.e., without a greater nobility found in the eternal. This is, then, an inferior substitute to God. People would find meaning not in self-denial, abstinence, and penitence, but in engorgement on worldly pleasures. Spiffing this up in fancy sounding language won't do (these "many new possible and incommensurate meanings," for example). It's a jumble of nothingness in the end. Nothing higher to seek, and hence little to be attained. It's metaphor for progressivism. Excellence and attainment are for the selfish and greedy. And the response to that alleged greed is redistribution of wealth and the organization of society into hierarchies of recrimination. Appropriate ways of thinking are enforced. Truth is deemed hate speech, and expressions of faith are excoriated as theological fascism. Hence the response to my commentary on Elizabeth Edwards. It took a day or two, but just to speak out boldly for a vision of God in full awesomeness, God at our moment of complete and utter vulnerability, was just too much for the progressive nihilists. It's a rare thing, but shock-proof demons of the leftist netherworld were indeed shocked. The attacks followed. I was "Donald Dick" for refusing to embrace Elizabeth Edwards' non-belief. Another gleefully exclaimed that someone needed "to take a shot at Donald Douglas." And of course SEK blew his wad before he'd even consummated the information I'd posted. And upon receiving my response (linked to LGM), SEK proceeded to swiftly threaten death. It's always that way with progressives:

The Donalde, I am absolutely serious here: try to drive traffic to your shit site one more time on this thread and I will end you. Remember, before I taught composition, I taught journalism, and some of my former students are very, very intrepid.

So I’m only going to say this once: diminish the experience of cancer to a cancer survivor again and you’ll learn exactly how great of a teacher I am. That’s the deal: you be a fucking human being and allow that scoring points by writing “trending” instead of “dying” is a cheap tactic that makes you a terrible person, and no one I’ve taught will prove you’re a terrible person. This is your first and only warning.

I allow nothing short of indicating SEK's Stalinism.

I'll have more later, in any case.

Why Elizabeth Edwards Left Out God

According to David Gibson, at Politics Daily, "Why Elizabeth Edwards Left God out of Her Last Goodbye." (My initial post is cited.)

Read it all at the link.

Gibson basically apologizes for Mrs. Edwards' rejection of God. But he allows himself a key admission:

Whatever Elizabeth Edwards believed at the hour of her death is known only to God ...

And here's this from the comments:

Wow David, you have gone to great lengths to try to convince us that non-belief is belief. Perhaps we can all agree that now Elizabeth knows the truth ...

Word.

Religion Writers Ponder Elizabeth Edwards' Faith

Some of my musings are finding their way around and about, in a winding fashion at least: "Elizabeth Edwards’ Faith in ... What?"

The link there goes to GetReligion, "‘Power of Resilience and Hope’."

If you’re looking for reflections on God and religion in mainstream news coverage of Elizabeth Edwards’ death, the hunt may take a while.

Mentions here and there of faith, grace and religion punctuate major obituaries reviewed by your GetReligionistas. But in general, the reports stop short of meaty details on what Edwards believed and even if she had a particular religious affiliation.

Religion ghosts, anyone?

Following the links at the post takes us to a number of other writers, as well as the Christianity Today post cited here earlier. Folks are making a lot out of the Adele Stan piece I dug up from the American Prospect, and as noted Ms. Stan wasn't too thrilled that I cited her work. But the issue of Edwards' faith is obviously an important one. People with mature sensiblities on religion aren't shirking from the topic, although perhaps some MFM types aren't that mature. And the constroversies continue around the 'sphere this afternoon, with a bunch of hate tweets on Twitter and a death threat in the comments at LGM.

I'll have more on all of this later.

Elizabeth Edwards Died Before Leftists Could Figure Out WTF Was Going On

Folks at Lawyers, Gays and Money are all about "close reading skills," so no doubt the fellow hatemasters at LGM will nudge SEK toward a correction:

I repeat: the first words Donald Douglas writes about the death of a mother of three is, and I quote, “[t]he story’s trending.”

I repeat: “[t]he story’s trending.”

That’s what death is to him: an opportunity to capitalize, via traffic, from the death of a political opponent. That Donald Douglas doesn’t even go through the motions–can’t even fathom that her acceptance of her fate was hers own, and accomplished with dignity, says something more terrible about Donald Douglas than anything I could write.

She wasn't dead, Scott. Better get back to that "great" teaching you're boasting about. You obviously don't have time to blog.

And while I got a kick out of Adele Stan at AlterNet, you, Scott, have made my day: "Dancing On Elizabeth Edwards' Grave?"

Dancing On Elizabeth Edwards' Grave?

I wrote my entry on Elizabeth Edwards Monday afternoon. Edwards had just released her final statement. She died the next morning. I have prayed for her. As noted, I was surprised she made no mention of faith in God. The post got some attention from the nihilist fever swamps yesterday, but we're in pure gold territory this morning. Turns out Adele Stan picked up on my commentary at AlterNet, and she bungles it: "Righties Dance on Elizabeth Edwards' Grave -- And Use My Reporting to Do It":

Elizabeth Edwards, who died yesterday, has not yet been buried, but that hasn't stopped some from attacking her for being true to her personal theology even to the very end: a theology that does not include the concept of Christian salvation. They're using a column I wrote three years ago to make their case in a most uncharitable manner.

Essentially the Christianity Today, representing the respectable, serious side of the religious right -- picked it up. And that's just nasty. Or bitter. Or nihlistic.

I'm not sure how "august" Christianity Today is, but it was actually Wonkette that sent the post viral. And lots of folks have been snarking about "staying classy," which is of course what Demon TBogg does at his post: "Donald Dick." But the best so far is the pathetic racism-enabler BJ Keefe, who does an awful imitation of Sadly No! See, "Wingnut Taste."

In any case, I'm not "dancing on Elizabeth Edwards' grave." And I'm not holding my breath for a correction either.

BONUS: I've got a Memeorandum thread from my previous updates.

Imagine There's No Hatred

From the comments at Wonkette: "Would it be too much to wish this guy a painful cancer of the asshole?"

But hey, these folks are from the enlightened left. No doubt John Lennon would be proud. See "'Imagine' - A Lasting Hymn to Controversy."

And FWIW, at Rolling Stone, "John Lennon's Last Days."

Opiate of the Masses

This guy, at the demonic ridicule machine, while crude, is about the only one over there with any brains:

I couldn’t resist leaving a comment (along with several dozen other folks), and was surprised to see that it appeared almost immediately. This is a little creepy – comments must be approved, and he’s apparently approving ‘em as quickly as they come in. The guy is digging it, people: Donald Dick is without shame; he’s feeding on the negative comments, and no doubt every nihilistic, atheistical comment he gets just reinforces his twisted religious beliefs.

Word.

I've been getting hella kick out of these God-hating freaks:

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

-- Karl Marx, "Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right."

Walmart's New Homeland Security Monitoring Program?

The Walmartization of national security, or something.

CNN reports: "Homeland Security Teams Up With Walmart for Safety."

Hey, how 'bout next we have "If you see an illegal alien reconquistador, say something." That'd be a lot better than DHS stumping for the DREAM Act.

Progressives and Obama's Tax Cut Deal

There's talk of progressive defection from the Democrat coalition in 2012, but I guess the alternative isn't too appealing: "Some People Are Ready to Vote for a Caribou Killer in 2012, If Necessary." That said, maybe Obambi'll be primaried in 2012? I used to totally discount the possibility. Now not so much. See, Mara Liasson, "Democrats Frustrated Over Obama Tax Deal With GOP," Jennifer Rubin, "The Democrat Blame Game," Katrina vanden Heuval, "Obama: On the way to a failed presidency?", and Dave Dayen, "President Lashes Out at the Left: “This Country Was Founded on Compromise”."

And especially, Matt Bai (FWIW), "Murmurs of Primary Challenge to Obama" (via Memeorandum).

Rest in Peace: Elizabeth Edwards Dies of Cancer at 61

Pray for Elizabeth Edwards. Pray for her soul. We need to, since lefties won't do it. My good friend Cheri on Twitter has been praying for Mrs. Edwards, and we will continue to pray for her in eternity and for her family today:

Cheri decided to pray after I sent her this post and a following tweet: "She's very outspoken on being anti-God... And leftists are mad I pointed it out, amazingly." And Cheri replied: "Oh YES! I am sure the lefties will chase you around for that. Very sad...It is an eternal not PC issue!"

Exactly.

It's not a PC issue whatsoever. At death's door, Elizabeth Edwards lost her faith. I was taken aback when I read her statement yesterday. She had put her faith in hope, but not in God. And it's sad that there was no greater body of spirit upon which Mrs. Edwards could draw. But it's also sad that her supposed champions have descended to the putrid depths of recrimination. Yet, I welcome this. Look at the vile hatred spewing from my comments. They hate the truth of Elizabeth Edwards' rejection of God, her nihilism in the face of the awesome unknown. And they hate not only that I have stressed it, but also the fact that one of their own partisans applauded it --- yes, applauded it just as radical progressives applaud John Lennon's irreligious anthem, "Imagine." But again, let us pray. We pray for those so injured by the truth of their revealed anti-religious doctrines, for those who espouse fake references to the Word of God. It is on this ideological plain where we meet hatred with heart. Let us pray for those who hate. Let us raise our hands to Him so that he will lead them to love and not vengeance. Pray so they will rejoice in something good and righteous. So that they will relinquish that which drives them to rage. Let us hope to Heaven that they will reject their nihilism.

We pray for those like this wounded soul at Wonkette:

I stopped praying a long time ago. God does not seem to be too interested in my life or my problems. Evangelicals have perpetrated a huge fraud on the unsuspecting masses. The bastards on Wall Street giggle and guffaw while the masses are on their knees praying to be able to make ends meet, feed the kids or not get evicted from their apartment.

Of course, Elizabeth left God out of her statement. She's lost a son. She's lost her health. Her husband humiliated her and continues to do so. Of the big three, Love, Health and Family, that Elizabeth had she was screwed out of all of them in some way.

The world belongs to those who lie, cheat and steal. Just ask Julian Assange.

If there is a God, it is not compassionate. The best argument that God doesn't exist is that republitards believe in one wholeheartedly and with a passion that borders on hysteria.

New York Times has the obituary (via Memeorandum).