Today I saw a tweet from Michael Graham about becoming an Honorary Girl

I clicked on it, and saw his post which referred to a story lat the Boston Globe:

The chairman of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, rallying state delegates before the Democratic National Convention, today said that Senator Scott Brown tried to portray himself as “an honorary girl” by folding laundry in a TV commercial targeting women voters.

Chairman John Walsh made the comment in a blistering opening statement at the delegation’s first breakfast meeting before the convention kicks off Tuesday. Brown is facing a stern reelection challenge from Democrat Elizabeth Warren, who will address the convention on Wednesday night.

Mind you this was not a single congressman speaking in an interview. This was the Massachusetts Democrat Party Chairman speaking at a DNC breakfast to the Massachusetts delegation.

The Globe Story continues:

Asked about his “honorary girl” comment afterward, the chairman told the Globe that he was being “fresh.”

Michael Graham snarks over it

Hey, John—I fold laundry. I do dishes, too. And I love to cook. So am I an “honorary girl,” too?

That’s funny but not the point. How did the delegation react? Did they clap, did they boo? How was he not shouted down? Where are the members of the delegation denouncing the comment on camera? These are remarks made by a Democrat Party State Charmian at the Democrat Party’s National Convention, a convention featuring Sandra Fluke and nobody’s talking? Where is Debbie Wasserman Schultz calling for his resignation? Where is Stephanie Cutter demanding he apologize? Where is Barack Obama or even former Obama Administration official Elizabeth Warren distancing herself from this chairman?

And where on earth is the MSM?, I saw this on Twitter TWITTER! How is it that the media that was all Todd Akin all the time not doing wall to wall coverage on this remark? They aren’t just excusing this remark, they are SILENT.

If you didn’t understand that the “War on Women” business was as phony as a $3 bill before, you sure ought to now.

I’m looking at this article (via hotair headlines) and I’m trying really hard to look at this with Christian Charity

The founders of Atheism+ say clearly that “divisiveness” is not their aim, but looking through the blogs and voluminous comments in the two weeks since A+ was mooted, trenches have been dug, beliefs stated, positions staked out and abuse thrown. A dissenting tweeter is “full of shit”, while, according to one supporter, daring to disagree with Atheism+’s definition of progressive issues and not picking their side makes you an “asshole and a douchebag”.

but the humor of this is really hard to suppress.

The question here isn’t, is Atheism+ signaling a split in their movement but what exactly IS it? Now as per dictionary.com the the Word “Athiest” has a simple meaning

a·the·ism
   [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Now lets look at a piece quoted in the article by everyone’s favorite professor PZ “let’s drive nails through the Eucharist” Myers on What Athiesm+ is. I think it sounds really familiar:

If you’re resentful that many atheists think that feminism is important, that we should be fighting for racial equality, that we think reason and evidence dictate that excessive income inequity does harm to the nation, that the gun madness needs to stop, or whatever social and political issue pushes your buttons, then tough. I’m not making you write legislation to increase spending for schools in poor neighborhoods. I’m not forming you up into squads going door to door to take away people’s guns. I’m arguing for the importance of those issues, and I’m finding allies who agree with me.

It seems to me that the New “Atheist+ group is simply Atheism + Liberalism. As he puts it in this rather incredible paragraph:

Yes. I’m a white male middle-class professional. I profit from disparity, and it simultaneously gives me guilt and worry that someone might take my privileges away from me. But I can’t in good conscience live in the illusion that I somehow deserve more than a poor black woman making ends meet with menial labor; I don’t. I’m just the recipient of the blessings of chance and history.

Think about that paragraph for a second. Whatever I think of Professor Myers, he IS in fact a college professor, who has earned a PhD. This is not achieved without effort, dedication brains and hard work, a lot of hard work. Yet by his own set of standards it is an illusion. These years of effort and study is of no more value than any menial labor that he could have done if he decided to bag college altogether.

This is beyond Obama & Former Obama Administration Official Elizabeth Warren’s “You didn’t build this” this is “I didn’t build this”!

Atheism ought to be a progressive social movement in addition to being a philosophical and scientific position, because living in a godless universe means something to humanity.

And that’s what our new Athiest+ (liberalism) club means and if you don’t buy into it…well:

And if you don’t agree with any of that — and this is the only ‘divisive’ part — then you’re an asshole. I suggest you form your own label, “Asshole Atheists” and own it, proudly.

Read that one more time. If he had just stopped with this sentence…

…isn’t it really silly to complain about not belonging to a group with ideals you don’t agree with?”

…he would have a valid argument, but what is says is this: If you don’t believe what we believe, if you are a Bill Quick or an SE Cupp an Allahpundit or a Doug Mataconis and you don’t buy his brand of Athiesm your an Ass.

Peter McGrath, The author of the article, used the clip from Life of Brian about the Judean’s People’s Front vs the People’s front of Judea, but I think the better clip might be this one. (Language warning)

Maybe he won’t call for you to be killed but at the very least he will take your juniper bushes and give them away and if you don’t agree, then you’re unworthy.

Update: Here is an atheist perspective on this (HT Doug Matacoins)

Look, it’s fine to say that you’re creating your own social movement of godless people who believe in something. Fine. But the implication of many of these folks–particularly those like PZ, who automatically lumps libertarians in with “jerks”–is that you cannot be an atheist and yet not be of this mind on politics at the same time. That’s just bonkers, and absurd. And I thought atheism was all about reason and logic, because we don’t believe in superstition?

This Morning Glenn Reynolds in a post about trends noted the following:

InTrade still has Obama ahead, but I’m not sure why information like this doesn’t have a bigger impact.

That’s a good point but something hit me.

Let’s say I’m a person who wants to influence the narrative but can’t contribute legally or has already reached the legal limit, how can I make a difference financially?

InTrade is an easy choice.

Let’s take a look at InTrade today in terms of the president’s re-election:

Let’s do the math, $5.69 a share 223 shares $5.79 x 223 = $1291.71

So it would cost $1291.71 to buy up every share at the lowest price available.

To put this in perspective Sarah Jessica Parker put on a $40,000 per plate fundraiser for the president in June. All those shares can be purchased by 3.2% of a single plate:

This is one $40,000 Sarah Jessica Parker fundraising plate

That’s how much it would cost to move Intrade for a day. less than a carrot on a fundraising plate.

“But DaTechGuy” you say, “Why would people just throw money away on InTrade when they can use it elsewhere in the campaign?”

Au contraire, first of all. it’s no more throwing away money than any other political campaign donation and secondly if they manage to pull off the win, then not only will the reward be the same as any other political contribution, but you might even get a direct cash return that might not otherwise be possible.

If I was the Obama Campaign I’d make sure those InTrade futures didn’t drop below 50% till the very end of the election, it’s short money for a vital talking point particularly when soon it will be the only measure that can be manipulated in her favor.