Welcome to your Friday open thread. It’s Friday the 13th. Do you feel lucky? It’s the end of a pretty awesome week I must say.
The Washington Post asked biologist and outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins about the May 21 end of the world predictions. His answer is full of win.
Q. Family Radio evangelist Harold Camping believes that he has calculated the exact date of the rapture: May 21, 2011. While many are laughing at the suggestion, Camping’s followers are taking him seriously, bringing his message of impending doom to billboards and public spaces around the country. What does your tradition teach about the end of the world? How does end time theology impact real world behavior?
A. Why is a serious newspaper like the Washington Post giving space to a raving loon? I suppose the answer must be that, unlike the average loon, this one has managed to raise enough money to launch a radio station and pay for billboards. I don’t know where he gets the money, but it would be no surprise to discover that it is contributed by gullible followers – gullible enough, we may guess, to go along with him when he will inevitably explain, on May 22nd, that there must have been some error in the calculation, the rapture is postponed to . . . and please send more money to pay for updated billboards.
So, the question becomes, why are there so many well-heeled, gullible idiots out there? Why is it that an idea can be as nuts as you like and still con enough backers to finance its advertising to acquire yet more backers . . . until eventually a national newspaper notices and makes it into a silly season filler?
There is more to his answer about other end of the world traditions and the role of science. Go read the whole thing.
Multiple-choice Mitt gave a speech on health care reform, trying desperately to square the circle of being a big supporter of what Republicans now think is the most evil thing ever invented. Plus, I just love the title of the TPM post: “Mitt Romney: I Will Never Impose My Awesome Massachusetts Law On The Nation”
“I respect the views of those who think we took the wrong course and who think we should have taken a different course,” he said. “I also recognize that a lot of pundits around the nation are saying that I should say that was a bone-headed idea and I presume folks would think that would be good for me politically. But there’s only one problem with that. It wouldn’t be honest. I in fact did what I thought was right for the people of my state.”
Romney condemned President Obama’s health care legislation for raising taxes and cutting Medicare. He also labeled the law an unconstitutional violation of state’s rights. But in explaining his own state’s approach he articulately defended many of the Affordable Care Act’s fundamental principles, most notably its use of mandates and its support for citizens in paying for health care premiums.
On the requirement that individuals stay insured, Romney said it was necessary to deal with the “free rider problem,” which left states on the hook for health care costs generated by uninsured patients.
“Ultimately, the bill that we passed was a bill that said either have insurance or we’re going to charge you for the cost of the fact that the state is going to have to cover you if you get seriously ill,” he said, putting a conservative spin on the policy employed by the Affordable Care Act.
Poor Mitt Romney. The WSJ editorial board ripped him a new one today – called him Obama’s running mate and his big speech was overshadowed by the release of the Ensign report. Sorry Mitt, sex > policy in the media cycle.