Monday, January 18, 2010

The 'Devil' Writes Pat Robertson A Letter

The 'Devil' Writes Pat Robertson A Letter in the Minneapolis Tribune.
Dear Pat Robertson,

I know that you know that all press is good press, so I appreciate the shout-out. And you make God look like a big mean bully who kicks people when they are down, so I'm all over that action.
But when you say that Haiti has made a pact with me, it is totally humiliating. I may be evil incarnate, but I'm no welcher. The way you put it, making a deal with me leaves folks desperate and impoverished.
Sure, in the afterlife, but when I strike bargains with people, they first get something here on earth -- glamour, beauty, talent, wealth, fame, glory, a golden fiddle. Those Haitians have nothing, and I mean nothing. And that was before the earthquake. Haven't you seen "Crossroads"? Or "Damn Yankees"?
If I had a thing going with Haiti, there'd be lots of banks, skyscrapers, SUVs, exclusive night clubs, Botox -- that kind of thing. An 80 percent poverty rate is so not my style. Nothing against it -- I'm just saying: Not how I roll.
You're doing great work, Pat, and I don't want to clip your wings -- just, come on, you're making me look bad. And not the good kind of bad. Keep blaming God. That's working. But leave me out of it, please. Or we may need to renegotiate your own contract.
Best, Satan


John Jost said...

I linked to this blog post from Facebook. It's too good and must be shared.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Dear Mark,

Is all this Pat Robertson talk a way to avoid talking about the catastrophic Democratic loss in Mass. today?

Socialized, total Washington DC control of health care is dead.

Group hug?

DanBack said...

Dear Kevin,

Is all this Scott Brown talk a way to avoid talking about the fact that you are too lazy to read books before deciding access to them should be limited?

Socialized, total Christian control of reading choices is dead.

Group hug?

Kevin Scheunemann said...

who was advocating total "Christian control"?

Moving unacceptable books to an adult section from the children's section is not "total Chrisitian control."

If you don't like the Christian input in relation to the children's section of the library, don't force Christians to fund the library through taxes. (Send them a refund)

Funny, I failed to see the protests in Kewaskum where there is reasonable locating and lableling policies.

Are you accusing the Kewaskum library of "total Christian control"?

Mpeterson said...

I think I am Kevin,

The director there caved into the demands spurred by Christian fundamentalism.

So yeah. What are you going to do about it, Mr. Town Representative? Are you going to continue to let these religious fanatics bully our public institutions into accommodating their ideology?

You *are* a closet fundamentalist aren't you? How can you maintain libertarian doctrine and Christian doctrine at the same time Mr. Roark? It'd think that would make you pretty dizzy.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

The mature materials are still available in adult has to help you get them.

You can even borrow WB library material.

Mark, so is this all about the "anything goes" access to children?...even non-Christians don't support that with their tax dollars.

So this issue is not a "Chrisitan" issue. Its purely an issue of common sense and what crazy things are or are not done with our tax money.

I appreciate your spirited suggestions, but constituents do not support the UWWC philosophy department 'anything goes' standard for children.

I suggest a privately funded Mark Peterson library. Its model can be "mature material for every one." Or, "We treat kids as adults" library.

If you fix the library funding issue through private funding, you can have what you desire, 100% library policy control of the Mark Peterson anything goes library.

DanBack said...

My parents are super-Christians and both have personalized Ayn Rand license plates.

Figure that one out.

Mpeterson said...

Wow. So in contravention of established US federal court rulings, you think the library should censor materials.

Maybe the ACLU needs to check into government censorship in Kewaskum.

I know someone we could call, if you think it'd help.

DanBack said...


You simply have no credibility on this topic. You haven't read any of the books in question and you are still operating under the incorrect assumption that the books were in the children's section. You seem much smarter than Ginny and I'm surprised you've fallen for her spiel.

To quote Obi-Wan Kenobi:

"Who's the more foolish: The fool, or the fool who follows him? "

Group hug,

Kevin Scheunemann said...


the last time we talked about this, you said "U.S. Supreme Court" ruling. I asked which ruling?

Now you say Federal District Court rulings. The Sund and Cedarville cases do not apply to our Federal Judicial District.

I just told you children have access, but they MAY need to get assistence for the more mature this is all about complete, unfettered access of the mature library material to children without any adult involvement?

Why do you insist tax dollars support this radical view?

Why don't you privately fund your radical dream?

Just curious.

Mpeterson said...

Kevin, you can argue with me all you like, but you'd have tougher time making this case in court... I cited a bunch of sources on this in previous articles and postings.

If you aren't able to understand them, there's really not much else I can do about it.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

I understand there is no Supreme Court case addressing the issue. (like you previously claimed)

Sund and Cedarville are a couple leftist judicial rulings in other Federal Districts, which are not binding in this Federal Judicial district.

The reality is: you look to the courts on this because citizens, in general, do not support an "anything goes" attitude in terms of library material when it comes to access by children with their tax dollars.

Are you revoking your "U.S. Supreme court" says comment? I'm patiently waiting for the ruling of the Supremes you talked about in relation to this issue.

Ironically, I'm sure you denounce the restoration of political speech by the U.S. Supremys striking the speech abomination of McCain-Feingold. In this case, I'm sure you will want to defend the leftist shrill, "listen to the people" on McCain-Feingold (to hell with the courts!)....or were you happy McCain-feingold got struck?

Its another paradox, isn't it? Denounce the courts when it restores speech you don't like such as McCain-Feingold, but search for obscure, almost irrelevant, court rulings when you need the courts to get speech nobody wants to pay for?

Mpeterson said...

I just can't tell anymore when you're serious.

I look to the courts on this because 'citizens' aren't always reliable judges of what is or isn't constitutionally appropriate -- like whether the Christian fundamentalist view of creation should be taught in science classes, or whether a government agency should censor books because those books offend my religious principles. If people were right all the time, we wouldn't need the judiciary.

You might be surprised to know that I do not disagree with the reasoning in the current court case allowing people to spend as much money as they like on campaign advertising -- with the proviso that if corporations really were persons and had the rights of persons, they'd be allowed to vote, but aren't.

Otherwise, I kind of think most of the campaign finance legislation simply coddles the voter into believing that they're protected from deceptive advertising, when they aren't. This makes people lazy.

As for the cases in question, just check the ACLU website. They would probably send you the URL were they to sue y'all.

Hey, you'd probably be a defendant. :^)

Kevin Scheunemann said...


You are against McCain-Feingold? The political universe must be spinning.

It comes off rather elitist when you say average people are not smart enough to run their local library.

This is why private funding is the solution. Local control. When are you going to get the "Mark Peterson anything goes in front of children" library started?

Why do you need the courts to tell everyone to use their tax money to fund the "Mark Peterson, anything goes in front of children" idea?

What I see is someone who wants the courts to give you the power of taxation for your "unique" idea.

In other words, those of us that support minimal, reasonable locating and labeling policies for children with our tax money don't count in your universe.

Is there a line in the UWWC philosophy universe for children's material in a public library? An issue of "Hustler" next to the Thomas the Train book is just fine?

That is what you are saying.

Mpeterson said...

Grin, Kev... so you're saying that Klansmen in Alabama and Mississippi should have been left to determine political and economic policies based on race? Okay.

I am not saying that people aren't 'smart' enough to make these decisions, I'm saying that a lot of people -- and this includes me a lot of the time -- don't have the expertise or the time to make good decisions when it comes to the law.

Since you obviously haven't read the court cases you keep asking me about, you apparently don't have the time either... or is it that you're too stupid? :^D

DanBack said...

Whoever is running against Dilly Boy need just print up this exchange and mail it to everyone in Kewaskum.

They will win in a landslide.