March 8, 2006 by s.z.

Nuts Notes From All Over

1.   WorldNetDaily brings us a candidate for the Ohio senate whom even WND seems to find a little too crazy for their tastes.  (But probably only because he's running as a Democrat).

A Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in Ohio wants to make homosexual behavior a capital crime punishable by the death penalty. [...]

"Just like we have laws against murder, we have laws against stealing, we have laws against taking drugs – we should have laws against immoral conduct," [candidate Merrill Keiser Jr.] told WTOL-TV in Toledo.

Keiser, 61, says he's running as a Democrat because that's how he was registered the last time he voted.

The trucker, who hails from Fremont, Ohio, says there needs to be more adherence to biblical values in government, business and education – something he claims [Republican Sen. Mike] DeWine is not promoting. [...]

Keiser told the Register the United States should make conversion to Christianity part of the war on terror to teach Muslims the error of their choice in religion.

Cool!  Conversions by military force.  That will certainly teach those Muslims to pick the wrong religion!  (I'm guessing that after we conquer and covert Iraq, we'll move on to Iran, Syria, and Israel -- and then it's on to Asia!)

(You know, despite his having cast his ballot for the wrong party the last time he voted, I think George Bush should give Keiser a big faith-based Pentagon contract to help fight the War on Terror.  I mean, Keiser couldn't do a worse job at winning hearts and minds than Karen Hughes, and I'm pretty sure he'd work cheaper.)

He also opposes the United Nations, abortion on demand and thinks so-called global warming is a false concern.

Plus. he's also against evolution, because (if I'm understanding him correctly), the Declaration of Independence says that we were endowed with inalienable rights by our creator, and so, if a person believes in evolution, then he or she "has no rights," because he or she has no creator. (And Charles Darwin wasn't giving out rights, now was he?)

WordNetDaily then quotes a liberal blogger who is, per WND, "less than thrilled with Keiser's candidacy" and the media's failure to convey any moral outrage at Keiser's call for the execution of the commission of homosexual acts.  They make her sound kind of kooky.

And what is our WND "Related special offer" that goes along with this piece?  Why, it's the book  "The Case Against Darwin" -- thus demonstrating that WND believes that Keiser is right on at least one issue.

2.  Now, here's part of John Derbyshire's NRO review of Jimmy Carter's latest book:

Probably Jimmy Carter was never a very nice person.

Yes, Carter is, as we learned from the Simpsons, "history's greatest monster."

His exceptionally decisive rejection by the electorate in 1980 (with his own party controlling both houses of Congress before the election, Carter won only six states), the migration of his Evangelical flock away from theo-liberalism, and a quarter-century of brooding on those things have turned him into a very nasty piece of work indeed, a peevish liar filled with resentment against his country and those non-Carters she has stupidly chosen to elect.

But while Carter may be a very nasty piece of work, at least he hasn't demonstrated an unhealthy fixation with "buggery," nor has he ever, to the best of my knowledge, admitted to lusting in his heart for naked fifteen-year-old girls (because those 21-year-old hags are a real turn-off). 

3.   Speaking of the NRO's finest, many of them are contributing to the new NRO blog, CrunchyCon, which was begun in order to promote Rod Dreher's book, since maybe people were apparently avoiding in the belief that is was a children's book about Cap'n Crunch's wayward ex-convict son.   

From Rod's CrunchyCon Manifesto, I learned that "Crunchy Cons" are actually conservatives who are who are against big government, big business, pop culture, and materialism, but who are for the environment, culture, beauty, good character, and "ancient moral truths."  Which is why I found it amusing that today's discussion is all about whether Homer Simpson is a "crunchy con."  Here's part of the post that started the conversation:

Homer Simpson is Crunchy[Caleb Stegall  03/07 12:16 PM]

Homer Simpson is emblematic of a large swath of America that still practices the conservative virtues Kirk touted as best they can in the midst of a culture and system that inherently handicaps those virtues..

And here's part of Bruce Frohen's rebuttal:

Homer Simpson is NOT crunchy. He is the writers' stand-in for a crunchy, existing solely to be used to ridicule anyone with even the slightest conservatism in his life and values! Haven't you noticed, Caleb, that almost every episode in a very ham-fisted fashion tells us that we should like, side with, and sympathize with Lisa?

It's sad to see these guys aspiring to Jonah Goldberg's mantle without apparently ever having watched the show.

Anyway, there are several more posts on the subject, either claiming Homer for the forces of crunchiness, or arguing that the series is yet another example of how Hollywood is persecuting conservatives. 

And then we get into which other cartoon characters are "crunchies." 

 Now, if only we could get this brain trust working on the cure for cancer . . .

12:22:26 AM