Here's an example. Craig, of KVNU, diagrees with Huntsman's actions, or lack thereof, so he brings up something totally unrelated:
This has me pretty aggravated. The Governor, who campaigned on vouchers, and signed them into law, is choosing to keep a low profile during the current debate.
He claims that it’s enough for him to state his support for vouchers when asked about it, and to personally vote for it in November. But as a voucher proponent, I say that’s not nearly enough. Since he campaigned on this issue, what he’s doing now, in abandoning vouchers in the 11th hour, amounts to breaking his campaign promise in my eyes.
It’s not as if he’s too busy to campaign for it. All he’s been doing recently is pushing his ridiculous “Lights Out” program and attending meetings on climate change, neither of which will have any effect on his constituents.
If he doesn’t want to come out and fight for the voucher program over the next month, then I see no reason why I should support him next November.
Ok, the last paragraph I can understand. Don't vote for someone who doesn't do things the way you want them to. That's kinda why we vote, right? But he starts off complaining that Huntsman's not doing enough on the voucher issue, and then implies that Huntsman is turning all liberal or something, and he's spending so much time on climate change that he's neglecting his duty to support vouchers. Ok, idiotic, yes. But what really got me is that Craig actually believes that "Lights Out" and climate change will have NO EFFECT on Huntsman's constituents. Is that because the only people that count in this state are the ultra-right wing conservatives who think that climate change is a hoax? None of the rest of us (or logic) matters. I'm just so dumb-founded by this utterly ridiculous notion of some sort of supremacy granting these people special knowledge of things that contradict reality.
Then there's the debate on Mathias' blog. Apparently, there's a group that wants to take care of a chimp but were told that the chimp's guardians had to apply to court for that, but then were told that the chimp couldn't have a guardian because it wasn't a person. Very odd story about people trying to use strange loopholes in the law to get a problem resolved. However, Dave, in the comments somehow tied chimps into homosexuality, saying "Suddenly, all the slippery slope arguments about gay "marriage" aren't sounding so silly after all."
The conversation only got more confusing from there. I started to reply, pointing out that the root of Christianity and Islam is one and the same, and that it's absurd to react the way some of the commenters on the blog did, but again, I just couldn't post because I was a little irritated, a little bewildered, and mostly I don't think my comments were going to change the attitudes of these people, so I gave up. I guess that was the most Christian thing I could do, because God never asked me to force reason and love on anyone else, He just asked me to show them. But it still makes me mad to see bigotry in the name of God.
The Utah blog-o-sphere seems to be full of IT today, but thankfully, several of my favorite bloggers wrote something worth reading.
Ok, venting done, I feel better.