Right-wing Dumbth

An Accurate Assessment Of The GOP By Former President Clinton

2009-02-17T04:44:00.002-05:00

In Former President Bill Clinton's interview with CNN, he cut right to the chase in explaining the current situation:

I find it amazing that the Republicans who doubled the debt of the country in eight years and produced no new jobs doing it, gave us an economic record that was totally bereft of any productive result are now criticizing him [President Obama] for spending money.

The only people who actually prospered the past eight years were the fat cats. At the same time, the working American actually lost wealth due to wage stagnation combined with inflation. But as Clinton points out, President Bush and the Repbulicans in Congress spent money like crazy.

Now - with an economic disaster second only (for now, at least) to the Great Depression - Republicans are wanting to be budget hawks.

But again Clinton nails it:

For example, there's 100 economic studies which show that you get a better return in terms of economic growth on extending unemployment benefits or investing money in energy conservation jobs to improve buildings than you do giving people in my income group a tax cut. But it doesn't stop them. Those guys are on automatic. You punch a button and they give the answer they give you.

Yes, pre-programmed brains in a rut: GOP leadership.

GOP Fighting Hard To Lose 20.000 Jobs

2009-02-17T04:17:00.000-05:00

One vote. Just one more vote in California's state Senate needed to approve a $42 billion budget-balancing plan. Without it layoffs of workers in "corrections, health and human services and other agencies that receive money from the general fund" will begin. In all some 20,000 workers are on the chopping block.

The holdout is over political philosophy:

The plan continues to fall short of votes because rank & file Republicans have refused to agree to $14.4 billion in higher taxes.

That is a lot of people to be putting out of work in these hard times. California is in real bad shape these days, and - as with the country in general - the lion's share of the blame goes to the Republicans and their failed policies.

Spare Us Your Outrage

2009-02-14T07:23:00.002-05:00

My God! We listened for the better part of eight long years to how Democrats were anti-American and anti-patriotic, givers of aid and comfort to terrorists. Immediately upon Barack Obama's announcement of his intention to run for president we were treated to endless innuendo about his alleged connections to radical Islam and his general disdain for America.

Now the shoe is on the other foot and just listen to the squealing. Check out this from NewsBusters:

On his February 10 show, left-wing radio host Mike Malloy ranted about Republicans who voted against the Obama stimulus package, going so far as to label them as "domestic terrorists" who "want the country to fail." Malloy also attacked Rush Limbaugh in his comments and charged that Limbaugh "is a bigger threat to this country than Osama bin Laden," practically calling for his arrest.

So what's the problem? Limbaugh is on record that he wants Obama to fail. How patriotic is that? And as I commented in yesterday's post, how disgusting is it that many of our elected officials would love to undo the last presidential election?

So tells us, conservative friends: what exactly is the problem here?

That Is What Conservatives Do

2009-02-13T04:24:00.002-05:00

This Way To The Past

I had to laugh at this item:

Several Tennessee lawmakers have signed on to a legal action intended to force President Barack Obama to turn over his birth certificate and other documents to prove his citizenship, an effort rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in an earlier case.

Just can't leave the past behind and move forward, eh, guys? This is kicking a dead horse. But that is what conservatives do. Example: the recent GOP brouhaha over economic stimulus legislation; they, of course, were in favor of using the tried and discredited policies of the past.

Is it not rich when four southern Republicans (Tennessee Reps. Eric Swafford, Stacey Campfield, Glen Casada and Frank Niceley) get on board an effort by a Russian immigrant from California to undo our last presidential election?

The story I linked above fairly pointed out the ridiculousness of this:

The news of the lawsuit later provoked ribbing around the Capitol, with one legislative staffer approaching a lawmaker and demanding to see his birth certificate.

Yes, exactly. Now can we please move on?

Conservatives Have Trouble Telling The Truth About FDR And New Deal

2009-02-12T04:40:00.002-05:00

Ohio congressman Steve Austria embarrassed himself by going overboard in parroting the usual conservative claim that FDR actually made things worse rather than better with his New Deal. While opposing the stimulus legislation he took an idiotic extra step of claiming

The last time this was done, was under Franklin Roosevelt, and when Roosevelt did this, he put our country into a great depression, to be honest with you.

Mark that word "honest" for future reference.

This story which I link to above goes on to state

Rep. Austria was given a chance to make clear whether he was really blaming FDR. He repeated his point, saying, "That's just history."

The story goes on to succinctly explain that

Actually, it's just nonsense. President Roosevelt inherited an unemployment rate of 25 percent in 1933. By 1937, it had dropped to 14.3 percent, an extraordinarily fast drop in percentage terms. Then there was what some economists call a "mini-depression," and the rate went back as high as 19 percent. But overall, from 1933 to 1940, it dropped from 25.2 percent to 14.6 percent.

Now that is history. And I might add that the "mini-depression" was caused by Roosevelt caving in to pressure to attempt to balance the budget. Further proof that things are exactly opposite to what our conservative friends attempt to portray.

However, moving on, we find that Austria finally was later forced to recant, writing

I did not mean to imply in any way that President Roosevelt was responsible for putting us into the Depression, but rather was trying to make the point that Roosevelt’s attempt to use significant spending to get us out of the Depression did not have the desired effect. Roosevelt did not put us into the Depression, but rather his policies could not pull the nation out of the recession.

As for honesty, it is hard for me to understand how he could have spoken so boldly earlier, even saying "that's just history," and then later claim he didn't mean to imply what he so clearly said.

The truth is just the truth, no matter how hard one may want to spin it otherwise: The New Deal did start turning things around.

Does government create jobs?

2009-02-11T04:29:00.001-05:00

Yeah, among the new conservative mantras is this one, trumpeted of late by RNC Chaiman Michael Steele:

Let's get this notion out of our heads that the government creates jobs. Not in the history of mankind has the government ever created a job.

Wow! Simply incredible.

The state of California, which is facing a very harsh budget crunch, is now looking at this situation:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will send layoff warnings to 20,000 state workers at the end of the week if the Legislature has not approved a deal to close California's $42 billion budget deficit, the governor's spokesman said Tuesday.

State governors, even Republican state governors, realize all too well the falsity of the "government doesn't create jobs" rhetoric.

It would probably be comforting to think of lost government jobs as mainly from a pencil-pushing, paper-shuffling, bloated bureaucracy; but the truth is that many cuts will be made from education, law enforcement, and other much needed health and public safety government employees.

(As an aside, I wonder if Steele doesn't think of the members of our military as government employees?)

The truth is, state governors (for the most part) facing the real world are unable to indulge themselves in the political game playing now going on in Congress. A further truth is that those in Congress who are playing politics with this crisis are a disgrace to their office.

Who Will Sign This Petition?

2009-02-10T03:42:00.001-05:00

The Wall Street Journal's Real Time Economics has this headline: ‘No Stimulus’ Petition Illustrates Public Anger Over Plan.

The accompanying story suggests:

The economic stimulus package working its way through the Senate has sparked strong reactions, and if Web traffic is any indication the backlash against the plan is sizeable.

Americans for Prosperity, a right-wing political advocacy group, has started a petition against the stimulus bill. Both the Web site of the group and its petition site nostimulus.com have been overwhelmed by traffic and are currently unavailable.

Really now?

I have to wonder who these people are who are supposedly rushing to sign this petition. Do you suppose there is even one person among them who has been laid off, who has lost health insurance because of inability to afford to eat AND pay for COBRA insurance, who has lost a family home to foreclosure?

The rightwing scare-mongerers have done their usual good job of portraying the stimulus idea as "porkulus" that will lead us into a financial Armageddon. (Pssst...we are already there!) But has this argument took hold with any of the millions of Americans who have already lost their jobs?

There is that old saw: A recession is when your neighbor loses his job; a depression is when you lose yours. The sad truth is that none of us working folk is safe. This Great Recession is touching all sectors. The noose will only tighten if nothing is done. As more and more of us hold tight our purse strings, fearing that our jobs will be next to go, money is taken out of the economy and demand continues to fall while job losses continue to mount.

Imperfections in the stimulus packages up for consideration in Congress notwithstanding, the cost of doing nothing or delaying action is too damned high.

A New Pejorative Phrase: Savior-based Economy

2009-02-09T04:58:00.003-05:00

This whole business of using the government to kick-start the economy is now being called a "savior-based economy," at least by South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford.

Oh, brother! Just when I was getting used to being called a socialist.

Sanford opined Sunday:

A problem that was created by building up of too much debt will not be solved with yet more debt.

In typical conservative fashion the victims are made into the villains:

That is quite different than a market-based economy where some rise and some fall but there’s a consequence to making a stupid decision...A lot of people who’ve made some very stupid decisions are being bailed out by the population at large.

Right. The Free Market mantra again. Yet who is to hold those corrupt money-changers to account?

It doesn't matter. What is needed now is inaction. Swift and decisive inaction. At least so says Sanford:

We’re going to go through a process of deleveraging. And it will be painful. The question is: Do we apply a bunch of different band aids that lengthen and prolong this pain or do we take the band aid off? I believe very strongly: let’s get this thing over with, let’s not drag it on.

Thanks for the leadership, Governor!

Right-wing Lunatic of the Week Award...

2009-02-09T04:55:00.001-05:00

has to go to Arizona Senator Jon Kyl, who offered this observation concerning pending stimulus legislation:

There's evidence that this is kind of a sugar high. We put a lot of spending out right now. But once the high is gone and you crash, you're going to be in a recession.

Oh, okay Jon. So what exactly are we in now?

The Bush administration and congressional Republicans lied and denied that we were in a recession for months before it finally became to too painfully obvious not to admit. Now we are warned that this stimulus bill will result in a "sugar blues" recession. Earth calling Senator Kyl....

Delay is preferable to error?

2009-02-08T08:35:00.003-05:00

So said our third president, Thomas Jefferson. And he was so quoted by Republican Senator Roger Wicker in an attempt to justify the GOP's time-wasting political ping pong match with the Democrats over a much needed stimulus bill:

As Thomas Jefferson reminded Americans in his day — and I quote — “Delay is preferable to error.” Let’s not rush into doing this the wrong way.

Ah, where was that GOP sentiment when the Bush administration was lobbying for consensus to rush into Iraq? As you ponder that, check out this Washington Post article from March of last year that estimates (a conservative estimate, it states) that this ill-advised invasion will wind up costing us some $3 trillion - more than three times the amount of money contained in Obama's stimulus plan.

Isn't it nice to know that the GOP is always looking out for America's best interest?

About power in Washington

2009-02-08T08:34:00.000-05:00

RNC Chairman Michael Steele caused me to spurt my Diet Mountain Dew out of my nose in a choking fit of laughter when he offered:

Democrats have controlled both branches of government for less than a month. And you have to wonder if all that power has gone to their heads. For the last two weeks, they've been trying to force a massive spending bill through Congress under the guise of economic relief.

Hey, the GOP have been booted out of the seat of power by American voters who were burned out by their mishandling of affairs. So now they, the Republicans, are pouting and whining and trying to pretend they and their disproved theories are still relevant.

This is about accountability to the American people ... something that was lost on the Bush administration and their GOP enablers in Congress the past eight years.

The New Patriotism and the New New Deal

2009-02-07T07:15:00.002-05:00

I was forced to take a break from blogging due to the economy. After having suffered several more rapid fire layoffs, the company where I (very thankfully) am still employed (for now at least) has been struggling to stay afloat with a mere skeleton crew. The manager of my department has been out the past two months recovering from surgery and I, as his assistant, have just been too busy and stressed there to do much here.

While I was away our new president took office - the change agent, the bringer of a new, New Deal, the messenger of hope - and was promptly welcomed by those patriots, the modern Republican party, the Party of the People, so long as we are speaking of wealthy people.

The flurry of crisis legislation that occurred during FDR's "First Hundred Days" will certainly not be a foreshadow of President Obama's first hundred. As the nation burns the GOP fiddlers are leisurely rosining their bows.

I read this morning that finally a "bipartisan" agreement had been reached on a stimulus package. Bipartisan in that a few maverick moderate Republicans were willing enough to put country first and sit down with the Democrats to work out some kind of agreement that would at least do something to ease the ever increasing pain of the American people. Of course the posturing and self-righteous theatrics aren't over yet, as it will be next week before this new compromise package is voted on.

Ex-president George W. Bush (hasn't that a nice ring?) was noted for his "you are either with us or against us" approach to terrorism. His boot-licking cronies in congress evidently no longer feel that way. If you think al-Qaeda ever posed the threat to our nation that the modern financial crisis does, you simply haven't been paying attention. Yet now the GOP is attempting to tie the hands of our new president as our nation is facing its greatest crisis in decades. True patriotism, that.

You know, Rush Limbaugh is a snarling, hateful fear mongerer, among other things. But I admire his honesty for plainly stating what I truly believe is the sentiment of most Republicans: the hope that Obama fails. I wish that the same mass of humanity that showed up in Washington for Barack Obama's inauguration would show up again, this time on Capital Hill, to protest the GOP obstructionism; they should flood their representative's offices with phone calls and telegrams demanding positive action in support of Obama's economic stimulus efforts.

If the plight of the poor and the commoner has ever been much of a concern for the Republican party (and it clearly hasn't been, as their policies throughout their history show), it certainly isn't now. More important to them is that they regain power, hold on to it at almost any cost, and shape America into their quasi-fascist utopia.

The time is now for action. The people should not forget what is happening now in this crucial hour. We should not forget who is blathering nonsense and delaying desperately needed efforts to, as FDR put it so well, "convert retreat into advance."

Pardon my humbug

2008-12-26T12:13:00.003-05:00

Conservatives have never impressed me much with their impassioned defenses of Christmas. Back of all the psuedosacredness is the specter of the almighty dollar.

One of the staunchest warriors in defense of the holiday is Bill O'Reilly, who a few years ago forthrightly said:

Every company in America should be on its knees thanking Jesus for being born. Without Christmas, most American businesses would be far less profitable; more than enough reason for businesses to be screaming Merry Christmas.

Voila! ... The real reason for the season. (Although this year their screams seem to have mostly fallen on deaf ears, as the retail season seems to have been mostly puny.)

I've pretty much always maintained that the main purpose of this purported War On Christmas is that it make for a good fund-raiser, not to mention that it is a great wedge issue.

Yesterday I was over at World Net Daily reading their Christmas War items when I noticed this marketing ploy. It seems they are offering a red and green "Operation: Just Say Merry Christmas" bracelet for three bucks. And there was this suggestion:

Buy one, buy a dozen -- use them as stocking stuffers, pass them out to all your friends this holiday, or, Christmas season. Makes a great conversation starter.

Perhaps more of an argument starter.

Now WND also offers other important items during this season of war. Just $3.99 will get you a "The Reason for the Season" auto magnet. Or $5.95 can get you a "An American Tradition" magnetic Christmas bumper sticker. These in-your-face war slogans are a necessity if one is determined to put his capitalistic piety on public display.

And speaking of those "Just Say Merry Christmas" bracelets, here is a story (now a few years old) about the bracelet's creators demonstrating just how lucrative this whole business can be. Not that I have anything against good-old fashioned entrepreneurship, understand. But it does make me a tad skeptical that it is their "way of helping people reclaim the Christmas season and making it about baby Jesus again."

But maybe I'm just being overly cynical.

There is an organization known as Liberty Counsel that also makes a big to do about the War on Christmas (among other right-wing causes). It is a non-profit law firm/ministry that is allegedly dedicated to preserving religious liberty in this Christian nation of ours.

They offer, for a $25 donation, a "Help Save Christmas Action Pack." Sounds urgent, doesn't it? The Action Pack contains:

"I Helped Save Christmas" button
"I Helped Save Christmas" bumper sticker
"I Love CHRISTmas"® button
"I Love CHRISTmas"® bumper sticker
Full-Page Christmas Ad to print in your local newspaper
"The Memo that Saved Christmas" - two legal memoranda about Christmas in public and in the workplace.

Look, I could go on with this type of thing but I think I've made my point.

I have an idea of my own. You will really want to save Christmas? Let's all work to gether to bring about Christmas' earliest sentiment: Peace on earth, good will toward men.

A Christmas wish for my readers

2008-12-24T11:24:00.002-05:00

I want to wish my friends Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays. As my gift to all of you I want to feature one of my favorite Christmas messages, as relevant today as when first written over one hundred years ago, penned by one of my favorite thinkers, the highly esteemed Robert Green Ingersoll:

What I Want For Christmas

If I had the power to produce exactly what I want for next Christmas, I would have all the kings and emperors resign and allow the people to govern themselves.
I would have all the nobility crop their titles and give their lands back to the people. I would have the Pope throw away his tiara, take off his sacred vestments, and admit that he is not acting for God -- is not infallible -- but is just an ordinary Italian [Pope Leo XIII, born Count Vincenzo Gioacchino Raffaele Luigi Pecci, who was Pope in 1897]. I would have all the cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priests and clergymen admit that they know nothing about theology, nothing about hell or heaven, nothing about the destiny of the human race, nothing about devils or ghosts, gods or angels. I would have them tell all their "flocks" to think for themselves, to be manly men and womanly women, and to do all in their power to increase the sum of human happiness.

I would have all the professors in colleges, all the teachers in schools of every kind, including those in Sunday schools, agree that they would teach only what they know, that they would not palm off guesses as demonstrated truths.

I would like to see all the politicians changed to statesmen, -- to men who long to make their country great and free, -- to men who care more for public good than private gain -- men who long to be of use.

I would like to see all the editors of papers and magazines agree to print the truth and nothing but the truth, to avoid all slander and misrepresentation, and to let the private affairs of the people alone.

I would like to see drunkenness and prohibition both abolished.

I would like to see corporal punishment done away with in every home, in every school, in every asylum, reformatory, and prison. Cruelty hardens and degrades, kindness reforms and ennobles.

I would like to see the millionaires unite and form a trust for the public good.

I would like to see a fair division of profits between capital and labor, so that the toiler could save enough to mingle a little June with the December of his life.

I would like to see an international court established in which to settle disputes between nations, so that armies could be disbanded and the great navies allowed to rust and rot in perfect peace.

I would like to see the whole world free -- free from injustice -- free from superstition.

This will do for next Christmas. The following Christmas, I may want more.

Did government intervention make worse The Great Depression?

2008-12-24T11:09:00.005-05:00

Laissez-faire economist Thomas Sowell has for years given "aid and comfort" to anti-government conservatives with his writings. In his latest column, Another Great Depression?, he attempts to lay the blame for the spiraling unemployment of that era squarely on the shoulders of government intervention under Herbert Hoover and especially FDR.

He begins by laying out the proposition that the stock market crash of '29 was not the cause of the "massive unemployment" that later followed. No argument here. However, it is fair to point out - and I would think somewhat superfluous to mention - that that single event was the direct cause of the instantaneous loss of literally billions of dollars of wealth. Clearly this was a warning of rough seas ahead.

Next Sowell mentions "the Smoot-Hawley tariffs" which "were passed, against the advice of economists across the country, who warned of dire consequences." Again true. A large number of leading economists warned Hoover about the danger of not vetoing this bill, but he stubbornly ignored their advice. Five months later, Sowell notes, unemployment hit double digits.

I'm still aboard until he makes this next point:

This was more than a year after the stock market crash. Moreover, the unemployment rate rose to even higher levels under both Presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt, both of whom intervened in the economy on an unprecedented scale.

Here I have to object to the implication and do a bit of clarifying. The suggestion seems to be - at least as it is worded here - that as Hoover and his successor Roosevelt tinkered with the economy, unemployment continued to rise.

In fact, what happened was that unemployment had risen to 23.6% in Hoover's last full year as president, and reached a staggering 24.9% in 1933, FDR's first year as president (but remember that inauguration day back then did not take place until March).

However, by the following year unemployment had fallen to 21.7%, and then inched downward each year until the recession of 1937 & 38, when afterward it then resumed its downward trend. (I obtained these figures by consulting the Bureau of Labor Statistics.)

Therefore, Sowell's claim that

The rise in unemployment after the stock market crash of 1929 was a blip on the screen compared to the soaring unemployment rates reached later, after a series of government interventions

can be dismissed as obfuscation.

He unfairly links government interventions with the "soaring unemployment rates," rather than demonstrating the fact that unemployment began to decline after FDR's New Deal began to take effect. The soaring unemployment was instead the result of a domino effect of related events as the Great Depression took hold and spread across the world.

The truth is, although Sowell keeps mentioning a connection between the government intervention under Hoover and Roosevelt, he never bothers to demonstrate his thesis but is content to assume it throughout his column.

Sowell does correctly point out that "increasing numbers of scholars recognize that FDR's own policies were a further extension of interventions begun under Hoover." However, that Roosevelt went further in involving government directly with the economy than any other president ever had is beyond dispute. Therefore to connect the approaches of the two presidents the way Sowell does while ignoring the improvement that Roosevelt's extended approach made is dishonest.

Now I'm not arguing that FDR's New Deal was perfect. Many mistakes were made along the way because, as Roosevelt himself admitted, it was mostly experimentation. He was in totally uncharted waters. But it is clearly historical revisionism that is attempting to make the case that the New Deal made the Depression worse or prolonged it.

Moreover, if another Great Depression is avoided, it clearly will be in part because of some the government measures initiated by FDR that will guard against it. I'm thinking of such things as the FDIC, unemployment insurance and Social Security, not to mention the way Keynesian pump-priming was demonstrated effective.

For my part, I am eager for a new New Deal under President Obama.

Some thoughts about us stingy liberals

2008-12-23T10:34:00.008-05:00

Rick Moore, of HolyCoast.com, has taken a soul-searching article by liberal New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, titled Bleeding Heart Tightwads, and through selective quotation attempts to use it as a cudgel to beat liberalism about the head.

Rather than attempting to show that political liberalism is a completely hypocritical enterprise, Kristof's purpose, as he put it, was

to shame liberals into being more charitable. Since I often scold Republicans for being callous in their policies toward the needy, it seems only fair to reproach Democrats for being cheap in their private donations. What I want for Christmas is a healthy competition between left and right to see who actually does more for the neediest.

Speaking as a liberal who is not prone to donate great quantities of my income to non-profit organizations or to attend and support a church or religious movement (most of my charitable contributions are aimed at one-on-one exchanges, where I know for a fact that 100% of my time and/or money is being used for the purpose intended), I say to Mr. Kristof: Thanks for your opinion, but I prefer my way.

Perhaps other liberals do as well. Although I have absolutely no quarrel with those who prefer to give and volunteer their time to the well-known causes (I do a little of that, too), I believe this is a matter of personal choice. The important thing is that we all do something and try to make a difference. I also am of the opinion that working to bring about social justice is capable of doing at least as much good, and probably more, than charitable giving alone.

Be that as it may, Rick Moore has some interesting thoughts on Kristof's column. He writes:

We know that liberals are in fact generous - with other people's money. They're just not generous with their own unless they're pouring it into a campaign for a liberal candidate. They're more than willing to buy TV ads or mailers for a candidate. They're just not inspired by the thought of buying food or shelter for the truly needy.

Frankly, I get a little tired of that "generous with other people's money" cliche. Do conservatives really believe they are the only ones who pay taxes?

That point aside, the Pew Research Center has published data which show that the majority of Americans believe government should "do more to help the needy" and that 69% actually believe government should "guarantee food and shelter to all Americans." Seems to me that whether this be liberalism or not, the majority of us believe the government should be very active in the welfare of its citizenry; and of course we know that means being generous with tax revenues. Toward that end, it makes sense that giving financial support to political candidates who share this concern is a wise investment.

On the other hand, modern conservatism favors the idea that private charity is preferable to government assistance, and the thing that makes them appear more generous than liberals is their ardent religious support. While Moore quotes Kristof to the effect that

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

It is notable that he fails to quote this portion of Kristof's column:

When liberals see the data on giving, they tend to protest that conservatives look good only because they shower dollars on churches — that a fair amount of that money isn't helping the poor but simply constructing lavish spires.

Personally, I am very leary of sending charitable donations to religious organizations. We would do well to remember what Republican Senator Charles Grassley said when opening an investigation into the finances of six well-known televangelists: “Rolls Royces, Bentleys ... a marble commode in an expensive home: that’s a lot of money down the toilet.”

Now I'm not saying that all churches and religious organizations are frauds, but the Religious Right is made up, to a very large extent, of the supporters of wealthy ministers and religious leaders.

So if that is the definition of charity, I much prefer contributing to politicians who seek to bring about social justice, and I much prefer paying higher taxes to help the needy because - contrary to conservative thinking - government can be highly effective in these efforts.

One more quotation Mr. Moore left out. Kristof noted that

Looking away from politics, there's evidence that one of the most generous groups in the United States is gays.

Yet this is one of the groups that conservatives are perhaps most intent on opposing.

Using Moore's logic, it seems to me, we should be encouraging more people to become gay or at least to embrace wholeheartedly the "gay agenda" in the interest of charitable giving.

Also note at the same time that practically all of the right-wing religious ministries oppose gay citizens and their attempts to obtain equality.

So who really is the hypocrite here?

The Bush economic legacy

2008-12-22T03:16:00.001-05:00

Texas governor George W. Bush, in early 1999 as he considered a run for the White House, said the following:

I do have a compelling reason to consider running for president. For my family and for every family in America, I want the 21st century to be prosperous.

Fast forward to December of 2007 and a recession begins in the United States. It rapidly spreads throughout the rest of the world and now - one year later - is being recognized as the severest economic downturn since the Great Depression of last century. We have no idea how much worse it will get before things start to improve.

It need not have happened this way. When President Bush took office he inherited from the Clinton Adminsitration a budget surplus of over 127 billion dollars. That has now, under the mismanagement of Bush, been turned into a record breaking $455 billion deficit.

It is hardly to fair to lay the entire blame for the current economic collapse on one man alone, I know. Still it is a fact that President Bush's impetus for becoming president not only was not realized, but contrarily the 21st century is getting started with a crash, and it is in no small way the fault of the economic theories of our current president (and other proponents of free market capitalism such as Alan Greenspan).

The New York Times, for example, has an interesting story on how White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire.

We are told that:

As early as 2006, top advisers to Mr. Bush dismissed warnings from people inside and outside the White House that housing prices were inflated and that a foreclosure crisis was looming. And when the economy deteriorated, Mr. Bush and his team misdiagnosed the reasons and scope of the downturn; as recently as February, for example, Mr. Bush was still calling it a “rough patch.”

But, as the NYT so succinctly puts it:

From his earliest days in office, Mr. Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own home with his conviction that markets do best when let alone.

It is this conservative mindset that "government is the problem" and is unable to do much efficiently other than wage war that has brought us to near ruin. The idea that unrestrained capitalism is the cure for all ills has again been proven a lie.

In this current mess, the majority of Americans are unwilling to buy into Ronald Reagan's dictum that "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" That idea is out of vogue, proven to be hollow like so much of conservative anti-government rhetoric.

We need our government to finance a true economic stimulus based on actual production of something tangible like repairing and rebuilding our infrastructure, to assist those who have lost their jobs or stand in danger of losing their jobs, to overhaul our immoral health care industry that allows thousands to perish or be left untreated with serious illness, and to place some restraints on a capitalistic system run amuck that allowed the few to get exceedingly rich through unscrupulous means directed at swindling the lower classes.

War on Christmas revisted

2008-12-21T08:20:00.005-05:00

Let's think a little about the so-called War on Christmas.

First off, I want to go on record as being a War on Christmas denier. I don't believe such a thing exists except in the minds of certain conservatives.

I believe these conservatives can be broken down into two groups. 1. Those who aren't really knowledgeable enough and independently minded enough to form opinions based on facts rather than the rhetoric of those they perceive to be their leaders; and 2., those aforementioned leaders who recognize the value of using the concocted War on Christmas as a great fund-raising and/or publicity ploy.

Here is a little item that purports to give The root of hatred for Christmas, written by William Donohue. Mr. Donohue writes:

The root cause of the war on Christmas, which is conducted almost exclusively by well-educated white people in the U.S., Canada, Europe and Australia -the very same people who like gay marriage - has almost nothing to do with fidelity to law (the First Amendment in the U.S.): it has to do with ideology.

Well, now this is just plain wrong. Yes, the cause of conflict here has a basis in ideology; but the crux of the matter is indeed the First Amendment and whether it is proper for the government to endorse one particular religion above all others. I have no idea why race should be brought in, but certainly the more educated one is, the better able one would be to understand all that is involved here.

Donohue continues:

The ideology is plainly an expression of left-wing secularism, and it is nothing if not anti-Western and anti-Christian. At its worst, it is driven by hatred; at its best, it is driven by a defensive posture, a deep sense of embarrassment over the legacy of Western civilization.

Okay, let's pause to look at the concept of secularism. This word was coined long ago by George Jacob Holyoake, and I think it fitting that Holyoake be allowed to define his term in his own words:

Secularism is not an argument against Christianity, it is one independent of it. It does not question the pretensions of Christianity; it advances others. Secularism does not say there is no light or guidance elsewhere, but maintains that there is light and guidance in secular truth, whose conditions and sanctions exist independently, and act forever. Secular knowledge is manifestly that kind of knowledge which is founded in this life, which relates to the conduct of this life, conduces to the welfare of this life, and is capable of being tested by the experience of this life.

So "left-wing secularism" is an odd way to express this notion. Truly what we have is just a plain old unhyphenated secularism that recognizes that religion and government are both better served and protected by keeping the two separate as much as is reasonable, as a little understanding of early American history bears out.

Therefore, hatred towards Christianity or religion in general or "embarrassment over the legacy of Western civilization" have nothing whatsoever to do with the controversy.

Donohue attempts to offer proof when he writes:

Want proof that hate is driving this assault? The head of the ACLU in New Hampshire, Claire Ebel, advises that if crèches are allowed in parks, it is permissible "for a display of satanic ritual."

Actually, what Ebel said was this:

If it's permissible to have a crèche with a permit on the sidewalk in front of the State House, it's equally permissible for a display of Islam, pagan religion, for a display of satanic ritual, if an individual sought a permit.

That is correct. The fear and hate are on the part of the Christian supremacists.

Campbell Soup and the "gay agenda"

2008-12-20T09:03:00.000-05:00

Donald E. Wildmon's American Family Association has issued a hysterical Action Alert warning that

Campbell Soup Company has openly begun helping homosexual activists push their agenda. Not only did the ads cost Campbell's a chunk of money, but they also sent a message that homosexual parents constitute a family and are worthy of support. They also gave their approval to the entire homosexual agenda.

You know, I've spent the last half hour carefully examining these ads and wondering how anyone can draw any conclusion but that the bottom line here is just that: the bottom line, i.e., to sell a product and enhance profits.

These ads appear in The Advocate, a LGBT related magazine, so as any reasonable mind would imagine, the ads certainly embrace the reality that Campbell Soup's desired clientele are diverse ... say, everyone who desires tasty sustenance.

It simply boggles my mind how anyone can look at these ads and conclude that Campbell Soup is giving "their approval to the entire homosexual agenda," unless that agenda consists solely of recognition that gays are just plain folk like all the rest of us.

And if that is so, everybody who believes in basic human rights and dignity should embrace the "gay agenda." I know I do.

The ads can be viewed here.

The ad which got the most attention in Wildmon's Alert featured Chef Lea Forant, who is pictured with her partner Carolyn and their young son. Forant opened her Cafe Forant in New York, which the ad describes as "a place for old and new friends to gather as a 'found family' for food prepared with care."

Wildmon gives an address where we can email Campbell Soup in order to demand they put a stop to endorsing that kind of foolishness!

I think Donald Wildmon needs to be emailed and urged to stop the hate.

Baal worship, anyone? (Or: When the conservative imagination runs wild)

2008-12-20T07:36:00.002-05:00

Matt Barber determines to tell us exactly what is up with "[m]odern-day liberals – or 'progressives' as they more discreetly prefer." (Just as a side note: I like both terms to describe my thinking; but I really cleave to "liberal" because it does so much to agitate my more conservative and anti-progressive acquaintances.)

Now it seems that Mr. Barber was induced to do a little thinking after hearing a sermon by one Presbyterian preacher, Pastor John Mabray of Lynchburg, Virginia, who "addressed the ancient Canaanite practice of Baal worship and, though he didn't reveal it by name, connected the dots to its present-day progeny: liberalism."

Just imagine!

Here is the way Barber describes Baal worship:

Ritualistic Baal worship, in sum, looked a little like this: Adults would gather around the altar of Baal. Infants would then be burned alive as a sacrificial offering to the deity. Amid horrific screams and the stench of charred human flesh, congregants – men and women alike – would engage in bisexual orgies. The ritual of convenience was intended to produce economic prosperity by prompting Baal to bring rain for the fertility of "mother earth."

Just for balance, I want to quote a recognized religious authority. Here is the way the online Jewish Encyclopedia describes Baal worship:

Apart from the offerings of fruits from the earth and the firstlings of cattle, much is not known with regard to the rites of the popular Ba'al-Worship. Self-torture and mutilation characteristic of the Phenician type (I Kings xviii. 28) were probably absent from the simpler and freer usages of the primitive local observances. It is also doubtful whether the sacrifice of children, proper to the service of Molech, was ever a feature of inland Canaanitic Ba'al-Worship (Jer. xix. 5 is to be corrected by the LXX.). The shrines were little more than altars with the symbol of the Ashtoreth planted beside it—the sacred tree-stem or pole named from an old Canaanite goddess, Ashera, with whom Ashtoreth was identified. Near by sacred pillars were also often reared.

Of course by this point a sane person has to be wondering what any of this has to do with liberalism. But this is a hatchet job we are examining and we have to remember that the usual rules of logic and common sense must be suspended in order to understand what is being presented.

Therefore, Barber connects the dots in this way:

Modern liberalism deviates little from its ancient predecessor. While its macabre rituals have been sanitized with flowery and euphemistic terms of art, its core tenets and practices remain eerily similar. The worship of "fertility" has been replaced with worship of "reproductive freedom" or "choice." Child sacrifice via burnt offering has been updated, ever so slightly, to become child sacrifice by way of abortion. The ritualistic promotion, practice and celebration of both heterosexual and homosexual immorality and promiscuity have been carefully whitewashed – yet wholeheartedly embraced – by the cults of radical feminism, militant "gay rights" and "comprehensive sex education." And, the pantheistic worship of "mother earth" has been substituted – in name only – for radical environmentalism.

So let me just cut to the chase and tell you that Matt Barber is saying this: Liberalism amounts to evil devil worship.

Wasn't that easier and more direct?

Now admittedly I have time and again said that conservatives really worship the god Mammon. But honestly, I was trying to be sarcastic and did not mean it in any literal way.

But you know what? Matt Barber, Ann Coulter (in her idiotic tome Godless: The Church of Liberalism) and their ilk literally seem to be trying to make a religion out of political liberalism.

And I think that says far more about their political views than it does ours.

Those corrupt Democrats!

2008-12-19T03:35:00.006-05:00

Randall Hoven wants to demonstrate how Democrats are "4 times (or 300%) more corrupt than Republicans" in order to answer his question, "Which party is more corrupt?"

He bases this claim on a compilation of United States Congressmen that have been convicted or pled guilty to major offenses.

Okay, this very limited data is supposed to impress someone?

And, in true conservative form, we are asked to look back in the past for answers. The NTU list Hoven refers us to is almost a decade old!

Now understand first off that I think this is a stupid way to examine the matter, for a number of reasons. The old adage is certainly true that "power corrupts," and, that being the case, we should expect to find plenty of corruption in places of power all along the political spectrum.

Bearing that in mind, I still - just for the fun of it - have to counter with a list (again a highly selective one) that at least has the advantage of being recent. An organization known as CREW, which stands for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, has compiled the following list:

The 20 most corrupt members of Congress

Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL)
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA)
Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-CA)
Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL)
Rep. Vito J. Fossella (R-NY)
Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-LA)
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-IL)
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rep. Gary G. Miller (R-CA)
Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-WV)
Rep. Timothy F. Murphy (R-PA)
Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA)
Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM)
Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-NY)
Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ)
Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY)
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK)
Rep. Don Young (R-AK)

Dishonorable mentions

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN)
Rep. Laura Richardson (D-CA)
Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH)

If you will follow the link to CREW I provided and click on any of the names on the above list, you can read all the repulsive details.

Now that what I believe to be the most corrupt presidential administration in history is finally drawing to a close, one that I think unarguably surpasses the corrupt Nixon administration, which itself seems to have surpassed the corruption of the Harding administration ... hey, weren't those guys all Republicans? ... we can at least hope for a restoration of honor among our country's leadership. Nothing wrong with hope.

I just think it is really, really dumb to attempt to make the case that either political party is intrinsically more corrupt.

But hey, that's what small minds do.

The trials and tribulations of President Bush

2008-12-18T04:02:00.002-05:00

Hear our president:

What do you expect? We've got a major economic problem and I'm the president during the major economic problem. I mean, do people approve of the economy? No. I don't approve of the economy. ... I've been a wartime president. I've dealt with two economic recessions now. I've had, hell, a lot of serious challenges. What matters to me is I didn't compromise my soul to be a popular guy.

But what matters to us, Mr. President, is that you created - or at the very least, helped create or exacerbate - many of the problems that have plagued you.

Popularity isn't the issue, Mr. President. Job approval polling demonstrates that Americans mostly think of your administration as a failed presidency. The challenges were not adequately met and the problems were not effectively dealt with.

We never expected perfection. We did expect leadership. Instead of inspiring us, you often helped to promote division among us. Instead of listening to our voices, you were content to stubbornly follow your instincts. Instead of preserving, protecting and defending our Constitution, you often dealt very carelessly with that revered document. Instead of holding up America as a beacon of light to a troubled world, you seriously damaged our reputation and brought shame upon us.

What did we expect?

More. So very much more than we recieved.

Bush and free markets

2008-12-17T05:10:00.002-05:00

Yesterday President Bush made this telling admission (but ignore the ridiculous double-talk):

Well, I have obviously made a decision to make sure the economy doesn’t collapse. I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system. I think when people review what’s taken place in the last six months, uh, and put it all in one, in one, (sigh), you know, in one package, they’re realize how significantly we have moved.

Bottom line: Laissez Faire doesn't work as a governing policy. Never has, never will.

The money changers are not fit to run this or any other country, and government oversight is what a free and informed people expect.

America did not learn the lesson of the 1920s ... let's hope she has this time around and for all time.

Conservative leader rebukes dumbth

2008-12-17T03:52:00.002-05:00

I'm certainly no fan of Newt Gingrich. However, I have to tip my hat to Gingrich for blasting the Republican National Committee over a web ad that attempts to tie President-elect Obama to the Blagojevich scandal.

In a letter to RNC leader Mike Duncan, Gingrich wrote:

I was saddened to learn that at a time of national trial, when a president-elect is preparing to take office in the midst of the worst financial crisis in over seventy years, that the Republican National Committee is engaged in the sort of negative, attack politics that the voters rejected in the 2006 and 2008 election cycles.

Well, pinch me to make sure I'm not dreaming.

Gingrich went on:

Furthermore, once President Obama takes office, Republicans should be eager to work with him when he is right, and, when he is wrong, offer a better solution, instead of just opposing him.

The lunatic fringe on the right side of the political spectrum has attempted - and still attempts - to tear this nation apart, dividing Americans between (so-called) patriots and enemies. This is disgusting and should stop.

Still clueless after all these years

2008-12-16T04:27:00.001-05:00

President Bush nearly ate shoes hurled at him by disgruntled Iraqi journalist Muntadhar al-Zaidi, and had the chutzpah to later tell an interviewer he didn't know "what his cause was."

Muntazer al-Zaidi shouted "this is a goodbye kiss from the Iraqi people, dog" as he took target practice at our president.

According to this story, the man has become a bit of a hero in Iraq. The story relates that "Colleagues say Mr. Zaidi resented Mr. Bush, blaming him for the bloodshed that ravaged Iraq."

President Bush's take on the matter is that "That’s what people do in a free society, draw attention to themselves."

So says the man who allegedly "kept us safe" since 9/11 (in spite of having helped create this widespread anti-American sentiment) and wants so desperately to be remembered as the liberator of Iraq.

President Bush ducked the shoes far easier than he will be able to duck his damning legacy.

Just to be clear (an update on my last post)

2008-12-11T18:47:00.000-05:00

I wanted to make clear that I am not equating criticism of a president or president-elect with being undemocratic.

What I am referring to are the efforts of those who would like to actually undo an election. People, for example, who were behind the move of taking Obama's birth certificate all the way to the Supreme Court or who are trying to tie Obama to the Blagojevich scandal in efforts to keep him from even assuming the office to which he was elected.

I'm saying: hey you guys, you lost ... get on with your lives. If you believe in Democracy, then accept what the voters said last month. Stop the shenanigans and give our process a chance to work.

As a final note, much after I posted my original post on this subject I read a USA Today report on political corruption that demonstrates that Illinois "is far from the most corrupt state," and in case you haven't seen it, read it in full here.

I just find these things disgusting.

If you really believe in Democracy...

2008-12-11T04:52:00.003-05:00

it seems to me you should be willing accept the decision of the clear majority of the American people and at least wait until the person elected to be the next president actually takes office and begins to take care of business BEFORE you start working against him.

How is this for a post title: Chicago Politics And The Man With the Middle Name Hussein?

The author says that for 22 months leading up to election day

bloggers on the right as-well-as Conservative talk radio hosts such as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh warned of the dangers of electing a product of the corrupt Chicago Democrat Machine. But you did it anyway.

Yes, the right-wingers did sling mud, and yes, it didn't stick. Barack Obama was elected.

Now you guys have lost. If Barack Obama fails to give us an adequate administration, then it makes sense that conservatives will be in a position to capitalize on that. But the future isn't here yet, so why not just wait and see what develops?

For years those of us on the left have heard about "Bush derangement syndrome" and of our pathological hatred of Bush. And these allegations were leveled against us because we abhorred President Bush's dereliction of duty in defending our Constitution, because we objected to his repeated failure to listen to the voice of the majority of Americans, because of our concern for the damage being done to our international reputation because of the radical foreign policy of the Bush/Cheney administration, among other concerns. In other words, our opposition was directed at actual problems.

But President-elect Obama has not yet been sworn in. And still the ridiculous charges are being brought against him, accusations that he is a religious hypocrite - really a Muslim, not a Christian, that he has a controversial middle name, that he presented a fraudulent birth certificate and is not even eligible to serve as president, and now this latest charge that he is a politician from Chicago.

Now speak to us about derangement syndrome.

So let me ask: Are we to assume to that every politician in Chicago is corrupt? The above mentioned posts adds, "And let’s not forget Mrs. Clinton when we talk of Chicago corruption, she was born there." Okay, but I ask: So what?

Long story short: Yes, you guys have warned us what a disaster a President Obama would be. But again, IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE IN DEMOCRACY, you will allow the man to take office and begin his administration ... and then, if he does not perform well, the American people can vote for a change of direction.

The Bible, homosexuality, and slavery

2008-12-10T04:38:00.005-05:00

I for one was greatly impressed with Newsweek magazine's cover story on gay marriage. As you can imagine, it has put the conservative's teeth on edge.

The gist of Lisa Miller's story, I believe, can be summed in her passage:

Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition (and, to talk turkey for a minute, a personal discomfort with gay sex that transcends theological argument).

I believe that the issue of gay sex and the Bible is not so different from that of slavery and the Bible, and that "custom and tradition" is indeed the root of both problems.

Christianity did not die off because the traditional view of the acceptability of the institution of slavery - with its firm grounding in historical Biblical interpretation - was discarded in favor of the recognition of human equality.

Certainly we may rest assured that Christianity will not die if we extend full rights to same-sex couples.

Reactions to Newsweek's story are coming in at a furious pace.

Southern Baptist head Richard Land says: “I don’t think it’s going to change the minds of anyone who takes biblical teachings seriously.”

No, I would say it will not change the minds of those whose worldview is rooted in fear and prejudice.

Family Research Council's Tony Perkins said called it “yet another attack on orthodox Christianity.”

What else but fear could see a call to further, deeper study of an issue as an attack? That type of argument is what causes conservatism to be dismissed as irrelevant and narrow-minded.

The Free Public reports on American Family Association's Donald Wildmon's take on the matter under the headline "Newsweek trashes the Bible in support of homosexual marriage." But that definitely is not the case, as anyone who actually read the Miller's article could attest.

Interestingly, Wildmon recommends Albert Mohler's response to Miller, and says "I suggest you read Mohler’s article and then read Miller's Newsweek article."

What? Read the response before the original argument is examined? How backwards is that?

Actually, Mohler's take, which can be read in its entirety here, is quite sane and restrained for a conservative response. He goes point-by-point and explains what he believes is wrong with Miller's insights. His summary complaint is that

Newsweek could have offered its readers a careful and balanced review of the crucial issues related to this question. It chose another path -- and published this cover story. The magazine's readers and this controversial issue deserved better.

Fair enough. Perhaps it would have made a stronger presentation if the opposing case had been laid beside Miller's article. But we have to remember that the anti-gay position is already very well known.

Having read both Miller and Mohler, I have to say that Miller makes the stronger case, in my opinion.

Mohler attacks Miller's point that the homosexuality addressed in certain biblical texts in not the same issue we are dealing with today (mostly temple prostitution versus loving, committed relationships). He dismissed the idea as "simplistic and backward."

I find this funny, because on the slavery issue it is the conservatives who - without being able to dismiss clear passages where the Almighty endorsed slavery - are reduced to arguing that the slavery mentioned in the disputed slavery passages is vastly different from the institution which ripped apart our nation. They have no problem with that.

Again, agree or disagree, there IS a biblical case to be made for acceptance of same-sex relationships. And acceptance will not kill off Christianity anymore than accepting the abolition of slavery did.

A right-wing crank and fellow Georgian weighs in on Saxby Chambliss

2008-12-09T04:00:00.002-05:00

Hey, no bones about it. I'm ashamed of my fellow Georgians for sending Chambliss back to the senate.

But here's a guy who not only praises Georgia for knowing "how to vote," but then goes on to proclaim that "clearly there is something wrong with the cognitive abilities of the majority of voting Americans."

He should talk about cognition!

For example:

...Mao Zedong, the communist leader of China for nearly 30 years who presided over the deaths of roughly 70 million of his own people. He once said “I have witnessed the tremendous energy of the masses. On this foundation it is possible to accomplish any task whatsoever.” A not-so-quite condensed version of Obama’s “yes, we can.”

The rest of his piece is equally insane, and ends on this note:

That’s why, concerning his victory, Chambliss got one thing wrong. He said that the Democratic majority knows “they will need Republicans to work with them” and that there “will have to be a bipartisan effort to accomplish any major legislation.” You don’t work with socialists. You work to stop them. Unless, that is, you want to make a great leap into disaster.

Now if we want to talk about voter cognitive abilities, let's consider the almost sixty million voters who went out and voted for John McCain (who surely would have continued the majority of Bush's agenda) after eight years of actual disaster (as opposed to idiotic fear-mongering speculations about the future).

The ol' Huckster

2008-12-09T03:47:00.003-05:00

Also-ran Mike Huckabee is still very much on the radar screen these days. His book "Do the Right Thing" is sitting at number five on the New York Times non-fiction best selling books list. Also, he was number one in a recent CNN/Opinion Research Poll concerning who Republicans would like to see head their ticket in 2012. He edged out Sarah Palin 34 to 32 percent. (I will refrain from commenting on how ridiculous I think it is to be seriously contemplating such a question before the big W has even left the White House).

All of us of the liberal persuasion should keep this guy on our minds. He seems a bit strange to this observer.

And I'm not just talking about his offensive sense of humor:

Republican Mike Huckabee responded to an offstage noise during his speech to the National Rifle Association by suggesting it was Barack Obama diving to the floor because someone had aimed a gun at him.

Hearing a loud noise and interrupting his speech, Huckabee said: "That was Barack Obama. He just tripped off a chair. He's getting ready to speak and somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor."

Or his recent ridiculous conspiracy theory about "economic terrorism" (another clueless Republican):

Just today, a friend of mine in the financial markets indicated that he's been doing a careful analysis of the last 12 days, and there seems to be a manipulation of the marketplace - at the last half-hour of each day, there is an extraordinary rush of computerized trading going on. He believes that there may, in fact, be evidence of economic terrorism that is fueling a lot of what's going on. Now it's a fascinating idea, that if somebody could break down the world economy, it would have a greater impact that any bomb ever set off. It seems to be there is plausible argument for it.

But his opinion of the Constitution is more than a little troubling:

I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And thats what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.

Oh, did I tell you the subtitle of Huckabee's book is "Inside the Movement That's Bringing Common Sense Back to America"?!

Trash the First Amendment: Wish someone "Happy Holidays"

2008-12-08T03:51:00.004-05:00

I guess that's the corollary to what Michael Reagan is suggesting in his latest column.

Reagan is "fed up with seeing federal, state and local governments, local and nationwide chain stores, and even the White House ... all of them giving in to the intimidation of a handful of secular progressives who loathe Christianity and any celebration associated with it."

Surely he can't be serious. But apparently he is.

And he suggests that the phrase "Happy Holidays" is meaningless.

How does he figure? It is "meaningless" to be open-minded enough to allow other Americans to observe their various religious traditions or secular celebrations in their own way? Why be presumptuous?

Reagan warns:

The secular progressives who shrivel at the sound of a “Merry Christmas” greeting have long succeeded in intimidating the world of commerce and government. It’s about time for the 90 percent of Americans who call themselves Christians to do a little intimidation of their own.

Oh, brother!

Good point

2008-12-08T03:48:00.000-05:00

While on the subject of the supposed War on Christmas, I want to pass along this very interesting observation from Austin Cline:

Conservative evangelical Christians complain about people taking the "Christ" out of Christmas, but they seem to forget that they have already taken the "Mass" out of Christmas (Mass being a service including Holy Communion). When was the last time a prominent figure on the Christian Right has argued that Americans should remember to attend Mass on this Holy Day? I've never seen it and I don't expect to ever do so. This is just one of many masses that have been excised from the season.

Think your average "ditto head" has given this even a moment's thought?

Saxby Chambliss is an embarrassment to my home state

2008-12-07T08:17:00.001-05:00

Okay, I can't hide my disgust with my fellow Georgians for going to the polls the other day and sending this guy back to the Senate at this crucial time.

Just how out of touch is he?

Hear his solution to the Big Three Auto Makers Crisis:

To go to the auto industry and say, “Yes here is a handout” is the wrong thing to do. We need to free up the credit market so people can get loans to buy more cars. Our domestic automakers can compete with anybody. Their CEO’s have to get their businesses fixed internally. They need to get their house in order before they consider going to the taxpayers and saying, “You need to give us a check to tide us over until we figure this out.” I am just not going to support that.

No, and neither is anyone else I've heard.

But get Chambliss' solution to the problem, and this coming at a time when unemployment is rising at a faster pace than it has in decades. Free up the credit market so people can borrow money in order to buy more cars. Is the man unaware that the majority of working Americans fall into one of two classes: either unemployed or wondering when they will join the ranks of the unemployed?

I don't think that many Americans are aching to go out and borrow money to buy a new car right now.

The economic collapse must somehow be stopped. If the auto industry is allowed to go down, it very well may lead us into a full-fledged depression.

No, don't just give them a "handout" (what typical Republican rhetoric). Do hold their feet to the fire and insist they have a plan to restabilize. But please, the problem is more complicated than freeing up more credit.

An succinct assessment of modern Republicanism

2008-12-07T08:12:00.001-05:00

In an interview earlier this year former Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration Robert Reich gave us this to-the-point assessment of what Republican leadership has meant for our country:

On the other hand, the public has now seen the results of Republican you’re-on-your-own policy: a failing economy, a record number of Americans without health insurance, millions of families on the verge of being unable to afford the insurance they have and also on the verge of losing their homes, Katrina, Walter Reed, and so on. No amount of “framing” can mask the abject failures of these policies, and the need for a new approach that acknowledges we’re all in this together.

Indeed, we are all in this together. "Yes, we can" make a difference if we work together for the common good. One way we can do that is by contacting our representatives in Congress and urging them to support the change measures Barack Obama will be attempting to put into place after he is inaugurated.

In case you're keeping score

2008-12-07T08:07:00.002-05:00

Following up the above post, the 533,000 jobs that were lost in November comes on the heels of the 320,000 lost in October and 403,000 in September.That amounts to over 1.2 million American jobs lost.

We are now facing the prospects of either propping up our failing auto industry or idly standing by to allow the invisible hand to do its thing.

I don't often find myself in agreement with conservative pundit Patrick J. Buchanan, but he has well written that "to let the auto industry die is to write America out of much of the economic future of the planet."

If Buchanan's statistics are accurate they are mind-boggling:

When workers, execs, engineers, dealers, salesmen and suppliers are all factored in, the Big Three employ 3 million people who contribute $21 billion a year to Social Security and Medicare, and $25 billion in federal income taxes. Add in all the businesses that depend on the auto industry, and we are talking about one-tenth of the U.S. labor force.

It would be catastrophic to add another tenth of the total labor force to the already steadily increasing unemployment picture, together with its further devastating economic consequences.

Bush Administration historical revisionism now underway

2008-12-06T11:12:00.002-05:00

In an ABC News interview, First Lady Laura Bush says this concerning our president:

I think they think he's somebody that kept them safe for eight years. And I hear that all the time, people thanking me, telling me to thank him.

Well, not all of us so think. I admit that I have seen right-wingers make that suggestion quite often and have had several of them try the line on me. But I think that shows two things: (1) how short the human memory is, and (2) how willingly blinded some people can be (call the latter "true believers).

I remind you that the Bush Administration ignored clear warnings that Obama bin-Laden planned to attack us prior to 9/11.

I have never felt very safe under President Bush and am unable to shake the image of him enjoying the reading of The Pet Goat even as we were under attack. What could be more clear than that for several minutes he was frozen in a fog about what he should do next? Not very presidential, and certainly not very reassuring.

Moreover, the unvarnished truth is that the Bush administration's gun-boat diplomacy and constant saber-rattling has done nothing but increase hostility towards us. The election of Barack Obama was widely hailed throughout the world as a positive step in returning us from the brink of barbarism of the Bush Administration.

So please, get real everyone!

And then there is Karl Rove making the administration out to be the victim of circumstance in attacking Iraq because of alleged faulty intelligence about Weapons of Mass Destruction. This, of course, is a lie in light of prior statements Bush had made that he would have invaded regardless (do please follow the link).

The truth is that Bush had an agenda of removing Saddam going in to his first term. The unfortunate events of 9/11 gave him just the pretext needed to carry this out.

I see no way to avoid the clear conclusion that the Bush Administration has been a failure and that Bush was clearly not qualified to do the job.

The Barack Obama/O. J. Simpson connection

2008-12-06T09:59:00.001-05:00

I know. That's a stupid thought no matter how you slice it ... that is, unless your mind has been deactivated by right-wing dumbth.

J. Grant Swank, Jr. has written a little stand-up routine called B. Hussein: Take Warning From O. J.

The amazing thing, to me at least, is the way the more self-righteous right-wingers obviously believe they have the ability to actually and factually look into the hearts and minds of their opponents.

Swank believes that President-elect Obama (Boy! How that must gall them: President-elect Obama, PRESIDENT ELECT OBAMA, PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA ... OUR NEXT PRESIDENT, BARACK OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!) has a guilty conscience. (Strange that slanderers like Swank never seem to!)

Swank writes of PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA:

He is not a Christian but a Muslim.

He is not a natural-born US citizen.

He is The Mystery Boy and he knows it. He has spent his years manufacturing his persona in the midst of an Illinois political district laden with crooks and Koran-abiding Muslims, particularly the Nation of Islam headquarters overseen by Lois Farrakhan.

Okay, and now O. J. Simpson is finally going to prison. Truth, Swank says, will out.

And this applies to PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA how?

It seems to me - and it grieves me to have to say this, really - that current President Bush is more deserving of the comparison, as is it is he who has committed war crimes and other human rights atrocities worthy of imprisonment.

But I'm not holding my breath for that truth to "will out."

Burn out!

2008-08-24T20:29:00.001-04:00

I need a break.

Some readers have wondered how I am able to wade through all of the hate-filled, small minded material I wade through in order to write this blog. Good question. And answer is that there is a limit to what one person can endure, and for me my limit - at least for now - has been reached.

Imagine no arguments over God

2008-08-22T05:16:00.001-04:00

Dennis Prager has a new column that "makes the case for the necessity, not the existence, of God." I'm not sure I understand the difference. If God is necessary, as Prager argues, and yet doesn't actually exist, in what sense could it be said that he is necessary? Anyway, he gives a fourteen item list of "problems" he imagines exist If there is no God.

If there is one thing that vexes me most about the modern conservative mind it is their claim to having the moral authority for their positions based on "thus saith the Lord." Usually when I debate with a right-winger and attack what little logic that actually employ, almost inevitably it ends on their part with "well, I'm right ... sorry you can't see that." God, as you might imagine, is always their final appeal. They are "right" because they represent God's position.

That is where Prager heads in his first problem:

Without God, there is no good and evil; there are only subjective opinions that we then label "good" and "evil" ... unless there is a moral authority that transcends humans from which emanates an objective right and wrong, "right" and "wrong" no more objectively exist than do "beautiful" and "ugly."

For my part, I simply refuse to argue about the existence of God. That question has vexed my mind ever since the day in my early teen age years when I first matured enough to question an assumption I had been taught from my earliest days. I have probably read more about that one subject than any other. The problem is, we simply have no way of having certain knowledge to answer it. All the philosophical "proofs" for God's existence fall short of being proof. (Which isn't to say that individuals do not find some persuasive enough to take Pascal's wager; but as far as being absolute proof, they all fail.). Therefore, I am an agnostic. I just don't know for a certainty whether or not God exists. Also, I have no desire to proselytize. Everyone should believe as their reason leads them. I just argue for civility in the matter.

Now to be sure I have certain notions I feel could not possibly be true about God if God exists. I don't believe a God with intelligence enough to create a wonderful cosmos such as there is could be so petty and twisted as to create us humans with the intent of damning most of us. Calvin's God seems like an evil tyrant to my way of thinking.

I can't fathom a God who instituted human slavery as many have believed down through the centuries, even in our country where statesmen like Confederate President Jefferson Davis argued passionately for the "divine institution" of slavery.

I can't believe God created the diversity we see around us and yet believes in absolute conformity (read: orthodoxy and its child bigotry).

Of course I realize many simply disagree about these things and others I haven't gone into. And therein lies the rub. Postulating the existence of God doesn't answer for us the thorny questions of what is right and what is wrong.

I've said before on my blog that I am a humanist and that my ethics are humanist. I don't know for certain that God exists, but I do know that we humans exist. We could debate endlessly over what some esoterical God believes is right or wrong, but we stand a better chance of arriving at a reasonable consensus among humans. The agnostic Robert Ingersoll once commented that murder is universally understood to be wrong and against the law because (and I'm paraphrasing because I don't have the time to locate his actual quote) people everywhere object to being murdered. I should add also that I believe humanism can be either religious or non-religious.

So I simply believe Prager's first problem is much ado about nothing and that the study of ethics actually would be much improved if separated from theology.

I've always worried about people who need an alleged holy book to tell them right from wrong. If God created us humans, was our brain not part of the creation? Is the brain not "designed" for thinking? We deny our humanity by refusing to use our reason and substituting someone's else's ideas for our own.

Is the argument that right and wrong is simply whatever God declares it to be? I think many believe that. Which is why so many swear that God prefers certain of his creatures over others and they feel justified in their racism. It is why so many have no problem condemning and harassing those of a different sexual orientation. "God hates fags," as one religious group bluntly puts it (others do so less bluntly) and so do they. Some actually believe God thinks it is okay to have sex with children, despite the fact that human reason believes it would be wrong to take advantage of another human in such a way. If right and wrong depends on God's caprice, in what sense can one argue that God is just, righteous, or holy?

Prager's problem number four is:

Human beings need instruction manuals. This is as true for acting morally and wisely as it is for properly flying an airplane. One's heart is often no better a guide to what is right and wrong than it is to the right and wrong way to fly an airplane.

Unfortunately for Prager, his analogy is making my point. Airplanes of course are an invention of humans. And the instruction manual (actually manuals, to be accurate) is conceived and written by humans using human reason. And no sane person would argue that any one manual is the absolute truth above all others, or that nothing further could be added to the manual even after human knowledge has increased.

I firmly believe arguments about God are fruitless enterprises. Discuss and explore the question of God, sure. But just remember: we all do not see or understand things in the same way. And that is okay. But the freedom to agree or disagree does not seem to be a part of revealed religion.

Old Thomas Paine said it best, I believe, in his immortal Age of Reason:

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.

I recommend that book to everyone.

Other of Prager's problems are worth a look, but I haven't the time now. Maybe I will explore more of them later.

Homosexuality is contagious

2008-08-21T05:05:00.001-04:00

At least according to the warped thinking of Fr. Jeremy Davies of Westminster, UK. Here is a story detailing his ridiculous thinking on the subject.

Around a month ago I posted about a father who had tried to beat the "demon of homosexuality" out of his teenaged son. Now Fr. Davies, a priest from "the leading diocese of the Catholic Church of England and Wales," has said: "Among the causes of homosexuality is a contagious demonic factor."

Now this is the type of religious thinking that turns reasonable people away.

The above story about Davies also states:

He also said that Satan is responsible for having blinded most secular humanists to the "dehumanising effects of contraception and abortion and IVF, of homosexual 'marriages', of human cloning and the vivisection of human embryos in scientific research." Extreme secular humanism, "atheist scientism", is comparable to "rational satanism" and these are leading Europe into a dangerous state of apostasy. "Only by a genuine personal decision for Christ and the Church can someone separate himself from it."

Give me a break! What century is this anyway?

Will people never outgrow the urge to use religion as an excuse to hate others?

McCain gets the message

2008-08-21T05:02:00.001-04:00

The GOP, the party of narrow-mindedness and regress, evidently is now attempting to ease the worried minds of hard-core conservatives who were sent into a frenzy over the suggestion that McCain was thinking about choosing a pro-choice running mate.

According to Christianity Today:

Republican National Committee officials told Fox today that McCain is no longer considering Ridge, who supports abortion rights. McCain has announced that he will announce his running mate Aug. 26, the day after the Democratic National Convention ends.

Fox reports that senior McCain advisers and aides have told RNC officials that McCain “got the message” last week that choosing a running mate who supports abortion rights would not be helpful.

I never doubted that in the end he would "get the message."

His aide Rick Davis actually had the nerve to say:

I think one of the things that is important, especially for John McCain, as unique a politician as he is, is to demonstrate the diversity and differences of ideology I would say of our party ... I think one of the things that people forget about is we are not a very monolithic as a party. We really want to show some of that.

The GOP is not diverse. It nowadays seems mostly to consist of extreme right-wingers: Christian supremacists, "culture warriors", bigots, and assorted nutjobs.

Democrats unable to "stand up and say no to a black guy"

2008-08-21T04:30:00.001-04:00

That is what Rush Limbaugh, "THE voice of conservatives" (I'm not being snide, that is what his peers recently said about him), is saying. "Talent on loan from God" he claims, unfortunately it obviously has been perverted by the Devil himself!

Anyway, Limbaugh assessed the situation this way:

He's -- it's -- to me, it is striking how unqualified Obama is and how this whole thing came about with, within the Democrat Party. I think it really goes back to the fact that nobody had the guts to stand up and say no to a black guy. They just -- they were -- liberal policies are always going to end up strangling liberals, too.

And I think, I think this is a classic illustration here where affirmative action has reared its ugly head against them. It's the reverse of it. They've, they've ended up nominating and placing at the top of their ticket somebody who's not qualified, who has not earned it.

More details can be found here.

The debate over his qualifications is just a sham. According to our Constitution he meets all the qualifications. There are no other tests a candidate must meet. And each individual voter is allowed to decide the matter on what is important to them.

Oh, before I forget: right-wingers say it is Obama who is playing the race card!

McCain advised to avoid Nazis in VP choice

2008-08-20T04:45:00.002-04:00

Well, that seems to me to be what Paul Ibrahim is hinting at in his column John McCain Needs a Conservative Choice for Vice President.

After quoting McCain's statement that "Americans want us to work together" when he floated the prospect of choosing Tom Ridge, a pro-choice politician, as his running mate, Ibrahim makes this sly comparison:

First of all, and this goes in parentheses, even though reaching across the aisle can be good when appropriate, there is nothing inherently good about "working together." Neville Chamberlain "worked together" with the Germans, and that didn´t turn out so hot.

Hmmmmm ... those who believe in a woman's right of choice on the matter of abortion are Nazis?

Mike Huckabee calls for revival

2008-08-19T03:56:00.002-04:00

According to Kevin Mooney of CNSNews.com:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and a group of evangelical leaders called for a new “Great Awakening” spiritual revival of the American people Friday, at a press conference in Washington ... Huckabee, a former Republican contender for the presidential nomination, said the “Great Awakening” is needed to help revitalize the nation’s founding principles and cultural standing so that innocent life can be spared.

Specifically, the innocent life Huck is speaking of is that of the unborn. He says that the "success or failure of the pro-life cause is directly tied to the spiritual health and well-being of American civilization."

Lost on Huckabee and evangelical and fundamentalist Christians is the possibility that one can be a spiritual and/or religious person and still believe that abortion is an acceptable alternative. I did a post on this back in March titled A religious defense for a woman's right to abortion, which I hope is helpful in this connection.

Therefore, instead of a revival, I think an new Age of Enlightenment is needed.

Huckabee also wants to bring the Founding Fathers into the matter. This would be a good place to point to the extremely valuable blog American Creation, which deals in detail about the religious history of nation's founding. I recently added this blog to my blogroll and want to strongly urge everyone to go enjoy the helpful info found there.

Mooney's article goes on to state:

The separation that exists now between contemporary Americans and the Founding Fathers can be traced in large part to judicial activism and historical revision, Huckabee said in response to a question from CNSNews.com.

Huckabee should speak of historical revision when in the next paragraph we find him suggesting that

Out of the 56 signers to the Declaration of Independence, 26 had biblical or seminary degrees, Huckabee pointed out. This simple fact is routinely overlooked in educational institutions, he lamented.

I firmly believe this is either an outright lie on Huckabee's part or at the very least an example of ignorance. There is a helpful little site that gives information about all the signers of the Declaration of Independence.

All I could gather from my own examination is that John Witherspoon was indeed a Presbyterian Minister with four years of divinity school under his belt and a later award of a Doctor's Degree of Divinity. Robert Treat Paine was said to have begun the study of theology, but no mention was made of any degrees. William Williams evidently studied theology with his Pastor father. So at best, Huckabee's claim is greatly inflated.

No doubt the absolute biggest misrepresentation of the Religious Right on this subject is the idea that the Founders of our country were religious in the same manner that they are. It just wasn't so.

The facts are that slightly over ninety percent of Americans today believe in God and at the same time a majority believe that women should have the right to an abortion. Thus, the Religious Right are not wanting a "revival" so much as a mass conversion to their way of thinking.

They would love to use the power of our government in order to make that happen by force.

Doug Giles promotes lie that "most liberals are atheists or agnostics"

2008-08-18T05:00:00.003-04:00

With polls consistently showing that the overwhelming majority of Americans believe in God it seems moronic that anyone would say "that most liberals are atheists or agnostics who pride themselves on being skeptics." But that is what conservative thinker Doug Giles does in ridiculous piece, The New Jesus: Obama Be Thy Name.

Giles' article is filled with nonsense like "Barack, in reality, is much different from the fabricated Jesus image the Dim-o-crats would have us worship." The conservatives should speak of a fabricated Jesus when theirs is a warring, gay hating, abortion obsessed preacher. Not a picture the Bible gives the least evidence for painting.

In trying to pass off the enthusiasm Obama has generated among many Americans as fanatical hysteria, Giles spouts off

For God’s sake, Obama-ites, God can barely live up to the hype you guys are giving the young Hussein. You’re tripping way too hard over the grossly inexperienced junior state senator spawned from the scheming netherworld of Chicago based politics.

Why should that suggestion not be considered blasphemous by religious believers?

He adds, "To his followers, he’s Jesus (pronounced “Hey-Soos,” as Barack would have us say)." Hey-Soos? What do you suppose he means by that? Not very Christ-like, if I do say so myself. But besides the slur, just who are these people who supposedly believe Obama is Jesus?

How much sense does it make to start off saying that most liberals are atheists and agnostics and then go on to paint them as religious fanatics who believe that Obama is a Jesus-like savior?

Neither accusation is true.

I suppose Townhall.com considers this lying editorial a serious analysis.

I consider it just another piece of right-wing idiocy. So much hate, so little sense.

Conservative Republicans: A laxative for America?

2008-08-16T16:44:00.006-04:00

One conservative pundit believes

The United States of America is suffering from a severe case of social and political constipation. Liberals, such as Barack Obama and so many of the democrats who are in control of Congress are addicted to invasive remedies.

In other words, America is full of sh*t according to Phil Harris.

We must remember that when a conservative criticizes America, it is merely constructive criticsm. When liberals look at the situation and suggest it can be improved, they are traitors and America haters, part of the Blame America First Crowd.

Anyway, here is Harris' prescription:

America will have her moment come November of this year. Conservative Republicans are the closest thing to a natural, steady remedy for what ails this nation. Handing the Congress over to the democrats was an experimental treatment that many demanded. We need to correct that mistake, because it has proven to be costly, counter productive, and painful in the end.

No, the U. S. has been suffering for the better part of eight years with pain in the rear end. I refer to the hemorrhoids currently occupying the White House. And what is needed is a complete hemorrhoidectomy, not a laxative.

Conservatives show no remorse over their culture of hate

2008-08-16T11:40:00.003-04:00

I do not for one minute want to suggest that the actions of mentally deranged persons such as Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church shooter Jim Adkisson are the direct responsibility of right-wing hate merchants like Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savange, and Sean Hannity (to name just a few).

But my feelings are that folks like them, and the parrots who listen and obviously are unwilling or unable to use their own gray matter to sift the tiny fragments of truth from the copious amounts of grandstanding, are responsible for creating a battlefield of political and cultural warfare that continually divides us and breeds extreme mistrust and even hate among us.

Therefore, I find disgusting all the defenses offered on behalf of the hate-merchants. And I also find the ridiculous minimizing of the situation from right-wingers insulting and repugnant.

A case in point is Brian Maloney's blog post Blame Game Returns.

He begins with a snide introduction, "Between blogs, talk radio and Republicans, it's getting hard to keep up with all of the global mayhem they're causing these days," proceeds to give several examples with hyperlinks, and then goes on to downplay and make light of the seriousness of the matter by writing:

What's next? Is Rush to blame for your burnt toast in the morning? Is that unusually weak cup of coffee from Starbucks the result of Bill O'Reilly distracting the baristas? Is Mark Levin causing traffic congestion in New Jersey?

The silliness never ends.

No, it doesn't and evidently neither does the incivility.

Hate mongering right and left

2008-08-15T05:17:00.003-04:00

I was reading an article about the connection between right-wing hate mongering and the recent Knoxville church shooting. Actually, the article pretty much was an attempt by Warner Todd Huston to defend the indefensible.

One paragraph I found especially obnoxious:

First of all, calling O'Reilly, Limbaugh and Hannity "right-wing Shock jocks" is absurd. The woman's obscene rhetoric is itself beginning to make the lie to her claim of being an objective commentator on the subject. Worse, it seems to me this sort of loose theorizing is as much an example of hate as what she claims comes from her targets on talk radio.

Yeah, sure.

But one thing Huston brought up did trouble me greatly:

Recently, for instance, Cafe Press had to cancel a T-Shirt offering that featured the map of Red/Blue America on it with the words "Kill Republicans" emblazoned over it. (Cafe Press is an on-line company where users can sign up to sell their own T-Shirt designs) Early in August of 2005, Michelle Malkin reported on graffiti in New York City that proclaimed "I kill Republicans."

Anyone partaking of that type of rhetoric is a betrayer of the liberal position. Perhaps this represents a tit-for-tat type of mentality held by newbies to the debate. Perhaps some people are so repulsed by the right-wing extremism that is so rampant in our country today that they feel they have to take a stand and lash back.

Wrong stand.

One thing I strongly feel about the conservative versus liberal debate is that we on the left, those of us who truly believe in liberal principles, must never allow ourselves to be dragged down into the gutter by the right-wing extremists. A slogan such as "Save America, Kill Republicans" is extreme right-wing philosophy lifted and modified to represent anti-conservative - not liberal - sentiments.

I spend a lot of time examining right-wing dumbth, but there is too much dumbth emanating from the political left nowadays. We lose ground when we follow the lead of the conservatives and partake of their philosophy of hate and intolerance. Some of the comments I see from lefties on liberal blogs cause me to fear that emotions are starting to get the better of reason among too many of us. That is straight out of the right-wing playbook. These things hurt our cause and destroys the foundation on which our philosophy stands.

Is John McCain losing his mind?

2008-08-15T04:23:00.000-04:00

What is McCain thinking? Knowing the support of the Religious Right and social conservatives - in other words, the Republican base - is crucial to his chances for winning in November, McCain is floating the possibility he might choose a "pro-choice" candidate to be his running mate:

"And also I feel that — and I'm not trying to equivocate here — that Americans want us to work together," McCain added. "You know, Tom Ridge is one of the great leaders and he happens to be pro-choice. And I don't think that that would necessarily would rule Tom Ridge out."

Sure, Americans want to see bipartisanship, and most do approve of abortion rights. But McCain truly is getting senile if he is serious about this. Conservatives simply won't stand for it. That's the problem with conservatives: no tolerance.

I've never been able to understand why the GOP is going to nominate John McCain as its candidate and I'm continually amused by his inept campaign.

The truth told about modern conservatives

2008-08-14T05:06:00.000-04:00

Here are two absolute must reads for anyone interested in the liberal versus conservative debate.

First, reading Jim David's entertaining The Conservatives Made Me Do It would be time well spent. David accurately notes concerning modern conservatives that

They use violent rhetoric against liberals, earn millions, and call it "entertainment." In one of her speeches at a conservative conference, Ann Coulter said, "We need to execute people like [American Taliban] John Walker [Lindh] in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too." She also "joked" that the best way to talk to liberals would be with baseball bats. Michael Savage told a caller to his former MSNBC television show, "Get AIDS and die, you pig." Commentator Dick Morris, on a break from sucking prostitutes' toes, wrote a book that labeled liberals as "traitors" who should be decapitated. When the public cries foul, they backtrack with "Just kidding."

Next, I highly recommend Scott Cawelti's Why are conservatives so angry?

Cawelti begins with this observation:

One trait seems to mark most die-hard conservatives: anger. They're furious fit-pitchers. And they seem to have come out of the chute that way, not starting life as good-natured, easygoing types who saw the light, but as rhetorical flame-throwers from diaperhood. Was Ann Coulter ever good-natured?

But what makes this editorial gold is the three reasons Cawelti advances for explaining conservative anger. Sure makes a lot of sense to me.

I hope everyone follows the links above and enjoys these bits.

Liberals are "mean-spirited, greedy, selfish malcontents with authoritarian tendencies"?

2008-08-14T04:48:00.000-04:00

Seems so according to Peter Schweizer, author of "Makers and Takers," in this Daily Policy Digest:

Using the latest data and research, Schweizer shows that the claims that conservatives are mean-spirited, greedy, selfish malcontents with authoritarian tendencies are a myth. Instead, he finds that many of these claims actually apply more to liberals than to conservatives.

Some 71 percent of conservatives say you have an obligation to care for a seriously injured spouse or parent versus less than half (46 percent) of liberals.

Conservatives have a better work ethic and are much less likely to call in sick than their liberal counterparts.

Liberals are two and a half times more likely to be resentful of others' success and 50 percent more likely to be jealous of other people's good luck.

Liberals are two times more likely to say it is okay to cheat the government out of welfare money you don't deserve.

Some 55 percent of conservatives say they get satisfaction from putting someone else's happiness ahead of their own, versus only 20 percent of liberals.

Those who are "very liberal" are three times more likely than conservatives to throw things when they get angry.

I haven't read this book, but I simply can't buy that Schweizer has data that proves all this. It's too fanciful. These data must be cooked.

Now I don't propose that we get on our ethical high horses and try to make out that liberals are the moral superiors of conservatives. Humans are too faulty and plagued by too many internal inconsistencies to suggest that. As great as most of us are at preaching, we mostly are inferior at consistently practicing what we preach.

But if anyone takes the trouble to strip away the overblown and incendiary rhetoric used against liberalism by conservatives and just look at the facts, there should be no disputing that liberalism is more altruistic than conservatism, at least in theory. If this is not true, where did the criticism of our being "bleeding heart liberals" come from? Call us misguided, well intentioned but foolish, but don't try to palm off the above characteristics as being typical of liberals. It just won't do.

Update on McCain's alleged plagiarism post

2008-08-13T04:58:00.002-04:00

Yesterday I posted on the fact that McCain apparently borrowed without attribution from Wikipedia when he spoke about the situation in Georgia.

As I made clear, this isn't that big a deal and I don't believe it should cause earth-shaking fallout. My interest is in how the media and right-wing bloggers will deal with it. Had this been Obama, I've no doubt it would be the subject of great scrutiny.

In doing a Google search today, I find, just as I suspected, that little was made of the matter.

Now if there really was a liberal media, rather than the corporate media we do have, wouldn't this be the perfect opportunity to embarrass McCain? But what do we find? A MSM as silent as the tomb on this matter.

Checking the blogosphere I found a couple of items so far.

Paul at Power Line wrote:

CQ's suggestion of wrongdoing by McCain strikes me as ridiculous. The information that the McCain campaign apparently obtained from Wikipedia is simple factual background material. Would it be improper for a candidate to say, based on research in an encyclopedia, that "XXXXX is a land of approximately __ million people and has been at peace with its neighbors since the YYYY war of 18__? That's essentially all McCain was doing here. The idea that he should have cited Wikipedia as his source for basic factual information about Georgia is absurd. In almost 50 years of listening to political candidates, I've never heard one cite a source for this sort of background information...This story, then, looks like much ado about nothing, and I'm surprised that CQ decided to run it.

Okay, fair enough, although I still think the honest thing to do would be to cite Wikipedia. No doubt, this was a staffer's shortcoming, but it isn't too late for McCain to set this straight.

However, the real significance of this matter is touched on by Jonathan Singer, who wrote:

But taking a step back, it's always interesting to think about these stories from the perspective of the shoe being on the other foot -- what would the reaction have been had this story come out in relation to the other candidate. In this case, what would have happened had Barack Obama, not John McCain, been caught cheating on the 3 AM test by appropriating from Wikipedia? Heck, what would have happened if a college student, or even a sixth grader, had been exposed for such actions?

Again, I do see this as a tempest in a teapot. My point is: how often have we had to endure nit-picking screeds on Obama tempests such as his middle name, his skinniness, his flag pin, his faux presidential seal, his pledge protocol, whether he knows how many states are in the union, blah, blah, blah...

Republicans are still the party of Big Business

2008-08-13T03:58:00.001-04:00

If you go to John McCain's website you can find his theory of taxation for Corporations:

Cut The Corporate Tax Rate From 35 To 25 Percent: A lower corporate tax rate is essential to keeping good jobs in the United States. America was once a low-tax business environment, but as our trade partners lowered their rates, America failed to keep pace. We now have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, making America a less attractive place for companies to do business. American workers deserve the chance to make fine products here and sell them around the globe.

Back in the real world Reuters has released this story:

Most U.S. and foreign corporations doing business in the United States avoid paying any federal income taxes, despite trillions of dollars worth of sales, a government study released on Tuesday said.

The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.

More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period, the report said.

During that time corporate sales in the United States totaled $2.5 trillion, according to Democratic Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, who requested the GAO study.

This troubles me. It reminds me of Leona Helmsley's alleged statement, "We don't pay taxes ... Only the little people pay taxes ..."

Now to be fair, Reuters reports that

The GAO said corporations escaped paying federal income taxes for a variety of reasons including operating losses, tax credits and an ability to use transactions within the company to shift income to low tax countries.

But even with this in mind it is true also that as Dorgan said, it is "a shocking indictment of the current tax system." And this would only get worse under a McCain administration.

How is it so many people do not see through this Republican charade?

What will MSM and right-wing bloggers say about McCain's alleged plagiarism?

2008-08-12T04:15:00.002-04:00

Political Insider's Taegan Goddard reports:

A Wikipedia editor emailed Political Wire to point out some similarities between Sen. John McCain's speech today on the crisis in Georgia and the Wikipedia article on the country Georgia. Given the closeness of the words and sentence structure, most would consider parts of McCain's speech to be derived directly from Wikipedia.

Check out the link I provided for the particular instances.

Now I wonder what would happen if Barack Obama were found to have heavily borrowed speech material from another source without attribution?

Well, in fact he was accused of plagiarism by the Clinton campaign for borrowing a portion of a speech by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick. And what happened? At one point Plagiarism Today reported:

The story has grown to incredible proportions. Google News is reporting over 900 news references for “Obama Plagiarism”, including over 150 unique stories....

In his defense Obama said the portion of the speech he borrowed was used on suggestion by the author, Patrick. But he apologized for not giving proper credit.

Evidently Wikipedia did not suggest McCain use their material without crediting the source.

And speaking of Wikipedia, they have a good List of plagiarism controversies that is interesting. I noticed under the Politics section that it noted the case of Joseph Biden who was "forced to withdraw from the 1988 Democratic US Presidential nominations when it was alleged that he had failed a 1965 introductory law school course on legal methodology due to plagiarism."

Now I'm not looking for or desiring anything like that for the McCain case. I just want to see how the alleged liberal media handle it. So far I haven't seen anything on the television about it. And I want to see how many right-wing bloggers will show their hypocrisy by defending McCain or sweeping this under rug.

A more legitimate concern, at least in my opinion, is the way McCain constantly misspeaks and too often just get facts wrong. It leaves me wondering if he is just intellectually lazy or beginning to get senile.

President Bush's key to failure

2008-08-11T04:37:00.003-04:00

Fareed Zakaria has an interesting cover story for the latest issue of Newsweek: What Bush Got Right. I found it very thought-provoking indeed.

My personal assessment of President Bush is that he simply is the wrong man for the job. He lacks in huge measures the intelligence, judgement, and character necessary for the job.

He replaced a very competent administrator - though admittedly one who suffered from character deficits of his own - who was very popular with the American people. In fact, I believe it is clear that the only reason President Clinton was able to survive the Lewinsky scandal was because he had been recognized by the people as an able Chief Executive.

But Zakaria correctly notes that Bush

...now enters his 23rd consecutive month with an approval rating under 40 percent. (It currently stands at 32 percent.) No matter what he does, or what happens in the world, the public seems to have decided that Bush has been a failure.

I believe Zakaria also has a point when he writes:

There was a U.S. president who came into office convinced that everything his predecessor had done was feckless, stupid, ill-informed and venal. He rejected and tried to reverse everything that he could, almost as an article of faith. Before he had even examined the policies carefully, he knew that they had to be changed. The base of his party was delighted by his clarity and fighting spirit.

That president, of course, was George W. Bush. His decision to blindly repudiate anything associated with Bill Clinton is what got us into this mess in the first place.

No doubt this was a key factor in Bush's failure. The story goes into detail about changes in direction that the administration has taken, but it is obviously too little to late to be much help to either our country or to Bush's legacy.

Gay marriage and drunk driving

2008-08-10T14:45:00.001-04:00

Get a load of what one letter to the editor writer seems to foolishly suggest:

...I strongly disagree with the assertion that what other people do has no effect on me.

What other people do DOES affect me. Let’s suppose I am a very cautious driver and am always doing all I can to obey traffic rules and avoid an accident. As I am driving down a two-way highway where the speed limit is 65 miles per hour, I see another car coming the opposite direction. The driver is drunk. Seconds before we cross paths, the driver — void of good judgment because of alcohol — swerves and kills me in a head-on collision.

In this example my life was extinguished because of the choice of that drunk person. There are countless other ways that the choices of others affect us. The choice of others to be married to another of the same gender affects me greatly.

Well, that's extremely dramatic, to be sure. But what connection it has with reality is left unsaid by the writer. Which is just as well, because there is none. (And this is nit-picking I suppose, but what difference does the speed limit make in this little tale?)

I have always wondered why so many conservatives concern themselves with the private business of others.

Supporting the right of gay couples to wed endangers no one, not even the busybodies who want to dictate to everyone else how they should live.

On Obama's alleged creation of a "pandering oxymoron"

2008-08-10T11:33:00.003-04:00

One John W. Lillpop writes:

Most regrettably, Barack Obama has decided that trolling for votes through traitorous pandering is more important than precise speech.

Thus, his recent pledge of amnesty for "law-abiding illegal aliens."

Regardless of one's feelings about illegal aliens, the simple fact is that their presence alone disqualifies each and every one from being "law abiding."

At a minimum, all illegal aliens have violated immigration laws and US borders. Many have engaged in other criminal acts, including consumption of public services to which they are not entitled.

To leave open the possibility that any illegal alien can be logically seen as "law abiding" is about as absurd as describing Islam as a "Religion of Peace."

If you are like me you are probably wondering why if this is so, Lillpop didn't present proof of his allegation through quotation.

The answer, of course, is that like so many of the things right-wingers have attempted to attribute to Obama, the proof doesn't exist to substantiate the charge.

In other words, Lillpop's accusation, picked up and spread throughout the right-wing blogosphere like some insidious virous, is just a falsehood.

Obama's position on the issue of immigration reform is well know and easily obtainable.

He has never implied that illegal aliens are "law-abiding citizens." Here, for example, is a small portion of his floor statement on immigration reform, from 2006:

Replacing the flood of illegals with a regulated stream of legal immigrants who enter the United States after background checks and who are provided labor rights would enhance our security, raise wages, and improve working conditions for all Americans.

But I fully appreciate that we cannot create a new guestworker program without making it as close to impossible as we can for illegal workers to find employment. We do not need new guestworkers plus future undocumented immigrants. We need guestworkers instead of undocumented immigrants.

Lillpop's piece is a stench in the nostrils of any honest person.

Those cursing liberals!

2008-08-08T04:47:00.004-04:00

NewsBusters editor Matthew Sheffield has been busying himself with a calculus to determine who cusses the most online, liberals or conservatives.

He has determined in his article Liberals and Profanity, a Perfect Match that liberals were the bigger offenders.

He did this using a Google search and Carlin's "seven dirty words." How ingenious ... and unscientific.

You can check out his piece and see how by checking the top conservative and liberal web communities for obscenities and dividing "the number of instances of profanity by the number of pages of the sites on which they appear, then multiplying the result by 100 yields" and finally subtracting the length of his big toe, I believe it was, he arrived at "what might be called a 'profanity quotient.'"

He has established a liberal "profanity quotient" of 14.6 versus a conservative "profanity quotient" of 1.17.

Well I'll be damned!

Then he crows: "That's quite a disparity. Liberals are more than 12 times likely to use profanity than conservatives on the web"

But what takes the cake for me is his reasonings for the disparity:

Some on the right may take this as a sign of their superior intelligence. Others may theorize that it's simply because liberals are angry at President Bush.

More than likely, it is a reflection of how things are offline. Conservatives, especially those who are more religious, are less likely to use profanity in their daily conversation. Don't ask me why the h*ll that is.

Yeah, right ... conservatives swear less because they are more intelligent!

Okay, Bush Derangement Syndrome has seized our minds and turned us into an angry brood who curse like sailors.

Since we know (because conservatives have said so!) that liberals are vehemently anti-God and anti-religion and that the conservatives mostly make up the GOP (God's Own Party), it only stands to reason that our language would be more salty.

These guys never let up with their air of superiority, do they? Dealing with their kind tends to drive me to profanity, I admit.

For my part, I just think foul deeds are far worse than foul words, if you catch my drift.

Twisting Barack's words ... as usual

2008-08-08T04:10:00.003-04:00

The WorldNetDaily is featuring this story: Obama tells 7-year-old America not so great.

That is a paraphrase of what Obama really said, of course, and a devious one at that.

The story exposes its own lying headline:

Appearing before a packed high school gym in Elkhart, Ind., the young girl asked Obama why he is running for the White House.

"America is, is no longer, uh, what it could be, what it, it once was," Obama said haltingly. "And I say to myself, I don't want that future for my children."

Talk-radio superstar Rush Limbaugh, who featured the clip on his show today, marveled that Obama didn't immediately speak of running because he loves America.

"You're running for president of the U.S., and you run down the country to a 7-year-old?" said an incredulous Limbaugh.

With all the conservative hoopla celebrating Rush Limbaugh's twenty years of sputtering vile and offensive verbal garbage into the airwaves, it easy to see the true values of modern conservatives. And his twisting of Obama's words here is a perfect example. Only a people without a devotion to truth can buy into what Limbaugh is selling.

The stuff of which conservative nightmares are made

2008-08-07T05:03:00.002-04:00

At least according to Curt Levey it is the idea that Barack Obama would be elected and have a chance to reshape the Supreme Court. Levey is ruminating on a Stuart Taylor article featured in National Journal on the subject.

Levey says that

1) by the end of an 8-year Obama presidency, Justices Scalia and Kennedy would be 80 years old, an age most men never reach, and
2) given the damage the Supreme Court has done to the rule of law since 1969, imagine what the Court would do if it regained a “solid liberal majority.”

For me that is one of the most important reasons why Obama should be elected. The rightward direction the Supreme Court has been heading in since Bush must be reversed now.

What Levey and Taylor declare to be a "conservative nightmare" and "liberal dream" is summed up by him in this way:

In fact, not much imagination is necessary, because Taylor lays out the possible agenda of an Obama Supreme Court. For easy reference, we have transformed Taylor’s “conservative nightmare” scenario into a Top Ten List (while retaining his wording).

Top Ten Things to Expect from an Obama Supreme Court:
#10 expanding and perpetuating the use of racial preferences
#9 creating new constitutional rights to physician-assisted suicide and human cloning
#8 expanding judicial oversight of military detentions and CIA interrogations
#7 prohibiting tuition vouchers for religious schools
#6 banning the death penalty
#5 requiring taxpayers to fund essentially unlimited abortion rights
#4 creating new constitutional rights to massive government welfare and medical care programs
#3 stripping "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance
#2 eroding property rights
#1 ordering all 50 states to bless gay marriage

That actually seems to be a good bit of imagination. Number #3, for example, seems very farfetched to me. In fact, this just seems to me to be talking points for conservatives to go out and mindlessly parrot in an attempt to do what they do best: create and spread fear.

Is it everyone's job to pray for a United States theocracy?

2008-08-07T04:27:00.002-04:00

That is what one reader of Mississippi's Clarion Ledger evidently believes:

God needs to be put back in the schools of America. Since we took Him out, we have done a great injustice to the school children of this country. The day we took God out of the schools is the day schools turned downward and we began to unravel. Also, our great country was founded with a basis of the Ten Commandments. Let us reinstate them in our laws to save our wonderful land. It is everybody's job to pray for this.

Of course anyone with even a smattering of knowledge concerning the history of our country knows the Ten Commandments had no basis in its founding.

I hardly believe we need to pray for the Ten Commandments to be "reinstated" into our laws.

In fact, the first commandment ("thou shalt have no other gods before me") would contradict the first amendment to our Constitution.

Nor do I believe a law against coveting our neighbor's slaves is needed and, hopefully, will never again be needed here in the United States.

And blue laws are a pain in the butt. Do we need a national law making the Sabbath (which is Saturday, by the way) a day of holiness?

Do the people who talk the way that reader does even understand the Ten Commandments?

Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Pastor considers role hate books had on attacker

2008-08-07T04:05:00.002-04:00

Jim David Adkisson, liberal hater bent on revenge, was evidently a reader of right-wing hate books by Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity. The pastor of the church where Adkisson attacked a left-leaning congregation had these thought-provoking words about the incident, words I wish all would heed:

"The words you choose may be the difference between war and peace," said Buice, speaking to a belief in the power of "dehumanizing language."

"I believe in rigorous debate," he said. "But what's the difference between a political opponent and a cockroach? You stomp a cockroach. You debate a political opponent. I believe, if you truly listen to your opponent, it will make you better."

You can read this story here.

I believe Pastor Chris Buice hit the nail squarely on the head. In the minds of the Limbaughs, Coulters, Hannitys, O'Reillys, and Savages (I had to engage in a mirthless laugh on that last one), liberals are "cocakroaches." They are "the enemy." Liberals, to these people and their mindless followers, are the objects of their rage and hate. If only liberals would go away, things would return to "normal."

The biblical proverb "As a man thinketh in his heart so is he" is very true. Can one take to heart books like those found in Adkisson's home, can one absorb with pleasure hours of hate mongering right-wing talk radio and television programming and remain unaffected?

It is very sad that the modern conservatives have turned a political debate into a movement bent on demonizing and dehumanizing their opponents.

The truth about Barack Obama and those 57 Islamic states

2008-08-06T04:38:00.003-04:00

There is no let up in the dishonest attempts to link Barack Obama with Islam as a campaign strategy among many on the right.

One of the stupidest attempts surrounds a case where Obama simply misspoke and spoke of having visited 57 states. Here is a typical right-wing spin of the incident:

Obama claims to have no active affiliations with the Nation of Islam or Muslim beliefs. And yet he was caught on camera stating he had been touring the “57 states.” Gaff or guile? Check out the info at this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_the_Islamic_Conference. Seems a bit coincidental to me and calls into question affiliation with his Muslim family (Africa) and upbringing as a child (2 yrs in a Muslim school).

For the record, here is what Obama said (view video here):

It is wonderful to be back in Oregon. Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."

Do the nutjobs like the one I quoted above really believe Obama was thinking of the 57 member states that make up the Organisation of the Islamic Conference? Are Alaska and Hawaii members of the OIC?

Seems obvious to me that Obama was simultaneously thinking of fifty (the number of states in the Union) and 47 (the number of states he had so far visited) and it came out "57 states."

But if we should just grab things out of our rear ends, the way conservatives do, how about this theory: perhaps he was just hungry and thinking of a thick, juicy steak smothered in a certain brand of steak sauce.

Nutty, right? And so are attacks like this one.

The Wal-mart Welfare Agency

2008-08-06T04:13:00.002-04:00

Bryan McAffee has this to say about Wal-mart in his post Wal-mart Warns Employees of Democratic Win this Fall:

To be honest, I’m not really sure of the genesis of this lefitst hate of Wal-mart (except that they hate all successful capitalists). My friend who works for the DNC is constantly harping about how awful Wal-mart is, they don’t provide health insurance, over time, etc. etc. The fact is, despite what you libs want to hear, Wal-mart is probably the best welfare agency this country has. Wal-mart makes it possible for many low income/middle class folks to buy affordable groceries, clothes, electronics, etc. Why do you think it is that when times are rough, sales at Wal-mart raise drastically?

Actually what we on the left object to is when "successful capitalists" become successful by unscrupulous means.

The website for the PBS special on Wal-mart, Store Wars: When Wal-mart Comes To Town gives us this info:

Yet the employees on average take home pay of under $250 a week. The salary for full-time employees (called "associates") is $6 to $7.50 an hour for 28-40 hours a week, which is typical in the discount retail industry. This pay scale places employees with families below the poverty line, with the majority of employees' children qualifying for free lunch at school. When closely examined, this amounts to a form of corporate welfare, as the taxpayer subsidizes the low salaries. One-third are part-time employees - limited to less than 28 hours of work per week - and are not eligible for benefits.

Store Wars also takes note of Wal-Mart's high turnover rate - "70 percent of employees leave within the first year" - which "is attributed to a lack of recognition and inadequate pay, according to a survey Wal-Mart conducted."

The benefits at Wal-mart sucks:

Full-time employees are eligible for benefits, but the health insurance package is so expensive (employees pay 35 percent - almost double the national average) that less than half opt to buy it.

One more quote from the PBS documentary:

Despite a well-publicized "Made in the U.S.A." campaign, 85 percent of the stores' items are made overseas, often in Third World sweatshops. In fact, only after Wal-Mart's "Buy American" ad campaign was in full swing did the company become the country's largest importer of Chinese goods in any industry. By taking its orders abroad, Wal-Mart has forced many U.S. manufacturers out of business.

I don't believe that most of us lefties "hate" Wal-mart. But in light of the above (and there are more skeletons too), isn't it fair to ask what price is really being paid for these low grocery prices McAffee speaks of?

An accurate assessment of right-wing talk radio

2008-08-05T04:14:00.002-04:00

Reg Henry, deputy editorial page editor for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, has provided us a most excellent editorial on the fairness doctrine. I highly recommend By their Savagery ye shall know them to all my readers.

Enjoy this quote from this piece:

With the Fairness Doctrine abolished, the garden of free expression bloomed. Unfortunately several undesirable plants - the Rush dandelion, the Savage thistle, the O'Reilly ragweed - thrived in ground fertilized with manure. They spread pollen on the airwaves that to this day troubles autistic kids, gays, blacks, liberals, Mexicans, feminists - heck, anybody who dares and cares enough to think.

The entire article is pure gold!

The unpatriotism of concern for the environment

2008-08-05T04:05:00.001-04:00

Philosopher Larrey Anderson has a little piece on Why The Left is Unpatriotic and Why the Right Should Say So.

His

...basic contention is that patriotism is now the responsibility of the right -- abandoned by the left. I will use stories and photographs from this year's Oregon Country Fair to help make the point.

But why would he do that? Is the Oregon Country Fair a patriotic celebration?

From the website of the OCF is this statement of intention:

The Oregon Country Fair creates event and experiences that nourish the spirit, explore living artfully and authentically on earth, and transform culture in magical, joyous and healthy ways.

Now I will grant that modern conservatism has little interest in this type of thing. For years they have called those who care about conservation "tree huggers." Now I've noticed that conservatives have upped it to "tree humpers." (Do conservatives never think of anything else but sex?)

But still, this fair wasn't a presentation or celebration of liberal politics.

Anyway, this caught my eye. Anderson had included a picture below the words:

America was openly mocked and criticized at the Oregon Country Fair. Posted prominently in one of the clearings is the fair's "Pledge of Allegiance."

Here is that pledge as presented in the picture:

I pledge allegiance to the earth, for she is sacred.
I pledge allegiance to the flora, fauna and human life that she supports.
One planet, indivisible, with safe air, shelter, water, love equal rights, economic justice and cooperation for all.

Well, yes, that certainly contradicts the typical right-wing view that America is a law unto itself internationally speaking, should be supremely concerned with protecting Big Business from the annoyance and expense of protecting the environment, and believes that economic justice is socialism.

And that is a view of America which should be mocked.

John Hawkins on how liberals see conservatives

2008-08-05T04:02:00.001-04:00

I got a big chuckle out of his depiction:

Liberals tend to live in cloud-cuckoo land, where the average conservative is an evil, Nazi-loving David Duke who's hellbent on sticking them in a camp so that we can turn the US into a theocracy. Meanwhile, back in the real world, there's very, very little evidence to support these assertions.

Now how cuckoo is it to think that these guys who are always calling us traitors, saying we are guilty of treason and of giving aid and comfort to terrorists, wouldn't like to round us up and put is into camps if they could?

Theocracy? Aren't the religious conservatives constantly telling us that "separation of church and state" is a myth?

No, there is plenty of evidence that conservatives suffer from "liberal derangement syndrome."

Fishing with the conservatives

2008-08-04T04:58:00.003-04:00

As a preamble to his 10-point summary of What Conservatives Believe, Phil Valentine - author of the book "The Conservative's Handbook: Defining the Right Position on Issues from A to Z" - wrote this:

Conservatism is not only viable, it's essential for a free society. The difference between liberalism and conservatism is best summed up in the old Chinese proverb: "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime." Liberals have been handing out fish. Conservatives have been handing out fishing poles.

What?!!!

Conservatives have been "handing out fishing poles ...when? ... where?

No, they've been selling them. They've been developing monopolies in order to control the supply of fishing poles and drive up the prices up so they may line their own pockets with filthy lucre at the expense of the many people who have trouble affording them.

Some of the neediest people, the elderly, disabled, the mentally unwell folks, are reduced to begging for poles or stealing poles in order to fish and eat. Others buy them on credit, going deeply into debt to unscrupulous money lenders who gouge them and manipulate their credit contracts in order to exact the very last farthing from them.

Finally, it occurs to the conservative manufacturers of fishing poles that greater profits may be realized by packing up the fishing pole manufacturing businesses here at home and shipping them overseas where slave labor can produce them more cheaply. If that takes jobs and wages, the ability to purchase poles out of the hands of many here at home, well, that is just to bad ... survival of the fittest and all.

By the way, programs designed to teach people to fish - for example, guaranteed student loans and the G. I. Bill - are liberal initiatives, not conservative.

Valentine could not have chosen a worse analogy to "justify" his political philosophy.

Californians warned about "queer" quakes

2008-08-03T09:02:00.004-04:00

Queer quakes. Try saying that five times rapidly!

Anyway, one of God's own warned Californians last week about God's anger over same sex marriage in the state:

According to local pastor Wiley Drake, the 5.4 magnitude earthquake that hit Southern California on Tuesday was not just one of those typical seismic events that take place with some regularity in these parts, but it was "[a]nother queer quake trying to get California's attention." Apparently, the Lord is mad about the legalization of gay marriage in this state. He can't be that mad, given that the quake didn't cause any death or much destruction, but Rev. Drake offers a warning: "We had better listen. 5.4 this time what is next!?"

I can't help but wonder why God doesn't try to get our attention in more compelling and unmistakable ways (maybe by appearing in the skies and speaking to us in a loud, clear voice). Maybe he could do use less destructive methods. Every time God's press corps goes about declaring this tornado or hurricane, that tsunami, yonder earthquake to be one of God's punishment on a rebellious people, scores of innocents are wiped out too. Massive "acts of God" take place throughout these United States and the world, often times destroying nursing homes, schools and even churches, while at the same time leaving casinos, strip-joints, and gay bars untouched. What gives?

When I read the above bit about Pastor Drake I immediately wondered if Massachusetts - the first state in our Union to recognize same sex marriage (starting in 2004) - had been bedeviled by these pesky queer quakes. Surely God would be angry enough to give them a message or two.

In fact, I did find this story dating from '07 (guess God was occupied with other things so that it took awhile for him to get around to business there) reporting about two queer quakes(?) in one month in Massachusetts:

The U.S. Geological Survey confirmed that an earthquake measuring 2.5 on the Richter scale hit the region at about 1:30 a.m. Residents in Westford and Littleton also said that they heard rumblings at about 6:05 a.m.

Earlier this month, a quake measuring 1.8 on the Richter scale rattled homes in Amesbury and
Merrimac.

Let's see. According to the Richter scale a quake between 2.0 and 2.9 would qualify as a minor earthquake. A 1.8 is considered a microearthquake.

Perhaps God wasn't all that worked up about same-sex marriage after all.

Or maybe science is where we should look for answers about this type of thing.

McCain versus Obama: the tale of the tape

2008-08-02T11:07:00.000-04:00

Leave it to the Wall Street Journal to weigh in (sorry, I couldn't resist) on the presidential race with this:

...in a nation in which 66% of the voting-age population is overweight and 32% is obese, could Sen. Obama's skinniness be a liability? Despite his visits to waffle houses, ice-cream parlors and greasy-spoon diners around the country, his slim physique just might have some Americans wondering whether he is truly like them.

I don't believe that's what Obama has in mind when he speaks of looking different.

On the other hand, with regard to John McCain:

Though Sen. McCain cannot lift weights due to injuries he suffered as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, he "walked the Grand Canyon rim to rim in August 2006" and hikes whenever he can find the time, according to John D. Eckstein, an internist in Scottsdale, Ariz., who treats Sen. McCain. At roughly 165 pounds, his weight is slightly above average for a 5-foot-7-inch man his age, according to nutritionists.

Why the hell are we even talking about this?

Well, this little article goes on to note:

While most voters don't base their decision on physical appearance alone, a candidate's height, weight and overall look can play a big role in what Americans perceive as "presidential," says Thomas "Mack" McLarty, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton.

I'm rolling my eyes and shaking my head over this one.

What does a murdering right-wing extremist read for mental nourishment?

2008-08-02T08:16:00.003-04:00

In this story at Knoxnews we are told what books police found as part of the personal library of liberal hating church shootist Jim David Adkisson:

Inside the house, officers found "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder" by radio talk show host Michael Savage, "Let Freedom Ring" by talk show host Sean Hannity, and "The O'Reilly Factor," by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly.

Now those are some real energy bars for any extremist's mind!

The digestion of such hate literature was the inspiration for his actions:

Adkisson targeted the church, [Knoxville Police Department Officer Steve] Still wrote in the document obtained by WBIR-TV, Channel 10, "because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets."

Adkisson told Still that "he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them in to office."

Savage, Hannity, O'Reilly and scores of others like them are my inspirations for doing what I do on this blog. The mental disorder is hate addiction, as manifested by so many of the conservatives I feature here.

The tool of free humans

2008-08-01T04:14:00.004-04:00

A.W.R Hawkins writes about what he calls the The Tools of Free Men:

Oil is the fuel of free nations, guns and speech the tools of free men. Thus the three have freedom in common. Ironically, oil, guns, and free speech have something else in common as well: all three are scorned by the Left. Democrats are opposed to further oil exploration, individual gun rights, and speech that is free from the constraints of political correctness.

Hawkins makes three erroneous accusations against Democrats. "Democrats are opposed": (1) "to further oil exploration." This is false. Democrats do for a fact seem to have deeper concern for conservation than those in the modern Republican Party. (How far Republicans have fallen from the days Teddy Roosevelt!) But that is not the same thing as being opposed to further oil exploration. (2) Dems are opposed to "individual gun rights." Again, totally false. Attempts to make America safer through more stringent gun control legislation is the major focus. (3) Dems are opposed to "speech that is free from the constraints of political correctness." All that is is an attempt to poison the well. What exactly is "political correctness" but an epithet? But how dare Republicans suggest Democrats are opposed to non-politically correct speech and at the same time attack them as being an extension of the individual rights organization the ACLU?

Having said all that, what I really find objectionable is that the most basic tool of free humans - the preeminent one, in my opinion - was not discussed by Hawkins. I speak of the human brain, more specifically, the intellect.

For example, when speaking of speech, Hawkins writes:

Speech is another tool the free man uses to defend his freedom. Through speech he explains the origins of freedom, the price of freedom, and the limitations that should be imposed on government rather than men. Not surprisingly, the Democrats are opponents rather than proponents of such language; tyrants of every stripe always are.

But from whence does speech originate? Supposedly from the brain, the intellect. However, and especially with reference to the material I sift through for this blog, I am reminded of what Scarecrow said in the movie The Wizard of Oz: "...But some people without brains do an awful lot of talking."

Hawkins goes into a bit of the history of the Stamp Act and its effect on our Founding Fathers. He does this because he thinks the "Democrat (sic) Party is full of a myriad of King Georges who seek the passage of their own stamp acts through legislation such as the Fairness Doctrine, academic 'speech codes,'
and various internet taxes and regulations." He writes:

The king wanted to ensure that pamphlets such as Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” could not be printed and distributed among the populace. But the pamphlet was printed in 1776, and through it Paine lit a fire in the hearts of the colonists. He urged them to give themselves wholly to the American Revolution by assuring them that “common sense” dictated they should throw off the yoke of so great a tyrant as King George.

Indeed! Common sense. Just what I'm talking about. But he doesn't elaborate. I wish Hawkins had gone into detail about what happened to Thomas Paine after he extended his common sense to organized religion. I speak of his book The Age of Reason. Let him talk about the fire that book lit. After it was published the country Paine did so much to help birth turned its back on him. To this day his reputation is ruined. Even today those who even dare to criticize organized religion, especially Christianity, find themselves being branded as "Godless liberals."

Yes, freedom of speech is a great thing, especially when it is coupled with depth of thought. Alas, it often is not. But speech should still be free. Those who believe the Democratic Party does not fully embrace the first amendment simply does not understand what it stands for. And again, more Democrats belong to the ACLU than Republicans. So when it comes to the protection of free speech, well, the pot is calling the kettle black.

Then Hawkins makes this odd statement:

We must keep our guns. And we must tell our children, our students, and those among whom we live and work that freedom comes from God, not government.

Okay. But let's refer to the same God our Founders referenced: Nature's God. Here is how the matter was put in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed....

Two things to note. Government is not the bugaboo conservatives make it out to be, it is the securer of our freedoms, at least in the eyes of our Founders. Of course they recognized the dangers of unjust governments. That would be those governments that - and this is the second thing to note - usurp power over the governed instead of deriving authority from the "consent of the governed."

When all is said and done and all the gibberish is dispelled, human reason is where we find our freedom. Those who do not rigorously think are not truly free. They mostly are mental slaves. I believe that is what bigotry and conservative orthodoxy does: rob people of their freedom and ability to think and act freely and independently.

Therefore, the Republican Party represents the greater threat to freedom. What's worse is that they lie about it and misrepresent their Democratic opponents. Just ask yourself: which party has the most diversity of ideas?

Are these the words of a "rational, analytical, honest person"?

2008-07-31T04:49:00.001-04:00

Check out this diatribe "Democrats Love Defeated, Disgraced and Disheartened Americans" over at Liberal Quicksand.

Were you aware that CNN stands for the Clinton News Network?

Did you know that [Nancy] "Pelosi needs to be in an insane asylum, and not in the Senate as Speaker of the House"?

Were you aware that the "economy is not anymore the fault of Bush than it is the fault of Congress"?

Did you know that "the real downturn of the economy started right after the Democrats took control of Congress"?

Could you have guessed that the "‘war’ and the ‘energy’ problem is all the fault of the Democrats"?

Bet you weren't aware that the "war would be over now if not for the treasonous behavior of the Democrat Party and their propaganda arm known as the MSPAM (main stream press and media)."

Have you heard that the Democrats "are ushering in communism to their mentally challenged voters"?

And all this is so because this diatribe's author claims he is "a rational, analytical, honest person who is not trying to re-infect a bunch of mentally ill liberals with Bush Derangement Syndrome."

Okay. And I wonder ... is that "Bush Derangement Syndrome" something he found in either the International Classification of Diseases (ICD10) or the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM4). Some people!

McDonalds must have a mighty BIG bus

2008-07-31T04:38:00.006-04:00

At least according to Matt Barber, "one of the 'like-minded men' with Concerned Women for America" (according to his online biography).

Matt writes:

I'm always mystified when allegedly intelligent, bottom-line-obsessed corporate types abandon the fiscally secure milieu of political neutrality and take sides, officially, on deeply polarizing, socio-cultural issues of the day.

That's exactly what the formerly family-friendly McDonald's Corporation recently did. In an apparent effort to pierce the hyper-demanding good graces of the radical homosexual lobby, these clowns (pun intended) have thrown the vast majority of potential Mickey D's customers, worldwide, under the bus. Because of this colossal corporate blunder, the hamburger giant is now facing an embarrassing and ever-growing international boycott.

Hey, I'm also surprised when a corporation does the right thing for the right reason. And here McDonalds has. Kudos to them. To remain silent is about the same as agreement. Hardly neutrality, which isn't want ultraconservatives want anyway. Again, kudos to McDonalds for choosing not to be a part of a campaign of hate and discrimination.

And should the wingnuts boycott Mickey D's, that's just fine with me. Maybe the lines will be just a tad shorter. Most people are going to go with their stomachs.

The battle for America's soul

2008-07-30T05:09:00.001-04:00

Seems conservatives only appreciate religious jargon when they employ it to further their own political agenda. Case in point: The Great (Ass) Rush Limbaugh once attacked Michelle and Barack Obama with these words:

Now, Michelle Malkin had a great reaction to this. Can you imagine if Huckabee or if Mitt Romney or if McCain, or any Republican presidential candidate came out and said, "America's soul is broken, and only Huckabee can fix it, or only McCain can"? There would be an outcry from the separation of church and state crowd. And of course the soul, whether you people want to admit this or not, is a religious concept in many ways and in most ways. So now we're getting religion mixed into all of this from Barack Obama, and his wife says this is the first time in her life she has been proud of this country.

Honestly I don't how I missed this (guess there wasn't that big an uproar from "the separation of church and state crowd"), but leave it to that Right Reverend Barry W. Lynn to zero in on this quote from President George W. Bush:

Speaking at a New Orleans church in 2004, the president said, "We want to fund programs that save Americans, one soul at a time." I'm sorry, Mr. President, but saving souls is the job of the religious community, not the American government. Whatever happened to the constitutional separation of church and state?

I suppose that before the Obamamessiah, there was the Bushmessiah ... only the right-wing didn't make so much of it.

Lynn's article concerning Bush's faith-based initiative, How separate must church and state be?, is both enlightening and thought provoking.

If you want to read Bush's "sermon" from which Lynn took the above quote, you can go here.

Don't you just love conservative double standards?

Barack Obama's civil war

2008-07-30T05:03:00.002-04:00

This is so unbelievably stupid. Pastor J. Grant Swank, Jr. has written one of the most untruthful and hateful opinion pieces I have seen from a supposed Christian minister, with the possible exception of the rantings of Rev.(sic) Fred Phelps of God Hates Fag infamy.

Get a load of this:

Feelings are so heated against B. Hussein Obama that if he gets into the White House, civil war could break out in America.

The first item that will spark the fire is when B. Hussein sides with Muslims. He has already stated in his book, "Audacity of Hope," that if things turn ugly, "'I will side with Muslims.'"

You can be sure that in his first week or month on Pennsylvania Avenue, Muslims will cry that somebody has brought the "ugly" upon them. Then B. Hussein will have to defend aggressively Muslims thither and yon.

That will ignite non-Muslims into a major frenzy fit, and justifiably so.

America has yet to fully understand how much Muslim B. Hussein truly is. Those into mob hysteria are crazed by his celebrity status and may indeed waltz him into the Oval Office. That is a real, frightening possibility.

Yeah, right. The feelings against Obama are only so heated among loons. Obama IS NOT a Muslim. Thus, back here in reality, no civil war is on the horizon in America.

It is sad to see a Christian minister spread falsehoods. The alleged quote from Obama's The Audacity of Hope (not Audacity of Hope as the lying e-mail, circulating among the wingnuts, from which Swank lifted this tale has it) is totally false.

Here, in full, is the quote in question, from page 261 of Obama's book:

Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.

Some people have no integrity.

World Net Daily really knows a teaser!

2008-07-30T05:00:00.004-04:00

This morning I visited the World Net Daily to see what their latest take on things is, and right at the top of the page was this teaser of a headline:

Buns ahoy! McDonald's helping fund naked homosex-fest

Buns ahoy! Don't tell me Christofascists don't have a sense of humor or that they don't appreciate a ribald double-entendre now and then.

When I clicked the link I was taken to a story explaining that

McDonald's, home of the Big Mac and Happy Meals, has sponsored a homosexual festival featuring public nudity for both men and women, according to the American Family Association.

So that's what they do at a "homosex-fest."

The story reports:

AFA Chairman Don Wildmon said, "It's a shame that McDonald's would tarnish their family-friendly image. But the company has ramped up its support of the gay agenda and it leaves us no option but to call for a boycott."

Sure there are other options, Don. You just aren't thinking.

But as for me, I find far, far more objectionable McDonalds negative impact on the overall health of Americans with their junk food. But then again, this a free country so we can eat what we want, where we want. I go there myself sometimes (like once in a blue moon) and don't plan on changing that.

Besides, most people would probably be totally unaware of this "support" of anti-family values if the Christofascists would find other ways to get attention for their fund raising.

Imagine a message of hate

2008-07-29T04:26:00.007-04:00

A religious group called In God We Trust - who are dedicated to fighting "the left-wing God-hating atheists" who they allege are "imposing their radical agenda on America" - is urging Barack Obama to condemn a Denver billboard sponsored by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, according to a CNSNEWS.com story here. There we read:

“By placing their billboard in Denver, the FFRF hopes to ride your coattails to the Democratic National Convention and claim your success somehow validates their anti-religious views,” Bishop Council Nedd, chairman of In God We Trust, said in a letter to Obama.

“The presence of this hate-filled message in a prominent location in the city where you will be nominated in just a few weeks has already garnered much media attention,” Nedd’s letter said. “Its message damages the Democratic Party's image with the 91 percent of Americans who believe in God.

“I urge you to publicly reject the stance of the FFRF,” Nedd said. “Failing to publicly denounce this attack on religion will permanently damage your message of hope and inclusion with the American people. Your silence will only show Americans that attacks on their beliefs will go unchallenged in an Obama administration.”

First off, I'm a big Lennon fan (a big Beatles fan too), and I love his idealistic peace anthem, "Imagine." I think anyone who takes his "imagine no religion" phrase out of context in order to spin it as a "hate filled message" is either nuts or blatantly dishonest. In fact, let's look at that entire verse in order to frame the context:

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

Apart from the traditional image of people lounging around on clouds while plucking harps, that sounds pretty much like the Christian's Heaven. Okay, I'm being a bit sarcastic. But seriously, this verse speaks of things that divide us and cause people to kill each other, which religion certainly does. Oh, and how hateful: "people living life in peace"!

If Obama is smart (and I believe he is), he will ignore the above letter. Obama is a Christian (fundamentalists and hard-line evangelicals to the contrary) and speaks often of the importance of his faith. However, I'm certain he also recognizes that freedom entitles others to the right not to believe.

It is ridiculous to suggest that by not denouncing the right of Americans not to believe he will damage his "message of hope and inclusion with the American people." Definition of inclusion: the act of including. These guys, on the other hand, want to exclude nonbelievers from the process.

The veil of this rhetoric is too sheer to fool anyone but the blind.

I sure am glad guns don't kill people

2008-07-29T04:13:00.004-04:00

AOL News had this headline yesterday: Police Say Church Gunman Hated Liberals.

The accompanying story reports:

An unemployed man accused of opening fire with a shotgun and killing two people at a Unitarian church apparently targeted the congregation out of hatred for its liberal social policies, police said Monday.

Living less than a two hour drive away from Knoxville, I got a gut full of this horrible story yesterday from my local news sources.

The Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church where this tragedy took place has its nefarious beliefs posted on their website for all to see:

What do Unitarian Universalists believe?

WE BELIEVE in the freedom of religious expression. All individuals should be encouraged to develop their own personal theologies, and to present openly their religious opinions without fear of censure or reprisal.

WE BELIEVE in the tolerance of religious ideas. All religions, in every age and culture, possess not only intrinsic merit, but also potential value for those who have learned the art of listening.

WE BELIEVE in the authority of reason and conscience. The ultimate arbiter in religion is not a church, nor a document, nor an official, but the personal choice and decision of the individual.

WE BELIEVE in the never-ending search for Truth. If the mind and heart are truly free and open, the revelations that appear to the human spirit are infinitely numerous, eternally fruitful, and wondrously exciting.

WE BELIEVE in the unity of experience. There is no fundamental conflict between faith and knowledge, religion and the world, the sacred and the secular, since they all have their source in the same reality.

WE BELIEVE in the worth and dignity of each human being. All people on earth have an equal claim to life, liberty, and justice-and no idea, ideal, or philosophy is superior to a single human life.

WE BELIEVE in the ethical application of religion. Good works are the natural product of a good faith, the evidence of an inner grace that finds completion in social and community involvement.

No wonder the gunman, Jim D. Adkisson, was spurred into action by this. The above seems more than enough to enrage any ultraconservative worth his salt.

What not to do about exorbitant oil prices

2008-07-28T04:27:00.005-04:00

Reuters is reporting that:

The world's five largest fully publicly traded oil companies are expected to, yet again, report record profits next week, thanks to high oil prices, even as investors fret over the recent pullback in crude.

And also that:

Analysts predict this will push sector earnings up around 30 percent in the quarter compared to the same period in 2007, and is likely to attract further criticism from politicians and hard-pressed motorists.

But of course.

It also will prompt increased volume from the choir of conservatives singing that what is needed is for politicians to allow the oil companies to rape ANWR for oil. Voices like the always offensive Ann Coulter's, who in her recent column said:

The current Democratic mantra on energy is: "We can't drill our way out of this problem." Apparently their plan is to talk our way out of this problem.
Democrats are also alleging that the oil companies are sitting on millions of acres of oil but are refusing to drill -- presumably because oil company executives hate the American people and perversely don't want to make money. Manifestly, those acres are being explored for oil or have already come up dry.

If the Democrats really wanted oil companies to find more oil, they'd allow oil companies to drill offshore and to drill in ANWR, which we happen to know is bursting with oil.

But they don't. They don't want drilling. They don't want more oil. They want humans to ride bicycles and then to die. We deserve it: We were mean to the polar bears.

It's good to know that in the middle of a crisis, the Democrats are still liars. As long as we're fantasizing about "alternative" energy sources, what we really need is a car that runs on Democrats' lies.

I believe the shallowness of this argument is exposed in Cenk Uygur's blog post Even If We Drill in the US, We Don't Get the Oil. He rightly observes:

One thing has been driving me crazy about this drilling debate -- everyone seems to assume that if we drill for oil in the US, that we will get the oil. And hence, we won't be dependent on foreign oil anymore. But we won't get anything, Exxon-Mobil will.

The oil that comes from that drilling will not be United States property (Republicans aren't suggesting we nationalize the oil companies, are they?). It will be the property of whichever oil company got the rights to that contract. They can then sell it to whoever they like -- and they will. They will sell it on the world market, so the Chinese will have just as much access to the oil that comes out of the coast of Florida as we will.

Seems to me that this would exacerbate the current problem, for as Uygur points out (which also serves as exposure of the true motive of the Republicans):

Large multi-national firms like Exxon-Mobil are not US property. They sell to the world and their allegiance is to corporate profits. So, when they drill, they drill for the whole world, not just us. Some might find that heart-warming, but it certainly has nothing to do with the US having more oil or lower prices.

Something very worthwhile to keep in mind during this debate about what to do.

Nancy Pelosi is playing George W. Bush

2008-07-28T04:06:00.002-04:00

On the subject of the sky high price of oil, Henry Lamb is expressing his disdain for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (in his piece Nancy Pelosi is playing God) because she

...told CNN that she would block any vote to allow offshore drilling. This remarkable stance comes in the face of the latest poll that says 73 percent of Americans favor offshore drilling, while only 27 percent oppose it. Nancy Pelosi again displays her contempt for her employer, the American people. Her arrogance and wrong-headed philosophy have led Congress to an approval rating of a staggering 14 percent, the lowest ever.

Personally, I think it more likely that Congress' low approval ratings are the result of having not done more to oppose President Bush on things like the Iraq "war."

Lamb can say that "Nancy Pelosi is now playing God," but it leads me to wonder why this argument doesn't equally apply to Bush, whose Iraq policy is also greatly opposed by the American people. You know, sauce for the gander is also sauce for the goose.

Those Iraq photos

2008-07-28T03:50:00.001-04:00

On Saturday I posted about the controversy over the attempted control of graphic Iraq images as detailed in the New York Times' story 4,000 U. S. Combat Deaths, and Just a Handful of Images.

Leave it to a right-wing myopia sufferer like Rick Moran to attempt to misrepresent what seems to be a straight-forward news story that fairly represents all sides.

Moran writes that

the New York Tiimes complains about not being able to publish the bullet riddled or blown up bodies of American soldiers.

After all, how are they going to turn people against the war without using dead Americans as props in their little morality play?

The reason given for being able to publish these ghoulish photos is that if they don't, it "sanitizes" the coverage and that Americans should have their noses rubbed into how terrible war is for soldiers and civilians.

If you believe the war is wrong and that America should leave Iraq, that explanation makes perfect sense. If, however, you care about the dead soldiers and their families as well as, in many cases, operational security, you recognize why publishing photos of dead Americans should be a rare occurrence.

What the NYT story actually points out in its fourth paragraph is:

It is a complex issue, with competing claims often difficult to weigh in an age of instant communication around the globe via the Internet, in which such images can add to the immediate grief of families and the anger of comrades still in the field.

How is the acknowledgment of the difficulty of this issue a complaint that there is controversy at all?

And by the way, Rick, the American public is already - and has been for quite a while now - turned against this "war."

No, this is an attempt to "sanitize" this whole mess and allow Bush and his enablers to evade the horrible truth about the tragic human toll their evil actions have caused.

Would GOP recognize Jesus if he came back to earth today?

2008-07-27T10:25:00.007-04:00

Here is an editorial that really put into words some of my own feelings about this matter of the modern GOP supposedly being God's Own Party:

What I don't understand is the close association of Christians with the Republican Party and their damnation of liberals. Jesus Christ may have been the most liberal person to ever walk on this Earth. He challenged authority figures and championed the poor.

Jesus entered the temple of God 2,000 years ago, cast out the evildoers and said, "It is written, my house shall be called a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves." He also said, "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."

He also said, "But many who are first now will be last and many who are last now will be first." "Therefore all that you wish men to do to you, even so do you also to them." "Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the Earth."

Impostor

If Christ were to return to Earth today and say those same words, the extreme right would label him an impostor and the devil in disguise. Extremism is what we want other countries to avoid, yet we not only tolerate it, but encourage it in this country.

Very well put, I think.

America: God's propaganda machine

2008-07-27T10:14:00.002-04:00

GOP leader and former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has given a rather frightening vision of America. If you have time to burn you can listen to DeLay spew here at Vision America's website, although I can't imagine you guys don't have better things to do. Anyway, here are some of DeLay's remarks:

I know that America was created by God and it was created by God, not for wealth, personal wealth. It wasn’t created by God so that we would have the resources that we now have. It wasn’t even created by God to have the freedom that we have now. America was created by God to spread the Gospel; to spread the word of Jesus Christ and to propagate Christianity. And the reason I know that is because my entire political career is exhibited by that. The Lord walked with me …I came to Christ in the first year in Congress and now I’ve been walking with the Lord ... he has trained me and showed me why he created this nation: to spread the Gospel.

Obviously freedom isn't high on God's priority list according to DeLay, but propaganda is. Neat proof of that too: his "entire political career is exhibited by that"! Hmmmm.

The MSM and the Iraq "war"

2008-07-26T11:34:00.005-04:00

In recent months I've read article after article from right-wing news sources that attempt to make the case that the "truth" about the situation in Iraq isn't being faithfully reported by the media. Their biggest complaint seems to be that there aren't a slew of articles declaring the military surge in Iraq to be some kind of phenomenal success - as if that would somehow distract all of us from the main points: that the Bush administration led us into an illegal, non-defensive "war," has - in the name of a "war against terror" in response to 9/11 - cost us more American lives than did the terrorist attacks that fateful September, 2002 cost us, has saddled us and future generations with an enormous debt in order to finance what was, in truth, a personal vendetta by Bush against Hussein.

We are treated to articles like this one from sources like CNSNews.com (The Right News. Right Now) declaring:

American heroism has been ignored and overlooked by networks at home and overseas for the duration of the Iraq war, while insurgents and terrorists have used willing media outlets to score public relations wins.

First, as I have stated before, I think the MSM leans rightward every time they call Bush's invasion of Iraq a war. Just my personal opinion. But what really gripped me was a New York Times story which discusses who really is manipulating the media. From the Bush administration's attempts to hide from American eyes the flag-draped coffins of those he sacrificed in his folly, to the military's attempts to control shocking images of death and mayhem, the story 4,000 U. S. Combat Deaths, and Just a Handful of Images is a must read.

If you have a strong stomach and are well able to control your outrage, you may want to check out the story's accompanying slide show. I was unable to get further than four or five images before I had to back out. When I reflect on these things and recall our president's comment that "The sacrifice has been worth it," I want to scream and kick something, to gnash my teeth and tear my clothes.

But Bush's supporters want us all to believe that the decrease in violence (although possibly and probably temporary) in Iraq is some type of vindication for his horrid actions.

Yes, the whole tale isn't being told by the media, no doubt. But it isn't the way the conservatives are spinning it - not by a long shot.

Laura Ingraham terrified that America might become "a good global citizen"

2008-07-26T10:09:00.002-04:00

Few things of late have given me a greater sense of satisfaction as watching the right-wing stew over the good showing Barack Obama has made on his European trip. Wasn't it nice to see a leader from our country actually make us feel pride for a change? The right waited with baited breath for Obama to make a gaffe, but instead was treated to John McCain's continuing ineptitude. When presented with images of the warm, enthusiastic reception Obama received from those abroad, the best his critics could do was make comparisons between Obama and Hitler. How pathetic. Yet, at the same time, how delicious that the days of imperialistic warmongering in the United States might finally be passing away.

Laurag Ingraham's latest E-Blast arrived in my e-mail box late yesterday, and upon reading it I found this warning:

Make no mistake: Barack Obama's speech in Berlin's Tiergarten park was one of the most revealing and, frankly, terrifying moments of the campaign so far. We witnessed a man who may very well be the next president of the United States APOLOGIZE to a bunch of foreigners for his own country's failings! He told the crowd of 200,000 that he addressed them "as a fellow citizen of the world" and then dropped this bomb: "I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we've struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We've made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions."

Scandalous! One of our leaders doing the very thing that gives us spasms of elation to hear coming from other nations, admitting that we aren't perfect and have made mistakes. You see, conservatives just don't believe they make mistakes, but if they should, they feel it is a sign of weakness to admit them. That is one of the major things that make them so annoying and boorish. It is also what makes their leaders so very dangerous.

Ingraham continues:

Here's the bottom line: The United States can't afford a commander-in-chief who travels to other countries with his hat in his hand and begs for some understanding. We need a president who will stand up for America, not apologize on her behalf. And if Obama had no qualms about delivering this speech to the European public, what's to stop him from doing it in private with Ahmadinejad in Iran?

In other words, she thinks America needs a tyrant like President Bush. John McCain would fit the bill just fine. They want a conqueror who is bent on imposing our will onto everyone else. For all the conservative's talk and accusations that liberals are elitists, in truth it is they who want a ruling class doing "what is best" for everyone, at home and abroad.

She concludes with:

Say goodbye to America, the superpower; say hello to America, the good global citizen.

Yes, I would gladly shout "HELLO!" to that.

President Bush's latest effrontery

2008-07-26T09:01:00.001-04:00

President George " a dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier" Bush has shown yet again why he is an irritant to those of us who believe in liberal democracy. In a statement from the Office of the Secretary released yesterday, President Bush commented on his signing of an Executive Order that "expands our sanctions against the illegitimate Government of Zimbabwe." In that statement we find these interesting words from our president:

No regime should ignore the will of its own people and calls from the international community without consequences.

What chutzpah!

The most glaring example of the hypocrisy in Bush's comment is the fact that for a number years now he has totally ignored the will of the American people regarding bringing our troops home from Iraq. The Bush/Cheney "regime" has consistently taken an attitude of "So?" when confronted with overwhelming proof that the majority of us are just not with them on this.

Consequences coming in Novermber.

The "political advantage" of conservatism

2008-07-25T04:44:00.002-04:00

I hardly know what to make of nonsense such as this:

The primary political advantage conservatives had over liberals – besides being right and having God on our side (neither of which matter to liberals) – is that we are usually focused in our message.

But this ridiculous claim matters very much to us liberals. That is why we oppose this ultraconservatism. Liberty is never in greater danger than when attacked by those who claim there is a single, right way of thinking or doing things. This threat is doubled when God's authority is invoked. It is the lazy man's way of tyranny.

From the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The phenomenal arrogance of President George W. Bush

2008-07-25T03:32:00.003-04:00

The dumbth here is the fact that President Bush will probably be remembered as the worst president of modern times, chiefly because of one thing: he is so stubbornly arrogant that he is unable to admit error, learn from his mistake and change direction. The American people are a forgiving people. President Bush's errors of judgement are not what has soured the majority of us against him. It is the fact that time after time after time he has ignored our voices and gone his own way, smirking and feeling he is totally unaccountable to us. As he has opined: "A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it."

An influential GOP insider has some thoughts on her party and president:

"There is a phenomenal arrogance like a fog that has clouded people's thinking and ability to see what is real," said Nicole Sexton, a longtime Republican fundraiser and former Director of Finance for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. "We have to go down in history as some of the worst messengers. And President Bush has been horrible. Everything he does seems calculated and insincere. The same was true with Bill Clinton but he at least had the ability to seem sincere. With Bush, people are throwing stones and tomatoes at him [and he hasn't changed]."

And what's more, he doesn't care (neither do the GOPers who have enabled him).

The Twenty-third Psalm (for conservatives)

2008-07-24T04:14:00.003-04:00

Well, where have I been? Some conservative has done what conservatives do best and misused the Bible to attack their enemy - in this case, us humble liberals. Here is The Government Mantra in an updated 23 Psalm which I recently stumbled upon:

The Government is my Shepherd, I need not work.

It encourageth me to lie down on a good job.

It leadeth me beside the still factories.

It destroyeth my initiative and confiscateth my earnings.

It leadeth me in the path of a parasite, for politic's sake.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of deficit spending,

I will fear no evil, for the Government is with me.

Its Social Security and its price supports, they comfort me.

It promiseth an economic utopia, and appropriateth all the earnings of my grandchildren.

It filleth my head with the false security of a dream world, Until my inefficiency runneth over.

Surely the Government will care for me all the days of my life, And I shall dwell in a fools' paradise forever.

My first impulse was just to pick it apart. That wouldn't be difficult. Government properly understood as the power of the people to secure our rights and freedoms is not a bad shepherd. It is another way of saying that really we are our own shepherd. I like that little saying "only sheep need a shepherd," so I think the idea that we are our own shepherd (in other words, self-governing), that the authority of our government arises from the governed is a very good thing.

This "updated Psalm" is really just a collection of conservative cliches and parodies of more liberal notions. To hear them talk you would think none of us hold down a job or pay any taxes at all. And the part about being led beside still factories made me chuckle in light of the current Republican recession. (Hey, ever hear about the still factories of The Great Republican Depression of the 1930s, brought on by the same - as President Bush rightly called it - drunken Wall Street and unbridled capitalism we see today?)

Anyway, instead I thought I would just return the favor and update the twenty-third Psalm to reflect my own understanding of modern conservatism:

A God of greed, bigotry, and vengeance is my shepherd, I care not about my fellow humans

He maketh me to lay my brain on a shelf and close my eyes to reason

He leadeth me into the bloody valley of wars and conflict

He hardeneth my heart

He leadeth me in the paths of self-righteousness for his name's sake

Yea, though I walk through the spectacle of arrogance, I will fear no criticism; for thou art my justification

I will not fear doing evil: for thou art with me

Thy rod and thy staff I claim for my weapons

Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of the less fortunate and needy

Thou annointest my head with avarice, my greedy soul runneth over

Surely haughtiness and curtness shall follow me all the days of my life

and I will bask in incivility forever

And may that particular God comfort his blind conservative followers everywhere. I, however, hear a different drummer.

And even more right-wing bullsh*t about Obama

2008-07-23T03:41:00.006-04:00

Have we in modern times witnessed any presidential candidate being attacked as viciously and maliciously as is Barack Obama?

The GOP candidate John McCain has taken for his new slogan, "Obama ... would rather lose a war than lose a campaign." That's BS, pure and simple. No war. An invasion is not a war. We are not and never were at war with the country we invaded. We did create and become stuck in the middle of a civil war in Iraq, but we can't "lose" this invasion. Talk of winning or losing in Iraq is pure rhetoric and nothing more than an excuse to avoid the job of finding a way to end Bush's blunder.

Meanwhile, on Fox's Hannity & Comes program, Dick Morris has made this stupid remark, “Obama means a third Iraq war.”

He went on to add about Obama:

He is a European socialist. He is cut from the same cloth as the European socialists are. And he is going to go to Europe and the European socialists are going to turn out en masse for him celebrating him. And the reason they’re gonna do it is that they can’t implement their socialist agenda in Europe because capital will go to the United States. Now if Obama is going to implement it in the United States, and Gordon Brown will do it in Britain, they can be as socialist as they like cause capital has no place to go.

Ever notice that the right attacks Obama from so many different angles that after a while it becomes a huge tangle of contradictory ideas?

The ever blathering Rush Limbaugh added his two cents worth on his radio show Monday, saying:

Obama is not a great thinker; he's a believer. He has been inoculated -- indoctrinated at his schools, and he's believed what he has been told there. And among those beliefs is that the United States is fundamentally a force for provocation in the world, and that the United States is at root responsible for the way we are treated and seen by those who hate us. This is what he believes. He's not a thinker.

Frankly, I think having Limbaugh accuse you of not being a thinker is like having an elephant accuse you of not being slender.

But to the point, opinion polls have demonstrated that President Bush is viewed by other nations as a threat to world peace, and it is undeniable that he and his neo-con buddies have initiated a preemptive foreign policy that differs from past administrations. Obama wants to change this and return diplomacy over preemption. I say, wonderful!

Lastly, I want to look at Brigitte Gabriel's thoughts on the controversial New Yorker cover pictured above. A story at OneNewsNow.com reports:

"The Muslim world does look at Obama as a Muslim," she contends.

As for the picture of Osama bin Laden on the wall, she continues, Obama has been sponsored by al Qaida. "Al Qaida wants Obama to be president. The terrorist organizations around the world want Obama to be president," Gabriel notes.

Gabriel also contends that in the Muslim realm Obama is portrayed as someone who has no loyalty to the U.S., and someone who will defend the right to burn the American flag. She says she finds it ironic that so many people in America are offended by the magazine cover when it is actually how the Islamic world views the Democratic presidential candidate.

When she speaks of a Muslim world, she is speaking in the broadest of terms. So broad in fact as to be totally unclear in meaning. I contend there is no such thing as "a Muslim world." Gabriel also is not to careful to differentiate Islam from radical Islam. And how's that ... al-Qaeda is actually "sponsoring" Obama? Come on! What proof besides her say so does she offer for the accusation that "in the Muslim realm" (again, whatever that might mean) Obama is portrayed as one without loyalty to U. S.?

Are these things not a sign of desperation among conservatives?

When is BS really BS?

2008-07-22T04:43:00.004-04:00

It is hard to imagine a state senator being a party to something like this, but that is what South Carolina's Kevin Bryant posted on his blog.

By way of explanation, Bryant said:

It’s just one of those pictures that I received by e-mail. I hope people will understand the sarcasm in it.

Sarcasm? Is that not an understatement?

Bryant also said:

I see a lot of hypocrisy of all the things that are said about our president, yet Sen. Obama is untouchable. Nobody seems to have a problem when they bash Bush. It seems like a double-standard to me.

Really? Then why are Bush's supporters silent when he is bashed? Of course, we know they certainly are not. I see no double standard that makes Obama untouchable. This is America and we have that wonderful thing known as our First Amendment rights. Our political leaders are regularly attacked, sometimes justly, sometimes not. But certainly the level of venom exhibited in Kevin Bryant's blog post is not typical of our elected officials. I think this says a lot about Mr. Bryant and the right's hatred of Barack Obama.

That stubborn "demon of homosexuality"

2008-07-22T03:55:00.002-04:00

Taking the biblical advice "spare the rod, spoil the child" (based on Proverbs 13:24) to a ridiculous extreme, one South Carolina father allegedly attempted to beat the "demon of homosexuality" out of his 18 year old son. Story here, from which I quote the following:

During the assault, the teen's 49-year-old father yelled, cursed, swung a baseball bat, prayed and tried to “cast the demon of homosexuality out of him,” according to the teen's version of events to Deputy S.C. Weymouth, the incident report states.

About 2 p.m. Wednesday, the teen said his father punched him when he returned to the house for clothes that he left on Sunday, the report states.

The teen told deputies that his father “has a problem with him being gay and that is why he hit him with the baseball bat Sunday,” Weymouth said in his report.

Behavior like this is an outrage against humanity. I'm certain the overwhelming majority of religious and social conservatives would condemn actions such as this, but would they recognize the root cause of such lies in their constant drone that homosexuality is evil? A dastardly triumph of (supposed) revelation over reason.

The high price of conservatism

2008-07-21T04:45:00.001-04:00

I'm used to seeing reason and truth turned on its head by conservative pundits, but David Strom seems to be in complete denial with this editorial. He writes:

Even a mere two or four years of liberal ascendancy in Washington policymaking could do immeasurable damage to our economy and our freedoms — damage that could take years or decades to repair, if ever. Once a liberal policy is in place, it is almost impossible to reverse it.

I suppose this is another one who thinks we are only experiencing a "mental recession." Oh, so a return to some oversight and regulation of Big Business excesses, an approach to ending the budget busting "war" in Iraq, a return to fiscal responsibility now instead of continuing to live high off the finances future generations would be bad things?

Yeah, it galls conservatives that liberal policies like Social Security insurance has been impossible to reverse. Things such as assistance for the poor, elderly, and disabled are not high on the priority list of conservatives.

And let's talk about freedoms under the Bush administration's paranoid anti-terror policies. He has falsely taken the pretext of being a "war president" (actually he is an invader) and used that to extend the reach of government deeper and deeper into our private lives.

Strom continues:

Don’t think that a few years of liberals in charge is that dangerous? Just take a moment to consider what liberals dream of doing once they gain absolute power. There is no aspect of our lives — none — that today’s liberals concede is off-limits to the meddling use of government power. In their vision there is no dividing line between the public sphere and the private sphere. Limited government is a concept that makes no sense to them.

This is just plain old hooey. The pot calling the kettle black. Aside from what I wrote above about Bush's paranoid intrusion into our private lives, rest assured that conservatives would like to extend government's reach into the wombs of women, the life and death decisions family members sometimes have to make regarding the right to pull the plug on relatives being kept alive artificially, and the ways we choose or choose not to acknowledge God.

I think also that it is very telling that Strom speaks about "absolute power." Is that what he thinks conservatives have now and is afraid of losing to liberals? Modern conservatism has clearly become increasingly totalitarian in nature. That is too high a price for freedom loving Americans to pay.

Strom says that

Liberals want to regulate just about everything. ... Is that a world you want to live in? A world where all our liberties are subject to the slightest whims of lawmakers and regulators?

Bear in mind that David Strom is president of the Minnesota Free Market Institute. His rant makes sense when in understood from that perspective, doesn't it? Mark my words, more deregulation means more Big Business excesses and upward redistribution of wealth. I say again: the price of conservatism is too high.

Pelosi's observation about the price of oil

2008-07-21T03:33:00.001-04:00

No one in their right mind would disagree that the Bush/Cheney administration has a bit of a - shall we say - conflict of interest when it comes to the huge profits being raked in by the oil companies. Conservatives would disagree, but as I said, no one in their right mind would disagree. But this is beautiful. Nancy Pelosi told Wolf Blitzer just the other day:

“The price of oil is… is attributed to two oil men in the White House and their protectors in the United States Senate.”

This reminds of a joke I read the other day.

From Playboy's Party Jokes, August 2008:

As his last action in the White House, lame duck president George W. Bush will mandate that all gas stations play porn at the pump so you can see someone else getting screwed the same time you are.

God, I'll be glad when Bush is gone!

Has the right doomed itself with McCain?

2008-07-20T18:54:00.007-04:00

The oldest man ever to seek a first term as POTUS has his work cut out for him. This editorial from the Las Vegas Sun has a very good analysis of the new makeup of the electorate that John McCain will have to contend with in order to capture the White House:

In 2007, there were 43.1 million Americans ages 18 to 29, and another 16 million ages 30 to 34. That’s 59 million Americans, or 20 percent of the population. There are more voters in their 20s than voters older than 65...

And, what are their political and social attitudes?

According to Pew Research Center data survey released in April, young voters prefer the Democrats by 25 points, a spread never seen before. More than 60 percent of these voters believe we should have government-run, single-payer health care, according to a New York Times poll....

A plurality of these voters favors gay marriage, and a strong majority favors either gay marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples.

Here’s the painful reality conservatives must confront: The new pool of young Democratic voters, who are quite liberal and about 35 million strong, has changed the makeup of the electorate.

McCain, who is already having a hard time establishing his conservative credentials with his party, would seem to be facing an up hill struggle if these data are accurate. Couple this with his close association with a very unpopular president and you have the recipe for a conservative disaster in November.

Although it is a still long way to election day, this is certainly a ray hope for those of us anxious for a brighter future. What were conservatives thinking?

The "true" meaning of Mission Accomplished

2008-07-20T05:49:00.002-04:00

Isaiah 53:7 - he was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

Paul Kengor - author of God and George W. Bush: A Spiritual Life - seems to me to have gone way over the top with Bush's Mission Accomplished. Kengor writes:

But here's what everyone seemed to miss: a crucial marker was indeed laid on the deck of the Lincoln that day. In retrospect, the landing provided a profound example of the major, ultimately most destructive liability of the two-term Bush presidency: the utter failure of the president and his administration to respond to critics, to fight back, to engage not Al-Qaeda but domestic detractors on the left....

As someone who has studied the faith of George W. Bush very carefully, I can affirm that he truly takes seriously the Judeo-Christian ethic, and perhaps this was his way of turning the other cheek. When Bush in December 1999 called Jesus Christ his favorite philosopher, he really meant what he said. For the next five years, he handed over his check -- and his backside -- to a venomous left filled with rage, looking to unleash its torrent of hatred upon the man....

I've said this before but it bears repeating: George W. Bush in no way exemplifies the teachings or "philosophy" of Jesus of Nazareth. His constant lying, contempt for the poor, war mongering, cruel treatment of his enemies, all totally inconsistent with the teaching of Jesus as presented in the New Testament.

The BS gets deeper and deeper:

That's what the landing on the Lincoln seems to have signaled: President Bush became a whipping boy, one who took the beating without ever punching back. It was as if he crashed on that landing deck. The landing signaled the start of a kind of presidential no-response team, ceding the battle to the president's ravenous critics, who for five years now have been permitted to frame public perception and ultimately win the debate...George W. Bush's approval ratings continue to nosedive, to where he is now the most unpopular president since Harry Truman. That's what happens to a president who refuses to respond -- whether by himself or through his communications team -- to vicious, unrelenting critics.

Now anyone who has read either the newspapers or the blogosphere knows that isn't a realistic or honest statement. Bush has had his lying defenders, both in his administration and out. And he hasn't kept silent himself either, but has stubbornly defended his poor decisions. The reason his ratings have sank is because rank and file Americans are tired of the all the baloney and tired of the mismanagement. Rather than being a servant he has attempted to dictate his will and poor judgement to all of us as if he were some supreme usurper.

Let's get real here, shall we? Shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2002 (on September 22, to be exact) the country rallied around their president and Bush's approval rating stood at 90%. By July it had dropped to 70%, but that was still incredibly high.

However, over time Bush squandered his political capital and the good will of the American people with such fumbles as attacking a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11, allowing bin Laden to go deeper into hiding and then claiming not to know or care about his whereabouts, squandering the budget surplus he inherited from President Clinton, ignoring calls from friend and foe alike to reassess his foreign policy, leading his party's charge to create gridlock in Washington, presiding over a more corrupt administration than Nixon while obstructing justice at every turn, undermining the Constitution he swore to protect, and on and on.

This whole ugly scene is not the Passion of George W. Bush as Kengor attempts to make out. It is the logical outcome of a failed presidency. The true meaning of Mission Accomplished is that George W. Bush is in a job that is over his head.

Thank you Mr. Prime Minister

2008-07-19T10:19:00.002-04:00

This one really makes my day. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said something that really needed to be said - by someone other than those of us who oppose President Bush's handling of Iraq, I mean.

In an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, al-Maliki says with regard to a plan for the removal of American troops:

The Americans have found it difficult to agree on a concrete timetable for the exit because it seems like an admission of defeat to them. But it isn't.

No, it isn't. And only the Imperialist-leaning politicians and their sycophants, who prefer to spend more time and more of our resources meddling in the affairs of other nations while watching our own go to pot, believe that is so.

Ever since President Bush launched his ill-conceived, ill-planned, and poorly executed Iraq "war," he and his supporters have used as an epithet against those of us who only wanted a return to sanity in America's foreign policy the cry of "they just want America to lose."

Now what will they say?

Mean old Democrats!

2008-07-19T08:15:00.000-04:00

McCain campaign co-chair and right-wing ogre Phil Gramm is stepping down from his position.

Unable to overcome his own "plain talk" of complaining that Americans are "whiners" who are only going through a "mental recession," he leaves in order to end the "distraction" he has created. In layman's terms, he was immediately "thrown under the bus" (I've heard that phrase, I know, at least 500 hundred times so far this campaign season) by John McCain and has become a GOP liability, so he had to go.

Even in departing, Gramm is unable to be gracious:

It is clear to me that Democrats want to attack me rather than debate Sen. McCain on important economic issues facing the country. That kind of distraction hurts not only Sen. McCain’s ability to present concrete programs to deal with the country’s problems, it hurts the country. To end this distraction and get on with the real debate, I hereby step down as co-chair of the McCain Campaign and join the growing number of rank-and-file McCain supporters.

Oh, golly darn! Democrats are "attacking" Gramm for pointing out the sheer stupidity and hatefulness of his recent statements. Well, pardon them!

I'm sure the Democrats - and especially Barack Obama - would love to debate Sen. McCain on the important economic issues facing the country. Trouble is, economics is not something McCain claims to know a lot about.

Sensitivity is turning us into a nation of losers

2008-07-18T04:21:00.006-04:00

... says the incredibly thick-headed and compassionless radio host Michael Savage. Media Matters has a report on his recent rant concerning - of all things - autism. What makes Savage believe he is an authority on everything I'll never know.

Here is what he said:

Now, you want me to tell you my opinion on autism, since I'm not talking about autism? A fraud, a racket. For a long while, we were hearing that every minority child had asthma. Why did they sudden -- why was there an asthma epidemic amongst minority children? Because I'll tell you why: The children got extra welfare if they were disabled, and they got extra help in school. It was a money racket. Everyone went in and was told [fake cough], "When the nurse looks at you, you go [fake cough], 'I don't know, the dust got me.' " See, everyone had asthma from the minority community. That was number one.

Now, the illness du jour is autism. You know what autism is? I'll tell you what autism is. In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out. That's what autism is.

What do you mean they scream and they're silent? They don't have a father around to tell them, "Don't act like a moron. You'll get nowhere in life. Stop acting like a putz. Straighten up. Act like a man. Don't sit there crying and screaming, idiot."

Autism -- everybody has an illness. If I behaved like a fool, my father called me a fool. And he said to me, "Don't behave like a fool." The worst thing he said -- "Don't behave like a fool. Don't be anybody's dummy. Don't sound like an idiot. Don't act like a girl. Don't cry." That's what I was raised with. That's what you should raise your children with. Stop with the sensitivity training. You're turning your son into a girl, and you're turning your nation into a nation of losers and beaten men. That's why we have the politicians we have.

I don't know about Savage's father, but this blogger believes he is just that - a fool. And one of the biggest on right-wing radio (however, he does have lots of competition).

We are a nation of "whiners" and "losers" ... these guys just love America so much! Why do they always blame Americans first?