NEON GODS

The fleas have fled

I see my readership levels have dropped back to near normal and the mind-bending comments from the "we're smarter than the experts" crowd have ceased. 

I grew up in a family like them, smart enough to understand issues if they tried to research them, but unwilling to accept answers that might conflict with their religious or political beliefs.   That's bad enough, but then they choose to listen to radical myth-makers that convince them that all the highly educated experts are wrong.  The myth-makers then present other "experts" or dissenters who they claim are SMARTER than all those educated experts.

Here is what drives me crazy.  I daresay most of us find ourselves having to evaluate the validity of two opposing ideas.  Once we make up our mind which makes most sense to us, do you then embrace that position and forever close your mind to the other?  Of course not.  But these people do.  The one thing that defines them is certainty.  There is absolutely nothing the opposing camp can present that can change their mind.

For an example, Dagny T wrote in a comment on one of my posts:

And yes, I am a Global Warming Denier, as are most people with functioning brain cells.

According to Wikipedia,

In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view, though a few organisations hold non-committal positions.  [note: Wikipedia here is not commenting on the truth of global warming, just that there is strong consensus in the scientific community that it is true.]

So Dagny, in one blithe statement, implies that all the experts who have concluded that global surface temperatures are increasing and that it is human induced, are stupid.  In science people who hold a minority view have the responsibility to convince the majority that they are wrong.  I'm quite certain that by insisting that those who disagree with them are just too stupid to understand is NOT a good strategy. 

Certainty appears to be the bedrock upon which the post-Reagan right is built upon. Certainty and hubris.  Certainty appeals to intellectually lazy people because they prefer being told what to believe.  They do NOT want to have to figure it out for themselves because they are either insecure in their knowledge or judgement, or they just don't want to have to take the time to think and evaluate every idea or proposal that comes along. 

It is this certainty (and hubris) that will eventually be the downfall of the new right.  People who don't have doubts, people who are not open to new evidence or ideas can't adapt and are left behind.  I think we will see the new right crash and burn in the next few years.  It will be a relief (and a pleasure).

--Trakker

 

Are Republicans living in bubbles?

We all live in bubbles.  Some bubbles are imposed on us (e.g., small towns) but most are of our own making.  I grew up in a small factory town where almost everyone was very religious and very conservative.  If you were not religious or conservative you had trouble making friends.  This was my bubble until I joined the Air Force.

After training I was sent to an Air Base in Germany for three years.  I soon found myself building a new bubble of friends who, like me, preferred reading and discussing life to the bar scene.  However, much to my astonishment, my new bubble contained people of different races and different politics. Few were religious and many were liberals.  Exposed to different ideas and being exposed to new parts of the world, I became more liberal (and less religious) myself.  From that point on my bubbles were pretty liberal: college, government job, PTA, etc. and I just began to believe the majority of people outside the south pretty much believed like me.

So imagine my surprise when Ronald Reagan was elected President in 1980. And re-elected in 1984!  "Whoa Nelly," I thought, "what's going on here?"  What was going on was that I had mistakenly projected the beliefs of the people in my relatively small bubble onto the rest of the country because I had not had a chance to leave my bubble.

Why do I mention this?  Because I suspect many on the right are living in bubbles in their conservative towns, counties, even states, where the vast majority of people believe the way they do.  If they go online, they do as most of us do - seek out the news providers and blogs who agree with them.  Judging by their comments on news outlets like washingtonpost.com, they appear certain that the vast majority of Americans share their far-right philosophy (based largely on the 2010 elections) and that only a small group of silly, misguided liberals - mainly in the big cities and on the coasts - believe otherwise.  They are certain of a huge Republican victory in 2012. 

From my vantage point I don't think this is going to happen.  Yes, the Republicans might take the Senate and/or even the Presidancy, but it will be close and hard fought, and it will become apparent to all that the tea party influence will only be helpful in the most conservative states (like South Carolina).

Normally I don't worry about people who suffer defeat in elections.  We've all been disappointed, even shocked, by election results, but the level of anger on the right worries me.  Many on the right now see politics as a battle between the real Americans and the evil others who want to destroy America.  When angry people believe the country has been stolen by those who want to destroy the (mythical) country they love, watch out!

--Trakker

State of the Union Address. Impressive.

For the past two years little would entice me to listen to anything President Obama had to say.  I knew that his words and actions hardly ever jibed.  Despite what he said for two years he always ended up giving the Republicans almost everything they demanded.

But I decide to watch his State of the Union address last night, and believe it was one of his best speeches to date.  Obviously I don't agree with about a third of what he proposed, but I liked the way he challenged Congress (especially on ending the use of the filibuster).

After watching some of the Republican debates - and especially the performances of the two front-runners - I believe President Obama is going to be hard to beat in 2012, especially if he spends the next few months casting a spotlight on the Republican's determination to let nothing get passed in Congress this year.  That doesn't mean I now trust Obama to follow through on his promises, but if he wants to be re-elected he will have to follow through on his promises this time.

--Trakker

Oh my! New readers (temporary, I'm sure).

Evidently Neon Gods has been discovered by readers of a conservative blog or website (woo hoo!).  No problem.  I don't hate conservatives, but I do hate stupidity, and if you deny the reality of evolution, or believe that man is not affecting our climate, or believe that the alignment of stars can predict the future, or believe in ghosts, or believe that the world is flat, please move on.

I grew up Baptist in Indiana, joined the Air Force, spent time in Germany, and now live in the Washington, DC, area.  My family was to the right of John Birchers, so obviously I grew up conservative.  Fortunately, I escaped.

Do understand that this blog is my outlet for venting frustration at our political system, so, yes, I am sometimes less than civil in my posts.  We all have a right to scream at our broken political system from time to time.

--Trakker

Are Republican voters tricked into voting against their self-interest. No.

I often hear liberals ask why so many Republicans vote against their self-interest, like for example, supporting huge tax cuts for the wealthy while demanding that the poor pay more.  We have to understand that they AREN'T voting against their self-interest, they are voting against OUR self-interest.  They want a different America than we do.

We want a country that has good public schools for all and a higher education system open to the rich and the poor and we don't mind paying more in taxes for this.  We believe government can - and should - do things that the private sector and the private individual can't.  We believe workers should have enough leverage to earn a working wage and we want a vibrant middle class.  We strongly believe that a person's race should not matter but we recognize that racism still exists and we have a responsibility to do what we can to mitigate (and eliminate) it.  We also believe there must be a wall between religion and government, and that no one should be forced to obey someone else's purely religious edict.  So when we vote we vote for our self interest.

The Republican base has a different ideal.  They are suspicious of public schools or national standards, preferring that the local community get to decide what to teach kids.  Many see nothing wrong with teaching Christianity and Biblical myths rather than established science that contradicts the Bible.  They believe the free market should rule and that government should not get involved.  That this will result in a degraded environment, increased deaths from dangerous products, or a society of just two classes of people: a small group of the very rich, and a very large population of people constantly living on the edge does not seem to concern them.  Many Republicans I've talked to believe that this is God's will, and that poverty spurs people to work harder.  Sadly it appears that a significant portion of the Republican base see African Americans and Hispanics (and now Muslims) as enemies of their America.  To them, blacks are lazy and probably less intelligent who believe whites owe them food stamps and a welfare check, Hispanics are like ants that have invaded our country and are taking jobs away from us, and Muslims have come to America to eventually take us over and impose their religion and their law on us.  Obviously not everyone on the right feels this way, but in general this is the America they are voting for.

So, please, no more compalins about how Republicans are "tricked" into voting against their self-interest.   They know exactly what they are voting for.

--Trakker 

This man could be your President next year.

Kathleen Parker writes about how Newt Gingrich was able to turn the interview with his second wife around and make himself the victim.

A Catholic friend captures the operative sentiment in terms Gingrich surely would appreciate. When she sees someone succumb to temptation or betray some other human frailty, she says: “I have those weeds in my garden.”

Forget the weeds, this man was cheating on his wife at the same time he was angrily demonizing liberals for our supposed moral failures.  He and his Republican party have seized power by demonizing the opposition for moral failures that they were engaged in themselves.

I have nothing but contempt for these Republicans, not because they are human and make human mistakes, but because they parade around clothed in their cloak of righteousness while underneath they are often more degraded than the people they are pointing their accusatory fingers at.

--Trakker

Rep. Joe Wilson: another reason to avoid South Carolina.

Charles Pierce is in South Carolina blogging about the Republican Clown Show Presidential primary race.  So are a lot of other blogger.  So why do I read him first?  Because of gems like this:

If [Republicans] couldn't be victims, I swear some of these people would simply dissolve into their composite chemical elements in a pile on the floor.

This one was directed at Joe ("You Lie!") Wilson, (R-Asylum), who was interviewed by Chuck Todd (why encourage them, Chuck?), but it could have been directed at any of the remaining candidates, couldn't it?

--Trakker

 

A rant against those who consider African Americans "parasites."

If you read the comments on local news sites or even national ones like the WaPost you know that there are a lot of white people, mainly in the nearly all-white rural states in the middle of the country who are in a perpetual fury about "those people," who are parasites living off the tax dollars of hard-working white people.

We all know who "they" are. I've even tried engaging some of the commenters in debates about the subject, but the bottom line is always the same, "they" are by nature violent and lazy, and it's time we stopped the government from taking money from the good people and giving it to the parasites.

My wife is one the the "they."  She attended a historically black college and has stayed in touch with many of her classmates.  Also, she comes from a large family so over the years I've spent a lot of time with people many on the right consider parasites.  Two weeks ago we had dinner with some former classmates at one of their homes.  The house was large and expertly decorated. The grounds were beautifully landscaped.  It was the kind of house you would expect from two successful professionals.  It's also important to note that their house was in the middle of a predominantly black neighborhood with hundreds of similar homes, nicer than ours by a mile.

My wife's classmates and their husbands are smart, knowledgeble, and well-traveled, smarter than me by a mile.  These are people who got an education, worked very hard, invested wisely, and are now retired and spending the money they have earned.  Hardly parasites, they are actually the class of consumers who still have money and are keeping our economy afloat right now.  The thing is there are hundreds of thousands just like them living in the suburbs of Washington and every large metropolitan area in America.

Why am I writing this?  To first make a point that these are the beneficiaries of Martin Luther King's sacrifices (and those who put their lives on the line to march with him).  The laws that resulted from the civil rights movement opened the doors for African Americans to get a good education, jobs, and a chance for the American Dream, and many, many African Americans did just that.  This is why we have a national holiday to celebrate MLK's accomplishments - and to all those white Americans who vehemently opposed it (I'm looking at you Ron Paul): screw you!.  Secondly, but just as important, it seems that no matter what the facts, the haters on the right continue to consider people they don't know or understand perfect targets for their constant need for enemies and people to look down on.  Many whites who write bigoted comments are shocked and angry when blacks, or whites who have black friends, coworkers, even family members, call them out as bigots and respond to their comments with anger and disgust.  They appear to honestly believe that blacks (and Hispanics) are parasites on white society.  I just can't keep quiet when I see these idiots express their hatred for people they know nothing about.

--Trakker

Do you want Mitt Romney to have any control over higher education in America?

From the NYTimes today:

At a town-hall-style meeting in New Hampshire last month, listeners pressed Mitt Romney on the soaring cost of higher education. His solution: students should consider for-profit colleges like the little-known Full Sail University in Florida.

Right, forget all those public universities subsidized by state governments, go to a for-profit school where competition keeps tuition to a bare minimum.  For example, Indiana University, where I graduated (over 30 years ago), now costs $33,760 for a 4-year degree!  Outrageous.  Surely you can do better at Full Sail University.

Mr. Romney did not mention the cost of tuition at Full Sail, which runs more than $80,000, for example, for a 21-month program in “video game art.”

$80,000!  For a program that's less than 2 years and gets you a diploma in "video game art"?  This is Mitt's solution to the soaring cost of higher education? 

For one thing, why would anyone in their right mind believe a for-profit school would be cheaper than a state-subsidized school?  Besides all the expenses that are involved in running a school, for-profit schools also have to MAKE A PROFIT!

So why would a smart guy like Mitt Romney tell people struggling to pay for their kid's education to ignore expensive pubic universities and send their kids to...even more expensive for-profit schools?  Evidently that question occurred to the NYTimes also.

[Romney failed to mention that Full Sail's] chief executive, Bill Heavener, is a major campaign donor and a co-chairman of his state fund-raising team in Florida.

Oh!

But that's not all...

Mr. Heavener has committed his own resources to the cause. He and his wife have each given the maximum $2,500 to the campaign, and he gave $45,000 to Restore Our Future, a “super PAC” run by former Romney aides to bolster his campaign. The chairman of the private equity fund that owns Full Sail University — C. Kevin Landry of TA Associates — gave $40,000 to Restore Our Future, records show.

So Mitt Romney doesn't give a shit about you, your debt, or your kid's future.  It's all about him and his capitalist Cronies!

But wait!  There's even more (you knew that, right?)...

Mr. Romney has received financial support from other segments of the for-profit college industry as well, and he was quick to praise the industry as an affordable alternative to traditional colleges.

Be sure to read the full NYTime's article, it's sick!

Mitt Romney is the perfect corporatist President for America.  The Republican party is not interested in governing, it's all about how to fleece the public.  With their praise for schools that cost students more but enrich their investors, you can expect greater and greater reductions in the subsidies states provide our public universities (SOCIALISM!) and greater and greater pressure for students to attend for-profit schools instead, putting them in debt for decades, decades in which they will be happy to work long hours for poor pay just to keep their job because they are so deep in debt.

--Trakker

Are we witnessing the beginning of the end for the GOP?

A lot of us on the left have been anticipating the breakup of the Republican party.  We didn't know exactly when it would happen or how it would all play out in the end, but it is only common sense that when a political party's base pushes the party to the right so quickly that it begins to look downright scary to average Americans (talk of banning contraception, giving a fetus all the rights of a human, replacing Medicare with a voucher, willing to shut down the government to protect tax cuts for the very wealthy, etc.), the GOP's corporate sponsors will have to step in and assert themselves, and push the Tea Party aside. 

That's what's happening in South Carolina, and the Tea Party now finds itself in a quandary.  Accept the establishment candidate that is supposedly more electable, or coalesce behind a single, more radical Tea Party candidate, and if so, who?

But this is just the beginning.  If Mitt Romney, the establishment candidate, was a personable and skilled candidate, all would be going better for the Republicans.  But he's not.  He's been running for President for almost a decade and he still makes rookie mistakes.  That scares the Tea Party (and the establishment).

One has to wonder why Mitt is even running.  He's rich, he is set for life, he could enjoy the rest of his life with almost no stress or worry.  Instead this former moderate, low-skill, Republican politician has chosen to run for President. To get the nomination though he has had to turn his back on the old Mitt and pretend to be a Tea Party conservative, knowing that if he does manage to secure the nomination of the most radical major political party in memory, he will have to pick a loony-tune for VP, an albatross.  He also knows he will then be crucified by the Democrats for all the radical things he said (and maybe his VP said) during the primaries from now until November.  Really, Mitt, if you enjoy humiliation, audition for American Idol instead.

The only way the Republicans can survive and win in November is if the corporate SuperPACs, bloated with Citizens United-allowed funds, just overwhelm the Democrats with negative ads 24/7, in which case I suspect the people will finally recognize that we are no longer a democracy, but a nation owned and operated by the corporations.

--Trakker

A guide to Republicanstan - part 3: Socialism

Socialism.

To most educated Americans, socialism is an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production (as opposed to private ownership) and cooperative management of the economy; or a political philosophy advocating such a system. 

Socialism is an economic system just like capitalism is an economic system.  Nothing weird about this.  In America we have many examples of socialism, ranging from our police departments to the National Weather Service.

But in Republicanstan, socialism is not an economic system, it is a special word of scurrilous, but unknown meanings, that Republicans use to ridicule a Democrat when they can't find anything else to use against them.  In Republicanstan, words do not have meaning, words are codes that let you know how you should feel about a politician.  The words freedom and liberty, for example, are words used to describe politicians that the Republicanstan people must vote for, and words like socialist, fascist, and communist are words reserved for the most dangerous politicians, politicans who hate America, want to impose Sharia Law, and turn America into a nanny state.

This method of using words as code rather than requiring people to actually know what the words mean makes it easier for the lazy and mentally challenged (the majority in Republicanstan) know how to respond.  For example, if the people of Republicanstan had to observe President Obama and see that his health care program actually requires people to buy health insurance from private, capitalistic American companies, they might actually think it is a good idea and that President Obama is a capitalist.  And while true, this would require the people of Republicanstan to learn about economic systems, listen and evaluate current events, and make their own judgement, a judgement that in Republicanstan would be a very bad judgement indeed, so it's just easier and better for Republicanstan to encourage the use of code words so their people can spend more time watching NASCAR races and Fox News.

--Trakker

Where did the idea of income distribution come from?

The right claims that welfare and government safety nets is nothing more than stealing from the rich and giving it to the poor, and they are determined to end it.

Where did this whole idea of asking those who have to help those who are poor come from anyway? Well, here's one possibility:

Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go and sell what you own and give the money to the destitute, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come back and follow me." (Matt. 19:21)

This wasn't some Democratic politician, this was...........JESUS!  Hey, all you fundamentalist righties, how's this going by the way?  Hmmm, silence.  No surprise, look at the next verse:

But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. (Matt. 19:22)

Sounds like all those idiots on the right, doesn't it?

--Trakker

Another example of how Christians gain converts: the Puckle Gun

The Puckle Gun was invented in 1718 by (you'll never guess!) James Puckle (1667–1724) a British inventor, lawyer and writer.  And evidently a religious nut.

[The Puckle Gun] is a tripod-mounted, single-barreled flitlock weapon fitted with a multishot revolving cylinder. ... It had a pre-loaded cylinder which held 11 charges and could fire 63 shots in seven minutes—this at a time when the standard soldier's musket could at best be loaded and fired three times per minute.

Okay, sounds like a pretty nasty weapon for it's time, but here's why Puckle was so enthused about his gun:

Puckle demonstrated two versions of the basic design: one, intended for use against Christian enemies, fired conventional round bullets, while the second variant, designed to be used against the Muslim Turks, fired square bullets, which were considered to be more damaging and would, according to the patent, convince the Turks of the "benefits of Christian civilization." The square bullets, however, were discontinued due to their unpredictable flight pattern.

Ah, yes, if you shoot people and really, really hurt them bad, they will want to worship your God.  Strangely, turns out the Christian "God" wasn't good enough at doing God things to make those square bullets behave on their way to killing or converting those damn Muslim Turks.  What a missed opportunity.

--Trakker

Romney is a VERY good capitalist...

My comment at Charles Pierce's blog post about Bain Capital and Romney:

The bottom line is this, Romney is a VERY good capitalist.  He did what all good capitalists do: whatever you can get away with to make you and your fellow investors rich. 

Capitalism isn't about morals or compassion, it's about money, lots of money.  Capitalism is like fire, beneficial when controlled, but it will kill you if you turn your back.  We are letting it kill us, and sadly the right is cheering it on and even throwing more fuel onto the fire.

This fact is so damn critical to the future of our country.  Capitalism will ruin this country unless the government regulates and oversees it.  That means getting capitalist's money out of government and then setting the rules that corporations must adhere to.

--Trakker

In which I apologize to Warner Brothers

First off, I want to apolgize to Warner Brothers for referring to the Republicans as Loony Tunes.  I just can't seem to find a better description (other than "MotherFkn' A**holes who hate America" which is just too long).  Sorry, Daffy.

This has been a weird six months or so, because I keep praying to a god I know doesn't exist, but it feels so good.  Already this political season I've prayed the following:  "Please god, let Donald Trump be the Republican nominee in 2012!" Then, "Please god, let Michele Bachmann be the Republican nominee in 2012!", then "Please god, let Rick Perry be the Republican nominee in 2012!", then "Please god, let the Hermanator be the Republican nominee in 2012!", then "Please god, let Newt be the Republican nominee in 2012!", then "Please god, let Ron Paul be the Republican nominee in 2012!", then "Please god, let Rick Santorum be the Republican nominee in 2012!", and just the other day I prayed, "Please god, let Mitt be the Republican nominee in 2012!".

Do you see a pattern here? 

One of these clowns is going to be the Republican nominee and one of my prayers will be answered.  Better yet, all the Republicans running for Congress are going to be stuck running on the same ticket as one of these flawed, despicable jokers. Oh my!

Popcorn anyone?

--Trakker

All you need to know about Jon Huntsman

Jon Huntsman's campaign for President in a nutshell:

PLYMOUTH, N.H. — Because his campaign is dying a dignified but lonely death, Jon Huntsman arrived at the diner in the center of town here on Saturday and disrupted the breakfasts of very few of the regulars. He came with two aides. They came in two vehicles. Traffic was not inconvienenced. Jon Huntsman's campaign is very polite and civilized and it does not get in the way of daily life in an untoward fashion. He comes and he goes and, within minutes, life goes on without him.

Ah, if only the NYTimes could express news this poetically and succinct, I might subscribe.  

--Trakker

This may be the blueprint to better government

From Kay at Balloon Juice, connecting two dots that might demonstrate how reducing corporate influence could result in less costly government.

Six years ago "Connecticut legislators grabbed the national spotlight in 2005 by stopping the flow of millions of special-interest dollars, banning lobbyist contributions, and instituting a public-financing system that record-setting numbers of candidates have embraced."  This probably allowed the state, known as the “insurance capital of the world,” to take over it's Medicaid system from the huge insurance companies because after 15 years the state realized the insurance firms were not fulfilling their promise of lower costs and better care.

Read all about it here.

--Trakker

A guide to Republicanstan - part 2

Medicare.  In America there is program called Medicare.  Workers pay a small portion of their wages every payday into a government fund and then when they reach the age of 65 the government uses those funds to pay their medical bills.  It is a simple program, very similar to insurance, and it is quite popular, especially among the elderly.

In Republicanstan, however, Medicare is not that simple.  In Republicanstan, as in the rest of America, at the age of 65 Medicare begins paying people's medical bills, but no one knows where the money comes from, but it most certainly doesn't come from the government.  How do they know that? Because Medicare works very well and is popular - and in Republicanstan it is a well known fact that the government can do nothing well and is very unpopular.  However, few question where the money comes from, just like few in Republicastan question where weather forecasts and hurricane warnings come from.  Perhaps God.

I recently came across an amusing post on Balloon Juice that will perhaps help Americans understand the people of Republicanstan's reliance on and ignorance of Medicare.  This was written by Matt Tiabbi about a Sarah Palin rally in Kentucky.

Scanning the thousands of hopped-up faces in the crowd, I am immediately struck by...the truly awesome quantity of medical hardware: Seemingly every third person in the place is sucking oxygen from a tank or propping their giant atrophied glutes on motorized wheelchair-scooters. As Palin launches into her Ronald Reagan impression — “Government’s not the solution! Government’s the problem!” — the person sitting next to me leans over and explains.

“The scooters are because of Medicare,” he whispers helpfully. “They have these commercials down here: ‘You won’t even have to pay for your scooter! Medicare will pay!’ Practically everyone in Kentucky has one.”

A hall full of elderly white people in Medicare-paid scooters, railing against government spending and imagining themselves revolutionaries as they cheer on the vice-presidential puppet hand-picked by the GOP establishment. If there exists a better snapshot of everything the Tea Party represents, I can’t imagine it.

After Palin wraps up, I race to the parking lot in search of departing Medicare-motor-scooter conservatives. I come upon an elderly couple, Janice and David..., who are fairly itching to share their views.

“I’m anti-spending and anti-government,” crows David, as scooter-bound Janice looks on. “The welfare state is out of control.”

“OK,” I say. “And what do you do for a living?”

“Me?” he says proudly. “Oh, I’m a property appraiser. Have been my whole life.”

I frown. “Are either of you on Medicare?”

Silence: Then Janice, a nice enough woman, it seems, slowly raises her hand, offering a faint smile, as if to say, You got me!

“Let me get this straight,” I say to David. “You’ve been picking up a check from the government for decades, as a tax assessor, and your wife is on Medicare. How can you complain about the welfare state?”

“Well,” he says, “there’s a lot of people on welfare who don’t deserve it. Too many people are living off the government.”

(When reading this account, it helps to know the following: Sarah Palin is a very popular Republicanstan leader, typical in that she rarely leads anything but is admired for her hatred of liberals, and the Tea Party is the major political party in Republicanstan - the other being libertarianism)

As you can see, in Republicanstan, people love their Medicare because they deserve it, but think it is bad for non-Republicanstan people because they don't deserve it.

--Trakker

A guide to help people understand Republicanstan - part 1

When traveling to a foreign country, most of us find a guide explaining confusing customs and beliefs to be helpful.  As someone who grew up in Republicanstan and understand many of their beliefs I thought it might be helpful if I started a new feature explaining them to Americans who often find Republicanstan hard to comprehend.

In Republicanstan Blacks and Latinos who get government assistance like food stamps or unemployment are on something called "welfare," which is bad.  Once they receive this free money they stay on welfare for life.   Whites who get the same government assistance are considered good people who have suffered a temporary setback and need some help to tide them over until they get back on their feet again. 

It is important to understand that in Republicanstan all taxpayers are hard-working white people who pay taxes but ask nothing in return from the government (except an occasional war).  This tax money is then used to pay liberal bureaucrats (who work about 3 hours a week) send the remainder of the tax dollars as welfare to Blacks and Latinos so they will vote for liberal Democrats.  This makes the white Republicanstan taxpayers very angry.

One thing that confuses many Americans is that there are relatively few Blacks and Latinos in Republicanstan, which leads people to ask "How do they know so much about the behavior of Blacks and Latinos?"  The answer is that people in Republicanstan get all their important information from a single, authorized cable television network called Fox News.  This will be covered in a later guide entry.

--Trakker

Bye, Bye, Rick Santorum.

Ever wonder why loony tunes like Michele Bachmann, Donald Trump, Harman "The Godfather" Cain, and Newt Gingrich took their turns rising to the top of the Republican dungpile while Rick Santorum remained stuck to the bottom all fall?   It's most likely because anyone who looked too closely at Santorum's past ran screaming from the room.  The man makes Newt Gingrich look like a model citizen.  But now Santorum is the last non-Mitt left on the ticket  and he's on the rise.

But not for long, because like I said, this guy is seriously wacky.

I've already read and heard some weird stuff about him, but I decided to start my research with Wikipedia where they frown on the sensational.  Here is what I found.

Rick's father got his education via the GI Bill and worked as a clinical psychologist for a VA Hospital, and their family lived in government housing on the hospital grounds.  (I have no problem with this, but if Rick Santorum was a Democrat many on the right would call him a parasite, living the good life on the backs of hard-working Americans, and you know they would.)

In 2006, Rick was running for re-election in the Senate.  He ran such a bizarre campaign that he "...lost by over 700,000 votes, receiving 41.3 percent of the vote to [Bob] Casey's 58.7 percent, the largest margin of defeat ever for an incumbent Republican Senator in Pennsylvania...and the largest margin of any incumbent Republican senator ever."  [Quite a feat.]

Here's something really creepy: in 1996 Santorum's wife gave birth to a baby prematurely.  It died soon after birth.  "...the couple brought the deceased infant home from the hospital and presented the dead child to their living children as "your brother Gabriel"."  Michael Sokolove in a 2005 New York Times Magazine story on Santorum [wrote:] "Rick and Karen Santorum would not let the morgue take the corpse of their newborn; they slept that night in the hospital with their lifeless baby between them."  The next day, they took the dead baby home and showed him to their kids and let them cuddle him.  [Wow!]

Here are some other things that make Santorum unelectable,

Santorum rejects the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change, having referred to it as "junk science"; he also embraces common threads of the global warming conspiracy theory, believing that global warming is a "beautifully concocted scheme" by the political left and "an excuse for more government control of your life."

He has stated a policy of "drill everywhere" for oil and that there is "enough oil, coal and natural gas to last for centuries".

Santorum earned $1.3 million in 2010 and the first half of 2011. The largest chunk of his employment earnings — $332,000 — came from his work as a consultant for groups advocating and lobbying for industry interests.

He has been especially critical a Supreme Court decision which held that the Constitution guarantees the right to privacy, and overturned a law prohibiting the sale and use of contraceptives.  He has described contraception as "a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."

In a 2002 Washington Times op-ed article, Santorum wrote that intelligent design "is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes."

He argued that the extended right to privacy...[does] not exist in the United States Constitution and that laws should exist against: polygamy, adultery, sodomy, and other actions "antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family".

It's just a matter of time before Republican voters see how weird and unelectable Santorum is and will drop him like a month-old Godfather pizza.  Or maybe not.  Much of Santorum's weirdness is perfectly acceptable to Republican voters, and the rabid right want 2012 to be a huge fight between the white, evangelical, government-hating, REAL Americans and the loathsome socialistic, parasitic, nanny-state-educated-urban elites - once and for all.   Many on the right actually believe they would win this fight.  If they nominate someone like Rick Santorum they will find out just who the REAL Americans are. Either way it's bye, bye Rick Santorum.

--Trakker