NEON GODS

OMG, we're forcing socialism on those libertarian western states

Oh, looky here.  We have a New York Times op-ed that points out that the federal government has not properly funded firefighting activities for the coming wildfire season in the drought-stricken western states.  My initial response is this:

Wait a minute. The federal government pays to fight wildfires in the western states? Isn't this socialism, the very socialism those rural western states abhor? We keep hearing how they want the government out of their lives, that government can't do anything right, that it just steals taxpayer's money and lines bureaucrats pockets with their hard-earned dollars. Shouldn't we honor their desires and let them fight their own fires like the rugged individuals they keep insisting all Americans should be. If we coddle them they'll eventually end up as parasites on welfare voting for the politicians who promise them free stuff.

Yes, when governments pay people to fight fires, that's socialism, and as we all know, vast swaths of the western state population hate government and socialism and insist socialism leads to dependency - so why are we taxpayers out east here paying to do what good libertarians insist the people themselves should be doing?  Isn't everyone responsible for their own home and their own family?  So, fight the fires yourself, and if your house burns down call your insurance company (for that matter buying insurance seems strikingly like socialism too).

--Trakker

Another stupid, senseless shooting: Good Guys With Guns Fail edition.

The New York Times reports on the latest senseless shooting, this time in Las Vegas.  An angry couple filled with the lies of fellow anti-government haters reinforced by the lies of the NRA, Fox News, and RW talk radio, decide they must start "the revolution" and shoot two cops eating lunch.  This story refutes so many of the gun nuts' myths that I could write all day about it, but I've said it all before.  However here are two who left comments on the NYTimes website about this story.

K.Evans, commenting on this article describes how so many of us feel:

"! am far more frightened of these people, who live among us and legally acquire grotesque stockpiles of guns and ammunition, than I am of the Islamic terror specter continually trotted before us in order to justify ongoing war and 'homeland security' profiteering."

Another commenter, Ego Nemo, noted that Jared Miller went on this rampage because he was angry at 'The nation D.C. hath made.'  Ego Nemo responds,

"That is particularly chilling whining.

"The nation that the capital 'hath made' allowed these two cowards to purchase their weapons, travel unstopped across state lines, to plot their attack in apparently complete and perfect privacy. They could pick up stakes and move across the continent without encountering one internal roadblock. They were able to publish for the world their free and unrestricted speech over the Internet.

"It seems in any rational analysis, that the country 'DC hath wrought' offered them a great deal of personal freedom, which they used to execute police officers.

"Yes, let's look at what this episode 'hath wrought,' but now, for once, let us rationally and factually look at what things and people are actually responsible.

There is no single, simple answer, but we can no longer ignore the senseless gun violence that is destroying the lives of innocent Americans.

Trakker

Nebraska Tea Partier: you only have to obey the laws your religion agrees with...

Yesterday Benjamin Sasse won the Republican primary in Nebraska for their open Senate seat and is almost certain to win in November. 

Sasse is president of Midland University, a small Lutheran college in Nebraska.  His education background is very impressive.  See his Wikipedia page for a full listing of his accomplishments. And yet here is what he has written on his campaign website:

"Ben Sasse believes that our right to the free exercise of religion is co-equal to our right to life. This is not a negotiable issue. Government cannot force citizens to violate their religious beliefs under any circumstances."

He believes a person's religion trumps our laws.  He will work in Congress to change the entire philosophy of our democracy since our nation's inception (everyone is expected to obey the laws in our country even if you don't agree or like those laws) to something like this: our country's laws must be obeyed only by those whose religion agrees with that law. If a law conflicts with your religious belief, you can break that law.

Wow!

Does Mr. Sasse realize there are religions that allow parents to marry off daughters as young as 10 to men willing to pay the family?  Does he know there are religions that demand an unmarried girl caught talking to a boy be stoned to death?  What about religions that encourage genital mutilation of girls before puberty?  Does Mr. Sasse understand the magnitude of suffering he is pledging to work toward?

Yes, of course he does. He's not a dummy.  What he is doing is pandering to the Christian right who believe that Christians in the United States are God's chosen people and that the secular government is run by a bunch of devil worshipers.  But Sasse's opponent in the November election should be able to use this against him, using examples of religious practices (like those above) that are anathema to Americans but that would have to be allowed if Sasse is successful.  But since it's Nebraska I doubt if his opponent has the guts to piss off the tea party.

--Trakker

 

 

 

Cliven Bundy, anarchist.

Fox News has anointed a new hero, Cliven Bundy, a man who wraps himself in the American flag while denying that the country whose flag he and his armed defenders waves exists. He flips the bird at our laws and uses the threat of violence to avoid the consequences of his adolescent tantrums.

Now he opines that Blacks might be better off as slaves, picking cotton (link). Relatively few people think like that way anymore, but the radical right (e.g. the Republican Party) continues to embrace people like Bundy. That's their right, but I wish they wouldn't whine when they are called out for their bigotry.

--Trakker

SOCIALISM! EEK!! (again)

Yeah, I'm back on the socialism kick.

It's pretty obvious that most of the people who get their panties in a wad when they hear the word "socialism" and insist it's a terrible thing have no idea what socialism means, or how much socialism we already have in America. Nor do they understand how important socialism is to our standard of living.

Most cities have a single, government-provided, fire department, police department, and ambulance service.  That, folks, is socialism. Do you want to abolish these services and leave it up to each individual to provide this for themselves?

What about flood protection, in the midwest especially?  Right now the Army Corps of Engineers builds miles and miles of levees along major rivers to prevent flooding the countryside so each individual home, farm, factory, and business doesn't have to build their own levees and make sure they are properly maintained.  That would not only be extremely inefficient, it would be ugly.

I wonder, too, how many anti-government libertarians there are out in Colorado, where wildfires burn hundreds of thousands of acres each year, who insist the government should stop fighting those wildfires and turn the responsibility over to each individual to protect his or her own home.  I'm certain many anti-government individuals have had their homes saved because the government paid firefighters to do the dangerous, dirty job of fighting those wildfires.  They probably still rant and rave about how terrible it is that the government uses their tax dollars to help the poor, but never give a thought to who pays to fight wildfires.

These are just some examples of socialism in America.  When the government provides a vital product or service when it would be impossible or highly inefficient for the private sector or the individual to provide it, that is socialism.  It isn't new and it isn't scary. 

--Trakker

Another difference between Democrats and Republicans

This is a quote from Hillary Clinton in 2006 on the Medicare D entitlement pushed by the GOP (which you may recall had some start-up glitches too):

“I voted against it, but once it passed I certainly determined that I would try to do everything I could to make sure that New Yorkers understood it, could access it, and make the best of it,...”

Contrast that to the Republican Party's determination to make Obamacare fail.  The House actually voted for the 50th time to repeal or alter it!

Any large policy change or large program like Medicare D or Obamacare are initially flawed.  Obamacare is more flawed than it had to be because the Republican Party refused to help craft any bill that would help those who had no health insurance or was prevented from getting affordable coverage because of pre-existing conditions.  The Republicans have also refused to help fix the initial flaws to make it work better.  They are putting all their eggs in one basket: total failure.  As usual, they are doomed to fail.

What the Republicans don't understand is that the complete failure of Obamacare will almost certainly result in a something like a national single-payer health system down the road.  Or maybe a lot of progressive states will decide to implement their own single payer system for their citizens like Vermont is in the process of doing.  In fact, maybe multiple states will band together for efficiency's sake to create a regional single-payer health system.

--Trakker

Beware of the war hawks

A commenter whose comments I almost always delete sent one today (since deleted) that complains: "The whole world is falling apart and you say nothing." 

Well, the whole world isn't falling apart, but - yes - there are a number of conflicts taking place now and many of them are causing real harm to innocent people.  It's hard to stand by and watch bullies and butchers destroy countries.

As always, there are a bunch of Americans who demand that we must send in troops, or better yet, just bomb the bastards.  Sending American troops into battle makes them feel all powerful and patriotic.  You know the type, they clip American flags onto their cars and slap on yellow ribbon magnets to show their solidarity with "our brave troops".  But don't ask them to serve or send their kids, and fergodsakes, don't raise their taxes to pay for their little wars.

The harsh truth is, we are terrible at fighting wars.  What did we accomplish in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan?  What did it cost us (in lives and dollars)?  What else could we have done with the money instead?  How much better off would we be if those Americans killed in action had lived and led normal lives?

We can no longer be the world's cop.  The best we can do is use our economic might and diplomatic skills to end them or keep them form exploding into something worse.  Let's face it, a significant number of world leaders are nut cases.  Seems like we have more than our share of nut cases in Congress, too.  Seems like our first order of business should be to make sure none of them ever get into the White House.

UPDATE: The commenter mentioned above writes: "So as in 1938, you just want to stand by and do nothing. Soon China will be grabbing land too."

Since the beginning of time greedy leaders have been grabbing land from others.  This is why nations have militaries and alliances like NATO, to protect themselves from greedy, power-hungry neighbors.  We have the most powerful military in the world, as would be expected of the richest nation in the world, but we abused our military in Vietnam, and we did the same in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in the latter two even refused to raise taxes to pay for the wars, so now our children will pay for those fiascos.

In the past few years I've heard Republicans demand that we use our military to punish Iran, Syria, and now Russia.  I think I've heard some insist that we must send more troops back into Afghanistan to protect the areas and cities we once controlled but are now falling to the Taliban again.  And yet Republicans are adamently opposed to any new taxes to pay for any of this military adventurism.

NO. Now it is time for us to take care of our unemployed and begin rebuilding a nation that is falling apart.  We need to take care of the wounded and maimed veterans from our decade of fighting in counties that mean little to our security.

--Trakker

Can a Florida jury convict a white man for shooting a black teen to death?

The shooting death of Jordan Davis by Michael Dunn was shocking to most of the people I know.  We all have to put up with thoughtless people who play their music too loud or party late at night and we all know that sometimes you just have to suck it up and move on.  Most of us also remember when we were kids and how stupid, thoughtless, and rowdy we were in our teens.

To me it just seemed like Michael Dunn was looking for a confrontation when he asked the kids next to him to turn down their music.  According to his fiance he called it "Thug Music" and that attitude makes me wonder just how politely Dunn asked them to turn it down.

The murder trial of Michael Dunn for shooting Davis to death seemed to most of us outside the South as pretty much a slam dunk.  Dunn claimed to have seen a gun pointed at him.  No one else saw that gun.  He never mentioned it to his fiance, and the three surviving kids in the car insisted there was no gun.  Dunn also insisted that Davis went ballistic and started screaming and threatening Dunn for asking them to turn down their music.  I ask, does this seem like the kind of response even a teen would have to someone asking them to turn down their music?  The gun that no one else saw and Davis' alleged death threats sound like something a man on trial for his life would make up.   In fact, if this happened the way Dunn described it, why didn't he call the police immediately so they could stop the car with the kids, confiscate the gunn, and put them on trial for attempted murder?  Why would anyone who just experienced this calmly drive to his hotel and order a pizza?

But in Florida you can shoot someone and walk free if you have a story, even if it's a lie, that convinces a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that you felt your life was threatened.  The Dunn verdict shows that all you need to do is convince one juror to vote not guilty even in the face of logic and the testimony of others that the shooter's life was not in danger.

My concern is this: is it possible that juries in states like Florida are almost certain to have a member or members who will believe anything a white man says about a black person?  Will people like Michael Dunn realize they can shoot a black kid and feel reasonably confident that they can justify it in the eyes of at least one juror?

I believe Stand Your Ground laws have instilled a stand your ground mentality among some of the more unstable gun owners.  I suspect that in the next few years we're going to see more and more shootings like this one.  I believe at some point, people will finally realize that SYG laws are merely a vehicle that allows gun owners to use their firearms to punish people that piss them off.  In some cases, just being a black teen in a white neighborhood might be enough to set someone off. 

It appears as though Michael Dunn will be retried for the Davis murder.  It will be interesting to see if the result is the same - a hung jury.  I think this hung jury, on the heels of the Zimmerman acquittal, is beginning to embarrass the state of Florida.  A second hung jury will likely set off a huge protest against SYG laws - which will just make them all the more popular in the red states.

--Trakker

 

Parallels

I finished watching Ken Burn's documentary about the Civil War last night and was struck by the parallels between the Confederate States and today's Tea Party. 

The biggest similarity is the fact that extremely wealthy plantation owners were able to convince poor whites to die for a new country that would benefit mainly the wealthy plantation owners, while today the extremely wealthy use Fox News, talk radio, and conservative PACS to convince poor and middle class whites to work hard for a political party whose major purpose is to make it easier for the rich to keep getting richer.

Another similarity is that the wealthy of both era's have successfully used fear and resentment to motivate poorer citizens to support their plutocratic programs.  The confederates used fear of freed slave and resentment of the North, while today Fox News and others use fear of black "thugs" and the government, and resentment of the educated and liberals. 

Another similarity is that the South before the Civil War had no idea how unpopular slavery had become in the rest of the developed world and how poor the South was compared to the north.  They people lived in a bubble.  They believed England and France would support them because they supplied badly-needed cotton.  They also thought Maryland, a slave state, would secede, and were shocked to find relatively little support when Lee's Army entered the state. The Tea Party also lives in a bubble where large numbers of people watch the same cable "news" organization, think the same way, share the same religion, and have little real contact with people who look and think differently than them.  Strangely, they believe they represent the vast majority of Americans even though many left-leaning metropolitan areas have larger populations than whole states.

--Trakker

Bill O'Reilly, lecturing President Obama: "I'm more of a self-reliance guy..."

Bill O'Reilly to President Obama in his recent interview: "...I think that you are much more friendly to a nanny state than I am.  I’m more of a self-reliance guy, ..."

Bill O'Reilly makes approximately $20 million a year. For talking. On TV. Pretty Easy to be self-reliant when you make more in a DAY ($54,000) than the average family makes in a YEAR!

 By comparison, the President of the United States makes $400,000 a year. For managing a country of 330 million people.

So much for meritocracy...

Maybe the most offensive accusation the extreme right like Bill O'Reilly makes of the Democrats is that we give away "free stuff" paid for by force by the hard working taxpayers to get the free-loaders to vote for us. They like to point to African Americans as Exhibit A.

African Americans have been voting for Democrats about 90% of the time for some time now. Right wingers insist they do it because Democrats give them lots of "free stuff" in exchange for their votes. Anyone who knows African Americans well knows the truth: that the Republican Party is preternaturally opposed to almost every issue that matters to African Americans. African Americans vote for Democrats mainly because for the last 35 years the Democrats are the only party that listens to their concerns. The idea that 90% of African Americans get "free stuff" or want "free stuff" from the government is offensive.

Most of the Democrats I know are solidly middle class and are faring quite well, and pay a lot of taxes. We don't vote for Democrats for "free stuff" we vote for Democrats because the Democratic Party understands that as a wealthy nation we have an obligation to protect the poor, invest in our young people, and that decisions should be made based on facts, not religious dogma.

--Trakker

Obamacare is here to stay. Republicans can either help fix the flaws or whine like babies.

Obamacare is here to stay.  I never liked it because it was a conservative, private sector solution to a huge problem - 40-50 million Americans who are uninsured or underinsured.  The private sector provides products and services that cost more because a profit margin must be included in the cost of the service.  That's fine when you're talking about cars or hotels or most other thing, but not when it comes to health care.

But despite the fact that Obamacare was initially contrived by a conservative think tank and implemented with some success by Republican Mitt Romney, today's Republicans hate it with a passion than can only be attributed to the fact that a Democrat named Barack Obama embraced it.  The right has made asses of themselves with the lies and distortions they've resorted to right from the start to kill this program, even now after it is too late to kill it.  Paul Krugman highlights the latest example...

The Republican response to the State of the Union was delivered by Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Republican representative from Washington...The closest she came to substance was when she described a constituent, “Bette in Spokane,” who supposedly faced a $700-a-month premium hike after her policy was canceled. “This law is not working,” intoned Ms. McMorris Rodgers. And right there we see a perfect illustration of just how Republicans are trying to deceive voters — and are, in the process, deceiving themselves.

This was the official Republican response to Obama's State of the Union address.  It was a national address, and yet Rep. Rodgers blatently lied about Obamacare!  Krugman continues...

Bette’s tale had policy wonks scratching their heads; it was hard to see, given what we know about premiums and how the health law works, how anyone could face that large a rate increase. Sure enough, when a local newspaper, The Spokesman-Review, contacted Bette Grenier, it discovered that the real story was very different from the image Ms. McMorris Rodgers conveyed. First of all, she was comparing her previous policy with one of the pricier alternatives her insurance company was offering — and she refused to look for cheaper alternatives on the Washington insurance exchange, declaring, “I wouldn’t go on that Obama website.”
[emphasis mine]

Even more important, all Ms. Grenier and her husband had before was a minimalist insurance plan, with a $10,000 deductible,...

Republicans, Obamacare is here to stay.  Most liberals would much prefer a single payer system or at least a public option, but we're stuck with this flawed system because it's the best Obama could get passed and it will help millions of people lead healthier lives.  Republicans are just embarrassing themselves by continuing to beat this dead horse.  Many on the right are so deluded that they are certain that soon Obamcare will implode to the cheers of the uninsured who don't freaking want health insurance, they just want the freedom to die early painful deaths with their middle finger upraised at Obama.  Okay, a bit over the top, but the truth is, Obamacare is already working, and just like any new program this large, will have a lot of early flaws that will need fixing and in a few more years Americans won't even know why the Republicans fought so hard to kill it.

--Trakker

 

Just another way the Republican Party is their own worst enemy: abortion.

Washington Post's Dana Milbank has become noticeably more outspoken against the lunatic right over the past few years.  Today he takes on abortion: Antiabortion movement faces a cold reality.

"But long before they make abortion illegal, Republicans will make themselves irrelevant, by choosing abortion bills over jobs bills and by validating Democratic claims of a GOP “war on women.” (Not one woman among the House Judiciary Committee Republicans made abortion legislation the year’s first order of business.)"

It has become fairly obvious that the Republican Party will go to great lengths to ensure all fetuses are carried to term so that they will have more women and their babies stuck in poverty to complain about.  "Oh, the wretched poor!  They keep having babies and then expect the government to feed them and pay for their medical care. No more! We must cut back on government safety net programs, we can't afford it."

A fetus isn't a baby.  It is not a person.  Abortion is not murder.  Many fetuses die in the womb - and if you are a Christian you must accept the fact that God aborted the fetus.  If you have a problem with abortion, start with your God.  Those states that are making it almost impossible for the poor to get an abortion (the rich can always go elsewhere and get one) will soon find themselves overrun by more and more children on welfare, needing food stamps, free lunches, and health care, much of it paid for by the state's taxpayers.  Good luck with that!

--Trakker

How true conservatives know who is right and who is lying.

Interesting. Conservative Conor Friedersdorf, wrinting in the Atlantic, looked at what Rush Limbaugh said on his radio program last Monday (Jan. 13) and realized Rush was describing his how he decides who is lying and who is telling the truth.

When the controversy began, Limbaugh reminisces, he didn't know who the nominee was. "I didn't know Clarence Thomas," he recalled. "I had never met Clarence Thomas. I had to read about Clarence Thomas to find out who he was." 

Nonetheless, "I began the biggest, full-throated defense of Clarence Thomas that there was, and I didn't know him. I'd never met him. I had to read and find out who he was and, you know, about his life, the things he'd done, where he'd worked, gone to school. Yet I didn't feel I was taking a risk at all in a full-throated, never-ending, full-fledged not only defense of Clarence Thomas, but an attack, a returned attack on Anita Hill and the Democrats. Now, how was I able to do this with such confidence, not having met the man, not having known the man?"

I'd begun to wonder that myself. Fortunately, Limbaugh goes on to explain himself, but first he underscores the degree to which he took Thomas's side immediately:...

Friedersdorf goes on, using Limbaugh's words to tease out how Rush, and so many others on the far right, decide who is right and who is lying: true-conservatives don't lie.  If a conservative is attacked by Democrats and liberals, the conservative is a true conservative and is thus telling the truth Rush knows that liberals lie all the time about conservatives.  No, really.  This is how Limbaugh knows based on "...Character, conservatism, and my knowledge of the left."

We've seen this kind of thinking here on this blog recently by the comments left on some of my earlier posts.  Those far-right commenters accept everything they hear or read on Fox News and right-wing blogs without question, evidently because people on the far-right never lie.  These commenters will not accept anything from a non-conservative news organization or website as truth.  All facts must come from the far-right because true conservatives don't lie.

Actually, a closer reading of what Limbaugh said on his program shows that even if a true-conservative does lie, if he or she is attacked by the left, then the right must rush to the conservative's defense because the Democrats must never get away with attacking a true-conservative.  In other words, to Limbaugh, truth doesn't matter, winning is all that matters, and that pretty much fits with what I've observed about the far-right since at least the 1960s.

--Trakker

Saying 'I Told You So' gives me little pleasure

Surprise!  After almost a decade in Iraq we finally had to give up and leave - and now that country is sliding back into chaos and many of those who fought there are feeling disgusted and angry.  Why did we go there in the first place and what did we accomplish?  We owe our troops and answer but they won't get on because the truth is this was a stupid war, fought for ideological reasons, with outrageously poor planning and knowledge by an administration so full of itself and American exceptionalism that in a perfect world many would be held accountable, but they never will. 

If you can harken back to 2002, you will recall how all the brave people who opposed invading Iraq were called some of the most vile names and deemed traitors even by some pundits in this Newspaper. Sadly, we strongly suspected this would be the eventual outcome.

It would be one thing if this was just an isolated incident, but it isn't. Americans, for some reason can't say no to war. The press always goes along with it because they have to sell thir product. As long as we have this huge defense budget and large military that we can use at will, we will continue to send our young people off to be killed , and we'll enjoy weeping and slapping yellow ribbons on our cars to commemorate the kids we've sent off to die.

This won't end until we implement a draft that forces the children of the rich, the powerful, and the famous to serve in combat. Maybe if George Bush had served in combat instead of partying in the Champaign Squadron, we could have avoided this.

I wish those of us who opposed the war were proved wrong.  I'd rather be wrong than for us to have wasted billions of dollars on a failed war that caused the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and thousands of American casualties.  As a veteran it hurts even more to read the comments of those troops who sacrificed a part of their life to fight our war and are now wondering if the sacrifice was worth it.

--Trakker

Drug test welfare recipients?

I've always been puzzled by those who insists that everyone who gets government welfare payments to be tested for drugs.  One friend in particular brings it up frequently, reasoning that if some one can afford drugs, they can afford their own groceries.  Another is offended that her tax dollars might be being used to buy drugs as her reason why people on welfare should be drug tested.

I believe the reasoning here is flawed.  The first assumes that any welfare recipient who tests positive for drugs bought the drugs with money they could have used for groceries, etc., but is that a valid assumption?  What about drugs that friends or family members share with the person being tested?  I suspect that this is not unusual among the poor.  Poor families often share food, child care, etc., and no doubt drugs.  In any case there is no way to be certain the person who tested positive bought the drugs.

The second argument also assumes anyone who tests positive purchased those drugs, but this time the argument assumes that the money used to buy the drugs was taxpayer dollars.  I can understand why taxpayers would be upset at the thought that our tax dollars might be used to buy drugs, but I'm disturbed that almost no one is demanding that everyone who gets government payment be drug tested.  The only group singled out are the poor.  Recently a Congressman was arrest in Washington, DC, for drug possession.  He admitted to using drugs in the past and yet we're not hearing the same concerns that this Congressman used his taxpayer-provided salary to buy drugs.  What about the many federal employees, congressional staff, farmers getting farm support payments, government contractors, etc.?  Certainly some of them use drugs but I've nerver heard a demand that they all be drug tested because our tax dollars might have been used to buy drugs.  Why is it always the poor that get singled out for punishment - and always by Republican politicians (kudos to NC Republican Governor Pat McCrory for vetoing such a bill)?

The good news is that a federal judge this week struck down Florida’s program to require drug testing of all applicants for public assistance through the TANF ("Food Stamps") program. Other judges have struck down similar requirements that are targeted at particular populations as unconstitutional "if they are not specifically tailored to protect public safety or another state interest."

States that have begun programs requiring people on welfare to be drug tested have found that the number of recipients testing positive is lower that the general population, and the cost of drug testing has exceeded the cost savings of denying benefits to those who test positive.

It shouldn't be a big surprise that poor people can't afford drugs while those who have higher incomes can.

Then there is the questions about what to do with those who test positive.  It seems foolish to deny poor people benefits when it is those benefits that may be the difference between survival and disaster.  Requiring them to enter a drug treatment program would make more sense but it is relatively expensive and we know many on the right don't like government sponsored programs.

--Trakker

Fundamentalists and the Bible

Fundamentalism has always attracted the more insecure among us, those who are unsure of right and wrong, and their ability to make the right decisions in life.  Thus they are attracted to the certainty fundamentalism offers them.  These people are also people who fear change of any kind, and who tend to blame modernism for all the current problems our country, so they are suckers for those who tell them we must take the country back to the 50s, or the 20s ,or the 1800s - the era doesn't matter because these are not people who question what they hear.

The above was triggered by an insightful blog post by The Propaganda Professor here.  The writer notices that fundamentalists a.) use the Bible and their religion as justification whenever they make stupid or bigoted remarks (e.g., Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty), b.) they search the scripture to find passages that justifies their biases, and c.) they concentrate their energy selectively: homosexuality as fatally damaging marriage instead of divorce which is prominent in the scriptures as wrong and yet it affects almost half of marriages,  even in fundamentalist churches.

This hypocrisy and selective outrage (Phil Robertson's first amendment right to make bigoted remarks are angrily defended by the same people are outraged at people who use the same right to say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas) is getting old and the rest of America is becoming aware of how clownish the fundamentalists and the far right has become. This scares the fundamentalists who feel scorned by Democrats, the educated, the other less conservative religions, and scariest of all, atheists, who gleefully use fundamentalist religions (Christian and Muslim) as the prime examples of how ridiculous and dangerous religion is.

If the Bible is Christianity's infallible rulebook, then Christianity is in trouble.  The contradictions, the violence, the pornography, and the Bible's approval of slavery and concubines to name just a few - will become (and SHOULD become) a millstone around anyone's neck who insists on using the Bible as a defense of something they do or say.  For example, if homosexuality is wrong and must be made illegal because the Bible says so, then so is divorce which then must also be made illegal, while a man's right to a concubine must be allowed by the law.  But we all know, fundamentalists pick and choose only the scriptures that support their own biases.

--Trakker

Why do so many on the right look down on education and the educated?

You know, I really didn't learn much in high school.  Like most kids I learned the basics, math, English, some history, enough about government to know the three branches of government, etc.  It was my own fault, really.  I just didn't apply myself.  

After a couple of years working in a factory and then four years in the Air Force, I realized I didn't know squat about much of anything important.

Finally I decided to give college a try even though my high school grades were pretty bad.  I worked hard in college because I found that the classes made the world a lot less mysterious.  I learned that things are a lot more complex and nuanced than I thought.  That's why a four-year college degree is so important.  It is why companies almost always pay college grads more than those without a degree.  

Where am I going with this?  For the past ten years or so I've found myself arguing with people who don't know what they are talking about and yet they are sure, certain even, that they know far more than I because...well, that's what I can't figure out.  Why do so many people on the right have so little regard for education and those who have gone to college?  Look at their attitude toward climate scientists, look at their disdain for teachers, look at their almost pathological hatred of government workers.  Almost all teachers have a degree, A large number of government workers do also.  The government has some of the world's leading experts in many fields, and yet people who struggled in high school feel they are smarter than the experts.

You don't need a college education to know a lot about a subject, but you do have to spend a fair amount of time studying a subject before you are qualified to tell others they are wrong.

--Trakker

 

 

Why I consider myself a socialist - and other labels.

I consider myself a socialist because I believe government can and should provide needed services that the private sector either can't do or can't do well. I also believe the government should level the playing field for businesses and between the rich and poor. Socialists (at least those I know and talk with) do not favor government ownership of all land and businesses.  That would be as much a disaster as no government at all.

Being a socialist does not mean I don't like and admire capitalism.  The private sector does many things well, sometimes even brilliantly. I would not want the government to design and sell automobiles, I want the government to determine what safety features all automobiles must have for the public's good (e.g., turn signs, backup lights, seat belts, air bags). The government should also ensure all manufacturers are honest with their customers, make sure the workplace is safe for employees, pays their workers no less than the minimum wage, and doesn't require them to work more than 40 hours a week without additional compensation...stuff like that.  These are called "regulations," and some on the right complain bitterly about them.

I just want to make sure everyone understands that socialism refers to an economic system, not a political system.  Politically I'm a liberal Democrat who believes the government should have an active role in our lives and that when properly controlled (by its citizens) it is not the enemy.  Right now, the government is not being properly controlled, it is largely controlled by those with money and influence.

As for religion, I'm an atheist who believes in the separation of church and state.  The government cannot favor one religion over another, and it can't favor those who are religious over those who embrace no religion.

--Trakker

Oh, the irony!

I'm really sick of the Tea Partiers insisting that the only reason that the poor vote for Democrats is because the Democrats promise them "free things."  What they clearly ignore is the reason the rich and powerful vote Republican: because the Republicans promise them "free things," greater riches (historically low taxes, subsidies, and generous tax breaks).  The Democrats work to keep the poor from starving while the Republicans work just as hard to help the rich get even richer (and then use their extra money to buy political ads for Republicans and bankroll politicians).

This is why more and more people are voting for Democrats.

--Trakker 

Haters gonna hate. But they plan to vote Republican. 

So says a poll by the Washington Post.

It's hard to care much anymore. The Republican mantra of cutting taxes and smaller and smaller government is a recipe for turning us into a crumbling third-world nation. Want proof? Show me a large, modern, prosperous nation with a small government and low taxes. Show me a nation with a safe, modern infrastructure that was built and maintained entirely by private companies without government involvement.  
 
We re like an alcoholic, addicted to our delusion that the free market will make us all prosperous and the envy of all, until we hit bottom and our nation crumbles to ashes and hundreds die daily in the streets, but by then we will no longer have the wealth to recover and the few people who own 90% of our nation's wealth will flee to another sucker nation that promises not to tax them.  
 
It's your nation, America. I'm almost 70 and was fortunate to live most of my life in an America that understood how government creates and protects the middle class...and had compassion for the poor.

We need new leadership - especially in the Democratic Party. We need leaders who know how to explain economics and politics to the people in a way they can understand the role of government in a successful society.  We need leaders than can explain the limits of capitalism and point out that America has benefited from the socialist programs we've had in place for decades, even centuries (police, military, Social Security, Medicare, the Coast Guard, the Weather Service, government paid firefighters who protect homes and fight forest fires. the Interstate highway system, etc., etc.).

But don't hold your breath.  The Democrats, too, have to rely on the wealthy for campaign funds and then dance to their music.  

-Trakker