I understand why he’s doing it. I understand the nuance involved, but I still don’t like it. Yes, I’m referring to Barack Obama’s apparent flip-flopping on the FISA bill. I understand the importance of the bill, but damn, are we really going to give another free pass to the telecommunications companies? Honestly? We’ve given them wiggle room in many areas, and what have they done with it? Bandwidth throttling, anti-competitive business practices, illegal surveillance… Once again, the Republicans are favoring them over the American people. I swoon in disbelief.

Naturally, even though this act shows bipartisan effort and the ability to compromise (a marked improvement over the President v.43 model), John McCain and the Republicans at large will undoubtedly attack him on this issue (even though he’s conceding to them) for being a flip-flopper.

I would challenge the wisdom of this. Maybe I should join the trend and switch to John McCain over this one issue. Y’know, like the fanatical portion of Hillary Clinton supporters did.

It’s not like I don’t have reasons. Another issue I strongly disagree with Obama over is the issue of Ethanol. John McCain agrees with me. Oh wait, maybe not. Oh well, at least he shares the view that people like Jerry Falwell are bad for the nation. What? He’s down with Jerry? Hm.

Well, there have got to be plenty of issues we see eye to eye on. Abortion? He used to. Surely he disagrees with the use of torture. Damn. Offshore drilling? Damn. I KNOW I heard him say he was against the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy… DAMMIT! Gay Marriage? Pff, that was short-lived.

What about the issues we know Obama has flipped on? How about his decision not to take public financing? Nope. McCain can’t attack him on that, considering he doesn’t even agree with himself over what campaign finance reform ought to be. Then there’s the issue of immunity for the telecoms. Can we honestly say he flipped on this issue too? Yes. We. Can.

On second thought, maybe I’ll stick to the guy who has been giving me the straight talk. Y’know, the one who has been mostly consistent. You know which one. Still, you just know they’re going to drag him through the mud over this. Despite everything John McCain has flipped on, they’ll accuse Obama of pandering. The thing is, considering his Democratic and largely liberal base, doesn’t his stance on FISA prove that he is not pandering? (Ethanol, not so much. We’ll take ownership of that one.)

I’m troubled by the fact that John McCain turned out to be the kind of politician who will say anything to gain power, leaving us without the foggiest clue as to what he’ll actually do with it. Frightening. He had such potential in 2000.

Ingredient: A Dash of Relief

The primary season is finally over! Thanks Hillary for saying you’ll support Barack Obama. You’ve run an incredibly bitter and negative campaign, and liberals everywhere thank you for aiming your cannons across the aisle for a change. Please, don’t play the veepstakes. That small percentage of extremely vocal and stunningly obnoxious supporters who say they’ll vote for McCain are now saying they wouldn’t vote for Obama even if you were on the ticket. They’re the weak-minded morons I have repeatedly described, and the Republicans are playing them like a fiddle. So please, let it go.

Yeah, yeah, party unity. I’m not interested in prolonging the division, but after running the kind of ruthless, cutthroat operation we’ve suffered over the last 4 months (let’s face it, February was when things turned ugly), she’s the one who need to make amends and redeem herself. To be honest, I hope she does. She could be a great asset to the Party and the country, but first she needs to lick her wounds and swallow her pride. Additionally, any Obama supporters who start pouring salt on said wounds by gloating should throw themselves off a bridge, right now.

Ingredient: A Healthy Smattering of Sleaze

I’ve got to hand it to the Republicans, who are proving to be every bit as stubborn and tenacious as the Clinton campaign was. I mean, seriously: internet trolls? That’s their strategy? It makes sense that the only thing they have to rely on are smear tactics, spreading rumors and subterfuge (let’s not be coy, they’re frauds). What else can they use? They set the standard for epic failure on issues like policy and record, and they know it.

For all you Vonsters and Dittoheads out there who believe Limbaugh’s crap that “the Democrats gave us McCain,” as justification for your fraudulent little campaign, read the “frauds” link. It wasn’t us who gave you John McCain. Sans Michigan and Florida, we were too busy making sure our favorite got the Democratic nomination to bother with foiling your plans. Maybe what Limbaugh and his followers have failed to realize is that they’ve become irrelevant. They failed to realize that they, not the “liberals,” are the problem and people are sick of their shit. They might have a few reasons to be bitter.

In short, the Republicans are going to lose because they deserve to lose. Cry about it somewhere else.

Ingredient - Road Rage.

I’m expanding my targets of gas price-related anger. Instead of focusing on a few, I’m going to spread my anger evenly on all those responsible, including the oil companies, the speculators, the GOP and the ones I get to deal with most, BFV drivers.

Big. Fuckin’. Vehicle.

Nothing bothers me more than seeing a BFV capable of hauling steel beams to a construction site in the bed of the truck, yet not have a single scratch on it. Why does this bother me? They don’t fucking need it! Get a car. Get a smaller truck, hell, get a Chevy Blazer. They drive well, they’re spacious, the gas mileage is better, and you don’t look cartoonish getting in or out of one. The bottom line: if you don’t use a truck for work, don’t buy a goddamn work truck, dumbass.

Then there are the BFV drivers who have no courtesy or regard for others on the road. As I sit here trying to imagine the elitist attitude and sense of entitlement of those who would purchase one of these things, I can’t what is going through the mind of one of these miscreants as they pull into a gas station and neglect to pull into the far end of the pumps, thus forcing you to go around them, missing the pump they should have used because of the width of the turn you had to make due to the unnecessary size of their vehicle.

I got to experience this last night, and for the last time, I swear. The cocksucker in the drivers seat, naturally, was the only one riding in their 10 mpg vehicle. Great. They come out wearing nicely tailored garments undoubtedly made from linens skillfully crafted at the hands of a 7 year old working in a garage-turned-factory on the outskirts of Calcutta. I finished pumping gas and went inside to pay.

After waiting in line for about five minutes, the same shithead cuts in front of me in line. I responded with a booming voice that wasn’t quite a yell, but designed to be loud and imposing,”EXCUSE ME I WAS STANDING IN LINE FIRST,” then stepped in front of them. If the fucker would have said anything, I’d have been more than happy to give them a pipe wrench polish on their BFV as soon as I stepped out the door. Assholes.

When they’re not cutting me off, trying to hit me or doing something completely rude, my encounters with BFV’s and their owners tend to be benign. When gas is at $4/gallon, the economy is in the shitter, our illegal invasion is going terrible and the asshole in the BFV has a GOP election sticker on their bumper, I tend to get a little less friendly.

Most of the time when I see someone driving a BFV, I simply think,”Nice SUV. Sorry about your penis.”

As an aside, can anyone tell my why the fuck there are so many Impala’s on the road? I can’t drive for 5 minutes without seeing the ugly ass-end of one of these things staring me in the face.

Ingredient: 1 lb of Satisfaction

After running the most positive campaign I can recall, Barack Obama came out swinging in the GE. Now the crybaby pisspants Republicans are whining about it by calling him a hypocrite. Why? Because it’s “politics as usual” and “negative campaigning.”

Really? I haven’t seen any ad hominem by the Obama camp. I’ve seen some propagandistic comparisons to “Bush’s third term,” but nothing serious. In fact, almost every attack has to do with McCain’s stance on the issues and, by extension, calling his election Bush’s third term does a pretty good job at summing it up.

What the wingnuts are really saying is “you can’t attack us, period.” I can see why they’d adopt this attitude, considering how their shitty policies led us to an illegal war and an economic recession while letting companies run amok with little or no regulation and are thereby directly responsible for the fix we’re in.

They’re certainly not pulling any punches though. They’ve already called Obama a liar. Then there’s the internet trolls and his shameless speech last Tuesday, in which he criticized Obama’s proposals while repeatedly lying through his dentures. Ooh, a point-by-point with the transcript could be fun…

Ingredient: Republicans are fucking scary.

It seems the average Conservative is still excessively bad at making a case for… well, for anything, really. Take, for instance, your average dittohead troll:

It’s the same old spill from liberal bloggers. They are blinded to the facts. Obama is not a reliable candidate. He has not even finished his term at present. Do you think if there were a higher office he would quit the presidency to run for it? There is not a higher office in America. Maybe they do agree with his voting record, as short as it is. To associate MCcain with the klan is completely ignorant on their behalf. His record shows bipartisan efforts. Obama’s does not. McCain’s past shows strong leadership and reform. Obama’s does not. Of course it does not matter to the leftist. They will continue to attack based on their biased,bigotted forum.

This is an excellent example of what I’m referring to. The have a penchant for making broad-based, absolute statements. They state them as if they were set in stone, factual and unchanging. What’s terrifying about it is that they never question themselves. They say what, but they never, ever, ever say why. “They are blinded to the facts.” How? “Obama is not a reliable candidate. He has not even finished his term at present.” Why does that make him unreliable? “Do you think if there were a higher office he would quit the presidency to run for it?” Moot question, implications appeal to ones ignorance rather than their reason. “There is not a higher office in America.” No shit? Was this written by a fourth grader? There is one higher office you Cons recognize: CEO. “Maybe they do agree with his voting record, as short as it is.” Who agrees? Are you talking about this voting record? John McCain has his share of No Votes too, buddy.

The rest of it is just too goofy to mention. Obama, for instance, had a reputation for getting the other side involved at the state level. McCain, if you read the news, has turned out to be a political wind vane. Whichever way the wind is blowing, especially around an election, John McCain is sure to follow.

This, I think, is why I want to be an educator, especially at the college level. Maybe, just maybe I can lead someone to reason before they become assimilated. At the very least, it would be a victory to get someone to reason with themselves to at least express why they think that way, instead of just presenting their opinion to the world. Saying why you think someone is a communist is worth far more than simply stating that you think they’re a communist. Better still is to logically demonstrate how your reasons are valid. Not a single one of the conservative dipshits who’ve left comments on my blog have done this, but I’d shake the hand of one who finally does.

The sad thing is, this comment was one of the better ones! Blows ol’ Vonster right out of the water. Sure, it reads like it was written by a third grader, but at least the person was trying.

In response to an opinion piece that spoke unfavorably of the venerable and holy Oil Industry, some moron made the following claim: the environmental activists and lobbyists are the reason we’re paying $4 at the pump.

Cue studio laughter.

Yes, fella, because environmental lobbyists have sooooo much more money than Big Oil and can hire sooooo many more lobbyists.

I don’t get people like this. They’re essentially fanning away mosquitos while ignoring the tiger that’s eating their leg.

Reminds me of the 90’s when the right-wingers pointed to seatbelt laws, bicycle helmet laws and video game ratings or the parental advisories on music as the harbingers of democracy’s impending demise while describing how it would lead to a totalitarian police state while abusing the phrase “Big Brother.”

Now we have all sorts of GOP-originated big government, and people like this are still swatting at the mosquitos! Jeez.

What we’re seeing here with the protection of Big Oil is a co-dependent mingling of government and business, providing us with, as KO once put it, a textbook example of fascism. Thanks, guys. Way to love freedom.

——-

I’m really looking forward to having another Democrat in office. The wingnuts go from vanilla crazy to full-throttle batshit insane.

“Barack Obama’s dubious claim is inconsistent with world history and demands an explanation. It was Soviet troops that liberated Auschwitz, so unless his uncle was serving in the Red Army, there’s no way Obama’s statement yesterday can be true. Obama’s frequent exaggerations and outright distortions raise questions about his judgment and his readiness to lead as commander in chief.”Obama’s False Claim:

Obama: “I had an uncle who was one of the — who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps. And the story in our family was is that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn’t leave the house for six months. Right, now, obviously, something had really affected him deeply. But at that time, there just weren’t the kinds of facilities to help somebody work through that kind of pain.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Memorial Day, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV1sxq8mqvA, Las Cruces, N.M., 5/26/08)

Historical Fact:

According To The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Auschwitz Was Liberated By The Red Army On January 27, 1945. “On January 27, 1945, Soviet troops liberated the Auschwitz concentration camp complex, where they discovered some 7,000 prisoners, including young children, who had not been evacuated by the SS.” (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Web Site, http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/focus/liberation/, Accessed 5/27/08)

Paid for by the Republican National Committee.

Jesus, they were quick on this one. These days the RNC is so used to grasping at straws that they get over-excited and jump the gun when they think they have something–anything–they can work with. Note the “gotcha” tone and pointed finger. Too bad they were wrong:

“Senator Obama’s family is proud of the service of his grandfather and uncles in World War II — especially the fact that his great-uncle was a part of liberating one of the concentration camps at Buchenwald,” campaign spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement. “Yesterday he mistakenly referred to Auschwitz instead of Buchenwald in telling of his personal experience of a soldier in his family who served heroically.” (Source: Associated Press)

Naturally, Fox News showed up first on the Google News list, and we know how neutral they are when it comes to things like this. Normally I wouldn’t bother with this kind of crap, but it seems viewers of Fux News never seem to hear when what they’ve been told on that particular network has been proven to be categorically false.  So here ya go, morans.

“So this is not about getting you through the summer, it’s about getting elected.  And this is what passes for leadership in Washington — phony ideas, calculated to win elections instead of actually solving problems.”

In response to Clinton’s plan to remove the 18-cent gas tax over the summer.

Ingredient: Catharsis

Y’know what word pisses me off? Synergy. It means “combined action or functioning.” By itself, it sounds like a neat word, doesn’t it? The problem I’m having is with how it’s used, how much it’s used and who is using it. If you read magazines such as Forbes or CEO or perhaps even the Wall Street Journal, you’re probably familiar with it.

This is one of those office go-getter buzzwords you see kiss-ass corporate sales and marketing representatives use when pitching an idea to their clients and business partners. Chances are, they wouldn’t even know the word if they hadn’t heard their promotion-whoring dickwad co-worker chanting it like a mantra. Kind of like those people who use any chance to say the word “corporate” when talking about their company’s HQ. “Gotta call corporate.” “Corporate just called.” Seriously, you’re not that important, go to your desk and we’ll find you if we need to.

I can see “synergy” being defended as more efficient than, say,”let’s use our creative energies together to achieve a common goal.” The fact is one sounds sincere, and the other makes you sound like a tool. Can you guess which?

Synergy has another definition as well: “the cooperative action of two or more stimuli or drugs.” Yeah, coffee and testosterone.

Ingredient: Gloating

Remember Fundie Week? Rolling Stone just ran an article about journalist Matt Taibbi (one of my RS favorites) joining a southern megachurch and infiltrating a weekend revival. Not only did it validate everything I’ve said on the matter, but agreed with my basic premise of criticism: there is no reasoning with these people.

Though this one was marginally more eccentric, I recognized the format from churches I’ve visited in Peoria. Casting demons out, speaking in tongues, etc. After reading the article and reflecting on what I had witnessed time and again while still undergoing my ideological incubation, I cannot help but agree:

“The thought that any politician could claim this kind of experience and not be immediately disqualified from public service seemed utterly terrifying.” — Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

If anyone is curious, this article takes place in the church of controversial pastor John Hagee. Not intentionally–the article was in the works before he made his endorsement of John McCain. But Bush has been a longtime buddy.

Ingredient: Befuddlement

Why is it that Obama support is written off as sensationalized “Obamamania,” as if it were some passing fad, while Clinton support is not? Last I checked, Obama was only ahead by maybe a few percentage points. That seems pretty even to me, not a landslide of a hyped-up candidate caused by the overzealousness of fanatics.

At this point, I’m not sure if it comes from the Clinton camp (Ferraro saying he’s very lucky to be who he is) or the Wrong-Wing Radio/Faux News camp. I’m fingering the latter this time. This is the same group that marginalized him as a “halfrican” and refer to any criticism of the administration as BDS. Since they’re so experienced with incorrect labels, they’re the most likely suspect.

Any thinking person can come to the conclusion that “Obamamania,” not Obama, is what is being hyped by doing nothing more than looking at the numbers.

Ingredient: Ridicule

Speaking of Radio, I noticed something about Rush Limbaugh that I’d missed previous times. He often refers to his show as the “Limbaugh Institute of Advanced Conservative Studies.” Anyone who has an inkling of what “conservative” meant pre-Bush and what people are calling conservatism these days knows that conservatism is truly dead. The result has been unquestioning support of the Republican party, regardless of how non-conservative they actually were.

Since there’s no such thing as a mainstream conservative (I call them other things) in the year 2008, we need to change the name to the “Limbaugh Institute of Advanced Republican Studies.” Or, LIARS. This name is a million times better, and apparently somewhat original too. I googled it and found only one hit.

EDIT — The reason there was only one hit is because I got the original quote wrong.  It’s the “Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.”  Anyway, I’m still pleased.  Google only gave 22 results for the correct LIARS acronym.  Still, not bad.

What is it that fuels the Clinton campaign? Is it the constant, uninterrupted string of negative campaigning, which has been going on from day one? Is it the fact that she’s older, or that she’s a woman? Is it her perceived level of experience? Is it because of her husband? Is it because Barack Obama is black? As it turns out, it’s all of the above.

Be sure to whisper the word “black” as it appears in italics throughout this blog. Y’know, like you do when you’re talking to your white friends. Let’s take a look at the linked article to see what the typical, older Clinton supporter has to say:

John Peterman, 85, a former Navy engineer, said he supported Mrs. Clinton because “the world is not ready for a black president.” His wife, Mary, 81, agreed with him.

Wow, I’d think I was eating candy from all the sugar-coating in that statement. That is, until I bite down and realize I’m eating a fried puke-and-shit burrito. Blech!

There is only one thing “the world is not ready for a black president” means. It’s really another way of saying “a black man can’t win,” which is a polite way of saying,”I wouldn’t vote for a black guy,” a naked admission of racism. Before rolling your eyes, notice how his policies never come up when people make these statements.

What sickens me about it is that Clinton uses this to her advantage, this bigotry. Notice how she’s never come out and said,”No, he’s not a Muslim,” or how she never sufficiently distanced herself from Geraldine Ferraro, who was allowed to call Obama everything but a nigger without being condemned by the Clinton campaign.

Our next idiotic statement:

Arla Hacker, 49, a bank teller, said she also liked Mrs. Clinton because she had Ms. Hacker’s economic interests at heart. “The people who are 18 and 20 years old don’t know what it’s like to sit in a gas line,” she said. “Kids today don’t understand how tough it is. Obama just talks about it.”

Better than ignoring it. Obama talks about issues. Maybe you should listen to him some time. Clinton, on the other hand, talks about Obama, and how she’s one of you. She just knew it would come down to Texas, because Texas is soooo important. She’s got family history in Pennsylvania. She’s got Jewish roots.

Anything it takes to win, eh Hill?

This statement from Ms. Hacker is rich all by itself. “Kids today don’t understand how tough it is.” On a day where my bullshit detector might be set to low, I might have caught myself agreeing with this. Still, I would have eventually realized she was talking about my generation.

If we forget that gas is the highest price it’s ever been while the value of the dollar is now lower than the Canadian dollar… if we forget that the unemployment rate continues to rise, that the housing market crashed, that college tuition takes a lifetime to repay–if one can afford it in the first place. If we ignore the rising price of groceries, exorbitant energy costs and rising costs of living across the board, or this country’s insane healthcare system… while ignoring the fact the the United States is at the lowest point it has ever been in world opinion while people are afraid of being shot on their way to class, or in the mall, or being blown to pieces while waiting for a subway and worry constantly about loved ones serving their country in an illegal war of profit and aggression under the most corrupt and secretive administration in the history of the U.S… then sure, we don’t know a god damn thing you fucking idiot.

Yeah, we know it’s hard. Enjoy your cushy little job at the bank while the youth of this country works its ass off to barely make ends meet, then gets laid off while the company they worked for earns a massive profit.

Noel Stein, 72, and his wife, Judy, 67, both like Mrs. Clinton. Mrs. Stein said she liked her “because she’s a woman” and Mr. Stein said he liked her because of her husband.

I don’t want to jump on this with sexism accusations because women ought to be excited that Clinton has gotten this far. But to list that as your primary reason is pretty shallow. Her husband, obviously, is an idiot. There’s just no excuse for him.

“If I was in my 20s, maybe I’d support Obama,” said Germaine Donahue, 64, who lives in Sullivan County, in northeastern Pennsylvania, and helps run a cleaning service. “But life tempers you. I’m with Hillary.”

Ah yes, the tried and true “I’m older, therefore I’m right/you’re younger, therefore you’re wrong” argument. Not only is this one insulting, but it lacks merit.

“Barack Obama has no experience and no plans. He just works on emotions, and this is why young people like him,” said Kimberly Romm, 44, who is self-employed and heard Mrs. Clinton speak at Haverford College. “People who are more mature analyze things. They’re wiser.”

Another “I’m right for no other reason than for my age” argument. I guess that makes Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld smarter than you, since they’re older and therefore right.

See? It’s not a great argument.

It’s time to acknowledge that the older generation has failed us all. It is time for something new.

How’s this for working on emotion: As many as 28% of Clinton supporters would vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination. Of Obama supporters, the people who are truly “more mature” and “analyze things,” only ten percent would vote for McCain.

The Clintonian reputation of divisiveness is not an exaggeration. Her people have made this personal and gave up all sense of reason in the process. Now, it doesn’t matter if Hillary is hurting the Democratic party. It doesn’t matter that she resorts to negative campaigning while Obama takes the high road. It doesn’t matter that Bill Clinton said he’d vote Republican if Obama gets it. It doesn’t matter if they intend to doom us to 4-8 more years of Bush’s disastrous policies. Now it’s about winning, forget principle.

This will eventually erode into a shouting match between us. On my side of the fence, Obama supporters who are fed up with idiot Conservatives and idiot Clinton supporters. On the other, Clinton supporters who don’t care that they’re fucking up the country as long as the (don’t forget to whisper) black guy doesn’t get nominated. Jerry Springer will moderate.

I’ll go first: SHE A HO!!

Dumb. Ass. Fundies. That answer your question?

Really though. These people are so intent on spreading their narrow version of Christianity that they forget to actually, y’know, act like a Christian. One of the biggest mysteries of fundamentalist thinking is that voting Republican and maintaining a neo-conservative philosophy somehow equates to Christ-like behavior.

The Republican Party has been getting the Fundamentalist vote for years. I could attempt to make them look like total loons by acting as if there’s some big mystery behind the phenomenon, “who knows why they would ever vote for a Republican considering x, y and z.” But I know why and so do you.

Abortion is the number one reason why fundies choose the Republican Party. They see it as killing innocent babies. As a Humanist, I agree that abortion is an ugly thing, something we should acknowledge with shame. Also, from a Humanist perspective, I believe that if there are means by which to end or avert human suffering, we ought not dispose of them. In my opinion, the largest loss stemming from the practice of birth-control abortion is the sacrifice of responsibility on the altar of hedonism. Moreso, there are certain instances when even a fundie can justify the procedure. Suffice it to say, I understand why this is an issue and, you should know, I typically refuse to take part in abortion discussions and rarely state my opinions on it because I do not see it as a morally black-and-white issue.

Second to abortion is the issue of Gay Marriage, which is really a non-issue since nobody is requiring a church’s blessing in creating a civil union, which makes it a civil rights issue instead of a religious one–and, now that I think about it, really makes the phrase “gay marriage” sort of a misnomer, doesn’t it. Thus, we can conclude, the only reason they’re still against it is because of bigotry, not the sanctity of their Religion. Otherwise they’d be pressing to make Islam and Hinduism and all other “false religions” illegal, since “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” This one is pretty black and white.

(Yes, I realize that they both worship the same god. Fundies may not be aware of it, but even ones that do know that Yahweh, Jehovah and Allah are all the same guy, they typically won’t admit it and denounce Allah as false. DAF.)

Two issues keep the fundie vote in the GOP. Of course, like most issues that are pivotal for the politically naive, these are little more than campaign platforms to be re-elected on. Rarely do you see any of these “pro life/sanctity of marriage” candidates actively pursuing the issues which got them elected.

There are a few bible verses that one could use to justify their pro-life stance based on their religion. Civil Unions, on the other hand, aren’t mentioned. All the good book really has to say about homosexuality is “don’t be gay.”

Now let’s take a look at all the reasons why fundamentalists shouldn’t support the Republican party. Who wants to make bets on whether there are more reasons to vote against them?

“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” - Mark 10:25

The bible mentions that Jesus is a consistent supporter of the poor. When it comes to who gets into heaven, he clearly states that the rich are less likely than the poor and yet… fundies still vote Republican. The GOP has consistently been the party of the wealthy and the party of big business. They have been consistent in anti-worker, anti-poor policies and tax cuts which give the top 5% earners disproportionately large breaks when they don’t need the extra money in the first place–they’re already friggin rich! And Republicans, good Christian Republicans, attempt to block any legislation that benefits the other 95% of society if it threatens to cut into the profits of the upper crust.

“And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.” - Matthew 6:5

If fundies interpret the bible as literally as possible, why do televangelists continue to prosper, and why do “Christian values” politicians who pray in public and make a show out of their faith continue to get elected? In a previous Fundie Week entry, one commenter complained on being challenged on her faith, even though she confessed it. I characterized it as a holy pissing contest. Jesus says: “Ye who try to out-holy thy neighbor, fuck thee off.”

Maybe he didn’t put it that way, but he did make it pretty clear that there is not to be competition in this area. There might be an exception when it comes to doing good deeds for the sake of doing them.

The most compelling argument against Christian Republicanism originates from a familiar Christian saying: What Would Jesus Do? So fundies, I’m going to wrap this up with a list of things you ought to ask yourself before going to the polls this November. Ready?

Torture: WWJD?
Pre-emptive War: WWJD?
Driving people into poverty while the rich prosper: WWJD?
Ignoring the needs of the poor: WWJD?
Death penalty: WWJD?
Jailing people without trial: WWJD?
Lying: WWJD?
Guns: WWJD?

Abortion: WWJD?
Gay Marriage WWJD?

That’s 8 out of 10 questions that, when answered according to biblical teachings, would compel a Christian to vote Democrat, not Republican. Does anybody still wonder why I think fundies are dumbasses?

Repeat after me:

Christian science is bullshit.
Christian science is bullshit.
Christian science is bullshit.

That’s a lower-case ’s’, by the way. The philosophical Christian Science and the “Church of Christ, Scientist” aren’t out in force trying to alter our laws. They’re much too busy pretending to heal people.

Introduction - About CS

“Christian science” is a rather misleading name for the category. Really, the only things it deals with are the theory of evolution and creationism. Occasionally there’s a wild conspiracy theory about the Flood/Noah’s Ark, the Ark of the Covenant or the Walls of Jericho. Everything else in this category is just regular science with “because God made it that way” thrown in every now and then.

Unlike regular science, which relies on the scientific method to gain empirical data in proving or disproving a hypothesis surrounding a theory, Christian science or “Creationism” interprets the bible according to varying degrees of literalism, then thinks up scientific explanations for the events therein.

The direct result of such a presumptive model of research is that it assumes the theory is correct or absolute, which means that only evidence which supports this theory can be admitted. Evidence which does not support, or even contradicts the theory is discarded or ignored, even when the evidence indicates another hypothesis or theory entirely.

We can see where this type of reasoning would lead if applied to, say, our legal system in which a murderous man is presumed innocent, but any evidence that suggests a guilty verdict is discarded from the case. It’s good for the man, but not so good for the rest of society. This is what I’m getting at: Creationism and other self-styled Christian sciences are great for Christianity, but not so great for the rest of us.

Imagine if the theory of evolution never existed. Would Gregor Mendel have discovered inheritence factors or would he have found them relevant? Had he not discovered them, there would be no reason to discover chromosomes, genes or DNA. Under the guidance of Christian science and their Creationism, we wouldn’t have the understanding of the body or of microbiology to create antibiotics and vaccines, or medicines to treat our diseases, all of which have saved lives, extended life, and made life easier for those who suffer.

Christian scientists would have prevented it because it’s not in the bible.

Would they have, if they’d known the good that would come of it? Possibly. But they didn’t know what would come of it–they were fighting it even then! They think they know what the end result will be, but they don’t. Starting with Darwin and ending with modern life science and medicine, can you imagine what we could have accomplished without all the setbacks by religious hostility?

Creationists claim that God created everything as it exists today but ignore the fossil record. They say the earth is no older than 15,000 years (many say it’s as few as 6,000 years) but ignore carbon dating and all the information stored in a stratigraphic column, as well as the knowledge that stars are millions of light-years away, but we can still see them shining. How can this be considered science?

It can’t, and the creationists know it. Instead of defending their methods, they carry on the long tradition of attacking actual science to make their views seem less… insane.

Unnatural Selection - Creationism vs. Evolution

Might as well get this one out of the way. Evolution. Fundies hate anything that has to do with Darwin, so they attempt to break evolution into a number of parts and attack them separately, drawing conclusions between them… and demonstrate an amazing lack of understanding about them in the process. According to them, nobody was around to observe “evolution,” so it must not exist.

Mutation is a popular target for scrutiny. The creationists say that if mutations exist, there should be millions and millions of examples in the fossil record and no missing links whatsoever. They’ll say that every now and then a human should give birth to a monkey, and vice versa. Why aren’t people occasionally born with wings? They say this is proof that evolution is wrong and creationism is right. There’s no room for more than one possibility in Christian “science.” It’s God or bust.

Another popular target of attack is natural selection/survival of the fittest. The fittest survive. They get the breeding rights, the food, the land. I’m not sure how this is incompatible with Christianity, but for some reason it’s still a target.

Then there are all the outright silly claims of debunkery such as the one where if evolution is true, we should find life randomly appearing all around us. One video I recall has people who weren’t even biologists saying that “the food industry counts on evolution being false” and that “every once in awhile, we should be able to open a jar of peanut butter and find life.” The man then opens the jar and says something like,”nope, no life here.”

Thing is, we do see new life coming into existence every single day. I’ve heard that thousands are discovered daily. Just because you can’t see it with the naked eye doesn’t mean it isn’t there. I mean, seriously, do they expect a worm to randomly come together with all its parts and complex systems in working order inside a jar of peanut butter?

Is it so surprising that literal-minded creationists would attack evolution in such ways? I think not.

Not So Fast! - A Thinking Man’s Retort

Nobody was around to observe Creation, so it must have just been made up by guys who wrote it down in a book. We can actually observe evolution: through a microscope. Because of the extremely high rate of reproduction, viruses and other microbes provide a microcosm of evolution at work. Resistance to immunity, changing from fluid transmission to airborne transmission… is this not the very definition of evolution? Oh, that’s right. We didn’t “see” apes turn into humans.

First off, you don’t have to be present at the first time an event occurs to view it. That’s what a lab is for. Scientists will attempt to simulate the conditions that are believed to have surrounded the event in question. They use what they already know and build upon it, then draw from that knowledge to help explain other things. Christian science, however, uses deceptive reasoning and half truths–of course there will be millions upon millions of transitional fossils if everything that dies becomes fossilized. But it doesn’t work that way. Anyone who thinks about the claim for five minutes can easily reach such a realization.

Want to figure out our origins? Look around you.

“What were conditions like on earth millions of years ago? Let’s look at the rock layers. Ah, traces of meteoric dust in this layer, a meteor must have hit earth during this time. Ah, fossils also exist in and above this layer. We hypothesize that this meteor may have had an impact on environmental conditions. Indeed, we see an increase in deadly chemicals that must have surrounded the air during this period. No bones of mammals have been found in this layer, so we hypothesize that they must not have existed yet.”

Easy enough to follow, right? While this may be a hypothetical train of thought, it’s all based on truth. We can tell when Ice Ages happened, when the air was hot and windy or wet and calm. There are actually layers or rock and sediment we can observe which actually has thinks like meteoric dust settled within it. They’ve used layers of of ice in the polar ice caps in the same way.

But if we are to believe the young-earth creationists, for that dust to get there a meteor must have struck sometime in the past 6000-10000 years–one big enough to leave the same type of dust in the same layer of rock found all over the planet… and it wasn’t mentioned in any oral or written history. Or, maybe they’ll claim that God made it that way. For what? Why have meteoric substances buried between layers of rock meters and meters below the surface?

When they don’t have the answer, they say “God works in mysterious ways,” or “nobody fully understands God’s plan.” In other words,”You stumped us, so we’re going to stop using our Christian science and instead rely on something that is unfalsifiable by science,” which means that it can’t be tested by experiment.

Seems their science only works when it suits them, doesn’t it? Someone ought to tell them that their children are mutants. The overall process involving mutations is that they effect the organism gradually over a very long period of time, thus making arguments such as “why aren’t humans sometimes born with wings” or “why don’t monkeys give birth to humans once in awhile” become non sequitur, almost parodical. Mutations happen during conception every single time. The DNA is changed; that’s a mutation. Otherwise we’d be autosexuals who didn’t need partners to reproduce; we’d just make clones of ourselves.

“Why wouldn’t a monkey give birth to a human, since humans are the next step in evolution, or for that matter, if survival of the fittest is true, then why are monkeys still around?” Obviously there was a genetic split somewhere. Since not every ape breeds with every other ape, evolution is not going to take place at the same pace or even in the same direction among a common species. There’s no reason to believe that apes from Africa would have a common evolutionary path with apes from South America. Look at the differences between tigers and bobcats. Both are kitties, both have fur and claws, but they’re different enough to make a distinction between them. They might as well ask why humans and whales don’t look the same, or why fish don’t sometimes flop out of bird eggs.

So far, here’s the list of some of the tools and evidence each side has:

Science: the fossil record, land formations, laboratories, telescopes, radiocarbon dating, rock layers, geology, dinosaurs, DNA, biology, microscopes, physics, microbiology, chemistry, reason, college degrees and science careers, credibility.

Creationism: the Bible, people who aren’t scientists and believe in the Bible.

The truth is, all this is futile. This whole blog, this whole debate. No matter how much proof you have, they will ignore it. Fail to explain the most minute thing, suddenly there’s a gap that only an all-powerful god can fill. But besides that, creationists can just lie about evolution to debunk it.

The Slyentific Method - Christians on Science.

Science, as I mentioned earlier, relies on the scientific method. The scientific method is a process by which something is studied then has a hypothesis formulated around it, which is tested by empirical means.

Creationists hear this definition and immediately jump up and say you can’t empirically test evolution. They say that people weren’t around back then, and there definitely weren’t scientists who knew what evolution was, so therefore the theory cannot be proven. Because there’s nobody around to watch evolution as it happens, fundies triumphantly claim that it is “bad science.” Even though, as I pointed out earlier, we can and do view it.

Now, the fundies are turning the tables and saying that it’s not Creationism that takes faith, it’s the theory of evolution that takes it. Instead, they argue, Creationism does not require faith because God communicated it to Man through the Bible. We’ll come back to this point in a moment.

They also try to brand people who believe the Theory of Evolution as “evolutionists” and call secularism a religion. Then they have the audacity to cry “separation of church and state!” while demanding that equal time be given to creationist theories in public classrooms. They say that not accepting creationism as an alternative to evolution is intolerant.

Then there’s the big whopper: that evolution is such a controversial topic, there’s a huge debate among scientists about whether or not it even exists.

WTF?

Whenever a scientist shows skepticism towards evolution or any facet thereof, fundies immediately claim him as a creationist. “See!” they say,”even SCIENTISTS question evolution!” Isn’t it a scientist’s job to be critical? I find it reassuring that scientists question their own findings or the findings of others. More often than not, it helps to confirm the results rather than debunk them.The questioning of evolution has been going on for about 150 years and guess what? It’s still around, going strong as ever.

Keeping creationism out of a science class should be self-explanatory. Science class is for science. God-theories are for church. Maybe the fundies ought to be doing their job as Christians rather than asking the state to do it for them.

Dare I even address the assertion that science is a religion? How can such a comparison even exist when one requires evidence and the other requires faith, respectively? What ought to be asked is why Christians are so hostile to evolution and does it have to do with evidence, or does it have to do with their religion?

Are we to believe that these people disagreed with the theory of evolution based on its merits and simply happened to be Christians? Now that demands faith.

Don’t even get me started on ID, or “Intelligent Design.” ID is another presumptive pseudo-science where instead of saying “God created everything,” it comes from the angle that everything appears to have been designed by an intelligent force or being and guided in its progression. Proponents coyly state things like,”Now, if the intelligent cause turns out to be supernatural, that’s a determination that is outside of science.” Yeah, so is saying things were created by an intelligent source. Unless someone out there has a better word for “supreme being capable of creating the universe and guiding everything in it,” why not call a spade a spade: This is god science, creationism with a new label.

The Breakdown - Christian Science is Bullshit.

The paranoia surrounding science, particularly the theory of evolution and origins of the universe, is silly. The idea that science wants to trick people or force them to think a certain way, or tell people they have to make a choice,”us or them,” is ridiculous. Saying that scientists aren’t looking into creation as an alternative means they’re afraid of what they might find is nonsense and shows a lack of understanding.

Science is neutral. It doesn’t give a damn about religion. In fact, letting religion guide their findings is the very definition of “bad science” and should be avoided at all costs! Fortunately for the rest of us, scientific conclusions are based on evidence, not opinion. When fundies complain that science is trying to stifle their opinions, they’re wrong. Uninformed opinions without evidence that are made by people who either A) aren’t scientists or B) don’t have a degree in the field of science they’re criticizing–they have no place in science. We’re not trying to silence you, we’re simply ignoring you and hoping you’ll take the hint.

But that’s not to say that science claims god doesn’t exist, mainly because there’s no way to prove it, hence why it is not considered scientific to make such a claim. Yet, if at the apex of human knowledge and understanding we do indeed discover that there’s a god (or something) that created it all, awesome. Science discovers God. The difference in credibility is that science will have proof to back up their claim, while creationists and ID theorists will still have none.

You see, even if Christian scientists are proven to have been right all along in their conclusion, it does not, by extension, automatically justify their methods. If someone is on trial for a crime, killing all the witnesses is not the right way to reach a ‘not guilty’ verdict, even if the defendant really is innocent.

What fundamentalist Christians need to realize is that science does not have a Secret Agenda of Evil. It is not out to “get” them. Politicians and activists may reference scientific evidence to support their causes, but that does not mean science is altering the results or making bogus claims to push an agenda.

Another ridiculous claim is that most scientists are atheists, and evolution is the only way that atheism can be true (more of the same crappy reasoning that it can only be one or the other). They say that evolutionary science is really a conspiracy by atheists to justify their “religion” of not believing in God. Outrageous!

First off, there doesn’t need to be justification for atheism, especially not to holier-than-thou pharisees like the Religious Right. What ought to be justified is how people are allowed to lie like this and still be taken seriously by our courts and legislatures.

Science is not the enemy of Christianity. Nobody is asking anybody to abandon their faith in God. In fact, the ones who say we must make a choice are the fundies! “Either you believe in God or you believe in Man.” It can only be one or the other? And moreover, who gave you bastards the authority to judge such things? It wasn’t God, and it sure as hell wasn’t us.

A Compromise - Science and Religion in Harmony.

Evolution is perfectly compatible with Christianity. So is the Big Bang theory, for that matter. The Bible said that God created Man, but didn’t go into much detail. The Bible also says that God created the universe and BANG; the universe is created. See, fundies? This is your trump card. Will you play it?

My guess is no. As our knowledge and understanding of the world’s complexity expanded, our superstitious explanations should have naturally declined. Instead of seeing stories in the bible as allegorical comparisons designed to teach us a lesson (think “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”), they’re being interpreted as literal. When people cling to the bible as being a completely accurate transcription of how things happened, they tend to lose the meaning of the stories and the lessons they attempt to teach us. Didn’t Jesus speak in parables? Why would the rest of the bible be much different? Look at Revelations. Most end-times people I’ve encountered regard the book as something that is open to interpretation, not something that is being described in precise detail.

Some atheists make the mistake of labeling everything in the bible as false by association, lumping the mythical side of Christianity with the side that tries to convey a message to help us get along in life. They overlook the wisdom that can be found in many biblical stories. Honestly? They’re missing out.

But why wouldn’t they lump it together? The fundies do it. They’ll focus so much on the details that they end up missing the forest for the trees. Which is more important: whether or not a woman was actually healed by touching Jesus, or the moral about how forgiveness can help to set things right? Do you see what I’m getting at? Think about it.

I’ve come up with a Deistic proposal for fundies to follow. Why isn’t it aimed at “evolutionists,” you ask? Because evolution is playing nice and not trying to destroy Christianity. Maybe someday they’ll return the favor.

First, instead of trying to return to the dark ages, fundies ought to thank their Creator for giving humans brains that are capable of figuring out and understanding how his creations work. Instead of fighting science and characterizing it as a trick by Satan, you should thank all the brilliant people out there who, because of things such as the theory of evolution, were able to establish other branches of science that have led to unprecedented improvements in our ability to prevent and treat disease, prolong life, and save life when it’s endangered.

How about taking the theory of evolution at face value: not as an attack on the Christian faith, but as an imperfect model to help scientists understand the world and how it works. Instead of seeing it as having religious grounds, maybe you ought to at least try to look at it as a neutral area of study that seeks neither to confirm nor deny the existence of God or the validity of your religion.

It’s also time to start taking the bible at face value and recognize the folly of interpreting every line literally while trying to prove it with science, inadvertently driving people away from God while eradicating the fundamental tenet of Christianity: faith.

Is this so unreasonable?

In Closing…

Fundies, it’s time to start doing your job as Christians and start influencing people by setting a good example rather than attacking them for things that you don’t know much about either. Maybe you’ll be such a sparkling example of the love of Christ that you’ll convince others to come to church and join you. Then, you can start winning souls for Jesus like the bible commands instead of trying to mingle science with religion, which just makes people write you off as crazy.

What you could do is follow the example of non-fundie Christians out there who follow the teachings of Jesus, but don’t seem to give a shit one way or the other when it comes to scientific explanations of spiritual events or origins. I’m merely speculating at this point, but maybe these people are enlightened in that they realize how pointless origins really are. Where we came from is not nearly as important as the fact that we are here now and must learn to live together in peace.

How about it, fundies?

An etiquette guide for the religious?

Why am I helping the fundies? I’m glad you asked. I got Jesused again by the neighbors today, only this time they sent their daughter to give me “you’re going to hell” literature. Seems I was right–we didn’t fool them after all. Anyway, the tackiness of the approach struck me again.

Tip #1: Sincerity - Be genuine for once.

For starters, if you’re going to be gung-ho about your religion try introducing yourself to the person you’re trying to convert. My family and I have been “witnessed” to twice by the neighbors, both times by surprise, and we don’t even know their fucking names.

Start out with,”Hey, my name is Joe.” The idea is not revolutionary. In fact, most normal people introduce themselves when they first meet somebody. I’ve always found that people are more receptive to “Hello” than “Accept Jesus or you’ll burn in hell.”

Tip #2: Patience - Good things come to those who wait

Alright, now you’ve sniffed each other’s butt, figuratively speaking. Do you go straight into your holy sales pitch? NO!

Now that you’ve established contact with your target, stay as far away from the topic of religion as you can. There are three things you never talk about with people you don’t know well: sex, politics and religion. Especially religion. This is a very touchy subject for many people. If your goal is to make the other person avoid you from now until Judgment Day, ignore what I’ve just said.

A friend of mine recently brought his girlfriend from overseas to meet his father. He introduced himself, but completely failed tip 2. Shortly after they arrived, he pulled out a brand new bible and handed it to her as a gift. My friend, knowing what his father is like but still not expecting this, looked for any reason he could to get the hell out of there.

Get to know the person. There are plenty of things you can find out just by talking to them. Don’t ask them what church they go to or whether they’re on “the winning team.” Be a friend. You can’t convert people by badgering them about their beliefs.

Tip #3: Humility - Do us all a favor and shut up.

Countless are the times I’ve heard fundamentalists interject “God” or “Jesus” or some random fundie catchphrase unexpectedly and without context. It’s almost as if they’re attempting to insert subliminal messages into the conversation. “We’ve been blessed, praise Jesus, to have so many pens lying around here.”

*record scratch* WHAT? Yes, it is a miraculous event! Jesus had nothing better to do with his eternity and powers so he focused them on guiding the fates of the universe to ensure that you were well stocked on pens.

Talking like a fanatic makes less-religious and non-religious people very uncomfortable. Does this serve your interests? I didn’t think so either. The only purpose this serves is establishing street cred with other holy rollers.

Tip #4: Conversion - The art of preaching without preaching.

As I said yesterday, the best way to win people over is by being genuine and kind to others. I’ve often heard fundamentalists rail the Catholic Church for their practice of Christ-worship, calling it a system that is based on good works instead of faith.

First, you’re not impressing anybody by condemning others for believing in god differently than you do. Second, you’re forgetting something: “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” James 2:24

I think what bothers the irreligious most about outspoken fundamentalists has to do with this. You try selling your religion as one that only requires faith… then many of you practice it in such a way. Easy as pie! All I need to do is “accept Jesus,” whatever that means, and I’m home free! Don’t need to put any time or effort into it, I’m as good as can be.

To me, that gives one a license to sin, not a deterrent. “Well I’m saved so I can do whatever I want because Jesus will forgive me.” Good deeds are a required part of Christianity as said in the doctrine. Having faith is not enough; you must actually do something that shows your faith. And I’m not talking about picking up poisonous snakes and dancing with them.

If you people do give a shit about “saving people’s souls,” maybe it’s time to get off your ass and actually practice your religion the way it commands. There’s not a damn thing you can do to convert someone who isn’t already seeking some form of acceptance. People come to faith of their own means and volition, not by someone forcing them to. Doing the things you’re supposed to do as a Christian is the best way to get people to want your values. Requiring their kids to pray to your god at school is not one of them.

Good luck.