Introduction

Welcome to Fundie Week 2008! By now you’re probably wondering what bug crawled up my ass to give me cause to dedicate an entire week of blogging to fundies. Well, For months I’ve been toying with ideas to address the issue of fundamental Christianity and its impact. I just haven’t had the motivation.

Then, last week, I was called intolerant and fearful by a typical fundie for saying that Creationism belongs in a church, not a classroom.

Many of my friends and readers know me as being openly hostile to religion. I’m tolerant of it, but I’ve run out of patience with certain elements of it in several faiths. Why am I not targeting radical Islamists this week? Well, I’d written a lengthy blog about it, but I apparently missed it while transferring everything from my old host. There was also one about fundies and the election.

The reason Christianity is in the spotlight is, well, American Muslims aren’t trying to turn us into a theocracy while Christian fundies are trying desperately to make their beliefs into law, even going so far as to lie about being founded as a Christian nation, something I’ll be covering later this week. By the way, I sometimes use the name “Jesus” as a verb. You’ll understand when you see it.

Anyway, introduction over. Here’s the entry for Day 1. Enjoy.

A Secular View

I’m of the belief that people ought to be able to practice their religion freely, but not to the point where it involves the subjugation or oppression of others, both those within the religion and beyond it. I do not believe people should be told how to practice their faith until it meets this condition.

I also believe that it is Christianity’s mission to spread love rather than hate; to be charitable, to love and accept without preconditions. I think living in such a way sets such an example that makes others want to emulate it as well as the most effective way to convince people to keep their faith.

As such, I wouldn’t dare question the positive impact or significance of Christianity in the greater human story, nor would I challenge the message of love and acceptance it seeks to spread. To me, Christians who practice their faith according to these instructions are among the most admirable people in this society.

So what is this all about, anyway? What do I mean by “fundie?” The term is shorthand for “Fundamentalist Christian.” Fundamentalists are traditionally characterized by their belief that the bible is completely infallible (and even try using science to prove it), their active roles in politics, activism on certain social issues such as abortion, as well as aggressive attempts to make Christian beliefs a mandated part of public institutions (prayer in schools, creationism/ID taught alongside or replacing evolution in educational curriculum, religious symbols on public property, etc.). They’re also known for uncompromisingly supporting for the Republican party and the fanatical rejection of all things deemed “liberal.” They are generally intolerant of secular or otherwise non-Christian thing or ideas.

There are always exceptions to this, but not many.

In short, all of you normal, reasonable Christians out there, don’t get too offended. This isn’t about you. Any fundies out there who read this paragraph and think they’re off the hook, nice try. Quit kidding yourselves–you don’t fit into this category.

I don’t know what’s scarier: fundie behavior or the fact that they see themselves as reasonable. Let’s start with their methods of spreading the gospel.

“And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” - Matthew 4:19

A few days after my family moved into our new house, we received a knock at the door. I was on the couch feeding the baby, so my wife answered it. I heard the whole conversation.

A man from next door had shown up to welcome us to the neighborhood. We’d previously been warned about the neighbors by my mother in law, herself a practicing Christian. These people, she warned, were Baptists, and there was a good chance they’d come over to preach to us.

As soon as I figured out who it was, I knew what to expect. He said welcome to the neighborhood, then immediately went into his speech. With feigned, heartfelt sincerity he eventually asked,”If you die tonight, do you know where your soul will go?” After asking us if we had a church yet, my wife, who thankfully thinks quick on her feet, said we were Methodists and went to a different church across town. The guy sounded disappointed at this, and I haven’t heard from him since. I still don’t know what he looks like.

I don’t think we fooled him, though. The car hasn’t been out of the driveway on a Sunday morning since my last all-nighter on the computer, when I left to restock on cigarettes.

Obviously, the conversation would have gone a bit differently had I answered the door. This is not the first time I’ve been Jesused. Even back in my conservative Christian teen years, these door-to-door salvation salesmen came Jesusing. Even though I’d marked the “saved” box on the newcomer form some places pass out during gatherings, some errant youth pastor’s assistant would come knocking. In hindsight, maybe they wanted a check mark instead of an “x” and needed to verify my standings on the roster of eternal judgment.

In a nutshell, I’m familiar with the speech. Even back then I found myself offended that some guy was invading my space to drill me on my beliefs. Now that I’m a secular humanist, that is, one who adopts Humanistic philosophy but is agnostic in respects to the supernatural, my view on this method of “Jesusing” people is that it is very rude.

As I said in the beginning of this article, the best way to spread faith is to be charitable and loving. What fundies read is to be “fishers of men.” What they don’t seem to catch is the rest of the chapter where Jesus goes around helping people: healing the sick, teaching.

In the next chapter Jesus goes on to give a speech of hope. Blessed are the poor in spirit. Blessed are they that mourn. Blessed are the merciful. Blessed are the peacemakers. And let’s not forget this one:

“Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” - Matthew 5:16

Remember when I said that living by example is the best way to win people over? I came across this passage long after I wrote that. I wanted to see whether the “Jesusers” were acting according to the bible. I mean, I can’t be too angry at them for knocking on my door to sell me their religion if that’s what it commands.

As it turns out, it isn’t. It’s easy to quote the “fishers of men” verse and put the Jesus-fish on the back of your car. But in doing that while ignoring the rest of what he has to say, the fundies are missing the forest for the trees, aren’t they? Looks like Mr. Christ agrees with me.

Besides that, knocking on someone’s door to Jesus them but disguising it as a friendly welcome to the neighborhood is very tacky, and it makes you come off as fake and insincere. Want to make newcomers receptive to you and perhaps eventually your attempts to convert them? Start by welcoming them to the neighborhood and actually meaning it. Be genuine, because first impressions last. If you come with ulterior motives, I’m infinitely more likely to see you as a fraud than a friend on future occasions.

“Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.” - Luke 6:37

Wow, what a proposal! “Be accepting and benevolent to one another.” Can you imagine the age of peace and enlightenment we’d enjoy if people in this country followed this verse?

This is among the most quoted passages I’ve seen used by Christians and non-Christians alike. Usually, when a non-Christian pulls this one out it’s to throw scripture back in the face of a fundie with an axe to grind.

No, there’s no shortage of judgment among the fundamentalists. Everything from gays to scientists have a special place in hell carved out for them, and they’re not shy about repeating it over and over. Wait.. what happened to all that talk about judgment and forgiveness and not condemning each other, or about the merciful being blessed by God?

Don’t want to hold gay wedding ceremonies in church? Fine, that’s your business. Telling the state it can’t declare them a couple while condemning any who are in favor of these rights? Not so much.

From an outside perspective, we don’t see Christian soldiers fighting the holy war against Satan. We see hypocrisy, and that’s never appealing in any situation. And the fact that men like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson could amass such a following and wield such power serves only one purpose: to convince us that we’re right about you fundies and your hypocrisy.

“The Bible is the infallible Word of GOD!” - Fundie slogan.

One of the things that befuddles me is the complete absence of flexibility on this point. Even when you point something out and quote the verses that conflict, they act like they didn’t hear it, or that it doesn’t exist, or they say you’re lying.

For instance, let’s do a little exercise:

“And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” - Matthew 1:16

“And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.” - Luke 3:23

So which is it? Last I checked, men don’t give birth and according to fundies it’s a sin for two fathers to raise a child.

Can’t we just accept that, hey, maybe the bible isn’t quite as infallible as we want it to be. There are hundreds of direct contradictions and holy inconsistencies throughout the tome, so either the angelic branch of God Press which does the copy editing needs to hire some better staff, or the bible isn’t a perfect text.

Can’t they just concede this one point? Inconsistencies and contradictions don’t invalidate your whole faith. God-inspired they might be, they were still penned by the hands of men.

And why all the focus on these details anyway? Is the fundamentalist faith so weak that it requires infallibility? Is the conviction they claim so fragile as to need scientific backing? Must faith be instituted by the state and be taught in schools in order for fundies to maintain it?

If not, then why bother with it? Why all the hostility towards secular things, why the demand for religious conformity?

From my perspective, it is the sum total of stubborn ignorance and blind faith of a weak-minded group of people who have no problem thumping their bibles but either haven’t read them or are wholly incapable of comprehending the concepts therein. I dare you to prove me wrong.

From an outside perspective, one which is at least respectful to the message of Jesus, they’re a disgrace to their religion and an embarrassment to their fellow believers. It’s pretty god damn bad when someone with a secular mindset finds more value in the bible’s teachings than those who are so zealous as to eagerly condemn others to hell for not believing the way they want us to believe.

Not all Christians are like this, thankfully. But the ones who are are outspoken and motivated enough in their intolerant crusader mindset to have the ability to overturn elections and, by extension, cause the rest of us to suffer as a result of their ceaseless stupidity. The only solution I can offer is vigilant resistance and constant ridicule, because reason doesn’t work. We tried that already, and if any fundies out there get wind of this week’s roster, I’m sure they’ll be more than willing to give us an example.

In closing, I’d like to take this moment to offer a way out. I’d like it to serve as a reminder not just for fundies, but all Christians. It needs to be said once in awhile to remind them: this is what you’re up against. When you go out into the world and are hurt or confused by its reaction to your beliefs, this is why. When the rest of the world is constantly reminded of the bitter closed-mindedness and hatred that seems to consistently emanate from the religious right, fundamentalists aren’t the only ones who get a bad rap.

If any Christians out there are reading this message, fundamentalist or otherwise, take these words of advice: Love your enemy. Turn the other cheek. Love your neighbor as yourself. When pride comes, then comes shame. Judge not. Condemn not. Forgive. Those of you who actually read the bible might already recognize it.

But then again, maybe I’m just wasting my time: “Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.” - Proverbs 23:9

NOT!

So I’m listening to NPR on the way to work this week, and I hear Steve Inskeep talking to the Chinese ambassador about the riots and violence in Tibet over the past few weeks. I was floored. The ambassador (Zhou, I think his name was) consistently ignored Inskeep, who repeated the same question at least three times that I recall.

Zhou claimed that the Dalai Lama is not looking for autonomy or socio-cultural preservation, but an independent state. He characterized the attacks not as a riot or the culmination of many problems bubbling beneath the surface, but as violent criminal acts without reason or provocation. He said there was no evidence of ethnic conflict and that they were only doing this to disrupt the 2008 Olympics.

The question Inskeep repeatedly asked was something along the lines of,”Do you think the rioting happened because of legitimate concerns about Tibetan autonomy/grievances with the Chinese?” Zhou ignored it every time until the end, where he finally said (to paraphrase),”no, it’s not about autonomy, it’s not about ethnic conflict, these people are nothing but criminals.”

When Steve pointed out that the Chinese were ignoring the four days of peaceful protests before that, or that the fact that Chinese- and Muslim-owned businesses were targeted specifically indicates ethnic conflict, he was again ignored.

Shitty.

Listening to the Chinese ambassador speak was an exercise in patience. It mirrors the frustration I feel when I see the current administration dodging or ignoring important questions or completely stonewalling investigations. We may bark about how China is communistic while preaching the evils of communism, but if we do we will miss the similarities to what our government has been up to in recent years.

Now is a great time to inventory of all the ways our government has been running an authoritarian regime, for it is not Communism that makes the Chinese oppressive, but authoritarianism. Forced integration with Tibet, state-run media, tightly controlling what foreign journalists are allowed to see, throwing dissenters in prison, excessive use of execution. These aren’t Communist principles, they’re the outcome of authoritarian governing.

Dictionary.com defines the word “authoritarian” as follows:

au·thor·i·tar·i·an /????r??t??ri?n, ????r-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-thawr-i-tair-ee-uhn, uh-thor-] –adjective

1.	favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.

2.	of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.

3.	exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others: an authoritarian parent.

–noun

4.	a person who favors or acts according to authoritarian principles.

This is one of those rare cases where every definition seems to apply. Let’s start with number one: Obedience and subjugation to authority. In the United States, this can pretty much be summed up with Cheney’s recent answer to the figures that show 2/3rds of Americans oppose the Iraq war: “So?”

I think more than anything this shows the natural attitude of resentment that those with authority can have towards those without. “I’m in charge here, you’re under me, you’re supposed to obey me, I know what’s best.” It’s my will over your will.

Other examples can be observed through the actions of President Bush. Telling Joe Lieberman that the reason we should trust his decision to go to war with Iraq, the reason we’ll succeed, is because of his instincts rather than because of actionable intelligence or a reviewed case by experts and advisors. This is typical of the arrogance that often accompanies authoritarian policy: we believe we’re right no matter what.

Another example is the administration’s treatment of the press. Certain questions dealing with serious or otherwise important matters are considered unacceptable and are usually not answered. One grievance of the press is the administration’s intentional lack of availability. At a press conference during John McCain’s recent publicized visit to the White House, at the end of the session one reporter demanded weekly press conferences with the president or White House spokesperson. In response, Bush ignored the question and instead chided the group for their bad behavior. It’s the media’s job to report, and the administration is telling them what is and is not acceptable in a society where freedom of the press is a guaranteed right.

China may run the media and control what gets inside Chinese borders or what gets beyond, but our officials ignore reporters, deny them access, attempt to cover up their activities and do their best to hinder any kinds of investigations or investigative reporting.

The 9/11 Commission is a good example. Bush and Cheney, after intially opposing the panel being created, finally agreed to be interviewed–but not by the whole panel. Instead, they’d meet with the panel’s top two officials and limit the questioning, if that is indeed what took place, to a mere hour. The meeting took place in private at the White House, neither Bush nor Cheney were under oath and no recordings were allowed–no media was allowed. No camera, no pictures, no transcript. Cheney, whom many see as some kind of evil puppeteer for Dubya, was with him the entire time. Condoleeza Rice also refused to publicly testify.

There’s an old adage in Washington that goes “if you have nothing to hide, don’t act like you do.” Remember all those 9/11 conspiracies gaining popularity a few years back? Ever wonder how people come up with them?

Other less-benign examples include the quashing of protests ahead of the 2004 Republican National Convention. The story linked here is pretty long, but definitely worth the read. In short, a large group of people were peacefully marching down 16th Street in NYC and were trapped as the police blocked off the entire block with orange construction netting, arrested, hauled away in busses, put in what was described as parking garages for hours and hours before being taken to a jail for many more hours. Last I checked, it’s illegal to hold someone for over 24 hours without being charged. But it wasn’t only the protesters. Some people just happened to be passing by, or saw the commotion and were curious, or were coming out of shops and diners. Some were journalists. Everyone on the block was arrested and harassed, and some were even assaulted by what appeared to be random selection.

It settles any and all debate over the Bush administration’s unconstitutional and authoritarian tactics. But of course, supporters will call the writer a liar and attack his credibility rather than the merits of the story, which are myriad. But then again, if one must see it to believe it, the article has photos, audio and video. Go ahead and click the last link I posted. Then watch the rest of the videos. Suffice it to say, China isn’t the only country that suppresses protest. What the NYPD did was violate the Constitutional First Amendment right to assembly and the Fourth Amendment protection against being arrested for no god damn reason. I’ve linked to the wikipedia entries in case you Conservatives out there, who love misquoting the Constitution and claim to uphold and defend it, get confused.

I wouldn’t be surprised if any Republicans arrested in that incident were Democrats by the time the day was over. Then again, I wouldn’t be surprised if they just accepted being abused like that and blamed it on the protesters. Sigh. Naturally, the mainstream media didn’t devote much attention to it, as it wasn’t yet stylish to publicly criticize the administration on important things like accountability, moral or legal. They were content with making fun of Bushspeak.

The PATRIOT Act, government-sanctioned police brutality, just about any Act or Law having to do with Homeland Security or domestic terror written since 2001… The list goes on and on.

Number two: centralization of authority and lack of constitutional accountability to the people. The examples in this case are plentiful and many are common knowledge, and many fall into both categories: suspension of habeas corpus, torture, the lack of Executive Branch accountability to Congress or the Judicial branch, getting away with direct disobedience to Congress, abuse of Executive privilege, using “National Security” as an excuse to completely obfuscate any matter of public record, blatant abuse of personal information for political purposes, et cetera, ad infinitum.

Number three: Excercising complete control of others’ will. I should just say “Fox News —> Conservatives” and leave it at that, but while the current administration is pro-Fox, Fox isn’t the government. For this, I’ll simply make a passing reference to certain police “compliance” tactics and, the big one, Bush’s leash on the DoJ, as evidenced by Alberto Gonzales’ protect-at-any-cost policy with the Bush administration, as well as the subsequent refusal by Michael Mukasey to enforce Congressional contempt charges against White House staff. Suffice it to say when the president (or vice president) wants something, it’s carried out or else. For evidence, one need look no further than the Iraq War commanders who’ve resigned after criticizing Bush’s policy. Heh, number four could be summed up as “Neo-Conservatives and Bush supporters.” But really, many of these examples fit into multiple definitions.

However, when observing the government’s trend in authoritarian policies it is important to acknowledge that it did not start with George W. Bush, nor will it end with him. In terms of the police, more hardline tactics were used under Janet Reno than any that come to mind when I think of Ashcroft, Gonzales and Mukasey. Waco, Elian Gonzales, numerous cases of brutality, etc.. You don’t have to be a right-winger to be a bastard.

It was Benjamin Franklin who remarked about the Constitution and the government it describes,”…this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.” Seems Mr. Franklin sees the historic pattern. And now, in the way he predicted, we’re approaching the end of the cycle. If nothing else, shouldn’t this be a cause to look at mistakes of past governments and learn something from them? Jingoist reasoning won’t suffice; “That won’t happen, this is ‘merica” is not a valid argument.

While listening to the Chinese ambassador explain his country’s actions in response to the rioting in Tibet, I thought the similarities were astounding. We’ve a way to go before we catch up to the Chinese government in terms of magnitude, but we have a hell of a good start and a mindset and determination to get there. We haven’t had our own Tienanmen Square yet, we don’t persecute the religious, and we don’t jail our journalists for doing their jobs… oh wait, yes we do.

Strange… the left is supposed to be comprised of “Commies,” yet it’s the right-wingers with business interests who buddy up to China and kiss their ass. Oh, that whole human rights/Communism thing? It gets swept under the rug.

Yet, who are the ones proposing a boycott of the Summer 2008 Olympics in Beijing? Could it be the stalwart champions of democracy, those unrelenting routers of Communism, the Conservative Republicans? From all their talk, I’d think it would have to be, wouldn’t you? Well, we’d be wrong. Instead, it’s the same group of so-called Anti-American liberals who are protesting about Darfur and Tibet, those liberal Hollywood actors, dubious organizations such as UNICEF, Reporters Without Borders, the Genocide Intervention Network, along with Nobel Peace Prize winners and various news organizations.

I wonder, is Fox News among them? They’d have to be, since they’re all about fighting the liberals and their pro-Communism ideology, right? Nope. Wrong again. I guess I’m just not with it today. The International Olympic Committee, who must certainly be dedicated to the spirit of brotherhood and world peace as symbolized by the Olympics? Nope. As David Kilgour points out, the IOC stands to gain tremendous profits off the games. Really, though, listen to the audio. The IOC committee member gets her ass handed to her on a platter.

The end result of all this? Not only is our government coming closer to mimicking China’s policy on human rights while offering a weak rhetorical slap on the wrist over it, we’re now abetting it by participating in the games and muting our criticism. I offer a different proposal: in the spirit of the Olympics, how about the rest of the world unites… elsewhere? We can have the Olympics still. In the spirit of peace, we could hold our protest event at one of the many Olympic stadiums that have served the games in the past, all around the world. China thinks it can use U.S. business interests as leverage in asking us to tolerate their disregard for humanity. But if the rest of the world (or at least most of it) locks arms in protest, maybe the greedy corporations will realize that they can take their business elsewhere. Maybe it will send that message to any government in the world: play by the rules or be left behind, because when it comes right down to it, either we accept their policies and abet their crimes or we don’t.

How about it, world?

I knew I was taking a gamble by defending Pastor Wright a few weeks ago. I knew that until I saw the video, I wouldn’t have an informed opinion or a solid defense of the man. I also knew that Obama is a reasonable, intelligent man. I know that when people preach messages of hate, the few listen, not the many.

I knew what would happen. It’s what usually happens: I was right.

It also proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the blatant bias, divisiveness and lies of the Fox News Network and any Rupert Murdoch production. It proves my accusations of knee-jerk nationalism by the Right as well as the absurdity of their hateful, uninformed views. Since these videos have been around for at least a week and so-called Conservatives are still preaching the same old lie, it proves my point about their self-imposed, willful ignorance and closed-mindedness.

America’s chickens may be coming home to roost, but my ducks are neatly in a row. I can’t help but say it: I told you so.

Thanks to Grandma’s Attic for alerting me to the existence of these videos on YouTube. I’ll embed these videos within this blog, knowing they’ll probably not be viewed and even if they are, most Conservatives will stubbornly refuse to accept defeat and resort to straw-man arguments, ad hominem and hairsplitting to defend their ignorance. Chances are, I’m right about that too.

Enjoy:

Or “NIGCER.” The NIGCER is a loose association of prominent Conservatives coalescing to destroy the image that Conservatives and Republicans are racists.

“It’s not the kind of image we want,” says Chairman I.M. White,”We want everyone to know that we’re not racists, and that we have black friends.”

Indeed, Alan Keyes, the only African American member of the organization has had a prominent role in the group’s promotion. His picture and likeness have been used on every single one of the Institutes’ billboards, commercials as well as its internet and magazine ads.

Board member Ivory Blanco claims she has been using this strategy for years during party events,”When we have a campaign rally, we instruct the camera crews to zoom in on any dark faces in the crowd. The strategy has really been quite successful in making black Americans think that we care.” When asked if Americans can truly believe that the Republicans care in this modern day and age, Ms. Blanco replied,”Of course. We care about getting every vote we can!”

After the furor that broke out over the confusion of their name, President Lynch made it clear that the “G” was silent. Referring to the proper pronunciation of the now-notorious acronym “NIGCER,” Lynch remarked,”Can’t we all just be nicer to eachother?”

“I know what this is about,” Lynch said while addressing the press earlier this week,”yet again, this is about the liberal hatred that consumes people so much that they believe everybody is racist, which Conservatives aren’t!”

When it was pointed out that Rush Limbaugh made basically the exact same comment during a monologue about a speech made by Senator Barack Obama, he coincidentally gave the exact same answer all conservatives seem to give when told that they’ve quoted Limbaugh verbatim,”I don’t listen to Rush. I agree with most of what he says, but not all of it.” Then exited the room with the song “My City Was Gone” playing from the overhead speakers.

This follows a previous charge of racism by groups such as the ACLU and the NAACP over a slogan used by the group which says,”I’m not racist, I own a colored T.V.!”

“We thought it would be better received, you know, like a joke,” admitted the council.

“We are being charged with something that hasn’t existed for half a century! The Civil Rights movement already happened, so race is no longer an issue,” said Chairman White in response to the allegations, citing a common perception by Conservatives across the nation,”Liberals benefit from racism because it helps their cause!”

After acknowledging that those words also “may or may not have been used” by Limbaugh, he went on to talk about how racism in America is raging against whites these days. “Affirmative Blacktion and welfare are a direct assault on the values of this country, and are clearly aimed at making white people scared to leave their homes and afraid that they’ll lose their jobs to someone because he’s black. Only by abolishing these things, which are the sole cause of the racial divide, can we go back to the way things used to be before blacks were given special treatment for everything.”

Asked by a young black reporter what this had to do with dispelling the myth that Republicans are hostile to African American interests, he replied,”Look, Puffy G Dogg or whatever your name is, if you people care about America, you’ll stop demanding everything and see things the way we see them. Bang! No more racial divide!” He then asked security to remove the “thug” because he was feeling “threatened.”

The NIGCER has recently declared its support of John McCain, who said he was “proud to be supported by a group that promotes diversity and understanding between races.” McCain, at the suggestion of board member Ivory Blanco, is currently in Nebraska posing with black families for photo opportunities.

Chairman White expressed concern,”Uh, well we didn’t say anything about diversity. We just want to make sure they understand us.”

Consistently, I see polls that show smart people supporting Obama and, well, not stupid people, but less educated ones supporting Clinton. To wit:

Clinton continues to lead among women, whites, voters older than 45 and those without college degrees. Obama leads among men, blacks, voters with college degrees and those under 45.

Old. White. Feminists. That’s where Clinton leads. Just priceless.

After beginning to read through Obama’s book “Dreams From My Father,” I’ve really begun to put a more human face on the superstar Senator. This book makes him more knowable and I highly recommend it so far. Up to this point it has talked about race, but it isn’t preachy or guilt-ridden like some other books I’ve read.

The reason I’ve decided to blog is to address, yet again, the Clintonian brand of hypocrisy that causes me to wonder why anyone can take her seriously.

Earlier this month I went on about how Hillary remarked that this is one of the most positive campaigns she’s ever participated in. When I see that, I see head games being played with the rest of us. Not merely “do one thing and say another,” but acting as if what you say is more real than what you’ve actually done. It is very reminiscent of what we’ve seen during the Bush administration. Bush claiming the economy is great and working how it’s supposed to, yet people are losing their homes left and right while individuals and businesses with flawless credit are being flatly denied for loans they’re fully capable of repaying. Among others, far too many for me to list here while keeping on-topic.

Part of what I’ve seen from the Clinton camp has been a kind of immaturity. Thinking back to my childhood, I remember how all the petty arguments between playmates seemed to go. “You’re stupid!” “Nuh uh! You’re stupid!!” “Nuh uh!! You are!!!” One thing I’ve observed on several occasions is the Clinton campaign pulling a “Nuh uh! You are!”

Take, for instance, the blatant refusal of Hillary Clinton to distance herself from Geraldine Ferraro after her racially charged comments concerning Senator Obama. Her denunciation of those remarks was lukewarm at best. She didn’t ask Ferraro to leave, at least publicly, and only mildly criticized statements that required a strong, decisive response.

Then, through some super-human act of contortion, Ferraro turned it around to claim that the entire fiasco–over statements she made–was somehow the fault of Barack Obama. Somehow, drawing anger from people for suggesting that the only reason Obama is where he is is because he’s black means that people are being racist towards you because you’re white? How does that even make sense? How, in any way, could this be blamed on Obama?

The response from the Clinton campaign? Silence.  I wouldn’t characterize the Clintons as racists, but it’s pretty shameful that they’re still willing to exploit the issue for power.

For the tepid reaction, prominent figures from around the country made their disdain heard. Keith Olbermann and many others accused Hillary of campaigning against Obama by acting as if he were the Democrat, and she were the Republican.

What did the Clinton campaign have to say about this? “Nuh uh, he is!” It was perhaps a week ago when I saw this claim by Clinton’s campaign manager. Do they just copy what the other side says every time they want to make a comeback?

It gets me every time how Clinton gets all high and mighty over the matter of ethics. On the matter of such she says she’s been fully vetted, thus making “vetted” the latest buzzword amongst the news crowd. Because she has been fully vetted, it is argued, she is the most electable candidate. The overtones are obvious in this one: Barack Obama hasn’t been looked into like I have, and therefore has undisclosed baggage of the ethical variety.

Is that so? Senator Obama has released his tax returns and openly addressed controversies surrounding his dealings with Tony Rezko, who is under investigation for corruption charges, as well as the controversial statements of his pastor. As a response to the claim that he hasn’t been given the rubber glove treatment by the media, the Obama camp demanded that Clinton release records of her tax returns as well as a list of financiers for the Clinton library. For this, Obama is compared to Ken Starr–a name reviled by numerous Democrats–special prosecutor whose report eventually led to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.

So she hasn’t been fully vetted after all. Looks like she does, in fact, have something to hide. One can only wonder how much they cook the books for her tax returns and list of donors to her husbands library before finally releasing them.

The troubling part is not that she has something to hide–the Clintons have been hiding crap for years, we expect that. It’s the sheer hypocrisy of it all. How dare Barack Obama question Hillary Clinton’s integrity, yet she does the same thing by suggesting he’s got enough skeletons in his closet to cost him the general election? Then goes on record perpetuating myths against him with statements like “(he’s not a Muslim) as far as I know” yet expects us to buy her victim facade as her campaign releases unflattering photos and digs up dirt wherever they can get it, all while claiming that the media has given him a free pass?

Where does the madness end? Does anybody really buy this shit? Oh, that’s right, she’s attracted the uneducated majority. No wonder they keep falling for it. I guess I’ve answered my own question.

I was watching CSPAN tonight while taking care of the boy. Gotta tell ya, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is a hell of a guy. Apparently, after having their secret session concerning the FISA act, House Democrats were as incensed as ever over the Republicans’ demand to grant retro-active immunity to the telecom corporations that assisted in the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program.

Republicans’ argument against the Majority-supported bill went something along the lines of,”If we don’t protect these American corporations from opportunist trial lawyers’ lawsuits, then we haven’t done our job to protect the American people from the terrorists.” Throughout the counter-arguments, the telecommunications companies in question were referred to as “good Samaritans” and having “answered the call in this country’s hour of need.”

First off, let’s get a few things straight. One, while the House-proposed bill does not provide retro-active immunity for the telecom companies, it does (at least according to the CSPAN ticker at the bottom of the screen) make it “easier for telecom companies to defend themselves” should they be confronted with one of these “opportunist” lawsuits.

Second, the FISA bill, as it currently stands (and has stood for 30 years) enables intelligence agencies to obtain all the information they need with a court order or, in emergency situations, without a court order. This is what Republicans want, right? To be able to cut through the red tape to protect Americans from terrorists when the need arises? As they’ve continued to reject this bill, I’d say they want to make a law which violates Constitutional protections against “unnecessary search and seizure” by cutting out the courts altogether. Wait… didn’t they claim to be the holy defenders of the Constitution back when Clinton was in office? Tsk.

Third, and this is something I’d really like to touch on, is about the immunity for communications companies. One thing House Democrats made a point to mention is that the telecom industry already has immunity–with the proper documentation: court authorization via a warrant. It was argued that telecom companies, who have the means to full immunity for wiretapping, willingly chose to bypass the rule of law and suddenly want protection from it, when the mechanism for their immunity was already available if only they had followed the procedure.

That’s like illegally downloading something online, getting caught, then asking for a receipt as a proof of purchase without actually buying anything. The conditions for getting a receipt to avoid charges have not been met. Likewise, American citizens’ phone records, conversations and internet activity have all been handed over to the government without following the law, the People found out, and now they’re wanting immunity–their receipt–even though the conditions of getting it haven’t been met. Doesn’t make much sense, does it? The point: they had their chance at immunity and knowingly blew it.

Personally, I’m of the opinion that the telecom industry actually is a victim in all this. I’ll bet they were told–or assumed–that they were being given full legal authority to do this for the Bush cabal. They were led to believe that what they were doing was perfectly legal, and maybe, just maybe, they complied out of naivety rather than complicity. I don’t think that just because their crimes were tied to the White House, that they share the same operating procedure and philosophy as the Bush regime. We don’t have all the information regarding who did what yet, so I’m willing to suspend judgment on the companies themselves while this gets sorted out in Congress. If it can be shown that they acted egregiously (and not merely gregariously), then let the chips fall where they may.

Bushie, however, is obviously by this point beyond any benefit of the doubt.

Naturally, the Senate says this is a “step in the right direction” but are still babbling about reaching a compromise. In other words,”If the House adds immunity to this thing, because we’re all getting creeped out by Dick Cheney’s evil stare and want to get this over with as quickly as possible, we’re willing to overlook any earmarks you glue to this sucker.” I’ll bet the “compromise” is at least similar to this.

I don’t get what’s so terribly offensive about Wright’s sermons. I don’t agree with all of it, but I can at least see where he’s coming from.

Browsing the news articles today, I found a wealth of ignorance left by commentors on the articles. I couldn’t help but think,”Oh look, white Republicans ganging up on a black Democrat because his pastor–not he, but his pastor made comments that reflect ugly truths and perceptions of white Americans, things you white Republicans aren’t comfortable acknowledging about yourselves. Then, without even willing to look at why you’re being criticized (since understanding is a catalyst for resolution), you simply make a judgment about a man based on comments FROM HIS PASTOR. His pastor, who you’re labeling a bigot while refusing to accept a shred of responsibility for the things he’s angry about.” Who’s the hypocrite again?

What gets me about it is that these are comments from people–and you can tell by their arguments–who wouldn’t have voted for Obama anyway. It’s made by people who are looking at this as a way to justify their already-racist attitudes. Is race involved in this election? Hell yes it is. When you read the tripe these people regurgitate, it becomes quite obvious.

A good percentage of them were only regurgitating what they heard on Limbaugh. I caught part of his racist diatribe during lunch and hit the refresh button on one of these stories, only to see it filled with comments that weren’t merely inspired by Limbaugh’s statements, but were directly plagiarized, at times word-for-word! Republicans are such sheep.

Anyway, I don’t think the pastor believes that white people are the root of all evil. In fact, nowhere did I see him even suggest that. But from a black perspective race is important, especially–especially–considering this country’s history. I think we can all agree that there are issues within the black community that can’t be fixed by any amount of reparations or actions by whites, things that need to be dealt with from within, but that doesn’t mean we’re off the hook. People ought to take this into consideration when weighing the Pastor’s statements.

In addition to that, I can’t find any fault with what he said. That Hillary had it easier than Barack? He makes a good case for it. Is the idea that maybe we were responsible for 9/11, maybe even had it coming, so outlandish? Tell that to the 9/11 Commission, the Iraq Study Group, numerous political scientists and foreign policy specialists. Tell it to the intelligence community. Tell it to the people of the Middle East. Tell it to Palestinians.

The blowback phenomenon works almost like a law of physics: “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” When we grant Israel a license to do whatever it damn well pleases while we turn a blind eye to their crimes against humanity, we would be reasonable to assume there would be consequences. When we attack foreign countries based on lies while arming their enemies, it would be reasonable to think that there would be resentment. When we allow our corporations to run amok in these areas, it is reasonable to believe that we may be viewed in a negative light. It is not only reasonable, but absolutely necessary to assume that when we employ an unjust foreign policy towards a region, their people will hate us. It is insane to ignore the fact that every person killed as a result of our policies has friends and relatives who wish to avenge them.

It is reasonable, my friends, to draw a line connecting our actions in the Middle East and the attacks of 9/11 as a direct repercussion. The attacks were evil, but they were not random, and they were not unprovoked. No, I don’t find anything wrong with the Pastor’s thinking.

Now we’ve got the Conserfascists demanding that Obama outlines which parts he does agree with (copying this line from Limbaugh, like everything else they think), rather than simply saying he doesn’t agree with certain parts. Apparently, to a conservative, this is an Ace-in-the-Hole argument, even though it’s not an argument. They reason that even though he may not agree with certain statements, he’s been listening to 20 years worth of these sermons, so he must agree with some of what he says (never failing to add foreboding finger-pointing Republican emphasis).

The truth is, like I said before, these people weren’t voting Obama anyway. They’re happily going to vote for whatever bum the Republicans squeeze out of their dookie-holes. In this case, John McCain is the turd they’re willing to sniff for the next 4-8 years. I, however, smell another foulness on the air. You see, most of the time, Republicans don’t even give a shit about the Democratic candidate until one has been chosen. This year, however, they’re all over it. If you ask me, I think it’s part of their little fraudulent conspiracy to put Hillary Clinton on the ballot. Scumbags.

Originally Posted on January 11th, 2008:

My poor, poor neglected blog. There’s so much that’s happened since last time that.. well, I’m not sure where to start.

RealID. This turd has been floating in the toilet known as Washington D.C. for quite awhile now. Today, I find out that they’re trying to renew efforts to implement it.

Besides the obvious difficulties to overcome with manufacturing and distributing such a thing, getting states to comply and putting in place an infrastructure to get the RealID from the government to the citizen, there’s the ethical argument against it, which goes something like “WHY THE FUCK IS THE U.S. GOVERNMENT ACTING LIKE NAZI GERMANY?!”

Really, folks. They’re talking about requiring one of these things to board aircraft (and possibly trains) and enter federal buildings. Next thing you know, they’ll have traffic stops with armed guards (which are already a well-practiced scam) requiring a RealID to pass through. Police are already infamous for randomly asking for identification without a reason. There’s no question about it, this is awfully reminiscent of WW2 German soldiers stopping people at checkpoints to check their “papers.”

Only, we don’t have papers. Instead, we’ll have an ID card with a sort of microchip inside. This chip will store your personal information (and will quite probably act as a gateway to all sorts of other information, like what books you read, for instance), which is easily attainable by people with what amounts to an RFID snooping device. All they need to do is stand next to you. And we thought identity theft was a problem today!

I understand the concern for protecting against terrorism. I really do. I understand that certain measures can be taken to prevent it, including standard security procedures. But also, not inflaming people’s hatred of our country with belligerent foreign policy while letting our corporations do whatever they damn well please overseas would help.

What other people need to understand is that terrorism, by its very nature, is random and unpredictable. The only way to control that which is random is to have control over everything. The Patriot Act. Gitmo. Checkpoints. Department of Homeland Security. Unauthorized wiretapping. Real ID. This is obviously what they’re trying to accomplish. To that, I say benevolence brings about better conditions that totalitarianism. We, as a nation, need to go back to fighting the good fight rather than trying to justify fighting the bad one.

Even the government itself has been transparent about being opaque. Donald Kerr, our deputy national director of intelligence, says that “Privacy is not synonymous with anonymity.” Well, Mr. Kerr, you cannot maintain freedom through control, nor can you save it by forcing protection upon it. Despotism is synonymous with tyranny.

—–

In other news, women who are planning on voting for Clinton because she’s a woman are sexist idiots.

 Originally Posted on October 10th, 2007:

“The refusal to do assets tests on federal health insurance programs is why federal entitlements are exploding and government keeps expanding. If Republicans don’t have the guts to hold the line, they deserve to lose their seats.” — Michelle Malkin, blogger, as quoted in this New York Times article.

If that were the case, the Republicans deserved to lose their seats long ago. I’m not going to comment on the article, though it illustrates modern conservatives perfectly. Instead, I’m going to talk about my beef with the above statement.

For many years, the fundamental tenet of American conservative ideology has been small government. Back when I didn’t know much about politics and happened to be a staunch conservative (two conditions which I suspect are related), the mantra had always been “less government, more freedom.” What was the source of this unchecked government expansionism? Why, it was the liberals! The liberals were there to dictate your lives, tell you what is and is not moral, tell you how you should spend your money and make you feel bad for being an American! The right to privacy; that was the conservative way. The liberals, on the other hand, were the ones who wanted to know where you were and what you were doing at all times, or so we were told. In the 1990’s it was they who wanted to police the world, not the self-proclaimed “constitutionally grounded” conservatives.

The whole conservative “movement” marched to the beat of keeping government out of our homes, out of our lives, out of our checkbooks and out of our business. Especially those damn liberals.

But then again…: Conservatives on Privacy.

It is well known how conservatives fought to let the government in our bedrooms to tell us what we can and cannot do in the most private of situations with anti-sodomy laws. (Sodomy, in case you were wondering, has been defined by the law as anything from masturbation to oral or anal sex between straight or gay couples.) This has been going on for decades.

There are more recent examples. On December 19th, 2005, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales confirmed the existence of an NSA domestic wiretapping program which did not seek to obtain the necessary warrants as required by 50 U.S.C. sect;1802 (a)(1)(A) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. (consequentially, it is not surprising that they’re also not enforcing 50 U.S.C. §1809 as a result).

I’m not even going to get into the “Real ID” and the hypocrisy of conservatives who complain about the “liberal” government wanting to know everything you’re doing.

I guess that throws conservative privacy out the window. It is selective at best.

It’s only wrong when the other side does it: Conservatives on Big Government.

Less than two months after the events of 9/11/2001, President Bush signed into law the USA PATRIOT Act, which has increased the powers of the government exponentially.

Meanwhile, the only part of the act President Bush repeatedly mentions is Section 203 or Title VII, which allows for increased sharing of information between law enforcement agencies. He leaves out the parts about granting the government the authority to seize property at its discretion in times of war (Section 106), the addition of judges in Washington (Section 208), the liabilities for unauthorized intelligence disclosures (Section 223), of which many have either been leaked from the white house or other high officials, or the apparent selective suspension of habeas corpus.

How convenient.

Additionally, they’ve created the Department of Homeland Security which, according to wikipedia, is the third largest U.S. government entity. One must question how this supports the idea of small government. With what so-called conservatives have supported in the last 6 years, they have absolutely no credibility when criticizing even a perceived expansion of government, nor government spending.

We’re saving them from themselves: Conservatives on Foreign Policy.

Afghanistan is justifiable, regardless of the long history of bad foreign policy that got us to this point. Iraq, however, was based on a lie told to us by a shady Iraqi defector, yet was presented to the world as strong intelligence supporting the claim that Iraq was not only in possession of weapons of mass destruction, but had a massive program in which it was continuing to produce them. With that, we invaded a country, unprovoked, and found out that what the vast majority of the intelligence community already knew: there were no WMD’s.

After that, we tried drawing connections between Iraq and 9/11, then to international terrorism, even though Iraq was not a fundamentalist state and simply did not have terrorists or a terrorism problem prior to the U.S. invasion. Even after such a claim was thoroughly debunked and the government admitted there was no link between them, the Bush administration and conservative journalists continued to propagate the lie. Why?

So instead we poised ourselves as liberators of a country that, while having a despotic ruler, were not occupied and did not ask to be liberated. Seems any excuse will do, won’t it? I won’t spin my web of theories as to what the horribly obvious ulterior motives might be, but if this doesn’t fall into the category of “policing the world,” nothing does.

The conservative response? They’re protecting us from the terrorists. Bring that up the next time one of them criticizes liberals for “wanting the government to take care of everything for you.” The blogger quoted above says providing healthcare for children brings a sense of entitlement? What part of the conservative-inspired belligerent American nationalism and the subsequent claims such as driving a gigantic gas-guzzling SUV as your god-given right (or something similarly petty) doesn’t reek of entitlement?

—————–

I’m just incredulous. Why do people continue to fall for this? Conservatives decry liberals for being in favor of big government, yet cheer the Bush administration for creating the DoHS! We already had agencies that took care of this, namely the INS, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the DoJ and police forces, and the National Guard. How can so-called conservatives chide liberals (or anyone who disagrees with them and is therefor labeled a liberal, regardless of their actual political alignment) for creating a never-ending bureaucracy when they have done exactly that.

Conservatives consistently deride the left for wanting to police the world, yet we are now in two unprovoked wars: Afghanistan, as a result of crimes allegedly committed by Saudi Arabian nationals; and Iraq, which, with what we know now, can not be justified as anything greater than a war of opportunism and profiteering! At least in Bill Clinton’s time, we invaded foreign countries who were committing atrocious crimes against humanity. Whether you think we should have partaken or not, no one can argue the comparative altruism to the gravely mis-titled War on Terror.

Not all conservatives can be this dense. If only they would look at what they claim to believe in and compare it to what they’ve supported. Would the two correlate with each other? Not likely. Could they really all be sheep that unquestioningly support whatever the Republican party is doing? Do they listen to Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly to know what to think? How is it possible that all these people–or any group, for that matter–can be unified on every single issue? When I see that all these people from all different backgrounds have the exact same opinion about every topic, it is impossible for me not to question whether any of them think at all. That goes for Democrats and so-called “free-thinking” liberals, too.

To sum it up: Conservatives, you’ve lost your credibility and moral authority. Start supporting legislation and policies that correlate with what you claim to believe in or shut up and stop making everyone dumber by spreading bullshit. Some of you may need to re-evaluate your entire political philosophy, as I had to do when faced with the eventual disillusionment that comes with discoveries of learning. This is not easy to do, and most of you won’t bother because it is easier to be told what to think instead of figuring it out yourself. For this, I pity you and mourn your independence. For those of you who do know what’s going on yet deliberately piss in the proverbial pool, congratulations; you are successfully destroying America.

———————-

I’m aware that the average person, conservative or not, really doesn’t pay much attention to politics. That doesn’t necessarily make them dumb for their views. The problem is that even though many don’t bother with politics, they still carry the power to vote, and that scares the hell out of me.

The point of this blog, in a nutshell? I’m not particularly anti-Conservative or anti-Republican. I’m anti-bullshit. Next time I’ll talk about some other bullshit that has been bothering me for ages: the lie that America is–or ever was–a Christian nation, and the exploitation of religion as a political tool. See you next time.

Originally Posted on September 12th, 2007:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hLMqYRK4wj2OXnWEJEgcEaxmURZA

Some things tend to press the “Irk” key on my mental keyboard. This is one of them. The article played out how I expected it to. My problem was with the following statement from General Petraeus:

“Needless to say, to state the obvious, I disagree with the message of those who are exercising the First Amendment right (to free speech) that generations of soldiers have sought to preserve for Americans.”

Really. A weaker man would be permanently brainwashed for how many times I’ve heard this statement repeated, as many seem to be. This is a classic defense of staunch military supporters–namely Republicans–for their belligerent acts of aggression upon the world. “We’re fighting for your right to disagree with us.”

What? Against whom? Are the Iraqis trying to take away my freedom of speech? Are terrorists? I thought we were fighting to find WMDs! Then, I thought we were fighting to stop the spread of global terrorism. After that, we were told that the whole reason we were over there was to liberate the Iraqi people from the clutches of Saddam Hussein. After we got rid of him, I was told we were staying there to ensure that Iraq stayed liberated. Now, nobody really seems to know why we’re there, but they sure as hell haven’t mentioned anything about fighting to save my First Amendment rights!

This is the same excuse I’ve heard for every unpopular military operation we’ve been involved in. Vietnam had nothing to do with our freedom of speech, neither did Panama, the Gulf War, the Korean War, Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, Afghanistan or Iraq. In fact, I can’t seem to remember a single military conflict that involved even a remote threat to U.S. citizens’ freedom of speech since World War II and, arguably, the Cold War.

Why is this response consistently given as justification for any and all military action–provoked or not–against other countries? The answer to this is simple: it is a mechanism by which one party attempts to silence the opposition by invoking a false sense of pride-based patriotism and guilt for the purposes of curbing all constructive and intelligent discussion on the topic. It is an intellectually lazy distraction used by those without reasonable references or arguments to use in defense of their opinion or the people/issues they support.

Until I see the military fulfilling the other half of their duty to protect us from all enemies foreign and domestic by raiding Congress, the White House, the Supreme Court and corporate boardrooms to sift through and detain the real enemies of our liberty, I’ll continue to denounce that phrase as being little more than a jingoist tool of control.

That being said, let’s take a look at what our troops are fighting for: The price of oil, unsurprisingly, took 3 1/2 years to double in price, and has since remained at those levels. The defense industry has made billions and billions of dollars on this war. Companies such as Haliburton have been awarded exclusive, no-bid contracts for the war. Last I heard, we’re either building or trying to build a permanent military base in Iraq, thereby giving us a permanent military presence in the region. We have expanded the powers of the president to near dictatorial status. We’ve added a whole new department just full of goons while completely desecrating privacy rights in the name of “national security”.

Hm. Can’t say I’m surprised that “preserving the rights of Americans” doesn’t make the list. No sir, seems to me like the only people whose investments are protected and whose interests are served are government and corporate elites. If a single person can show me how we’d lose our freedom of speech by choosing not to partake in any of the aforementioned wars, I will humbly stand corrected.

It’s times like these that I wish I were a gambler. I’d put all my money on “not gonna happen.”