A Journey to the Land of Make-Believe!

"Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is working to destroy it......Clearly a society that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself."-Jean-Francois Revel

em-pire (em'pir') n. Abbr. emp. 1. A political unit, usually larger than a kingdom and often comprising a number of territories or nations, ruled by a single supreme authority. 2. The territory included in such a unit. 3. Imperial dominion.

I stumbled on to this anti-American propaganda a few weeks ago and thought I'd give a few of my thoughts on the video and the larger problem it illustrates. As we progress further into this post-modern age of dis-enlightenment, I expect this kind of historical revisionism (cherry-picked facts mixed with half-truths and outright falsehoods wherever necessary to support a preexisting ideology) to become the rule rather than the exception. I also find it necessary to view garbage like this occasionally to remind myself that the political right does not hold a monopoly on idiocy. For anyone who couldn't stomach the entire video, it was made to promote Howard Zinn's book: "A (delusional) People's History of American Empire", appropriately released on April Fool's Day. I'm going to point out some of the problems with this video and the ideological movement behind it. This will be a long post because it's amazing how much misleading can go on in an 8-minute video. I also want to say up front that I am not writing this because of patriotism or because I believe that the U.S. has never done anything wrong. There are many historic examples of this. I am writing it because I view the Manichean, black/white view of the world presented in this video is every bit as dangerous as that espoused by many neo-cons who believe the United States is perfect, that we need to have war all the time, etc. In this respect, Zinn is merely the other side of the same ideological coin that looks to turn history and the current state of the world into a morality play with simplistic, ideological explanations for everything.

Now, on to the video itself. First, let's give a big round of applause to Viggo Mortensen for reminding us that people who make their living by portraying emotions on screen are not to be relied on for rational analysis of anything. (There are exceptions of course, but as a rule celebrity should not be confused with authority.) Second, am I the only one who thought the cartoon version of Zinn was a dead-ringer for Ron Paul? The first substantive issue I have with the video is, what is the motive behind it? Anti-imperialism? Pacifism? Anti-Americanism? This is a little easier to answer if we have some background on Mr. Zinn. First, the motive is probably not anti-imperialism because of Mr. Zinn's long history of support for Castro, who according to Zinn had "no bloody record of suppression" and other tools of the Soviet Empire (which WAS an empire in every sense of the word) and his reference to communism as an "exaggerated threat". The motive also cannot be pacifism given Mr. Zinn's gushing praise for Chairman Mao, who butchered more people than Stalin or Hitler (I guess it's okay as long as you keep it within your own borders) Regarding Mao's regime, Zinn stated it was "the closest thing in the long history of that ancient country to a people's government"(the people that survived that is) Also, Zinn is a Marxist, and Marxism is violent by definition. Redistribution of wealth can only be accomplished through violence. For example anyone wanting to "redistribute" my "wealth" will most likely have to either: a)kill me and take it or b) be killed by me while trying to take it. The motive we are left with is anti-Americanism specifically, and anti-capitalism generally.

Does the word "empire" fit or is he simply using it as a pejorative term? Well going back to the dictionary definition at the top of the page, let's look at some examples: Cuba, the Philippines, France, Germany, South Korea, Grenada, Panama, Italy, Mexico, Japan, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc. All have been invaded by the U.S. (or had large U.S. military presences operating within them) How many fall under U.S. dominion today? Zero,as in zero. Secondly, how many empires take over countries then re-build them into independent states (and economic rivals to the "empire") at great cost to themselves? The answer here is also zero. So with this in mind I'm going to address some specific misleading points from the video. (I didn't notice any glaring lies in the video, Zinn saved these for the book, where they are numerous.)

The intro about the genocide of American Indians, and the actions with regards to Cuba and the Philippines are accurate and I have no problem with them. I'm not trying to gloss anything over here. The part about the Mexican-American war was also generally accurate, albeit presented in an over-simplified manner. However, they are most likely included to make the viewer think that the wiping out of the Indians is in some way related to later U.S. actions like entering World War 2. This is not explicitly stated, but planted in such a way that the viewer gets the impression that if the U.S. commited genocide in one instance that must be the driving force behind everything it does. We get to the major twisting of history once we reach the period beginning with World War 2 and the Cold War. Note the complete lack of any reference to the brutality of the Japanese empire or any consideration of how many lives an invasion would have cost both sides. We then come to the claim that the U.S. was trying to maintain it's dominance of Europe and nuclear monopoly right after World War 2. So, the U.S. strategy of removing it's troops from all the conquered European nations except Germany and rapidly demobilizing it's military is a sign of imperialism? The complete unwillingness to challenge Soviet domination of East Germany (or any other European nation for that matter) wasn't exactly the way an empire with military superiority and a nuclear monopoly either. It was only after the Europeans called for assistance that the NATO alliance was formed in 1949. Again, this is a far cry from the cartoon in the video showing the U.S. as an octopus trying to stretch across the world, with no mention of the U.S.S.R. This reversal of history is shown again with regard to Korea. Apparently the war was "not about fighting communism" but about "establishing a foot-hold in Asia". So apparently the two are mutually exclusive in Zinn's mind. Secondly, it's hard for me to see where the U.S. expansionism is here. Is resisting another power's expansion the same as imperialism? Perhaps only when it's done by a capitalist society. The Cold War followed this pattern a lot, communist expansion leads to American resistance which is then "imperialist", this kind of communist propaganda persists in a lot of people's worldviews to this day. Just the other day I heard the old Warsaw Pact referred to as a "military alliance". It boggles the mind. It seems to me like an "American empire" would have backed more groups that were doing the invading rather than those who were being invaded. But this kind of fact-twisting is necessary to tie all previous wars neatly into the overarching theory and make them seem exactly like the occupation of Iraq.

We then come to the shocking revelation that the Vietnam war had economic causes! I'm shocked. That would mean that that war was just like every other war in human history. Again, note the simplistic portrayal of a complex historical event as having a single simple cause that nicely dovetails into a preexisting Marxist view. And it was brutal? You're kidding me. Apparently the fighting c Who knew wars were brutal? I'm not trying to sound "pro-war" here, I view war as the second worst thing imaginable. Fortunately, partly through the work of Zinn and others like him, the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam and Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia were spared the fate of post-war Japan. Think of all the new phrases like "killing fields" and "year zero" that we wouldn't have gained in our lexicons. I don't say any of this to excuse U.S. behavior with regard to certain aspects of the way the war was fought (I'm not the one with the Manichean world view here.) But when the overall narrative presents one side of history and presents it as anything other than an indoctrination, I have a problem with that.

Note the simplistic A to B logic with regards to the first Gulf War. Events are portrayed as flowing together in a simple, logical, unambiguous fashion. There can be no extenuating circumstances or considerations not involving class struggle. If something happened involving U.S. involvement in the middle-east in the 40's and 50's then that must be directly causing the events of the early-90's. The CIA helped overthrow Mossadeq so it must be behind every event in that part of the world. (As an aside, the idea of Mossadeq as the "democratic leader" is greatly exaggerated. He had just dissolved the parliament, violating the constitution, and did away with secret ballots on his way to winning 99.93% of the vote. Yeah, that's a democratic election.) This is the nice thing about being driven by ideology, you get to mold the facts rather than let the facts mold you. This is probably why revisionist history is so popular at both ends of the political spectrum.

Then we mercifully come to the end with Viggo asking us "have we not reached a point in history where we are ready to embrace a new way where we expand not our military power, but our humanity?" What the hell does that mean? It sounds like a reference to ingesting narcotic substances to me. (I'd like to study the subject of socialism to learn when it first became infused with new age psycho-babble like this) I can only conclude that he means we must embrace socialism. I'm sure he means "real" socialism, the kind that exists only in utopian fantasies that inhabit some theoretical plane in the far-flung reaches of the imagination and produce equality and happiness; not the "phony" socialism which exists in the real world and has almost always produced misery and famine. So in conclusion, I can't help but feel sorry for the people duped by this world-view, particularly kids being forced to "learn" this in schools. I think anyone watching this should ask themselves, "What would the world look like if there had never been a U.S.A.?" What kind of places would Europe and Asia be? So, now I'm going to read the book this is based on (once I can get a copy from my library, because God knows I'm not spending any money on this stuff) and will probably post a few thoughts on it. Hopefully, I'll be able to keep it short next time. I've only thumbed through a previous edition of the book and saw a few statements about historical events that were the exact opposite of the truth. So I should find it interesting. (For anyone looking for a more eloquent response to stuff like this video, especially with regards to the Cold War and the concept of U.S. imperialism I would recommend reading the book How Democracies Perish, by Jean-Francois Revel or checking out one of his articles on Anti-Americanism at the link above.)

Video Review: Jesus Camp.

(note: this is probably the least political -in the sense of elections- post I've written so far. But this is kind of the cultural, philosophical, etc. direction the blog will go in the future, particularly after this election cycle ends. A lot of that, I'm sure, will be me trying to apply some degree of rationality to subjects where clearly none exists or is in short supply.)



I've finally gotten around to watching Jesus Camp, I saw it on Youtube over the weekend. A quick aside to anyone who feels the need to leave a comment on a Youtube video: if you are going to claim intellectual superiority or belittle anyone else's intelligence based on their belief system, feel free to at least be able to cobble together coherent sentences decipherable to people familiar with the English language. Other wise it's going to be difficult for people like me to take you seriously. (I'm not talking about misspellings here, I'm talking about a frontal assault on the basic concepts of language and communication.)

Now with that out of the way, this was a very interesting film which was both amusing and saddening at the same time. The film documents the training of small children in an incredibly radicalized form of fundamentalist/pentecostal Christianity. I'm willing to bet that a lot of people who haven't been exposed to this kind of movement probably found this film incredibly frightening. Having grown up in a somewhat tamer version of this movement, I wasn't particularly surprised on the whole, but there were parts of the movie that took me by surprise. I think this is because of the complete lack of politicisation I experienced growing up in this movement. I'm not sure if that's because this wasn't as prevalent when I was growing up or if I was just not immersed in it because my father (who was my pastor as well) is a Democrat, who never wanted much to do with the religious right. Most of the kids in the film remind me of some of the kids who attended the Assembly of God-run school that I went to as a child who were brought up to be radicals, far-right Republicans, fundamentalists, and Christians. (and they were taught these traits in exactly that order of importance)

The film starts out with the leader of the camp, whose name escapes me at the moment ( and I really don't feel like looking it up) a seemingly friendly woman who clearly has a gift for working with and connecting to children. It quickly becomes obvious that she is more interested in training up an army of activists than in teaching Sunday School. We start with a meeting at (presumably) her church where she's promoting her summer camp to the kids in attendance. This seems perfectly normal until they bring out the children's "worship dance" team. This struck me as funny since dancing and fundamentalism (which this brand of Christianity falls under the branch of in my classification, though a lot of official Fundamentalist groups would probably bristle at given its fusion with Pentecostalism, but I believe the overlap here is too significant to overlook) have often been seen as natural enemies. I assure you that there was no "worship dancing" in a choreographed sense when I was growing up in the early nineties. The boys seem to be dressed up like soldiers waving sticks around to some of the most un-danceable music you've ever heard. Once this is done with she says to the crowd "let's pray in tongues". This was odd to me because I never saw glossolalia on demand growing up. I heard plenty of people "speaking in tongues" but it was always a spontaneous occurrence. It was also always somewhat unnerving to me as well, but I knew better than to express that opinion at the time. After the service ends we go to a few segments where we meet the kids who will be attending the camp (including one with a horrendous mullet that needs to be seen to be believed. On a tangent here, there should be a law that if you allow your child to get a humiliating hair cut you should be forced to get one too. That's the kind of change you'd see if I was president. We meet the children's families as well. We see one family in the dining room/home-school classroom. The weirdness doesn't take long to start here. While saying grace for their meal they ask God to end abortion and advise Him on what kind of people to put on the Supreme Court. I guess nothing whets the appetite like talking about any kind of surgical procedure. (We will be coming back to abortion many times by the end of the film) After this we see the boy with the mullet "learning" his science lesson from his teacher/mother. Like most of the children in the film he is home-schooled.We see him "learning" that the earth is 6,000 years old and that global warming is not a problem since the "rapture" will happen soon and the "anti-Christ" will take over the earth.( just like the bible does not say.) His text books reminded me of some of the ones we used in the Christian school I went to for 5-years (many of which were put out by Bob Jones University). The scientific illiteracy these kids are left with is not the most chilling aspect of this to me. If you were to destroy all scientific knowledge it would eventually be re-discovered in the distant future. What frightens me is the revisionist history taught to these kids, because if the lessons of history are forgotten then they will all have to be re-learned in a much more difficult fashion. We then cut to another child at the bowling alley where she is seen commanding her bowling ball to make a strike "in Jesus name". Sadly, the power of Christ is apparently no match for this particular bowling ball as it veers off to the right. She then is seen reading a Jack Chick tract! If you're a connoisseur of all things crack-pot you absolutely must take a look at this guy's stuff.

At this point the children are ready to head off to camp. It has also become obvious to me that these kids are being taught radicalism more than they are being taught Christianity. I believe they for the most part will either grow up to be radical fundamentalist Christians or radical Atheists. (perhaps "radical" is not the right word, because there was very little that was moderate about the man from Galilee. I think "militant" is probably a better word.) I'd be interested to see what percentage of the kids in this film would profess any form of Christianity in 20 years. My guess is that there will be far more who become disillusioned with religion than those who stay with this particular movement. The militancy will still be there, because that's what they have had drilled into them, but the faith aspect is not stressed nearly as much it would seem. It also becomes clear to the viewer by this point that these kids are repeating slogans that they have no clue as to the meaning of like "terminal generation", "spiritual warfare", etc.

As we pan over the camp grounds we notice that a) this camp makes the one in the "Jason" movies seem bright and cheery by comparison and that b) the camp is named "Kids on Fire!". I don't know about you but when I hear the name "kids on fire" I don't think of kids who love Jesus, I think of that picture from Vietnam of the girl who'd been napalmed. I also think that an accurate name for most summer camps would be "Kids Being Molested". Seriously, if you're ever bemoaning the fact that your child hasn't been molested yet, send them to summer camp. One last joke here, I want you to picture in your head what kind of logo you'd draw up for a place called "Kids On Fire". As we progress through the week of the camp, we see a lot of more of the kids repeating what they have been told about "reclaiming America for Christ", etc. with no sign that they understand what that means (I don't know what that means either). What we never see show up is actual biblical learning or any mention of how Jesus lived and taught us to live. This could be because that was edited out of the documentary, but I wouldn't be surprised if this weren't the case. I won't lay out everything that is shown from camp, but a few things really annoyed me. At one point we get an interview with the camp director talking about how she has the "skill" of being able to walk up to a group of 5-year olds on a playground and convince them to accept Jesus. Now, I don't make a habit of walking up to kids on playgrounds, (people tend to be on the lookout for that kind of thing, or at least they should be) but my uncle Gerald had a "skill" of being able to convince kids that age that he could pull his thumb off and put it back on. So convincing the kids to repeat a prayer is not nearly as impressive to me as being able to teach them how their religion says they should live their lives. That is a gift; scaring the bejeezus out of them is not.
A while later we come to the most well-known scene from the film. At the end of one of the services a card-board cut out of George W. Bush is brought out and the kids all reach their hands towards it and begin praying and crying and carrying on. The creep-o-meter really went off the dial here. I realize that they were praying for Bush and not to Bush but it's still a jarring visual. The Bible does say to pray for the leaders of your nation, but somehow I doubt anything like this would have happened if Bill Clinton (or Obama, McCain, Hillary, etc.) were in the White House. After recovering from this we go to the last night of the camp where the children are treated to a guest speaker. At first I'm kind of leery of him because as a rule I tend to distrust skinny preachers. But he seems nice enough and tells the kids how he has something to share with them. At this point I'm optimistic thinking "alright maybe he's going to tell them about Jesus; how he lived, what he did, what he told us to do, because it's off-base to expect anyone to "know Jesus" in an abstract sense when they don't know who the guy was". I'm also thinking "I wonder what's in the case he's holding". He opens the case to reveal......plastic dolls of fetuses at different stages of development! Apparently Christianity is all about being an anti-abortion activist! (note: I refuse to use the euphemisms "pro-life" or "pro-choice") I remember being given a plastic fetus from some group or another when I was in the 6th or 7th grade. Apparently people feel that if kids see the doll, they'll never be able to have an abortion. I happen to know for a fact that this view is a crock. Eventually the kids gather around the speaker and pray and then chant "Righteous Judges!" over and over again in the most creepy manner possible. I'm left to wonder if any of these folks see the irony in this. You don't want your kid going to a public school because of sex ed so you home school them at home like a good percentage of the kids in this film. You don't want your teenager to know about condoms but it's okay to teach 5-7 year olds about abortion in the most graphic possible terms? How can these views be reconciled? Don't any of the kids throw up or ask how the baby got there in the first place? I realize I'm probably expecting too much thought here.
As a bonus feature, we get to watch the kid with the mullet go listen to Ted Haggard ham it up for the documentary cameras from his pulpit. In an unfortunate coincidence, Ted is talking about homosexuality being wrong. I'm not going to go for the easy joke here, other than to point out that he looks very relaxed, yet very energetic at the same time. Overall, I think the incongruity in this instance was a microcosm of the film as a whole.

a Pall on Truth and Reason.....

(Warning: the following post may be considered offensive by some readers. It contains profanity, sex, and may be offensive to barnyard animals or the animal husbandry profession as a whole.)





I normally don't read the tabloids very often. I find their writings to be to ridiculous to pretend they are actual news while at the same time not subtle enough to be good satire. Today's New York Times hatchet piece on Senator McCain caught my attention however. Apparently this "news" organization decided that it had not humiliated itself enough this decade between the Jayson Blair fiasco and the shoddy reporting done by Judith Miller and others in the run-up to the Iraq war. I think the comment I heard today from a left-wing caller to a left-wing talk show sums up my feelings the best: "he could be screwing goats for all I care". But, I'm getting ahead of myself. For those of you who have not read the "story", allow me to sum it up.
Two anonymous (meaning "lacking the balls to speak up in public like a man") former aides who've become "disillusioned with the senator" (What the hell does that mean? Were they fired or something?) claim that 8 years ago an affair may or may not have happened between Senator McCain and a young blond lobbyist. They claim advisers met with the senator to tell him not to be around her due to the "appearance of impropriety"(due to the lobbyist thing? because people might think there's an affair? we're not told and apparently the "reporters" had very little interest in finding out.) The story then re-hashes the Keating Five scandal that happened when I was in grade-school. That's about the entire story.
My first reaction to this piece of "news" was that it was the flimsiest story I've read in quite some time. The headline should have read "Two Guys Think McCain Might Have Had an Affair....Maybe". I mean shouldn't a story like this one present one piece of oh, I don't know.....evidence? Maybe a recorded phone conversation or a semen-stained dress or a line of countless women coming forward with allegations would suffice. The whole story seems carefully worded so that it doesn't go beyond rumor, innuendo, and speculation into stating a claim that could be considered libelous. I mean we're talking ZERO evidence here. Nothing even pretending to be evidence. I've heard Barack Obama speeches with more substance than this. Of course that didn't stop the "journalists" from jumping all over this shit. I've probably heard the term "raises the question" 50 times today. I've got a radical idea here, rather than "raise the question" repeatedly how about DOING YOUR FUCKING JOB and looking for any kind of corroboration before giving your opinion on what is rumored to have happened 8 years ago? "Well we're just giving both sides of the story". The problem with this line of reasoning is that the truth is often one-sided. If you're going to drag some one's name through the mud at least look for some hotel receipts or notes or something better than "they rode on a plane together" or "she showed up at fundraisers". I think if I was running the campaign I would use every means at my disposal to make the people at that paper think heaven is falling. I wouldn't stop until every one involved is fired. The reasons for this are two-fold 1) you can't let these things go unchecked as John Kerry learned 4 years ago. You need to clear your name for the sake of your family. 2) From a hardball politics standpoint, you need to make an example out of someone. This way if a shaky, poorly sourced story pops up in September or October people will think twice about running with it.
I know some people will ask me the following questions. Didn't the New York Times endorse McCain? Yeah, when he was running against OTHER REPUBLICANS. Now it's a different story. The other question is "what if it's true? Do you care about politicians having affairs?" The answer is no. I was 18 when the Clinton-Lewinsky thing happened and was too obsessed with getting laid myself to care who else was. My feelings now are that these matters are between a person and their spouse. Thomas Jefferson was banging slaves for crying out loud. As far as I'm concerned if you can balance the budget, uphold the constitution, and not use government property in the commission of any lewd act you can fuck goats for all I care. Yep, that's right, good leadership entitles you to a "goat-fucking license" as far as ol' Mr. Haircutt here is concerned.




(see that's what I mean about subtle sarcasm. Am I joking? Am I insane? Hard to tell isn't it? But I bet you weren't expecting to read the phrase "goat-fucking license" today.)

Interesting quotes I read.

"One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington." -Bill Moyers, 2004

"By a series of recent initiatives, Republicans have transformed our party into a political arm of conservative Christians. The elements of this transformation have included a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, opposition to stem cell research involving both frozen embryos and human cells in petri dishes, and the extraordinary effort to keep Terri Schiavo hooked up to a feeding tube."- Episcopal Minister and former Republican Senator John Danforth, 2005

Not a "conservative" anymore.

I've been listening to and reading a lot of right wing pundits lately in their attacks on John McCain, and I've come to the conclusion that apparently I am not a "conservative". (Whatever the hell that term means these days.) Here is a list of reasons why, in many cases in direct responce to what I've seen in the last week or so. I still have plenty of problems with the left, but it's the right that is pissing me off right now. So here is my angry tirade. Many of the things I will point out are things that conservatives claim to believe, but you know what they say about actions and words.
- I believe the purpose of government is to handle the peoples' business. I do care more about "getting things done" than I do about partisan "ideological purity". If you don't agree, look at history and pick out the 10 most ideologically pure regimes the world has seen. Now ask yourself if these are the societies you would want to live in.
- I don't believe it is the purpose of government to push or in any way be involved in the promotion of religion. Especially my religion. And it bothers me to no end that my party has almost become the first religious party in American history.
- I could not care less what consenting adults are doing in their bedrooms.
-I don't believe cells in a petrie dish have the same human rights that I do.
- I believe (in agreement with the overwhelming consensus of scientists not on the oil company payrolls) in global warming. Apparently I'm not supposed to believe in global warming, evolution, gravity, or photosynthesis because it doesn't fit the agenda.
-I'm sick of faux-patriots who wrap themselves in the flag while destroying every constitutional principle it stands for.
- I don't believe the president has the constitutional authority to violate the first, fourth and fifth ammendments under ANY circumstance.
- I have a problem with the fact that we've gone from "give me liberty or give me death" to "take what you want, just don't let them hurt me".
- We have a system of checks and balances for a reason. The fact that the party that says it wants limited government has done more to expand the power of the government than any other in our history bugs the hell out of me.
-I hate euphemisms like "tough interrogation techniques". Yeah, I'm sure we send people to Egypt and Syria for "agressive interrogation".
-If I hear one more member of this administration use the phrase "I have no recollection of that" while testifying before congress about some scandal I am going to puke!
-I don't believe that the bible was intended as a science textbook, and I don't want it used as one in the public schools.
-While we're on that subject, I'd like foreign policy decisions that don't involve Jesus Christ riding out of heaven on a white horse. The child-like understanding of good and evil that pervades our country is also a sure sign that we are most likely living in a new dark age.
-I'm not going to trust what the government tells me without question. I believe the purpose of a free press is to ask the hard questions of those in power.
-I don't believe McCain-Feingold was anywhere near as unconstitutional as the presidents warrantless wire-tapping program and flagrant abuse of "executive privelege" which is worthy of impeachment and prison time.
- I'm not going to defend incompetence on partisan grounds.
-I'm not willing to distort history to obscure the fact that Reagan and George W. Bush have been the two least fiscally responsible debt-growers ever to inhabit the Oval Office. The numbers do not lie. (note: this is not meant as an attack on Reagan, who I respect on the whole. It is more of an attack on those who would make him out to be someone who walked on water and never made any mistakes and had no failings whatsoever.)
-I wish John McCain had stuck to his guns on the Bush tax cuts, saying "I voted against them because I said we would have massive deficits. Guess what we have now? Massive deficits."
-There is a difference between being pro-capitolism and pro-big business. For all the talk of a welfare state, we should start with an end to corporate welfare.
-I would like to see an end to policy being determined by political operatives, rather than experts in particular fields.
-Feel free to fight your "culture war" using means that don't involve government.
-This doesn't constitute a complete list on my part but it's enough for now.

The "Idiot" Wing of the Republican Party Hates John McCain.

I think the thing that makes me happiest about John McCain's victory in Florida yesterday is the way a lot of right-wing blowhards have further revealed their hypocrisy and complete separation from reality due to their hatred for the Senator. Rush Limbaugh has sobered up long enough to say that if McCain is the nominee he will "sit this one out". Tom Delay has said the same thing. Good, maybe that corrupt son of a bitch (in Dick Armey's words) can better use his time trying to keep his ass out of jail. Just this morning I heard one of them say that if McCain beats Romney to become the nominee, it will be the worst bloodbath the GOP has suffered since Goldwater in 1964. Apparently polls have a liberal bias because every poll I've seen shows the exact opposite. McCain is in a statistical tie with all Democrats, while Romney gets beaten by at least 12 points. There's a bigger turn-around here though. Do you remember in 2004 that these same talking heads were saying the most important issue was national security? We were told that "the fate of western civilization is at stake", "the war is the defining issue of our time", "this is world war 2 all over again". This faux-patriotism was what helped turn me from true-believer into dedicated skeptic. Perhaps it was best exemplified in the way these chicken-hawks wrapped themselves in the flag and questioned the patriotism of anyone who opposed their policies, even when involved trashing a guy like Max Cleland, who lost an arm and both legs serving his country, or John Murtha, or John Kerry (none of whom I agreed with at the time) who've actually shed blood for this nation. Because apparently real patriotism is measured more in party affiliation than in pints of blood. What a difference four years makes. Apparently pretending to be a fighter pilot and war hero matters more to this crowd than actually being one. Because right now there's only one candidate who gives me any reason at all to think he knows the first thing about national security, foreign policy, or how to run a war. But, according to the far-right, the party must rally around the candidate who is most likely to.....lower rich peoples' taxes! Deficits don't matter!(according to Dick Cheney) The fact that the last seven years have been an economic disaster for most of the country doesn't matter. We need more of the same! All that talk about national security was clearly a smoke-screen. The real priorities are painfully obvious at this point. Critical thinking and putting the country above the Republican party orthodoxy are an unpardonable sin to this crowd. It would be kind of interesting to see how this crowd would react if their "conventional wisdom" is followed. How would they spin the results on the air on November 5th, the day after the Democratic nominee beats Romney by ten points and the democrats take 7-8 seats away from the GOP in the Senate, and God knows how many in the House.

Critical thinking 101

+In the last post I mentioned a lot of dirty political stuff going on and in this one I'm going to show how a little bit of critical thinking can go a long way in keeping you from making an idiot out of yourself. Too often we pass on whatever we hear without question, usually because it reinforces something we're already inclined to believe or we got it from a "reputable source" like an email or the radio. The thing I find maddening about this is that you don't have to have a research library or spend precious minutes searching the Internet to know when you're hearing bull shit. Generally I find the best question to ask when hearing any spurious claim is: "does this add up?". While a comprehensive list of logical fallacies heard in every day life would take far more space than I'd care to use right now, I'm going to use a specific example to point out examples. Since the "Who is Barack Obama?" email hoax has been around for a long time and in the news lately I'm going to use it as my example here. I also use this one since most of its claims are what I call "rat poison" lies. Just as rat poison consists of mostly food, with a little poison mixed in, most lies have a little truth (albeit twisted and distorted) mixed in. And any time you mix a lie with the truth you only create a more dangerous lie. The claims have been thoroughly refuted, so I won't go out of my way to point out every factual error just the stuff that should be a red-flag to a thinking person that they're not reading a factual account. So here's the email and then my breakdown will follow.


Who is Barack Obama?Very interesting and something that should be considered in your choice. If you do not ever forward anything else, please forward this to all your contacts...this is very scary to think of what lies ahead of us here in our own United States...better heed this and pray about itand share it.We checked this out on "HYPERLINK "http://snopes.com/" \nsnopes.com". It is factual. Check for yourself.Who is Barack Obama? Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was bornin Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHIEST from Wichita, Kansas. Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya. His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia.When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocate to Indonesia. Obamaattended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a Catholic school. Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is quick to point out that, "He was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic School." Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that he is not a radical. Obama's introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son's education.Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama' s mother, Ann Dunham,introduced his stepson to Islam.Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta. Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background. ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible but instead the Koran Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegience nor will he show any reverence for our flag. While others place their hands over their hearts, Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential candidacy. The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States, one of their own!!!! Please forward to everyone you know. Would you want this man leading our country?...... NOT ME!!! .

observations:
-First of all I thought putting the line in there about checking it out on snopes.com was brilliant. Whoever did that clearly knew enough about human nature to know that most people will take their word for it and not check the link themselves. If they were to click on it they would learn that snopes (a reference page for checking out urban legends) completely debunks this story.

-These things always tell you to forward it to everyone you know NOW! The survival of the world depends on it! Never underestimate the power of fear to destroy logic. A similar phenomenon can be observed when politicians use phases like "mushroom cloud over an American city" or "world war 3". This is not said to get you to think rationally but to not entertain any doubts.

-"very scary to think of what lies ahead of us here in our own United States...better heed this and pray about it and share it" So right here we have a pretty good idea who this is intended to appeal to. Note that you are asked to pray about it rather than to think about it. A good prayer for this occasion would be: "Lord, please help me to know when people are full of it. And protect me from anyone who thinks you are so powerless that you need them to be your enforcer here on earth. Amen".

-Have you noticed yet that his full name is used 4 times? I wonder if this is to compare him to the late King Hussein of Jordan. Probably not. Please feel free to not vote if some one's middle name the major issue for you. Keep this in mind: in the nineties "George Bush" was a common name for babies in Kuwait, so a lot of kids in that part of the world probably have similar problems ahead of them

-"Barack Hussein Obama was bornin Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHIEST from Wichita, Kansas." - This one cracks me up as well. Did you notice the words ATHEIST and MUSLIM? They thought those might slip past you without the all caps. I think the part that slips through here (and the author's real issue with the Senator) are the words preceding those. Capitalizing WHITE and BLACK would be a little over the top, better to plant the thought in your mind and hope that you care about that kind of thing (And if you do have a problem with that feel free to have a hunting accident or something).

-"His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia." So the guy who is a RADICAL (and presumably very fundamentalist) Muslim marries a divorcee with a child. (Who don't forget, is an ATHEIST infidel) That's a little fishy don't you think? Hopefully the fear hasn't worn off so you're not being rational.

-"Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta. Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world." So his mother the "ATHEIST" sends him to a school that teaches fundamentalist Islam? Come on. Jerry Falwell couldn't have made up something this ridiculous. (but not for lack of trying)

-"keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible" This wouldn't bother me even if it was true, which it is not (I'm sure it was an honest mistake by whoever originated this since I'd bet that that person thinks "they all look alike") Theodore Roosevelt wasn't sworn in on a bible and wanted to take "in God We Trust" off of the currency. Last I checked, he was considered a pretty good president being enshrined on Mount Freakin' Rushmore and all. I personally believe (and I say this as a Christian, a Baptist no less) that all oaths of office should be taken with a hand on a copy of the Constitution, rather than a religious text. But, getting back to the point, do they expect me to believe that this guy does everything in his power to hide the fact that he's a Muslim (even going so far as to join a church) but then demands to be sworn in on a Koran in the middle of the capitol, with cameras everywhere? Yeah, that adds up. That makes about as much sense as a terrorist getting all kinds of safe houses and fake ID's and then showing up at the airport wearing a shirt that says "HI-JACKER" across the front.

-"Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegiance nor will he show any reverence for our flag. While others place their hands over their hearts, Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches." Again it seems like a sleeper agent would know better than to draw this kind of attention to himself. Because we all know reciting the pledge and putting your hand over your heart are what makes one a real patriot. There's no way anyone who does these things could ever be a danger to the republic. Anyone who wraps them self in a flag and carries a cross must be on the up-and-up.

"The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out." Gosh, how did I miss that one? Did "the Muslims" hold a press conference or just put out a written statement? Do you suppose they voted on the idea? Or was it just decided by the "King of Muslims"? What have "the Christians" said in response? To claim the Bin Ladens and Husseins of the world represent all (or even most) Muslims is about as rational of claim as saying that the Grand Inquisitor of Spain represents all Christians.

-In conclusion, never let the facts get in the way of irrational fear.

march of the hatchet-men

It's South Carolina time again and you know what that means....all the "values" types and "christian" groups get to enter the fray and the campaign rhetoric goes from "weird" to "what the hell is this guy talking about?". For people like myself who love irony in all its forms this used to be a very entertaining time. In fact just today I got an e-mail from a group run by Tom Delay inviting me to a breakfast dedicated to "restoring God and apple pie" or some other damned thing to America. The idea of the guy who was once referred to by a colleague as "the most corrupt son of a bitch in the history of Washington" hosting a conference about "restoring our values" really puts a smile on my face. And I get the usual nonsense about Hillary, McCain, and Obama in my in-box. (Surprisingly not much anti-Romney stuff. You'd think his mormonism would drive the conspiracy idiots crazy.) This never used to bother me until I started talking to (and hearing about) people who actually believe a lot of this shit. I guess I shouldn't be surprised since I recently heard some one say (and I hope this is a bogus statistic) that 18% of Americans believe the sun revolves around the earth. I'll deal with some of the more outragous stuff in an upcoming post, but some of the stuff I've read said falsely about today's candidates are actually true about some of the best presidents we've had. A good number of the founding fathers never would have made it through the modern meat-grinder that candidates go through.

The Sympathy Vote?

I was seriously wrong in my analysis of Hillary Clinton in regards to the January 5th debate. I thought latent sexism would work against her when she responded angrily to Edwards calling her the (paraphrasing) "candidate of the status quo" and then tearing up when asked "how do you do it?". (My impression is that this moment was totally calculated, I can't really back it up that's just what instinct tells me.) I thought these events would combine to be the death blow to her campaign. What I've seen since seems to be the opposite. I've read about 600 articles talking about how she was ganged-up on and bashing Edwards and her critics as "bullies", and talking about how the crying thing helped reveal that she's a real person with feelings (more on that later). I'm seriously expecting to see a youtube video of a ridiculously effeminate crying teen-ager screaming "LEAVE HILLARY ALONE". The thing I failed to take into account is the power of perceived victimhood in our society. I'll give an example. A few months ago I read an article that mentioned how when the novel The Grapes of Wrath was released a lot of criticism came from poor migrant farmers who didn't like being portrayed as helpless victims of circumstance. Contrast that with today. We've gone from a time when actual helpless victims didn't want to be portrayed as helpless victims to a society where even the rich and powerful want to be portrayed as victims in order to gain my sympathy. Let's save our sympathy for people who deserve it: people who are crying for legitimate reasons like hurricane Katrina or loss of loved ones in the war, not people who come out and cry over their political fortunes.
I'm not even necessarily trying to bash Hillary here. If you feel like crying, go ahead I don't feel it should be an issue one way or another. My problem is this: sympathy is no reason to vote for ANYONE. Let's pretend for a minute that the other candidates are bullies who are ganging up on her because of her gender (which I don't believe for an instant any more than I believe attacks on Romney or Obama are based on religion or race, respectively). Do you really think a President of the United States will never have to deal with bullies? Do you think Kim Jong Il or Vladimir (I call him Vladimir) will be moved by sympathy? Another claim that drives me insane is "this emotional moment shows that she really has feelings". If you didn't know she was a real person with feelings you are, to put it nicely, a MORON! They're all real people with feelings (even Rudy, believe it or not). And this seems to be a winning strategy. So now we get to watch her go from being a candidate who talks about the issues and why she has the strongest skills and experience to be an effective president to a campaign that will increasingly feature her trying to be warm and "grandmotherly". And it could work. What does that say about the way we pick a leader? At the same time Bill is stepping up his role as the attack dog, coming out and criticizing Obama (and the criticisms are by and large legitimate). This bothers me because it is beneath the dignity of a former U.S. president. I don't remember Bush 41 demeaning himself in this matter when his son was running. (it could have happened but I don't remember seeing it). I guess I shouldn't be surprised in this development though because dignity has never been a hallmark of the Clinton dynasty.