Ignorant religious conservatives - deep in the heart of TN

H/T: Hendrix Keats

I think you just have to see this to believe it. Normally, I wouldn't bash people for their ignorance but when it comes to something as important as justifying their vote for a presidential candidate, I have little patience for ignorance that when repeated become lies.

Or see it on youtube




Pharyngula:

They're probably good, decent people who care about their families, but listen to what they are saying — they are picking a president on the basis of his dedication to the Bible. They are advocating a foreign policy based on biblical prophecy. They measure patriotism by whether someone "worships" (interesting slip, there) the flag and Jesus. They parrot lies, such as that Obama is planning to be sworn in on the Koran. …but the whole problem here is that their brains have been poisoned by religion, a lying, dishonest, corrupting religion that has turned them into deluded fools. Lay the blame for this criminal distortion of human minds right at the feet of religious belief.

Like I said, probably good people…but the whole problem here is that their brains have been poisoned by religion, a lying, dishonest, corrupting religion that has turned them into deluded fools. Lay the blame for this criminal distortion of human minds right at the feet of religious belief.

How 'southernism' has affected American politics

From an interesting op/ed in Newsweek on how the conservative south has changed the face of American politics: "How the South won this Civil War" by Michael Hirsh.

Based on these trends, I'd say it's not been a healthy direction for America. Hirsh cites the founding fathers, the Jefferson-Adams letters:

When Jefferson, in his letter of May 5, 1817, condemned the "den of the priesthood" and "protestant popedom" represented by Massachusetts' state-supported church, he was speaking for both of them--the North and South poles of the revolution. Yet John McCain, even with the GOP nomination in hand, would never dare repeat his brave but politically foolhardy condemnation of the religious right in 2000 as "agents of intolerance." Why? Because we have become an intolerant nation, and that's what gets you elected.

And as a result you have this kind of shit in politics as Hirsh points out:

We must endure "lapel-pin politics" that elevates the shallowest sort of faux jingoism over who's got a better plan for Iraq and Afghanistan. We have re-imported creationism into our political dialogue (in the form of "intelligent design"). Hillary Clinton panders shamelessly to Roman Catholics, who have allied with Southern Protestant evangelicals on questions of morality, with anti-abortionism serving as the main bridge.

Hirsh explains the irrational southern conservative hero worship of GW Bush:

In Bush there seems little trace left of the Eastern WASP sensibility into which he was born and educated, and which explains so much of his father's far more moderate presidency. The younger Bush went to Andover, Yale and Harvard, but he rebelled against the ethos he learned there. The transformation is complete, right down to the Texas accent that no one else in his family seems to have.

And you can see where we are now as a result: seriously lacking leadership possessing sensibility, intelligence, prudence and the competence that moderate, balanced and diverse influences bring. Some might say it's a culture war where a lack of knowledge coupled with religious fundamentalism, authoritarianism, isolationism, and bigotry have indelibly changed American politics. Hence the emergence of intolerance, the 'white Christian party' and the neo-cons. I shudder to think where we'd be right now if the Bush presidency had been successful in any measure. Fortunately, the jury is in on that.

Republicans to soldiers: You can risk your life but you can't read Playboy

Can you image a bill like this coming from anywhere but Dumbfuckistan Republicans??

House Rep. Paul Broun [R-GA], with 15 Republican co-sponsors recently introduced a bill that would ban on sales of Playboy and Penthouse magazines on U.S. military installations.

Let me get this straight... US soldiers are involved in 2 hellish wars, both of which aren't going well, and these congressmens' biggest concern is to remove soldiers rights to read Playboy??

Rep. Broun explains:

"Allowing the sale of pornography on military bases has harmed military men and women by: escalating the number of violent, sexual crimes; feeding a base addiction; eroding the family as the primary building block of society; and denigrating the moral standing of our troops both here and abroad."

If this doesn't give you an idea of how fucked up and backward thinking these morons are, I don't know what could. I'm speechless.

Republicans kill voting reform bill - deny voter paper trail

The same Republicans that supported the bill in committee unanimously voted against the bill on the House floor.

Politico:

Under the Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act, the federal government would help localities switch to paper ballots or attach printers to their electronic voting machines in time for the November elections. To overcome states’ rights objections, Holt crafted the bill as an opt-in: Nobody would be required to switch technologies or conduct audits, but federal funding would be available to offset costs for those who did.

So why did the Republicans fail to support a bill assisting in fair and verifiable elections? Because the Bush Administration came out in opposition to the bill, they said it was too expensive. The estimated cost of the bill, $680 million, is about what is being spent in Iraq every two days.

What this shows is that the accusations of fraud that marred the 2000 and 2004 elections will continue. Republicans show that they feel no responsibility to protect our the primary fabric of our democracy: free and fair elections.

Bush administration caught red-handed in organized war propaganda effort

So what? The fact is that it is likely an illegal Pentagon-constructed psychological operation aimed at the American people to sell a government policy through lies in the media.

The NYT exposed the first details of the Pentagon's Military Analyst Program and now there are calls for a Congressional investigation. So, what's this all about?

This program was launched in early 2002 by then-Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Victoria Clarke to recruit "key influentials" such as retired military to help sell a wary public on the planned Iraq invasion. More than 75 retired officers have been coached by government and military officials to spin the news about Iraq or simply lie on countless network and cable channel news programs and talk shows over the course of the past five years or more. Fox News has led the way in presenting these individuals to the public and other networks followed. Watch this short video story.

NYT: "Internal Pentagon documents repeatedly refer to the military analysts as 'message force multipliers' or 'surrogates' who could be counted on to deliver administration 'themes and messages' to millions of Americans 'in the form of their own opinions.' ... Don Meyer, an aide to Ms. Clarke, said a strategic decision was made in 2002 to make the analysts the main focus of the public relations push to construct a case for war"

So? Why is this illegal?

Because "covert" propaganda is illegal. Covert propaganda is defined as "materials such as editorials or other articles prepared by an agency or its contractors at the behest of the agency and circulated as the ostensible position of parties outside the agency."

Kathy Gill notes one of many likely illegal uses of propaganda:

"Pentagon officials helped two Fox analysts, General McInerney and General Vallely, write an opinion article for The Wall Street Journal defending Mr. Rumsfeld. The military "analysts" did not disclose to the networks, the papers or the public that they were parroting the Bush party line or working in their defense. Instead, they were presented as "experts" -- one assumes vetted for neutrality by the networks. We're only now finding out that they were in fact paid to appear on TV, [possibly also paid to write the op-eds]."

The most insidious thing was that many of the 'analysts' have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air. They were promoting a war that they stood to profit from.

Of course, the Bush family knows a lot about war profiteering.
I urge everyone, read the whole story of how your news was written by the government.

Bush administration's "abstinence-only" programs a failure, waste of taxpayer money

Over a billion dollars has been spent on abstinence only sex education that doesn't work according to experts testifying before congress. The federal government currently spends $176 million a year on abstinence-only education, which only supplements the millions more spent on abstinence-only in state and local matching grants.

Programs teaching U.S. schoolchildren to abstain from sex have not cut teen pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases or delayed the age at which sex begins, health groups told Congress on Wednesday:

"Vast sums of federal monies continue to be directed toward these programs. And, in fact, there is evidence to suggest that some of these programs are even harmful and have negative consequences by not providing adequate information for those teens who do become sexually active." -- Dr. Margaret Blythe, American Academy of Pediatrics

So, how does our local Republican Representative John Duncan, from Dumbfuckistan (TN) respond?

"...it seems rather elitist that people with academic degrees in health think they know better than parents what type of sex education is appropriate. "

What use could Republicans possibly need with such silly things as education, data, and science? Another battle in the Republican War on Science (and education.)

Bush has said repeatedly that the government must only fund those programs “that work.” Study after study show these programs don't work yet Harry Wilson, a top official in the Department of Health and Human Services, told the WaPost last week “that the administration has no intention of changing funding priorities in light of the results.” Say what?

Henry Waxman astutely pointed out the idiocy of the policy:

"We are showering funds on abstinence-only programs that don't appear to work, while ignoring proven comprehensive sex education programs that can delay sex, protect teens from disease, and result in fewer teen pregnancies. ... we have no dedicated source of federal funding specifically for comprehensive classroom sex education."

This is a choice between funding ideological nonsense or effective, comprehensive lessons on sexual health. Guess which one the White House prefers? Once again, another verification of the conservative psyche: 'stay the course even though everything tells you you're wrong' ... classic. Dumb. More

Trouble for McCain the war candidate - opposition to Iraq war at all-time high

The most recent USA Today/Gallup poll finds 63% of Americans saying the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq.

Check out these facts and statements by Gallup:

• This is the highest "mistake" percentage Gallup has ever measured for an active war involving the United States -- surpassing by two points the 61% who said the Vietnam War was a mistake in May 1971.


• The average percentage saying the war is a mistake has increased every year of the conflict...majority opposition to the Iraq war is basically cemented.

Sadly, it looks as if this month will be the worst death toll of US troops since Sept '07 if the present trend continues.

Speaking of polls, I see in the RCP poll of polls, both Clinton and Obama are slightly ahead of McCain now. This margin will widen considerably once a Dem candidate is chosen, I guarantee it.