The Tea Party Convention in Nashville

Here are some excerpts of this deft and balanced look at the Tea Party Convention at the Opryland Convention Center titled, "At the Tea Party," from reluctant insider, Jonathan Raban, published in the NY Review of Books journal. Well worth the full read found here: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23723

On the attendees:

As we milled around in the convention center lobby, we might easily have been mistaken for passengers on a cruise ship. We belonged to a similar demographic: most—though by no means all—of us had qualified for membership of AARP a good while ago; 99.5 percent of us were white; in general, smart leisurewear was our preferred style of dress.

...I asked one woman whether she'd been part of "9/12," as tea partiers call the great taxpayer march on Washington, D.C., last September. No, she'd missed it, she said, and "felt really guilty" about doing so, but she and her husband had been on vacation.

"Where did you go?"

"We spent a week in Amalfi, then we toured Tuscany, then we spent a week in Rome."

Another woman, hearing my accent, told me about her and her partner's second home in Torquay, England, which they visited three times a year from their base in Atlanta, and about their thirty-five-foot powerboat, in which they'd crossed the Channel to Le Havre and cruised down the French canals to Marseilles.

On messges:

It would have taken a finely calibrated stopwatch to measure how very rapidly such folksy piety and patriotism could swivel into crude nativism, conspiracy theory, and xenophobia—and to measure, too, the dawning discomfort at this switch of tone registered by a sizable part of the audience.

Reflecting on the Opryland Hotel surroundings in relationship to the speakers' messages:

Such a concentrated dose of surreality, taken before breakfast, helped to prepare one for life in the alternative world that was on offer in the ballroom.

Obama's election was "our Pearl Harbor." We were now living in "the Third Reich": the first two Reichs were FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society. Liberal environmentalists were leading us into "socialist totalitarianism disguised as polar bears." Luxuriant and overreaching metaphors bloomed like the tropical foliage just outside.

On the divisions:

At the march on D.C., there were T-shirts proclaiming "I am John Galt" and "Atlas Has Shrugged" alongside others that said "Obama Spends—Jesus Saves" or had the legend "Yes, He Did" beneath a picture of Christ on the cross. At Opryland, devout, abstemious Christians were breaking bread with followers of Ayn Rand's gospel of unbridled and atheistic self-interest. The convention, designed to unite the Tea Party movement, was helping to expose fundamental differences of belief and mindset between people who, before Nashville, had appeared as interchangeable members of a single angry crowd.

...As we sat down to our steak-and-jumbo-shrimp dinner, my neighbor said, sotto voce, for my ears only, "You know, I phoned my husband last night. I told him that being here has made me realize that I am a liberal conservative."

On Palin's speech / mad-lib:

Most of it was a rambling tour d'horizon of policy issues—national security, defense, Iran, the economy, bailouts, and debt—on which Palin had little more to offer than humdrum remarks like, "So, folks, with all these serious challenges ahead, we've got private-sector job creation that has got to take place and economic woes and health care, the war on terror."

...Palin remarked that "it would be wise of us to start seeking some divine intervention again in this country, so that we can be safe and secure and prosperous again"; the applause that met this line was intense but conspicuously scattered.

...The huge standing ovation ("Run, Sarah, Run!") at the end was more for the concept of Palin, her epiphanic appearance among us in the flesh, than it was for the lackluster speech she'd just delivered. On the way out of the convention center, I heard no one talking about how fired up they were by what they'd heard. In the elevator, a man said, "She messed up some of her lines. She'd've been better with a teleprompter."

(thanks to David Dark for sharing this on twitter (@daviddark)

Logic.

"Kitty Lambert's Wedding"

This is a real and brilliant and remarkable minute and a bit. MAKE SURE TO Watch til the very end, and see how insane this injustice remains:

(via The Atlantic)

Watching Kitty's "marriage" inspired me to post some of my favorite satirical videos from the past few years parodying the complete lack of logic and total injustice in banning gay marriage. (see also my earlier blog posts on my thoughts on the issue HERE)

1. The Onion covers a new law would nullify marriages of an est 2.4 mil couples currently living in silent resentment or seething hatred:


New Law Would Ban Marriages Between People Who Don't Love Each Other

2. The 2010 California Marriage Protection Act: Safeguarding Marriage from the Evils of Divorce

Taking hypocrisy to task

Creator John Marcotte jokingly describes himself as "a firm believer in traditional family values. He currently opposes government-funded death panels, Obama talking to children and MSNBC's entire prime-time line-up."

In reality, John is a devout Christian, and happily married father of two who created this site to lampoon California's gay marriage ban out of his concern as a Christian, not in spite of it. Making these videos for his site ( http://rescuemarriage.org/ ) he says, "It is truly a blessing from God when your wife can walk in on you watching an Internet video and it actually moves you further from divorce, rather than closer to it." (more on his story HERE, as NPR's original post is no longer available).

3. Stephen Colbert creates his own Anti-Gay Marriage Ad (and it's fabulous)

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Colbert Coalition's Anti-Gay Marriage Ad
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Skate Expectations

4 & 5. The Gaythering Storms (more parodies of the infamous NOM PSA)

"Stop it Storm!!" ft. Jane Lynch

A Gaythering Storm from Jane Lynch

"...and next they will come for me."

6. & 7. Comedians Stand Up

My Personal Favorite: Louis CK on Gay Marriage ("watch my cereal")

"I find this physically repulsive but I just want to win the argument."

[NOTE: Before watching you should be aware that in the mythical state of Canada (where Santa & Celine live) gay marriage is currently legal. *Oh and don't watch with kids in the room.]

Dylan Rhymer - Gay Marriage - watch more funny videos

8*. Last but not least: The Daily Show (*as in top 8...too many to just pick one)

Top 8 Gayest Marriagiest Daily Show Moments:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mass. Hysteria
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Vancouverage 2010

Continue watching the rest of the best:

http://www.indecisionforever.com/2009/05/26/top-8-gayest-marriagiest-daily-show-moments/

Cowboys and Indians: Thoughts on War

War & Education, Good Guys vs. Bad Guys, & the Myth of Redemptive Violence in 3 Parts:

Part 1. "Political Awakenings: An Unpublished Howard Zinn Inerview"

from The Nation (Feb. 8, 2010)

Harry Kreisler: Before you were in college, you were working on the docks and you were involved in a demonstration at Times Square, and the police attacked. That is an example of a kind of event that changed your thinking, and that's an argument that you make in a lot of your history, that people can be changed by things that happen to them and act accordingly.

Howard Zinn: That's right. Sometimes it's one very vivid experience. Of course, it's never just one vivid experience, but it's that one experience coming on top of a kind of only semiconscious understanding that's been developed, and then it becomes crystallized by an event. I think that's what happened to me at the age of seventeen, when I was hit by a policeman and knocked unconscious. I woke up and said, my God, this is America, where, yes, there are bad guys and there are good guys, but the government is neutral. And when I saw that, no, the police are not neutral, the government is not neutral, that was a radical insight.

HK: Your involvement in the antiwar movement was informed, in part, by your experience as a soldier. In one of the last bombing missions of the war, you were a bombardier on a plane that was responsible for one of the first uses of napalm, on an innocent French village called Royan. Tell us about that experience and what you learned from it, and how it affected your activism in the antiwar movement and your view of war in general.

HZ: I enlisted in the Air Force. I volunteered. I was an enthusiastic bombardier. To me it was very simple: it was a war against fascism. They were the bad guys; we were the good guys. One of the things I learned from that experience was that when you start off with them being the bad guys and you being the good guys, once you've made that one decision, you don't have to think anymore, if you're in the military. From that point on, anything goes. From that point on, you're capable of anything, even atrocities. Because you've made a decision a long time ago that you're on the right side. You don't keep questioning, questioning, questioning. You're not Yossarian, who questions.


And so, I was an enthusiastic bombardier, as I say. The war was over, presumably--a few weeks from the end. Everybody knew the war was about to end in Europe. We didn't think we were flying missions anymore. No reason to fly. We were all through France, into Germany. The Russians and Americans had met on the Elbe. It was just a matter of a few weeks. And then we were awakened in the wee hours of the morning and told we were going on a mission. The so-called intelligence people, who brief us before we go into a plane, tell us we are going to bomb this tiny town on the Atlantic coast of France called Royan, near Bordeaux, and we are doing it because there are several thousand German soldiers there. They are not doing anything. They are not bothering anyone. They are waiting for the war to end. They've just been bypassed. And we are going to bomb them.

What's interesting to me later, in thinking about it, is that it didn't occur to me to stand up in the briefing room and say, "What are we doing? Why are we doing this? The war is almost over, there is no need." It didn't occur to me. To this day, I understand how atrocities are committed. How the military mind works. You are taught to just mechanically go through the procedures that you have been taught, you see. So, we went over Royan, and they told us in the briefing that we were going to drop a different kind of bomb this time. Instead of the usual demolition bombs, we are going to drop thirty hundred-pound canisters of what they called jellied gasoline, which was napalm. It was the first use of napalm in the European war. We went over. We destroyed the German troops and also destroyed the French town of Royan. "Friendly fire." That's what bombing does.

To this day, when I hear the leaders of the country say, "Well, this is precision bombing and we are being very careful, and we are only bombing military"--that's nonsense. No matter how sophisticated the bombing technology, there is no way you can avoid killing nonmilitary people when you drop bombs. It wasn't until after the war that I looked back on that. In fact, it wasn't until after Hiroshima and Nagasaki that I looked back on that. Because after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which at first I had welcomed like everybody at that time did--"Oh yes, the war is going to be over"--then I read John Hershey's bookHiroshima, and for the first time the human consequences of dropping the bomb were brought home to me in a way I hadn't thought of. When you are dropping bombs from 30,000 feet you don't hear screams. You don't see blood.

I suddenly saw what the bomb in Hiroshima did. I began to rethink the whole question of a "good war." I came to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a good war. They may start off with good intentions, at least on the part of the people who fight in them. Generally not on the part of the people who make the decision; I doubt they have good intentions. But there may be good intentions on the part of the GIs who believe, yes, we are doing this for a good cause. But those good intentions are quickly corrupted. The good guys become the bad guys. So I became convinced that war is not a solution, fundamentally, for any serious problem. It may seem like a solution, like a quick fix, a drug. You get rid of this dictator, that dictator, as we did Hitler, Mussolini. But you don't solve fundamental problems. In the meantime, you've killed tens of millions of people.

...continue reading the rest of the interview HERE


Part 2. "No Exit" by Andrew Bacevich

from The American Conservative (Feb. 1, 2010)


America has an impressive record of starting wars but a dismal one of ending them well...



What are we to make of this record? For Krauthammer, Boot, and Barnes, the lessons are clear: dial up the rhetoric, increase military spending, send in more troops, and give the generals a free hand. The important thing, writes William Kristol in his own assessment of Obama’s Afghanistan decision, is to have a commander in chief who embraces “the use of military force as a key instrument of national power.” If we just keep trying, one of these times things will surely turn out all right.


An alternative reading of our recent military past might suggest the following: first, that the political utility of force—the range of political problems where force possesses real relevance—is actually quite narrow; second, that definitive victory of the sort that yields a formal surrender ceremony at Appomattox or on the deck of an American warship tends to be a rarity; third, that ambiguous outcomes are much more probable, with those achieved at a cost far greater than even the most conscientious war planner is likely to anticipate; and fourth, that the prudent statesman therefore turns to force only as a last resort and only when the most vital national interests are at stake. Contra Kristol, force is an “instrument” in the same sense that a slot machine or a roulette wheel qualifies as an instrument.

To consider the long bloody chronicle of modern history, big wars and small ones alike, is to affirm the validity of these conclusions. Bellicose ideologues will pretend otherwise. Such are the vagaries of American politics that within the Beltway the views expressed by these ideologues—few of whom have experienced war—will continue to be treated as worthy of consideration. One sees the hand of God at work: the Lord obviously has an acute appreciation for irony.


...continue reading the rest of the article HERE



Part 3. "Facing the Myth of Redemptive Violence" by Walter Wink

essay hosted by Ekklesia (2007) - full publication in The Powers That Be (1999)


The belief that violence “saves” is so successful because it doesn’t seem to be mythic in the least. Violence simply appears to be the nature of things. It’s what works. It seems inevitable, the last and, often, the first resort in conflicts. If a god is what you turn to when all else fails, violence certainly functions as a god. What people overlook, then, is the religious character of violence. It demands from its devotees an absolute obedience- unto-death.


This Myth of Redemptive Violence is the real myth of the modern world. It, and not Judaism or Christianity or Islam, is the dominant religion in our society today...

When the good guy finally wins, viewers are then able to reassert control over their own inner tendencies, repress them, and re-establish a sense of goodness without coming to any insight about their own inner evil. The villain’s punishment provides catharsis; one forswears the villain’s ways and heaps condemnation on him in a guilt-free orgy of aggression. Salvation is found through identification with the hero.



The Myth of Redemptive Violence is the simplest, laziest, most exciting, uncomplicated, irrational, and primitive depiction of evil the world has even known...


...continue reading the full essay HERE

images from Global Issues: "World Military Spending"


P.S.(a) An effective little ad:

We'll build that border fence now.

Wonkette : Texas Secession Movement Gaining Momentum, With the Rest of America

Fine, Austin is “okay.” And lightly populated West Texas is very nice, what with Big Bend National Park and the Mexican town of El Paso and whatever, as it’s really part of the Southwest. But Texas, that dipshit dismal swamp between, oh, Dallas and Corpus Christi, where the vast majority of the Texans live? It’s just the fucking South. A dumb, toxic shithole that produces little more than incredible assholes, many of whom then insist on taking part in American life. The last “good” Texan in politics was LBJ, and he was a goddamned monster. So, here is the new commercial. Good-bye, Texas! Thanks for all the laffs. (You can take the rest of the South with you.)

Melancholy and the 100 days of media sadness

The Worst Media Moment of Obama's
First 100 Days
from mediamatters.org

The first 100 days of the Obama administration are coming to a close, and there has certainly been no shortage of unhinged and outrageous media moments.

From Rush Limbaugh saying that "we are being told to bend over and grab the ankles ... because his father is black," to Glenn Beck imitating President Obama pouring gasoline on an "average American," conservatives in the media have wasted no time in stoking a culture of paranoia with extreme, vitriolic, and often irresponsible rhetoric.

VOTE for the worst moment at http://mediamatters.org/action_center/100days/

I'm debating between voting for one of these gems:

• Beck leaving an SUV idling outside his studio during his show to "do [his] part for global warming" after his cohort claimed Al Gore looks stupid for insisting on climate change when there is snow on the ground in NYC in winter.
• Beck pouring gas on another Fox anchor to demonstrate his feeling that Obama is setting the average American on fire.
• Limbaugh telling us that we're allowing ourselves to be anally raped because of White guilt.
• Santelli's inane and hypocritical rant from the trading floor.

A Vote of No Confidence

Most news media outlets (tv, radio & internet) lack any credibility and foster destructive transitory pop culture, encouraging 'info-tainment' within the context of no context. Whether biased or balanced it's all still blather. Yesterday, a Fox News Reporter actually said of Obama's latest address: "I hope there are no more of these five-minute answers. It's hard to stay awake." Looking at unemployment numbers it's more than disheartening to see that THESE people HAVE jobs and even worse... Platforms.

Media find Obama news conference insufficiently entertaining

Summary: Several media outlets echoed the assertion of a Drudge Report headline that President Obama's March 24 press conference was "boring."

Discussing President Obama's then-upcoming press conference on the March 24 edition of Fox News' Special Report, when asked what he was looking for, Fox News contributor Fred Barnes stated: "I hope there are no more of these five-minute answers. It's hard to stay awake." Subsequently, during the press conference, Internet gossip Matt Drudge posted the headline "Being Boring" below a picture of Obama on his website. Drudge's headline initially did not link to an analysis by Drudge or to any articles but instead linked back to the Drudge Report homepage. After the press conference ended, Fox News hosts Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity echoed Drudge, with O'Reilly calling Obama's performance "dull and repetitive," and Hannity calling it "boring and dull and uninspiring and unconvincing."

Full article at:
- mediamatters.org

---------------------
UPDATE (3/26)

Reporter Asks Gibbs About Question Selection And Teleprompter

from wonkette.com

Hey does anyone know what the hell is going on with the media? Did all professional journalistic reporters catch idiot cancer overnight? Here we have the Washington Post’s Lois Romano, a fine reporter usually (we guess?), landing an interview with Robert Gibbs. A GOOD JOURNALISTIC OPPORTUNITY. And the two questions she asks immediately… well you know what those are going to be, don’t you?

First this Washington Post reporter asks why Obama did not call on any “major newspapers” during his press conference, GAHHH! Wait. No! She says, “President Obama turned the longstanding press conference tradition on its head last night by, uh, bypassing the major newspapers. What do you think about the reaction to that?”

Just no self-awareness at all, no idea how this looks, no idea that no one, except the political reporters for four newspapers in the United States, in any way cares about this. And this is just going to get so, so much more grating over the next few years as more people stop reading 24-hour-old news physically printed on oversized sheets of tree pulp.

Anyway, Gibbs more or less tells her that no one cares, fine.

Then, Romano’s second question, actual quote: “The teleprompter changed last night. What was that about? It’s a big Jumbotron now.”

WELL LOIS THERE USED TO BE TWO SMALLER SCREENS ON EITHER OF HIS SIDES, AND THEN ON TUESDAY THERE WAS JUST ONE BIG ONE STRAIGHT IN FRONT OF HIM. HE WANTED TO LOOK STRAIGHT AHEAD INSTEAD OF SIDE-TO-SIDE. WE KNOW IT’S HARD TO UNDERSTAND BUT THAT IS WHY.

Robert Gibbs also yells at her, for asking stupid questions. This teleprompter stuff, and the fact that every level of reporter is talking about it… really, just how does that happen? There is no more controversy in the use of a teleprompter than there is in the use of a microphone. “Did you hear that Obama uses a microphone, because his supposedly ‘great speaking voice’ isn’t LOUD enough, like an IDIOT?” That’s going to be a New York Times front-pager in a few months at this rate, just you watch. Even believing the chain e-mail Muslim conspiracy rumors is more valid than finding controversy in a teleprompter. Really! - wonkette.com

Let's end this with a bang...

Have you ever wondered how much your government was like the mob? No, you haven't? You think that's a ridiculous analogy and that you'd have to be a complete moron to make it in the first place? Well, let me ask you this: Does the government make you fear for your life? No, again you think you'd have to be an insane person to think that's a legitimate question? Well of course you do, you're sane. Questions like these belong on the interwebs and message boards and ron paul forums right? No one in their right mind would say, intentionally bring a guest onto a prime-time cable news show to ask them these kinds of questions, right? Wrong. Guesssss whoooo???



I love that Fox brings on a mobster to give their narrative credibility. I hope that irony isn't lost on all of their viewers. Actually, I'm sure it was.

The Evangelical Collapse... quickly come

"The Coming Evangelical Collapse"
An anti-Christian chapter in Western history is about to begin. But out of the ruins, a new vitality and integrity will rise.

By Michael Spencer
from the March 10, 2009 Christian Science Monitor

Excerpt:

...the end of evangelicalism as we know it is close. Why is this going to happen?

1. Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism. This will prove to be a very costly mistake. Evangelicals will increasingly be seen as a threat to cultural progress. Public leaders will consider us bad for America, bad for education, bad for children, and bad for society.

The evangelical investment in moral, social, and political issues has depleted our resources and exposed our weaknesses. Being against gay marriage and being rhetorically pro-life will not make up for the fact that massive majorities of Evangelicals can't articulate the Gospel with any coherence. We fell for the trap of believing in a cause more than a faith.

2. We Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught. Ironically, the billions of dollars we've spent on youth ministers, Christian music, publishing, and media has produced a culture of young Christians who know next to nothing about their own faith except how they feel about it. Our young people have deep beliefs about the culture war, but do not know why they should obey scripture, the essentials of theology, or the experience of spiritual discipline and community. Coming generations of Christians are going to be monumentally ignorant and unprepared for culture-wide pressures.

3. There are three kinds of evangelical churches today: consumer-driven megachurches, dying churches, and new churches whose future is fragile. Denominations will shrink, even vanish, while fewer and fewer evangelical churches will survive and thrive.

4. Despite some very successful developments in the past 25 years, Christian education has not produced a product that can withstand the rising tide of secularism. Evangelicalism has used its educational system primarily to staff its own needs and talk to itself.

5. The confrontation between cultural secularism and the faith at the core of evangelical efforts to "do good" is rapidly approaching. We will soon see that the good Evangelicals want to do will be viewed as bad by so many, and much of that work will not be done. Look for ministries to take on a less and less distinctively Christian face in order to survive.

6. Even in areas where Evangelicals imagine themselves strong (like the Bible Belt), we will find a great inability to pass on to our children a vital evangelical confidence in the Bible and the importance of the faith.

7. The money will dry up.

FULL ARTICLE HERE: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0310/p09s01-coop.html

Great article and I agree almost entirely, (especially with his list 1-7) but with a few exceptions. The largest being this:

The ascendancy of Charismatic-Pentecostal-influenced worship around the world can be a major positive for the evangelical movement if reformation can reach those churches and if it is joined with the calling, training, and mentoring of leaders. If American churches come under more of the influence of the movement of the Holy Spirit in Africa and Asia, this will be a good thing.

This movement is primarily devoid of the very things the author says Evangelicals problematically lack in #2

2. We Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught. Ironically, the billions of dollars we've spent on youth ministers, Christian music, publishing, and media has produced a culture of young Christians who know next to nothing about their own faith except how they feel about it. Our young people have deep beliefs about the culture war, but do not know why they should obey scripture, the essentials of theology, or the experience of spiritual discipline and community. Coming generations of Christians are going to be monumentally ignorant and unprepared for culture-wide pressures.

...so I don't see how the author thinks that movement will sustain or be a "good thing." It is growing in poverty-ridden areas because it often preaches a false gospel of self-improvement, holiness and works-based righteousness benefits and wealth according to "faith". So it preys on the praying poor, but it is NOT Christianity, in fact it's the antithesis. In my line of work we've seen vibrant growth in healthy faith in Africa that eclipses some of the best the Western church has produced, but we've also seen growth in bastardized faith with a false gospel and most of it has come from these very Charismaniacal circles.

The Christian "church" as a whole is bigger than it's ever been and the center of Christianity is no longer Europe, nor the U.S., but South America, Africa, & Asia. People talked the "death" of the church many many times before and they will continue to do so. The author is primarily correct about his evaluations of the Western church and the resurgence of Orthodoxy. Orthodox faith (not Eastern Orthodox, but Biblical based traditional faith) is growing slowly, especially in Europe and centers of education rather than declining as popular opinion suggests.

What is true and troubling is that as the American "Evangelical" church declines, which it is, it will not die out but rather become more troublesome and hard-lined. Like a dog in a corner (literally, because as the author suggests correctly, these groups will retreat further and further into their subcultures) it will lash out and become more hateful and destructive and entrench itself further into its culture wars of irrelevance and continue to serve as fodder and a red herring for critics of Christianity.

Finally, I do also agree with the author that this is all mostly GOOD news for the Church. True Christianity has stood strongest and most in line with its own teachings when it acts as counterculture and in opposition to the lies and destruction of its particular place in time (the irony is that now it needs most to be those things to its own adherents!). The Church was most successful when it stood against the Hellenists and the Romans and offered its alternative even in the face of persecution. It was then most successful again when it stood against its own co-option with the State and the abuses of the Catholic heads during the Reformation. It will be so again if it will stand against is new idols and false leaders and actually teach the Gospel instead of social conservatism, prosperity theology, and numerous other distractions (at best) and murderous lies (at worst).

The author says, "The integrity of the church as a countercultural movement with a message of "empire subversion" will increasingly replace a message of cultural and political entitlement." Let's hope so, because that will not be the legacy of our parents, but maybe it can be ours.

Even Conservatives Don't Want to Be Conservatives Anymore

Republican Columnist/writer David Brooks thinks Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's speech in response to Obama's address was "insane".

Are we done with them yet?

Imagine your neighbors being targeted and arrested without cause, simply because they are Latino. Then, imagine undocumented immigrants being paraded in shackles across town to publicly humiliate them in front of media cameras. Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona’s Maricopa County creates dehumanizing scenes like these on a regular basis.

According to The Arizona Republic, Sheriff Arpaio's track record includes immigration sweeps that target anyone “guilty of looking Latino,” entering private homes without warrants, taking mothers from their children during traffic stops, and parading shackled detainees in front of the news media.

Arpaio calls himself “America’s toughest sheriff,” but not only are his practices of racial profiling discriminatory, they are downright ineffective. As a result of his obsessive focus on the Latino population, his county has more than 40,000 outstanding felony warrants, and 911 response times have worsened, making his county a less safe place for all people.

Think abuses in Maricopa County are only a local concern? Think again. Sheriff Arpaio illustrates the dangerous consequences of our broken national immigration system. Since U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement cannot effectively enforce our current laws, it gives authority—and your federal taxpayer dollars—to local officials. Some local agencies use this power responsibly; others, like Sheriff Arpaio, do not.

Sheriff Arpaio once said, “Do you think I’m going to report to the federal government? I don’t report to them. If they don’t like the contract, they can close it up.” Couldn’t agree with his suggestion more, but ending his contract is not enough: a deeper investigation is in order.

Join prominent members of Congress and the Mayor of Phoenix in requesting a Justice Department investigation into “discriminatory harassment, improper stops, searches, and arrests” of Latinos by Sheriff Arpaio. [Sojourners]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They're probably the greatest threat to America going down I know of."

So what's America's greatest threat? The weakest economy in 80 years? Widespread layoffs, bank collapses, meltdown in the auto industry and a housing crisis?

Not according to Utah State Sen. Chris Buttars. In a recent interview obtained by HRC, he says America's greatest threat is the LGBT community. He goes on to call lesbian and gay relationships "abominations" and claims LGBT people lack morals. Watch now >>

In the interview, Sen. Buttars calls LGBT people "the meanest buggers I've ever seen" – this kind of rhetoric creates an atmosphere of hatred that incites violence against LGBT Americans.

Here are a few more lowlights from Buttars' rant:

• LGBT people "are destroying the Constitution."
• Their "number one goal is to proselytize to youth" and use schools as "a recruiting station."
• Thanks to them we are, "moving toward a society that has no morals."
• They will "destroy the foundation of American society... In my mind, it is the beginning of the end."

What's more, Sen. Buttars also takes clear pride in saying he's "killed" every piece of pro-equality legislation in Utah for eight years.

Call on Utah's Senate President to publicly condemn Sen. Buttars' remarks immediately. [HRC]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, let's talk poverty:

Want to find out how people have voted in your state or district? Go to this interactive map at the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law’s Poverty Scorecard to find out how your representatives voted. Bet you can guess, but in case your imagination is lacking here's TN's to the right. How anyone with any speck of decency could vote against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, I'll never understand.

Of course in each of these instances they're all Republicans. All this party knows is how to alienate, discriminate, and harm what they consider as "the other." Whether it's immigrants or gays or the poor, time and time again the leadership on all levels, state, local, and federal we continue to see this kind of bigotry and xenophobia, fearmongering and divisive speech serving as fodder for the least of our nature going so far as to result in physical and psychological violence, systemic injustice and widespread rights violations against those on the outside of power.

For Jesus and the prophets before, true righteousness consisted of deeds of love, mercy and justice, especially to the most vulnerable. This had slipped from the center of tradition in Jesus’s day and the focus from the Pharisees was on ritual purity of which Jesus had very little interest. Jesus said our righteousness must go beyond theirs and made a huge emphasis on expanding our circle of love to include strangers and even enemies. This was the true standard of holiness: to practice communal hospitality, so that the burden is shared within the body of Christ rather than being carried by one individual, to help our brothers and sisters in need, not to divide one as “stranger” or “other", to love God, our neighbor as ourselves, Do Justice, Love Mercy, Walk Humbly with God. The Republican party, the party of the 'older brother' from the Prodigal story knows nothing of these things. And the cooption of religion in this country under their moniker is perhaps one of the greatest scams ever committed. To use Sen. Buttars's own language:

"They're probably the greatest threat to America going down I know of."

³¹"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. ³²All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. ³³He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

³⁴"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. ³⁵For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, ³⁶I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

³⁷"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? ³⁸When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? ³⁹When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

⁴⁰"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

⁴¹"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. ⁴²For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, ⁴³I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

⁴⁴"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

⁴⁵"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

⁴⁶"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." [Matthew 25:31-46]

P.S. for my Libertarian friends:

"We all hate the same things"

Maddow interviewing Alexandra Pelosi (Nancy's daughter) filmmaker of "Right America Feeling Wronged" & "Journey's With George" (about a minute or two in)

They Need a Hero...(to save them from themselves)

Who will the Republicans turn to in their search for a qualified leader to guide them with fresh vision and ideas? Who possesses the sober-mindedness and wisdom that will help the country wade through the complex financial milieu most Americans currently face? Who will have the experience, insight and courage to take their tattered party forward? What representative tour de force will display that they understand the gravity of the situation while also offering helpful hints on how to stop the toilet from running or how to increase the water pressure through your shower head all the while being unlicensed and unqualified for any of the above?

Why JOE THE PLUMBER of course. For Christ's sake.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Joe the Political Strategist

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Funny Political News
Joke of the Day

Joe the Plumber is the savior who will lead the Republicans beyond the wreckage of lost elections and into a new era. "Jiggle it."

Playing With Fire

NY Times - Bob Herbert

Published: February 6, 2009

Neither the job losses nor the president’s prodding was enough to prompt much of a response from the Republicans. But by Friday evening, it appeared that a small number of G.O.P. senators, enough to assure Senate passage of a revised (and watered-down) stimulus package by a very slim margin, had come aboard.

But only a small number. Even as the report of an agreement was being circulated, Senator Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, was bad-mouthing the package on CNN. “This bill is a disaster,” he said.

It’s been clear for years that the G.O.P. is a party without a heart. But its pointless obstructionism, its overall lack of any serious response to what is a clear national economic emergency, seems to indicate it’s also a party without a brain. [full article]

The Party of No Ideas' Big Idea is to Just Say No, Regardless.

Usually I post quotes from articles, snip-its, etc., but this one is too priceless, so I give it to you in all its snarky glory [of course, via Wonkette.com]

GOP Against Stimulus Part of Stimulus Bill
- Ken Layne

So the Republicans are all for a good Economic Stimulus bill, meaning one that would stop taxing the rich and stop any corporate taxes and also, somehow, further ruin the environment and whatever. As a result of this clear “small government” philosophy the big-spending corporate-welfare closeted homosexuals adopted last week, GOP congressional leaders have found the parts they just can’t tolerate in the Economic Stimulus legislation: the parts that would create jobs and build American infrastructure. Yes we can’t!

Look, whatever anybody’s uninformed opinions about this Rescue the Economy package, you should at least be able to reconcile “support for economic stimulus legislation” with “support for legislation that will throw a bunch of money at the economy, in the form of money paid for goods and services, manufacturing and labor, and other traditional uncontroversial gears of Capitalism.”

So, here are some specific things the GOP will not condone, in this bill they’re not going to vote for, anyway:

• A billion dollars extra for the 2010 U.S. Census, which is going to pay good money to many jobless people in every American town — and shore up Lockheed-Martin, which is getting $500 million to build the data systems and run the machinery.
• $75 million for FBI employee salaries, because why would you want to pay America’s top cops to do law enforcement and investigations, in America?
• $500 million for Mississippi River flood control projects, which would employ thousands of laborers and keep dozens of construction companies in business, because nothing makes Republicans happier than seeing a Katrina repeat on the teevee every other hurricane season.
• $200 million for green vehicles on U.S. military bases and $600 million to replace the federal fleet of cars with hybrids, because only a gay communist could see the economic benefits of $800 bmillion in sales for U.S. auto manufacturers while simultaneously cutting the government’s gasoline bill by billions per year.
• $1.4 billion for rural garbage-disposal and recycling programs, because who but an Islamo-Fascist would want to provide much-needed jobs for the Red State countryside while keeping toxic garbage out of those people’s drinking water?
• $125 million to rebuild the broken, rotten, third-world sewer system of our Nation’s Capital. You give the blacks this, and who knows what they’ll want next! And by “give,” we mean “pay a decent wage to laborers in D.C., to rebuild their sewers.”
• $6 billion to pay dozens of big regional contractors, hundreds of local businesses and tens of thousands of American workers to retrofit federal buildings so that they’ll be energy efficient.
• $200 million for computer centers at community colleges, because if poor unskilled workers want to “learn the computer,” they should just go to Stanford instead of complaining.

[wonkette.com]

FURTHERMORE...

"...nine days after being inaugurated, Obama still hadn't erased decades' worth of partisan squabbling. That's a reasonable standard, right? If Republicans simply do not want to cooperate in any meaningful way with Democrats, is there anything Obama can do to change that? No, not really. But according to the press, Obama -- and Obama alone -- is supposed to change that mindset." - Eric Boehlert ['Obama, the press, and the "bipartisan" trap']

The Fear Imbalance: A Montage (time to get back on the meds)

With Obama in office, you'd think our wingnut friends would have found a nice hole in the sand in which to bury their heads by now, but nah, they've turned to their trusty standby...WILLFUL IGNORANCE. Enjoy this salute:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Fox News Fear Imbalance

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Moment of Zen - Hannity Reveals the True Obama

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Since values are hobbies how can we exploit this?

Well, with the the latest fear-mongering campaign in the U.S.; one devoted to scaring Americans into believing that they will be slaughtered if Guantanamo is closed and terrorism suspects are brought into the U.S. for real trials of course. (Glenn Greenwald)

"Both before and after 9/11, the U.S. has repeatedly and successfully tried alleged high-level Al Qaeda operatives and other accused Islamic Terrorists in our normal federal courts -- in fact, the record is far more successful than the series of debacles that has taken place in the military commissions system at Guantanamo. Moreover, those convicted Terrorists have been housed in U.S. prisons, inside the U.S., for years without a hint of a problem. Here is but a partial list of the accused Muslim Terrorists who have been successfully tried and convicted in U.S. civilians courts and who remain imprisoned inside the U.S." (Click to Read)

And yet the United States, under George W. Bush, actually sought to have these dangerous people extradited to the United States, exposing our citizens to danger! Not only that, we succeeded! OMG!! Americans are at risk!!! What shall we do???

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Gitmo's World - Death to America

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

With Gitmo on the loose and Obama preaching a consistent set of ethics what shall we do? What shall we do?! Well, what any good-natured, god-fearing conservative would do: encourage people to knock-off Democratic senators....oh yes.

"Conservapedia, the home of conservative pedophiles “The Trustworthy Encyclopedia.” For example, say your home-schooled-in-Christ kid needs to do a report on which states would benefit from Dem senators who, tragically, “were unable to complete their terms and were replaced by qualified Republicans by their Republican governors.” Where to go? That homosexual devil box “Wikipedia” surely would be of no assistance, to Patriots!" (Wonkette)

Here is the actual entry, “Senate Democrats from States with Republican Governors”:

(Conservapedia)

After all this insanity I think a high-five is well in order:

HIGH-FIVE INAUGURATION! - watch more funny videos

Want to learn how to lie with a 'straight' face?

...then take notes from Tony Perkins:



Civil Rights are not a matter of "majority rule", they are "inalienable". In who's reality should civil rights be eliminated through popular vote? What do you think would have happened if the actions passed through the Civil Rights movement were to have been voted on?

California made history last week, to be sure, but not the kind of history we like and can be proud of and certainly not the kind of history we're known for. In 1948, California led the nation by becoming the first state to strike down bans on interracial marriage. In the Perez v Sharp decision that found marriage to be a fundamental right, the state Supreme court stated "the right to marry is the right to join in marriage with the person of one's choice" (emphasis added). Nearly 20 years later, the United States Supreme Court agreed that marriage was a "basic civil right" when it struck down anti-miscegenation laws all across the country.

Last Tuesday a very narrow majority of voters decided to make history again: California is now the first state in the nation to take away a currently existing civil right from a group of citizens. This national embarrassment by way of constitutional amendment is made all the more painful and unjust by the manner in which it was passed: the subjection of individual rights to a popular vote. [Prop 8 Makes Wrong Kind of History]

The ruling by the California Supreme Court earlier this year that sparked the signature campaign placing Prop 8 on the ballot spoke of the "overarching values of equality and human freedom," the "fundamental right" of marriage, the importance of giving same-sex unions "equal dignity and respect," and the constitutional obligation of the court "to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority." I've been wanting to get to this story for some time now and want to be clear that I am NOT here to make a theological statement. This is not a religious issue, but a constitutional one, and the constitution does not allow for this kind of infringement. The church can determine who it shall and shall not marry and God can decide who's bonds are held in His eyes, but the State should be in no business of withholding a minority's rights in accordance with fluctuating public opinion. The truth is not a democracy. The truth is not determined by a majority vote (Especially not 51 to 49). If anyone should know this it should be Christians. Congratulations to the Church for leading yet another movement in American history that will be on the wrong side of history.

The Flaw in the Plan

Trading ambition for ideals, McCain made the mistake of aligning his campaign with the culture warriors instead of running as himself. The fatal flaw was exposed: because before God, America worships money, and culture wars call a truce when the economic woes reign supreme. Sure the tide has shifted in Evangelical circles to bring about more progressive tendencies, but on the whole the Almighty Dollar supercedes the Almighty God (and sometimes they're one in the same). The only thing evangelicals love more than God is money, and this ultimately marked the end of John McCain. He would have known this if he hadn't been such an outsider. Only a true evangelical would have known.

In the Washington Post today, Peter Beinart says Culture War just isn’t selling anymore, and that only 6% of voters now name “issues like abortion, guns and same-sex marriage” as a big deal:

The economic challenges of the coming era are complicated, fascinating and terrifying, while the cultural battles of the 1960s feel increasingly stale …. Although she seems like a fresh face, Sarah Palin actually represents the end of an era. She may be the last culture warrior on a national ticket for a very long time.

The relationship between prosperity and cultural conflict isn't exact, of course, but it is significant that during this era's culture war we've gone a quarter-century without a serious recession. Economic issues have mattered in presidential elections, of course, but not until today have we faced an economic crisis so grave that it made cultural questions seem downright trivial. In 2000, in the wake of an economic boom and a sex scandal that led to a president's impeachment, 22 percent of Americans told exit pollsters that "moral values" were their biggest concern, compared with only 19 percent who cited the economy.

Today, according to a recent Newsweek poll, the economy is up to 44 percent and "issues like abortion, guns and same-sex marriage" down to only 6 percent. It's no coincidence that Palin's popularity has plummeted as the financial crisis has taken center stage. From her championing of small-town America to her efforts to link Barack Obama to former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, Palin is treading a path well-worn by Republicans in recent decades. She's depicting the campaign as a struggle between the culturally familiar and the culturally threatening, the culturally traditional and the culturally exotic. But Obama has dismissed those attacks as irrelevant, and the public, focused nervously on the economic collapse, has largely tuned them out.

Palin's attacks are also failing because of generational change. The long-running, internecine baby boomer cultural feud just isn't that relevant to Americans who came of age after the civil rights, gay rights and feminist revolutions. Even many younger evangelicals are broadening their agendas beyond abortion, stem cells, school prayer and gay marriage. ["Last of the Culture Warriors" - WashingtonPost.com]

Sarah Palin may symbolize the last Republican culture warrior:

They’re still out there, still angry and still illiterate. But there’s not enough of them to win elections anymore, and the new Great Depression has even knocked some common sense into a few of these people — this year, a lot of bitters sort of cleared the Rove Goo from their eyes and realized being permanently enraged about guns or Mexicans is not really the path to wealth and happiness.

Younger voters just don’t care much about race, they aren’t paranoid about homosexuals trying to do whatever it is they fear homosexuals want to do to poor dumb white people, and they’re very much in favor of the kinds of things Dingbat Palin mocks with such enthusiasm: environmental protection, alternative energy and government-backed health care.

And surprise, surprise, younger voters are going heavily to Obama and Democrats across the board. Older voters are surprisingly in the tank — that Medicare and Social Security is pretty good stuff, HENGHH? — and “that one” has the wealthy and the educated on his side. ["Palin Fighting 'Culture War' Nobody Cares About" - Wonkette.com]

Finally, much of what we think we know about values in America isn't really of much value:

The reason that recent presidential elections have been so close, and Congress so narrowly divided, is that voters actually share both a broad distrust of both political parties and government and a basic civic outlook. For example, in 2000, the Mother of All Red/Blue Elections, he found that exactly 62 percent of voters in red states and blue states should tolerate each others' "moral views." But finding neither team attractive, voters naturally split their votes about evenly between the two unpopular sides. That isn't polarization; it is simple sorting.

Noisy, persistent conflicts aren't a sign of civic rot, but of humans being human. Americans are indeed frustrated and challenged by a lack of community, by rapid social and technological change and by economic pessimism. But our values are not the problem. ["Five Myths About Values Voters" - WashingtonPost.com]