"What's So Great About Blaming The Democrats For September 11th?"

[Note: The post title is basically a spoiler happy alternate title for book D'Souza's book "The Enemy at Home." Which (gasp) he shamelessly plugs by reiterating! ]

This little blog post by Dinesh is a frantic, grasping attempt to try to justify his opinion that exposure to liberal Western media and values is what caused those terrorists to get so angry at us a few years back. He uses the book "Who Speaks for Islam?" to lend credence to this idea of his, although, the ultimate conclusion of the book is that our foreign policy and perceived disrespect of their religion is the key reason for anger, rather than perceived immorality. But the facts have never stopped Dinesh before....

In the seven years since 9/11, we have been subjected to all kinds of ignorant pontification--much of it from the left, but some also from the right--on "why they hate us."

Quoted for irony.

Esposito and Mogahed argue that traditional Muslims, who make up the bulk of Muslims in every Muslim country, strongly identify with the Western principles of rule of law, self-government, and religious toleration. In fact, their main critique of America is that, as they see it, America backs secular dictators in the Muslim world who deny to Muslims the rights that are taken for granted by Americans.

Yes. Their main critique of America has to do with foreign policy. You see that clearly in this book. You are acknowledging it in this very paragraph. And yet...

They reject the shamelessness and frequent depravity of American popular culture. They reject the type of feminism that relinquishes the home in favor of careers. They are resolutely anti-abortion. They consider homosexual marriage to be an abomination.

Oh noes! They are arch-conservative prudes on top of that! Obviously, this must mean one, and only one thing: they hate us for our freedoms!!!1!!1!

But when conservative and religious Europeans and Americans are polled, it turns out that the percentage of people who are fine with homosexuality is about the same as that of the traditional Muslims.

Yes. This is true. Dinesh will be engaging in "push under the rug" mode in three...two....

First, that the values of the cultural left are an important source in alienating Muslims worldwide. Second, that Muslims don't reject modernity or the West: rather, they embrace what may be termed "1950s America" while rejecting the libertine values of the 1960s. Third, America can build alliances with traditional Muslims by showing them the face of traditional America, so that they see that Hollywood values aren't necessarily American values. Finally, left-wing groups like International Planned Parenthod and Amnesty International should stop pushing feminism, gay marriage and libertine values in the Muslim world.

Holy f@#%$&*@$#burger! What a change! The entire article up to this point was basically "here are some facts and conclusions. Neat, I know. But, look away for a minute, because this is what is really going on". I sincerely do not know why Dinesh thinks that the "values of the cultural left", which are basically equal rights for gays, women, and people of all races and religions should be so offensive as to be the only reason that Muslims are pissed off. You'd think, you know, the violence thing would be a bigger factor. Especially when the book you are citing to support your own reaches that conclusion. I also cannot begin to fathom how we could abandon those values, I do not know why we would want to do so just to appease some people who are willing to kill us over being free and equal, and I cannot believe that Dinesh is making an appeal to "the good ol' days" as the assumed perspective of over one billion people (who are hopefully not as naive.)
And I seriously doubt that we are pushing for gay marriage in Islamic countries. "Feminism" maybe. Gay marriage...well...they have other problems to address before that (you know...like not executing people for being gay...).
Also: "Parenthod"?

Pundits like Chalmers Johnson love to say that American intervention in Iraq and
elsewhere has produced a "blowback" of terrorism from the House of Islam. Wrong!
It is in Iraq that America is allowing an elected Muslim government to rule
according to Muslim interests and Muslim values. Iraq is the only country in the
Middle East where the Muslim population actually chose its own rulers. Iraq is
not the problem. Rather, it is the values of the cultural left, and the cultural
imperialism that seeks to impose those values on reluctant Muslims, that is the
real source of Muslim rage, and the best recruiting tool of the radical Muslims

And now I can conclude, after months of reading Dinesh's articles and suspecting it all along, that Dinesh D'Souza is a certifiable moron. Either his head so far up his own ass that he is currently engaged in a boxing match with his own brain, or he is just functionally braindead, and merely types messages on his computer when a precisely applied electric shock causes him to spasm and slam his face on the keybard. He just doesn't have any idea how we noble Americans went about giving that democracy to those appreciative Iraqi Muslims, does he? Doesn't think that terrorists could possibly be perturbed by our toppling governments on false pretenses and insisting that we impose a new one on them? Everyone in Iraq and the entire world is hunky-dory because we gave them a nice, sparkly democratic government, built on the corpses of over 100,000 civilians. Hell of a world you live in, Dinesh.
Here's just one tiny bit of advice: it doesn't matter if you can decide who your leaders are, if there is nothing to lead or if the leadership is crappy. We are making strides, but their democracy is still fledgling, and I doubt that everyone is of the impression that it is the best thing since sliced bread yet. It is disgusting that you are trying to blame terrorism on short-skirts and gay rights. It is even more disgusting that you do so in such an underhanded, yet gleefully confident fashion.
The idea that anyone refers to you as an intellectual, a scholar, or as anything but the right-wing tabloid writer you really are amuses me greatly. I honestly hope that people will wake up and smell the bullshit real soon. Until then, I offer a toast to the arrival of your latest truckload of fail.

Happy 9/11 day, everyone!

I know, bad taste. Honestly, I have to confess, I was not perturbed by the 9/11 attacks when they happened, so I obviously still do not give much of a damn about them today. As far as I can see it, we are fairly fortunate that such an event is rare enough for us to be alarmed in the first place. This comes from a deeply pessimistic perspective, however, so I don't expect anyone else to agree. But, I feel that we are lucky enough to spend most of our time killing ourselves and one another, rather than suffering from external hostility. So, like a certain radical black preacher of a certain Democratic presidential candidate, I couldn't help but the see the attacks as an inevitability, and a little bit karmic (chickens come to roost, all that).

Obviously, I feel bad for the families of the victims. I laud the men and women who tried their hardest to save those lost in the ruin. And I wish that it hadn't happened. Yet, I do not feel bad for fully grown people whose naive sense of security were shattered. I do not appreciate that the attack sparked mindless patriotism in a climate of fear. And I do not pity this country for having lost 4,000 men on that day, when we have sacrificed that same number fighting a war that only occurred because of the mindless patriotism and blind thirst for vengeance that followed one single attack on us, while claiming the lives of over 100,000 Iraqi civilians. We have lost any claims to sympathy for these attacks, and it disgusts me that they are still brought up in an attempt to stoke the flames of nationalism. The flames which have driven us to become all the more worthy of the attacks that we were responding to.

The victims should be mourned, their families remembered. But, the blood on our hands for letting our own fear and anger get the better of us should not be forgotten.

Voting: The S & M way

(Inspired by the idea of PUMA, and by people wondering why African Americans are so disproportionately Democrats...)

It is a remarkable problem that has become increasingly obvious over the last few years. Closeted gay politicians pass anti-gay legislation. Post-equal rights women speak publicly about the evils of feminism. Pundits from a minority group rant about how we should do away with the overcompensatory measures of affirmative action. And those in bottom quintile for yearly salary speak out against welfare and "socialism". These are a vast and varied group of people who, for whatever reason, fight valiantly on behalf of a group that is against their own best interests. They are the Stockholm Republicans.

They may see it as a noble sacrifice, or they may simply focus on aspects of neo-conservative policy that doesn't pertain to stripping them of their rights. But, for whatever reason, they find themselves supporting the people who hate them and want to limit their existence as much as possible. They are racial minorities who ally themselves with racists (e.g. D'Souza). They are women who are willing to sacrifice their rights to choice (in regards to womb and work) in the name of tradition (e.g. Schafly). They are non-Christians supporting the claim that they live in a Christian country and that the legislature should feel free to impose fundamentalist views on the general populace. They are gays who support the party that is bastion of hope for homophobes across the country. Their motives are unknown, but, whether or not they are consciously aware of the fact that they are adamantly supporting their own oppression, or if they merely see it as a necessary evil in favoring an otherwise agreeable platform (from their perspective) is up for debate on a case by case basis.

Nevertheless, I think it safe to assume that they have a masochistic streak (especially in light of seeing how well Republicans do on the economic and military fronts, and not just the social one). Whether they should be pitied as victims of two-party circumstance, hailed as martyrs for an indeterminate cause, or hauled off to a mental facility, their existence is a striking blow to our political system. Under circumstances without such a group, the Republicans couldn't afford to remain as the "rich Christian white straight male's party" and let the Democratic party be the "everybody else's party". They would lose every election. But, the group of Stockholm Republicans (be they "followers of the status-quo", those who hear the party platform and say"one out of five ain't bad", or the "optimistic ear-pluggers") effectively innoculate the party from such a threat, and assure that they never have to abandon their lack of concern about society beyond the original core "panderees".

I have my fingers crossed that they are too small of a fringe to matter in this election (where the past administration should have thoroughly dismissed any illusions of conservative fiscal responsibility, moral superiority, and military expertise). But, then again, you will be surprised how many people are willing to take up the brutal four more years of the self-flagellation they know, than the black, inexperienced secret Muslim that they don't.

On Palin, pregnancy, and PUMA

Point one: McCain deciding to choose Palin as his Vice Presidential candidate was bold, risky, brilliant, but probably an incredible sacrifice. By choosing Palin, he can now claim a historic ticket just like Obama, and gain some leverage with jilted Hillary supporters who were leaning towards the Republican side and now may be willing to make that leap. And, with Palin having a big, wholesome family and being strongly religious, she can help to give a little more balance to McCain, who is still mistrusted by evangelicals for speaking out against them in his maverick days (though they aren't as skeptical of him as they should be, predictably). Of course, this comes at the risk of being too transparent of a ploy to get women voters on to the Republican side, chasing them away, while simultaneously chasing away the "barefoot and pregnant" brand of misogynists on the far right. At the same time, she may seem to be immune to being challenged for inexperience due to Obama having the same problem, her presence effectively makes it so that challenging Obama's inexperience is a moot point now. The tickets are balanced both in regards to experience and their historical nature.

Point two: Palin's daughter is pregnant apparently. And there is much conflict amongst the Democrats (surprise) about whether or not this issue should be addressed. I am a big supporter of not bringing up the sex lives of candidates, or about bringing up the candidates' families at all. We are not electing their family, after all. But, I am conflicted on this, since I am in favor of mentioning something that illustrates failures in a candidate's policies or outright hypocrisy. I am not sure if it applies here, but there is a definitely a double standard. I do think that unless we have a relevant reason for dragging the issue into the public eye further, that we should do as Obama suggests and take the high road. Most arguments I have heard for why Palin's views could be relevant to her daughter's teenage pregnancy have to do with assuming that abstinence only education was at fault and the fact that she applauded her daughter for making a choice (keeping the child) that she wishes to deprive others from making. Other than that, which are kind of weak as it is, there is really no good reason to bring it up and we should leave it alone.

Point three: Former Hillary supporters (alluded to in point one) who are willing to either forfeit votes or vote for McCain to spite Obama seem to be rather vocal on the net. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are any more relevant to the electoral process overall than the equally net-frenzied Ron Paul supporters of yestermonth, but they still seem to have a lot of presence. Some seem to be dwelling on some perceived misogyny in some of the remarks made in media coverage (the only one I can think of us is the idiotic manner that they covered her crying spell after winning one of the early primaries, but I am sure there were other instances, as there usually is). Or they may be reacting to particularly abrasive Obama supporters online (I know, someone said something rude and inconsiderate online!) or in real life. [Side note: they are also dismissed as some form of cultist if they are not able to give a good reason for why they are voting for Obama. Just FYI.] Others seem to still just be peeved about Hillary not being allowed to get votes from the two states that were discounted at the very beginning of the primary season, according to rules that were agreed to beforehand. And still more just plain don't like Obama (claiming that he is sexist, though I am not sure why, to be honest).
I honestly don't know whether these people are actually sincere Democrats, or just cross-overs who are crossing back now that Hillary has fallen out. But still, the ones that claim to be pissed off Democrats seem to be put into a state where they think it is detestable that people would expect them to vote for Obama instead of Hillary now that he was won the nomination, due to the fact that he is the one who shares the most in common with their former "messiah" (turnabout is fair play, no?). They deplore the idea of "party unity" because they argue that it is commanding them to vote a certain way, feel as if they are victimized due to Hillary losing, etc. etc.
I sincerely hope that there are not many of these people. This is a very important election, and we do not need to have the Democrats lose once again, and due to a bunch of disgruntled voters who are willing to vote for someone they disagree with on almost every issue out of pure spite. I send out a prayer that this will not occur. As an atheist....that should serve as a testament to my desperation.

When Opinions Suck

How can you miss the point so thoroughly, and show your prejudices at the same time? Write an opinion column about a group of people you clearly don't like and most likely know nothing about!

He definitely starts out on the right foot:

A few atheists have their panties in a twist once again, this time fussing that an atheist leader wasn't invited to speak at an Aug. 24 interfaith service that's part of the Democratic National Convention.

The service will feature Christian, Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist speakers. The official reason for the interfaith services is "to honor the diverse faith traditions inside the Democratic Party," which could easily include atheists. If they aren't welcome, it's probably because they're rude

The irony of suggesting that a diverse group of people is universally "rude" while beginning the column on that subject with a phrase such as "have their panties in a twist" is just so incredibly delicious.

This column has advocated religious liberties for atheists, citing case law that defines atheism as just another religion - as in just another unproven and forever unprovable belief.

Le sigh. How is lack of belief in an unproven and unprovable assertion an unproven and unprovable belief? How is lack of religion a religion? Under what condition could a person be said to not have any religion at all?

Therefore a belief in creation - or an original intelligence, Jesus, Buddha, or the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" - is no more valid in the eyes of the law than the odd belief that nothing could possibly exist beyond what our embryonic state of scientific discovery has seen in our relatively primitive microscopes and telescopes.

Attacking materialism, are we? Well, I've got to say, seeing as how we can say absolutely nothing with certainty about those things beyond our current realm of scientific understanding, saying that such things are essentially irrelevant to us for now is perfectly valid. It is definitely foolish to say that there is nothing at all that exists beyond our current scientific understanding, but that is only a straw man. The point is that we can only work with the things that we know, and those things are physical. Anything outside of that is just speculation, especially when you claim detailed knowledge. Belief in a specific kind of creative intelligence is infinitely more specific and much more unfounded than such assertions.

To rational thinkers, atheism seems a sad and shallow belief. That's because great scientists understand that, metaphorically, they've discovered little more than the drawings on the walls of a cave. They don't know what's beyond the cave or how it began.

And once we discover more, we will be ready to accept that. But, the thing is, once again, anything positted at this point about such subjects is just speculation. If atheism is a sad and shallow belief, I cannot imagine how to describe those who state with utter conviction that they know how the world came to be, and that an unproven and unprovable entity is behind it, of which they have exact details of what his demands are. Even the boldest atheism is humble by comparison.

They pretend that atheist beliefs are proven true, while others are proven false.

Since atheism is lack of beliefs, and there is no proof either way, that is pretty much true. If not, please complain about the unfounded beliefs of a-fairyists, a-bigfootists, and a-UFOists as well.

Their approach to ministry is overbearing and rude. They engage in confrontation, with disregard for persuasion

Every challenge to your religion would be considered "overbearing and rude" no matter how polite the demeanor and tame the content. The mere act of questioning religious authority is deemed "rude" by most people. And, as for "confrontation", do you seriously think that you can call the attempts of those within your own religion to persuade other people to "see the light" only less confrontational than atheists? The only reason you see it as confrontation is because it is calling you on bullshit that you've place up on a pedestal and that is just not very polite, is it?

In other words, if I'm not invited to your party then you're bad.

Excellent straw man. She was not judging the character of the DNC, only saying that supporting faith is turning its back on those who do not have faith. No value judgments, just an attempt to show them that they are embracing one group at the expense of another in the name of unity.

You simply weren't invited to a private party for "believers.

It's not a private party for believers: it is an event sponsorred by the Democratic Party during their national convention in order to express their support of people of various faiths. But, the issue is not that we simply were not invited, it is that the event itself was designed specifically to exclude us, by, as you said, being "for 'believers'". It should be for EVERYONE, be they Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, or nothing at all. Because these are all the faiths and non-faiths that make up the Democratic party. By making it just about the religious people, they are excluding a segment of the Democrats as well as perturbing the religious moderates that make up a significant amount of the party base.

Boulder atheist Marvin Straus accused Democrats of "pandering" for the religious vote. How dare they reach out to people who believe in God? There oughta be a law!

Sigh. Did anyone suggest that they SHOULDN'T do it? No. Is anyone suggesting that they should make sure to include those who are not religious as well? I would assume so....

Hitler imagined a world without Jews. The Freedom From Religion Foundation rented a billboard near the Colorado Convention Center that says: "Imagine No Religion."

That Godwin came outta nowhere. Anyone aside from this putz think that the sign suggests genocide? Anyone? Anyone else think that Hitler killed the Jews out of hatred for religion, rather than just out of simple religiously supported antisemitism? Anyone? Bueller?

Imagine a world with no religion and one sees a world without the Golden Rule, devoid of most charities, hospitals and great universities.

Really? The "without religion, there is no morals" gambit? There is a reason why almost every religion on Earth has some variation on the Golden Rule. It is because it is a self-evident description of how basic human empathy forces us to behave. As for charities, hospitals, and universities having religious origins: that is merely because such a large portion of our population (and almost every person in a position of power) happen to be religious. One could hardly assert that their religion had anything to do with the existence of such institutions, however.

Imagine no religion and one sees a world ruled by atheist tyrants - Pol Pot, Albania's Enver Hoxha, Stalin and Mao, to name a few - who have murdered tens of millions in modern efforts to cleanse society of religion.

This crap will never die, will it?

American Muslims, Baptists, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Mormons, Quakers, Amish, etc., don't erect billboards saying "Imagine No Atheists."

First, "atheists" and "religion" are hardly comparable. Besides, they don't need to. They are able to advertise their religion in every form of media imaginable and use that as a platform to implicitly or explicitly rant about the evils of non-belief just like you are doing here. The bulk is a major issue. A single billboard erected by harmless minority talking about a general institution rather than a specific group is much different then people saying "get rid of this minority group".

They don't advocate theft and desecration of atheist property, even though an atheist hero in Minnesota stole and destroyed the Catholic Eucharist

And I didn't think that you thoroughly established your retardation enough in the former sentences. Thank you for sealing the deal. Deciding to not eat a wafer handed to you is hardly the same thing as "theft". And besides, he only destroyed property that was meant for destruction anyway. He just did it in a manner different than intended. The only comparable thing that they could advocate in retailation is for people to get invited to atheist's house for dinner, and secretly flush a single portion of the meal down the toilet at his own house afterwards instead of eating it.

Besides, do you even know the rabid response that PZ received in response to the very suggestion that he may do such a thing? Advocating theft pales in comparison...

It's likely they didn't invite atheists to their faith service because they didn't want embarrassing guests

Hahahaha...DIAF.

Atheists should fund universities and hospitals. They should feed and clothe starving kids.

Hear of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Are you aware that most atheists are not internet trolls? Your presumptions are sickening. I wish that rebutting you didn't play right into your hand, allowing you to point and say "look at how rude and intolerant they are!". But, whatever. I am not a representative of the atheist anymore than you are a representative of whatever idiotic religion turned you into the heavily blinded putz that you are. END.

E-mails Say The Darndest Things.

Alright, here are two e-mail strawmen-lists regarding liberal vs. conservative politics taken from America's favorite source of idiocy, bigotry, and outright hilarity! Please, enjoy.

"21 Ways To Be a Good Democrat.
* You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.
* You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
* You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.
* You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.
* You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical documented changes in the Earth’s climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUVs.
* You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural.
* You have to believe that AIDS virus is spread by a lack of Federal funding.
* You have to believe that the same teacher who can’t teach 4 th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
* You have to believe that hunters don’t care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.
* You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
* You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make “The Passion Of The Christ” for financial gain only.
* You have to believe the National Rifle Association (NRA) is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
* You have to believe that taxes are low, but ATM fees are too high.
* You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem (feminists) are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee, Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell.
* You have to believe that standardized tests are racists, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.
* You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.
* You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn’t worked anywhere it’s been tried because the right people haven’t been in charge.
* You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and sex offender belonged in the White House.
* You have to believe that homosexual parades display drag, transvestites and beastiality should be Constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
* You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the communist Chinese Government is somehow in the best interests of the United States.
* You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right-wing conspiracy."

lulz "beastiality". The folks at FSTDT had quite a few good responses to this. But, here is a related e-mail with a similar theme, except directed at Republicans. I find that it works well enough.

"1. You have to believe that teenagers shouldn't learn about safe sex because ignorance is the best way to prevent pregnancy, and besides, only those homos get AIDS and you thank God for that.
2. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th graders how to read is somehow qualified to lead all kids in prayer regardless of their faith as long as it's your faith. 3.You have to believe it is intelligent to buy a gun to protect your family and home despite the fact that you are?40 times more likely to kill your own family member than an intruder.
4.You have to believe that it's OK to have an affair as long as you divorce your spouse after you've been caught and marry the mistress. (Dole, Reagan, Gingrich, Barr,etc.)
5.You have to believe that your SUV should be exempt from emission standards even though it spews out 4 times the pollution of any car, because you enjoy sitting high above the congested traffic.
6. You have to believe abortion is always wrong because all lives are precious and you'll kill any doctor who performs one.
7. You have to believe that the minimum wage should be outlawed because thanks to the extreme generosity of corporations you are overpaid.
8. You have to believe that your children will have a well-rounded education by banning books in the public schools and libraries.
9. You have to believe that in case the government goes bad, you'll need your handgun to successfully fight off an organized army that has tanks, aircraft, battleships, missiles, satellites, and 2 million well-trained soldiers.
10. You have to believe that the NRA is good because it supports a self-serving portion of the Constitution, but the ACLU is bad because it supports all portions of the Constitution, even the right for your fellow Klansmen to have a parade in a Jewish neighborhood.
11. You have to believe that a woman cannot be trusted with decisions about her own body, but that large multinational corporations should make decisions affecting all mankind with no regulation whatsoever.
12. You have to believe that diversity on your presidential ticket means two Texas millionaire oilmen from different corporations.
13. You have to believe the Hate Crimes Bill is bad because it gives "special protection" to a group of people, but think that laws that prohibit citizens from suing Tobacco Corporations, Gun-makers and HMOs are not special protection.
14. You have to believe that freedom of speech is cherished as long as you like what is being said. 15.You have to believe that over the past 20 years, no Presidential primary is complete without the name Dole and/or Bush on it.
16.You have to believe that trickle-down economics works because the rich surely won't keep all that money to themselves.Look how well it worked during the Reagan-Bush years.
17.You have to believe Clinton is bad because he lied about a private sexual indiscretion under oath, but Ronald "I don't remember" Reagan and George "I wasn't there" Bush are heroes because they lied under oath about illegally selling arms to Iranian militants and giving the cash to drug-smuggling Nicaraguan Contras.
18. You have to believe that its OK for government to sanction religion just as long as it's your religion.
19. You have to believe the homosexual agenda is to get a purple Tele-Tubby to turn our children gay.
20. You have to believe that hunters need assault weapons to assist in natural selection, because they shoot only the starving and sick animals and will not shoot that magnificent 12-point stag. 21. You have to believe that Reagan's tripling the deficit was good for the economy.
22. You have to believe that the best leaders to espouse family values are those with one or more failed marriages (Dole, Reagan, Gingrich, Barr, Limbaugh, etc.)
23. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you are millionaire conservative radio jock, which makes it an "illness" and needs our prayers for "recovery."
24. You have to believe that the members of your national convention represent a good cross-sectional and diverse group of Americans.
25. You have to believe that a national sales tax is better than income tax because everyone uses the same proportion of their income to buy food, clothing, and housing, but really, the only good tax is one which only the poor pay.
26. You have to believe Jesus was a Conservative and shares your hatred of AIDS victims, homosexuals, and President Clinton. You also ask yourself "What would Jesus Do?" and completely ignore the fact that he stayed out of politics, never tried to get a law passed, never tried to obtain wealth, nor spoke of divisive drivel.
27. You believe that charitable organizations should take care of the poor and then give nothing to charity (i.e. Dick Cheney).
28. You believe that a rape victim should be forced to raise her attacker's offspring and then fight her attempts to get welfare when she tries to do so.
29. You have to believe a poor, minority student with a disciplinary history and failing grades will be admitted into an elite private school with a $1,000 voucher (Dubya doesn't count, because he's not a minority. He just became President with the minority).
30. You have to believe that a great way to lower air pollution is to get others to ride mass transit; that way you can get to work in your SUV much faster.
31. You have to believe the talk of Randy Weaver and David Koresh are more important than actions of Franklin Roosevelt and Martin Luther King, and what happened at Ruby Ridge is more important than what happened at Selma, Alabama.
32. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton was crazy for talking to spirits in the White House, but Nancy Reagan is OK for consulting astrologers to help her decide U.S. policies while Ronnie was in the hospital.
33. You have to believe everything that is said by right-wing wackos on talk radio.
34) You have to believe that Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him with chemical weapons to fight Iran, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney was doing business with him for Halliburton, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
35) You have to believe that the lumber from the last one percent of old growth U.S. forests is well worth the extinction of several species of plants and animals therein. Besides, it will prevent forest fires.
36) You have to believe that Aid to Mothers with Dependent children is wasteful, but giving tax breaks to companies moving American jobs overseas is just what government is for.
37) You have to believe that trade with Cuba is wrong because it is communist, but trading with China and Vietnam is good.
38) You have to believe that the public has a right to know what the government is doing but that Bush was right to censor those 28 pages from the Congressional 9/11 report because you just can't handle the truth."

I may be biased, but I think that this last one is a little bit more of a slam-dunk than the first one. But, then again, I can more easily dismiss the first one as flawed caricature and accept this one as a legitimate critique simply because of how I identify myself politically. Funny how that works...oh well, I doubt that it is indicative of a larger flaw in the way that politics work and the way that humans think, in general....

Releasing the Demonic Liberal Within Me: Guns on Campus

So...you guys hear about that shooting that happened last year? Yeah...it was a pretty low profile event, something about some crazy Vietnamese kid, and some college down in Virginia. I don't remember the exact details, since it was barely covered by the news, like, at all. [/sarcasm]

Well, apparently in the wake of the Virginia Tech Massacre, every campus in America has students looking around with shifty, fearful eyes, wondering if they will be next. It is a wonderful paranoia that flies in the face of reason, and is inspired directly from remembering a single tragic event that is etched in one's memory rather than realizing that such horrific and memorable shootings happen incredibly rarely, and claims relatively few lives compared to almost any other conceivable way of dying. School shootings have resulted in a total of 323 deaths over the course of 40 years, which, in light of the fact that the city of Detroit alone had 418 murder cases in 2006, one should seriously be paranoid of being killed wherever you go if you seriously fear being killed in a schools shooting. It reminds of me when kids in middle school (and some teachers) were seriously concerned with the possibility of a terrorist attack in the wake of 9/11. never realizing for a moment that we were a school of 400 students in the middle of nowhere that was of little concern to anyone.

The basic point is that you can't let a few extreme cases of a psychopath going wild define your perception of reality. Because, if you do, then suddenly there are mafia hitmen, serial killers, and Illuminati members around every corner (or at least, that is what you insist to be the case). But, what are campuses across America trying to do in order to address these fears of a possible school shooting devastating their own university? They're entertaining the idea of letting the students overcome these fears by allowing them carry concealed weapons on campus! Now, I don't know about you, but personally I am far more comfortable with the idea of some random student getting pissed off, going berserk, and killing a few people (because it is incredibly unlikely to happen on any given campus), than letting every other person on campus pack heat as a precaution against such a rare, improbable occurence. The problems of trying to fight paranoia by making students believe that they have to be armed in order to be safe is counter-intuitive to an extent that makes me wonder about how logical it is for grown adults to buy into the same concept.

But, that's just my two cents. Also: take away second ammendment rights! Anarchy! Watch it all burn, burn like a thousand gasoline-fueled forest fires! Yes! Yes!

Two People Who Will Not Shut Up

Oh Dinesh, you know that I could never quit you!

"Throughout his campaign Barack Obama has mocked his critics, noting that they just don't get what a novel figure and consistent unifier he has been for his whole life."


I've been hearing that Obama has supposedly been setting himself up as some sort of messianic figure for a long time, but, whenever I hear about him, hear him speak, it is normally not to brag about himself or set himself up as a god amongst men, immune to criticism. But if this your example:

"'They say: We don't know enough about him. His pastor once said something. He's got a funny name, sounds Muslim.'"

then you fail. These are all incredibly inane criticisms that, believe it or not, he has been subject to. They could have been significant if taken in the proper direction, but, unfortunately, the Jeremiah Wright ordeal and internet Muslimification myths clearly devolved from an actual attempt to explore Obama's character into an outright attempt to smear him through guilt-by-association, even when the grounds for the association, or, in the case of Wright, the guilt, happened to false to begin with. More on that in a bit...

"For the first time Obama has called the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's views "ridiculous" and even accused him of being a purveyor of "hate."
To which one might say: better late than never. Maybe Obama never really knew how radical this guy is. "

You do realize how bad it would have been if Obama just decided to bash his preacher of 20 years for little substantial reason at the drop of a hat, don't you? Just because a few conservative pundits are obsessing over Wright's alleged "racism" or "anti-Americanism" really doesn't justify that kind of politically motivated backstabbing that he pretty much has been forced into doing in order to end the incessant attempts to associate Wright and Obama. But, the problem with this whole artificial issue is that Wright is not really "radical"....

"He used to believe that the U.S. government manufactured the AIDS virus and deliberately spread it in the black community, and he still believes it."

I would chalk that up to just plain idiocy, and maybe a wee bit of conspiracy theorist paranoia, rather than as emblematic of being radical and hating America. It's not like typically begrudge preachers for believing in crazy crap....right...(wink wink nudge nudge).

"He thinks America may have conspired to bomb itself on 9/11, and he's never wavered in that conviction"

Is it really that inconceivable? I mean, sure, it goes right back into the conspiracy theory mindset, but, really....is it impossible that certain government officials pulled a Reichstag, or intentionally allowed for it to occur for political reasons, rather than simply being too criminally incompetent to prevent the attacks, despite the signs pointing in that direction.

Oh, wait....Wright ISN'T a 9/11 conspiracy theorist...he just said that America brought the attacks upon themselves through their foreign policy (and it is rather hypocritical of you to equivocate on Wright's position like that...since you have a book written specifically to argue that liberal policies domestic and abroad are actually at fault for bringing the attacks upon ourselves...nice job, Distort D'Newza...).

"Now, and before, he thinks that 'God Bless America' is better expressed as 'God Damn America!'"

Oh noez! He's criticizing the government too vocally! Somebody stop him! (I really don't see how this is much more radical than Pat Robertson, et. al., praying for openings in the Supreme Court [guess how that would happen] and blaming Hurricane Katrina on them sinners what lives in the New Orleans. But, yeah, Wright expressing his disdain for America's violent foreign policy and for its failure to assure equality for African Americans is a much higher crime...).

"Obama has been hearing such messages for more than two decades"

I don't know what possesses Dinesh, or the pundits on the picture tube, to believe that a few soundbytes from Wright (most likely the worst fodder they could dredge up against him) reflects upon the general character of all of his sermons. Eh...whatever....

"He said he could no more repudiate Wright than he could repudiate his own family. This by the way is the speech that many pundits hailed for its originality and brilliance. I think it will go down as one of the biggest blunders in American political history."

And we've all learned to trust your judgments as an accurate depiction of reality....oh...wait....

"What Obama should have said in that speech: "Once upon a time this man rescued my spiritual life. A long time ago when I was spiritually and emotionally at a low point, he was there for me and he helped me get over the hill. So I owe him big time. I know that he's said some crazy things, but I've overlooked them, because of what he did for me." Instead Obama tried to sound like W.E.B. Du Bois. He impressed the liberal intelligentsia, while shooting himself politically in the foot."

What's wrong with trying to W.E.B. Du Bois? His speech did no damage to him, and the Wright thing would've ended there if the media wasn't deliberately trying to preserve the faux scandal for the journalistic lolz. Also, somehow I think that your sample speech would've been a lie. I doubt Obama's "spiritual life" was any different after meeting Wright than it was before even being a Christian. I am of the impression that the very reason that you see the church as radical (because it spends its time addressing social and racial issues) is the very reason why Obama joined it: for the social networks, and for the time spend addressing the issues that African Americans face. Of course, if I am correct on this, that opens a whole 'nother can of worms...

"What has Wright said that has finally caused his disciple to end their relationship? While Wright has been pontificating a lot lately, he has not given us any new bombshells. But he did suggest that, in his beliefs like the one about the U.S. government and AIDS, Obama agrees with him."

Well, my first guess about why Obama wanted to end it was the pressure by the media to do so. My second guess may be that Wright will not simply shut up and step out of spotlight for Obama's sake, so he needs to go into damage control. My third guess is that, if Wright did suggest that Obama thinks that the AIDS thing is true, he ended to relationship abruptly and unequivocably in order to prevent the American public from thinking that Wright is correct about that issue. Because the last thing America needs is an idiotic President (again).

"So he has to say something different! Translation: what we see with Obama is not what we get. And Wright is in a position to know. He's nursed Obama intellectually and spiritually over the years."

You know...just because a person has hung around someone else on a few occasions over a long period time does not mean that the second person in question knows everything about the first with infallible detail. If I gathered up your three best friends, who met through three different venues, your wife, your parents, two of your cousins, two parents of casual acquaintances that you went through your school career with, your boss, two of your co-workers, and that guy you have bought a newpaper from every other day for the past 8 years, they will have very different impressions of you and disagree on some of the details. The point is that we put on different faces for different audiences. That doesn't mean that Obama is giving America a false impression of himself, so much as it means that he may have mislead Wright about how much he agreed with every little paranoid delusion he comforted himself with. It's called being polite...

"The more I examine the two, the more I think that it is Wright who is being consistent and calling it the way he sees it, and Obama who is hiding the part of himself that once embraced this man and maybe still agrees with many of his beliefs but now finds him a political liability. While Obama continues to portray himself as Mr. Straight Talk, at this point he is a candidate enveloped in shadows."

Wright may be consistent, but it does not mean that his assessment is correct (example: Christianity). Obama may be hiding his support for Wright and his ideas, but, unfortunately, he has to due to the fact that Wright has been so thoroughly demonized by the media, and any link between the two will be spun beyond all recognition into Obama wanting to bring about the white male holocaust, or something to that effect. (Also: a candidate enveloped in shadows sounds awesome...as long as it is not Cheney...).

So (hopefully) ends the long, drawn out saga of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, a man guilty of the high crime of saying that racism still exists in the 21st century, an obvious lie that one needs only to check youtube comments regarding any subject to disprove. It is a shame that Obama has been forced to repudiate Wright, his pastor and mentor, in order to preserve his political career, something that Obama was clearly reluctant to do, but if he did not, he would never hear the end of it. Perhaps we will be able to find a time, not too far from now, when we realize that Wright's comments were simply accurate criticisms of social ills, or uneducated conclusions based upon a paranoia that has been fostered by our hostile racial and political climate. Really nothing radical at all. No calls to arms, no criticisms of events that haven't been similarly critiqued before, both domestic and abroad. Maybe, someday, cooler heads will prevail, even in response to hotheads....but, I guess I may just be a dreamer...

Ann Coulter: Need I say more?

Ann Coulter (shudder) said: "as her supporter, I refer to her as simply 'Hillary.'"
America's (ideal) response: "Well, if Ann Coulter supports her...I'm voting for McCain!"

If you don't know why, and have no idea why Ann Coulter should be hunted down by pitchfork wielding mobs in a vain attempt to drive a stake through her non-existent heart to ,at least, shut her up for a short period of time, here's a gem of hers:
"So repellent are Bill Clinton's friends (to the extent that a sociopathic sex offender with a narcissistic disorder can actually experience friendship in the conventional sense) that B. Hussein Obama's association with a raving racist reverend and a former member of the Weather Underground hasn't caused as much damage as it should."

Wow. Bill Clinton is a sociopath, a sex offender, and suffering narcissistic personality disorder? This is very interesting information...I am sure that this isn't merely an exaggeration of traits that most people happen to have, at all. I trust you more than that.

The reason why Obama's "association" with Weather Underground isn't a problem is because it is tangential (he worked with one of the former members several decades after his "terrorist" activities, while both happened to be political office). As for his association with Wright...he is not a "raving racist" like Fox News and white males with a persecution complex try to make him out to be. He was a preacher who criticized government activity, brought up the fact that their community is still discriminated against, and that the people who run the government currently, including Hillary, are predominantly white (shock!) and have not been through the trials of having racism directed at them. I just think it is rather hard to call Wright racist when he is 1. pointing out racism in its more traditional form and 2. pointing out that the black community is still underrepresented in governments, and still not given equal treatment in the justice system.
It is inane, and has basically been nothing more than spin since day one.

Anywho, Ann Coulter is the Anti-Christ, so I am not going to tread too far into whatever tepid pile of horse vomit she crammed through the intertubes. It's not the Democrats associated with Hillary that make her unelectable...it is Hillary herself. Since, well, just look at her supporters (hint: I am referring to Ann Coulter).

Edit: Uggghhh...the amount of fail in this doesn't even warrant a response...

Hope..maybe...

The following quote is from The Friendly Atheist, after bringing up Obama's difficulty in explaining his stance on a six-day creation of the universe and everything in it, in his immediate attempt to express his leanings towards theistic evolution afterwards, and in his little faux pas regarding people in small towns being bitter and turning to guns and religion due to that:

"Imagine if he really did feel that way? Doesn’t he speak the truth? When
people get upset or depressed, they do turn to God. Not all people, but a hell
of a lot of them.
At so many of the churches I visited, people talked about how God “saved” them only when they were at their lowest points. I even wrote in my book: “was being down, or lonely, or desperate a prerequisite to finding God?”
There’s nothing “elitist” in his remarks. It’s just that the atheist side of him accidentally spoke up.
In several months time, Obama may still speak about faith and use religious rhetoric, but I’m hopeful that when he becomes president, he won’t play into the hands of the Religious Right. He will uphold the Separation of Church and State. He won’t have to answer any of these idiotic questions about evolution and Creation in a way that downplays his own intelligence."

Considering the fact that Obama was raised in relatively atheistic household, was exposed to a variety of different religions from a young age by his mother, and that the church he attends seemingly tends to focus more on racial matters than religious ones, I can kind of see how Obama could have an inner atheist lurking inside of him.

Of course, that is not to suggest that he is faking his religious tendencies. It is not to say that he does not have spirituality, which I do not doubt. But, it is to say that his particular flavor of Christianity is slightly less potent than those of his conservative counterparts. I can imagine that he will have profoundly more respect for the merits of a secular government, for religious tolerance, and for the virtue that is not taking your favored holy text too literally.

It is a bit bold to pronounce Obama an atheist, but it is clear that he is most likely a liberal Christian, and not just a Christian who happens to be a liberal. And, hopefully, if Obama happens to get his way into the White House, to the chagrin of every self-proclaimed racist in the various nether regions of our nation, perhaps his policies will foster more tolerance...though, of course, I am not holding my breath.