WTF is wrong with Americans?

(via Daily Kos)

That's my question, too: when is enough going to be enough for us Americans?

For a larger image, check it out here. There are links to ultra-high definition copies there, as well. Better yet, browse Occupy Posters (t-shirts and other neat stuff, too).

Simplistic, cliché-ridden, moronic, xenophobic pissed-off rednecks

I took my title from the first comment here (my thanks to Peter Hilton). The post is by PZ Myers, analyzing a new country-western song that seems even more idiotic than most:

There’s a cheesy country-western song that is getting quite popular. I admit, I’m not fond of the genre; while there’s the occasional spark of brilliance or great performer, most of it is smug white folks crying about how miserable their lives are while blaring out either fist-pumping patriotism or treacly self-pity. It’s still the music many people grew up with, though, so it’s fine if you like it. You don’t have to rationalize why you like it here, OK?

But some things need explaining. This new song, Pissed Off Rednecks Like Me” is getting a lot of undeserved attention because it is “controversial”. It isn’t — it’s dumb. It feeds a lot of bigotry, though, so bigots are enjoying it.

He then goes through the lyrics, line by line. I won't copy it here - I urge you to read it at Pharyngula - but let me just say that my title is appropriate.

Rick Santorum joins WingNutDaily

(Mario Piperni)

I saw this news elsewhere, but I love Mario Piperni's illustration - all of his illustrations, in fact - so I'll let him tell it:

This is a wonderful match.

Rick Santorum has joined WorldNetDaily, a conspiracy theory blog best known for its indefatigable work advancing the birther movement, as an exclusive columnist.

The former Pennsylvania senator, who was voted out of office in 2006, will use the perch to remain in the conservative consciousness as he eyes another presidential bid in 2016. His column will be featured on the site every Monday.

Santorum joins WorldNutDaily’s infamous cast of winguts, bigots, religious extremists and village idiots. Sharing space with the likes of Chuck Norris, Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, Alan Keyes, Pat Boone and Pamela Geller, Ricky should be well prepared to take another stab at the Republican nomination in 2016. Looking forward to those debates.

Oh, god, yes! And do we really have to wait three years for those debates to begin? Republicans are already positioning themselves for a presidential run in 2016, already campaigning in every sense but an official announcement.

So why can't we start the Republican debates now? (I can wait for the Democratic debates, no problem.) Cartoonists and comedians and humorists of all stripes would love that, and so would I. Please, please, please?

PS. Note that Rick Perry is also considering another run in 2016. Oh, this could be so good,... assuming that none of them actually get elected, of course.

Women, it's all your fault,... apparently

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Sisters Are Doing It to Themselves
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

I realize that it's unusual to blame women for anything. (Right, Catholic Church?) Certainly, women never blame themselves for anything, do they? (I hope your sarcasm detector is working.)

But clearly, it's the women waging war on us poor, defenseless men who've caused the disasters in today's world - the women controlling our multinational corporations, the women who run our banks, the women who dominate our political system (and our religions). I see that now.

And how do you think we men feel about it? How could we weak, timid, unassertive men possibly compete with such amazons? Wah! It's just not fair!

Sadly enough, I see a lot of that kind of thinking online. There really is a subculture of misogynists who think that way. Call me naive, but that shocked me. Hadn't this battle been won decades ago? Are we still trying to keep women submissive and obedient to their lord and master, per God's (or Yahweh's or Allah's) plan?

Of course, this was at Fox 'News.' Gee, you have to wonder why the Republican Party is losing women, don't you? Since the start of the sexual revolution, we men haven't changed much? Um, maybe that's the problem.

But what kind of pathetic loser would a man have to be to object to a strong, confident, smart woman? Do you really think that Saudi Arabia is a good role-model for America?

As a man, these pathetic 'men's rights' idiots just embarrass me. So I can only imagine what women must think of Suzanne Venker!

The GOP big tent: mysogyny and racism

(Khalil Bendib)

Andy Borowitz gets it right:

With less than two weeks to go until Election Day, there is a deep divide among Republican leaders over whether to emphasize misogyny or racism as the campaign’s closing theme.

In one camp is the Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock, who says that his view that God is sometimes O.K. with rape is “gaining real traction with a key demographic: men who don’t like women very much.”

“I can’t tell you how many misogynists have come up to me at my rallies and said, ‘Thank you for saying what you said,’” he told reporters today. “I think they’re like, finally, someone’s taking a more nuanced position on rape.”

But in the other camp is the former New Hampshire governor John Sununu, who worries that the Republican Party’s emphasis on misogyny is threatening to drown out its “winning message of racism.”

“I understand the appeal of Mourdock’s anti-woman theme, but I worry that it’s going to overshadow our core value of racism, which is still our best shot at winning this thing,” he said. “In politics, you’ve got to dance with the one who brung you.”

Hoping to heal a possible rift with so little time left until Election Day, the R.N.C. chairman Reince Priebus said today that there is room for both views in today’s Republican Party: “Our ‘big tent’ message to voters should be this: come for the misogyny, stay for the racism.”

I tend to think it's the other way around, that Republicans came for the racism and stayed for the misogyny, but hey, they're a diverse bunch, right?

Lately, we've been hearing a lot about the misogyny...

(Phil Hands)

... But let's not forget the racism, with our first black president - that 'Kenyan,' that 'Muslim,' that 'socialist,' that 'anti-Christ' - causing absolute hysterics among the GOP.

But this time, it must have seemed perfectly logical to former-governor John Sununu:

"Frankly when you take a look at Colin Powell whether that's an endorsement based on issues or whether he's got a slightly different reason for preferring President Obama," Sununu told CNN.

"What reason would that be?" asked host Piers Morgan.

“Well, I think when you have somebody of your own race that you’re proud of being President of the United States, I applaud Colin for standing with him," responded Sununu.

I mean, it only makes sense, doesn't it, that you'll always vote for your kind?

Sununu also pointed out that George Bush supports Mitt Romney. Well, of course! The white guy supports the white guy. Heck, that's why John Sununu supports Romney, isn't it, because they're both white?

And that's one of the Republican Party's leaders! Imagine what the GOP base thinks of this!

I got the following link from Indecision Forever:

For it's an iron law of politics that whenever an African-American endorses the president, the good people at the Free Republic will make you want to cleanse your eyeballs with soap…

... but I dipped into that cesspool myself to bring you these examples of comments there:

"Colin Powell will endorse Barack Obama for president again today. Just came across the AP Wire. No link just yet hut [sic] it is fact... And of course, no surprise."

"Gee, I wonder why."

"Powell’s a racist!"

"Color is thicker than water."

"It’s a black thing."

"Obama’s still black."

"Now we know. He places race ahead of all else."

"One black man endorses another. That’s news." [But it's different when one white man endorses another?]

"Race before country."

"He’s a racist for sure."

"what you do expect? it’s not like Obama changed color these past 4 years! Powell is a traitor."

"It is becoming increasingly clear that Obama is an enemy of this country and when someone with Powell’s level of awareness chooses to side with him, it has to be because he is also an enemy of this country and seeks its destruction. May they all rot."

"Birds of a feather. Affirmative action guys got to stand together."

"Powell just has melanin envy." [I'll bet this commenter was really proud at his own cleverness, don't you think?]

"No surprise there. Does anyone really give a rat's ass about what the "equal opportunity" general has to say about anything? I think not." ["Equal opportunity" in scare quotes? Really?]

"Mulattos [sic] got ta stick together ya know."

"He's an angry, racist, half dimwit who is only where he is because of the color of his skin- and hates the system that promoted him on his race." [Yeah, these 'mulattos' are just one-half dimwit, huh? Gee, I wonder what he means by that?]

"Color before country.."

"Powell’s a racist! This is really the only logical conclusion"

"Anybody see Condi Rice’s utter refusal to see anything negative about Benghazi and explicit throwing of Republican platform social concerns under bus? On Greta last night."

That's when they locked the thread, preventing any new comments, after less than two hours. As with Todd Akin, Republicans aren't supposed to tell people what they really think. Because that might, you know, turn off sane voters.

But the only logical conclusion to Colin Powell supporting Barack Obama is that he's a racist, huh? Well, those ni black people are all alike, aren't they?

Of course, every political party has its crazies, I'm sure. But only in the GOP do the crazies run the show. Only in the Republican Party are their leaders among the craziest of all.

As I've said before and will keep repeating, this is a result of their 'Southern strategy,' of that deliberate appeal to white racists in their attempt to take the Deep South from the Democratic Party.

Well, politically that was wildly successful, and the Republican Party has used that power to give tax cuts to the rich and otherwise turn our country hard right. But filling a political party with racists, with religious nuts, with unrepentant Confederates, with conspiracy theorists and gun nuts, has consequences.

Meet today's Republican Party. It's not pretty.

Rush Limbaugh blames feminists for his tiny penis

Of course, Rush Limbaugh blames feminists for everything, but... don't you think this is getting a little personal?

Quite frankly, the very last thing I want to think about is Rush Limbaugh's penis!

So no matter how much I may revile the conservative broadcaster, I think I should take this moment to express our condolences to Rush, lest we be the happy men who neither see nor hear others in their time of illness and misfortune…

"I think it's feminism. If it's tied to the last 50 years — the average size of [a male's] member is 10 percent smaller than 50 years [ago] — it has to be the feminazis, the chickification and everything else. Give them time and they'll blame Bush. But air pollution versus feminazis? Ha!"

Limbaugh was referring to an Italian study which purported to show a 10% decline in penis size over a 50 year period and laid the blame on weight gain around the waist, alcohol consumption, smoking, stress and environmental pollutants. None of which are problems for Limbaugh, of course. In his case, it was definitely the Teeny Weenie committee of the National Organization for Women that's causing shrinkage.

But no matter who or what is ultimately responsible, let's keep Rush in our thoughts as he goes through this difficult time.

Obviously, in Limbaugh's case, it couldn't be weight gain, alcohol consumption, or smoking, right? And what could he have to be stressed about? (Oh, yeah, his tiny penis.)

But is it really "feminazis" casting magic spells on his private parts? Maybe it's just shrinkage:



Stay out of the pool, Rush (please, please, stay out of the gene pool) and you might be ready for your fifth wife (I see you're doing your part to 'defend marriage') any time now.

No smart people allowed!

Sure, you've already seen this a couple of times - Rick Santorum's admission that smart people will never vote Republican - but I know you wanted to see Cenk Uygur's take on it, didn't you?

I know I did.

And remember how the Republican Party wanted to eliminate critical thinking in Texas schools? Kids were supposed to come out of school believing exactly what they did when they entered it.

I guess, for Republicans, varsity football is the only reason schools exist at all, since children aren't supposed to actually learn anything there. Of course, I guess that explains why Texans vote Republican, doesn't it? It's a vicious circle. Ignorance breeds ignorance.

A great place to start - and to end

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Values Voter Summit Gaffe
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

I blogged about this on Saturday, but I was still glad to see Stephen Colbert's take on it. Yes, giving Rick Santorum a microphone is a great place to start, if you plan to appeal only to dumb people.

However, I really don't think the Republican Party has been trying to appeal to smart people for a long time now.

The repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

I like Cenk Uygur's final comment here: "So, once again - shockingly - conservatives a hundred percent wrong. Nicely done."

Only the dumb people are on their side

Well, Rick Santorum finally said something I can agree with, that they'll never have the smart people on their side.

He's speaking here at the "Values Voter Summit" (as if the rest of us didn't have "values"), and he's right. They've only got the ignorant, the gullible, the dumb on their side. But he doesn't go far enough. He doesn't wonder why that is.

Of course, the Rick Santorums of this world will never consider the possibility that they could be wrong. Only smart people do that. The ignorant, the gullible, the dumb just follow along like sheep, convinced that their own beliefs must be correct.

I do object to his claiming "the family" for himself. But as he uses it, that's just code for superstition and bigotry, anyway. He's welcome to "the church" (but ask them which church and see the fighting begin.) And when he claims they'll never have the media on their side, he's just lying. One look at Fox 'News' will tell you that.

But he's right about the smart people. The smart people, the knowledgeable people, the rational people will never be on his side. That's because he's wrong.

You know, when you admit that you've only got dumb people on your side, you've got to be really dumb not to see a problem with that!

Jamila Bey asks a tough question

(Jamila Bey)

Journalist Jamila Bey asks a tough question at the National Press Club:

It’s almost worth sitting through 18 minutes of some ignorant, bigoted anti-gay marriage bullshit from a bunch of pastors at the National Press Club, in order to fully appreciate the hilarity of Jamila Bey’s eventual question.

Here’s the full video from C-SPAN. If you don’t feel like watching it all, let me sum it up for you: “Bla bla bla traditional marriage defined by God in the Bible. Bla bla bla being bigoted against gay people is somehow essential to the black experience. Bla bla bla praise Jesus.” ...

At minute 19:11, Jamila Bey asks her question:

“What is your position on polygamy?”

Owens pauses before saying “Well I think you know that this is not about polygamy, this is about same-sex marriage.”

“I need for you to define for me please the Biblical definition of marriage…”

Owens wags his finger and says “The Biblical definition of marriage is a marriage between a man and a woman and I’m not going to get on another track…”

“Talk to me about Abraham’s marriage.”

Long pause.

“Madame . . . next question. Next question.”

“What’s God’s position on polygamy?”

“NEXT QUESTION!”

“Reverend, what’s God’s position on slavery?”

“Are you going to stand there and just demand that I answer your question, this is not about polygamy…

“This is a press conference…”

“…this is about same-sex marriage and I will not do any different.”

“Reverend you said you’d answer questions about Biblical marriage…”

“Would you have this lady removed?”

There is nothing more ironic than African Americans using the Bible as an argument against granting civil rights to other people.

If you know anything about slavery, you'll know that Southern slave-owners used the Bible to justify it (reasonably, since the Bible does endorse slavery). The South was just as much the Bible belt then as it is now, and even churches owned slaves.

The Bible, in fact, was one of the biggest impediments to ending slavery. Of course, other Christians used the Bible to fight against slavery. For believers, the Bible says whatever they want it to say.

But using the Bible to endorse slavery and racial segregation is easy compared to using the Bible to support 'traditional' marriage. Jamila Bey points out just one of the reasons why that's so.

And as I say, it's really ironic to hear this from a bunch of African American pastors! How clueless can they be? Do they know nothing about American history?

Still, they can believe anything they want to believe. What they can't do is force their own religious beliefs on everyone else.

What the Bible says or doesn't say is immaterial. This is a free country. If you think that 'God' doesn't want you marrying someone of the same sex, don't marry someone of the same sex.

Problem solved.

National Geogaffe-ic

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Democalypse 2012 - National Geogaffe-ic
www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Democalypse 2012 - National Geogaffe-ic - Romney Abroad
www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

All of this, including cursing at the press corps, will be very popular with Romney's base. (Indeed, I suspect that it might be popular with Americans in general.)

But when it comes to culture, this is how Republicans think. And it's not that they're wrong, but it's woefully incomplete. It's simplistic. Still, it's what we Americans want to believe, that we're a wealthy superpower because of how much better we are than the rest of the world.

Well, culture does matter. No one disputes that. But it's not everything. That's where the Mitt Romneys of this world get it wrong.

Romney was born rich. His father was politically powerful and wealthy. Mitt had every advantage growing up. (Note that he keeps suggesting that people borrow money from their parents, like everyone's parents have $10 million lying around to bankroll a child's initial investments.)

But Mitt thinks that he was successful entirely because of his own efforts. He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, but he doesn't notice that, any more than a fish recognizes being born in clean water. Mitt has been swimming in pristine water all his life without recognizing it.

It's not that Mitt Romney didn't contribute anything. No one is saying that. It's just that he's been playing the game of life on the lowest difficulty setting. Lucky him.

But not everyone is that lucky. Furthermore, even when you are that lucky, you don't succeed entirely on your own efforts. A person doesn't just start with certain advantages and disadvantages. These things are important your whole life. No matter what, you're not in this alone. It's not a single-player game.

That's what Barack Obama was getting at here:

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.

Republicans, of course, twisted his words. Mitt Romney is making political hay out of a complete lie. Well, that's what Republicans do, especially when backed by hundreds of millions of dollars in anonymous donations.

Barack Obama understands that "we succeed because of our individual initiative," but that it's not the only reason for our success. We live in a wealthy modern democracy built by the blood, sweat, and tears of ordinary and extraordinary people over many generations. That's important!

Likewise for nations, culture is important. But it's not everything. You can have the greatest work ethic in the world, but if you live in a war-torn land, lacking basic infrastructure, struggling just to survive, that matters.

John Scalzi's brilliant comparison with computer game settings works for this, too. (Admittedly, I'm a gamer, so it might not strike you the same way.) You still need to put in the effort. And through skillful play - and some luck - you can succeed at almost any difficulty setting.

But it's easier for some people than for others. That's just a fact. If you're an American, if you're a native of any wealthy modern democracy, it's probably been easier for you than for most people in the world. Certainly as a white, middle-class American, you've had many advantages - not as many as Mitt Romney, perhaps, but still very important advantages.

That's not denying the importance of individual effort, not at all. And it's not denying the importance of a nation's culture, either, to point out that it's not the only matter of importance.

But Republicans are faith-based, and they're eager for simplistic answers. When they do well, it's all because of their own effort. When they do poorly, it's because other people are holding them back - the government, liberals, socialists.

Well, we all want to believe that we're special, right? If America has been successful, it's just because we're better than other people. Maybe we are. I know better than to argue with my fellow countrymen about "American exceptionalism." Nevertheless, it's never just because of that.

And maybe Mitt Romney is a brilliant businessman, I don't know. (Note that he hasn't released his tax returns.) But I do know that he started off with every advantage, both as a straight white American man and as the child of wealth and political privilege.

He doesn't see that, because he wants to think he did it all on his own. In consequence, he's willing to make things harder for other children, children who weren't born wealthy.

In the game of life, you don't have a choice of difficulty settings. If you did, we'd all be born wealthy. And we'd all be born in wealthy modern democracies, too.

Welcome to the Endarkenment

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - On the Straight & Narrow-Minded
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

Yes, kids should come out of school as ignorant as they entered it. We don't want teachers messing with their "fixed beliefs," do we?

Well, you can understand Republicans, can't you? Reality isn't how they wish it was, so they just believe whatever they want. And I'm sure it's embarrassing to have their children laughing at them.

The solution? Make sure that their children are as ignorant as they are, of course. (Or they could just educate themselves, but they don't want to do that, do they? It's not that they're dumb, but that they want to believe what they want to believe.)

Jonathan Krohn - the end of a GOP crush

Andrew Breitbart, Jonathan Krohn, James O'Keefe, and Karl Rove.

(TPM)

That was Jonathan Krohn at 13, when he was the conservative wunderkind, the great white hope of America, the talk of CPAC.

TPM has a whole slideshow of this kid hobnobbing with Republican celebrities (including Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, and Bill O'Reilly, among others).

It's really pretty funny now, four years later, given the uproar over his changed political views:

Jonathan Krohn, the teen conservative idol turned liberal heretic, is on the receiving end of a world of abuse from right wing pundits this week. Fine by him. But please folks, lay off his mom.

“My mother had a friend today who said she can’t be friends anymore because of me,” said Krohn, who described her as close to tears. “She texted her and said ‘Have a nice life.’ It’s a friend she’s known since before I was born!” Krohn told TPM Tuesday.

Republicans had largely forgotten about Krohn since turning him into a star speaker and author in 2009 at the tender age of 13. But that didn’t mean they were happy to let him go, reacting to a Politico interview in which he said he now supported President Obama with a torrent of unrestrained rage.

The Daily Caller led the charge. Gregg Re started things off with a profanity-filled screed from a spurned conservative who attended Krohn’s big CPAC speech in 2009 and apparently demanded anonymity to tell Re the 17-year-old was a “douche.” ...

“Nothing’s really stung me, all of it's just so absurd,” he [Krohn] said. “My favorite was someone who tweeted at me ‘You betrayed God and William Bennett, you little bastard!’ Because apparently they’re on the same plateau in this person’s mind.”

Well, you know how nasty these breakups can be. Teen crushes can seem so serious to Republicans and 13-year-olds! But the hysteria surrounding a teenager changing his mind seems a little... um, crazy, even for the right-wing, don't you think?

Luckily, Krohn seems to be keeping this all in perspective. Here he is in a column at Salon:

My involvement at such a young age happened for manifold reasons: I always enjoyed writing (I had gotten my first paid writing gig when I was 9), I enjoyed politics (or at least the theory of politics), and I grew up in Georgia, where conservative ideologues dominated the radio and the populace. Mix those things with the naïveté of a kid and you’ve got the perfect recipe for a fresh, right-wing pundit. My star role worked out well for a while. I didn’t have to question any of the talking points I’d made in my speech, and I got to drone on and on about them at numerous Tea Parties and other conservative gatherings. I felt justified in my beliefs if for no other reason than no one actually told me I was wrong. Instead, men like Bill Bennett and Newt Gingrich hailed me as the voice for my generation and a hope for America.

But then, earlier this week, Politico released an interview in which I announced I wasn’t a conservative anymore — and the proverbial crap hit the fan. Since then, I have been treated by the political right with all the maturity of schoolyard bullies. The Daily Caller, for instance, wrote three articles about my shift, topping it off with an opinion piece in which they stated that I deserved criticism because I wear “thick-rimmed glasses” and I like Ludwig Wittgenstein. Why don’t they just call me “four-eyes”? These are not adults leveling serious criticism; these are scorned right-wingers showing all the maturity of a little boy. No wonder I fit in so well when I was 13. ...

I was tired of the right using me as an example of how young people “get” what they’re talking about — when it’s obvious that I didn’t get what I talking about at all. I mean, come on, I was between 13 and 14 when I was regurgitating these talking points! What does a kid who has never paid a tax bring to the table in a conversation about the burden of taxes? What does a healthy child know about people who can’t afford healthcare because of preexisting conditions? No matter how intelligent a person might be, certain political issues require life experience; they’re much more complicated than the black and white frames imposed by partisan America.

Here's that interview at Politico that got the right into their bullying mode:

But a quick rundown of his current political stances suggests a serious pendulum swing away from the right.

Gay marriage? In favor. Obamacare? “It’s a good idea.” Who would he vote for (if he could) in November? “Probably Barack Obama.” His favorite TV shows? “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report.” His favorite magazine? The New Yorker. And, perhaps telling of all, Krohn is enrolling this fall at a college not exactly known for its conservatism: New York University.

“One of the first things that changed was that I stopped being a social conservative,” said Krohn. “It just didn’t seem right to me anymore. From there, it branched into other issues, everything from health care to economic issues.… I think I’ve changed a lot, and it’s not because I’ve become a liberal from being a conservative — it’s just that I thought about it more. The issues are so complex, you can’t just go with some ideological mantra for each substantive issue.”

Come on, he's still only 17. He can't even vote yet! So who knows where his political views will end up?

Unfortunately, Republicans don't take rejection well! "You're either with us or against us." You're either a right-wing true believer or a socialist, a terrorist, a traitor. And I guess that's the case even if you're just a kid.

Still, the reaction to the end of their crush really is pretty funny. I'm sorry that Jonathan Krohn is on the receiving end of all this, but I still have to laugh.

Betty Bowers explains abortion

Don't watch if you're easily offended. :)

I must admit that Christianity and anti-abortion activism seem like a weird match to me. Don't these people know their own Bible?

Heck, don't Catholics know the history of their own church? The idea of personhood at conception is a relatively recent invention of the Catholic Church.

But the answer in both cases is no, they don't. Supposedly, this is the most important thing in the world to them - heck, the world itself is just a minor detail - yet they can't be bothered to learn anything about it.

Well, that's far from the only thing that makes no sense about religion,  huh?

Muslims ruining plans to destroy public education

Another one from Indecision Forever:

Recently, Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal signed into law a voucher program allowing state educational funds to be used to send students to schools run by religious groups. The plan is set to be a model for the nation, with Mitt Romney's education policies calling for the adoption of similar school choice schemes across the country.

And so far, things have been going swimmingly. Thousands of students are set to enroll in private Christian academies, where they can learn about dinosaurs (more appropriately called Jesus Horses, I believe) such as the Loch Ness monster and their relationship to evolution. It's complicated.

But one Louisiana legislator has noted a wrinkle in the state's plan to subsidize the teaching of the most backward elements of the One True Faith…

Rep. Valarie Hodges, R-Watson, says she had no idea that Gov. Bobby Jindal's overhaul of the state’s educational system might mean taxpayer support of Muslim schools.

"I actually support funding for teaching the fundamentals of America's Founding Fathers’ religion, which is Christianity, in public schools or private schools," the District 64 Representative said Monday.

"I liked the idea of giving parents the option of sending their children to a public school or a Christian school," Hodges said.

Hodges mistakenly assumed that "religious" meant "Christian."…

"Unfortunately it will not be limited to the Founders' religion," Hodges said. "We need to insure that it does not open the door to fund radical Islam schools. There are a thousand Muslim schools that have sprung up recently. I do not support using public funds for teaching Islam anywhere here in Louisiana."

I blogged about this last month, but I just wanted to say that it's high time the Democratic Party stood up and thanked the GOP for taking all those dumb Dixiecrats off their hands.

Just think. If it hadn't been for selfless Republicans wooing those crazy people, the Democrats would still be stuck with them. Now, instead of solidly Democratic, the South is solidly Republican.

It's time the Democratic Party said "Thank-you!"

Civil War, part 2?

(Zazzle)

It's one of the ironies of history that the "party of Lincoln" has become today's Republican Party, with its base solidly in the white South, fighting for "states' rights" against the federal government, eager to wave the Confederate flag.

And when they don't get what they want, they often seem eager for violent revolt:

Like many conservatives, Matt Davis, the former spokesman for the Michigan Republican Party, was upset that the Supreme Court upheld most of President Obama’s health care law on Thursday.

But unlike those who simply saw it as a rallying cry to elect more conservatives in November, Davis wants to know whether an “armed rebellion” will be necessary to overturn the law.

Michigan Capitol Confidential got a copy of an email the Michigan attorney sent to fellow conservatives after the ruling. The news service posted it online:

If government can mandate that I pay for something I don’t want, then what is beyond its power? If the Supreme Court’s decision Thursday paves the way for unprecedented intrusion into personal decisions, then has the Republic all but ceased to exist? If so, then is armed rebellion today justified? God willing, this oppression will be lifted and America free again before the first shot is fired.

Davis told the news service he was serious about his email.

“You can’t have people walking with lattes and signs and think the object of your opposition is going to take you seriously,” he told Capitol Confidential. “Armed rebellion is the end point of that physical confrontation.”

"God willing, this oppression will be lifted and America free again before the first shot is fired." Wow, he sounds exactly like those old Southern slave-owners, doesn't he? Michigan was on the other side in our first Civil War, but I guess there were southern sympathizers everywhere, even back then, huh?

Of course, what's funny is that this is Romneycare they're protesting. This was the Republicans' own health care plan, developed in a right-wing think tank as the free-market, insurance company-friendly alternative to Democratic ideas of health care reform.

And it was widely supported in the GOP. Even by Republicans - especially by Republicans - it was considered to be Mitt Romney's signature achievement as governor of Massachusetts. This is the plan they're protesting. It's really kind of funny.

In fact, it's hilarious to hear Mitt Romney try to attack his own plan. Before the Supreme Court decision, when Republicans were certain that they'd packed the court with enough right-wing political operatives to get the decision they wanted, Romney simply argued that it was unconstitutional on the federal level.

Yes, it was a great plan - after all, it's Romneycare - but only for state governments. "States' rights," you know. But the Supreme Court - a right-wing Supreme Court packed with Republicans - disagrees. So what can Romney do now?

Well, Romney knows that you really can't underestimate the knowledge or the intelligence of the American people. After all, half the country wants him to be our next president! So now, he's just claiming that Romneycare - excuse me, Obamacare - is bad policy.

Yeah, their own plan - his own plan, his signature achievement as governor - is a terrible thing now that the Democrats agreed to go with it, too! (Do you really wonder why we can't get anything accomplished in Washington, when Republicans turn violently against their own positions as soon as the Democrats agree to "compromise" and adopt a Republican plan themselves?)

If we had an intelligent, informed electorate, the Republican Party would be laughed off the political stage at this point. If we had a decent news media, Republicans would be hammered about this over and over again - and no one more than Mitt Romney. But we don't.

And all too many Republicans seem eager for violence, if they don't get everything they want - and I mean everything!  After all, this country is in a horrible mess after 30 years of right-wing trickle-down economics and especially after two presidential terms where they firmly controlled all three branches of the federal government.

And when they start threatening Civil War over their own policies, you really have to wonder about their sanity. Of course, I've been wondering about their sanity for some time now.

The Texas Republican Party platform

From Pharyngula:

Have you seen this thing? The Texas Freedom Network has a breakdown of its contents.

• Declares separation of church and state is a “myth” and calls for Congress to withdraw federal court jurisdiction over cases involving religious freedom and the Bill of Rights
  
  
• Calls for teaching creationist arguments in public school science classrooms
  
  
• Opposes the sale and use of emergency contraception and backs the Legislature’s war on women’s health programs
  
  
• Rejects “any sex education other than abstinence until marriage” in public schools
  
  
• Adopts a radical position that would essentially bar abortion even in cases of rape, of incest or to save a woman’s life
  
  
• Advocates for the repeal of the Voting Rights Act, minimum wage laws and the Endangered Species Act as well as the abolishment of the Environmental Protection Agency
  
  
• Attacks LGBT Texans as a threat to families and objects to laws that would protect them from job discrimination and hate crimes
  
  
• Calls for further funding cuts for public schools following draconian cuts by lawmakers in 2011
  
  
• Seeks to change the 14th Amendment to limit citizenship by birth only to those born to a U.S. citizen
  
  
• Threatens federal judges with impeachment if they don’t toe the far right’s line in controversial court cases
  

It also says we should end the Social Security program, arm college students, requiring presidential candidates to submit a birth certificate, and a return to the gold standard.

As PZ Myers points out, this is the Republican Party base. Party leaders try to keep the base happy, while prettifying their policies for the general population. But this is what they want.

This is the kind of people they are - and, as I've said many times before, it's the result of the GOP's "Southern strategy" of wooing white southerners unhappy with the end of racial segregation. They put all of those kinds of people into the same political party. (Louisiana, too, shows the GOP base quite clearly.)

These are the old Dixiecrats, combined with the John Birchers and other loons who were already in the Republican Party. To a large extent, they're still fighting the Civil War, determined that the North won't win this time.

So it really does tell us something:

But the thing about these state platforms is that they expose the primal id of the party. I’ve been to local Democratic caucuses, for instance, and I see the extremists of that party at work — and also most of their ideas get pared away at the state and national level, too, smoothed out to a blander, more conservative muddle. You can see better where the party faithful want us to go, while the party leadership always steers a more middling course.

At the Democratic caucuses, you see people exposing the real dreams of their group. And at Democratic events, they want things like: free education for everyone; free healthcare for everyone; more open immigration policies and education and healthcare for immigrant children, legal or otherwise; an end to all wars; reduction of the defense budget; more support for labor unions; protection for endangered species; more environmental restoration; full civil rights for gay people; closing Guantanomo Bay; and just generally making the universe a friendlier place. They’ll also toss in some nonsense about organic herbal medicine or increasing subsidies for corn ethanol production, so they aren’t perfect, but one thing they are is idealistic.

Contrast that with what the dedicated Republicans propose. Sure, Democratic dreams are too often impractical, but they at least value human beings, every one of them, and want all of us to live safely and securely, with hope for personal improvement. The Republicans always sound so sour and stupid, dedicated to shutting down everyone who isn’t a white heterosexual male; it’s an “I got mine” attitude that seeks to influence the state to enhance their privileges.

I often hear idiots declaring that "both parties are the same." Pardon my French, but that's complete bullshit! Given the realities of our system of government - noting that we do not have a parliamentary system - party leaders generally try to pull their base towards the middle, in order to win elections.

For some reason, this isn't working in the GOP, and their extremism isn't losing them much support. I don't know if that's the result of Fox 'News' or just that people turn conservative in bad times - and that Republicans have done very, very well in recent years of creating bad times in America.

Anyway, to get back to my point, party leaders tend to be more moderate on both sides. Or maybe you can say they tend to be more practical, since they're always concerned about getting elected. But the party bases show their heart, their passion, their values, and there's a world of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.

As frustrating as the Democrats can sometimes be, there's no question which side I'm on. I always wanted to be an Independent, but the Republican Party has simply made that impossible for me. If you're a Republican these days, I have to wonder at your sanity or your intelligence.

Or maybe you're just completely clueless, I don't know. Keep reading this blog and I'll try to fix that. :)

Republicans fight discrimination

Even Republicans are turning politically-correct these days,... in their own way, of course. At least, they've started to battle against discrimination.

From Indecision Forever:

Fresh off a successful campaign for a referendum that eliminated civil unions for straight and gay couples alike, the North Carolina Republican party convened to draft a special message for the most put-upon segment of the Tar Heel state.

The It Gets Better message is right there in the party's platform, adopted over the weekend…

Government should treat all citizens impartially, without regard to wealth, race, ethnicity, disability, religion, sex, political affiliation or national origin. We oppose all forms of invidious discrimination. Sexual orientation is not an appropriate category.

Congratulations, wealthy people. How long must you wait to throw off the shackles of North Carolina's mildly progressive state income tax? Not long! How long must you wait for an education funding formula that funnels funds to affluent districts? Since that's the way education money is already allocated — Not long!

Yes, Republicans are opposed to discrimination against wealthy people. Gays, not so much. As the article notes, there's still a question about wealthy gay people.

Please note that this applies to wealthy corporations, too, since we all know that corporations are just people, too. And wealthy corporations face about as much discrimination as wealthy flesh-and-blood people, I'm sure.

Poor things. Don't you feel sorry for what the rich must go through, how they must suffer? And only the Republicans - and most of the Democrats - looking out for them.

Teach the controversy

(Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal)