We Have to Accept the Facts: The Republicans are Hostile to Reality, Reason, and the Foundational Ideals of American Democracy!

Lots has taken place in the last several months, most notably the election and seemingly the end of a national nightmare/embarrassment, though Trump and his minions are still attacking our institutions and our democracy. But, we did avoid greater damage by making him the biggest loser, and by exposing him for what he is--an immature, petulant, malignant, dangerous autocrat, and most indecent person.

Yet, we have a problem. Not only such a person was able to back into the presidency, but there are so many Americans who are so divorced from reality that think he's great, and that he's been cheated out of a second term! This is in the face of reason and evidence. But, this is the product of a long cultivation of the Republican party's base that has turned people into cultists. The party itself, since Ronald Reagan (1980s), has been hostile to science,the environment, education, and reason! There's no wonder why so many Americans openly wear their ignorance and prejudice as badges of honor!

A second attribute of the "GOP" is its disdain of democratic values--what the American experiment in government aspired to be: of, for, by the people! The main core, base and leadership, of the Republican party has turned into a fanatical cult, which holds that those who have opposite views are "un-American" traitors, and that the Democratic party is does not have legitimacy to hold power, even if voters actually prefer it. The Republicans have been challenging the legitimacy of every single Democratic president or presidential candidate starting with Bill Clinton! 

I hope that the Biden-Harris team realizes this, and that they fight fire with fire. They should not have to plead for acceptance; they must assert and exhibit it. I'm tired of hearing "we have to reach across the aisle"! I do want cooperation and exchange of ideas, where debate is based on reason and facts. But, how can you reason with people who have "alternative facts" and think you're not even legitimate to sit at the table with them? 

Here's a great NYT Op-Ed, Dec. 16th, 2020:

By Paul Krugman

Bettmann Archive/Getty Images

Republicans spent most of 2020 rejecting science in the face of a runaway pandemic; now they’re rejecting democracy in the face of a clear election loss.

What do these rejections have in common? In each case, one of America’s two major parties simply refused to accept facts it didn’t like.

I’m not sure it’s right to say Republicans “believe” that, say, wearing face masks is useless or that there was widespread voter fraud. Framing the issue as one of belief suggests that some kind of evidence might change party loyalists’ minds.

In reality, what Republicans say they believe flows from what they want to do, whether it’s ignore a deadly disease or stay in power despite the voters’ verdict.

In other words, the point isn’t that the G.O.P. believes untrue things. It is, rather, that the party has become hostile to the very idea that there’s an objective reality that might conflict with its political goals.

Notice, by the way, that I’m not including qualifiers, like saying “some” Republicans. We’re talking about most of the party here. The Texas lawsuit calling on the Supreme Court to overturn the election was both absurd and deeply un-American, but more than 60 percent of Republicans in the House signed a brief supporting it, and only a handful of elected Republicans denounced the suit.

At this point, you aren’t considered a proper Republican unless you hate facts.

But when and how did the G.O.P. get that way? If you think it started with Donald Trump and will end when he leaves the scene (if he ever does), you’re naïve.

Republicans have been heading in this direction for decades. I’m not sure whether we can pinpoint the moment when the party began its descent into malignant madness, but the trajectory that led to this moment probably became irreversible under Ronald Reagan.

Republicans have, of course, turned Reagan into an icon, portraying him as the savior of a desperate, declining nation. Mostly, however, this is just propaganda. You’d never know from the legend that economic growth under Reagan was only slightly faster than it had been under Jimmy Carter, and slower than it would be under Bill Clinton.

And rapidly rising income inequality meant that a disproportionate share of the benefits from economic growth went to a small elite, with only a bit trickling down to most of the population. Poverty, measured properly, was higher in 1989 than it had been a decade earlier.

Anyway, gross domestic product isn’t the same thing as well-being. Other measures suggest that we were already veering off course.

For example, in 1980 life expectancy in America was similar to that in other wealthy nations; but the Reagan years mark the beginning of the great mortality divergence of the United States from the rest of the advanced world. Today, Americans can, on average, expect to live almost four fewer years than their counterparts in comparable countries.

The main point, however, is that under Reagan, irrationality and hatred for facts began to take over the G.O.P.

There has always been a conspiracy-theorizing, science-hating, anti-democratic faction in America. Before Reagan, however, mainstream conservatives and the Republican establishment refused to make alliance with that faction, keeping it on the political fringe.

Reagan, by contrast, brought the crazies inside the tent.

Many people are, I think, aware that Reagan embraced a crank economic doctrine — belief in the magical power of tax cuts. I’m not sure how many remember that the Reagan administration was also remarkably hostile to science.

Reagan’s ability to act on this hostility was limited by Democratic control of the House and the fact that the Senate still contained a number of genuinely moderate Republicans. Still, Reagan and his officials spent years denying the threat from acid rain while insisting that evolution was just a theory and promoting the teaching of creationism in schools.

This rejection of science partly reflected deference to special interests that didn’t want science-based regulation. Even more important, however, was the influence of the religious right, which first became a major political force under Reagan, has become ever more central to the Republican coalition and is now a major driver of the party’s rejection of facts — and democracy.

For rejecting facts comes naturally to people who insist that they’re acting on behalf of God. So does refusing to accept election results that don’t go their way. After all, if liberals are servants of Satan trying to destroy America’s soul, they shouldn’t be allowed to exercise power even if they should happen to win more votes.

Sure enough, a few days ago the televangelist Pat Robertson — who first became politically influential under Reagan — pronounced the Texas lawsuit a “miracle,” an intervention by God that would keep Trump in office.

The point is that the G.O.P. rejection of facts that has been so conspicuous this year wasn’t an aberration. What we’re seeing is the culmination of a degradation that began a long time ago and is almost surely irreversible.

The Relation Between Radicals, Moderates, and Conservatives

 NYT columnist David Brooks explains, in this OpEd,  that the "radicals" don't bring change; it's the moderates that do.

What is it that makes a person "conservative"? I think it's personality, it's the go-to, default, setting for the individual. Brooks has been a conservative, and as he says in his piece, over the years he moved right on certain issues that are more emotional (family, country, etc), and moved left on issues that can be rationally analyzed, like social programs, justice, etc.   For the same reason I don't like religion, I don't like conservatives..... and, I came to this by thinking and learning. The more I did the more ..radical I became in opposing conservatism and religion. They're both go hand in hand, most of the time, and they both want to hold progress back. By progress I mean positive change, not destructive radicalism.

Brooks says, " The people who come in their wake and actually make change are conservative radicals. They believe in many of the radicals’ goals, but know how to work within the democratic framework to achieve them."  He calls "radicals" those who aren't really radicals but are more vocal advocating for a sensible, more just society--which is already in place elsewhere. That's not ..radicalism, unless you compare it to a big mass in the US that is very conservative.  In this sense it's the ..perceived moderates (like Biden) or the "conservative radicals" as Brooks labels them, that facilitate change, because of the big mass who's afraid of "socialism".  But, yes, the envelope has to be pushed by the radicals in order for the moderates to have a chance of implementing reform.

Voting by itself is not enough. Activism and movements are necessary to stir up the status quo and usher new choices. These assaults on the status quo may be seen inconvenient or even threatening to many Americans, but they're important in accelerating change.

If Only We Had a Clue that Trump Would be so Bad.... (just kidding). Fortunately, We Have a Choice What to Do

How much more do you need to see in order to reject Trump as unfit to hold public office, that he doesn't have the temperament, maturity, sense of duty, expertise, leadership qualities, and just about everything a president of the US should have? And, how much more do you need to see to realize how unkind, uncaring, obtuse, vindictive, megalomaniac, egotistical, and destructive Trump is?

Even though it's good to see more and more Republicans denounce him, but with a few exceptions--those conservatives or Republicans who opposed him when he was a candidate and after he won the GOP nomination (indeed, very few)--everyone who voted and became an apologists for him shares part of the blame for this awful situation we're in today as a country. These supporters and apologists did not want to see; they were willfully ignorant, because the signs, the facts were there well before the election.

Yes, we need all the votes and voices in opposition to Trump and his cohorts, but we have to examine why this childish malevolent actor became president of the US. It's a systemic problem, especially with the Republican party, which also gave us another worst president, GW Bush in recent years.  Trump's political trajectory was made possible by a party that supported the worst kind of populism, myths, vile leaders, and has an ideology fit for the Dark Ages.

I'd like to think that the majority of Republicans aren't racists, but if someone is a racist, his party is the Republican party. There is a reason why the tea parties appeared after the first black president was elected. There is a reason why many white voters left the Democratic party after Obama was elected. There is a reason why Trump's racist rhetoric has agitated and mobilized individuals and groups who are white supremacists, xenophobes, and bigots of all stripes.

So, we have some systemic problems in our society. From the way we elect the president (Electoral College, not the majority of the voters), to the racial and economic divisions within our country, to the way the law and its instruments of power operates.  Some myths die hard--like the American dream--even if there's proof that many are illusions, or mass delusions.

Understandably many Americans are stressed, and have various degrees of financial insecurity. Our democracy, and most of our institutions--the glue that keeps our society together--have been losing legitimacy. Our social safety net needs to be expanded and strengthened. Perhaps COVID19 exposed the holes and weaknesses of our system and there will demands (and actual policies) to improve on the quality of life for the average American. We were, still are pioneers in many ways, but we've fallen behind other western democracies in terms of quality of life.

Only ideal candidates need apply, or, how some people help bring bad outcomes

The output of a very disturbed mind

Meanwhile on the progressive side of the political spectrum, there are those who are exhibiting Trump-like petulance: my way or the ..highway. These persons fail to understand--as they did in 2016--progress in life doesn't exist in an ideal form.

There are many forces, actors, and ideas that oppose progress. There always have been. These forces also vote, hold public offices, and have financial interests. It's prudent that we realize this, be realistic about it.

We have to examine the practical, and how close it is to our values. Of course I realize that sometimes there are only awful choices. Yet, this is not the case this year, nor it was in 2016, in my opinion.  Remember, that the ideal shouldn't be the enemy of the practical. I will vote for Joe Biden because it'll be good for the country--far better than the alternative.

There are those, like some "Bernie or bust" people, who are contemplating sitting out this election or waste their votes, again, on a minor party. The fact is that the next president will either be a Dem or a Repub. Likewise, our representatives in the Congress (House and Senate) will be Dems or Repubs. No minor parties are represented in Congress; same for state legislatures. This is the system we have, at least for now.

He may not have been my first choice among those who ran, but Joe Biden will probably be one of the most progressive presidents we've ever had. The party and key constituents have moved to further to the left and will influence his policies. He will restore dignity in the presidency. He will be a leader working with other heads of state not praise dictators while trying to emulate them.

He will have competent people in his administration. Science and the scientific approach/methodology will be officially supported and advanced. There will be no crime family at the White House to use the country as an emolument platform. The Attorney General will not be the president's personal lawyer, and there will be progressive judges appointed. I could go on and on, but the point is, don't reject someone because he is not perfect, or he has not attained perfection like you... especially when the choice is between your non-ideal but far better candidate and four more years of Trump along with the withering of our republic/democracy.

Gun Violence in America: Why "Good Guys with Guns" Isn't the solution...

Another shooting at a school today, 2 adults 1 child dead. This latest gun violence incident by an estranged husband who killed his wife in an elementary school classroom also took the life of an innocent student. The perp had a history of domestic violence and weapons charges, but of course in the US obtaining a gun is not hard.

In December 2012, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting took place where 26 children and staff were killed. In a disgraceful response the NRA and many conservatives repeated the mantra, "a bad guy with a gun can be stopped by a good guy with a gun." Dangerous simpletons.

I just found this clip and I think it's worth sharing.

The Pope's Message Supports Many Progressive Causes.

Is the pope Catholic? Well, of course he is, even though he's challenging traditional conservatism in the church. OK, he says he believes in the devil and that exorcisms make sense. Plus, he's turning some really obnoxious people into saints. But, you know he's hitting a wall of criticism with the economic elites,  and the socio-political conservatives. He's also popular with the masses and the intellectuals who want the church to leave the dark ages and come forward. 

Obviously, a church has to be conservative in many ways, but religious dogma changes over time. What is practiced today in several important ways is not what the church did just a couple centuries ago. The Enlightenment and the formation of another heavyweight--the modern state--curtailed the influence of the church.

It's funny to watch the faithful complain when they taste what they had prescribed for others. Oh, the Xtians are persecuted, they shout. Like Ted Cruz and Mike Hackabee said coming to the defense of the Kentucky city clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses, because, heck, that's against her religion. Hey, have you heard of the Amish who works at the Motor Vehicle Dpt and refuses to register any ..machines of the devil? Haha.

But, we have to applaud the pope when he makes speeches that help move people in the right direction. The environment, health care, immigration, the income-wealth distribution, etc, are some of the issues championed by progressives. We know that some people and leaders aren't moved by rational arguments and facts when these come from their opponents. So, it's important to have someone they respect say these things. It moves the needle of our national dialogue in the right direction. Thank you, Pope Francis.

Ignorance Usually is not a Good Defense, Unless You're a Conservative (i.e., Jeb Bush) Running for Office and Appealing to Idiocy

"I'm not a scientist," it's the excuse many politicians use to avoid answering controversial questions, like climate change, evolution, age of earth, etc. Of course, most of us aren't scientists, but use the products of science every day. And, most of us are alive, because of science. We doubled human life expectancy in the last 100 years, cured diseases, reduced infant mortality (and mothers' mortality at childbirth), went to the moon, understand a lot more about the universe, and we made our lives more comfortable because of science. So, science works.

What works actually it's the method of discovery, acquisition of knowledge, forming and amending scientific theories, and seeking the facts and the truth. Unfortunately, many Americans don't really understand what the scientific method is. There are several reasons for this. One is the strong influence of religion, which is much higher here than in other advanced countries. In addition religion has been meddling in education. Another reason is the failure of schools to teach what science and the scientific method is.

Education has to be knowledge, but what kind of knowledge? Memorization & repetition without understanding isn't the goal. Education, like science, should be a tool for knowledge. In this sense, it's more important how you thing than what you think about.

We may not be scientists but we must understand what science is and what it does. Democracy depends on the people's understanding of issues, engagement, and prudence. It's obvious that the quality of a system depends on the quality of the people involved. Ignorance doesn't serve the good political life--nor life in general.

"I'm not a scientist"

It's tiresome, to say the least, that leaders use this lame line. They are either ignorant or lying or both. If they're ignorant, they should recuse themselves from making public policy on issues they don't understand. They should stop promoting idiocy like, there's got to be two sides to the story, or teach the controversy, or there's no unanimity... Please, stop this nonsense. As leaders they should try to elevate public discourse by speaking carefully about science, the facts, and reality than by appealing the lowest common denominator.

Here's an ignorant person, a former governor of Florida and a member of the Bush clan, who is seriously exploring running for president of the U.S.

 

 Let the circus of the Republican/conservatives/tea partiers running for president begin. It'd be hilarious if it didn't have serious implications on our public discourse.

In Politics, Non-Optimal Choices Can be Acceptable. After All, Democracy Depends on Consensus

I had an interesting conversation with colleagues during lunch today and at least one said that they won't vote for Hillary Clinton should she run for president. Some of the reasons cited was that she's openly for big business, that she didn't do anything while at the State Department, and that it's not appropriate to have an oligarchy of the Bushes and Clinton.

Well, I get all that, but in a democracy--as many times in life--we, personally, don't have the ideal choice. We may not have great choices either. We often take the "lesser of the two evils" and it makes sense, especially when one is truly evil, as I believe any serious Republican contender has been in my lifetime and will be in 2016.

Plus, elections have consequences as they can steer the country in a certain direction, elevate certain priorities, and articulate ideas. Successful policies, despite their flaws, convince people about their merits. Let's not forget, many people are conservative--can't imagine in the abstract or analyze ideology. There are many narratives out there. Sure, leadership matters, and that's why we have so many people choosing the ridiculous and want a society more fit for the Dark Ages. However, once they see that, say, Obamacare is generally good, that same-sex marriage doesn't destroy a state, etc, they accept it.

In the same light, I don't think most people readily accepted the ideas of the Enlightenment, of liberalism, or of civil rights for everyone. But, once those took hold (often imposed by elites like Jefferson, Madison, et al), people accepted them. We can see this today in our own country, from state to state--different sub-cultures with very opposing views on, say, gun control, religion, sex, political parties choice, etc. This also shows that most issues aren't decided on their merits, on evaluating the facts, because otherwise we wouldn't still be debating whether humans are responsible for global warming, evolution (and science in general), and the age of the Earth!

In yesterday's NYT, C. Blow's oped titled, "Religious Constriction," makes a similar point about the religiosity of our citizens--highest among affluent countries. You have to look to Greece, Italy, and the oil-rich Gulf countries to find higher religiosity. I maintain that--for most domains, issues, ideas, morality--if religion informs opinion then, most certainly, it's wrong, and imprudent. It is precisely because such opinions are held by so many of our citizens that we don't see the progress we could get nor do we solve many of our own problems.

***

I have to give another shout to a favorite, Paul Krugman, who he recently wrote [link] along the same lines of my argument:

"The fact that climate concerns rest on scientific consensus makes things even worse, because it plays into the anti-intellectualism that has always been a powerful force in American life, mainly on the right. It’s not really surprising that so many right-wing politicians and pundits quickly turned to conspiracy theories, to accusations that thousands of researchers around the world were colluding in a gigantic hoax whose real purpose was to justify a big-government power grab. After all, right-wingers never liked or trusted scientists in the first place.

So the real obstacle, as we try to confront global warming, is economic ideology reinforced by hostility to science. In some ways this makes the task easier: we do not, in fact, have to force people to accept large monetary losses. But we do have to overcome pride and willful ignorance, which is hard indeed." 

The Supreme Court to Decide Whether Birth Control Can Be a Religious Exception. In Other Words, Conservatives Still Have a Problem With Sex.

Conservatives are challenging "Obamacare," again, arguing for religious freedom, so an employer whose religion is anti-birth control should not have to provide such as part of health care coverage. The Supreme Court will decide whether there should be an exception. Conservatives on the SCOTUS and around the country hope to shoot another hole into "Obamacare." I'll refrain from evaluating how "religion poisons everything" as the late Christopher Hitchens used to say, but apparently this lunacy has no end. It's such a distraction, and a waste of resources.

Apparently, conservatives believe they have a shot at the Supreme Court. Why? Because this court is rather conservative. Why? Because elections have consequences. Elect Republican presidents and senators and that's what you have. You get judges like Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts, who make important decisions about our lives. Yes, if you live in this society, what happens at the Supreme Court, the executive and legislative branches does matter!

Side note: in this midterm election year, it'll pivot around turnout, more specifically what groups show up to vote. I'll have another post on this later.

Justice Elena Kagan, you've got to love her. She stuck it to Scalia. If he's to be consistent with his own previous statements, he should vote against the motion for the religious exception on birth control case. During oral arguments, she said that religious-based exceptions to neutral laws could lead to anarchy!

 "Your understanding of this law, your interpretation of it, would essentially subject the entire U.S. Code to the highest test in constitutional law, to a compelling interest standard," she told Paul Clement, the lawyer arguing against the mandate for Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood. "So another employer comes in and that employer says, I have a religious objection to sex discrimination laws; and then another employer comes in, I have a religious objection to minimum wage laws; and then another, family leave; and then another, child labor laws. And all of that is subject to the exact same test which you say is this unbelievably high test, the compelling interest standard with the least restrictive alternative."

Of course it's Scalia who has argued that our entire civil code, judicial and political, indeed our entire civilization is based on the Judeo-Christian moral code--as, of course, is clearly laid out in the Bible.  On another side note: Did you hear about the Xtian church in NYC that advocates applying this law, stoning homosexuals to death? And, did you hear that a lesbian knocked on the church's door and asked them to stone her to death? Apparently the person who answered the door said they were out of stones so she should come back another day!

To be fair to this church, the Bible indeed prescribes death by stoning for a variety of moral trespasses. Ah, the "good 'ol days" when the Lord ordered genocide, ethnic cleansing, slavery, subjugation of women, pestilence, floods, etc.  

Did you hear that many Xtians are upset about the movie Noah? They said that Hollywood's fiction is not what happened. Bill Maher has a response:

 

What do US Conservatives Want? Regression Bathed in Trickle Down Piss and Freedom to be Poor, Ignorant & God-fearing!

I watched snippets of the CPAC--the largest annual gathering of conservatives--and I kept wondering how in the hell so many people fall for this bullshit. Most of it was trite exhortations about freedom, God, patriotism; labels, simplicity, and rightwingnuttery in ample supply. These people are fit for the Dark Ages. Any politician associated with this circus isn't appropriate to lead the country forward. But, that's the point: they don't want to go forward, but backward to the "good ol' days".... making a brief stop to Reagan's 1980s, and then a fast rewind to the days when unbridled capitalism ruled, when most people who got sick died, when religious morality & freedom meant discrimination, segregation, and bigotry. Yeah, that's the kind of America the conservatives want.


More often than not, the conservative disposition can be explained by a sense of a personal loss or a price to pay if the "unworthy others" receive anything from the social safety net. They don't understand that in a proper civic society everybody receives benefits. Everybody! From the very top to the bottom. More so, for those ontop, even though they don't see it that way, as if they operate in the vacuum of space--where they make their money of course. 

The following statement is, sadly, typical not only of a conservative mind but also of a college student. Most--and I include both sides of the political divide--don't know how to write a proper sentence or explain simple ideas, let alone the fundamental beliefs they hold. 

In my personal opinion, our democratic system has so many holes in it, which is leaking, causing chaos in peoples minds. With the recent reelection of Obama, there was clearly havoc that rose among people who are against him; and in good reason. Obama wants to redistribute the wealth of others to people who did not necessarily own it and he wants the government to pay for expenses for people that cannot afford it by taxing the wealthier class.  The government is basically making people rely on others to provide for them without really trying themselves, thus making this one of the laziest generations. 

I can't count the times I hear this theme from conservatives; it's part of their narrative along with misguided patriotism and inability to imagine reality. Yes, conservatives can't think in the abstract very well. That's why they may change their minds only if they experience something themselves. Have a gay son, oh, maybe it's OK. Hurricane Sandy destroys your home, oh, where's the government to bail you out? Have a retarded baby, oh, yes, how come we don't spend more to find a cure and support such. 

The conservatives have opposed the abolition of slavery, desegregation, equal rights for women, civil rights, personal reproductive choice, science, access to voting, Social Security, Medicaid, food stamps, clean air, consumer protection, science (yes, even science irks them!), etc, etc, oh, and electrification!  All those things that make our lives better and are the norm in every advanced liberal-social-democracy!  But, listen to the CPAC speakers and it's clear what horrible society we'd have if they got their way. Of course you have to part the smoke & mirrors of misguided patriotism, and the empty slogans about freedom. On your knees, you pitiful, wretched creature.  

 A Typical Conservative Prescription Bad for Your Health

 Gail Collins in this NYT editorial shows how the conservatives think and operate. If you think it doesn't matter, think again. Elections have consequences, from the state and local to the national and the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, Texas is moving on to Step 2. As of September, it will require the clinics, which perform only simple early-term abortions, to have all the equipment, space and special air and water filters necessary to do a surgical procedure like a hip transplant. Miller determined the cost of complying would be in the neighborhood of $3 million per clinic.

There’s been a vague attempt to cloak all these new laws as health care imperatives, but, really, the cover is pretty thin. During the debate on the Texas bill, State Senator Dan Patrick told his colleagues to ask themselves: “How would God vote tonight if he were here?”

I am mentioning Patrick because this week he came in first for the Republican nomination for lieutenant governor, campaigning as “a Christian first, a conservative second and a Republican third.” He has also been desperately busy ginning up anti-immigration sentiment; this is the guy who claimed illegal immigrants were threatening Texas with “third world diseases” like leprosy. The lieutenant governor, by the way, is possibly the most powerful public official in the state.

Well, turnout for the primaries was very low. It was freezing down there on Tuesday. Once again, we leap at a chance to blame the weather.

The social right has been waving the banner of religious freedom lately. What that generally means is the right to impose one’s theology on other people. Particularly, it seems, when sex is involved.

For instance, the Supreme Court is scheduled to decide, in its next big Obamacare case, whether the craft-store chain Hobby Lobby can refuse to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives on religious grounds. Hobby Lobby actually already covers its employees’ birth control pills. Its owners just object to a few things, like intrauterine devices, because they have religious convictions against preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Scientists disagree that’s what an IUD does, but what the heck? It’s their theology.

The Texas conservatives are not alone. Again, take a look at the CPAC conference [here's their official site so you can watch their videos]where all the major conservative and Republican leaders attend and make speeches about the kind of society they want. 

Lincoln's Decision to Use Silver to Kill Vampires & Warewolves Instead of Buying Slaves Cost the Nation Dearly! (Enjoy Your Black History Month)

We like to believe what makes us feel good; it's called confirmation bias. So, why look any further? Oh, I don't know, it might be OK to keep in touch with reality, because understanding reality may have something to do with the decisions we make in real life.

How about history, the past? Bygones let them be bygones. There's no harm in revising history to fit a narrative we promote in contemporary politics. Racism, bigotry? All in the past. No need to have legal protections for people who may have had problems in the past--as the conservatives on the Supreme Court now tell us when they rule that racism is practically over, and that uninhibited access to voting, especially in the South and in GOP-dominated areas is good and dandy.

Personally, I find willful ignorance annoying. Those who spread stupidity and lies--like almost everyone at Faux News--are doing a disservice to our country. If I were to use their rhetoric, they're like Hitler holocausting history, and committing treason for betraying our country's noble mission statement, all men are created equal, and of-by-for the people.

 Revisionist history of the worst kind. The bullcrap of Faux News

 Just before Black History month ends (February), the vile opinionators (like that ass judge Napolitano in this video) at Fox News attempt to distort reality again. Jon Stuart's show has the perfect comeback.

The Problem We All Live With. Some Thoughts on This Martin Luther King Day, 2014

Norman Rockwell's "The Problem We All Live With"

On the occasion of the MLK day, I've read and heard several speeches of the slain civil rights leader and, of course, most of us today wonder why American society was so opposed to equal rights, or more specifically to blacks having equal treatment under the law and equal opportunity like anybody else.

It's conservatism! Being conservative is a disposition--an attitude towards change and something new. Conservatives exist in all political parties. This was particularly true in the 1950s and 1960s in the Democratic party. Many of the opponents to the Civil Rights acts, most from the old South, left the party and joined became Dixiecrat Republicans. President Lyndon Johnson said that the South would be lost for his party after he signed the CRA. It's been certainly true, but a couple states like Virginia and North Carolina may be trending the other way now.

There's a difference in disposition between conservatives and liberal-progressives. I think we have a better imagination and we are more confident over all. Why is imagination necessary? To evaluate abstract scenarios, to imagine change, whereas a conservative prefers the "tried and true," tradition, familiarity and can't imagine a different world. Blacks having same rights as whites? Oh, goodness, traditional society would collapse, a way of live (which included either slavery or later discrimination and separation of the races) of the old was preferable to a new order.

PBS's documentary, Slavery By Another Name, is a must-watch *

Confidence? Well, sameness is comforting. Confirmation bias, solidarity of thought and action is soothing to a conservative.  We all have this trait to some extent. We like to see our choices, thoughts, beliefs, customs, etc, confirmed; it validates our life...   Yet, some of us are willing to accept correction; we're open to revision, and seek the truth even if it's uncomfortable. Confidence doesn't mean stubbornness of a closed mind, but it means that the new, the different doesn't necessarily make us uncomfortable. And we can image a world with all races, creeds, and sexual orientation.

Isn't the same approach and the also the difference between the conservatives and liberals when it comes to same-sex marriage? My heterosexual makeup isn't threatened by homosexuality. My heterosexual marriage or relationship isn't threatened by homosexual unions or marriages. The right to marry a person of your choosing is having equal opportunity and treatment under the law. End of story (for a liberal).

Speaking the Tongue of the Natives

MLK was a great leader and even a better orator and thus motivated lots of people to meaningful action for civil rights. He spoke like a preacher, which, for me, isn't my favorite elocution. I don't want to be preached at. I don't want to be told that a certain action is good because it has the blessings of a god, or the God.  However, MLK spoke the language of religion in a deeply religious land, whereas both sides had used religious language to justify their positions.

But, many people on both sides were practicing confirmation bias--using the Bible to justify their positions. Guess what? The Bible has a little for every one. Am I glad that MLK's Bible quoting and religious messaging worked to help bring about change? Certainly! Because, this was a much-needed change. 

However, it should be noted that the Bible condones slavery! [source]  I would expect a messiah to preach against the evils of slavery, but Jesus didn't. The Gospels in the New Testament don't advocate for a slave-free world. On the contrary. Women's status? Subservient. We're talking about divine morality here. The word of God, good then, good today, and unalterable in the future!

Anyway, we have a long way to go despite our advances, many of which have been forcefully opposed by conservatives of all types. We're still very primitive in how act, think, and often treat each other. 

 
 * This PBS documentary examines the conditions of servitude that existed until the second part of the 20th century in the US. It's definitely worth a watch.

Life, Death, Wishful Thinking, And The Devil Incarnate. All in this Week's Post. Come Right In!

I've listened to NPR's series "What Comes Next? Conversations on Afterlife" and I found it entertaining but nothing surprised me though. The philosopher argued the most interesting points, but the rest--from all sorts of religious points--made incoherent arguments for an afterlife. No proof offered, not even good reasoning. Of course, there were divergent opinions, because, guess what, they can't agree as they don't agree on what's in the mind of God. 

Basically what they proposed was some kind of a theme based on their pre-conceived notion that select ancients had captured God's dictation--which is quite preposterous. What comes out of these arguments is wishful thinking. People need to have hope to deal with their pending total annihilation, which, I admit, is not a pleasant thing to look forward to. But, I guess it's a matter of choice whether to believe in something that makes you feel good (better) than the unpleasant reality.

Like many true skeptics, I can't be sure of what happens after we die, other than our bodies, including our brains--the seat of conscience and individualism--decompose and wither away. Survival, for the person would mean the preservation of memory and personality as a minimum. Yes, our atoms will be recycled and combine with other atoms from and into other stuff. Every atom in our body has come from an exploding star! It's novel to think that way: We're star stuff. Of course, a negative person might call us ..nuclear waste.

But, a skeptic wouldn't make up stories of a nice outcome simply it feels better than any other alternative. That's what a scared person would do. It's the job of the religious leaders to get followers by delivering enticing but empty promises. And, they do this by appealing not to reason and evidence but to credulity, fear, and ignorance.

Did you know that in the past, Xtians didn't believe that their bodies will go with then during Rapture. Actually it made more sense that way, if you wanted a better experience without an old, wrinkled, sick body that had needs, some of which were "unclean urges." In the modern age, this changed. Many Xtians today believe they'll be raptured along with their bodies and that they'll go to heaven where they'll even see their pets there!

Speaking of beliefs, most Americans (US) believe in an afterlife. Actually many believe that it's probable Jesus will return in their lifetime--in the next 30 years. That would mean the end of times, or life as we know it.  Whatever. Reality doesn't depend on majority rule, and science didn't progress by polling public opinion. 

We're far behind when it comes to scientific literacy, thanks to strong religious beliefs--which are the strongest in the western world. That's why scientific facts are controversial in the US! The age of the earth, evolution, global climate changes, or even basic human reproduction fact. Public policy and much debate in our country is "informed" by faith. 

New Jersey Allows Same-Sex Couples to Marry

The NJ Supreme Court unanimously rejected the governor's (yes, that's Republican Christie) request for a stay, not to allow these marriages to happen because he argued "irreparable damage." The high court ruled the opposite, that no one would be hurt if it happened.

The governor wanted to put this into a referendum too. Which would be fine if we had settled on the question whether it's a right or a privilege for adults to associate & marry anyone they want. If it's a right, then a simple majority (or even an occasional  supermajority) should be able to deny rights. Slavery was quite popular back when.

What's the harm by allowing same-sex marriage? I'm not gay nor black. Should I care about them? Yes, because I want a tolerant, happy, free-from-prejudice society to live in. Have you noticed that a conservative (yes, Republican too) attitude is that they care when it affects them directly! They are not for a social safety net, funding for science, etc, unless they need those services. 

Some of the loudest voices complaining about government came from Republicans after superstorm Sandy. The same people who applauded Romney's statement that FEMA (and most other public emergency response agencies) be privatized! Much like that idiot governor from Louisiana who went on national TV (responding to one of Obama's speeches) to tells it's a waste of money for government to monitor volcanoes!

Dick Cheney is in favor of same-sex marriage because he has a lesbian daughter. Sarah Palin is in favor of funding research into finding treatment for childhood diseases. You guessed it, she has a child with Down's syndrome.  By the way, why is Palin still relevant? Why did Fox News hired her as a talking head? OK. I have the answer, no need to reply. I dare you though, if you can handle it, to watch her latest interview with Megyn Kelly on Fox about the government shutdown. In true-Palin fashion, she puts some nonsensical statements together, mixing irrelevant points, confusing terms, and it's pure nonsense. 

 Conservatives Accept Judge Scalia's Views as Intellectual Fortitude

Supreme Court Justice A. Scalia proves what we progressive have been saying all along: his an intellectual midget whose moral code and "informed opinions" come from the whackiest sources.

For those who might want to read the interview Scalia gave to the New York magazine, hit the link. Some of the highlights (lowlights):

• the devil is real; actually a real person who walks among us
• the Bible is a document that talks about real history, people, and events
• the Old Testament and the Gospels reveal truths about reality, the universe, morality, and why our legal system is based on such [it's not really, but that's what we get in Scalia, who's 1 of the 9 on the highest court of the land that interprets the US constitution!]
• "we're fools for Christ" [whatever this means]
• sources of information include conservative talk radio, the Washington Times (this scientology-owned, arch-conservative rag)

Professional Cowards: US Senate Blocks Sensible Gun Control Legislation. At Least They're Protecting Us from the Gay Apocalypse... (tsk)

 Ah, Freedom!Which one makes more sense?

In case you didn't figure it out, it's a wedding picture!

Which is more important item for freedom in the US? A gun or a vehicle? It's the latter for it allows freedom of mobility, access to jobs and opportunities, etc. Yet, we have to be tested as operators, we have to obey lots of laws and regulations, need to register, inspect, and insure our vehicle. But, do you want a gun, sure go ahead. Wait, are you crazy? Are you a criminal? No? OK, then, we'll trust your word, here's a semi-automatic weapon that fires 30 big caliber rounds in few seconds. Enjoy hunting or whatever you intend to do with this and the rest of the arsenal you're amassing. 

How Some Prostitutes Give a Bad Name to the Profession

Today the US Senate showed how our elected officials can go against the wishes of a big majority of the American people. Reasonable gun control, including background checks amendments didn't pass. Cornyn's (R-Dumbfuckistan) amendment was the highest vote-getter, 57. This amendment would weaken gun control by requiring states with stricter laws to accept the licenses from states where anyone could get a gun.  Oh, wanna bet that these @holes take the opposite position when it comes to same-sex marriage?  Yeah, gays/lesbians are a bigger threat to society and their marriage would be like ..Hitler invading Poland if the Fed forced the states to recognize such marriages.

Systemic Problem

 The US political system was an experiment in government at a time when they weren't any liberal democracies. So the founders improvised, compromised, got a few things right, and some things very wrong.

One of the problems was to disperse power into three branches, but even within the legislative branch they created 2 chambers. These plus the president must pass identical bills before we have law. Unlike in other advanced democracies, our executive (the prez) doesn't control the legislature. So every president who runs on an agenda on the national level must get Congress to agree; and the members of Congress are elected from localities. Furthermore, Senate rules give a small minority the ability to kill legislation through the filibuster. 

I think it's time to use the so-called "nuclear option" and declare this rule unconstitutional so we can get things done more efficiently. The constitution provides for super majorities in the Senate for various decisions, like impeaching the president. Regular legislation should get the chance for an up or down vote. It was OK when only 3% of the bills were filibustered in the past. The minority could reject a few really objectionable bills. But, when nothing moves because of this obstruction tactic in the last decade, then there's something seriously wrong with this system.

The best way to fix some of our problems would be a couple constitutional amendments, but this is not very likely. The other way would be citizen engagement and mobilization. Let's see why a people's majority is so arrogantly ignored by some elected representatives. 

Change often comes because the people demand it. Let's prove that we do have a representative democracy, a system that works for the benefit of the people. Otherwise let's call it what it is and stay home. It's not enough to have myths, and slogans. We have to talk the talk and walk the walk!

The Conservative Frame of Mind(less).... and, a Showcase of the Dimmest Stars at CPAC 2013

Is it the lack of imagination? Is it that conservatives have limited ability to think in the abstract? Or, is it that they don't care about anything that doesn't apply to them? Though I have to say that when it comes to wild, unsubstantiated, unreasonable conspiracy theories, the conservatives do come up with the silliest imagination. I'd call it "science fiction" but given their dislike for anything with science in it, it's best to label it "pulp fiction."

I began to ponder these questions after the conservative senator from PA changed his mind about same-sex marriage after his own son came out of the closet as a homosexual.
Sarah Palin used to tell us that it was creeping socialism/communism/fascism (she didn't really know the difference) when we spend for the social safety net; you know, that thing about the ..social contract. Anyway, if you had to guess the exception to this she was in favor?.... Oh, yeah, it was spending in support of and research for a cure for something she knew very well--child retardation. She couldn't imagine other instances whether poor mothers (or anyone in need) should need anything else in social and medical services.

Arch-conservative Dick Cheney is in favor of gay rights. Why? Because his daughter is a lesbian!

Likewise with all those idiots who worship saint Ayn Rand and her libertarian views, and all the other conservatives who hate "big government" guess what they usually say when a disaster strikes...  You've guessed it...."Where is the government to bail me out?"  Tropical storm Sandy caused tremendous damage in several states along the eastern seaboard, and it was state & federal agencies that came to help, because these are the ones who can actually be of help during these events.

Just a few weeks earlier, the Romney-Ryan dogma  touted that FEMA should be dissolved and its mission given to private entities. Of course, Sandy reminded people that leaders who don't have a positive proposal about government should not be in government!

Yeah, not only liberals have bleeding hearts but they're more likely to understand the needs of others, and be compassionate even when they're not personally affected by an issue. 

I didn't have to experience a gay member of my family, nor had to first make sure that Massachusetts didn't sink into the Atlantic after it passed its same-sex marriage law, nor had to see a lesbian couple in my neighborhood to be in favor of equal rights to marriage. 

In other words, it's nicer to be compassionate, giving, just, and understanding without being selfish first.

CPAC 2013--The Conservatives Showcase Their Dimmest Stars

 

 A political party has to remain relevant to exist, and political parties reflect public sentiment. Of course, leadership matters in moving public opinion. What's amazing about this Republican party is that many of its leaders believe the American public will move closer to its regressive positions. I have no idea why they believe that! Their most sacred policy proposals aren't liked by the majority of the US voter.

There are some voices within the GOP muttering that the more their policies see the light of day, the more the GOP is not liked!  The progressives have to keep harping on this, that parties and leaders who don't believe in a strong social safety net, positive government, in science, education, and a more equal economic field should don't deserve public support.

In the largest conservative meeting of the year, the conservatives got together in Maryland over the past weekend. Whom did they bring out to showcase? Not Christie or other moderates but this motley crew:

Sarah Palin, M. Bachmann, D. Trump, R. Santorum, Rand Paul, M. Rubio, Steve King (R-UT), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Romney, P. Ryan, Ann Coulter, birthers, anti-science, anti-climate/environmental policies, tea party patriots, religious fanatics, conspiracy theorists, and Ronald Reagan's ghost (though his policies would be an anathema to this wingnut group).

I will not rehash here their lunacy, but I urge everyone who isn't aware of their extremism to check them out. When last semester I asked my students to research the parties' platforms as approved by their national conventions, many of those students were shocked by what they found out the GOP is about.

 

Obama's SOTU Address: A Progressive View

There were two distinct views on the role of government as their speeches demonstrated by president Obama and GOP Senator Rubio on Tuesday. It also demonstrated the conservatives' anachronistic view of liberalism. 

The notion of freedom that came out of the Enlightenment was to define it by the individual; free countries weren't necessarily free unless their citizens had individual freedoms which were guaranteed by a social contract. 

After the American Revolution, the question was, what kind of political system should we have here?

Those early leaders of the new country-to-be chose liberalism, representative government, popular consensus, and the radical idea that the new entity should be a commonwealth--that is, work for the benefit of the people.

Ever since, and in order to fulfill this goal, government is engaged in the redistribution of resources, enhancing access to opportunity and maintain fair play. At least this has been the principle.  

Of-For-By The People

 Now, let's think how this social contract principle was implemented in the early days. "Of the people"? Well, not so much. Common people weren't invited into government. "By the people"? Not so much either. Only white men with property were allowed to vote. "For the people"? OK, more or less, if you excluded the slaves, the very poor, and the absence of a social safety net.

Since those days, there has been an evolution in the role of government, culture, society, gender roles, racial relations, economic activities, all sorts of ideas and views, etc, etc. And, our country has been better off, because of it. Look at any country where most of its citizens are faring well and you'll see that's a liberal, social democracy with an activist state.

FDR's New Deal put in practice the evolved liberalism--an expanded notion of freedom--which went beyond the narrow definition of the absence of restraint. What prevents a person from enjoying freedom is the absence of access to opportunity, lack of meaningful choices and actions. An in the absence of an activist state, the marketplace alone or even charity and human fellowship weren't enough to give individuals of the middle and lower classes a pathway to freedom.

It's the activist state--which according to the main principle of the social contract should serve the people--that helped create a more even playing field and ensured the rule of law. We still have a long way to go, so the conservatives' and libertarians' view that the state should be limited makes no sense whatsoever, unless, of course, this is designed to further the gap between the classes and ensure our system becomes plutocratic, unjust, immobile, and unfree!

The SOTU, 2013

 

Federal budget reflects the values and priorities of government. Here are some of the president's points that I share:

• Wages and benefits haven't risen in decades
• We're in this together
• Fairer tax burden; not fair for wealthy to pay less of a share than working class people
• Debt: health care costs rising; tuition debt
• Cuts in social services, job training, green economy are not good for us
• Medicare reform; Affordable Health Care Act necessary to improve the health of the nation, including access to medical treatment
• Social Contract should be maintained, and paid for; it's what a modern country does for its citizens.
• We shouldn't cut medicare and education, ss, for the benefit of preserving tax breaks to the wealthy.
• don't play with the credit and credibility of the USA
• A strong economy is based on a strong middle class
• Gov investing in green energy, innovation, scientific research
• Climate change is upon us, not a coincidence; Science v. wishful thinking
• Internet, infrastructure, efficient, less corrupt system, educated workforce, tolerance, etc.
• investment in education, early access to learning, makes individuals more productive, more successful, less prone to crime, etc. Better for US
• comprehensive immigration reform, now!
• Women's rights, like paycheck fairness act, more protection from violence
• minimum wage should rise
• shared prosperity
• end of war (started by previous prez)
• gay and straight in the military should have equal benefits and treatment
• right to vote, fundamental right; why do we place obstacles to voting? 
• reduce gun violence; sensible gun control laws;

Rubio

• I made it on my own; don't need Washington's help
• Free enterprise economy is the solution
• More government is the problem; but not if it has to do with intrusion into our privacy,  abortion, and the .."moral fitness of America"
• More government breeds more rules, laws, and taxes. Who needs that, right?
• No Obama care; without explaining the particulars since most Americans are in favor of the new health care law if its provisions are explained.
• Role of gov: security, night watchman, not much more
•  blah, blah, blah
• ....
• have some of the same medicine that got you sick in the first place....

Where Job Creation Come From. [Hint: Not From Tax Breaks to the Super Rich!]

There are lots of myths in our society, some are good some are horrible. A good one is the idea of natural rights. That is, every person is born with certain unalienable rights, so the concept of a social contract is easier to imagine. I'm not questioning whether every human being should have fundamental rights, but how do you prove that everyone is born with equal rights? At any rate, the point of this essay is to discuss another harmful  myth, and that is, the notion that tax cuts for the rich is a good thing. This belief is an article of faith being constantly repeated by the conservatives, while leaders like president Obama and many in the Democratic Party are afraid to challenge it!

Class warfare is the term that scares many, like an actual war might be. Relax everybody, the war is over and the elites have won it. But, I was very surprised to hear that TED Talks censored a speech critical of this article of faith.

Watch this video by a rich person who clearly makes sense about where job creation comes from. 

 

The Theater of the Absurd Keeps Performing, and Amazingly Attracting Audience!

The last GOP debate before "super Tuesday" took place yesterday with hyperbole and hubris at center stage.  I liked the audience booing too. This theater of the absurdity is beyond critical evaluation; it's entertainment of the lowest (and we know how low this is) common denominator in Republican politics today.

Here's a better, funnier, cleverer clip of Jon Stewart. Enjoy! Don't even think why so many Americans actually believe the crap the conservatives have been dishing out, because you'll probably weep.

Newt Gingrich is A Big Fat Idiot... and, a Socialist Revolutionary!

As of now, it seems that the Republicans are still not convinced about Romney, but they may prove me wrong and pick him as the eventual nominee. I had argued that the former Massachusetts governor would not appeal to the majority of the very conservative, religious activist base. Well, he still isn't all that popular, since the majority of primary/caucus participants have voted for someone else. If you remove his supposed "electability" then his core support falls below Ron Paul's! The latter is a marginal candidate who doesn't have any chance of success.

There's a scenario whereas Grinch further implodes and Santorum becomes the one to capture all the anti-Romney conservative votes. This scenario will be tested when the race moves to the Midwest. In 2008, the Dems went through a similar phase, pitting the favorite, Hilary Clinton, and the rest. Once Obama became the only one standing he became also stronger as he captured the anti-Clinton votes.  However, there's a huge difference between those contests in the Dem race and today in the GOP race. The Dems had proportional allocation of delegates, whereas the loser(s) still got something out of a state contest.

The winner-takes-all system, many state Republican parties have, gives a huge amount to the candidate who crosses the line first. There's no majority principle here, just a plurality one. Romney is polling ahead of Newt right now and that may just be enough.  I assumed that the GOP would come up with a strong traditional conservative in which case Mittens would lose despite his organization and tons of money. Well, we've seen that the party wanted this to happen. Any announced candidate, an "anti-Romney"  candidate who appeared remotely competitive had his/her poll numbers spike well above Romney's initially. Every single one of them--Bachmann, Santorum, Grinch, Caine, Perry, Paul--were beating Romney at some point before the process began and even afterward. This is significant, because Mittens was a well-known candidate as the second runner up 4 years ago. The GOP usually selects "the next in line" to hold its flag. Yearning for the anti-Romney may just remain an unfulfilled urge in conservative politics.

All the non-Romney candidates self-imploded for various reasons. This field is looney because the Republican base that's active in the selection process has lots of loons--people who are way out of the country's mainstream.

Newt Gingrich is a Big Fat Idiot

If he can slander others by misrepresenting the truth, promote ignorance, and employ the politics of fear, I think I can safely use the big fat idiot term to describe his "intellectual" abyss. Actually I had (I still do) endorsed Grinch for the GOP nomination!  Why, you ask?

It's time that this Republican party becomes a modern, rational, pragmatic party--as much a conservative party is able, and we all know the limitations of this. With Grinch as the one holding the party banner, the GOP would suffer major defeats. Through this experience, perhaps, some reasonable Republicans would try to wrest control from the loons and turn the party around from heading back to the Dark Ages. Maybe after serious defeats, the GOP would realize that what it represents today, what its leaders pronounce, what the stated policy is,  it has left mainstream America.

Bill Moyers Essay: Newt's Obesession with Saul Alinsky from BillMoyers.com on Vimeo.

I have frequent discussions with Republicans and I ask them if they think whether the core principles beliefs and public policy of this GOP reflect the majority of Americans...  And, if not so, whether the country is moving toward or away from those... I think the answer is clear. Any reasonable Republican (endangered species) know it.

It's time we had this discussion. Let's hope that Obama can point out the gap between the GOP and the public. Leadership matters, especially when people take things on faith or they look to leadership for clues. Most of the public, especially the conservatives don't know what social democracy is, yet they hate anything about it because they're told so by their leaders. Who the hell knows or has heard the name Alinski ?! But, Grinch tells his followers to hate Alinski and his "radicalism."  They're supposed to love Ronnie, though if he was alive today and insisted upon some of his policies, he would find himself outside this GOP!

 The president has the loudest megaphone, so let's hope he uses it not only for re-election but also for destroys the politics of fear, prejudice, and ignorance.  You know, like FDR did. Is this too much to ask from the president nowadays?...