Category Archives: Culture

A True Conservative.

Posted on by

During the Teapublican primaries, we’ve all heard candidates who claim to be true conservatives. But upon listening to their plans, I have come to the realization that the only things they really want to conserve are their own fortunes.

It was during a recent Teapublican debate that I discovered I’m definitely not a liberal – never have been. I’ve been a conservative all along.

I believe in conserving clean air and water. I believe in conserving our forests, our streams and our oceans. I believe in conserving wildlife. I believe in conserving fossil fuels by not using them wastefully. I believe in conserving our natural resources by not subsidizing large corporations to exploit them. I believe in conserving our Constitution. I believe in conserving the Bill of Rights which provides equality and the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. I believe in conserving the separation of church and state.

I believe in conserving lives by only going to war as an absolute last resort. I believe in conserving taxpayer money by eliminating corporate subsidies, off-shore tax havens and no-bid defense contracts. I believe in conserving American middle class jobs. I believe in conserving the American tradition of building things rather than destroying them through vulture capitalism. I believe in conserving the rights of workers to bargain for fair compensation. I believe in conserving our electoral system by banning contributions from corporations and lobbying groups.

I believe in conserving our citizens’ homes and savings with common-sense regulations for greedy financial institutions. I believe in conserving our citizens’ health by providing access to affordable health care. I believe in conserving safety nets such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. I believe in conserving the rights of all people to pursue the marital relationship of their choice. I believe in conserving the rights of women to control their own bodies even if I disagree with some of their decisions. I believe in conserving our future by providing all children with the opportunity to receive a good education.

Finally, I believe in conserving America’s standing as a role model for the world rather than as a bully. And I believe in conserving the idealism that has always driven Americans by focusing on what can be, rather than what once was.

The Civil War 2.0.

Posted on by

For some time, I’ve wondered if the rancor in today’s politics has some connection to the outcome of the Civil War. Sounds crazy, right? After all, the Civil War ended in 1865. Yet Teapublicans continue to say things that evoke the elitism and racism of antebellum America. We’ve heard them refer to President Obama as a fascist, socialist and communist. We’ve seen the signs showing his picture distorted to resemble the Joker. And we’re heard them call the President a Kenyan-born, anti-Christian Muslim.

Is it coincidence that such anger and disrespect are directed toward the first president of African-American descent? Doubtful.

Of course, I’m not the only writer to note the obvious. For example, Michael Lind wrote, “Today’s Tea Party is less an ideological movement than the latest incarnation of an angry white minority — predominantly Southern, and mainly rural — that has repeatedly attacked American democracy in order to get its way.” And Robert Reich stated, “It’s no mere coincidence that the states responsible for putting the most Tea Party representatives in the House are all former members of the Confederacy. Of the Tea Party caucus, twelve hail from Texas, seven from Florida, five from Louisiana, and five from Georgia, and three each from South Carolina, Tennessee, and border-state Missouri.”

Upon reading these comments, I knew I had to do my own research. Here’s what I found:

The Union consisted of California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Of the 25 Union states, only three – Kansas, Kentucky and Missouri – voted for McCain in 2008! And it’s important to note that all three were divided during the war. (In both Kentucky and Missouri, pro-secession governments declared for the Confederacy, but never gained significant control of their states. And Kansas was notoriously split with many Confederate sympathizers.)

Now let’s look at the Confederacy. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia all seceded from the United States. In addition, Kentucky, Missouri, and Oklahoma were divided, and portions of New Mexico and Arizona collaborated with the Confederacy. Of the 16 Confederate states, only four – Florida, New Mexico, North Carolina and Virginia – voted for Obama in 2008! And of those four, only New Mexico could be considered a blue state.

To take it a step farther, many of the states which attained statehood following the Civil War were settled by former Confederate soldiers and Confederate sympathizers who were running away from the federal government. These include Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, and Arizona. All nine voted for McCain in 2008!

Three other latecomers – Colorado, New Mexico, and Washington – already had significant populations prior to the Civil War. Both Colorado and New Mexico had large Hispanic and Native American populations that were indifferent to the war. All three of these states voted for Obama in 2008!

Hawaii and Alaska were not admitted to the Union until the 1950s, so little can be concluded from their votes, especially since President Obama was born in Hawaii and the VP candidate on the opposing ticket was from Alaska.

Despite Teapublican denials, it would seem that the issues of racism and states’ rights are “gifts” that keep on giving.

Patriots? Or Idiots?

Posted on by

Over the past 40 years, Teapublicans have co-opted patriotism and Christianity. They have cloaked themselves in flags and decried liberals and Democrats as socialists, communists, even fascists. They have blindly supported our military while ignoring our veterans. They have implied that anyone who fails to subscribe to their beliefs is unpatriotic. And they have stated that those who support peace, civil rights, public education, science, and economic fairness are un-Christian.

Hmmm…maybe they should read the Constitution and the Bible in their entireity.

It seems these Bible-thumping, gun-toting Teapublican “patriots” have a few things to learn about their nation and their faith. For starters, let’s take a look at how these so-called “patriots” refer to their duly-elected Commander-in-Chief.

Conservative activist, writer and Catholic, L. Brent Bozell III called President Obama a “skinny, ghetto crackhead.” Teapublican cars and trucks are often covered with bumper stickers stating “What an O-Hole,” “B.O. Stinks,” “A village in Kenya is missing its idiot,” “100% Douchebag,” and “Don’t blame me. I voted for the American.” Moreover, Teapublicans threatened the president and Democratic congressional representatives by carrying guns to their public appearances.

These are not the words and actions of patriots. And they certainly do not reflect the teachings of Christ who asked that his followers help the poor and turn the other cheek to violence.

These are the words and actions of a decidedly un-American, anti-Christian mob of bullies and thugs who have convinced themselves of their infallible superiority. They ignore science, re-write history, promote violence, and deny the civil rights of others.

What kind of patriotism is that?

Newt = John Edwards To The Nth Degree.

Posted on by

When it was discovered that 2008 presidential candidate, John Edwards, had an affair as his wife was fighting cancer, he became a national pariah who was vilified by virtually everyone.

Most vocal among his critics were the “Christian” conservatives who decried Edward’s lack of “values.”

But those same “Christian” conservatives now support Newt Gingrich.  Yes, that Newt!  The Newt who sanctimoniously led the cheers for Bill Clinton’s impeachment as the result of Clinton’s indescretion with an intern. The Newt who later admitted to an affair while his first wife was battling cancer. The Newt who had yet another affair while his second wife (and former mistress) was critically ill with Mulitple Sclerosis.  And who, despite the advice of his wife’s physician who told him that stress would be damaging to his wife, asked her to agree to an open marriage so he could continue his affair!

These facts, along with the Newt’s admission of 84 ethics violations as Speaker of the House should make anyone question his “values.” Indeed, they should be automatic disqualifiers for higher office. Yet here he is, the new standard bearer for “Christian” conservatives in the Teapublican presidential race.

After all, according to these pretend Christians, the Newt’s transgressions are in the past.  They don’t really reflect the man the Newt has become today.

No, they don’t. Today’s version of Newt Gingrich is even more ethically challenged. He is angrier, more vitriolic, more vengeful and more sanctimonious. But it seems that is what’s so appealing to “Christian” conservatives about the Newtster. He voices their self-righteous anger about President Obama and liberals. And following ABC’s interview with the Newt’s ex-wife about his affairs, they’re even more angry. Not at the Newt, but at ABC and the rest of the “lamestream” media for dredging up such an unsavory story about their hero.

“Sure, Newt is no saint,” they say. “But he has repented.” Apparently, his repentance has been so complete that he even earned the blessing of the apparent keeper of the “Christian” conservative’s moral compass – Sister Sarah Palin. That should be good enough for anyone. Shouldn’t it?

And what of John Edwards?  The “Christian” conservatives still consider him a pariah, of course.

Lies, Damn Lies and Teapublican Lies.

Posted on by

In every field or endeavor, there are people who have difficulty with the truth. Most of us tell the occasional little white lie, often to keep from hurting another’s feelings. Many of us tell lies to make us feel better or to explain a mistake. And then there are chronic, sociopathic liars who make statements that are provably false.

It’s in the latter category where Teapublican candidates, Fox News Channel hosts, religious conservatives and their supporters reside.

Want to kill Medicare? You vote to replace it with vouchers then tell your constituents that you voted to “save” it. Want to lower taxes for the wealthy? You re-position attempts to eliminate tax subsidies and create fairness as “Class Warfare.” Want to kill the EPA? You tell people that environmental regulations are “killing job creation.” Want to help your corporate funders privatize government agencies? You talk about “government waste” and let corporations cherry-pick the most profitable functions. Want to distract voters from your role in the collapse of our economy? You blame it on the poor, minorities and unions. Want to get rid of ATF and the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency? You simply block the appointment of the agencies’ directors. Want to make President Obama a one-term president? You block virtually every job creating initiative then tell people that his economic policies have failed.

The load of B.S. coming from Teapublicans would fertilize every planet in our solar system.  And it’s growing by the minute.

How do they get away with such blatant, provably false claims? They count on creating anger and mistrust in government. They count on people who are uninformed or misinformed (in other words, Fox News viewers). They count on voters who won’t take the little bit of time needed to research their outrageous claims.

Will their lies work again in 2012? How informed are you? How about your friends and neighbors?

The Great Right Hopes?

Posted on by

To listen to Teapublicans, President Obama is the worst president in US history. They view him as a foreign-born Muslim who was only elected through massive voter fraud; a socialist or communist or facsist or some sort of –ist who is destroying our economy and our freedoms. From the moment he was inaugurated, Teapublican leaders have made it their top priority to make him a one-term president in order to save our nation and the world.

Given the dire circumstances President Obama has allegedly created for our country, you would expect the Teapublicans to haul out their very best and brightest to defeat him. So who have they chosen to be their potential standard-bearer; their shining knight riding to the defense of freedom? It appears to be limited to one of the following:

– A moderate running away from his long-held beliefs to prove he’s now an electable conservative.  As a result, he can’t answer a single question without contradicting at least a dozen previous statements.

– A former Speaker of the House who resigned in disgrace following 84 ethics violations.

– A crotchety libertarian who appears to like drugs and prostitutes more than blacks, gays and Muslims.

– A Tea Party darling who says such wackadoodle stuff she’d be the perfect stereotype for dumb blonde jokes if only her hair was the right color.

– An undistinguished former senator who so angered gays they named the aftermath of a sex act in his honor and made the definition the top search result whenever you Google his name.

– A tough talkin’ executioner and secessionist who would probably be rejected as too stereotypical for a role on Hee Haw.

– A former pizza CEO who withdrew from the race after being accused as a serial sex offender.

Seriously? That’s it? These are the “Great Right Hopes” vying for the right to unseat President Obama in 2012? After what seems like a hundred televised debates, not one has managed to make his- or herself seem like a reasonable candidate.

It’s obvious the entire process has, thus far, been flawed. So I propose, instead of another debate, we place these yahoos in front of a panel of judges similar to American Idol. Just imagine for a moment if, instead of debate moderators lobbing softball questions at this crew, Simon Cowell was sitting in judgement of these presidential wannabes. How many would survive the first cut? How many would go running from the cameras in tears?

Does anyone doubt that such a panel would call these Teapublican candidates what they really are – circus clowns (with apologies to clowns everywhere). The only things lacking are the rubber noses, oversize shoes, silly makeup, miniature cars and squirting lapel flowers.

Indeed, the only one likely to make the cut is the one Teapublicans have universally ignored – John Huntsman. He’s a successful former governor and ambassador to China. Apparently, the only real strike against him (and it’s a big one) is that he has (gasp) steadfastly refused to speak badly of President Obama.

The Grinch…er…Gingrich Who Stole The Party.

Posted on by

Now that serial liar, adulterer and cheater, Newt Gingrich, seems poised to take the Teapublican nomination for president, it seems fitting that his rise in the polls coincides with the holiday season. After all, he’s the Grinch personified – egomaniacal, arrogant and disparaging of everyone else. He dislikes and resents everyone who disagrees with him, which is to say most of the world. And, if elected, he promises to place a lump of coal in everyone’s Christmas stocking by taking away Social Security and Medicare. He also seems determined to bomb Iran and give all of Palestine to Israel. (And you doubted the Mayan 2012 prophecy!)

Yes, this model of lies, meanness and hypocrisy is now the apparent favorite of Teapublicans far and wide. Newt has taken hypocrisy to new levels, even for Teapublicans. You may remember that he led the impeachment of President Clinton for adultery while having his own affair as his wife was fighting cancer. After marrying his mistress, he later dumped her in favor of a new mistress. Yet he still has the balls to talk about “values.”

Swept into power in 1994 as the result of his Contract on America, he succeeded in throwing single moms off of welfare and throwing more people into prisons. He claims to have balanced the budget as Speaker of the House, giving no credit to other members of Congress (including Democrats) and President Clinton who signed the budget-balancing bills.

But Newt’s greatest accomplishment in the House was to be charged with 84 ethics violations for which he was fined $300,000 by a 395-28 vote. He was forced to resign from the House in disgrace – the first time in history that a Speaker was disciplined for ethical wrongdoing – saying “In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to the committee.”

And Newt hasn’t lost his knack for finding questionable ways to make money. In addition to his books and speaking engagements, the Grinch was paid $1.6 million as “historian” for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the very institutions he blames for wasting taxpayer money and causing our current financial mess. (Of course, he doesn’t mention that one of the biggest wastes of taxpayer money was his $1.6 million consulting fee.)

But the best way to summarize Newt is by quoting his former colleagues. Former New Hampshire governor and George H.W. Bush chief of staff John Sununu called Gingrich “inconsistent, erratic, untrustworthy and unprincipled.” Sen. Tom Coburn, called Gingrich’s leadership “lacking,” and reportedly told his Oklahoma constituents that Mr. Gingrich was “the last person I’d vote for for president of the United States.” Peggy Noonan of The Wall Street Journal offers an even better description of the GOP’s leading presidential candidate. She wrote that Newt is “a human hand grenade who walks around with his hand on the pin, saying, ‘Watch this!’”

It’s bad enough when we discover an official’s character flaws after they’ve been elected to office. What does it say about a party if it’s willing to nominate someone like Gingrich despite his many known character issues? What would it say about our country if he’s elected?

Ummm…Actually, It’s A Pagan Tree.

Posted on by

This week, Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee unintentionally angered Christians by announcing the lighting of a “holiday tree” in the Rhode Island State House. Fueled by Fox News Channel, a group of carolers interrupted the lighting ceremony by singing O Christmas Tree. They were quoted as saying that they felt Chafee was trying to put down Christianity.

Instead of singing, they should have picked up a history book or simply searched the subject on their computers.

Had they taken the time, they would have found that the display of an evergreen tree or an evergreen branch at this time of year actually originated as part of the Pagan celebration for the winter solstice. Indeed, many historians believe that early Christians even changed the celebration of Christ’s birth to coincide with the solstice to make it easier to attract converts to their fledgling religion.

The carolers also might have discovered that, in the Old Testament, there is a passage in which the prophet Jeremiah condemned the ancient Middle Eastern practice of bringing trees into the home as Pagan. Of course, that was centuries before Jesus was born.

In Early America, William Bradford, the Pilgrim’s second governor, tried to stamp out the practice of decorating trees at Christmas-time as “Pagan mockery”. It wasn’t until 1851, that a “Christmas tree” was placed in an American church by Cleveland Pastor Henry Schwan. Even then, he was condemned for resorting to a Pagan practice and threatened with harm.

My point is this: It’s all too easy for people to find offense at some perceived slight or disrespect. It’s much more difficult to seek tolerance and to search for true understanding. If the carolers had made the effort, they might have actually learned something about the history of their own faith. And they might have understood that Chafee was not attacking Christianity.  He was merely trying to include all of his constituents in the season’s festivities as his Republican predecessor had done.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Road Rage, Arizona-Style.

Posted on by

Road rage incidents have become commonplace in every state. But in Arizona, where guns are viewed as a fashion accessory, such incidents can be particularly deadly.

For example, two years ago, a worker operating a photo radar unit was shot and killed in a drive-by shooting by a driver who simply disliked the method of traffic enforcement. Although the reason for that incident was unique, there have been many other road rage shootings across the state that are just as senseless.

Most recently, a 59-year-old attorney in Scottsdale shot and killed a 50-year-old husband and father over an incident that allegedly began when the attorney sped up to make a green light and the victim inadvertantly blocked him.  That may not seem like a life-threatening action in most places. But in Arizona anything that displeases one of our gun-slinging Wyatt Earp wannabes is a shootin’ offense.

What followed the missed green light is unclear. But we do know that the two drivers ended up in a pharmacy parking lot. When the shooting victim approached the attorney’s car, the attorney shot him in the chest, fatally wounding him. 

Now we come to what sets our rootin’, tootin’ state apart.  The attorney was arrested for second-degree murder, but the charge has been dropped “pending further investigation.” You see, a few years ago, the Teapublican-dominated legislature passed a law giving cars the same “domain” status as homes. So anyone who feels that his or her car is in danger of being invaded can shoot without consequences. It’s a matter of “self-defense.”

Never mind that you can simply put the car in gear and drive away when threatened. Never mind that you could avoid the confrontation by not stopping in the first place. Never mind that you can drive to the nearest police station to assure your safety.

What’s the fun in that? After all, Arizonans not only like to carry guns. Many of our Second Amendment-citing citizens like to use them.

Penn State Merely Reflects Our Culture.

Posted on by

Whatever the legal outcome of the charges against former Penn State defensive coordinator, Jerry Sandusky, one thing is clear. The reaction of Penn State students to the firing of Joe Paterno reveals seriously twisted values. When the students filled the streets in protest, they were, in effect, saying we don’t care about the victims. Winning is more important.

We’ve seen this bankruptcy of values for many years in sports; particularly football. In places like Auburn, Iowa, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Nebraska, and USC, the institutions are expected to win at any cost. Athletes are allowed to assault, rape and rob with little consequence as long as they perform well on gameday. Boosters are allowed to make illegal payments under the table without fear. Coaches earn millions for finding ways around the NCAA’s rules. If they’re caught, they take the money and leave knowing they will be able to continue their careers at another school with the same values.

Before you think sports are unique in their lack of ethics, consider that the same kind of behavior is rewarded in politics. Politicians can lie and cheat without repercussions. They can pad their bank accounts and earn large pensions just by getting elected.

Business leaders are rewarded with multi-million-dollar salaries, stock options and bonuses for cutting employees and shipping jobs off-shore. The long-term health of their companies, or even our nation, mean little. After all, the executives can make enough in a year to retire comfortably.

This win-at-any-cost, ends-justify-the-means attitude permeates virtually every aspect of our society. For generations, the Catholic Church has swept child abuse under its sacramental rug then acted shocked by the outcry. Evangelical churches believe that it’s acceptable to lie to obtain new converts, to increase donations, or to rally adherents to their political causes. At the same time, they deny their political motivations and cover up their excesses.

Even worse than the excesses, themselves, is the fact that we all have been aware of them for decades. But we have done little to speak out or to try to change them. We not only accept that entertainers, sports stars and CEOs make millions a year while demanding even more. We admire them. We turn them into celebrities. And if they are caught for misbehaving or abusing their power and wealth, we turn on them. We vilify them. And we ask ourselves how we could have been so easily fooled.

If Sandusky actually did what he is accused of doing, he deserves our wrath. At the same time, we all need to look into the mirror and ask ourselves why his actions and similar actions of others are allowed to continue for so long.