The Whore of Babylon

Lisa: They should take a good look at themselves, and what their church has become.
[the congregation gasps]
Lovejoy: Lisa, it's still the same basic message -- we've just dressed it up a little.
Lisa: Like the Whore of Babylon?
[the congregation gasps]
Lovejoy: That is a false analogy!
Lisa: No, it's not. It's apt. Apt!

One of the points made in The Godless Constitution is that when believers try to impose their faith throug the government, both the Government and Faith is inevitably corrupted. Well it seems that Cal Thomas is moving towards that point of view as well. He's responding to a post by Jim Wallis on what Christians should learn from our recent election.

One does not have to agree with all of Wallis' agenda - and I don't, especially on Iraq - to consider his arguments. Politics often dulls the senses to morality and "values." That's because of an unholy alliance between people of faith and politicians that often ends in compromise on the part of the faithful and the cynical harvesting of their votes with little offered in return. So, when someone like Rep. Don Sherwood (R-Pa.) is exposed for cheating on his wife and allegedly abusing his mistress, Cynthia Ore, he still gets an 85 percent approval rating from the Focus on the Family Action organization.

He obviously isn't in Wallis's camp (who is substantially more liberal), but he does suggest that, rather than lecturing America and allying with shady politicians, Christians might be better served by serving.

What is God's way? Isn't it helping the poor through transformation and assisting them to do for themselves? Isn't it feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison and caring for widows and orphans? Would such behavior, rather than partisan politics, recommend their faith more highly to those who do not currently share it, or who do share it, but apply it differently?

It's an intriguing question.

Rush Limbaugh Speaks

Caught a bit of Rush Limbaugh while driving around. He was talking about Keith Ellison, who will be the first Muslim elected to the House of Representatives (ever). Apparently Rush was under the impression that once we elected a Muslim, all the Muslims the world over would change their ways and love America. That hasn't happened. In fact al-Qaida has denounced him, and said that his election changes nothing n their murderous agenda towards the US.

Poor Rush might have been a little unrealistic.

You see the problem that affects Rush, and many people on the right is that they see Muslims as all being essentially the same person. So if we elect one Muslim to the house of representatives, in a sense we've elected them all, and they should all be happy. In fact Muslims, much like Christians and everybody else are all individuals. They react as individuals. I have no doubt that many Muslim Americans are quite pleased to see someone like Ellison in the House of Representatives. And yet other Muslims (who also happen to be crazed killers) look at it a bit differently. This is quite understandable when you accept that Muslims are not a unified block, but are individuals.

Unfortunately Rush can't quite see things that way, and, as mentioned above, many of his colleagues suffer from the same ailment. Which is why you can't trust conservatives to fight the war on terror in an intelligent way.

We are doomed

Oh why didn't we listen to Cal Thomas before foolishly electing a Democratic Congress? Than we would have realized the terrible danger he describes in his latest article.

In an effort to take Iraq off the table as an issue in the 2008 presidential campaign, the Bush administration adopts most of the provisions of the Iraq Study Group. In a modern version of the Paris Peace Talks, which allowed the United States to have "peace with honor" and withdraw from Vietnam (resulting in the deaths, imprisonment and "re-education" of unknown numbers of Vietnamese who wanted to be free), the administration then orders a "redeployment" of forces after "negotiations" with Syria and Iran (recommended by Blair). This allows just enough time for American troops to leave before al-Qaeda murders the elected leadership and takes over Iraq.

Meanwhile in the United States, mosques and Islamic schools paid for by the extremist Wahhabi sect, multiply like fast-food franchises. Terrorists are imported and recruited from prisons. Al-Qaeda announces that weapons of mass destruction have been placed in key American and European cities. They demand that the United States withdraw its protection of Israel. If we refuse, they threaten to detonate their weapons, killing millions of people. What president, or prime minister, will reject that demand? After capitulating on the installment plan, who will have the political or moral capital (or military capacity) to stop Armageddon?

I always find it amazing that people like Thomas believe that at any moment thousands of Americans are ready to convert to Islam, go to Islamic Schools and attend mosques. These are, of course, the same people Cal Thomas feels are too wimpishly weak, watching bad television shows and movies, and generally acting like lazy, indulgent, slobs. And all of a sudden we are going to get up, shut off "Who wants to marry their sister" and march out to join Islam, and not just regular Islam, but the very constricting Wahhabi sect. Seems unlikely in my book.

Of course the rest of this is pretty fantastic as well. But it goes back to Cal Thomas's essential belief on Islam - let's kill 'em until they change their ways. A policy which would naturally lead to a hell of a lot of killing.

Just how bad are Democrats anyway?

Well, according to David Limbaugh's latest article, not bad enough.

While I stand by my contention that the Democratic Party is intellectually and morally bankrupt, I'll concede Republicans are floundering right now. Ideologically, this is a center-right nation, and yet Republicans lost at the polls. Democrats are going to continue being who they are, but Republicans need to come home.

. . . As the elections proved, Republicans cannot rely on the Democrats' bankruptcy to bail them out -- and they shouldn't.

His article covers the various schisms in the Republican party - on immigration, on the war on terror, and on religion, and tries to placate both sides (although he's clearly opposed to immigration and in favor of more religion in Government).

He argues that the Republican party has some disagreements, but they should get their act together (by having one side capitulate to the other) so they can defeat the Democrats. So while he presents both those who are uncomfortable with government policies based on the Bible and those who favor Dominionism as equals, the truth is he wants the anti-Dominionists to shut up for the good of the party. Unlikely to happen, in reality (not that the anti-Dominionists have any kind of meaningful power in the Republican party anyway).

Most articles of this type (i.e. we lost so now we have to be even more conservative) just postulate a real conservativism and argue that Republicans need to get back to it. Usually this "real" conservativism involves keeping taxes low and cutting government programs, particularly entitlements. Limbaugh's approach is a little different, but the end result is the same - he wants a party that all says the same thing.

Because when you are an ideologue the answer is always more ideology.

Speaking uncritically

One of the Republican Arguments right now (referenced below) is that the people of America didn't vote for Liberalism last Tuesday. Rather they elected a bunch of conservative Democrats, because they still love conservatively but have mixed feelings about Republicans right now. And the lesson they hope their leaders learn is to be more Conservative.

Well Salon's War Room, referencing a Media Matters for America Post, has argued persuasively that this narrative might be less than accurate.

Never mind the fact that the Democrats' victory will result in leadership posts for some of the most liberal members of the party; when actually broken down quantitatively, the number of liberal and conservative freshmen Democrats elected on Tuesday puts the lie to this running theme.

Media Matters for America, the liberal press watchdog, has already documented the political proclivities of 27 of the new Democrats in Congress; MMA restricted its analysis to those who defeated incumbent Republicans or took over open seats previously held by Republicans. It found: "All 27 candidates support raising the minimum wage. All 27 candidates advocate changing course in Iraq. All 27 candidates oppose efforts to privatize Social Security. Only two of the 27 candidates do not support embryonic stem cell research. Only five of the 27 candidates describe themselves as 'pro-life.'"

So that's nice to know. But of course Republicans will merely claim that these freshmen Democrats were simply fooling the people when they claimed to be conservatives and hold on to most of their storyline.

Rush Limbaugh is Crabby

Was listening to Rush Limbaugh at lunch a bit today, and he sounded three kinds of crabby. I suppose I would be too if I believed I was the voice of a nation and found out I was just a skilled but morally bankrupt radio talkshow host. Here he thought his brand of Republican Extremism was americas default position. Turns out that default is a little to the left, according to an analysis of the recent election by Jonathan Alter.

Their peril has its origins in Bush's highly divisive effort to intensify the conservative movement instead of governing from the center. After the razor-thin 2000 election, he listened to shortsighted advice from pollster Matthew Dowd that "swing" voters were extinct and success lay in turning out "the base." But more than one third of American voters identify themselves as independents, which is a higher percentage than claim a party ID. Smart politicians have always known that the G spot of the American body politic is in the middle.

Very comforting to know that those of on the left aren't as far afield as we've been portrayed.

Thanks be to Random Goblin who forward this article to me.

Another reason the Republicans lost

Apparently the Democrats played a dirty trick by running strong candidates who had conservative values. Had Democrats put up their normal crop of Liberals, they would never have won. But we tricked everybody by putting up a bunch of Conservative talking candidates.

This is not entirely true (although certainly there are some of our high profile candidates that fit this description). Kevin McCullough, who has a book he'd like to sell you, argues that these Crash Dummys (as he calls conservative Democrats in Congress) are basically screwed. They will have to support the House Leadership which is likely to be the right of them.

A few will attempt independence from the liberal elite that rule the chambers, but none will survive it. Liberals have been out of power for so long now that the only thing pressed upon their minds is to regain the third branch of government in 2008.

. . . A sad thing about the functionally empty-suit Crash Dummies is that they will be pretty much a near immediate disappointment to those who sent them there. Make no mistake America did not lurch left on election night.

The saddest thing of all however is that the Crash Dummy class of 2006, while it was a brilliant strategy . . . is that it removed some of the strongest true believers that social conservatives have ever supported. The likes of George Allan, and Rick Santorum, don't come along often - and their losses are blows to the body that hurt.

And it is those few true believers that our nation will miss most, whether we realize it now or not.

You know McCullough, the people had a choice. They could have kept Santorum in power if they had wanted. The fact that they didn't - well that should show something, even if the guy they replaced him with isn't that far left.

I think it's kind of sad to assume that the people wanted to elect Republicans but were just bamboozled.

Why did the Republicans Lose?

The current Republican wisdom is that Democrats didn't win this election; Republicans lost. A pretty fine distinction, in my mind, but when you have lost I suppose you care about such distinctions.

And why did the Republicans lose? Because they were insufficiently conservative. That's the take in William Rusher's latest article, and he's not alone in pushing it.

In the 12 years since the GOP took control of Congress, they have settled down comfortably to "politics as usual," mimicking the performance of the Democrats during their 40 years in control. They cheerfully abandoned their conservative commitment to reducing government expenditures, racking up deficits that would have appalled Bill Clinton, and, actually, pushed the use of "earmarks" (whereby individual Congressmen can insert pork into legislation invisibly) to limits not even the Democrats had ever dreamed of. Inevitably, in this atmosphere, outright corruption ultimately made its appearance, and several Republican members of the House and their staff members are now in, or on their way to, prison.

So there it is. I'm not going to deny that the way Republicans have governed turned off their base, who certainly would like to see more fiscal responsibility at the top. But I think you also need to look at how Congress has performed in overseeing President Bush's handling of the War on Terror.

Mr. Rusher argue that Congress can't be blamed for the War in Iraq, as well as other problems related to the War on Terror. He couldn't be more wrong. Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq and they have been negligent in providing real oversight on the Executive Branch. It was earlier this year that we were seriously discussing the Unitary Executive. I don't think you can avoid the fact that the people saw a President out of control and a Congress not willing to do perform their duty in controlling him.

So yeah, the fact that Republicans in Congress spent like drunken sailors probably didn't help them any, but it was only a symptom of a deeper problem - i.e. the unwillingness to take their responsibilities to the people seriously when that meant criticizing fellow Republicans.

However erroneous Mr. Rusher's analysis is, however, it's clear that it is one of the main explanations for Republicans recent electoral failures. And what are the implications for 2008? It depends on whether or not President Bush and Karl Rove can make a case that their conservativism and military adventurism is real conservativism or not. It seems like, at this point, that's going to be a hard sell. So look for someone to postulate a "real" conservativism between now and then.

Are you Ready for the Apocalypse?

For example do you have that extra set of underwear? How about some hard candy for fast energy should it become necessary? What about those radiation meds that proved so vital to Helo when he was left behind on Caprica? Do a mental inventory and make sure your apocalypse readiness quotient (ARQ) is high.

In unrelated news, Alan Moore, comic book writer of the Watchmen, the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and Top 10 (among many others), will be appearing on an upcoming episode of the Simpsons.

The 51st State

Apparently Jon Stewart is a lot more powerful than I would have thought. According to an article at Townhall, he's the reason the Democrats took the House and the Senate.

Forget left of center bloggers, Jon Stewart is this year’s kingmaker. Without him and The Daily Show, the Democrats would not have made such large inroads in the midterm elections.

His theory is that Stewart normalized liberalism, particularly among college students. He made liberalism cool and acceptable, the way Rush had done a decade or so before. Of course from the authors point of view this is awful, because Jon Stewart doesn't present facts as Conservatives see them. From my point of view, he's certainly more factual than Fox News and Rush Limbaugh put together, so I'm ok with him.

Making the World Safe for Leave it to Beaver

Sidney Blumenthal's latest article for Salon is an analysis of the cultural ramifications of the Bush Defeat, and it's quite good. It explores what kind of America Bush is fighting for, contrasting it with Reagan's vision of the inherent decency of small town America.

Under Ronald Reagan, conservative kitsch was the last nostalgic evocation for a glowing small-town America before the New Deal, with its raucous city dwellers, brain-trusters and an aristocratic president gleefully swatting "economic royalists." Reagan drew his raw material for "morning again in America" from an idealized view of his boyhood in Dixon, Ill., where his father was the town Catholic drunk, rescued at last only by a federal government job. Reagan also had a well of experience acting in movies romanticizing small-town life, produced by the Jewish immigrant moguls of Hollywood for whom these gauzy pictures enabled them to assimilate into a country that had richly rewarded them but in which they remained outsiders.

Bush's America contains no nostalgic evocation of small-town life. The scion of the political dynasty, raised in the oil-patch outpost of Midland, Texas, where the streets are named for Ivy League universities, and whose family retained its summer home in its New England base of Kennebunkport, Maine, attended all the right schools as a legacy, one of the last of his kind before more meritocratic standards were imposed and religious and racial quotas abolished. George W. Bush's inchoate resentment at the alteration of the world of his fathers impelled the son of privilege to align with the cultural warriors of faux populism.

The pathology of Bush's kitsch is the endless reproduction of vicarious hatred of the "other," who is the threat to the sanctity of what kitsch represents. The "other" lies beyond the image of the lurking terrorist to the lurking Democrat -- "America loses." "You're either with us or with the terrorists," Bush said famously. You either have a "pre-9/11" mind-set or a "post-9/11" one, according to his strategist Karl Rove, who carefully set the terms of demonization. In the great act of kitsch, Bush et al. apotheosized their fiasco in Iraq into a battle against Hitler -- "appeasers" ... "Islamofascism." By impersonating a historical context, they projected themselves into it.

Unlike the kitsch before and during the Reagan era, the Bush warriors' kitsch lies beyond unintentional camp. Their kitsch lacks more than irony or self-consciousness. It is deliberately sarcastic, mean-spirited, fearsome and fearful.

The article is well worth sitting through a brief ad to read, in my opinion.

Are Conservatives Insane? Pt 2

For the answer to this tricky political question, let's check in with Ann Coulter's latest article.

Yes. Yes they are.

They are also deceptive. Check out this section.

During eight years of Clinton -- the man Democrats tell us was the greatest campaigner ever, a political genius, a heartthrob, Elvis! -- Republicans picked up a total of 49 House seats and nine Senate seats in two midterm elections. Also, when Clinton won the presidency in 1992, his party actually lost 10 seats in the House -- only the second time in the 20th century that a party won the White House but lost seats in the House.

Meanwhile, the Democrats' epic victory this week, about which songs will be sung for generations, means that in two midterm elections Democrats were only able to pick up about 30 seats in the House and four seats in the Senate -- and that's assuming they pick up every seat that is currently too close to call. (The Democrats' total gain is less than this week's gain because Bush won six House and two Senate seats in the first midterm election.)

So however you cut it, this midterm proves that the Iraq war is at least more popular than Bill Clinton was.

That's precious My guess is that Clinton actually lost fewer seats than Bush in his second Midterm (during the impeachment scandal), and Ann Coulter is not enthusiastic about pointing that out. So she includes 1994 and 2002 two elections when Republicans did well, to skew the comparison.

On the list of things Ann Coulter is hoping you won't notice, you'd also have to include the fact that we weren't at war with Iraq in 2002. We certainly didn't know in 2002 that there weren't any weapons of mass destruction.

As for crazy, check out her last paragraph.

The Democrats certainly have their work cut out for them. They have only two years to release as many terrorists as possible and lock up as many Republicans as they can. Republicans better get that body armor for the troops the Democrats are always carping about -- and fast. The troops are going to need it for their backs.

I think we might have a bit more than two years, as it turns out.

You wonder how she will sustain that world view during the next few years of relatively moderate actions by our buddies, the Democrats. The answer? Insanity.

Are Conservatives Insane?

Praise Allah, it appears they are. Check out this post at Hyscience (presumably the science of getting high).

You are losing the war on terror - the one that people like Nancy Pelosi don't think exist. Mohammad and even al-Zarqawi are laughing their asses off from their graves - they now know that America is too weak to fight their ideology and that you will surely be defeated.

. . . It was almost too easy for them, they just handed the Democrats propaganda to use in their talking points and to put out through the liberal media and influence the elections - just like they did in Spain.

. . . However, that's all very small consolation for America, because the Islamists believe that the White House is now more likely to become the Muslim House. Unfortunately for you America, you deserve what you are going to get - the fruits of your naiveness are going to be very bitter, and very costly. You have failed to stand up together and are going to live long enough to learn that these words that I have written are prophetic - at least some of you are.

The author of this piece attempted to write it from the point of view of an Islamist Terrorist. But halfway through kind of forgot what he was doing and then remembered again at the end.

But I don't think we will get a "Muslim House." That's just silly. When our Islamic masters take over they will tear down the Washington Monument for it's phallic symbolism, but will leave the rest of DC alone. They are really going to go to town in Hollywood on the other hand - stemming the tide of filth that pours out of our TVs and on our movie screens. And they will enforce strict morality codes, proscribing death to Gays for example.

Actually it sounds like they would be able to make common cause with the Dominionists.

But of course all this is ludicrous in the extreme. The incoming liberals are going to oppose military adventurism on false premises, and hopefully they will require oversight on the executive branch, but other than that they will continue to fight the War on Terror to win.

Who Designes Tissue Boxes?

I'm kind of blah today - ecstatic because of the election - but other than that a little tired and out of it. I went and stocked up on tissue boxes today - and I was struck as I always am, by the wide diversity of designs. I picked up a blue box with snowflacks, a black box with white spirally designs and a peach box with kind of a pastel nothingness to it.

Actually I think I would be good at designing Tissue Boxes - I wonder how you get that job?

Rush Limbaugh Speaks

Catching a bit of the Limbaugh show today - apparently the problem with the Republican Party is that they aren't conservative enough and they aren't proud enough of their Conservativism. Apparently they are too defensive and weak - they should go peddle to the metal.

I think that's more of a reflection of Rush Limbaugh's mentality rather than how Republicans actually performed. I think he is hitting on something though. Republicans ran against Democrats and Democrats ran against Republicans. Since Republican suck a lot more than Democrats, Democrats won. If Republicans had been able to mix in a discussion of the positive things they've done for this country, they'd have had a better chance.

OF course for that theory to work, they'd have to have done some positive things.

Me Am So Miserable Me Could Cry Big Tears

This be Bizarro Bryant, and me am filled with sorry. The Republicans be winning over and over again and that just makes me so sad and unhappy. The Republicans am definitely winning the house and am having good chance of winning Senate. Me am thinking President Bush be overwhelmed with joy. Him not worry about succeeding in his plans now. Me am thinking Karl Rove am wise prognosticator and good political strategist.

Me am so sad me am doing sorrowful dance of sadness.

Automatic Lover

There's a story about a family with a family member on life support who got a call from one of those robo-callers. Apparently it added to their stress because they were unable to assure a connection with the medical professionals they might need. I wish I remembered where I had seen it (I think it was at Democratic Underground, but not sure).

The thing that drives me nuts about that story is that you know that nothing will happen to the people who orchestrated that, and double nothing will happen to the people who allowed it. A few "overzealous staffers" might end up paying a price, but the people who signed their paychecks won't.

If this gambit and others are successful, we might not even get that teaspoon of justice.

Call for Change

Those of you who are able to might enjoy participating in this program where you call people with your cell phones to ask them to vote.

I Voted!

One of the nice things about voting is that they give you a sticker that says "Everybody Knows this is Nowhere" after the Neil Young Song. No wait, it really says "I Voted". This is convienent for going around and lording it over people who didn't vote. If you've voted, just start pushing other people around. It's fun and enjoyable, but get it out of your system today, because the stickers magic ends tomorrow.

Those of you who haven't voted yet, remember you can put the magic power of this sticker to work for you by simply driving to your polling place and voting. Then you will be safe from getting pushed around, and get to work pushing other people around.

If the opportunity to push other people around doesn't appeal to you, I heard that your precinct they are giving away kittys, poppies and king cobras to every person that votes.

Obviously nothing said here is to be taken seriously save the exhortation to go vote!

Go Vote Today

Stop me if you've heard this one before. But voting good. Not voting makes you a punk. I don't care how busy you are and I don't care how much stuff you have going on. You could be a student pursuing a tough degree in Engineering or Law, for example, and you should still take time off and go vote.

Remember - Not Voting is for Punks. And not cool punks. Punkass punks. Punkass punks don't vote. Cool Punks do vote.

I'm not really good at coming up with slogans.

In other news Republicans are dillholes. Have you heard the one about the robo calling monster? Talking Points Memo has information on this fiendish scheme by our Republican friends.

Most of the call's script is a fairly standard attack robocall, a series of Republican talking points aimed at the Democratic congressional in a particular district. Nothing particularly noteworthy. The key is the introduction. The lead into the call starts with the speaker saying 'I'm calling with information about' Dem candidate X. Then there's a short pause.

At this point, you know it's an annoying robocall, so a lot of people just hang up. If you hang up then, you think it's a call from the Democratic candidate.

Second, the repetition. And this part is the key. If you don't listen through the whole message, the machine keeps calling you back, often well in excess of half a dozen times with the same call. It only stops if you listen all the way through.

As you can imagine, that's driving a lot of people through the roof.

One can only imagine - and of coruse they believe that the Democratic candidate is the one doing all these repetitive phone calls. So it's a sort of heads I win, tails you lose set up for our friends on the right. But I don't think this particular scheme is doing to be popular once it explained to the American people.

Presumably the Republicans have their "overzealous staffer" already picked out to take the fall for this scheme.