"You're not making an impact if you're not pissing someone off"

Category Archives: political fringe groups

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus 

If you read all of the talking points being presented by GOP representatives at this year’s CPAC conference you will hear how the GOP needs to be more inclusive and reach out to those groups who consistently vote for Democrats in no small numbers, like racial minorities and women.

“The Republican Party does not need to change our principles, but we might need to change just about everything else we are doing,” said Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. It was time, he said, “to recalibrate the compass of conservatism.”

Sally Bradshaw, a party strategist in Florida who is an adviser to former Gov. Jeb Bush, said Republicans needed to recruit stronger and more diverse candidates to win races.  “I think you’re going to see a very renewed, aggressive effort by this party to put on a different face,” Ms. Bradshaw said. 

Henry Barbour, a member of the Republican National Committee from Mississippi who is also on the panel, said the party should not dilute its conservative values, but it needed to broaden its appeal to compete with Democrats. “We did get whipped in the presidential election, and that’s not something that is taken lightly,” Mr. Barbour said. “The demographic changes in America are real, and they are a wake-up call to the Republican Party.”   SOURCE 

A blind man could have spelled this out to the GOP and in fact this message has been trumpeted every year for at least the last 12 years.  But more than being inclusive to the diverse makeup of this nation’s population, there is one area where they need to start being exclusive if Republicans really want to “broaden its appeal to compete with Democrats” and “recruit stronger and more diverse candidates to win races.”  Ostracize those who express insensitive and backward-thinking comments like this one audience member attending a CPAC panel discussing minority outreach.

“I’d be fine with that,”  Scott Terry of North Carolina said when asked if he’d accept a society where African-Americans were permanently subservient to whites.

During an exchange of views at the panel meeting, 30-year-old Scott Terry, asked whether Republicans could endorse races remaining separate but equal.   After the presenter, K. Carl Smith of Frederick Douglass Republicans, answered by referencing a letter by Frederick Douglass forgiving his former master, [Terry] said “For what? For feeding him and housing him?” Several people in the audience cheered and applauded Terry’s outburst.

After the exchange, Terry muttered under his breath, “why can’t we just have segregation?” noting the Constitution’s protections for freedom of association.   SOURCE 

Son of the South, Scott Terry, claims to be a descendent of Jefferson Davis

Son of the South, Scott Terry, claims to be a descendent of Jefferson Davis

At one point a woman, who the Tea Party identified as a representative of Voice of Russia, asked Terry the question “How many black women were there?” regarding the GOP’s roots, Terry retorted, “I didn’t know the legacy of the Republican Party included women correcting men in public.”  Is spousal abuse in the future of this man’s wife?

Terry no doubt doesn’t speak for the majority of the Republican party but his affiliation with it and the failure of the GOP to disassociate itself with such people is evidence that changing direction for 2014 and beyond will likely not come anytime soon.

A 3rd party candidate that would incorporate the views of people like Scott Terry will never win any national election so they attach themselves to the more conservative of the two prominent Parties in order to get some traction with their values.  Yet it is this low-brow mentality that will always associate racial and gender bias with the GOP and prevent any grand sweep of gaining woman and minority votes.

Their reluctance to cut ties with such people is indicative of Party leaders who still think they need this portion of their base to win elections.  It seems clear however that by keeping such people appeased does more damage than it serves their interests.  Those who have left the GOP to side with Democrats and those who traditionally vote Democratic are not likely to be wooed by a Party that tolerates a point of view that claims to be superior to those who don’t look like them.

Ironically it is this backward class of people who profess to elevate a Constitution that attempted to view all people equally even though the framers’ words fell short of their actions.  It is most likely this reality about the origins of our Constitution that such people cling to rather than the spirit it evokes from freedom loving people of both genders and all races around the world today.  What Reagan epitomized as “a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere” is really nothing more to the Scott Terry’s of this country than a dimly lit lantern on a dung heap for white men only to revel in a past that exists no more.

GOP-Constituency

RELATED ARTICLE:

It’s The Policy Stupid:  4 Policies That Undermine the GOP’s new Voter Outreach Strategy


When dishonest collaboration with others arises from ideological zealotry we can create our own web of deceit that ensnares us and can forever discredit what we prize so highly.  Our integrity.

walter williams

Hypocrites, liars, cheats and thieves will often over step reasonable limits in their practices and eventually ensnare themselves with their own inflated self views.  Joe McCarthy finally fell from grace when he demonstrated he had no decency in his delusional attacks on alleged communists in America.  Bernie Madoff’s massive Ponzi scheme that defrauded thousands of investors of billions of dollars finally came unravelled and sent him to prison for life.  The lies of George W. Bush were legendary and along side his general incompetence will eventually put him with the likes of Warren G. Harding, Millard Fillmore, Ulysses Grant, John Tyler and James Buchanan

Their excesses were their own undoing but it took the work of others to expose their malfeasance.  So, when someone who engages in unethical practices becomes their own condemner it becomes so much more rewarding for those of us who have battled with them to reveal them as the frauds they are.  It is with great delight then that I present the case against conservative columnist Walter Williams who has been part of the echo chamber of misinformation regarding climate change.

Williams over the years has berated the specialist in the field of climate science for being a part of what his companion in the U.S.  Senate, James Inhofe, has called “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people”.  As part of the fraternity of climate deniers people like Williams and Inhofe have taken the talking points of the fossil fuel industry and tried to convey a legitimate authority that disputes the evidence from specialists in their field.  Evidence that strongly suggests that CO2 from burning oil, coal and even natural gas is adding to the natural limits of CO2 in our atmosphere and thus creating a barrier making it more difficult for the suns rays from escaping back out into space.

In doing this we are warming the planet quicker than any historical natural incidence of warming and dooming future generations to a planet that most species will perish from and many civilizations will also be unable to recover from,  Adaptability will likely not be able to overcome the devastating impacts of multiple monstrous climate disasters.  The frequency of such destructive forces like the Japanese tsunami, Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy and severe drought in Africa, parts of Russia and most of the lower 48 states will overwhelm human resources and capabilities to marginalize, if not defeat, their effectiveness.

earth defect

Large populations will have to be relocated as sea levels rise from melting polar caps and mountain glaciers.  This melting will also contribute to dangerous acidic levels in the seas and oceans destroying the marine life that is vital as a food source for millions of people.  Farming land will turn to deserts as droughts continue to impoverish the soils reducing not only food supplies for human consumption but necessary feed stock for meat and dairy suppliers.  The economic impacts will begin to create chaos around the world.  More arid regions means less plant life needed to carry out the photosynthesis necessary to generate the oxygen all life requires.

Had we listened to the climate scientists like Dr. James Hansen over two decades ago that warned us of this impending threat, our ability to stave off the worst aspects of man-made global warming could likely have prevented much of what we are currently experiencing.  But once the monied interests that infects the fossil fuel industry devised their scheme to create doubt about the climate science warnings, the pubic became too unwilling to listen with their minds and instead allowed people like Walter Williams to convince them that conspiracies were afoot to rob them of their hard-earned money.  A notion created out of thin air but none-the-less, when cleverly presented, strikes at the concerns of most working people’s hearts and pocket books.

How ironic then, when after years of disputing the climate science by people who themselves were not specialist with this field, that Walter Williams has come to tell us now that we should be leery of the claims made by people whose expertise lies outside the authority of those they judge.  In one of his ethereal tangents Williams attempts to remove any notion of deity from certain experts, citing examples throughout history of people who were “the greatest and most influential scientist” in their field but whose credibility suffered when they stepped into areas that belied any expertise.

The take-home lesson is that experts are notoriously fallible outside of their fields of endeavor — and especially so when making predictions.  …  The bottom line is that the fact that a person has academic degrees, honors and status is no reason for us to abandon our tools of critical thinking.    SOURCE 

And yet throughout the last few years Williams has on numerous occasions tried to act as some sort of expert in the field of divining who the authorities were that could best tell us what does or doesn’t impact our climate these days.  Climate science is a special field of science and as things stand today, 98% of climate scientists support the consensus that man-made climate change is real.  That’s up 2% from a just a few short years ago when a clear 96% believed this.

Yet Williams, throughout his years of reporting on climate change and man-made global warming, has insisted that the opposite is true and that the planet is more likely cooling down rather than heating up.  Using the disputed claims of two geologists, Williams violates his recent claim about using “experts” outside their field of expertise to bolster the notion that “an increasing amount of climate research suggests a possibility of global cooling” is occurring.

Like many of his fellow deniers Williams provides no numbers or predictions to support most of his contentions beyond the vague and un-sourced assertions he makes.  Rather he engages in what many in the climate denier camp do, using false equivalents that presumes there are equally legitimate arguments to dispute the data of climate scientists.

In January, 2010, never citing any irrefutable evidence from a legitimate climate scientist, Williams made the audacious claim that “many climatologists have been intimidated into silence.”   I can count on one hand how many real climate scientist still associate with the deniers.  Williams, an economics professor at George Mason University, syndicated columnist and author is also on record for saying that “there is absolutely no close relationship between CO2 levels and temperature.”  Ask anyone who owns a greenhouse if the energy exchange between the suns rays and the emitted CO2 given off from their plants that gets trapped does not generate heat.

When Williams talks about numerous scientists who refute the claims of man-made global warming he is talking about a list cited in one of James Inhofe’s senate presentations where he said that more than 650 International Scientists dissented over man-made global warming claims.  Upon close scrutiny of this list the vast majority of these people were either not scientist or practiced in fields other than the climate sciences.  Experts, Williams tells us, that can benotoriously fallible outside of their fields of endeavor”.

So I concur with Mr. Williams in his assessment about how a person’s “academic degrees, honors and status is no reason for us to abandon our tools of critical thinking”.  Now if only he would reflect on this about himself he may fully understand how it has come about that he has firmly planted his foot in his own mouth.

climate-change denier

 


“Don’t Tread on Me”  fanatics attempt to tread on commentator’s 1st amendment rights.

freedom of speech muffled

Perhaps one of the most cogent and succinct statements ever made that defines a free society was the one that’s been attributed to Voltaire, the French Enlightenment writer and philosopher but actually originated much later through a biographer of his

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it. 

It’s true that some people can say some harsh things in public that get under our skin and there are those statements that could lead some mentally imbalanced people to act on them, sometimes with deadly results.   But the right of free speech is guaranteed in our Constitution and when statements are made that are not to our liking we need to keep in mind that we are also guilty of offending other’s view with our beliefs.  How many of us have had to tolerate the drivel from right-wing pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck  and Ann Coulter?  It’s an inherent characteristic of a democracy.

Yet somehow this always seems to go over the heads of extremists within some religious and social groups.  The ideals that make America appealing to many around the world however are not always played out in reality here.  This isn’t something new either.  Even Alexis de Tocqueville, a great admirer of the American people eventually made this observation in one of his best known treatises early in the 19th century

I know of no country in which there is so little true independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America   – “Democracy In America” by Alexis de Tocqueville, 1831     SOURCE  

Things haven’t changed all that much after 175 years.  Today’s version of intolerance exists in great abundance amongst those who tolerate no criticism of their narrowly perceived views of God, guns, attaining wealth and the flag.  Step outside the restrictive definition they impose on everyone and your castigated as un-American, an atheist, a traitor and heretic.

If the Inquisition, the Salem Witch tribunals and full-throated McCarthyism were still operating today, these would be the people in leadership roles handing down sentences of death or ostracizing those who they deem unworthy.  If lynchings and tar and feathering were still practiced in society today these extremists would be inciting mobs and leading the angry crowds down the street.

Case in point.  Piers Morgan the British host of his own CNN program Piers Morgan Tonight, has upset some of those extremist by calling for tighter restrictions on guns in this country following the Newtown, Conn. massacre and calling a gun advocate guest on his program “incredibly stupid”.    In response to this, someone in my home state of  Texas (why is this not a shocker) initiated a petition calling on the U.S. government to deport the British citizen on the grounds that his view on guns is a “hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution” in regards to 2nd amendment.

Some have ludicrously claimed that unless Mr. Morgan is a U.S. citizen that he has no rights under our Constitution.  Though perhaps technically correct, it is the spirit of the law that is denounced here and thus a fallacious response.  Are such people unaware that Mr. Morgan’s homeland, Great Britain, is the origin of much that’s incorporated into our Constitution?

Freedom then, too often espoused by those on the right, simply narrows down to tight restrictive measures only they feel comfortable with.  There is no difference from this state of mind than there is with the Taliban ethos in Afghanistan and Pakistan or the measures iron-fisted despots like Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler used to subdue any threat to their interpretation of who and what was vital for the society they envisioned for themselves and a few others.

extremists

The law we have established through our courts and legal system is the only protection we have at this time from the low-brows who file nefarious petitions or generate legislation to eliminate “undesirables” from their purist ideals.  Without these restraints it is conceivable that we could live under a rule where freedom would be nothing more than a word that conceals a hate and contempt for “those people” who don’t share the complete set of values imposed by extremists.

Already we are seeing forces around the country that alter the laws to invade the privacy of a woman’s choice to end an unwanted pregnancy or where brown-skinned people are subject to deportation if they don’t have the right documents on them when stopped to confirm their citizenship.  Thicker and higher walls are being erected to assuage the growing fears of those who see terrorists around every corner.

The reaction to Piers Morgan’s gun control comments is yet one more example of how efforts will be attempted by some to quash such freedoms of speech and limit our exposure to the diversity that makes up our world.  I worry that this state of mind gets way too much attention and creates a greater risk of becoming more assimilated into the public consciousness.

It doesn’t take much for some articulate, charismatic figure to motivate people who are looking for a scapegoat to blame for their set of problems.  We dodged a bullet in this last election preventing the small-minded people from convincing enough of us of things that exists only in their sick fantasies.  But history has shown that eventually a society reaches a level that makes them more susceptible to the twisted emotions of pathological “saviors”.  How long will it be before the persistence of those who incite enough hatred and contempt for perceived enemies separate us from that culture that our laws to date have prevented?

home of the brave

 


Angry football fans are often cheering local sportscasters on who cite the need for defenses to get that killer instinct and “destroy” their opponent’s offense to knock out the quarterback.  But some apparently don’t want you to talk about real life violence during the half-time ceremonies.

angry Cowboy fan

Disappointed as I became watching the Dallas Cowboys in the first half of their Sunday night game with the Philadelphia Eagles this last weekend, I turned it off shortly after Philly scored their second rushing touchdown.  Jesus!  Where’s the defense I thought and here they go again, displaying another poor performance.  As a life-long Cowboy fan I cannot stand to watch such insufferable games.

But it seems I turned the TV set off too soon.  No, not because they had a great comeback in the second half and eventually won the game.  Even as good as this was, the prospects of the Cowboys making it to the playoffs are about as good as making it passed the first rounds should they succeed in knocking the New York Giants from the division title – little to none.   Not this year anyway.

No, what it turns out I missed were some comments by Bob Costas that addressed the issue of gun violence following the suicide-murder of Kansas City Chief’s linebacker Jovan Belcher who blew his brains out in front of his coaches at their locker room shortly after killing his girlfriend at their leased home earlier.  Costas’ comments took up about two minutes but apparently for some watching the game here in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area you would have thought he deprived all zombies of human blood.

One of the people I follow (make that followed) on Facebook, a former reporter for the Denton Record-Chronicle, was apparently upset that Costas would use this time between halves to raise the issue of gun violence.  I have followed Donna Fielder for years in her reporting days on the staff of the Record-Chronicle and have always thought she was one of the few bright stars for this small local paper.  She recently retired and with little fan-fare from her former employer too, which many of us who have followed Donna thought was extremely insulting.

But a reporter’s life isn’t all that revealing from the stories they write and I could only glean from Donna’s reports along with a weekly column she wrote which direction her political compass pointed to.  Not that it surprises me in red-state Texas but Ms. Fielder appears to be another gun advocate who thinks gun control is some kind of liberal conspiracy.  At least that seems to be the likely conclusion based on her recent comments from her FB page regarding Costas’ comments about Jovan Belcher’s death:

NBC I don’t want to hear your simplistic rheteric (sic) liberal pap on gun control in the middle of a football game. Get bent.  SOURCE

I didn’t even know what “Get bent” meant until today.  Thanks Donna & Urban Dictionary.

But my biggest concern was why this 2-minute spot at intermission was found to be offensive to anyone other than the most extreme 2nd amendment zealot.  Did I discover that the woman who I’ve followed for years in the local paper was little more than the Sarah Palin of North Texas?  I can only hope I’m over reacting to the whole thing.

Costas was quoting Kansas City-based columnist Jason Whitlock but the conclusion drawn in his remarks that if Jovan Belcher hadn’t had a gun that “he and his girl friend, Kasandra Perkins, would still be alive today” , is a bit of a stretch.  Why?  Because we have some of the most lax laws in the world for gun ownership. Unless Belcher had some kind of criminal or mental record, there’s no reason to think he shouldn’t have a gun if he chose to purchase one for personal security reasons.  Surely Whitlock and Costas weren’t calling for all guns to be removed from American society.  I’m a gun-control advocate and even I don’t see this happening in my lifetime or for the next generation or two.

Maybe it was that notion though that brought out the reaction it did from Donna and some of her supporters on Facebook.  “Just more ‘liberal pap’ from the commies who want to take away our guns.”  Yet to become that irate was still a little unsettling.  What harm was really done here by Costas’ comments that disrupted their game day state-of-mind?   Were the sportscasters words really viewed as that political.  If so, I can’t say I blame them entirely.  Lord knows that the last few months prior to the election have been political overkill for all of us.

heller-cartoon-political-ads-495x343

And though I may even share this feeling at some level, I have to ask, what does this say about us who want to attack the messenger of such unpleasant news?  The timing of it put aside, isn’t this a serious enough issue that we can surely spare two minutes of our lives to at least consider it until the second half of the game begins?  Have we become that desensitized that such interruptions incur emotional outbursts like this?

Costas’ comments didn’t really center around politics per se.  It’s more a mental health issue.  Gun violence is about someone’s child or the family down the block.  It’s about all the innocent people who die because rage now has a deadly weapon that can do more damage than any other tool of death that a killer can use.  “Studies have shown that guns in the home increase chances of homicide two to three times, and gun death rates are seven times higher in states that have high household gun ownership, …  according to the Brady Campaign”  Numerous studies also show that where there are firearms, suicides are a greater occurrence.

This was about something that hits close to home everyday for people in our community, our state and this country.  In just this last year we have seen 11,000 homicides in the U.S. as a result of firearms.  1800 of those were women caught up in domestic disputes with boyfriends or ex-husbands.  The United States ranks fourth in the world with murder by firearms.  The only reason we’re that low is because the other three – South Africa, Columbia and Thailand – are embroiled in political corruption, drug battles and civil unrest.  I know, it seems like we exist under these conditions some of the times too.  But the culture of violence in these countries are the results of decades long conflict and where the rule of law is extremely weak.

What seem to come across in Donna’s comments was the type of apathy that seems so common in our culture today when one more violent act at the hands of a gunman occurs, especially if they are black.  Not that such violence is associated with being black.  But it is associated with poverty and blacks in this country are disproportionately poorer than most other ethnic groups.  I’ll save that argument for another day.

Such apathy is more common when senseless killings occur through American militarism, done in the name of National Security.   Few people are probably aware that 176 children have been killed in Pakistan from U.S. drone strikes going after suspected terrorists.  These kids are part of some 885 innocent civilians killed over the last eight years in our use of drones, with the vast majority of them occurring on Obama’s watch.   But when we do become aware, how many of us are actually motivated to protests such actions by our government?

Drones kill innocent children like us

We are less likely to prevent a shooter from taking innocent lives in this country since they are so random in nature.  But the use of drones isn’t.  It’s a policy established by political leaders that we elected.  It’s thought about and strategically planned on who to target and where to use these weapons.  The fact that innocents may get caught up in this doesn’t always, if ever, prevent their deployment.  The notion that “collateral damage” is a sad but expected consequence of such policies is the reaction of people who are far removed from the death and destruction these decisions result in.

Like the drone attacks and the other horrific acts of war, the daily gun violence we have been enduring for years has made us immune to one more tragedy. So much so it seems that there are people who get easily upset if they are reminded about it during their sporting events or other non-threatening activities.  We just don’t want to be reminded that our world is always chaotic and there but for the grace of the gods go each of us.

This appears to be where Ms. Fielder is at and apparently my comments on her FB page responding to her acerbic diatribe has elicited an ultimatum from the former Record-Chronicle reporter:

“Larry. I don’t fear conversation. But I have the right to limit the drek(sic) people post on my space. Get off my page.”

Thanks Donna.  I learned another printable word for a vulgarism – dreck.

The natives were clearly getting restless and I didn’t want to hang around for the lynch mob to arrive so I willingly obliged Ms. Fielder.  I would have expected this kind of response from the whacko conspiracy theorists and the anti-government troglodytes out there.  Furthermore I would have understood why Donna didn’t want to pursue this conversation.  But to imply that my views were shit seems out of character for someone who once graced the pages of our local print media.

Clearly we have a long way to go before we can break down the barriers of those who insists that only “people kill people, not guns”.  Like the gridlock that exists in all other socio-political spheres in this country, the toughest part of working toward some kind of compromise is getting a civil conversation started on the critical issues.  Costas’ Sunday Night Football comments were in my view an attempt to do this.  It remains to be seen what lasting effect it had.

gun-violence-web

RELATED ARTICLE:

Bob Costas on Gun Control Comments: “Availability of guns makes mayhem easier”

 


Fools rush in where angels fear to tread

Some of the fanatics who were dreading the possibility of an Obama re-election have reacted in ways that resemble the image they portrayed for those on the left who, it was suggested, would become mad and begin rioting if Obama did not win.  Indeed there were hundreds of Tweets, largely by blacks, that intimated a riot would ensue if Romney won.  Such sentiments however have always been a part of our political environment but seldom made as public as the new social media allows today.

I can recall in 2000 that my supervisor in the new-home building industry indicated that if Al Gore wound up getting the Florida vote that “there will be blood in the streets.”  My supervisor then was something of a racist based on his frequent use of the “N” word that he used when he felt sure he was amongst those who shared his prejudices.  He knew damn well that I didn’t but I was an “underling” so he felt no compulsion to respect my views.  The point being, there’s no reason to think his sentiments toward an Obama victory are any different from what he felt about Gore and yet I haven’t read anything in the newspaper where he has participated in any violence.

Strong feelings run deep within us all about political issues today and rage and anger is frequently expressed.  Fortunately most of this has not materialized into real action though there are those who have carried their dark, bitter feelings to a final solution.

The man in Florida who killed himself after Obama was elected was convinced that the end was nigh.  It was a conviction that many are overcome with when they get so steeped in extremist political ideologies where it literally suppresses all rational thought.  Again, this is not a new phenomena.  John Wilkes Booth is a character in history that was led by his virulent antipathy toward Unionists to kill the man he felt represented all that was evil about things he had conjured up in his small little brain.

But the influence of these hyper-angry people back then was marginalized considerably compared to today by their lack of an effective means of communication.   So when the same personalities today have access to the broadcast medium in our modern age, they are bound to influence millions.  Some of those millions will have mental deficiencies whose fear and hysteria can push them over the edge.  Glenn Beck is one of those demagogues who can have an extreme influence on some of those with mental deficiencies.

Mr. Beck requires no introduction or background to those who have resided on this planet for at least the last ten years are so.  His flights of fantasy are well-documented on videos that were produced by his former bosses at FOX.  However it seems that Glenn Beck’s madness exceeded even the typical mindlessness that FOX accommodates with their slanted portrayal of social and political issues and so was summarily dismissed in April, 2011.  Even the ultraconservative WorldNetDaily website posted a story on Beck’s firing entitled “TOO CRAZY FOR FOX – AND THAT’S CRAZY”

So what has Glenn Beck done that elicits his name amongst those who have reacted alarmingly to President Obama’s re-election?

On his radio show, former Fox host Glenn Beck lamented the downgrade of the country, but promised “I won’t make a deal with the devil… I will tell you last week we purchased more farmland as a family. May I recommend if you have a chance to buy farmland, you buy farmland. If you live in the east may I recommend get the hell out of the east. Find a place where you are surrounded by like-minded people and the best way to find those people is, you should probably look at the maps on how counties voted… May I highly suggest you get grandfathered in to the second amendment today. Oh and don’t forget the ammunition.”     SOURCE  

Now lest one might think that the self-described “rodeo clown” was advocating a pastoral return to a life where self-sufficiencies were met by the nuclear family, please read what is clearly stated by the man who is literally asking people to band together in a circle-the-wagons mentality.  And though some of us may laugh at his overreaction to current conditions, it is his illogical solution in response to an Obama victory that requires our attention.

What Beck want’s his followers to alter their life’s for is a change that by itself would ruin most of those families who took his advice; far more than any perceived evil he or they may have attributed to a renewed Obama administration.  By moving to those areas he implies, away from the East coast and purchase farmland, is to put these desperate people in regions that are suffering some of the worst drought conditions since the Dust Bowl days of the Great Depression era.  These droughts today can be linked to that bugaboo the former FOX host was and remains in denial of – man-made climate change  – where natural disasters are enhanced by increased warming attributed to accelerated levels of CO2 from fossil fuels in our atmosphere.

In the main stream media’s failure to report substantively, if at all, on the growing threat of climate changes, Jim Naureckas with the FAIR website has pointed out how bad things are as a result of global warming.

July 2011 to June 2012 was the hottest 12-month period ever recorded for the mainland United States, the National Climatic Data Center announced in July (CNN, 7/9/12)―which itself turned out to be the hottest month ever in the lower 48 (CNN, 8/10/12). Drought produced the largest agricultural disaster area in U.S. history (Atlantic Wire, 7/12/12), and the accompanying wildfires burned unprecedented acreage―nearly 7 million (Mother Jones, 8/21/12)―while the Arctic icecap shrank to its smallest historical coverage (BBC, 9/19/12).     SOURCE 

Here’s a map of the area that Beck is suggesting his disgruntled supporters move to and purchase farms.  Notice that those areas “away from the East coast” are under severe drought conditions.

These areas are also short on water resources with many lakes and reservoirs below acceptable levels.  Underground aquifers are also dwindling from agricultural use as well as extraction for use on the thousands of natural gas wells sprouting up in these areas.  Fracking just one natural gas well can use on average 4.5 million gallons of precious clean water that’s needed for crops to be cultivated and families to have drinking water.  History has shown that individual property owners – like those who Glenn is encouraging to “buy farmland” – have less sway over the authorities that control water access.

Farmers in the Great Plains are expecting to harvest just a fraction of their corn and other crops this year as the worst drought in 50 years plagues nearly two-thirds of the nation.    SOURCE

It’s not outside the realm of probability to believe that Beck’s desire for his listeners to buy farmland is perhaps an appeal to find sponsorships from the rural real estate market.   You can only appeal to so many people about buying gold, the industry sponsorship that stayed with Beck even when he was dumped by Roger Ailes at FOX.

So in his hysteria, the excommunicated moron from FOX news is enticing emotionally distraught people to invest their life savings in ventures that are likely to fail for reasons that they have been poorly informed of.  Poorly informed because they have listened to people like Glenn Beck far too long.

 

RELATED ARTICLE:

Drought stretches across America, threatens crops

Agenda 21: The Latest Slight of Hand trick by Corporate Elite


The symbolism is clear.  A chair hanging from a rope, dangling from a tree in a white man’s front yard was not intended to send a subtle message.  Is this a signal from someone becoming disconnected from reality, much like the mass killers whose unstable mental condition led to those atrocities?


One’s initial thought of this chair pictured above hanging in the yard of a north Austin neighborhood might be that someone’s white trash kid was air drying the new paint on it.  It turns out however to be a political statement by a white trash resident about the President, as Katherine Haenschen in her Burnt Orange Report blog discovered

The chair of course represents the symbolic personification of the President that Clint Eastwood has now made famous from his rambling speech at the Republican National Convention late last month in Tampa Bay, Florida.

After Ms. Haenschen discovered the homeowner’s identity she called to ask him about the chair and it appears that their conversation soon ended after the homeowner responded to her concern about it’s symbolism and how it reflected on Austin.

“I don’t really give a damn whether it disturbs you or not” he told her.  “You can take [your concerns] and go straight to hell and take Obama with you. I don’t give a shit. If you don’t like it, don’t come down my street.”

To be sure that this hanging chair wasn’t misunderstood for anything other that what it represents, the homeowner stuck an American flag on the chair the next day.

To Ms. Haenschen the photo raised the ugly specter of a lynching; that practice in another era in the South where bigoted whites would eliminate any “niggers” that forgot their place in Southern society.

The image of the chair is associated with the President. Now, lynch that chair from a tree, and you’ve got a pretty awful racist sentiment calling for lynching the first African-American President    SOURCE  

I don’t know that I would have taken it any further than one ignorant man’s show of his dislike for the president.  The chair is secured by a regular knot, not the ugly noose of a hanging rope.  And it’s hard to project a message connoted by Clint Eastwood with a chair simply sitting in the lawn.  But then I’m a white male and such thoughts don’t come automatically to me, even though I was raised in the South and am familiar with this ugly racial symbol.

But now I’m not sure that the lynching symbolism isn’t there.  It was reported in The Burnt Orange Report the next day that another chair with a sign attached that read “Nobama”, a day earlier than the Austin “hanging”, was lynched with the noose style knot, adjacent to the Bull Run Park in Centerville, Virginia, as seen in the picture below.

photo from the Blue Virginia blog

The Virginia “lynching” was a story reported by a writer for the Blue Virginia blog and in the picture you can not only clearly see the noose-style knot in the rope but a nearby George Allen campaign sign.  Allen is running to regain his Senate seat he lost to Jim Webb in 2006, a seat he lost in some measure by his racist comment caught on this video taken by S.R. Sidarth, a Fairfax, Virginia student at the time who is of Indian descent.   

S.R. Sidarth

When I reflect back on the senseless mass killings in Tucson, Fort Hood, Texas and most recently in Aurora, Colorado, it pains me to realize that all of the shooters involved  – Jared Loughner, Nidal Malik Hasan and James Holmes – had sent out signals to those around them that they were in the throes of physically hurting people.  Could these “lynched” chairs be a similar type signal of people who are becoming detached from the real world?

Such signals doesn’t always mean that a ticking time bomb is fixing to explode.  The reluctance by authority figures to investigate such people and bring them in for questioning  is often a factor of how the gun industry in this country has created the perceived legitimacy to purchase weapons and ammo that a military unit or police force would consider threatening.  It all becomes viewed merely as person’s constitutional right to bear arms.  

Heavily armed wing-nuts are afforded by some the status of patriots in the vein often cited by colonial insurrectionists like Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine and even Thomas Jefferson.  And to be sure, there are those within certain militia groups that adhere to notions of second amendment rights that parrot the views of those colonists after winning their independence from the British monarchy but who don’t necessarily pose a threat to those around them.

But that was then when a monarchy ruled this  country, often with a heavy hand and the people had little recourse to change not only the policies they didn’t like but the ultimate policymaker himself – the King of Great Britain.  Today we have elected officials and a system of law that allows ordinary citizens to effect change in our political system, although it is often weighted in favor of people who have large sums of money.

The sense that the “spirit of resistance to government” occasionally requires a revolution, as Thomas Jefferson suggested, “where from time to time, … the blood of patriots and tyrants” must flow, is a sentiment too often heard within the white male culture in this country today.  It is not a cry where all people not borne of the manor and whose skin is darker would share in these times.  For such people, freedom means less about some perceived government tyranny and more about equality of opportunity that more and more seems a surety only for the wealthiest.

The people who strung up the chairs in Virginia and Austin, Texas, could well be part of the “unwashed masses” but they are also most likely white and male whose ignorance of facts and what true socialism is prevent them from accepting certain realities.  Instead they live in a world where extremists who have access to the airwaves generate a fantasy world that reflects a lifestyle that no longer exists or are unwilling to acknowledge that because times and people change, it does not mean that a better world is not still within reach for all people, not just for those who resemble the 18th century generation that founded and fought for a democratic republic.


Are fringe elements within the Republican Party represented by the myth of Sisyphus, thought by Albert Camus to personify the happy fool?


For those who stay up with the news it should come as no surprise to discover that many on the religious right who are deeply imbedded within the Republican Party view a pregnancy from a rape as an act of God, or as VP nominee Paul Ryan puts it, “a method of conception”.   One that should not be tampered with by an abortion.   Many of these people are also opposed to measures that could prevent such an unwanted pregnancy in the form of the pill and the day after pill contraceptives.

Following this ludicrous position that puts God in play with the act of rape I have finally seen a pattern with these people who are unwilling to intervene in what they perceive as the will of the Almighty.  The recent tropical storm Isaac, turned hurricane by the time it hit the Louisiana coastline 7 years to the day when Katrina played havoc with New Orleans, raised the interest of Scott Lilly over at the Center for American Progress blog.  In so doing he showed yet another area where the Republican Party has pretty much taken a hands off approach to such divine action, as some within the Party see it.

It’s late August. The Republicans are having their national convention. A huge tropical storm is bearing down on the U.S. Gulf Coast. So what’s new? We have had major hurricanes bearing down on the United States during four of the past six Republican conventions: Andrew in 1992, Frances in 2004, Gustav in 2008, and this year, Isaac.

But the Republican problem with hurricanes seems to go well beyond convention timing. A number of hurricanes have erupted into huge political issues, and it has almost always been at the expense of Republican candidates. This is not a coincidence: Republicans seem determined to underfund, undermanage, and understaff the government agencies that respond to hurricanes, putting lives and property at risk, as well as their political careers.   SOURCE   

Lilly concludes that Republicans seem determined to underfund, under-manage, and understaff the government agencies that are designed to deal with hurricanes, before and after because …

“they have become so good at convincing themselves that the public sector doesn’t matter that when they run into problems such as hurricanes they simply don’t know what to do. If you admit that you need government to solve that problem, you might have to make concessions in other places, as well. On the other hand, if you treat agencies that manage such problems as though they don’t matter by appointing incompetent administrators and starving them of the resources necessary to provide adequate service, you end up in the kind of mess we have seen repeatedly in Republican handling with hurricanes.kind of mess we have seen repeatedly in Republican handling with hurricanes.”

This would explain the laissez-faire, Ayn Rand mindset of the Tea Party officials within the GOP.  They are more concerned with the notion that some “invisible hand” controls our fate and avoid the God issue altogether.  Rand was after all a devout atheist.  But this won’t do for the fundamentalist christians who view the bible as the inerrant word of God and that in all things, God is in control.  

We do not expect to understand fully the purpose for our trials until our Lord calls us home to be with Him. But we do know that He loves us too much to harm us, and that He is far more concerned with our welfare than we are. God’s choices are always right. He is capable of carrying out any project to a successful conclusion without the possibility of fault or failure. Nothing in His universe happens by chance or accident. For every effect there is a cause. God “worketh all things after the counsel of His own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory” (Ephesians 1:11-12). Yes, God is in control.    Source  

I’m pretty sure that victims of Katrina and brutal rapes would have to be brainwashed to believe that part about God loving us too much to harm us.  Looking a little deeper within this frame of reference we discover another bible-thumper who claims that God, not man, is responsible for a serious deviation from the natural cycle of global warming

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) appeared on Voice of Christian Youth America’s radio program Crosstalk with Vic Eliason yesterday to promote his new book The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, where he repeated his frequent claim that human influenced climate change is impossible because “God’s still up there.” Inhofe cited Genesis 8:22 to claim that it is “outrageous” and arrogant for people to believe human beings are “able to change what He is doing in the climate.”   SOURCE 

 

 

Now I have been convinced for years that the biblical account of God is nothing more than the creation of man’s mind and therefore holds no validity for me.  I do love the poetry in the Old  Testament and some of the inspiring homilies found within New Testament pages.  But the notion that an omniscient God who had already eradicated most of his creation in a fit of rage, save Noah and his family, only to later allow “his only begotten son” to be crucified by the spawn of Noah, just doesn’t appeal to the rational mind that supposedly is a product of our creation. The only thing I can logically conclude by those who refuse to act intelligently about the natural and man-made consequences we face is something my mom once accused me of when I was about five years of age.

I tried to watch electricity come out of a frayed wire.  As I was focused on watching myself plug in the wire at the electrical socket I discovered too late that my other hand was resting on the exposed wires at the other end.    When mom came running into the room after hearing my blood curdling scream and discovered what I had done, she told me “You must have been AWOL when God was handing out the brains”. 

And then, bless her heart, she did something that we have since learned NOT to do to a burn which serves as a perfect metaphor to explain how the extremist in the Republican Party respond to critical issues today.  She put butter over the open wound which does more harm than good.


Not all change is good but it is inevitable and some of it is necessary.  The political and Christian right in this country risk appearing backwards as they dig in their heels to fend off 21st century changes.

 

Hostile anti-Obama protesters feel threatened by policies they feel will undermine their traditional American way of life which tends to exclude other cultures and religions.

I have been guilty many times in the past of labeling most extremist on the right as ignorant slugs whose grasp of reality, history and many facts often reflect some levels of mental deficiency.  But I have come to the conclusion that such people, though at times poorly informed, are not always ignorant.  In fact many of them are just as intelligent as the liberals they attack for being intellectual elites.  There are of course those who still hold to debunked notions of global cooling and the President being a practicing Muslim, but these do not make up that larger population I want address this post to.   Liberals are not without their ideologues but unlike their conservative counterpart, change is not something to dread but to embrace and rebuild with.

So what I am finding then is not for lack of a brain from those on the right wanting to “take America back” to a period in our history that has long ago disappeared or who proclaim God is punishing this country with terrorist attacks and mass murders by madmen because we have strayed from some earlier set of values.   It is, I honestly think, a conscious decision they have made to limit their contemporary views to only those notions they locked into at a more immature age, with perhaps some childhood anxiety disorder holdovers.  It’s as if they have gotten a glimpse of a future that resembles nothing like their accustomed to and have made a conscious decision to freeze time in their mind and refuse to allow it to take its natural course.  They then proceed to create an apologetic culture over time to confront the reality of inevitable change.

When you look at the language of Tea Party types and fundamentalist Christians you see notions spelled out in ways that sound more familiar in a junior high school setting; having a more sophomoric argot to them.  Ideas are expressed in more simplistic ways that accommodate an adolescent view and seem trivial in light of broader experiences.  Their mental faculties have not been diminished physiologically and they are quite capable of expressing an intellect with high IQs in most areas.  But in their socio-religious view of life their growth appears stunted and all too ready to reject a social dynamic that develops layers of knowledge over time.  The concept of WASPs – white Anglo-Saxon protestants – comes to mind when considering many on the right today as they try to deal with the changing make up of American families in the 21st century.

Why does the changing traditional image of American families seem threatening to many conservatives today?

The simpler, broader concepts of “mom, apple pie, God and country” still holds a pleasant but narrow image from a past era for today’s hardcore right-wing contingent within conservatism.  To such people however, mom is never a teenage girl who had an unwanted pregnancy, diabetes from too much apple pie is beyond comprehension, the Judeo-christian concept of a universal creator remains the only acceptable view (orthodox interpretations primarily) and many still see the country as it existed for many years as the domain for white male property owners.  Capitalism has been woven into biblical scripture and wealth is nearly universally seen as the ultimate end to one’s pursuit of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.  To discredit those who have vast fortunes is to engage in a social blasphemy of sorts.

This state of mind is, I feel, an intentional choice because it preserves a familiarity of the bygone era.  We all harbor this to some degree.  We also all tend to resist most changes.  But for many on the Christian and political right in this country today, the magnitude of change we are inevitably experiencing as a democracy with its emphasis on freedom is change that cannot be tolerated.  No amount of critical thinking seems to be capable of altering this dogmatic stand either.

When it comes time for us all to go out into the world on our own, beyond the control of those who have filled our minds up to this point, we inevitably run into challenges to those perceptions that were narrowly defined in our subconscious during the brain’s formative years. By the time I was seventeen I was sure Christianity, especially Roman Catholicism, was the one true religion.  Americans, especially Texans, were the greatest people ever and the envy of the world and that equal economic opportunity was there for everyone who expended the right amount of energy, no matter what your gender, religious beliefs or race were.  Naturally I heard this from the authority figures within a paternalistic white American, christian culture and since I was a physically white male American born in Texas and raised in the Catholic church, I failed to see how women and other people of differing races, cultures and belief systems seldom shared this view.  How could I?  I had never interacted sufficiently, if at all, with such people.

But then somehow the mechanisms of control lost sight of me and allowed me to gain a higher education and this, to the shock and dismay of many, opened doors that had heretofore been closed.  Some of them had in fact been nailed shut.  Perhaps this was the dread of former GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum expressed in his campaign about higher education. 

I found that these  countervailing views that grabbed me at a young adult age seem to fit in areas that my traditional upbringing could not quite reconcile.  Not everything I began to absorb satisfied a hidden hunger.  In fact I found some objectionable, at first.  But there was enough there that allowed me to see that perhaps I had in fact not been given all of the information that was out there to make an informed decision.  Just coming to the realization that an open and honest debate on issues was an option was something of an awakening for me.

Deeply held views that demonized and rejected gays, held minorities and women to an inferior status and saw all other manifestations of religious faith as broken and even corrupt, began to fragment.  As this became more unsettling to me, my parents and others would try to assure me that though some customs and tradional views they raised me with were not absolutes, I was not to concern myself with such doubts because the older notions had been around “forever”.  Surely, they presumed, this must carry greater weight that time often honors.  To think outside this preset mold I was warned was to invite Lucifer and Stalinists thoughts into that world that had been carved out for me.

It took about two-thirds of my life to finally accept that much of what I was taught as a child and young adult was subject to debate and some of it, not all, was unlikely to stand up to scrutiny.  I had what I call “a road less traveled” epiphany.  Rather than view this as a failure of family upbringing or a conspiracy of some sort, I found it beneficial to accept this as part of the maturation process in life.  Those adolescent ideas and ideals that got me through my young life served a purpose that allowed me to focus on less complicated matters that tender young brains were better able to handle.  The real failure I have discovered comes in believing too deeply that much of what we are taught are absolutes and are inflexible.  It takes a certain amount of courage to step outside that box we have become too familiar with where pushing the envelope was often discouraged.  The status quo was held up as my security blanket.

Think of the temper tantrum young children throw when their notion of getting a toy is altered because the condition of good behavior gone bad has effected this outcome (provided you have a parent willing to enforce discipline).   Your world is momentarily shattered and you engage in a kicking, screaming fit to re-established that happier moment before Mom or Dad enforced the conditions that prevented you from getting what you wanted.  Such behavior seems harmless at such an early age but when such mechanisms carry over to the adult world,  especially regarding critical matters that will effect long term outcomes for ourselves and others, it can create some conflicts that lead to acts of aggression on local and even a global scale.


When immature christian thinking sees Islam as nothing more than an evil based upon their view of what is or isn’t a “true” religion, then the positive aspects of the Muslim faith are ignored and even twisted to suggest some hidden agenda exists with the consensus.  When immature heterosexuals claim that the legality of marriage was only intended to be between a man and a woman, they ignore the vital element of relationships that strengthen self-esteem and make us productive members of society.  When immature patriots think only older, narrowly defined traditions masked as “original intent” have greater value than those conditions that the social dynamics of today present us, they blind themselves to modern reality and pigeon-hole all cultures to fit out-dated concepts.  All of these reactions limit the gifts and talents that others can bring to the table in making this a more just and free society.

By using the language and promoting the notions that had meaning for us as an adolescent and expecting it to always bear fruit as an adult is a trap that is easy to fall into.  The failure to allow new and varied experiences to refine what was thought to be chipped in stone is a trait that will prevent the human race from advancing and sustaining a quality of life that ensures ours and the other species’ survival.  Not all change is good and we need to move cautiously where angels dare to tread.  But the converse is equally true and we need not be afraid of expanding views once deemed sacrosanct.

We need to take with us into the future those elements that have and will continue to serve us as the needs of a 21st century confront us.  All others need to be either respectfully laid to rest or disposed of in the unceremonious manner that we take out the daily trash with.

“Immaturity is the incapacity to use one’s intelligence without the guidance of another.”  – Immanuel Kant

 

 


Now there’s physical evidence that may suggest why so many people changed their vote in 2010 from a vote they made in 2008 that had denied the financial status quo a continuation.

 

A new UCLA rat study is the first to show how a diet steadily high in fructose slows the brain, hampering memory and learning — . The peer-reviewed Journal of Physiology published the findings in its May 15 edition.

According to Fernando Gomez-Pinilla, a professor of neurosurgery at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and a professor of integrative biology and physiology in the UCLA College of Letters and Science, “Eating a high-fructose diet over the long term alters your brain’s ability to learn and remember information. But adding omega-3 fatty acids to your meals can help minimize the damage.”    SOURCE 

 

This intrigued me when I recalled the queries posed in a popular book by Thomas Frank, “What’s the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America” In the book, Frank, a native Kansan, asked provocative questions like “Why do so many of us vote against our economic interests? Where’s the outrage at corporate cronyism? And what’s effected  the diminished value of the middle-American progressivism that was so powerful in earlier times?”

The movement that has become the Tea Party seems to fit this new Kansan paradigm.  Rather than recalling their roots that opposed crony capitalism and promoted a healthy middle class, many who now support the Tea Party have transferred their anger toward those who still retain those views and values. They have somehow turned their loyalty over to those very people who manipulated the system to foster self-serving ends that hurt middle class Americans.

Somehow the corporate Tea Party message convinced a lot of them that the concentrated wealth in the hands of a small number of people is better than a system that once allowed jobs with a living wage and benefits to effect better productivity.  They seem to have fell victim to the premise within the Libertarian philosophy that would convince you that compassion and playing by the rules really have no place in a system that rewards only those whose advantages of inherited wealth allow them to keep more of the pie that we all collectively helped create.

The fairness once practiced that our labors will aptly reward us, is a hollow statement these days by virtue of the fact that concentrated wealth now controls the mechanisms that determines who will be successful, rather than who can be successful.   The notion that the everyman can become comfortably wealthy if “they just apply themselves” still exists in the hopes and aspirations of many Americans, not knowing that the deck is stacked against them in a system where concentrated wealth will stymie anything that threatens their treasure and territory.

 

“Our findings illustrate that what you eat affects how you think,” says Gomez-Pinilla.   If this research can be borne out then it seems clear that the extreme fringes on the right who see the Koch Brothers as saints and people like Ralph Nader and Bernie Sanders as personifications of evil, may have been consuming a lot of processed food with a high-fructose additive in it.  It would surely explain why I thought Rod Stewart was a serious talent.

I’d love to test this hypothesis by devising an experiment similar to the one Gomez-Pinilla and study co-author Rahul Agrawal created to validate their claims suggesting high fructose sugars effect memory and learning.  In their research “two groups of rats … each consumed a fructose solution as drinking water for six weeks.”

The second group also received omega-3 fatty acids in the form of flaxseed oil and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), which protects against damage to the synapses — the chemical connections between brain cells that enable memory and learning.

The animals were fed standard rat chow and trained on a maze twice daily for five days before starting the experimental diet. The UCLA team tested how well the rats were able to navigate the maze, which contained numerous holes but only one exit. The scientists placed visual landmarks in the maze to help the rats learn and remember the way.

Six weeks later, the researchers tested the rats’ ability to recall the route and escape the maze. What they saw surprised them.

“The second group of rats navigated the maze much faster than the rats that did not receive omega-3 fatty acids,” Gomez-Pinilla said. “The DHA-deprived animals were slower, and their brains showed a decline in synaptic activity. Their brain cells had trouble signaling each other, disrupting the rats’ ability to think clearly and recall the route they’d learned six weeks earlier.”

 

If we could find volunteers who have been vetted to meet the criteria for objectivity, they could be placed in a maze that would allow them to recreate their journey after having been baselined.  Baseline would establish what their natural tendencies are in making political choices.  After ingesting abnormal levels of high fructose additives we would then run them back through the maze and see if their choices contradicted their earlier natural tendencies and wound up putting them more in harms way than they were before.

It would be interesting to see if those moderates and independents who voted for change in 2008 after the free market collapse of the banks would either continue to vote for such change or would instead revisit those policies that put many out of a job as well as on the streets after losing their homes from predatory lending practices by powerful financial interests.  In other words, would their memories fail to remind them of what put their lives in such duress in such a short period.

Now clearly many of us who voted for change in 2008 didn’t get a lot of what we thought we were voting for but we also understood that we were denying the status quo policies that preceded the Obama administration a platform to continue its ruination on the lives of the American middle class.  We also understood later that putting Tea Party-types in office in 2010 would not put us on the right path to regain those social and economic advantages we have been loosing for the last 30 years.  Sadly though, many we voted with in unison for these changes back in 2008 became convinced that their natural tendencies were erroneous and made that leap in 2010.

Are some being duped to believe that we can recapture an America that no longer exists?

 

Furthermore, it’s clear to most of us who still insist on change that promotes fairness and a level playing field in the job market that there are those who would deceive us and pretend that our fortunes lie with them rather than smarter choices to effect corrective change in government.  Groups like Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity and former Bush confidant Karl Rove’s super Pac, American Crossroads GPS to name a few.  These are movements heavily funded by a handful of billionaires who want us to believe that they are us and we are them.

So might our consumptive habits had an effect on changes that Frank alluded to in his book, especially the one about why people tend to vote against their economic interests?

I’m just suspicious enough also to believe that If my hypotheses pans out, could there be a link between those who make the decision to use this high fructose additive and those corporate lobbyists who also support increased tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% while simultaneously supporting measures to cut spending in the public sector.   Knowing that the corporate special interests have failed to demonstrate that trickle down economics is anything but a failed political model, it seems this would be a strategically clever move for them to give them an edge this election year.  Stripping people’s memories of the Bush years and its failed policies is definitely something the neo-conservatives and their Republican partners in Congress would hope to achieve.

And for the record, lest anyone think I am suggesting that only moderates and Independents have had excessive cravings for high fructose sweeteners, I too have been guilty of making erroneous judgments.  But, since swearing off of many processed foods over the last few years, I am now better able to remember that the Democratic Party today is not much more than a watered-down version of its former self under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy .   I now have to take measure of a Party and their leaders who can’t manage to pass health care with a public option and substantial financial reform when they have control of both Houses of Congress and the White House.


Another @#%&*^#% RINO?

When running for political office, rule #1 is “Know Thy Constituents”.  In Red state Texas, where Denton County is, Republicans always garner between 55% and 60% of the vote, simply because they are the Republican candidate.  Those who cast votes do so as a protest vote aimed at the other party rather than as an affirmation of one’s “expertise” to seek a particular office.

All this being said, what has this candidate done to hurt her efforts with her choice of signs?  Hint:  In the spirit of Sesame Street, what pronoun of the top three here doesn’t go with the other two?



TeaParty mentalities, being as narrowly focused as they are, may get more transfixed on the name of the candidate rather than the fact that she is the declared “Republican” in this race.  The name “Michelle” evokes the image of President Obama’s wife and the candidate’s surname reminds them of a culture who TeaPartiers most despise, n’est pas?

And using only blue with no red?  What was she thinking?  She may have been acting on the impulse to reach out across the partisan political divide but at the very least she will be seen by the fringe element within the GOP as a RINO (Republican in name only)



Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 81 other followers