Truthsmack

The Longest Winter Hiatus in History

2007-07-20T18:28:00.000-04:00

It kind of stretched to about 8 months there, didn't it? I'll be getting back to The Peoples' Business soon, I expect. In the meantime, I took a quiz, and here's what I found out about myself:

Which Biological Molecule Are You?

You are an enzyme. You are powerful, dark, variable, and can change many things at your whim...even when they're not supposed to be changed. Bad you. You can be dangerous or wonderful; it's your choice.
Take this quiz!

Quizilla |
Join

| Make A Quiz | More Quizzes | Grab Code

Furman Professor Offers Lame Defense of Capitalism Gone Wild

2007-01-14T11:20:00.000-05:00

What can I say about this lame defense of Bob Nardelli and capitalist greed gone wild in general, except that it's absurd.

While I can appreciate Smythe's moral outrage on some level, the part that made me really angry was Smythe asking us to feel sorry for the poor CEO after he crashes and burns:

The CEO's future in the business world is rather bleak once the axe has fallen. Unlike professional sports, where the same coaches disappear and reappear with alarming regularity, CEOs are generally not rehired in any capacity by other firms. As such, compensation must be higher to encourage quality people to take on the risk.

Here's a quarter--call someone who cares.

Sure, he's not going to be getting another CEO job, but what Divine Authority decreed that the only alternative is to pay him enough so that he never has to work again if he fails? The CEO's "reward" for failing is that he and his family get to live indolent, useless lives on the mass of money they got from his CEO job? My goodness, sounds like something we should all aspire to! (Pardon the sarcasm.) Seriously, that is just so wrong, the stones should cry out.

Can't get a job in any capacity? You're telling me a failed CEO can't get a job at Wal-Mart? I would say that's exactly the right place for a failed CEO. Make him sell his fancy house. Make him sell his Bentley, and every other trapping of obscene wealth that he owns. Let his kids to go public schools, like most people's kids do. Let him remember what it's like to be a minimum-wage worker getting screwed financially while the CEO was drawing that obscene level of compensation. Remind the CEO how it feels to have to choose some months between eating and getting your car repaired. Remind him how it feels to have to split your blood pressure pills in half to make it through the month. Let him have to deal with sociopathic managers and apathetic coworkers--this time, from a position of utter powerlessness.

What is it conservatives are always telling us... "there are consequences for your actions, you have to take responsibility." Well, what is so damn special about a CEO, that he should be protected from the consequences of his actions? The rest of us lose our jobs, we end up at the Salvation Army!

There just aren't any valid reasons why someone like Nardelli should be protected from the consequences of his actions. Smythe can be morally outraged until until the cows come home, but what changes as a result? Talk is cheap. Nothing changes if people aren't willing to challenge or change the flawed assumptions that are the status quo.

Now for the good news!!

Allow me to offer in contrast the example of Jim Sinegal, the CEO of Costco. He has been called an "old school capitalist." CNN Money reports that Sinegal earns $450,000/year in basic salary and bonus. The rest of his compensation is tied to the company's performance. Costco has never reported a negative monthly same-store sales result. Sinegal has rejected bonuses when he felt the company "hadn't performed up to our standards." Costco also pays 92.5% of its employees healthcare costs--unheard of in this day and age. Sinegal believes that "if you hire good people and pay them a fair wage, then good things will happen for the company". Well said, Jim!

Here are the references for my statements and quotes above; you can of course Google "Costco Jim Sinegal" for more if you're interested:

CNN Money article

Time magazine article

New York Times article

Personally, I'm thrilled that we're getting a Costco in Greenville. Too bad it'll be on Woodruff Road, but when I want or need to do that type of shopping, I certainly want to support a more ethical capitalism than what the craven Ferengi Nardellis of this world have to offer.

Winter Hiatus

2006-11-24T10:46:00.000-05:00

I've decided to take some time to refresh and regroup, mentally and spiritually. I expect to begin blogging again after the new year. In the meantime, I hope you'll visit a very interesting blog I found recently.

See No Evil: The Blinding of America

For the urgent struggle now is not that of liberal values against conservative values, but of those who really care about goodness against those who only pretend to.

And visit OpEdNews.com for some superb liberal commentary.

The Latest Gems from Alain's Newsletter

2006-11-17T23:06:00.000-05:00

Alain's Newsletter from a couple of days ago featured a couple of particularly pertinent articles that gave me the opportunity to do some liberal framing on behalf of the home team. :-)

First off: A Culture of Corruption Destroys Careers--Except for Democrats.

Another article authored by John "Lollipop." I've mentioned him before. Anyway, the title of the article is pretty self-explanatory.

My response:

Subject: You Really, Truly, Honestly, Do Not Get It???

Well, let me explain, since you folks are apparently too blinded by your own self-righteousness to figure it out on your own.

The one thing Americans hate more than corruption is hypocrisy.

The reason you don’t get a pass on your bad behavior is that you’re not merely corrupt to the bone, but you are ALSO big, fat hypocrites.

How about you go crawl into your respective corners and suck your thumbs for a while.

How about you take some personal responsibility for your actions. It’s your own fault, so just deal with it, you big fat whiny babies.

And take some time to contemplate the fact that Americans still LOVE Bill Clinton, in spite of the fact that he’s a skirt chaser and an admitted adulterer.

P.S. "Speaker of the House Pelosi" :-DDD

The second article was: A President's Betrayal of God, Family and Country, by Alisa Craddock, bemoaning the fact that Mr. Bush and his do-nothing Congress haven't really gotten much done on behalf of the Christian Right.

My response:

Subject: They Were Laughing at You Behind Your Backs the Whole Time

I’ve been waiting six years for you people to get your reality check. As you are now painfully aware, the Bush people were laughing at you behind their backs all along. They were just using you so they could have power for themselves.

Once again, it’s your own darn fault. So, you folks of the Christian Right though you could "play ball" with the Bush family? As you now see, you were way, way, out of your league. Now you will have to deal with the consequences of your own pride and arrogance.

Even in the face of your humiliation, the [lady's name who defended the President] of this world are still defending this dry-drunk President and his Administration. You people are the most pathetic sycophants in the history of the world. I have neither a jot nor a tiddle of sympathy for any of you.

Ahhh, that was very satisfying.

Zombie-like, "War on Christmas" Resurrected Again for 2006

2006-11-17T22:52:00.000-05:00

The American Family Association has taken Best Buy to task for their choosing to stick with "Happy Holidays" this year instead of letting the Christian Right bully them into saying "Merry Christmas."

See if you get the disconnect here, as presented in the AFA's action alert (which I received by email on Wednesday):

Dawn Bryant, a spokeswoman at Best Buy Co. Inc., says their advertising will not be using the term "Merry Christmas." "We are going to continue to use the term holiday because there are several holidays throughout that time period, and we certainly need to be respectful of all of them," Bryant said. Click here for reference article.

While many other retailers have decided to begin reusing "Merry Christmas", Best Buy will not be among them. Best Buy considers the use of Merry Christmas to be disrespectful.

Best Buy states they want to be respectful to everyone by using a more generic word (and indeed "holidays" means "holy days") that covers all the seasonal holidays; but somehow, the AFA translates that into disrespect. Did I miss something?

I had to go to Wal-Mart today. Target doesn't sell L'eggs knee highs anymore, and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay $2.50 for a pair of knee highs I'll probably put a run in the same day. Hubby and I were recently talking about what we would do if a greeter or other store employee said "Merry Christmas" to us on our way in or out. LOL.

The short answer will be, "I'm agnostic." The long answer will be, "I'm a witch, we celebrate the winter solstice... I want to speak to the manager!" If I'm in a bad mood that day (which thankfully doesn't happen often), it'll just be "f**k off."
<;}>

Well, That Didn't Take Long...

2006-11-09T21:46:00.000-05:00

Conservative propaganda handlers are already telling their sheeple what to think about Tuesday's elections. Here's an overview for your reading... uh, well I'm not sure I'd call it "pleasure"... but if you're like me, you might get a laugh out of it. LOL.

* Rev. Lou Sheldon over at the Traditional Values Coalition is happy that no one's gotten killed over the election results [yet]: "Tuesday our Congressional leadership changed, but our lives and our government are still intact."

Well, you know what they say about cockroaches--if you see one, that means there's 200 more hiding in the walls. I live in an old, unrestored Craftsman home, so I get that, totally. I have the bills from the Orkin man to prove it. Remember, for every Eric Rudolph, there are a bunch of wannabes looking to earn their way into heaven with a "righteous kill."

Alain's Newsletter informs us that "Somewhere in a Cave, Osama Bin Laden is Celebrating." Article author John W. Lillpop (sounds kind of like "Lollipop", but who would take John Lollipop seriously)? Anyway, Lillpop informs us that Osama is a devotee of CNN, and that with the exception of Wolf Blitzer, CNN is "unfair and unbalanced." Lillpop also claims that "John Zogby [of Zogby poll fame] reportedly sent text messages to Osama every time a race was decided, and gave OBL a personal live call once the Democrats achieved majority status in the U.S. House." He also says that Osama BL sent a congratulatory letter to Nancy Pelosi.

I'm not making this up, I swear!

OK, I realized by the end of the article that this is probably an attempt at satire... but sorry, even in satire mode, this Lollipop guy is still, apparently, crazy as a bedbug. Other bizarre or downright wingnutty items provided courtesy of Alain include A Divided Nation Without God (couldn't happen too soon for me) and Did Liberals Lie About Weapons of Mass Destruction? ROTFLMAO!! *Liberals* lied about WMD??? That's rich. Yeah, maybe that happened while Republicans were busy shutting liberals out of Congressional affairs. How about instead, we ask Colin Powell.

Under Alain's aegis, writer David B. Thompson says that politicians are "too nice"-- and the fact that they're "too nice" means they're unsuitable for office. He goes on to talk about how Americans are just stupid and how we need the Bible to tell us how to run our government.

Shoot, if Tom DeLay is "nice," I hate to see what conservative Republicans have in store for us next! I'm guessing that up next are The Antichrist and The False Prophet.

(Is Dick Cheney the Antichrist?? Nobody, unless you've made a deal with the devil, has four heart attacks and lives to tell about it.)

Jerk.

Now that some of the worst conservative crackpots lost their seats in Congress yesterday, RightMarch.com is worried about the remaining RINO's in Congress. Having finally grokked their actual irrelevance, these Christian conservatives have decided to stubbornly proceed as if nothing has changed. They are asking their supporters to "FLOOD all of these legislators with faxes RIGHT AWAY. They MUST KNOW that you want CHANGE in the GOP, and not the same old "business as usual" of the past. It is CRITICAL that you ACT TODAY! If we can FLOOD the offices of these Congressmen with HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of faxes, demanding that they POSTPONE the leadership elections, we CAN finally get the GOP back on track with true conservative values, instead of the compromised party we've seen for the last number of years. We need YOUR help. Send your Blast Faxes to EVERY SINGLE U.S. REPRESENTATIVE AT ONCE, NOW:

[and they provide a link to go do it]

NOTE: For ONLY $49.00 - about what it would cost you in time and telephone charges - you can send Blast Faxes to ALL 232 current GOP House members AT ONCE. The vote is scheduled quickly, so TIME IS SHORT! Don't let a bunch of defeated "RINOs" simply rubberstamp the leadership that contributed to the defeat of so many of their colleagues - Send YOUR Blast Faxes NOW!"

Now that's what I call message discipline! Somebody call Ron Popeil.

(And NOW!!! send your Blast Faxes NOW!!!)

SC Elections Went About as Expected

2006-11-08T20:34:00.000-05:00

I had hoped for ;->, but not expected, a Democratic revolution in SC. Oh, well. View the Greenville county election results here.

By my estimation, a percentage of people in this state are stupid as s**t. I'm talking about stupid people who move and don't change their addresses at the voter registration office or on their drivers licenses; people who pitch a fit at the poll for a problem that is their own fault; people who show up to vote even though they have no clue what's going on; people under 50 years of age who just can't seem to figure out how to vote on a touch screen.

In Arizona, however! Christian Right F***s Itself in the Ass on Gay Marriage Ban! This issue was listed as Proposition 107 on the Arizona ballot; AZcentral.com is reporting that the ban failed, with 51.4% of voters against the ban vs. 48.6% of voters in favor of the ban.

And speaking of people f***ing themselves in the ass in Arizona... [toothy grin] some of y'all who've lived in Greenville a long time may remember J.D. Hayworth, who whas a fat, bloviating blowhard of a sportscaster here in Greenville on WYFF for a time during the 1980's. [grin] Hayworth later moved to Arizona, lost weight, got married/had kids, and went into politics, serving Arizona's District 5 in the U.S. House of Representatives. AZCentral reports that Hayworth lost his Congressional seat to Democratic challenger Harry Mitchell.

The City of Greenville's smoking ban has been a hot topic for a few weeks now. Arizona voted on a statewide smoking ban for restaurants and bars (Proposition 201); Arizona voters passed the ban, 54.2% voting for it, 45.8% voting against it.

Sean Hannity is trying to decide whether he wants to eat the foot that's sticking out of his mouth today, or remove it and help himself to some humble pie instead.

Speaker of the House Ms. Nancy Pelosi :-) (or, 3rd-in-line-for-the-Presidency Ms. Nancy Pelosi, if you prefer) is wasting no time applying herself to conducting the peoples' business. Way to go. :-)))

Take a Stand for Liberty and Justice

2006-11-04T10:44:00.000-05:00

As a heterosexual, happily married woman, I'm voting a strong NO on the so-called "Gay Marriage Amendment" that will be on Tuesday's ballot--and I hope you will, too.

Here is the text of the Amendment on record with the SC State House.

My reasons:

1) The Church--anyone's church--has no business inserting itself into the bedrooms of consenting adults. If you don't like homosexual sex, don't have homosexual sex yourself--but don't tell other adults they can't have it, either. It's not your business, it's not your right, it's not your responsibility to do that. Deal with it.

2) The amendment affects the rights of adult *heterosexuals* to enter into the domestic partnerships of their choice. The most onerous result of this is that children born of non-religiously approved unions may be denied insurance benefits as a result. The state should not be backdoor-forcing the parents of children in this state to get married just so the Christians in this state can feel religiously vindicated.

3) The Amendment affects private business owners' right to offer whatever benefits they choose to their employees.

4) The Christian Church should not become the de facto governing body which regulates marriage in our state. In case you haven't noticed lately, there are quite a few post-Christians and non-Christians living in this state.

5) The Amendment is a blatant example of how the Christian Right engages in "judicial activism"--at the same time they are screaming about liberals doing the same thing. THE HYPOCRISY NEEDS TO STOP.

6) And the most important reason to vote NO: I really, really want to write a blog post on Wednesday 11/8 entitled Christian Right F***s Itself In the Ass on Gay Marriage Bill.

Please take a stand on Tuesday for liberty and justice--vote NO on Amendment 1.

Does the Traditional Values Coalition Have a Sense of Humor?

2006-11-03T16:13:00.000-05:00

In light of the recently uncovered gay sex-and-meth scandal concerning the politically involved Christian Right pastor Ted Haggard, I have to ask: is this a double entendre?

This Mike Jones fellow seems to know how Ted Haggard's "member" voted. <;->

Anyway, to answer my own question: No. I don't think the leaders of the TVC have a sense of humor. I doubt any group of aging white males could be any more dour and humorless than the TVC.

Claiming the United States of America for Jehovah is serious, important work, after all.

Hyperbole Watch--Alain's Newsletter

2006-10-21T11:32:00.000-04:00

I've received this e-flash from Alain's Newsletter dated 10/21/06. Alain's Newsletter takes a militant fundamentalist Christian approach to political issues.

The item:

>>>Sexual orientation is flexible, right?

Marriage - I want to marry three men, six women, four children (ages ranging from seven to ten), two dogs and a mule. And I want insurance and benefits for all of them. You do not like it, hate crime!!! Go to jail, get fined.

Let me say first that even as a self-confessed liberal, I also have many libertarian sympathies; thus I want to note that I often respectfully differ with some of my liberal counterparts about the size and scope of government, but not in this case. I hope you will take this into consideration as I address Alain's hyperbole.

What Alain (and who is this mysterious Alain fellow, anyway?) has overlooked in his headlong plunge down the slippery slope is that we in America require people to give informed consent prior to entering into a marriage (or marriage-type relationship). I was asked "do you take this man to be your lawful wedded husband" at my marriage ceremony--weren't you?? (For males at this time, "woman" and "wife" are of course the operative words.)

We should keep that requirement in place.

We also have laws on the books which address potential sexual contact with minors. The reason we have those laws is that We The People believe--and rightly so--that children aren't mature enough to physically accommodate or emotionally cope with sexual relationships, and there are firm scientific foundations for these premises. Thus, we deem children *legally* incapable of giving informed consent to participate in such relationships and give children legal protection. Our American laws which make it a criminal offense for adults to have sexual contact with minors are GOOD LAWS which should remain firmly in place, and should even be strengthened wherever possible.

IMO, the same types of laws that protect children from predatory sexual practices should also apply to non-human creatures. Beings of another species are simply not capable of granting informed consent to such relationships.

I would like to point out to Alain that the Bible places no prohibition on the age limit at which a male may have sexual contact with a female. Thus, Alain, why aren't you standing up to make *heterosexual* pedophilia legal?? Because you know it's wrong. Even though the Bible doesn't say it's wrong, other sources inform you that it's wrong, and you choose (thankfully) to believe them. But since you don't use the Bible as *your* sole source of legal authority, why do you favor forcing others to do so?

In another example, the Bible does not speak out against polygamy until New Testament times; thus, we have some fundamentalist Mormons giving the Old Testament authority in that area of their lives. Christians do this, too, in other matters (especially sexual matters).

While Christian conservatives are determined to have the Bible be the sole source of American laws, the reader will note that the Bible is sorely lacking in actual rhetoric which offers women--half the population!--protection from predatory sexual practices.

We need to grow up as a species and take responsibility for the laws we make. We need to stop passing the buck to an absent god.

As so many of us have seen, that "god" is not the fair and just being that so many of his followers make him out to be.

Christian Right Demands Access to Private School Kids

2006-10-16T19:50:00.000-04:00

Today, RightMarch.com sent me an email about how troubled they are that a teacher at a high school in Pennsylvania refused to give anti-choice protesters access to students during a social sciences class field trip to a Planned Parenthood office.

Says RightMarch:

More than a dozen teenagers from the Solebury School in New Hope, PA, were bused to the local Planned Parenthood clinic where they spent several hours inside the clinic, and even donned the bright orange vests worn by pro-abortion "escorts" who meet and accompany women coming for abortions.

The email went on to rail against liberals in general and they even went to the extent of asking their readers to contact the school and complain about the anti-choice protesters not being given access to the children!

The Solebury School is a secular, private, college-prep school located in New Hope, PA. That's in Bucks County, PA, a wealthy exurb of Philadelphia that voted a Democratic majority (51% vs. 48%) in the 2004 presidential election.

The social sciences teacher supervising the field trip refused to give the anti-choice protesters access to the students, whereupon RightMarch complains that kids "were only allowed to hear one side of the story."

Something that immediately caught my eye is how RightMarch uses a propagandistic term--"bused"--to describe how the students were transported to the clinic. Not only does their particular use of the term carry negative civil rights connotations to play on the emotions of their conservative readers, it also seems almost to suggest that the students were taken there against their will.

(I guess it didn't occur to them that here in Greenville, for example, Bob Jones students get "bused" to the mall and various other places on a regular basis.)

If field trips are still the same as when I was growing up in the '70s, your parents had to be advised about what the field trip would consist of, then sign a permission slip and return it to the school. I would surmise that encounters with anti-choice protesters were not authorized by the parents as being part of the field trip. If a minor was physically injured or emotionally damaged as a result of the unauthorized encounter with the anti-choice protesters, the school and the teacher could have been exposed to legal liability. So the teacher did the right thing by not allowing the anti-choice protesters to have unauthorized access to the kids that were under his supervision.

To add insult to injury, RightMarch has called on its supporters to contact the school and bombard them with complaints about the teacher not allowing the anti-choice protesters to have access to the kids. They're also encouraging their supporters to send "Letters to the Editor" to newspapers papers all across the US protesting their lack of access to the schoolkids.

RightMarch: We've set up our website so that you can send your own personal comment to Solebury School Headmaster John Brown, AND to teacher Jason Gordon, regarding this issue. You can even copy your letter to the editor of the local newspaper. (We've deliberately left the letter blank, so that you can put your OWN WORDS into your demand for equal rights for conservatives at school.) Click below NOW to send your FREE message -- be courteous, no bad language please:

("No bad language please"? I thought these were Christians! LOL.)

The big lie here, the prideful presumption, is RightMarch's arrogant attitude of "entitlement"--thinking that by virtue of their own perceived holiness and perceived righteousness, they should have been given access, without the parents' knowledge, to students who attend a secular private school.

Dick in the Doghouse

2006-10-14T21:11:00.000-04:00

On 9/28/06, Focus on the Family's Citizen Link verbally flogged arch-conservative Dick Armey for the following (quoted from the Citizen Link e-update):

In the interview, Armey responded pointedly when Sager asked why he thought Christian conservatives seemed more powerful now than in the 1990s.

"To a large extent, because Dobson and his gang of thugs are real nasty bullies," Armey said. "I pray devoutly every day, but being a Christian is no excuse for being stupid. There's a high demagoguery coefficient to issues like prayer in schools. Demagoguery doesn't work unless it's dumb . . . These issues are easy for the intellectually lazy and can appeal to a large demographic."

Dick Armey said that?! LOL.

Jim Daly, the president of Focus on the Family Action[TM] responded:

"Values voters expect to hear such cruel insults from the Left," he said, "but not from a champion of family values, as Mr. Armey once claimed to be."

"Cruel insults from the Left?" Mr. Daly, you are a frickin' whiny baby. And can't you people even keep your story straight? Are liberals wimpy, spineless, and ineffectual, or are they cruel insult slingers, such that they have the immense power to "huwwt yur wittle feewings"??? Sorry, you folks on the Right DON'T get to have it both ways--pick one myth and stick to it. No flip-flopping! :-D

Anyway, back to Armey... the email goes on to paint James Dobson as a poor put-upon victim of Big Bully Dick, noting that he [Dobson] "takes the hits and bullets for all of us," Souder said. "[Dobson] becomes the easy punching bag. And when someone sees trends changing or they want to pick on somebody, by Dr. Dobson becoming a public figure and taking the lead, he will get the criticism, but he's really taking it for everybody."

(Why, how noble of you, Dr. Dobson! I will send you a check today, right away!)

Pete Winn, the author of this email update, then pulls an interesting manipulation out of his fundie bag of tricks: he insults Armey in a very specific manner, calling him "bitter." This one is familiar to quite a few of us post-Christians. Apparently, it seems that Armey is "just bitter" that Christian conservatives chose to support former Representative Steve Largent (R-OK) for a House leadership post, instead of Armey.

Winn then went to Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) for a quote. Coburn obliged, stating Armey has no business expressing such an opinion. This, in spite of the fact that the U.S. is still--at least ostensibly--a free country.

Winn then threw Terri Schiavo into the stew, offering the observation that "Coburn took special exception to comments Armey made accusing Dobson of supposedly pressuring Congress in 2005 to pass legislation trying to protect Terri Schiavo from being starved and dehydrated to death."

Coburn, a strong conservative lawmaker as well as a licensed physician, rejected the charge.

(Oh, my. Tom Coburn is SO credible. A senator AND a doctor! His mom must be pleased as punch. And surely a senator AND a doctor NEVER EVER lie or NEVER EVER act in his own self-interest. Why, he sounds almost godlike, doesn't he?) :-)

But elsewhere in the email, Coburn states, "Dr. Dobson has done more to advance the cause of moral excellence [his definition of it, anyway] than anybody I know in this country."

THEN, Coburn was quoted as saying, "Dr. Dobson didn't force anything to happen here," he said. "The fact is, men of conscience and women of conscience in the Senate felt this was a situation that ought to be addressed — and they took action."

I'm confused. Dobson apparently works hard to "advance the cause of moral excellence", but OTOH, Dobson "didn't force anything to happen here (in the Schiavo matter)."

It all happened by magic, of course.

************************************

A couple of recent and notable news items suggesting additional rifts on the Right, and about Republicans were losing their grip in Washington are these: a main story in Time magazine, and David Kuo speaking about how Bush's "Faith-Based Initiatives" were a total sham.

Nope, I don't have time for Michelle Malkin

2006-10-14T21:02:00.000-04:00

[Sigh]... there just wouldn't be enough time in the day for me to blog about Michelle Malkin, so here's a link to someone who's committed to that hazardous duty!

Malkin(s)Watch

Christian Group a "Front Group for Democrats"?

2006-10-14T18:57:00.000-04:00

On 9/26/06, Rev. Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition saw fit to inform me that I should watch out for some terrible wolves in sheep's clothing, the "Red Letter Christians" (RLCs).

Sheldon apparently deems it downright heretical that Christians should actually try to apply themselves to doing what Jesus said. That is absolutely priceless.

I actually don't care a whit about what the "Red Letter Christians" hope to achieve--what's really annoying about this item was Sheldon's assertion that the RLC's are "a front group for Democrats"... as if to suggest, in contrast, that the Traditional Values Coalition and other Christian political activist groups are not front groups for Republicans. ROTFLMAO!

Sheldon pronounces the RLCs to be "pseudo-evangelical" posers, and offers us his own personal definition of the word evangelical: "True Evangelicals believe that the Bible -- each word, each sentence -- is the Word of God. This is how you can tell the difference between these pseudo-evangelicals and true Evangelicals."

However, when I looked up the word evangelical, I actually found information that showing that Sheldon's personal definition is almost the exact oppositeof what the dictionary says the word means.

The only listed definition that I might argue cleaves to Sheldon's idea of what "evangelical" means is this one, and it was fourth in a list of four definitions: "marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause." (Courtesy WordNet.com... note, don't confuse it with WorldNet!)

What Sheldon calls an "evangelical," I call a "fundamentalist." In my personal experience, fundamentalists describe themselves as being the Christians who take the Bible completely literally--that is, "each word, each sentence [of the Bible] -- is the word of God." I have no argument with Sheldon there--I suspect he'd call a fundamentalist the same thing. But a fundamentalist and an evangelical are not the same thing, by dictionary definition. Rev. Sheldon needs to get himself in line with the dictionary. Words already do have established meanings, after all. (But oh, I forgot... to the fundamentalists among us, education is a "liberal" pursuit. Horrors!)

Clearly, Rev. Sheldon doesn't think liberal Christians are capable of being zealous for Christ, or sold out for Christ... but if you want to do what your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ says by paying special attention to the "red letter" parts of the Bible, doesn't that argue that the RLCs are *more* zealous *for Christ* than folks like Sheldon? What I've observed is that Christian fundamentalists are far more zealous about the *Old* Testament than they are about the New Testament. And if you're going to be a *Christian*--i.e., someone who follows *Christ*--it seems to me the RLCs, not the Lou Sheldons of this world, are the ones who've got it right!

Does Jehovah give you golden points if you're zealous for the wrong thing(s)??? I suspect not. If Sheldon really loves Jesus, he'd better fall in line behind the RLCs.

Christians have spent most of their time since the first century fighting with each other about who among themselves is for real and who is a fake. The last church I attended before leaving Christianity altogether in the mid-1990s was real big on that--they believed that if someone didn't belong to *their denomination*, those others weren't real Christians. And my last denomination was small--it had around 90,000 members worldwide, at the height of its popularity. (Well, Jesus did say--in red letters--that the way is narrow, didn't he?!)

Sheldon's assertion would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic and desperate.

But LOL, I welcome *anything* that gets conservative activist Christians to take their eyes off the political ball.

Ten Commandments Monument Issues

2006-10-14T18:14:00.000-04:00

Catching up... this item references an ACLJ e-newsflash that I received on 9/26/06, titled: Ban the Ten Commandments? What's Next?

The ACLJ has seen fit to warn me:

Your freedom to express your faith is under renewed attack by the ACLU.

Its apparent mission: to wipe any trace of religion off the face of government property and the public square in America.

The newsflash details several court cases that the ACLJ is working on right now pertaining to Ten Commandments monuments:

A Kentucky case, ACLU vs. Garrard County, KY: the Sixth Circuit Court says (according to ACLJ), "that in a similar (uncited) case last fall, the Sixth Circuit ruled in our favor. The court found in favor of our argument and noted that the ACLU's ''repeated reference to 'the separation of church and state''' was ''tiresome''... The Sixth Circuit Court determined, 'The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.'"

Well, that's just frickin' great. Some conservative activist judges find it "tiresome" to talk about church/state separation. This is appalling, incredibly arrogant, and frightening.

While the language of the First Amendment is not "demanding," (as, say, a toddler at the grocery store who wants a lollipop is "demanding")--the words seem pretty clear to me. And if we have a question about them, we can reference Thomas Jefferson's actual letter, written in 1801, to the Danbury Baptist Association--wherein Jefferson references the First Amendment to *support* his belief that the Constitution *does* "demand" a "wall of separation between church and state!

If I have to choose between the Sixth Circuit Court or Thomas Jefferson... uh, I'll take Jefferson.

The e-newsflash goes on to reference a couple of other Utah cases where New Age groups are either trying to get equal access for their monuments, or fighting against "sleight of hand" by Judeo-Christian interests trying to keep Ten Commandments monuments from going away.

I've been wondering something for quite a while: why don't we see Ten Commandments monuments on the front lawns of every Christian church in the United States? They could put up their monuments *there*, tons of people would see them as they drove by every day, and (though I would find the monuments annoying, personally) nobody could say a darn thing about it!

I guess the Christians in those churches are just too cheap to pay for the monuments themselves, out of pocket... but seemingly, in their view, it's all right to use our tax money for them.

That's just sooooo conservative, isn't it.

Air America Bankruptcy

2006-10-13T16:54:00.000-04:00

Well, I have a bad head cold this weekend, so I'm going to try to catch up on my blogging instead of going to Fall for Greenville. (Ugh.) I also have a funeral to attend this weekend. (Double ugh.)

This item about Air America Radio (AAR)--that they are filing bankruptcy--came onto my radar today and I want to say a little about it.

The only way we in Upstate SC could listen to AAR on a regular basis (those of us without satellite radio, I mean) is by streaming it to our computers. Once in a blue moon, I did so at night or on a weekend day, when I wasn't otherwise busy. I'd have liked very much to be able to listen to it over the airwaves during the workday--especially to hear the terrific Thom Hartmann.

Though I wasn't able to listen much, I'm familiar with a number of the folks whose shows AAR syndicated. And that's what AAR was, really--a network that, while having some of its own original programming, also syndicated a number of the already-popular liberal talk shows. Much of the *really high-quality* liberal content on Air America was, IMO, produced by others and was merely syndicated TO AAR. And that content will continue to air through other venues elsewhere, just as it always has. I'm talking about folks like Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller, the fantastic Mike Malloy (who is Georgia-based and who, LOL, actually *got himself fired* from AAR), Laura Flanders, and the aforementioned Thom Hartmann.

I certainly hope Rachel Maddow lands on her feet--she is reputed to be one of the best and brightest of the liberal talkers, even to the point of having caught the attention of the turdish Rush Limbaugh.

I will say right out, I'm one who doesn't like entertainers talking about politics, unless they have some "street cred." Bruce Springsteen is a pretty good example of an entertainer who does.

But to me, folks like Jerry Springer, Al Franken, Janeane Garofalo (and I have liked *all* her movies, let me say) ... they seemed more like conservatives' wet-dream caricatures of liberals... again, just my NSHO. Randi Rhodes is extremely well informed, and I commend her for that, but her style can be somewhat caricaturish also. I don't think we benefit from having comedy caricatures on liberal radio... we need "real people" (not the rich and the rarefied) being funny and talking about real problems and real solutions. People like me, actually. :-) LOL.

I read some of the blog entries at AAR about its bankruptcy, and clearly, some conservatives are elated about this. But I do owe thanks to a conservative blogger (The Random Yak) for helping me put into words a certain idea I've had about AAR for a long time.

The Yak calls AAR "a donation-based political campaign masquerading as an income-generating business." Though the rest of Yak's observations about AAR were either outright lies or garden-variety conservative tripe, that one phrase really helped me out.

I suspect AAR was an income-generating business masquerading as a liberal network. Even from the early days of AAR, there was so much focus on funding... obviously Soros (LOL, isn't he the only liberal financier around these days?) didn't think AAR was a good investment, and my observations about syndication above support that idea. Heck, *I* wouldn't underwrite someone doing *anything* if I thought they were just in it for the money... how stupid would that be?

Anyway, thanks for helping me out with that, Yak... sort of... ya big jerk. :-)

So, I'm not sorry to see AAR go away (if, in the end, that's what happens). I think it will free up some terrific talent and resources to go elsewhere and that really, this was needed.

I've Been Censored by the ACLJ

2006-09-30T18:26:00.000-04:00

An odd thing happened this week.

I stopped receiving e-mail updates from the conservative American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).

I've had quite a bit to say about them, after all, and none of it nice.

Coincidence?

I have at least five other ways and means of accessing their blast e-mails, though, so my commentary about the perfidy of the ACLJ will not cease. (I wanted to say "perfidity"... it rolls off the tongue so nicely... but that's not actually a word! LOL.)

Does the ACLJ actually pay people to troll the blogosphere looking for negative mentions of themselves? That's interesting.

I also think it's very interesting and terrific that I have caught their notice! My comments must be hitting some sensitive spots.

I will wear the ACLJ's attempt to censor me as a badge of honor.

Update 10/13/06: I have since received another email update from the ACLJ... it appears they just don't have much news to share lately. Just wanted to set the record straight.

Greenville News Obscures BJU Connection

2006-09-30T18:12:00.000-04:00

Does anyone wonder why Bob Jones University chose to get involved in the dedication of Greenville County's new Herdklotz Park? It's because the late Mr. Herdklotz was one of their own--a fact Ms. Davis failed to mention in this article.

This is not the first time the Greenville News has obscured the BJU connections in their articles.

In another fairly blatant example, recall last year's terrible ice storm. Reporter Ben Szobody (himself a BJU grad, if I have been correctly informed) secured a quote for one of the many article about the storm from a Mrs. Ruth Mulfinger, wherein Mrs. Mulfinger said "we're being so selfish" for being noisy about getting our lights and heat back on ASAP. What Szobody didn't say was that Mrs. Mulfinger, a retired BJU faculty member, lives on the BJU campus and had electricity the whole time because the campus has its own cogeneration plant. Mrs. Mulfinger wasn't rebuking herself in the remark, just the rest of us "reprobates" who dared to question authority. (That is how authoritarians stay "in business," after all--by quashing dissent.)

Conservatives love to repeat the myth of the "liberal media" while continually printing content in papers like The Greenville News that suggests otherwise.

I Found a Pill in All That Jam

2006-09-23T11:44:00.000-04:00

The title of this entry is a reference to this blog entry from a few days ago, when I was wondering why The Rabid Right was suddenly so righteously pushing for vote verification.

I think I've got it figured out: BAIT AND SWITCH. What's the difference between "vote" verification and "votER verification"? Not much, I believe, if you are a Republican fomenting strategy for the next election.

Of course everyone wants every *vote* counted, and a paper trail for every vote--that's VOTE verification.

What I am less certain about is who the Rabid Right thinks is voting illegally, so as to also be wanting votER verification.

I hope the two issues will not become confused in peoples' minds, but I fear they will.

Personally, I am of the opinion that these days, Republicans will have a *harder* time winning elections that are absolutely free, fair and verifiable. For that reason, I am *theoretically* in favor of votER verification WITH a couple caveats: the IDs must be free of charge (or the government pays to get them for those under a certain income level), and *every effort* must be made to ensure that the elderly, and those who otherwise might be disenfranchised, have an opportunity to *easily* secure the required ID.

The problem is, I don't think that is going to happen; the GOP has some history of issuing mandates that they aren't willing to fund. Maybe they'd go back later and fund it, maybe not--but the question itself is troubling.

I have a personal example to share.

My maternal grandmother will be 100 years old next month. She DOES NOT HAVE a photo ID.

In fact, she doesn't even have a birth certificate.

The only record we've (the family) has *ever* had of Grandmother's birth is a notation in an old family Bible (and her word on it, of course. ;>). But it has, until now, always been good enough to get her a driver's license, a social security card, a voter registration card, etc.

She also uses a walker (or a cane, depending on circumstances) to get around.

Should my grandmother be denied the opportunity to vote, if she so chooses, just because she can't produce a *photo* ID???

Local Developer Tells Lie That Will Help Line His Own Pockets

2006-09-23T10:18:00.000-04:00

This week, a blatant example of a local Greenville resident using conservative propaganda to further his own self-interest came to my attention.

Greenville developer Keith Schemm was given some editorial space in The Greenville News this week, which he used to post a sly editorial concerning a local development controversy concerning the fate of a parcel of land attached to the Graceland East cemetery at the corner of Woodruff Rd. and Hwy. 14 in Greenville County. Schemm's development plan has drawn some well organized opposition from a group which has been formed to give citizens a voice in area development plans, calling themselves the Greenville Residents Coalition.

Read the editorial here, then use your back button to return here.

I wanted to confirm whether or not Schemm's statement about the ACLU was correct, so I emailed the GRC to ask for a statement about Schemm's editorial. I received the following prompt reply from the GRC:

{Truthsmack) -

The ACLU has no involvement in the Greenville Residents Coalition.

One of our members also has an affiliation with the ACLU but his membership and involvement with our organization is strictly on a personal basis. I cannot guess at Mr.. Shemm's [sic] motivation for implying otherwise.

Many of our members have personal affiliations with other social, religeous or fraternal groups without those groups having any involvement with the Greenville Residents Coalition.

Jerry Wallens

Let me state for the record: I have no intrinsic quarrel with the idea of "development." What I *do* think is that there should be some community-based standards for *how* we develop. Having a wonderful, livable, community is not going to happen by itself. It will only happen if "we the people" lend our voices to the process. It is not only our right--it is our RESPONSIBILITY.

HOW DARE someone like Schemm suggest that we who live here and pay taxes here should have no say in what happens here.

The problem with this editorial is that Keith Schemm has put out a propagandistic call to conservatives to help him get his own way. In referencing the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), he is trying to provoke conservatives by using what's called "loaded language" (a hallmark of cults), deceitfully suggesting that "liberals" are to blame for the fact that he can't do as he pleases.

The ACLU has long been a target for conservatives to demonize. But does being a member of the ACLU mean you forfeit your rights as a private citizen to have a say about what happens in your own community? Of course not!! What happens if the GRC member in question belongs to the (so-called) Traditional Values Coalition instead of the ACLU? Should I then assume that the Christian Right, or all conservatives, are behind "it" (whatever the issue at hand may be)?

The fact that fundamentalist Southside Fellowship (used to be Southside Baptist Church, formerly located on Augusta Rd.) is right across the street from the parcel in question might influence my thinking on this particular controversy--but since I haven't investigated this angle at all, it would be silly for me to make any assumptions about it. My point is, why assume, why write nasty editorials about it, when you can uncover the facts for yourself? Schemm, it appears, preferred to get nasty because the truth didn't serve his self-interest.

Mike Cubelo (whom I have never met or communicated with, as of today's date) is simply a private citizen working with other private citizens--no harm, no foul. If Cubelo or anyone else has done a good job organizing the opposition to disrespectful, greedy developers, he should be commended for that, not castigated.

Schemm apparently has a bad case of "sour grapes." He also seems to consider conservatives to be zombies who can be manipulated by cult fear words and tactics (and if they actually are, they shouldn't be in positions of power where their insanity might infect others). If I was still a Christian and a conservative, I would, frankly, be insulted by Schemm's approach.

If you visit the GRC's website, they specify that the organizations involved with them, beyond individual private citizens, are "grass roots smart growth" organizations (i.e., NOT the ACLU). If anyone would like to know the names of the groups that *are* involved in the GRC's efforts, I suggest you get off your lazy, ignorant asses, contact the GRC directly, and ASK.

Cubelo, the GRC member that is also associated with the ACLU and was singled out in Schemm's editorial, was given space to write a rebuttal. You can read Cubelo's rebuttal here.

Cubelo is apparently more polite than I am.

A Different Angle on Tax Vouchers for Education

2006-09-18T19:05:00.000-04:00

This is a slight departure from my raison d'etre, but it is worth a look:

Doug Wrenn of the Magic City Morning Star offers an intelligent conservative critique of the "School Choice" tax voucher scheme.

I've actually used this exact same argument myself--i.e., that vouchers are an "entitlement"--in correspondence with one of our supposedly conservative local government officials who shot off his big mouth with an opinion piece written for GSA Business about the issue.

And be sure to check out The Beat this week--it will feature an investigative piece by James Shannon about Republican candidate for SC state Superintendent of Education, Karen Floyd.

Snippy Christians Peeved at Loudmouth Dyke

2006-09-15T19:43:00.000-04:00

This interesting item came through today courtesy of the American Family Association (AFA) concerning actress Rosie O'Donnell:

ABC's Rosie O'Donnell told a nationwide audience this week that "radical Christians" are the same as radical Muslims who piloted hijacked jetliners into New York's Twin Towers, who chop off the heads of individuals and who bomb innocent children in suicide attacks. O'Donnell made her comments as host of ABC's "The View."

Well. The fact is, radical extremist groups of all types *do* share some common characteristics:

* They are authoritarian, with leadership at the top of a pyramid-like
organizational structure.
* They follow a charismatic leader (or leaders, within the pyramid).
* They deceive people as they are recruiting them or trying to raise funds from them.
* They isolate their followers psychologically (and sometimes physically).
* They use coercive techniques to maintain control over others, such as:
--milieu control (e.g., communication and physical environment)
--mystical manipulation (e.g., "God is in control," "God allowed
it to happen").
--Demand for purity--the long skirts, pantyhose and loose clothing I was required to wear as a Bob Jones student are just a milder version of the burqa. Many Muslim women wear the hejab (head scarf/covering); so do the Amish and the Mennonites. When I was a student at Bob Jones, we women were required to wear hats to attend the Sunday service.
--Confession (true of Christianity--see James 5:16, among others; I don't know enough about radical Islam to say whether this is a component of their teachings).
--Sacred science--the group believes that *their* ideology--and ONLY their idology--is "the ultimate moral vision for the ordering of human existence"
--Loading the language: Here is one page of a glossary of "loaded language" specific to the last church I belonged to. It was compiled by other former members of the same group.
--Doctrine over person--rules are rules, no exceptions.
--Dispensing of existence--"if you leave the [our] church, you're leaving God." "They're just sinners going to hell anyway."

(Source: REFOCUS website, http://www.refocus.org )

But I guess the AFA was afraid too many people would agree with Rosie. They wouldn't leave Rosie's words to stand on their own, for the hearer or reader to decide for him/herself about. They felt compelled to twist Rosie's words, by stating later in the e-alert:

O'Donnell was saying there is no difference between the radical Muslims who kill in the name of Allah and Bible-believing Christians who follow the teachings of Jesus.

Uhhhh... that's NOT what Rosie said. Note the false premise the AFA tries to pass off as truth in their twisted version of reality:

Muslims KILL... Christians FOLLOW.

It is true that Muslims have "killed"--but so have Christians. It is true that Christians "follow"--but so do Muslims.

Some Christians, as well as some Muslims, clearly believe it is a sacred duty to "kill the infidel."

I don't have a particular bias either toward or against Rosie. I don't care if she's gay--what consenting adults do with each other in their bedrooms is not my business. I work for a living, so I haven't usually been home to tune in to any of the programs she's been on. But the fact is, Rosie is correct.

In addition to the linked information above regarding Christian violence perpetrated upon pro-choice workers, I also think of the Spanish Inquisition (though Protestants blame Catholics for this). So-called "witches" burned at the stake--not to mention, under the most flimsy of pretenses. The Crusades. Chapter upon chapter of the Old Testament (I've read it, you see... many, many times over the years). In one of the most disturbing of these Old Testament stories, a man allows his concubine to be raped unto death, then cuts up her body sends the 12 dismembered pieces of it around to the 12 tribes of Israel (Book of Judges, chapters 19-20).

How about televangelist Jerry Falwell blaming a broad swath of non-Christians for the 9/11 attacks. Or televangelist Pat Robertson calling for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, the democratically elected president of Venezuela. Conservative "talking head" Ann Coulter calling for the death of pretty much anyone who doesn't agree with her (most lately, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island). Fred Phelps and his "God Hates Fags" group protesting military funerals, approving the deaths of American soldiers. I could go on and on.

PLEASE, fundies--STOP trying to convince the rest of us that your shit don't stink.

I know better.

RightMarch.com Pushes for Vote Verification

2006-09-14T20:57:00.000-04:00

Hey, wait a minute! I thought that was one of "our" issues! Count every vote!! A position now being encouraged by Christian Rightists:

(Item received today from Christian Response [CR]):

This "Christian Response" e-Alert is a special message from RightMarch.com:

ALERT: You know how you hate it when liberals claim the election was stolen? The fact is, if we had paper trails, we wouldn't have to deal with that incessant whining any more.

Hah. If we had paper trails, John Kerry might be president today... and it would be conservatives doing the "incessant whining." And I wouldn't feel a whit sorry for them, either.

Isn't the integrity of the vote one of the foundations of democracy? I can only gather that some on the Rabid Right have seen something within their ranks that has deeply troubled them, and only NOW do they jump on the bandwagon for clean elections. Well. Better late than never.

But I can't help but be suspicious. They go on to say that Bob Barr is involved in the effort... though Big Bob and I are miles apart on some of our ideas, I appreciate that he seems to value democracy above theocracy. So kudos, Bob.

Other snippets from the email...

Unfortunately, this [America's] well-funded fascination with electronic voting machines has proceeded with virtually NO comprehensive study or development of national standards to ensure the integrity of the machines and how they're utilized. Each state sets its own standards -- or doesn't -- and follows its own rules in letting contracts for the machines.

Wow, they must really mean it... they even "talk dirty" to business conservatives in an attempt to get them on board!

As anyone in the business world knows, anything of value should be auditable. Votes are valuable, and each voter should have the knowledge -- and the confidence -- that his or her vote was recorded and counted as intended. Now we can work to make that happen.

The two bills referenced in the email are the previous incarnation (H.R. 2229) and H.R. 550 (the current favored version). CR notes that there is solid bipartisan response for the bill.

Wow. Now, where is the pill in all this jam?

ACLJ: Requests Mo' Money for "Cross" Fight

2006-09-13T21:30:00.000-04:00

In a email newsflash dated 9/12/06, the ACLJ opined that ..."The ACLU winning this case [concerning the memorial cross on Mt. Soledad in San Diego] could mean that no war memorials across our country would be safe from their grip - not even Arlington Cemetery in Washington, D.C."

Hmmmmmmm. Interesting that they should allude to dead soldiers.

ACLJ--meet Roberta Stewart.

Sgt. Patrick D. Stewart (deceased) and his wife, Roberta Stewart, are of the Wiccan faith. Patrick, a decorated veteran who served in Korea and Operation Desert Storm, died in Afghanistan in 2005 when his helicopter was shot down by unfriendlies.

The problem: the U.S. Department of Veterans' Affairs refuses to put a pentacle, one of the symbols of their faith, on Sgt. Stewart's tombstone in Nevada.

Now, that sounds like religious discrimination to me. (The Lady Liberty League is supporting and providing a great deal of news about Roberta Stewart's plight.)

And where is the ACLJ? Pimping dire threats around the fundamentalist Christian community to try to scare them into sending Jay Sekulow some more money.

Lord have mercy.

I do understand where some Christians might be coming from re. the Mount Soledad Cross. To many of them, I think a cross is just the most solemn and reverent symbol they can think of, so that is why it is used to mark occasions and ideas that are solemn and reverent. But America just *isn't* a Christian nation. Sorry. I learned that it is incorrect to conflate the "Founding Fathers" with the "Puritan Fathers." Charles II rescinded the Massachusetts Bay Colony's original charter in 1684. The Puritans' "City on a Hill" experiment failed. Sorry (again). This is a very interesting subject of study for those who are interested. I recommend The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America by Frank Lambert. It's worth every penny, IMO.

But what the "Founding Fathers" set up still works today--that is, when the Christian fundamentalists (and self-interested parties like the ACLJ) aren't trying to steal away everyone else's rights.

Meanwhile, Roberta Stewart can't get justice on behalf of her dead husband, who served his country honorably, here in these United States of America. Shameful.

[Technorati Profile]

2006-09-10T16:55:00.000-04:00

Technorati Profile

Some Say ACLJ's Sekulow Lives "like Louis XIV."

2006-09-10T15:47:00.000-04:00

Here is some interesting background information on the ACLJ's Jay Sekulow, courtesy of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

To David Brock - Thanks for the Inspiration

2006-09-09T23:29:00.000-04:00

A "comment" that I submitted to Media Matters today.

*****************************

"Hey, y'all!" from Greenville, SC!

I'm a former conservative (a "Bob Jones conservative," no less) who, like David Brock, saw the light about the Right. Thought you would like to know that due to David's inspiring example (I've also read his autobiography, a fascinating read!) I've recently begun blogging to shine a light on conservative propaganda myself.

I became aware of the content of some of the email news flashes being sent out from conservative organizations, items that keep some of my coworkers riled up about various conservative talking points. So I signed up for some of these newsletters myself and my new blog focuses on commenting about the items.

I'm specifically addressing propaganda items coming out of organizations such as Jay Sekulow's ACLJ, the American Family Association (AFA), Alain's List, and others. Keep up the good work! I hope you'll come to South Carolina soon, similarly as you've done in Colorado. I continue to live in Greenville, SC, where I am discovering we actually have a vibrant liberal community!

Best regards,
[Truthsmack]
http://truthsmack.blogspot.com

ACLJ Lies by Omission re. the "God Hates Fags" Group

2006-09-09T20:42:00.000-04:00

The ACLJ sent out an email (9/6/06), bragging about how they recently put the smackdown on some "antiwar" protestors who had plans to disrupt the funeral of a Navy SEAL in Oregon.

The ACLJ provided many details in their missive about this incident... except the actual identity of the "antiwar group" they were opposing. Well, that group turned out to be the notorious Christian Fundamentalist Fred Phelps group, the "God Hates Fags" folks from Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas.

Here's a brief article that identifies Fred Phelps' people as being the ones who planned to disrupt the funeral of Navy SEAL Marc Lee.

(One of my cousins is a Navy SEAL, btw. We joke within the family that he became a SEAL because he "likes to blow things up.")

I find it very strange that the ACLJ would not identify the group actually protesting the funerals.

My take: I believe the ACLJ's operatives assumed their readers would believe the protesters were of the liberal persuasion, and that the ACLJ is also aware that there might be some mixed emotions in the conservative community about directing criticism toward the Westboro Baptist group.

Sekulow's ACLJ appears to have "lied by omission," hoping to foment anger toward liberals, when liberals have nothing to do with this at all--indeed, I don't know of even one liberal who doesn't *despise* the Westboro Baptist group. Let's just make that clear for anyone who's been living under a rock these past 5-6 years.

"Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand."--Matthew 12:25

Clearly, intellectually dishonesty is what passes for "truth" these days on the Right.

The ACLJ organization seems to harbor a special hatred toward the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). But I also feel fairly confident that Sekulow and his conservative gang-bangers had no problem whatsoever with the ACLU when it went to bat for obnoxious conservative radio personality Rush Limbaugh.

Sekulow's ACLJ has got Christian fundamentalists and conservatives all over America getting their panties in a wad about "antiwar protesters," when the protesters referenced by the ACLJ are actually conservatives themselves!! How long will it take these folks (at least a few of whom, I think, must surely be committed to the actual principles taught by Jesus Christ) to realize they are just being used, as a group, for the most craven and worldly political gain.

ACTION:
I called the ACLJ's petition line to ask why the email request to sign the petition calling for action against "antiwar protesters" failed to specifically identify the "God Hates Fags" group as the target of their ire. A very nice lady answered, and said she had no idea why the group wasn't identified. She gave me a phone number to call about it, which I will do next week.

Has the AFA brought down the Ford Motor Company?

2006-09-05T20:23:00.000-04:00

I received a news item today from the American Family Association (AFA) suggesting that their boycott of Ford vehicles is the reason Ford is floundering in the marketplace.

My goodness, I've known that F-O-R-D means "Fix Or Repair Daily" for *at least* 20 years.

That's all the AFA can manage, a 10-11% drop in Ford sales? They are clearly not as powerful a consumer bloc as they would have the rest of us think. ;-}

My take on this is that gay folks (and indeed, Americans in general) are savvy consumers. Americans want to buy a great product at a great price, and frankly, Ford is not good at producing great, innovative products, IMO.

You say "Taurus," I say "Bore-us."

They are a venerable company at a crucial point in their history. I think Ford is now in much the same position as Chrysler was back in the 1980's: the stodginess and unreliability of the product itself are what's causing the company's problems. (But LOL, undoubtedly the Christian Right's sense of self-importance is bruised by the fact that Ford refuses to kiss *their* ass, GO FORD!!!)

But seriously--Ford simply needs to be producing better, more innovative designs--and hire the same ad agency that's been doing the Cadillac commercials over the past 4-5 years. The Detroit News posted an informative article (9/1/06) about Ford's current woes. (No mention of the AFA, LOL.)

I was a little disappointed today to hear that Bill Ford is stepping down. Under him, the company had at least made some small moves toward sustainability and "green" practices and I hope the new management will carry on with that. This article at Bloomberg Financial News talks briefly about the resignation.

Land for Katrina Cross - Public or Private?

2006-09-05T19:20:00.000-04:00

The conservative American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), headed by Jay Sekulow, reported last week (8-30-06) on its activities to counter the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)'s objection to placing a cross on a certain piece of land in St. Bernard's parish, Louisiana, as a Hurricane Katrina memorial.

The ACLJ frames its argument in a way that impugns the ACLU for attempting to prohibit this activity from taking place on private property, calling the ACLU's actions "censorship" and suggesting a violation of the First Amendment. However, I was able to find a copy of the ACLU's open letter to St. Bernard Parish clearly expresses a concern ONLY that the land in question is actually public property.

This is a matter that could be easily solved by securing a survey of the parcel of land in question.

The ACLU's letter is polite and conciliatory, expressing the ACLU's desire to sit down with the parish officials to determine the status of the land in question.

On the other hand, Sekulow's ACLJ has sent the Parish a legal analysis, giving them guidance on how to defend themselves against the ACLU. Isn't this a little premature? I don't think it has yet been satisfactorily determined as of this date whether the land is public or private.

If the property is indeed private, I agree that the ACLU should back off (and I actually don't believe they'd have pursued the issue if the land had been private--and their letter supports my perception). However, if the land is public, Sekulow's ACLJ should back off.

Also problematic is that the ACLJ's news bulletin about this item contains statement I believe to be a lie: "Once again, the ACLU is attempting to sanitize America by embracing a perspective designed to intimidate local government officials into removing all [emphasis mine] religious symbols...."

Well, that's funny. Not funny "amusing"--funny "weird." To the best of my knowledge, the ACLU's goal is not to eliminate *all* religious symbols--only to have government remain neutral on the matter of religion. And again, the ACLU's open letter to St. Bernard Parish supports their righteousness concerning the matter.

As much as I dislike fundamentalist Christians, I do think they should be able to have their symbols on private property. And from what I can tell, the ACLU does, too. So basically, the ACLJ is getting their panties in a wad for nothing. Just trying to rile people up for their own benefit.

(I found this item on the St. Bernard's parish website, where they have gone ahead and put up the cross. I'm still looking for a news item or other verification stating the status of the land. In this picture, dated 8/29, the cross is covered with a blue tarp.)

A Libertarian Democrat Manifesto

2006-09-04T16:00:00.000-04:00

An interesting piece I discovered today by Terry Michael.

A Libertarian Democrat Manifesto.

CBS 9/11 Documentary

2006-09-04T12:11:00.000-04:00

Today's Offender: The American Family Association

The AFA is threatening to sicc the FCC on CBS for airing a 9/11 documentary during prime time (September 10th, 8:00-10:00pm) which contains profanity. The documentary has already been aired twice with no objections.

ACTION:

I used the AFA's boilerplate form letter (with a few key changes) to send the FCC a missive in support of CBS's airing of the 9/11 documetary in its entirety. I'm sure they will be quite surprised to receive an item from the AFA in support of airing the documentary.

Subject: In Support of Airing the 9/11 Documentary Intact

Dear FCC,

I ask that you support CBS's airing of the documentary "9/11" on September 10. I urge both you and CBS to stand strong and show the program with "reality intact."

The attitude of the American Family Association (AFA) seems to be that the airways belong to them, not to the people. They feel they should be able to impose their own subjective standard of decency onto the public whenever they desire. Congress has spoken on this issue under politically correct duress from groups like the AFA, afraid of losing their jobs during the next election cycle.

The Associated Press reports that the FCC has received "nearly 198,000" complaints about the documentary. The population of the United States is 281,421,906 (source: uscensus.gov). I do not think the FCC or CBS should be making programming decisions based on the opinions of fewer than 0.007% of the U.S. population.

The FCC and CBS should as a matter of principle override the AFA and air the documentary "as is," without concern about the threat of repercussions from the Christian Right. The AFA is merely a power-hungry, self-interested group that continually manipulates their elected representatives in the name of political correctness.

Sincerely,
Truthsmack
http://truthsmack.blogspot.com

ACTION:
I called WSPA (our local CBS affiliate) on Friday 9/8 to inquire about the program. The lady I spoke to in programming said that, as far as she knew, they planned to show the documentary in its entirety, sans bleeps. I thanked the station for taking a "brave and courageous" stand and showing the documentary as is.

My First Clue... Really!

2006-09-03T11:38:00.000-04:00

I am a relatively new convert to thinking for oneself. My first clue that something wasn't right on the Right was the way John McCain was treated by Republicans in the 2000 primaries. I was already aware that McCain and his wife had adopted a little girl, Bridget, from Bangladesh... but then I heard it rumored that this child was his own biological child, mothered by a black prostitute. I wondered why people were saying that, when it was so easy to verify the truth.

Then it occurred to me to wonder, "what else are they (my fellow conservative fundamentalist Republicans) lying about?"

I was to find out, far more than I ever wanted to know.

How painful, now, to know that McCain has skulked to Liberty University with his tail between his legs, and to know that he is considering a visit to Bob Jones University at a later date. He is like a bull who has been given a nose ring that is now getting painfully jerked at every opportunity. Ouch.

While McCain may yet get to be President, it can't feel good to him to know that he had to sell his soul to the so-called "Christian Right" to do it. If he has a shred of integrity (and though he has disappointed me, I really believe he does), I hope this haunts him for the rest of his life. Perhaps I am naive, but I think McCain could have won in 2000 if he'd run as an independent. At the very least, he'd probably have pulled enough votes away from Bush to make Al Gore president.

I wouldn't have done it--kowtowed to the Rabid Right, I mean--and people like me would have more respect for McCain if he'd continued to tell them exactly where to get off.

There would be surely be baggage associated with an Al Gore presidency. But I doubt we'd be throwing our honorable servicemen-and -women's lives down the toilet like mere piss and s**t, as the Bush cabal is doing in Iraq.

I wrote a letter to Mr. McCain a couple years ago, asking him what good is it to gain the whole world if you have to sell your soul to get there? Yeah, I know, that's in the Bible somewhere. Just too lazy to look it up.

Why I Am Here

2006-09-02T12:36:00.000-04:00

I'm fed up with all the nutty, weird, and bizarre information being pimped to a distracted, consumerist public by The Republican Party.

So I've subscribed to some of the most right-wing newsletters I can find, such as:

American Family Foundation
Alain's Newsletter
ACLJ - American Center for Law and Justice

... and more to come. With the caveat that there are, after all, only so many hours in a day.

I will be commenting at least once or twice a week on the items I find in these newsletters--items which I believe reveal the American Right to be anti-democratic, anti-liberty, and anti-American.

Someone needs to be pointing this stuff out. The mainstream media isn't doing it, so I guess the job falls to us amateurs. Maybe that's how it should have been, all along.

My political and religious views don't fall easily into one neat category. I was reared in a conservative Catholic home and attended parochial schools through approx. 1/2 of 9th grade. When my father died, the remainder of our family moved to Greenville, SC (though not before an an ill-fated trip to Miami, Florida) and I was enrolled at Bob Jones Academy. I earned my high school diploma at BJA and attended Bob Jones University for a year. I attended another local Christian college for my sophomore year.

I was brought up to be a nice girl, to smile a lot, to obey God and the earthly authorities, to never complain about anything, and definitely never to question anything. (I'm lucky never to have encountered a child molester--I would have been a dream victim for any of these disgusting predators.)

Boy, have things changed. Boy, have *I* changed.

You know, in spite of this, I think the American Right is *occasionally* correct (in my estimation) about some things. Some of their thoughts on some issues deserve to be explored further. Occasionally. When I find that's true, I'll point that out and explain why I feel that way.

I'm fascinated by Pat Buchanan, as well as by the televangelists... in rather the same way that you're interested in a jellyfish that washes up on the beach. You just want to poke it with a sharp stick and see how it reacts.

I've mostly found conservative newsletters to be libertarian and democratic (small "l" and "d", please note) train wrecks. Thousands of Americans are reading these nutty newsletters and taking what's said therein as "gospel truth." We should ALL be concerned about THAT. These are the folks who currently hold power in the USA, after all.

I will explain my thoughts about these items, elucidating the underlying principles from the point of view of a "regular American." And I am definitely a regular American... not enough money, too many bills. Always worried about my job going away. I'm interested in frugality and simple living... by necessity, not by choice. I enjoy sipping lattes when my budget and my IBS allow, but I don't drive a Volvo. I guess I can't be a real GSL until I get a Volvo.

And I hate grits, unless they have cheese in them.

Speaking of grits... my mom is a Southerner born and bred, but I'm not. I was born overseas because my dad was in the Navy (enlisted man who became an officer... retired with 30 years of service). I am a U.S. citizen. I've been in the South for an awfully long time now... almost 30 years. I've had plenty of time to observe the idiosyncrasies of the area and its people. The South is a sociologist's wet dream.

At the end of the day, is it all really just about how much power you can amass for yourself, or your own ideological group? Or are there some universal truths, some shared values, around which we can all gather and make a last stand for America, the Beautiful?