Mar
30
Scaring Up Votes
March 30, 2011 | Tagged America, atheist, fear, gingrich, lies, radical islam | Leave a Comment
We all know that the easiest way for a politician to gain support is to scare people in to voting for so they can protect you from some imaginary evil – usually one they invented themselves. But voters really need to share some of the blame in this. Does no one actually question what they hear? Are you so scared that you lose the ability for any reasonable thinking?
Newt Gingrich wants to scare you so he can get elected as your next president. But his reasons are completely irrational, and that’s the point. He is able to pack in a number of scare tactics in just a couple of sentences. This is what politicians do to influence you, and they are good at it. You, on the other hand, are not good at asking questions. This is what he said last Sunday,
I have two grandchildren: Maggie is 11; Robert is 9. I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they’re my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American.
He played on fears of:
- Protecting the children
- Godless atheism
- Losing a culture war over America
- Radical Islam
- Loss of real “American” culture
But did he try to instill too much fear at once? Does anyone wonder how you get a secular atheist country that is run by radical Islamists? And what is this struggle over the nature of America? What does that even mean? And what did it once mean to be an American? Is that the America where non-white, non-Christian, non-males were pretty much second class (or worse) citizens? That’s not what America means to me.
Wake up people! Don’t let politicians scare you into fearing anyone different than you. Don’t fall for their tricks. They don’t really care about this stuff, they only want your votes. They need you to fear something, anything, so that you can give them the power to protect you. But instead of giving away your ability to protect yourself, keep it and think about how you are being deceived by these politicians who need your fears in order to survive.
Think for yourself!
Feb
11
My Friend Forrest is Back in the News
February 11, 2011 | Tagged forrest, mississippi, Racism | Leave a Comment
They just can’t let go of my friend Nathan Bedford Forrest. He’s back in the news again this week as the Mississippi Sons of Confederate Veterans are proposing to feature him on a specialized license plate.
I’ve talked about Forrest before, primarily in a very old post about my final project in my master’s program. It was clear then, as it is now, that those who choose to honor Forrest are promoting a radical white nationalist agenda. Forrest represents the absolute worst of Southern racism.
Despite what Greg Stewart tells us about Forrest in the Washington Post article, Forrest did not redeem himself later in life. There is no evidence to support this. Rather, the evidence that does exist has been twisted by neo-Confederates to excuse not only Forrest’s racism, but their own.
Nathan Bedford Forrest was:
- A notorious slave trader before the Civil War
- The commander of Confederate troops responsible for the slaughter of African-American troops at Fort Pillow and
- The first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan after the war
Many people point to Forrest’s July 4, 1875 speech as evidence of his redemption. It is true that the speech was covered by The New York Times in an article titled “Reconciliation Between Gen. Forrest and the Colored People,” but there were few details in the article and the claim of reconciliation is not supported. Additionally, the use of the word reconciliation in this case is not how we use the word today. For Forrest, and others like him, reconciliation meant that black Americans would be peacefully subservient to the upper class whites who controlled the South and who needed black votes to remain in control.
Historian Brian Page writes,
In December 1874, various African-American leaders designated their support for the Democratic Party, marking a further political reconciliation,” Brian Page writes, and “the nature of this new alliance became apparent in the 1875 Independence Day celebration.
And William Alan Blair notes,
Former Confederates did show a greater willingness to make peace with the North during the mid-1870s, but the literature of reunion, with rare exception, has overlooked the political reasons behind this stand. Ex-Confederates reached across the bloody chasm to protect their hold on regional power, adopting accommodation so authorities would not have reason to intervene in southern affairs and would let the best white men govern.
So, it is clear that Forrest, and others like him, did reach out to Southern blacks after the war. But what modern supporters of Forrest fail to acknowledge is that this was not in an effort to redeem themselves, but rather an effort to maintain their own power over a majority black population.
Feb
6
Happy Birthday Ronnie!
February 6, 2011 | Tagged #reagan100, dead kennedys, reagan | Leave a Comment
It’s Ronald Reagan’s 100th birthday! Do you remember 1984? Let’s get a bit of a reminder from The Dead Kennedys.
Now, isn’t that better? My how we forget what life was like not so very long ago. So, happy birthday Ronnie! May we forget how horrible you were and just celebrate the great leader you never were.
Dec
28
Jesus Loves the Sinner’s Money, but Not the Sinner
December 28, 2010 | Tagged cars, christmas, crossroads automotive, Jesus, thanksgiving | Leave a Comment
This absolutely horrible commercial showed up on my television in the days just before Christmas. The Crossroads Automotive Group has produced the most obnoxious holiday message of the season.
I didn’t see the Thanksgiving commercial on the air, but it is posted on the internet, so I’ll include it since it’s probably worse than the Christmas one.
I’d say this is worse because Thanksgiving isn’t even a religious holiday, but that didn’t stop the Crossroads people from thanking their lord and savior for dying and rising again on the third day. (And yes, I know that the winter solstice celebrations were around long before Christians borrowed the holiday and used it to celebrate the birth of their god.)
And just who is this David Sims, the pastor in the videos? He’s the Senior Pastor of Richland Creek Community Church in Wake Forest, NC. Some of this church’s essential beliefs include the following:
We believe that any form of homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality, bestiality, incest, fornication, adultery, and pornography are sinful perversions of God’s gift of sex.
and,
We believe that the only legitimate marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
as well as,
We believe that men and women are spiritually equal in position before God, but that God has ordained distinct and separate functions for men and women in the home and the Church. The husband is to be the leader of the home, and men are to be the leaders (Pastors/Elders, and Deacons) of the Church.
While I’m sure that Crossroads Automotive Group would gladly sell a nice new car to anyone, it seems that they believe only straight men are worthy of their god’s full appreciation and eternal salvation.
Oct
29
Making The Teenage Years Illegal
October 29, 2010 | Tagged halloween, law, teens | Leave a Comment
Once again, being a teenager is seen as a crime in itself. This report from the Today show documents one town’s effort to ban anyone over 13 years old from trick-or-treating on Halloween night.
The problem is that no matter how “scary” teenagers may be when they come to your door, they are doing nothing wrong. They are doing nothing illegal. You simply can’t place a ban on people’s activities just because you may be frightened by them. I’ve posted a few times on this topic in the past and it continues to irritate me when we try to treat teenagers or young adults differently just because they may be doing the things that everyone does at this age. Why is this so scary to adults? What rational reason do people have to fear our own kids?
Sep
30
The Evangelical Military
September 30, 2010 | Tagged Air Force, christian, Duke, evangelical, Fort Bragg, Gates, Military | Leave a Comment
Defense Secretary Robert Gates spoke at Duke University yesterday in what appeared to be a recruiting visit. From the reports in local papers, Gates discussed the issues of an all-voluntary military force. One of the major problems is that a small minority of the population actually serve in the military. Gates worries that this self-selecting group is so narrow that “there is a risk over time of developing a cadre of military leaders that politically, culturally and geographically have less and less in common with the people they have sworn to defend.”
I wonder if this is what he had in mind? An article out today again raises issues with the evangelical nature of life at the Air Force Academy. Is this what we get when the politics and culture of the military differs from the rest of the country? What happens when members of this military force don’t want to participate in religious exercises? Are they punished, like these soldiers in Virginia?
And remember those Bible passage references inscribed on weapons? None of these controversies seems to stop the military from continuing its evangelical mission. Just last weekend, another Christian event took place at Fort Bragg in North Carolina despite efforts to stop it.
It does appear that the military has adopted different values than the rest of us. Most of us don’t think that punishing people for their religious beliefs is an appropriate way to behave. Most of us don’t think we are waging a holy war with Islam. But if the people representing the rest of us to the entire world think this way, should it really be a surprise when all of us are seen as evangelicals trying to convert the world to our ways of thinking?
Sep
13
North Carolina sheriffs – whose side are they on?
September 13, 2010 | Tagged Donnie Harrison, North Carolina, privacy, probably cause | Leave a Comment
What is going on with North Carolina sheriffs? There are two articles out in the past few days that make me wonder what kind of place I’m living in. Do the law enforcement agencies not understand basic rights like privacy and freedom? (That’s a rhetorical question – don’t answer). Who are they serving? It surely isn’t the average person of the state.
First, I read that the state sheriff’s association wants access to your medical records to identify people who may be abusing prescription pain killers. The association would like “access to state computer records identifying anyone with prescriptions for powerful painkillers and other controlled substances.”
I’m already annoyed that I have to provide identification to obtain some non-prescription drugs from the local store. First of all, it’s really no one’s business if I have a cold and secondly it’s very irritating to be limited to buying these drugs during pharmacy hours even when the store is open 24 hours. But I digress…
The sheriffs want access to identify prescription drug users so they can possibly identify those who are abusing the system and obtaining large amounts of the drug. But what this does is turn everyone who takes these drugs into a potential criminal. In fact, I’m pretty much convinced that most law enforcement officers treat everyone as potential criminals anyway, so this is just legalizing that perception. And this is a dangerous road to travel down.
Then I read Wake County Sheriff Donnie Harrison thinks probably cause is just too much of a burden on law enforcement. He says “back when I was a young trooper, we could stop a car anytime we wanted to to see if they had a driver’s license. Now you can’t do it. You have to have suspicion of probable cause. So, to me, it’s sort of burden on us.”
That’s sort of a burden? What? So sorry if the fact that we are protected from unreasonable searches is a burden on you, sheriff.
It seems very strange that I’m arguing in favor of the current laws that protect my right to privacy and protect me from illegal searches by government agents. But, then again it seems odd that we actually need laws to protect the people from the government in the first place. Think about that. The laws protect people from the government. What is wrong here? Wouldn’t we just be better off in some cases without the government to begin with? Would we then need these laws to protect us if there were no government insisting on violating your privacy?
Sep
1
Gun Shy
September 1, 2010 | Tagged 10000 Maniacs, Emma Goldman, Gun Shy, Howard Zinn, Natalie Merchant | Leave a Comment
Do you remember when you first started to question? When you thought that maybe things aren’t exactly as you’ve been told? I’m pretty sure this song got me to ask questions that I had never thought to ask before. At the time, I was young (a long time ago) and in the Navy. I remember listening to the album many times while our ship was deployed to the Mediterranean. According to the video information, this concert took place on December 5, 1989 – at the time we were deployed.
I like a wide range of music, and always enjoyed 10,000 Maniacs for some reason. Natalie Merchant has an amazing voice and many of the songs explore social and political issues. But this song got me thinking, probably for the first time, about the meaning of patriotism/nationalism and the role of the military in society.
It took a long time to get from this in 1989 to where I am today. Listening to the song in 1989 really didn’t change my views much – I still had much to learn. But listening to it again now, I can see there is a connection to some of my favorite writers and thinkers.
“So now does your heart pitter pat with a patriotic song when you see the stripes of Old Glory waving? ” Go read Emma Goldman’s Patriotism: A Menace to Liberty and tell me what you think about those patriotic songs now.
“There is a world outside of this room and when you meet it promise me you won’t meet it with your gun taking aim.” Read some of Howard Zinn’s accounts of his time in World War II and think about how many times our first reaction to cultural or national differences is to use military force. How much of the world outside have we destroyed or failed to appreciate because we met it with a gun?
Aug
19
Dick Armey Doesn’t Understand Anarchy, but He Understands Government
August 19, 2010 | Tagged Anarchy, daily show, dick armey, government | Leave a Comment
Dick Armey on The Daily Show, August 17, 2010
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Dick Armey | ||||
|
||||
So, Dick Armey doesn’t understand Anarchy.
If you got anarchy, then you got a mess.
He clearly hasn’t read anything regarding anarchy from those who believe in it. Simply start with Peter Kropotkin’s definition of anarchy from the Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition.
Anarchism is the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government – harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being.
Armey definitely understands government though. He proposes that he and Jon Stewart are stuck on a desert island and one is going to be the government. But the real question here is, why does one even need to be the government. You are just two people who should be able to work together without coercion. But to be sure that he will be government, Armey reminds Stewart that he has the gun. He may only be joking, but surely a truer statement has never been uttered.
Armey goes on to tell Stewart that
government has something that you and I as privatte citizens do not have, which is the power to compel people to do what they will not otherwise do
And where do they get this power? It’s because they have the guns.
Aug
19
Why I don’t care about a new mosque, and neither should you.
August 19, 2010 | Tagged islam, mosque, new york, Park51 | Leave a Comment
I just don’t care that a muslim group wants to build a new mosque/islamic community center in New York. I don’t care how close it is to the World Trade Center site.
I wouldn’t care if a christian group wanted to build a church, I wouldn’t care if a jewish group wanted to build a synagogue. And, in these two cases, I’m willing to be that you wouldn’t either.
So why do you care then about an islamic group wanting to build a community center? Your answer can only be explained in terms of hate, fear, xenophobia, and intolerance. See, that’s why you really shouldn’t care. Because when you do, it reflects more on you than on the mosque itself.