Pandering to the original Kool Aid Drinkers: a Prime Time Exercise in Iron Age Mythology
Posted: August 17, 2008 Filed under: Human Rights, No Obama | Tags: Founding Fathers and religion, Kool aid drinking, mccain, Obama, Values forum 7 CommentsI didn’t watch the values forum last night despite all the hype. I had a lot of reasons for this. One, I really get tired of watching Obama continually invent himself and his life story. Two, I really didn’t want to watch McCain in high pander mode speaking to the craziest part of the Republican base. Three, I have to say that I avoid this country’s original koolaid drinker’s–the hyper religious–because I have a low threshold for ignorance and intolerance. If you have issues with atheists, you better stop reading now, because I’m going into full attack mode on what continues to be used by the powerful to control the weak: religion.
Why don’t we have big media events surrounding the candidates discussing their commitment to science and reasoned thought? We could have conversations on constitutional issues or approaches to foreign relations and trade. Instead, we get conversations on personal screw ups and what role ignorance plays in your life. Since Sunday morning new shows are part of weekly ritual, I’m currently enduring clips and analysis about Obama’s high school drug use (yawn) and McCain’s first marriage (bigger yawn). Obama was once again his light weight best. (This seemed to me a repeat of an Oprah interview). McCain just pulled the list of cliches every Republican uses when dealing with the likes of Dr. Dobson and Pat Robertson. Yes, a fertilized egg = a walking, talking breathing, thinking human being. Yes, marriage = some sort’ve club that somebody’s imaginary friend only lets one woman and one man into. Yes, I have an imaginary friend that I speak to even though that kind of behavior is usually associated with mental illness but is considered mandatory when you call the imaginary friend “god”. They both had to cite their carefully worded confirmation lessons for the benefit of the Pharisees.
I can’t imagine Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, or James Madison doing this sort of thing or going any where near the likes of Warren and his sheeple. Warren and his ability to make a group of people pay him tons of money so they can feel better about themselves is only equal these days to Obama’s ability to do the same. These guys are snake oil salesmen, pure and simple.
If you read the letters between Adams and Jefferson, they actually spend a huge amount of ink making fun of the hyperreligious and trying to figure out ways to stop them from ruining the USA. Thomas Paine was an ardent atheist. The major framers of the Declaration were deists at best and were probably just quiet atheists. Jefferson actually rewrote a bible for the Unitarian Universalist church taking out everything he considered to be based on fantasy. This means his version is a very small pamphlet. He considered Jesus a fictional character– along the lines of King Arthur–possibly a real person but so steeped in stories by now, the real person has been long lost. Most of the founding fathers found religion to be a base on which to build moral frameworks and something not to be taken literally. Can you imagine what last night’s group of kool aid drinkers would’ve have done to these three or four men and first presidents that many consider most responsible for the founding of this country?
None of the major founders of the country considered themselves Christian at all because they were all learned men who were born during the Age of Reason. They had read exactly what and how the religion was invented in the 3rd century. The Nicean Council was charged with setting up some thing that would be a tool to manage slaves, children and women, and spread Romanism throughout the conquered lands. Most Christians aren’t even aware they celebrate their ‘sabbath’ on Sunday because Constantine, the Roman Emperor responsible for inventing Christianity as we know it, was a committed high priest of the Sun God for his entire life. Each Sunday, Christians gather to celebrate Constantine’s snark.
We’re now in the 21st century, it’s time we stop badgering candidates to adopt Iron Age superstitions to be considered acceptable presidents. Let’s ask them to be reasoned, intellectually honest, and true to the spirit of this country’s commitment to freedoms instead. Pastor Rick Warren and his ilk should be left to the realm of the National Enquirer and not the nation’s business. This is especially true in a country where the fastest growing belief systems are Buddhism and Islam. Every day, we become more religiously diverse. There are also a huge number of atheists out there –besides Buddhist who are atheistic by doctrine. The Presidency should be an office for the intellectually gifted, not the reason-impaired. Religion needs to be kept out of politics as was the original intent of the founders of the nation.
Some examples on the Founding Father’s Belief System
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm
Indeed, Mr. Jefferson, what could be invented to debase the ancient Christianism which Greeks, Romans, Hebrews and Christian factions, above all the Catholics, have not fraudulently imposed upon the public? Miracles after miracles have rolled down in torrents.
— John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, December 3, 1813, quoted from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/adams.htm
Who Really Supports the Bush-Cheney Energy Plan?
Posted: August 7, 2008 Filed under: No Obama, U.S. Economy | Tags: energy ads, energy policy, mccain, Obama, obama voted for bush cheney energy plan 1 Comment
John McCain seems to be gaining traction on Barack Obama in a large part due to the energy crisis. Senator Obama stumbled by suggesting that we could save the amount of fuel generated by new off-cost drilling simply by maintaining the correct tire pressure for our cars. I remember this energy saving tip was provided as a public service announcement by Mario Andretti back in the day. For some one who is running to solve some of our country’s biggest problems, it simply didn’t seem too, well presidential. It seems more like a topic for Hints from Heloise.
The Obama campaign must have gotten the message that these household hints during speeches aren’t a substitute for specifics on national energy policy when the McCamp camp started handing out tire gauges with ‘Obama’s energy plan’ emblazoned on the sides. Obama immediately responded with both an ad and a very long speech. The few specifics layed out by the plan aren’t very earthshattering. I already attacked one of his suggestions as simply bad economics in my blog yesterday. Any tax placed on the sellers of a price-sensitive product will be passed on immediately to the buyers. So, the suggestion of a $1000 tax rebate to the taxpayers based on windfall profits will just eventually come from higher prices at the pump. So, you get a rebate with one hand and you get higher gas prices with the other hand. Since we’ve never seen an Obama transcript, I’ll just have to speculate that he never took Economics 101 or 102. I should know because I’m a professor of economics and I teach those classes.
I reviewed Obama’s ad yesterday and found one attack on McCain. This was the charge that McCain is simply supporting the Bush-Cheney Energy plan. I checked into the voting records for the 2005 Bush Cheney Energy plan and found something astounding. McCain voted against it. Obama voted for it. It didn’t take long for McCain to pick up on this. i heard a McCain speach today in Lima, Ohio pointing out that Obama voted FOR the Bush-Cheney Energy plan while he voted against it. The Bush-Cheney Energy plan was generally seen at the time as a series of huge handouts to petroleum interests. So, how is it that Obama voted for it and McCain voted against it?
McCain policy advisor Dough Holtz-Eaken had this to say in a press release reprinted by the Chicago Sun-Times.
While distorting John McCain’s vision for energy independence, Barack Obama is also misleading the American people when he says John McCain supported the Bush-Cheney energy policy. Let there be no mistake: the only candidate who voted to give tax breaks to Big Oil is Barack Obama when he supported the 2005 Bush-Cheney energy bill that gave $2.8 billion in subsidies to the oil companies. John McCain voted against this bill for the very reason that he opposed these tax breaks to oil companies and as president he will ensure their repeal. While he may decry them on the campaign trail, Barack Obama had no problem standing side-by-side with the oil companies while in the United States Senate.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/08/mccain_policy_advisor_doug_hol.html
I’ve seen the ad playing on CNN. This has to be a misstep by the Obama campaign. Why would you actually bring attention to such an obviously questionable charge? A quick check of campaign contributors also shows that Obama has also taken a lot of money from Big Oil as has the McCain campaign. Why would you charge your opponent with being in the pocket of big oil with such an obvious elephant in your own room? (And this could be that Obama, at the time, voted more Republican than McCain) Senator Obama must think the press will cover for him by not pointing out the obvious about the contradictions in his behavior and campaign rhetoric.
Taking on high oil prices is going to play much better in Peoria and Omaha than giving speeches in front of German Victory monuments shouting out with “I am a citizen of the world”. I can really see a McCain ad coming with this contrast set out for those of us living in the big fly over.
Once again, we see the Audacity of Hype.
The McCain Ad:
and the Obama response:
Again, linking McCain to the Bush-Cheney Energy plan when McCain voted against it and Obama voted for it, seems an odd tactic. I think this will back fire big time if there’s actually some discussion of the facts-on-the ground. I’m sure the RNC is just waiting for the DNC convention to nominate this clearly in-over-his head candidate before the attack ads start in full.
Please, delegates, run away from an Obama nomination as quickly as possible.
Slipping in Polls = Flipping on Rules
Posted: August 4, 2008 Filed under: Hillary Clinton: Her Campaign for All of Us, No Obama, PUMA | Tags: Denver National Convention, Florida and Michigan Delegates, Obama, Rasmussen polls Comments Off on Slipping in Polls = Flipping on Rules
Since Senator Obama is still having issues with electability, he’s decided to try to go back to groups he threw under the bus and see if he can get enough votes to shove him to the 50% line.
First, there is this series of telling polls by Rasmussen Reports.
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows the race for the White House is tied with Barack Obama and John McCain each attracting 44% of the vote. However, when “leaners” are included, it’s McCain 47% and Obama 46%.
This is because they also find:
It’s worth noting that there are far more uncommitted voters at this point in Election 2008 than there were four years ago. The Election 2004 Presidential Tracking Poll showed that 92% of voters were committed to either President Bush or Senator Kerry on July 24, 2004. Only 8% were uncommitted.
This year, 37% of the uncommitted voters plan to vote for a Democratic Congressional candidate while 22% say they’ll vote for the GOP. But, when asked which way they’re leaning in the race for the White House, 26% say McCain and 19% say Obama. Twenty percent (20%) say they still prefer a third-party candidate.
and this:
The first nationwide survey since Barack Obama returned from his highly publicized travels in Europe and the Middle East finds that the trip had little or no impact on the U.S. presidential race.
and this:
Sixty-nine percent (69%) of the nation’s voters say they’ve seen news coverage of the McCain campaign commercial that includes images of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton and suggests that Barack Obama is a celebrity just like them. Of those, just 22% say the ad was racist while 63% say it was not.
However, Obama’s comment that his Republican opponent will try to scare people because Obama does not look like all the other presidents on dollar bills was seen as racist by 53%. Thirty-eight percent (38%) disagree.
So, now we see another flip by the Obama campaign. I guess he’s decided that some of the voters he threw under the bus during the primary are necessary for an Obama win. He wants to seat the Florida and Michigan Delegation restored to one vote.
Obama Asks Panel to Restore Votes
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE AUG. 4, 2008
Senator Barack Obama has asked the credentials committee of the Democratic Party to give full voting rights to delegates from Florida and Michigan at the national convention in Denver.
The request is likely to be granted because it comes from Mr. Obama, the all-but-certain nominee, who now controls the party apparatus.
After Florida and Michigan held early primaries in violation of party rules, the party punished them by saying their delegations would not be seated at the convention. In May, the rules committee agreed to let the delegates have half a vote each.
Mr. Obama’s request is likely to cause consternation among party officials, who have struggled to maintain some authority over the primary calendar. Restoring full voting rights will essentially be giving a green light to other states to ignore the primary calendar next election.
The credentials committee is scheduled to meet Aug. 24, the day before the convention begins
I know I’m a cynic, but something tells me this move is not to restore the democratic party to its one man-one vote principle. They must have had time to restack the deck in these states and now feel secure enough to let them vote. Could this be part of the negotiations with Hillary? I would love to figure out what went in to this complete reversal. I’m sure he must feel secure in the nomination if he’s agreeing to this change at this point.
The bigger question, however, goes to Howard Dean and Donna Brazile and all those folks that were pushing the rules like they’d been handed down on stone tablets to Charlton Heston on movie set, how are you going to spin this?
I’ve spent the last day watching a hurricane develop south of me. If you look at the sky above my house you’ll see mostly blue sky. However there are some very low lying clouds with a hint of darkness spinning back towards the Southeast. These little spinning clouds are harbingers of something bigger picking up steam just out of sight of the little kathouse in the ninth ward. I’m wondering if folks in Colorado see something similar around Denver.
The Boy Who Cried Wolf and other Bedtime stories
Posted: July 31, 2008 Filed under: Human Rights, No Obama | Tags: Obama, race baiting, race card, racism in the Obama campaign, White Liberal Racism 6 CommentsHow many times did your parents read the Boy who Cried Wolf to you? Perhaps you read it in grade school when you were learning about myths and fables. I think almost all societies have a children’s tale about a child that cries out about something foul just to get attention only later to not be taking seriously when the foul actually happens because he’s just said it too many times to be believable.
Has the Obama campaign overplayed the race card yet? Has he yelled race-baiter one too many times? What will this mean, not only to Obama and his aspirations, but how will this impact black people who have legitimate experiences with racism but now face a cynical nation that’s been played one too many times?
Those of us that watched the Hillary/Obama primary unfold were horrified the day the race card was played on Bill Clinton. He was talking about Obama’s ever evolving positions on the Iraq War, he labelled them a fairy tale, and bam! There it was, the race card. President Clinton was charged with calling Obama’s life story a fairy tale– a story line clearly out of context and fabricated. Like many fabrications, enough repetitions and they become legend. Over and over we saw this pattern, some off the cuff remark by Geraldine Ferraro about Obama’s qualifications and resume and there it was again, the race card.
Each time we’d see the Obama campaign run to the press, demand justice, create a stir, then the, candidate would come out in a few days and say, well, I think this was a big misunderstanding. Folks, how many times will this candidate cry wolf?
This time we see it at play against McCain. When McCain uses images of Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton to imply that Obama is a media phenomenon, some one in the Obama campaign implies that it’s just one of those ads showing black men wanting young white women. Scary black men!!! Young white women!!! There it is again, that race card.
Then, in three separate speeches in Missouri, Obama tells his audience that McCain will try to frighten them because Obama doesn’t look like the other presidents on the currency or his name is a little funny. There it is again, the race card.
First off, EVERY one knows that Ulysses is a household name. Didn’t you go to school with tons of boys named Ulysses? I know my daughters bring home guys with powdered white wigs like Washington’s all the time.
Second off, some one should tell Obama that he’s about as scary-looking as Steve Urkel.
Finally, there are some real racial injustices in the world and I’m afraid they are going to get lost because of all this. When folks starting talking about racism, I’m beginning to think that no one is going to listen any more. If Obama keeps playing the race card every time he faces criticism, I swear, this is going to prevent any true dialogue about racism.
I had thought that this tactic would go away after Obama had solidified African American votes during the primary. After all, it was a tactic that pulled the southern states out of the Clinton column. However, what is the strategy now? Portray McCain as a racist for the benefit of white liberals? Most of the latte liberals are in his column any way, what particular good does that do? How does this benefit any one at this point?
I teach seminars in economics. Part of what I do is to try to get my students to think critically about promises candidates make on the economy and what is and isn’t possible. I teach in New Orleans. I have many black students. I’m now completely self-conscious about discussing anything on the candidate’s economy policies now because I feel that any criticism of Obama’s positions or his judgment are going to be taken wrong. Believe me, if you sit in my class, I run EVERY politician up the flag pole. I’m an equal opportunity critic. This is the first time in over 20 years of teaching I feel constrained. I can’t discuss even the issues because any criticism surrounding Obama might be labeled racist and create a wall between me and the students I’m trying to serve. I feel like I’ve lost a tool from my tool box. This is impacting my ability to relate to people.
So, what do you think? How many times can Obama play the race card and his campaign label folks as race-baiters before it is no longer taken seriously? Am I the only one that worries about race relations because of this campaign tactic?
Update: This is so cute, I had to add it.
Is this the Ludacris Obama thought he knew?
Posted: July 30, 2008 Filed under: No Obama | Tags: Bernie Mac under the bus, Ludacris under the bus, No, Obama, Obama Ludacris song 10 CommentsJust when you think Obama can’t possibly have any more friends out there that could anger “typical white women” we get this inspirational gem from rapper Ludacris.
Oh, this is really going to go over well with the PUMA movement: Hillary= Bitch per Ludacris
And the Civil Rights movement: Jesse Jackson = Slick per Ludacris
And any one unnerved by violent imagery: McCain= only chair fit to be sitting in is one involving a paralyzed John McCain per Ludacris
And any one that’s an advocate for the mentally handicapped individuals: Bush = mentally handicapped per Ludacris
Through out the song, Ludacris talks about folks that are haters. I guess it takes one to know one. Also, what fairy tale land does Ludacris live in when he talks about Obama winning majorities in every state? Obama has never crossed even the 50% line nationally and if you believe some of the latest polls, he’s behind John McCain now among likely voters.
And the under the bus moment: (i.e. This is not the Ludacris I thought I knew)
“As Barack Obama has said many, many times in the past, rap lyrics today too often perpetuate misogyny, materialism, and degrading images that he doesn’t want his daughters or any children exposed to. This song is not only outrageously offensive to Senator Clinton, Reverend Jackson, Senator McCain, and President Bush, it is offensive to all of us who are trying to raise our children with the values we hold dear. While Ludacris is a talented individual he should be ashamed of these lyrics.”
This is not the first time we’ve heard these words seeking distance from members of Obama’s celebrity stable. Remember Bernie Mac?
“We can’t afford to be divided by race. We can’t afford to be divided by region or by class and we can’t afford to be divided by gender, which by the way, that means, Bernie, you’ve got to clean up your act next time,” Obama said. “This is a family affair. By the way, I’m just messing with you, man.”
The incident drew response from Obama’s campaign, which criticized Mac for his choice of material.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080712/ap_on_el_pr/obama_bernie_mac
Why is it that the entourage surrounding Obama can get away with so much hate-filled language and the blow-back for negative campaigning hits Obama’s adversaries in the face? This is getting to be way too much of a pattern. You are what you surround yourself with. You are known by the company you keep, even if you try, much later, to say they aren’t the person that you thought you knew. If that’s the case–for ALL these folks–this man is WAY too dumb to be president.
Has any campaign that you know of had to spend SO much time disavowing its candidates supporters, friends, advisors, aids, and pundits?










Recent Comments