If You Don't Have Anything Nice to Say...

A few minutes ago, I saw a breaking news bulletin on Yahoo saying that Elizabeth Edwards had died. This came just a day after announcing that doctors had advised her that there was nothing more they could do and that she’d decided to stop treatments.

After reading the short announcement, I scrolled down to read the comments. Though many people posted respectful condolences, many others saw this as an opportunity to spew hateful, grammar- and spelling-challenged remarks. For some people, everything is an opportunity for partisan politics and no exceptions are made, even to respect the grief of those in mourning. To such people, if you do not believe as they do, then you have forfeited any considerations of courtesy and common decency and it’s open season on you and yours.

I would think the old saying, “If you don’t have anything nice to say, then don’t say anything at all”, should apply in such instances for everyone who has any character and integrity at all. If you don’t like Elizabeth Edwards or her husband, fine, but simply don’t comment on such articles at all if you can’t be respectful. A person’s death notice is not the time nor the place for partisan politics.

But the literacy-challenged trolls who haunt the comment sections of Yahoo News and other similar sites do not limit their vitriolic political spewing to articles relating to politics. They post comments trashing their political bugaboos on nearly every article posted, even those that don’t have even the remotest thing to do with politics. Apparently, no one has told these simple-minded fanatics that not everything in this world has to do with politics.

There are several ultra right wing politicians I find completely reprehensible, but I would nevertheless grant them the respect of my silence if they or someone in their family were to die and allow them to grieve in peace. Time and place, people. There are certain niceties that are the hallmark of a civilized society, and respect for the mourning is one of them.

Thoughts?

Differences of Opinion Among Conservatives

Listening to talk radio in recent weeks, I was struck by a difference of opinion between two conservative radio talk show hosts.

Within the space of a week, I heard two talk show hosts comment about John Kerry's military service in Vietnam.

Neal Boortz, in his typical obnoxious style, referred to Kerry as "scum", which he said was apart from disagreeing with the man's politics. He went on to sneer at his service in Vietnam, referring to Kerry's three Purple Hearts as "band-aid Purple Hearts" and that when he left Vietnam that he shouldn't have let the doorknob hit him on the way out or else that would be another Purple Heart for him.

I'll have to hand it to Boortz. He certainly has chutzpah considering that he never served in Vietnam himself, although he was born in 1945 and was the right age to have done so. As far as I'm concerned, he has no place criticizing Kerry's service, considering that he didn't go at all.

Dennis Miller on the other hand, while also not agreeing with Kerry's politics, said that he had to give the guy credit for serving in Vietnam and thanked him for his service, Miller, born in 1953, also did not serve, but is humbly grateful to all those who did, regardless of their political opinions.

Comparing the two shows, Miller's is much easier to listen to. Though I find myself rolling my eyes at his opinions fairly often, he's got a good sense of humor, is laid back, and generally treats his callers with more respect than Boortz does. Plus, he doesn't always talk about politics and has some interesting and varied guests, even some who don't share his opinions.

Personally, I think it's a good thing to know that the other side has gradations of fanaticism and that they don't all march in lockstep.

It Was Bound to Happen Some Time

Listening to the Neal Boortz show a week or so ago, I found myself in the odd position of agreeing with him. He was talking with a caller about the proposed plan to build a mosque on the site of Ground Zero in Manhattan, where the World Trade towers once stood. Boortz thinks the idea is in extremely poor taste and that in rubs the noses of the American people into what happened there that day.

Later in the call, Boortz commented that in recent times, Islam has been associated with terrorism and sectarian violence more so than other religions, but that this hasn't been always so. He then mentioned that in certain periods in history, Christianity had been just as violent in the name of their faith, referring to the Catholic Inquisition and the witch hunts, among other things. He then said that it was because of the often violent history of the world's religions that he had absolutely no use for organized religion.

For once, he was dead on the money. It was an odd thing to find myself entirely in agreement with him, but even a broken clock is right two times a day.

Personality Type and Political Orientation

Recently, I came into contact online with someone I'd gone to school with and had not seen since that time. I was surprised to discover that he's now a strong conservative. Thinking of how he was when we were back in school, he would been one of the last people I'd have thought would have ended up as a conservative, as he was an easy-going, laid-back kind of a guy with an irreverent sense of humor.

I suppose it's a stereotype, but I don't associate conservatism with a people who have a strong sense of humor and an easy-going personality, If not apolitical, I would assume such a person would lean toward the liberal side.

Similarly, I went to school with some guys who were rather uptight, humorless, and straight-laced. These are the types that I'd imagine would end up as conservatives in their later years, though I'm sure that these types of people often do not fit the stereotype as my former classmate did not.

How about you? Do you associate certain personality types with various political beliefs?

Individuality and Political Philosophy

Last night, when listening to Neal Boortz' latest rant-a-thon on the radio, I heard him assert to a caller that most individualists were conservatives and that most liberals were the type to herd with the crowd.

Say what?

In my experience, it's conservatives who tend to be cautious and most concerned with conformity, sticking to traditional ways of doing things and who are suspicious of innovation and new and different ways of doing things. It's liberals who tend think outside the box, to color outside the lines, who look forward instead of back. That's why it's liberals who are called progressives, and not conservatives.

Conservatism tends to be reactive and not proactive. That's why you hear more about what Republicans are against, rather than what they are for. Nearly all innovation and progress in our country (and in many others) has been inspired or generated by liberals who were not satisfied to merely conform to the way things were, but questioned and stepped out into new directions.

It's a conservative spirit that answers "That's the way we've always done it", when someone asks why and wonders why it couldn't be done differently. It's most often a conservative who believes there is one "right" way of doing things that everyone should adhere to.

But of course, Boortz wasn't actually speaking of individuality, per se. He was speaking of a person's focus in what they put first in their lives, as his next words indicated. He jeered at liberals for being concerned with the well being of groups of people, rather than being concerned mainly for themselves. To him, "individuality" doesn't mean having a unique personality, lifestyle, or outlook, but rather, in simply being primarily out for oneself, rather than being concerned with the well being of communities and different groups of people.

Thoughts?

-------
If anyone is at all interested, today is my sixth anniversary as a blogger.

Thoughts on Conservative Reactions to Health Care Bill

I was listening to the Dennis Miller radio show the other night and he was wringing his hands over the passage of the health care bill. He was of the opinion that this was a sign that the US would be going the way of the Roman Empire and would essentially be the end of civilization as we know it.

I admit to being completely puzzled by this attitude -- is allowing countless numbers of people to die in one of the richest nations on Earth simply because of a lack of funds to get adequate health care the mark of a civilized society? Is valuing money over people's very lives the mark of an enlightened and advanced society? I think not.

Miller went on to say that he believed guaranteed health care for all citizens was a bad thing because it would make people "lose their motivation to 'hustle'".

Again, I don't understand this reasoning. For one thing, all citizens deserve access to adequate health care simply because they are human beings, not because they work to "earn" it. Secondly, access to medical care is one of the basic tools that allows people to work hard in whatever endeavors they choose. It's hard to work up the motivation to "hustle" when you're sick and exhausted. Thirdly, having one's basic survival needs guaranteed will not kill people's desires to achieve and get ahead in life; as long as there are cars, electronic gadgets, luxury homes, season tickets to ball games, and so on to work for, people will be motivated to work. And for some lucky people in meaningful, creative jobs, work is its own reward well beyond the financial remuneration.

Another right-winger, Neal Boortz, said that he thought it was "too bad" for people who did not have health insurance, especially those who were denied because of pre-existing conditions, but that it wasn't his problem and that he considered having to pay taxes to help such people to be "stealing" his money. He also think it's an insurance company's right to deny such people as they don't make money off such people. Obviously, the making of money is the most important concern to him. I don't know how the man sleeps at night, knowing that people are needlessly dying, but that's not how I was raised.

Boortz not only is against the current health care reform; he also thinks that the current system is too lenient. He believes that all preventive and routine care, including pre-natal care, should not be covered by insurance; that it should be reserved only for catastrophic care. He has stated that those people who cannot afford to pay for pre-natal care out of their own pockets shouldn't be having children, anyway.

Never mind that access to preventive care is cheaper in the long run, as it often helps to prevent more serious and expensive problems down the line.

The new health care bill isn't perfect; far from it. But it's a start in the right direction.

Thoughts?

The Right to Adultery

In an opinion piece, columnist and president of the National Organization for Marriage Maggie Gallagher questions whether Americans should have the "right to adultery".

Going against the commonly held opinion of many in the legal community, Gallagher takes a dim view of tolerating marital infidelity.

Citing that "adultery involves twin offenses: (1) the violation by a married person of his or her vows; and (2) a third party's decision to invade another person's marriage, to seek their own personal satisfaction at the expense of the unknowing and unconsenting spouse", she is especially intolerant of using this common phenomenon as "a pathway to commercial success, " citing websites that help straying spouses to find sex partners, Rielle Hunter capitalizing on her status as "the other woman", and prostitute Ashley Dupre making money as a sex columnist on the New York Post. Gallagher states that she would like to see commercially soliciting for adultery be legally classified the same way as soliciting for prostitution.

Waving aside the truth that one cannot legislate morality, she believes that we need to "come up with a way to encourage a little common decency."

Gallagher insists that she doesn't want to persecute "every man or woman who has sinned," but rather that "people who commit this moral trespass to have the decency not to attempt to profit from it in the national media".

OK, where to begin?

First of all, the right for any adult to have sovereignty over their own bodies; the free choice to engage in any sort of sexual behavior they see fit, provided that their partner(s) are consenting adults, should be beyond question. Even when people have willingly agreed to restrict some of that freedom when entering a monogamous marriage, any departures from this agreement should be an entirely private matter between those involved and not something for the government to meddle in. The injured party should retain the right to sue for breach of contract as a practical matter, but the government has no business meddling in the private affairs of adults as a moral matter. Better yet, the government should drop sexual exclusivity as a necessary component of a legal marriage

Secondly, notions of what is moral and decent are highly subjective matters. Who gets to decide what is moral or decent and what should such ideas be based on? Gallagher openly states that adultery is a "sin", which is a purely religious idea and should have absolutely no place whatsoever in secular law that governs the actions of all citizens of all religions and of no religion.

My suggestion to Gallagher and others like her who are offended by those making money off of adultery would be to vote with their wallets and their feet. Don't patronize businesses that match married people with new sex partners, don't tune into TV shows or read magazine articles that feature Rielle Hunter, don't read newspaper columns by prostitutes, and so on. But don't restrict the freedom of others to do so, either.

Thoughts?

Study Claims That Liberalism, Atheism, and Sexual Exclusivity in Men Correlate With Higher IQs

A new study, which will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly, has claimed that higher IQs, on average, are correlated with liberalism, atheism, and sexual exclusivity in men (but not in women!).

I buy the first two correlations, as I'm liberal and agnostic bordering on atheist, but I strongly beg to differ on the last correlation. I have never been sexually exclusive with anyone in the 30+ years I've been sexually active, yet I had the highest IQ in my high school graduating class (140). I know this because the guidance counselor made a point of telling me so shortly before I graduated.

The reasoning given was that sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism and atheism all go against what would be expected given humans' evolutionary past.

Sexual exclusivity goes against the grain evolutionarily. With a goal of spreading genes, early men had multiple mates, which helped the human species survive

George Washington University leadership professor James Bailey said that these preferences may stem from a desire to show superiority or elitism, which also has to do with IQ. In fact, aligning oneself with "unconventional" philosophies such as liberalism or atheism may be "ways to communicate to everyone that you're pretty smart."

I see several things wrong with the inclusion of sexual exclusivity as a factor involved in higher intelligence. First of all, sexual activity and reproduction are no longer inextricably linked; thus promiscuity no longer necessarily means that a man will sire large amounts of children. Secondly, no libertine worth his salt, myself included, sleeps with a large variety of women with the desire to "spread our genes around." I've had hundreds of partners in my lifetime, yet I've managed to sire only one child.

Considering that every male celebrity who strays from his marriage now garners widespread societal disapproval and extensive publicity, I'd hardly say that sexual exclusivity is no longer an "unconventional" idea for men. Sexual exclusivity for both sexes has been one of our society's most sacred of cows for quite some time now, regardless of human nature.

Indeed, to be openly and unashamedly non-monogamous is now an unconventional philosophy in our current society.

And in light of the fact that it was religion that imposed monogamy on society in the first place and a large part of being religious today is to accept and adhere to the idea of sexual exclusivity with a single mate, it would seem as if intentionally non-monogamous lifestyles would be more accepted among liberals and atheists.

An interesting study to be sure, but one with a lot of holes in it.

Thoughts?

Petty Distractions

Recently, people have been making fun of Sarah Palin for writing crib notes on her palm. I even heard of someone referring to what she did as a "Redneck Teleprompter". I have to roll my eyes at this, thinking it a ridiculous thing to criticize someone about.

Don't get me wrong; I am most assuredly no fan of Sarah Palin and would never consider voting for this woman.

But fair is fair, even for Sarah Palin. Who among us hasn't written down a phone number, directions, or something else on our hands one time or another? What's it to anyone else if she wanted to do this to help her remember?

There's no need to stoop so low to criticize her about such petty things, as there are many more glaring faults that we should be calling attention to in these years before the 2012 Republican nominations for president. To concentrate on such insignificant matters distracts us from what really matters and only ends up making us look petty.

Thoughts?

Boortz on Ad Hominems

Thought I know it's not good for my blood pressure, I continue to listen to right-wing talk show host Neal Boortz, as part of my campaign of monitoring what the other side thinks.

Recently, he talked about a tasteless comment made by Keith Olbermann about Michelle Malkin, who called her a "mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it." While I heartily dislike Malkin, I agree with Boortz that this was an uncalled-for ad hominem.

That being said, however, it's no worse than the ad hominems spewed every day by many of his right-wing colleagues.

I have no problems with Boortz pointing out this inappropriate comment. That's his opinion and he has every right to express it.

But what he said to a caller about this incident nearly made me choke, with both laughter and disbelief. He asserted to the caller that liberals (and liberals only) resort to ad hominems because they have no reasoned arguments to make and because liberals supposedly argue out of irrational emotion and not logic.

Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me?

Does he think his listeners are stupid and/or have no memories or is he that self-deluded about his own behavior and that of his right wing cohorts?

This assertion is coming from a man who has referred to Hillary Clinton as as "evil" woman who "hates marriage and children" and "makes a mockery out of the institution of marriage". (Boortz has been divorced himself). His personal nickname for her is "the Hildebeast".

He once opined that former Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) "looked like a ghetto slut". Referring to her hairstyle, he said, "an explosion at a Brillo pad factory," like "Tina Turner peeing on an electric fence," and like "a shih tzu."

In reference to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, he said, "When these Katrina so-called refugees were scattered about the country, it was just a glorified episode of putting out the garbage" and "I love talking to you about these Katrina refugees. I mean, so many of them have turned out to be complete bums, just debris." Boortz also described New Orleans as "a city of parasites, a city of people who could not and had no desire to fend for themselves."

He commonly refers to all fat people as "lardasses". He recently asserted that single mothers are "the biggest danger to America today" and refers to welfare mothers as "brood mares." I've heard him refer to southerners who have thick, country accents as "blithering idiots" and he's called those who work only 40 hours a week and/or live in a mobile home as "losers"

I could go on, but I think you get the picture..

Does any of this sound like rational, helpful debate to you? I didn't think so.

Mark Sanford: A Promise Not Made

Yesterday,Jenny Sanford's tell-all memoir was published. Sanford is the soon-to-be former wife of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, who was recently outed as having gone AWOL from his post to visit his Argentinian mistress.

In the book she revealed that Mark Sanford did not vow to be faithful to her at their wedding. ABC reported:

Sanford recalls how she made the "leap of faith" to marry husband Gov. Mark Sanford even though the groom refused to promise to be faithful, insisting that the clause be removed from their wedding vows.

"It bothered me to some extent, but ... we were very young, we were in love ... I questioned it, but I got past it ... along with other doubts that I had."

This means that Sanford made it quite clear right up front that he either could not or would not be sexually exclusive with her, giving her the chance to back out of the wedding. Instead, she went ahead and married him, anyway.

It seems to me that she has little to complain about, considering he made his intentions quite clear years ago. It's not his fault that she didn't take him at his word. He would not promise to be faithful to her, so I don't see why she's so surprised now.

As a South Carolina resident, I don't give a rat's ass whether or not the man was monogamous. Rather, I'm more concerned that he went AWOL from his job for a week, leaving the country without letting anyone know where he was going, and not leaving anyone to "mind the store", so to speak.

Thoughts?

Thoughts on the John Edwards Fiasco

When I first heard of the John Edwards affair, my first instinct as a libertine was to yawn and tell people that his marriage was none of their business and that he wasn't running for the office of upholding monogamy.

But as the months have passed, I find myself more disgusted with Edwards' behavior with every new report from the media. I still don't care that he strayed from his marriage or even that he sired an extramarital child, which is entirely besides the point of my opinion.

Rather, my disgust stems from how he's handled -- or not handled -- this affair. Instead of owning up to what he'd done -- or simply telling the press that his private life was none of their business -- he first denied that he'd had an affair with the woman in question. Then he later recanted and admitted he'd slept with her. But when she had a baby girl, he denied he was the father, pushing it off on one of his campaign aides. More recently, he's finally admitted that the baby is his. And now it's come to light that sex tapes exist of him and the "other woman".

Can we give the man an award for insensitivity and general dumbassery? Having an affair and siring a child outside one's marriage happens and while it's a political liability in our society, it's hardly a unique thing. And while the timing of the affair was particularly insensitive, considering his wife's illness, he's made it all the much worse with his unwillingness to admit to the truth. He's further humiliated his wife, while at the same time left a public record of repudiating an innocent little girl who will one day grow up to know that her father valued his political career more than he did her.

It doesn't really matter that he strayed or why, as there are dozens of reasons why people do so. But if he was going to get some on the side, he should have used his brain and done it properly. First of all, Edwards in his in fifties and the woman in question in her forties. Had neither of them ever heard of birth control? Granted, he might have thought her past the age of conceiving, but he shouldn't have taken any chances.

And for fuck's sake, what kind of a moron makes sex tapes proving the adultery to all and sundry? It's shit like this that makes me question his power of judgment in other matters as well.

Edwards would have done much better to handle this as David Letterman handled being outed as straying from his marriage, instead of turning himself into a Jerry Springer sideshow.

Thoughts?

Conservatives and "Big Government"

I often hear conservatives banging on about the evils of big government; that they believe a small government is a better government, blah, blah, blah. Most recently, many conservatives have stated that they're against health care reform because of their belief that government would do an inefficient job of it.

But it seems they have no problem with the government meddling in the private lives of consenting adults by regulating who may and may not get married. There are no calls for privatization in this arena or hand wringing about the inefficiency of big government here.

It seems that conservatives are happy with government involvement when it serves their agenda. To them, "big government" is only "evil" when it pertains to matters they don't support.

And as far as health care goes, the more honest conservatives won't talk about the supposed inefficiency of government; they'll tell you they don't want their tax dollars going to help "those people".

Just saying...

A History of Lunacy

Pat Robertson's latest moronic comments about the earthquake in Haiti are just the latest in a history of moronic comments. I'm quite convinced that the man isn't entirely sane and that his lunacy is of a similar nature as what afflicts the anti-gay preacher Fred Phelps.

What follows is a list of Robertson's previous idiocy:

In light of Pat Robertson's most recent outbreak of foot in mouth disease in reference to the school board elections in Dover, PA, here is a small sampling of other moronic things he's said over the years. Makes me wonder why he's running around loose, let alone hosting a TV show.

"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."
–Pat Robertson, calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez

"Wait a minute, I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out,' and 'take him out' can be a number of things, including kidnapping."
–Pat Robertson, clarifying his call to assassinate Hugo Chavez

"Maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up"
–Pat Robertson, on nuking the State Department

"That was never in the Constitution, however much the liberals laugh at me for saying it, they know good and well it was never in the Constitution! Such language only appeared in the constitution of the Communist Soviet Union."
–Pat Robertson, on the constitutional separation of church and state

"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period."
–Pat Robertson

"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."
–Pat Robertson

"I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you, This is not a message of hate -- this is a message of redemption. But a condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It'll bring about terrorist bombs; it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor."
–Pat Robertson, on "gay days" at Disneyworld

"Well, I totally concur."
–Pat Robertson to Jerry Falwell following the Sept. 11 attacks, after Falwell said, "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say: "You helped this happen."

"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history."
–Pat Robertson

"Lord, give us righteous judges who will not try to legislate and dominate this society. Take control, Lord! We ask for additional vacancies on the court."
–Pat Robertson

"Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that’s held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings."
–Pat Robertson, on the dangers of judicial activism

Sarah Palin: Part of the Dumbing Down of America

I think the rise of Sarah Palin is one of the manifestations of the dumbing down of America. I didn't think it was possible to find a politician on the national stage less intelligent than George Bush. But we have.

It used to be that Americans expected their presidents to be intellectuals; to be of superior intelligence and to have a healthy dose of common sense.

But it seems that many people are not only not bothered by Palin's lack of intellectual credentials, but see her lack as a good thing.

I was listening to the Dennis Miller show on the radio tonight and he made a comment: "Do I think she could win on Jeopardy? No. Do I think she could win the Presidency? Yes."

And Miller was in no way appalled by this, but has stated many times that he thinks she could make a good president.

Unfortunately, we have all too many people in this country who share this misguided opinion. I'm hoping , however, that she will use her new post at Fox News as a way to dig herself into a deep enough hole that more people will become disenchanted with her, rather than fascinated.

I'm not holding my breath, however.

An Observation

While out driving today, I tuned into yet another conservative talk radio show (there aren't any other kind in my listening area, unfortunately). The host was ranting and raving about Janet Napolitano, whom he sneeringly called "Janet From Another Planet", saying that she is unfit to be Secretary of Homeland Security, because of the Christmas Day "crotch bomber" incident. The host based this opinion on the question of how the hapless terrorist was able to board the plane.

Now, I can't say how good of a job Napolitano is doing in her post, as I've not really kept up with what she's been doing since being appointed to that position.

That being said, I think it's ludicrous to blame her for the terrorist getting on board that plane in the first place and being present when it took off. This is because he boarded in Amsterdam, which was, the last time I checked, not a part of the United States, but, rather, a part of the Netherlands, over which the US Department of Homeland Security has no jurisdiction.

Just saying...

Conservatives and Anti-Intellectualism

This morning, I read an interesting blog post by Paula Reed. Her entry was based on a quote she'd received by email:

“The Left: People who demonize those with whom they disagree.”

My first thought was to think of how so many neocons today are masters at the art of projection: they take what is commonly done by neocons and turn it around saying it's really liberals doing it.

Personally attacking one's opponents, instead of coming up with reasoned rebuttals to their ideas is intellectually dishonest and is a symptom of the creeping anti-intellectualism in this country; an example of the dumbing-down of America. It's much easier to blame liberals for everything that's wrong in our world today, than to come up with ideas on how to fix these problems together.

Gone are the days of erudite conservatives, such as William Buckley. Also largely gone are those conservatives, such as Barry Goldwater, who was able to often put ideological differences aside and work in a bi-partisan manner with his Democratic colleagues (now, I bet that is a word you don't hear too much in Washington nowadays) for the good of the country.

Now, it's neocon pundits, such as Limbaugh, Savage, and Coulter, among many others, who have brought the black and white, simplistic tactic of using ad hominems against their opponents in from the far right fringes of the tinfoil hat brigade into mainstream conservative thought. Or what passes for thought. This is not to say that the left is entirely free of such nonsense -- there are liberals, such as Rosie O'Donnell, who could hardly be called intellectual. But those such as O'Donnell hardly have the reach or the influence tha those in the pantheon on the right wing do

I heard a prime example of this type of anti-intellectualism the other night while listening to the radio. A man called the Dennis Miller show to express why he rejected intelligent design. Miller didn't give him much of a chance to speak. Instead he cut him off to say that he couldn't get on board with Darwinism because he just couldn't get into the idea of "worshipping a pile of amino acids" and that he liked the idea of an intelligent being creating life on Earth.

My jaw dropped when I heard this nonsense. I could not believe that Miller, a former liberal and former cast member of Saturday Night Live -- in other words, someone who should know better -- was spouting off such simplistic ideas. There was once a time when being a conservative did not mean one also had to accept intellectually bankrupt, fundamentalist Christian beliefs as well.

Instead of the Buckley types being the mainstream of conservatism, we now have the Archie Bunkers of the world running the Republican party, which is a sad thing for old-school Republicans and the party in general.

Thoughts?

What Do You Think I Fought For on Omaha Beach?

The following is a transcript of a WWII veteran speaking out for marriage equality in Maine. I think this man's words speak eloquently enough for themselves, so I'll not add any comments of my own, except to ask for your thoughts after reading this:

Good morning, committee. My name is Phillip Spooner and I live ...in Biddeford. I am 86 years old, a lifetime Republican, and an active VFW chaplain. I still serve three hospitals and two nursing homes, and I also served meals on wheels for 20 years. My wife of 54 years, Jenny, died in 1997. Together we had four children, including one gay son. All four of our boys were in the service.

I was born on a potato farm north of Caribou and Perham, where I was raised to believe that all men are created equal, and I’ve never forgotten that. I served in the US Army 1942-1945 in the First Army as a medic and an ambulance driver. I worked with every outfit over there including Patton’s Third Army. I saw action in all five major battles in Europe including the Battle of the Bulge. My unit was awarded Presidential Citations for transporting more patients with fewer accidents than any other ambulance unit in Europe, and I was in the liberation of Paris. After the war, I carried POWs back from Poland, Hungary, and Yugoslavia, and also hauled hundreds of injured Germans back to Germany.

I’m here today because of a conversation I had last year when I was voting. A woman at my polling place asked me, “Do you believe in equality for gay and lesbian people?”

I was pretty surprised to be asked a question like that; it made no sense to me.

Finally I asked her, “What do you think I fought for at Omaha Beach?”

I have seen so much blood and guts, so much suffering, so much sacrifice. For what? For freedom and equality. These are the values that make America a great nation, one worth dying for.

I give talks to eighth grade teachers about World War II, and I don’t tell them about the horror. Maybe I have to invite them to the ovens at Buchenwald and Dachau. I’ve seen with my own eyes the consequences of caste systems, and it makes some people less than others, or second class.

Never again. We must have equal rights for everyone; it’s what this country was started for. It takes all kinds of people to make a world. It doesn’t make sense that some people who love each other can marry and others can’t, just because of who they are. This is what we fought for in World War II, that idea that we can be different and still be equal.

My wife and I did not raise four sons with the idea that three of them would have a certain set of rights, but our gay child would be left out. We raised them all to be hard-working, proud, and loyal Americans, and they all did good.

I think if two adults who love each other want to get married, they should be able to. Everybody’s supposed to be equal in this country. Let gay people have the right to marry.

Thank you.

View his YouTube video at What Do You Think I Fought For At Omaha Beach?

Malpractice Insurance and Health Care Reform

Last night I was listening to the radio and came upon yet another right wing talk show. I didn't recognize the woman's voice; all I knew was that it wasn't Ann Coulter, as I've heard her voice, ad nauseum, on several different shows, on both radio and TV.

This unknown woman had the unpleasant quality of sounding both indignant and nervous at the same time. She sounded quite like she'd consumed an entire pot of coffee singlehandedly just before the broadcast. You know the sound: voice slightly raised in pitch, a haughy, prim tone, with a hint of a nervous tremor in her voice. Her voice almost hummed as she engaged in an inner battle as to what emotion would win: (self)righteous indignation or nervousness.

Though her voice was grating, I had to listen until she revealed her identity, as I wanted to hear the name of the woman who almost made Neal Boortz seem reasonable.

It was Monica Crowley, who, oddly enough, is the sister-in-law of Alan Colmes, the liberal half of Hannity and Colmes.

Anyway, enough background for now; let me get to the point of this post.

When I tuned in, Crowley was in mid-rant about health care reform. The thrust of her argument was that the Democrats are "lying through their teeth" about how much health care reform will actually cost. She mentioned tort reform. citing that malpractice insurance that doctors must carry was one of the biggest offenders in the cost of health care.

All right, I'll grant that this is no doubt a factor affecting the cost of health care in this country, but she completely lost me when she continued her argument.

She went on to say that the Democrats are against malpractice law reform simply because a large number of trial lawyers supported the Democrats in the last election and for no other reason. Paranoid, much?

If I thought I'd get a fair chance to air my opinion, I'd have called and asked her, "If malpractice laws are abolished, what do you propose be done to protect patients who are the victims of genuine malpractice and gross medical negligence?"

Naturally, she did not address this concern on her show and I'd guess that she really doesn't much care.

Thoughts?

Thoughts on Obama and the Nobel Prize

I woke up this morning to find that President Obama has been awarded the Nobel Prize, which left me scratching my head.

Don't get me wrong, I voted for the guy and think he shows a lot of promise. But I think it's premature, to say the least, to award him such a prize so early in his administration. I am sure there are others who deserve it more at this particular point in time. I'd been under the impression that the prize was awarded on the basis of actual accomplishments, rather than on the hope of promise.

It's quite possible that in a few years, Obama would rightly deserve the prize on the basis of accomplishment, but awarding it now makes me wonder if he's being given the award mainly because he's not George Bush.

Nevertheless, it's going to be amusing watching the indignant reactions from the far right wingnuts, as they get their collective boxers/panties in a wad while they froth at the mouth.