Sunday, March 14, 2010


A deep thinker in the Republican Party. The tinfoil keeps out the CIA's mind control rays.

It occurred to me while watching Real Time with Bill Maher, which had exchanges between the panelists on both global warming and on America's viewpoint towards people of different religions (they were talking about the 2008 Republican primary and Mitt Romney's religion- LDS- being a problem with some Republican evangelicals), that:

(1) the people who claim to be skeptics about the existence of global climate change can't believe something without overwhelming proof, and yet, when the overwhelming scientific proof is provided (in my mind, I don't need anything more than the shrinkage of the north polar ice cap and melting glaciers), they still demand more proof and claim that the evidence is not conclusive; BUT

(2) when it comes to their religious beliefs, the same people who are skeptics on climate change have no problem believing- in spite of no proof in their favor and overwhelming evidence to the contrary that:

(a) America is special among all nations and is singularly blessed by a deity;

(b) If they adhere to a particular religious belief, regardless of their personal conduct, they will be "saved" and will go to a really cool place after they die; and

(c) Other People who lead exemplary lives but who don't adhere to their special religion are doomed in the afterlife to suffer eternal torment; and

(d) Their deity pays close attention to the personal conduct and lives of everybody on earth, and everything that happens- for good or evil or indifferent- is part of that deity's plan.

So what is up with that? If they were logically consistent, they'd either demand the same amount of proof in support of their religious beliefs, or they'd be more accepting of the overwhelming evidence of global climate change.

And these are the same people who were screaming that the president failed to protect America when a black man of another faith tried and failed to blow up an airplane landing in Detroit, but who gave faint praise to the mindset of a mentally disturbed white male Christian person who flew a plane into a government building, committing murder (a 68 year old was killed) and suicide and destroying government property:

"AUSTIN, Texas — The family of a longtime Internal Revenue Service employee killed when a pilot harboring an anti-IRS grudge flew his plane into his office remembered the Vietnam veteran Saturday as devoted family man who likely would have tried to save his co-workers from the burning building before escaping himself.

“He was full of life. Probably the best teacher I had in my life,” Ken Hunter said of his father, 68-year-old Vernon Hunter. The elder Hunter had been missing and presumed dead since Thursday, when software engineer Andrew Joseph Stack III slammed his plane into the Austin building where Hunter worked as a manager for the IRS.

The crash caused a large fireball that destroyed much of the hulking glass building where Hunter’s wife, Valerie, also worked as an IRS employee. She was not wounded."

"Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Craziest Republican of the Day: Steve King

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Actually, the Iowa Rep. isn't just a crazy Republican and extremist conservative ideologue, he's a terrorist sympathizer. TPM reports:

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) told a crowd at CPAC on Saturday that he could "empathize" with the suicide bomber who last week attacked an IRS office in Austin, and encouraged his listeners to "implode" other IRS offices, according to a witness.

As well, in an interview with Think Progress, King sympathized with the suicide bomber, Joseph Andrew Stack (clip below):

I think if we'd abolished the IRS back when I first advocated it, he wouldn't have a target for his airplane. And I'm still for abolishing the IRS, I've been for it for thirty years and I'm for a national sales tax... It's sad the incident in Texas happened, but by the same token, it's an agency that is unnecessary and when the day comes when that is over and we abolish the IRS, it's going to be a happy day for America.

It may be "sad," but, to King, it's fully understandable."

"Understandable" King says! Is that what the Republican Party has devolved to? A few years ago, in the wake of an adverse ruling on Terry Schiavo's case (the Florida woman on life support whom the U.S. Congress- wholly Republican controlled at the time- and President Bush intervened to try to overturn the wishes of her spouse in a Florida court), Texas Senator John Cornyn said this:

"More tough talk about pulverizing the judiciary.
By Dahlia LithwickPosted Tuesday, April 5, 2005, at 5:03 PM ET

Yesterday, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn took the floor and announced that judges who make politically based decisions may inadvertently bring violence upon themselves. While pounding away at the Supreme Court's recent decision in Roper v. Simmons, he took the time to issue—amid the qualifiers and caveats of Senate-speak—the following threat:

I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. ... And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in, engage in violence.

He added that "No one, including those judges, including the judges on the U.S. Supreme Court, should be surprised if one of us stands up and objects." Ladies and gentlemen, presenting the new defense against charges of violence against judges: "Your Honor. My client suffered a loss of control due to uncontrollable ideological differences."

"Monday, April 04, 2005
Congressman Conyers rips Senator Cornyn for justifying violence against judges
by John Aravosis (DC) on 4/04/2005 08:12:00 PM

During the protracted coverage and debate of the Schiavo matter, I was struck by the disrespectful and reckless language being used against judges. One by one, my Republican colleagues took the House floor to attack judges as "unconscionable," lacking "human compassion," needing to be held in "contempt," and having "answering to do." I remember thinking that such dehumanizing rhetoric is especially dangerous in these times towards anyone, let alone judges.

Outside the halls of Congress, words flew even more recklessly and the House Majority Leader Tom DeLay called the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube an "act of medical terrorism." The Reverend Pat Robertson called it "judicial murder."

I remember thinking about Judge Rowland Barnes of Georgia, who less than a month ago, was shot to death by an angry litigant in his courtroom, along with two other court employees. I remember thinking that irresponsible words can lead to tragic results. I thought of Judge Joan Lefkow, whose husband and mother are thought to have been murdered by an aggrieved litigant. Since then, I have been trying to think of the most appropriate forum to gently call this to my colleagues' attention, and to remind them that -- no matter how strong our feelings about individual decisions and cases, we need to be cognizant of the influence we may have -- especially on those that may be disturbed, and we always need to know that -- as elected officials -- our words have consequences.

That was to be a subtle message. It is unfortunate that today my message must be less subtle because things are very quickly spinning out of control....

This apparent effort [by Senator Cornyn] to rationalize violence against judges is deplorable. On its face, while it contains doubletalk that simultaneously offers a justification for such violence and then claims not to, the fundamental core of the statement seems to be that judges have somehow brought this violence on themselves. This also carries an implicit threat: that if judges do not do what the far right wants them to do (thus becoming the "judicial activists" the far right claims to deplore), the violence may well continue.

If this is what Senator Cornyn meant to say, it is outrageous, irresponsible and unbecoming of our leaders. To be sure, I have disagreed with many, many court rulings. (For example, Bush v. Gore may well be the single greatest example of judicial activism we have seen in our lifetime.) But there is no excuse, no excuse, for a Member of Congress to take our discourse to this ugly and dangerous extreme.

My message is not subtle today. It is simple. To my Republican colleagues: you are playing with fire, you are playing with lives, and you must stop.

Senator Cornyn and Congressman DeLay should immediately retract these ill considered statements."


Blogger Ty said...

Is this like when a person has an abortion,it is a choice and not murder but when a car accident kills an unborn the driver is charged with murder.Some logic.
Or the fact that the data veracity of global warming is now even questioned by NASA (and they share data sets).

9:24 AM  
Blogger James Finkelstein (Ga.) said...

If there ever was an issue where I think that liberals (and I am a liberal) may be on the wrong side of morality, it's abortion. Personally, I don't think we should turn back the clock to 1972 and criminalize abortions, because that had consequences that were grossly unfair, as rich people could get them, but poor people ended up with back alley, coat hanger botched jobs that sometimes cost them their lives. But I don't see a problem allowing potential fathers of the unborn having a veto over a decision to abort a fetus.

Having said that, it's always annoyed me that a so called conservative's concern for life seems to end at birth.

1:24 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home