Get ready for more fallout over Sarah Palin, who seems to be even crazier than I thought. There was an attempt to rehabilitate her from the accusations of pushing creationism recently, but the counterclaims got the facts all wrong. They claim that she only said that schools ought to “debate both sides,” but that’s the creationist position — pointing out that she was reciting creationist slogans does not somehow get her off the hook. And then there’s this litany of eyewitness stories from residents of her home town, who seem to be cheerfully trotting out to stick a knife in her campaign.
At one point during the hospital battle, passions ran so hot that local antiabortion activists organized a boisterous picket line outside Dr. Lemagie’s office, in an unassuming professional building across from Palmer’s Little League field. According to Bess and another community activist, among the protesters trying to disrupt the physician’s practice that day was Sarah Palin.
Another valley activist, Philip Munger, says that Palin also helped push the evangelical drive to take over the Mat-Su Borough school board. “She wanted to get people who believed in creationism on the board,” said Munger, a music composer and teacher. “I bumped into her once after my band played at a graduation ceremony at the Assembly of God. I said, ‘Sarah, how can you believe in creationism — your father’s a science teacher.’ And she said, ‘We don’t have to agree on everything.’
“I pushed her on the earth’s creation, whether it was really less than 7,000 years old and whether dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time. And she said yes, she’d seen images somewhere of dinosaur fossils with human footprints in them.”
Munger also asked Palin if she truly believed in the End of Days, the doomsday scenario when the Messiah will return. “She looked in my eyes and said, ‘Yes, I think I will see Jesus come back to earth in my lifetime.'”
Spare us. That’s crazy talk.
Another revelation: remember all the Republican buzz about “small town values“, and how Palin invoked them in her speech? The source for her quote has been tracked down, and it isn’t pretty, but it is fitting for a Republican thug.
“We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty and sincerity and dignity,” the vice-presidential candidate said, quoting an anonymous “writer,” which is to say, Pegler, who must have penned that mellifluous line when not writing his more controversial stuff. As the New York Times pointed out in its obituary of him in 1969, Pegler once lamented that a would-be assassin “hit the wrong man” when gunning for Franklin Roosevelt.
This Pegler fellow has quite a reputation for fascist rhetoric:
He was also known for what Philip Roth described as his “casual distaste for Jews,” which had become so evident by the end that he was bounced from the journal of the John Birch Society in 1964 for alleged anti-semitism. According to his obituary, he’d advanced the theory that American Jews of Eastern European descent were “instinctively sympathetic to Communism, however outwardly respectable they appeared.”
And Robert Kennedy Jr has grounds for finding Palin’s choice of sources distasteful.
Fascist writer Westbrook Pegler, an avowed racist who Sarah Palin approvingly quoted in her acceptance speech for the moral superiority of small town values, expressed his fervent hope about my father, Robert F. Kennedy, as he contemplated his own run for the presidency in 1965, that “some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in pubic premises before the snow flies.”
Jebus. What has Sarah Palin been reading in order to get her political education?
The only good news I’ve seen so far: The biggest political rally in Alaskan history was an anti-Palin demonstration. Not that the news media will cover it.
This election rests in the hands of a demographic that has repeatedly decided they had better things to do on election day. If the under 30 crowd fails again, this nut is going to be VP.
It’s surprising me that more hasn’t been made of McCains refusal to answer Whoopi Goldberg’s slavery question on the View. Given the chance I’d push Palin with it too.
Holy shit. She actually used the footprints argument.
It seems that the evangelicals have finally been caught in action:
http://abduzeedo.com/inspiration-the-art-alex-sandwell-kliszynski
Maybe Obama should have picked Whoopi as running mate. She’d make a great VP.
(Just don’t mention the Borg!)
‘Yes, I think I will see Jesus come back to earth in my lifetime.’
So, Jesus is going to descend out of the clouds like a comic book superhero and orchestrate the end of the world with his magic powers.
Sam Harris rightly pointed out that this lunacy is maladaptive to planning for a prosperous and sustainable future. Why plan for the future if the world is going to end tomorrow? And while we’re at it, let’s start as many wars as possible to expedite the end so we can be with Jesus quicker.
He made the John Birch Society look reasonable by comparison. That‘s a scary individual.
This YEC crap is so ridiculous that people should feel shame for even thinking it. What really gets me is when otherwise intelligent people act like thinking Jesus will be back soon is just a personal quirk. All I can do is keep repeating “If you think Jesus is returning soon, then you have no reason to work on long-term plans to fix or alleviate the problems humans have caused for the earth.”
I’ve had some luck pointing this out to a few people, but I keep getting blank stares.
Anyone know how to immigrate to New Zealand? Do they need anthropology PhDs?
1400 people is the biggest political rally in the history of the state? WOW.
Actually CNN did mention something about the anti-Palin rally this afternoon… I don’t have any links for you though. I’ll try to find something.
And while we’re at it, let’s start as many wars as possible to expedite the end so we can be with Jesus quicker.
Alan, have you been hanging out with my relatives? They say stuff like this all the time!
I’ve been blogging this Palin-creationism thing since it first surfaced, and although I’ve got lots of serious questions, I don’t have any specific answers. That Salon piece, for example, is all based on anecdotal accounts. True, perhaps, but not necessarily.
That’s why I finally posted my Open Letter to Sarah Palin. I don’t really care what she privately thinks about Noah’s Ark and all the rest, but I’d like to be assured that when it comes to real world situations, she’s capable of rational thought. At some stage in this campaign, I hope she’s confronted with direct questions on this, because it’s a bit more important than moose-hunting.
That wasn’t hard… here you go.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/09/15/yellin.palin.women.cnn?iref=videosearch
I was surprised too.
Anyone else notice “pubic premises”??
Another negative endorsement of Sarah Palin.
And while we’re at it, let’s start as many wars as possible to expedite the end so we can be with Jesus quicker.
Yay! Immanentize the Eschaton!
This level of nuttiness will of course only endear her more to the organized minority of nutcases who are sad to see the country swing away from their pet political issues. Now they once again have a wackaloon who’s just like them running for office.
For the sake of this planet, I really hope you USAians kick those Rethuligans out of office.
WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm?page=0
PS There’s (now) a later retraction on the budget analysis but there are also other negative items posted since.
PZ wrote :
//Not that the news media will cover it.//
Thats exactly the problem,how are the average americans meant to form an informed opinion about the candidates,if stuff like this is only reported in obscure(no offense lol) internet blogs,never in the mainstream media.
Great piece about Palin here(repost from another thread,it fits better here tho):
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/09/10/palin_feminism/index.html
I just hope there are enough rational human beings left in the good ol’ USA to keep this wacka-loon out of office.
OT – Does anyone know if Scooter and family are OK?
@ #21, clinteas:
See my previous posts. CNN did do a story on it.
Pegler – that ain’t surprising. What do people think the Alaska Indepence Party is?
Palin is way scarier than Bush ever was. Not a corporatist using fascist sentiments, but an actual, real-life 1923 style fascist (with lipstick, of course).
Great piece about Palin here(repost from another thread,it fits better here tho):
It lost me at “fuckable.”
@Jake Blues- to be perfectly honest, a lot in the under-30 crowd are utterly convinced it’s all farce. If the previous generations hadn’t screwed up so bad I might actually blame them for the cynicism.
I agree Joel@26. Salon is really only still functioning because of Glenn Greenwald. All the other writers tend to be hacks of this variety.
Very scary stuff. Wasn’t it Douglas Adams who wrote along the lines of “Any man capable of being elected president should on no count be allowed to do the job”? It seems fitting in this case.
Another interesting thing about fundamentalists is that the more dynamic, compelling and successful a candidate is, the more suspect he is of being the ANTICHRIST!!!
Obama is intellectual, eloquent, dynamic and compelling. In the evangelical world it’s a strike against him. I wish I was kidding.
I hope Tina Fey is keeping up to date with all this latest stuff on Palin. She has much material to hone her act!
The MSM touched lightly on the lies of Sarah Palin
In her white ex-urban bedroom, in a white ex-urban town
As she lay there ‘neath the covers, dreaming of a thousand lovers
‘Til the world turned to orange and the room went spinning round
My only hope is that Palin is so crazy that she scares voters away from her and McSame and towards Obama.
But maybe that’s just wishful thinking on my part…
The Religious Right seems to have co-opted the founding fathers of your country for their own purposes, and/or by total ignorance. When asked about “under God” in The Pledge of Allegiance, Palin said, “if it was good enough for the founding fathers, then it’s good enough for me”. Correct me if I’m wrong (dumb Canuck), but weren’t the founding fathers of the United States mostly secularists and atheists? Didn’t they want religion removed from government? This is a conversation that needs to be brought to the forefront, and the reasoning for it explained in easy terms that your average fundie can understand. Theocracy breeds favouritism, and leads to dissent and sectarian violence, one only needs to look to Eye-Rack. Jaysus, she says, “Eye-Rack and Nuke-U-Ler” .. they had to write “New-Clear” on the woman’s RNC speech for crying out loud.
“With a disdain for science that alarms wildlife experts, Sarah Palin continues to promote Alaska’s policy to gun down wolves from planes.”
http://www.salon.com/env/feature/2008/09/08/sarah_palin_wolves/?source=newsletter
Apparently her intelligent designer didn’t get the predator-prey balance quite correct.
and she wants war against russia.
for what it’s worth, the anti-Palin rally has been all over the news here in Alaska
Yeah, that “jeebus in my lifetime” is particularly sick. Even the christians that aren’t actively working to make the destruction of the “end times” happen, are at least more then happy to sit by and watch the destruct occur. Is it possible to be more selfish than a christian?
Newfie,
It is true that the founders wanted a separation of church and state, though it would be harder to prove that they were mainly Atheists and Secularists. More like Deists, Theists, and Secularists.
Though in the nuts and bolts of the matter, the difference is irrelevant. There was never supposed to be a religious test for office, or a State Church. That clause has been read by the great majority of Supreme Court Justices as leaving no room for even the favoring of one church or religious view over another.
There is also a video of Obama on YouTube talking about the need for all reasoning in government to be founded upon that which everyone, no matter their religion, can understand. This is a statement perfectly in line with what the founders wrote.
“When asked about “under God” in The Pledge of Allegiance, Palin said, “if it was good enough for the founding fathers, then it’s good enough for me”. ”
Palin’s ignorance is worse than you think. The original version of the Pledge was written in 1892, and the “under God” phrase wasn’t added until 1954. The founding fathers, religious or not, had nothing to do with it.
Reminds me of the quote, attributed to various religious fanatics, which may be an urban legend but is still funny:
“If English was good enough for Our Lord Jesus Christ, it’s good enough for me!”
What kind of reductio ad fascium crap is this? Has Godwin’s Law been overturned? You really think we’re going to beat McCain/Palin in November with this amateur propaganda bullshit? You really think you are going to paint Palin as some sort of Jew hating pseudo-Nazi or neo-fascist because she quoted some guy about small towns? Are you out of your mind? How many times do these over the top accusations have to blow up in your faces before you LEARN?!
What’s next? Photoshopping her face into an old Hitler picture? Jebus buttfucking Cripes you people are going to absolutely BLOW IT!
That element of the fundamentalist movement scares me. It’s teaching people not to respect the world now, don’t worry about the future, put the fate of the world in God’s hands, and wait for the eternal torment of those who laughed in your face when you said that dinosaurs walked alongside man.
Well, how could they ignore 1400 people?
Sorry. I’ll stop. Given the pitiful protest history there, this one seems all the more impressive, in fact.
@41, CarlM:
The Republican campaigns of 2000 and 2004, which largely depended on such “over the top accusations”, completely blew the elections for them, didn’t it!
Damn, I’m awful anxious to see just how hard this is actually going to blow up in our faces.
Another Palin bashing thread? I am NOT a supporter of McCain or Palin. But it seems like the “she’s a she-beast” stuff is way over the top around here.
It makes the blog look just as mean spirited and shallow as those you are beating up on.
Newfie, some of the founders were unitarian. Franklin, Adams and Jefferson believed in god but doubted the divinity of Jesus, and Washington and Madison may have done so as well. The Constitutional Convention was militantly secular as is the Consitution itself.
More Palin coverage from the NY Times. If you read it, she seems in the Bush mold of giving jobs to unqualified friends and/or family. Scary.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?em
“[…] weren’t the founding fathers of the United States mostly secularists and atheists?””
I think it looks a like that now, but only because their beliefs don’t fit modern expectations of the religious. Their criticism of institutional religion and skepticism of dogma and miracles makes them an odd fit in current pigeonholes. But from what I can tell, the founders were mostly Christian rationalists, Deists, and Unitarians.
“Didn’t they want religion removed from government?”
Yes, but I don’t think we can assume they were in complete agreement on what that meant. (Or even assume that one individual thought it meant the same thing over his lifetime.) If I remember correctly, Madison’s opposition to legislative chaplains put him at odds with other founders.
That said, I think they would on the whole oppose what Republicans are doing and trying to do. It’s certainly clear that the 1st amendment’s primary author, Madison, would.
Nurse Ingrid @#40 – Essentially that phrase was used on my Presbyterian preacher daddy once when he tried to read the RSV bible instead of the King James to a guy in the hospital. My dad damn near dug out his Greek New Testament and brused up on his Aramaic and went back to see the silly bastard again.
Would you like to know what the corporate aristocrats will do with the tax breaks they get from a McCain/Palin Administration? Here it is, the true face of the Republican agenda. Notice the smugly-asserted Social Darwinism. This is something every American needs to see before the election, keeping in mind that Halliburton moved to Dubai.
I have to admit I don’t understand why Palin is popular, after everything that has come out to her. It seems to me that things I would regard as absolutely disqualifying any candidate (extreme right wing political views, scientific illiteracy, dogmatic opposition to abortion, and so on) are ignored because she gave a good speech.
Does anybody have any idea what is going on in the minds of the voters?
The blogger said that the rally had about 1400 against Palin and 90 Palin supporters and that it was bigger than Palin’s own rally. The Seattle times covered it and the numbers are different. I’m hopping that the blogger was more accurate, but I wonder.
If McCain and Palin are elected, I wonder if she will do a holy roll and speak in toungs at their inauguration.
bj
Fact: A large minority (approx. 40%) of eligible voters in this country do not vote, ever. Not even in a Presidential election.
Fact: A majority of voters in this country that DO vote do not read a newspaper or surf the web for news on a regular basis.
Fact: The majority of voters in this country that DO vote and DO NOT read the newspapers on a regular basis do not know or care about the fine points of Sarah Palin’s political qualifications.
Fact: This is the target group of the GOP and they use any means (T.V commercials, FOX news, etc.) to influence them. In a close election such as this, these are the kingmakers.
Fact: None of these folks will ever read this. BUT many of them watch T.V. religiously.
Fact: These may be the folks that determine the future of this country. Same as in 2000.
Well, Tony@51, as I was reminded when I was stating the same facts: “The people who like Sarah Palin don’t think like you”
I of course responded with “No shit? I’m totally shocked over that revelation.” But the point still stands as much as it irritates me. For many people “Democrat” has come to have certain negative connotations totally outside what any of the party planks are. People are in essence voting on the image they like best, not whether the policies would benefit them.
(I suppose in this case Sam Harris would have us ditch the word Democrat for another, right?)
If McCain and Palin are elected I want to move to another planet. That new one that’s just been discovered should be far enough away.
On a different topic, it looks as though the millionth comment will be in a few hours’ time which will be in the middle of the night for me, so good luck to the rest of you, I’m out of the running!
Have you all seen the story over at Talk To Action about Palin’s former church and relationships with the craziest of the crazies … the Third Wave (or New Apostolic Reformation).
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/9/13/1538/09770
These folks want the end times, think all other religions (including other Christian sects that don’t fall in line) are controlled by demons … you know, nice warm and fuzzy feelings.
The Talk To Action folks hit the nail on the head w/ this statement:
“Sarah Palin has every right to hold whatever religious views she chooses but, by the same token, the American people have every right to know what Palin’s religious beliefs are – especially to the extent that they may include the view that all other religious and philosophical views but her own are under the influence of demonic powers and that believing Christians must conquer the Earth and cleanse it of evil in this final generation.”
That’s exactly right … I don’t care if people are deluded and crazy, but I certainly don’t want them in any position of power.
I apologize if this is old news to everyone here … you all are way more on top of this stuff than me.
All of you adults are lucky, at least you have marketable skills and degrees that might get you a visa to get out of this country if the republicans win. Us minors/students have a while before someone else would be willing to take us :.
CarlM What kind of reductio ad fascium crap is this? Has Godwin’s Law been overturned? You really think we’re going to beat McCain/Palin in November with this amateur propaganda bullshit? You really think you are going to paint Palin as some sort of Jew hating pseudo-Nazi or neo-fascist because she quoted some guy about small towns? Are you out of your mind? How many times do these over the top accusations have to blow up in your faces before you LEARN?!
Yeah, I guess it’s just stupid to point out that her husband belonged to an organization with fascist ties (the founder was blown up in an explosives deal gone bad, they’re buddies with groups like the Southern League), that she has close personal ties to that organization, that her politics are clearly of the authoritarian/populist mode, that her chosen quotations are of an outright fascist and anti-semite, that her church is associated with dominionism, that she herself has declared the War in Iraq as being a mission from the Lord… What do you expect, a swaztika on her forehead?
It’s just so silly to point those things out! Because, oh-poor-me, we might step on the Iron Law Of Godwin, or someone might come out using pseudo-Latin phrases like reductio ad fascium (reduction to bundles??).
No, let’s pretend these things just don’t exist! My, my, I’m not sure they even existed in the thirties – it was just amateur propaganda bullshit all along. Those silly Jews and their over the top accusations!
Yup, it would just be silly to point out all these things. Just crazy. It’s just a random coincidence, these thing-ma-jiggies of choosing who we quote in our acceptance speeches – that’s done by sound alone. No one hears the whistles.
In short — Godwin’s Law was a JOKE! Just a fucking JOKE! It was supposed to be literally haha-funny, because so often unsubstantiated claims were made. It isn’t some kind of logical fallacy — just a JOKE taken much too seriously by folks with a clearly very limited intellectual capacity and yet a vastly self-aggrandizing world view.
Let’s add to Godwin’s Law frog’s codicile – the first one to call Godwin’s Law is next eliminated from the discussion after the violator of Godwin’s Law. You can only invoke Godwin’s Law as a sort of queen’s sacrifice play.
Thanks for the link, kcrady. Mike Davis has writen about Dubai:
http://www.newleftreview.org/?view=2635
Wow, she’s quoting fascists already. And I though she was just as stupid as Dan Quayle. It turns out she’s also as evil as Dick Cheney.
Yes but she didn’t press it. She let it drop after the election. That’s what Fact Check found out.
It makes her no less of an ignorant dumbass though.
Well, then we know for who to vote. Anyways, Palin… I thought that choice was so random, and I thought it was obvious that she was a political tool to draw Hillary’s audience.
You like to think that after 8 years of the Bush Junta that things can’t get any worse. And it truly is hard to imagine that Americans would voluntarily put themselves in a worse place. But when you look at what this certifiable nutcase Palin believes, it makes that lying, obfuscating, prevaricating, shoe-shopping bitch Rice seem kind of moderate in comparison. And that is truly scary.
If you folks – not you on this blog, but the US citizens – vote the McCain/Palin ticket into office, then the US and the rest of us are headed down the toilet. I’m going to get a nice surfboard so I can circle the hole in style as the vortex increases its pull. What a fucking nutbar population.
Hey, your country’s leaders are okay if you kill religious whackjobs in other countries. You know, like the Taliban. Can you do it at home? They are the same kind of animal, after all. And y’all are packin’ heat down there, no?
Why the comparison to “that…bitch” Rice?
You’re frightening.
Ummmm…”pubic premises”?
Rahne: Yes but she didn’t press it. She let it drop after the election. That’s what Fact Check found out.
FactCheck found out that it wasn’t a good issue to push right away while she was governor? So you’re saying she’s politically savvy? Wow, deep findings by FactCheck!
It would be a big mistake to think she’s an “ignorant dumbass”. She’s got an agenda – she knows what the timing is, what’s relevant to her advancement, and the advancement of her allies. She gives a shit about scientific truth; it’s irrelevant to her.
FactCheck is weak. They think that facts are true or false in a non-analytic way. They are the wikipedia of journalism – a good place to start, but you look foolish if you rely on their findings as being authoritative in any sense.
It makes the blog look just as mean spirited and shallow as those you are beating up on.
You obviously never actually read those blogs if you think that.
What was that old quote about fascism & a flag & a cross?
Joe @ 54 says pretty much what I, as an outsider sees.
It’s impolite to talk about politics and religion in certain places in society.. or so I was taught as a child. That’s what’s broke in Western society, IMO. It’s one thing to talk on message boards, or with people who share your opinion, but I think we who are curious, and want the facts, need to share that with people who aren’t so curious. ‘Cause sure as shit in a cat, the fundamental church leaders tell, or at least hint, at who their parishioners should vote for. I’ve seen it first hand. My Grandmother was a fundie, and when somebody in her church passed her something to sign and send to her Member of Parliament, she would not hesitate. The church could do no wrong in her eyes. Even my best logic and careful explanation of the issue had no sway compared to the church. Talk to a Republican, mention the lies to them. Especially the Palin fans. Ask what they think of her lies, that they are likely unaware of. Back them up with facts. Make them question you. Point them in the right direction to actually get the facts. Gutenberg invented a great machine, and enlightened people who could then actually “read” the Bible, and not just hear it spewed to them in Latin, and listen to interpretations from the clergy. Knowledge is power, but so many still lack knowledge. Something as simple as picking up a newspaper in a supermarket, laughing out loud, and pointing out the lie to a stranger, could make a difference.
/ still has hope for humanity.
I saw some photos of the protest in Anchorage. One of the signs was the best:
McCain/Palin
Unstable/Unable
We don’t have to. She has admitted to be a christofascist Domionist many, many times. AofGod, her church is a bunch of kooks as is the Third Wave/Latter Rain/Joels Army cultists.
Don’t forget, Hitler was elected to power. And enjoyed immense popularity until things started to unravel.
Nothing special about the Germans, Afghanis, or Soviet Russians. Seems like at some point, societies just decide it is time to turn into lemmings and run off a cliff. That McCain and crazy Palin are polling over 35% indicates that something is drastically wrong with the USA. Interesting factoid, all civilizations end and most die of internal problems.
Wow….about 500 comments left until the one million mark. PZ get a post about cracker descration going and we will get there before midnight.
Wasilla-style “small town values” don’t leave much room for other viewpoints. According to the “litany of eyewitness stories” article linked to above by Prof Myers, when a local pastor wrote a book about why christians should accept gays,
Will someone please ask McCain &/or Palin whether she will being the small town value of being unable to keep secrets to Washington?
You know, every time I read one of these posts describing more disturbing facts about Palin I’m sure I must be dreaming. Here’s hoping I wake up soon, and stop nodding off so frequently.
Yarrgles! last sentence of # 74:
beingbring…pigpalin is a mess. “she’s the family values candidate but pay no attention to her family values.”
Let’s not get too agitated about Palin’s use of a Westbrook Pegler quote in her convention speech.
It’s been widely reported that the speech was written well in advance of her selection, and tweaked a bit to customize it for her to deliver that fateful September night.
In other words, the Pegler fan may not be Palin herself, but just some speechwriter favored by the man reportedly favored by the majority of US voters to become the next Decider.
Now, that’s something to get agitated about.
OT, but I liked this quote from Biden in his speech today:
Speaking of the similarities between McCain’s 2008 rhetoric and Bush’s 2000 rhetoric he says, “We’ve seen this movie before, folks. But as everyone knows, the sequel is always worse than the original.”
Much, much worse in this case.
It’s shocking to me, but there are a sizable contingent of moderates that consider that, since Palin never acted on her creationist beliefs, she’s somehow “okay.” Obviously that’s wrong (and, PZ, “palintology” > “palinology”) :).
I question the credibility of the Munger quote. Sounds too convenient by half. Unlikely topic, unlikely timing, unlikely personal knowledge by this person. Read it three times and ask yourself: myth or fair dinkum?
“What was that old quote about fascism & a flag & a cross?” – Skwee, #69
“When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” – Sinclair Lewis (who died in 1951)
“…she said yes, she’d seen images somewhere of dinosaur fossils with human footprints in them.”
Fun fact about Alaska: the keynote speaker at the 2006 Governor’s Prayer Breakfast was… Carl Baugh. Palin’s predecessor had the good sense to be leave early before Baugh started speaking. (He had to be at a special premiere for the movie “Ice Age: The Meltdown.” I kid you not.) I don’t recall if Palin was present at the breakfast; given her frosty relations with the previous administration, I doubt it.
Rahne #62 is right, though. Palin has not openly pushed the creationism angle. The only reason we know about it is because it was a question during a campaign debate, which came out of nowhere.
patrickhenry @ #12 said:
Um, well, you probably should. Those two things are most definitely related. As in, if she privately thinks a historical Noah really did save all the planet’s animals on an ark, then then there is no reason to assume she is capable of rational thought in any situation. It’s not like irrational, fact-hating ideologues only save the crazy for when they’re out of the office. It suffuses everything they do. Ignore the blaring warning signs at your peril.
I’d read this over the weekend, but the point it makes should be clear to everyone: get out there and vote on election day! Until then, do whatever you can to help the Dem’s win this one. Phone banks don’t work themselves, people.
Hitler was never elected. He was appointed chancellor by President von Hindenberg. In the last Reichstag election before he was made chancellor the Nazi Party only got 37% of the vote. Soon after coming to power Hitler removed all of the representatives of the opposition parties from the Reichstag. It was this Nazi-control Reichstag that passed the Enabling Act which “legalized” Hitler’s complete power grab.
As chancellor Hitler was responsible to the President who was very old and senile. When he died Hitler simply combined the positions of chancellor and president. 90% of the German people voted in favor of this unconstitutional move.
Now that we’ve gotten around to Nazism, this thread is going nowhere.
Thank you PZ for picking up this story. Here is the CNN video that was “fact checking” Palin and made the same claim.
CNN: “Then there’s an internet claim that Palin pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska schools — also not true — Palin said students should debate both sides…”
President Bush will be speaking at 3:00 PM on Monday, October 6, 2008, at:
The Hilton Cincinnati Netherland Plaza
35 West Fifth Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
I know this through the Ashbrook Center in Ashland, OH, which is helping organize the event.
Unbelievable that CNN would get it wrong as well. Teaching both sides = ID = creationism.
I still think the worst of the worst is charging rape victims for DNA tests -it’s hard to top that.
Basically Sarah Palin is a theocrat – as defined well by books like American Theocracy (Kevin Phillips), American Fascists (Chris Hedges -who is an idiot except for this book) or End of Faith (Sam Harris). Her views are the American equivalent of the Taliban or belief in Sharia law. This sounds extreme because of years of groundwork to mainstream this by people like Tim LaHaye, James Dobson, Paul Weyrich, Phyllis Schlafly, Richard Melton Sciafe, etc. etc. etc. who made people like Reagan, George W. and Palin politically possible.
For extra credit, look up the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act supported by McCain and his senator friend and tell me if that might just have a teeny weeny bit to do with the wave of bank failures and bailouts.
Sarah Palin has successfully thrown up enough of a smoke screen so as to allow the McSame to conjure their next moves. As utterly distasteful as she is, we need to get the focus back to the issues.
My endorsement statement: http://richmanwisco.blogspot.com/
People, it’s all about the future of the Constitution. It’s all about the Supreme Court.
Forgot to add – Sarah Palin’s pregnancy decision map – check it out…
http://digg.com/comedy/Sarah_Palin_s_Pregnancy_Decision_Map_PIC
Nice.
” Palin said students should debate both sides…”
”
Ummm… What does Joe Johns think that means? Why can’t journalists do their job?
Sarah Palin simply frightens me – I am absolutely scared of her. To whoever was complaining about the fact that there is another Palin post …I think more Palin posts are needed.
When PZ wrote about the Catholics again the other day – I thought ‘Come on. They are not important right now’!
The truly scary bunch – the Southern Baptist,Non-denominational, and Bible churches are the real loonies and they are quite close to being in charge!
The racist,homophobic,war mongering,earth destroying,tongue speaking,(insert more adjectives here…), bigoted KKK members need to be exposed and stopped. I truly believe our lives depend on it.
Am I being dramatic? Maybe – but I don’t think so.
She is evil. I just learned that Wasilla made rape victims pay for their own rape kits (medical attention, etc…)
Please draw more attention to her PZ. Let the Catholics off the hook for a while. At least until the election is over.
Pygmy Loris:
“Anyone know how to immigrate to New Zealand?”
I guess people in the USA see NZ as the end of the world?! :-)
“Do they need anthropology PhDs?”
One lot NZ does NOT need more of is YECs. They may not always be as vocal as they are in the USA, but there are still some… There are a number of groups trying to “distribute” Expelled, among other things, to schools. An (in)famous “American” evangelist is actually from NZ (Ray Comfort). And NZ has their very own Brian Tamaki.
frog said:
I’m clarifying what Fact Check said, that’s it.
Of course she’s got an agenda, all politicians have an agenda. That’s not deep thinking either. It doesn’t make them any less ignorant or dumbasslike. Look at Dubya, and I think Palin is really no different from him. She speaks her uninformed mind in a similar manner that Bush does, and she doesn’t care about correcting that, like Bush does. I don’t trust her anymore than you do. The last thing I want is another moron in the White House running on an agenda and ignoring facts.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious.
Joel @ #87: Yea! Where we’ve always been heading.
@ The first 50 posters (i.e., 1-50) some of who discussed the separation of church and state:
Alexander Hamilton was the one mainly responsible for that bit because he thought political parties and their ilk would be devastating to a democracy. The church that he wanted to keep out of politics was the Anglican (our own modern day Episcopalian) because it was the STATE CHURCH of the British Empire. It owned lots of land and had oodles of money (much like the Catholic Church that so many of the posters here fear, and for good reason). (Why the fuck would a colonist give a rat’s ass about a “religious litmus test” when there were so many dissenters?)
Hamilton was the real American – an immigrant who made it own his own (hey, marrying into wealth is meritocratic in itself if you can get away with it) – not that simpering twit Jefferson who was born to wealth and pontificated a narrative that humility was wonderful (and established the empire through the Louisiana Purchase – an agrarian nation, my ass). (Sound familiar this election cycle?)
I apologize for the rant because it means, like this election, nothing. Cheers.
I find it interesting how many comments are blaming the public for supporting the republicans as if that was an obvious falsehood. That was what happened in the last election too. That attitude isn’t going to win in November. I blame the last election results squarely on the Democrats. Let’s face it, what *more* could Bush have done to hand the election to Edwards, and Edwards still couldn’t win. Edwards ran on a platform of, “I’m not George Bush”. Which to the average Democrat was enough, but it clearly wasn’t enough to win. Obama had better do better than that. I really hope the Democrats learned some lessons four years ago, or they’ll only have themselves to blame in November.
Now that we’ve gotten around to Nazism, this thread is going nowhere.
No, now the thread’s getting BIGGER, which means I can hopefully go to bed at something approaching a reasonable hour.
I actually live in NYC, but I sleep on a broken futon in an AC-less studio. Fancy-schmancy hotel + free food + fun times = Happy Happy Falyne!
I probably won’t get it, but dammit, I’m gonna keep talking until that number is hit. :-P
“Not that the news media will cover it.”
To the north, the CBC has been covering it, for what it’s worth.
I’m betting it happens during the 45 minutes it takes me to get home from work this evening.
Falyne,
If you want a shot a winning, you better go to all the other threads and post at them. It’ll increase your odds. Though this isn’t the Powerball lottery, so what’s the point?
@James R. – Do you mean Kerry? or Gore?
@Cheerful Nih. – Our founders knew exactly what they were doing. They WITNESSED oppression of Catholics, Baptists, Quakers,etc… when the states had their own religions.
The oppressed became the oppressors. They saw it happen.
James R @ # 99: Let’s face it, what *more* could Bush have done to hand the election to Edwards, and Edwards still couldn’t win.
Considering that Edwards was only a footnote in that campaign, and that John Kerry (destined to be only a footnote in history) was the one running against Bush – well, one thing Bush could’ve done was to call off the fixers in Florida, Ohio, etc and try to win the election honestly. Of course, to do that he’d’ve had to pack Karl Rove off to Camp Delta, which in itself might also have made him eligible for the Nobel Peace Prize… (Hey George – it’s not too late!)
98:
Heh, I’ve always been of a mind that much of the US’s history can indeed be (over)simplified into the Hamilton/Jefferson debate writ large.
I mean, the most obvious manifestation was the Civil War, with the (indeed, more outwardly-hierarchical) agrarian economy eventually being beaten by attrition by the (oh, don’t get me wrong, the social hierarchy in the North was still determined largely by class and race issues, but there was at least perceived value in ‘rags to riches’ stories and less emphasis on “good breeding”) industrialized.
And today there’s the same divide between Red and Blue, rural and urban, as there was back then.
Oh, and our rants may mean nothing, but the election does, and I still argue there’s a huuuuuge difference between the candidates. I mean, folks said the same thing (“Oh, they’re both the same, puppets of the corporations and the elites”) about Bush and Gore. I submit that the past 8 years would have been a LOT less hellish with a Gore administration. For one thing, global warming and science in general would be taken more seriously. And while Afghanistan may have still been invaded, I really doubt we’d have gone into Iraq.
(This is an argument I’ve had way too many times with my more cynical and nihilistic friends, so it kinda pushes my buttons.)
I need to fix something that somehow got missed in the translation of one of Sarah’s quotes:
“We grow
goodpod people in our small towns…”there, fixed.
Edwards ran on a platform of, “I’m not George Bush”. Which to the average Democrat was enough, but it clearly wasn’t enough to win. Obama had better do better than that.
interesting that you don’t think he already has.
We grew Pod People in this town. I know the guitarist, he’s a cool guy.
Heraclides,
Its true that we have a small number of godbot loons here in NZ, but at least our PM can publicly state that she is an atheist.
And we have colossal squid.
One of my (distant) cousins in America sent me an e-mail saying she hopes McCain wins because Obama is an elitist and will say anything to win.
WON’T SOMEONE PLEASE STOP THE INSANITY!
Add to that the fact that she wants to get rid of contraception, and you’ve got a real winner!
Its true that we have a small number of godbot loons here in NZ, but at least our PM can publicly state that she is an atheist.
And we have colossal squid.
…and white sharks, don’t forget the sharks, man!
sooo looking forward to being there this november.
I have noticed over the years, that Kiwis seem to have a disproportionate representation on sites and blogs considered to have rational discourse.
I’m sure I will enjoy trying to figure out why that is so.
btw, first stop is Wellington, so if any of you are hanging thereabouts, I’d love to meet ya.
I am not a McCain supporter, but Palin looks pretty good compared to Texas governor Rick Perry. Here is his plea for federal assistance, as quoted from a Reuters story:
WON’T SOMEONE PLEASE STOP THE INSANITY!
Oh, I think the insanity will end up destroying the economy well enough to put a stop to itself soon enough, though it ain’t gonna be pretty.
IIRC, the last time the feds took over a lending institution as large as Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac was right before the great depression.
funny you don’t see much talk of that takeover in the news of late…
Palin looks pretty good compared to Texas governor Rick Perry
*sigh*
what was the purpose of THAT comparison, pray tell?
shit sandwich vs. giant douche?
Falyne,
I’m a cheerful nihilist: the fusion of French existentialism and American pragmatism. (See, John Barth.)
And while my better angels, as it were, want an Obama presidency, the soil I live upon (Ponca/Omaha/Pawnee/ etc./”French”) steeps me in the tradition that we are passing. And fucked. Like the Others who laid claim to this space.
Palinology?
As if the Governor could be blown away as so much flower sperm. I wish.
Ichthyic:
What are you, a pessimist?
What are you, a pessimist?
or a cheerful nihilist?
Hehe…nobody cares what Palin has done or how crazy or stupid she is.
SHE’S PRETTY! A MILF. She’s the Britney Spears of American politics. Your country is doomed!! That’s what you get for always demanding I bless you! HAHAHA!
#98 Alexander Hamilton said, “It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”
Furthermore, Hamilton was an avid supporter of Henry Clay’s “American System” which was modeled after British Mercantilism. It consisted of advocating protectionist tariffs, a central bank, and corporate welfare.
for those weary of Palinology, there appears to be plenty of room to jump into the running debate between Fuller and Grayling over Fuller’s latest waste of space he calls a book.
(Fuller, for those who don’t recall, was one of the witnesses who testified “in support” of ID at the Dover trial, and for those who further recall, ended up providing more than enough evidence for the plaintiffs :p )
anywho, both have posted commentary in this thread, and there are so few comments…
http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2008/09/steve-fuller-responds-to-ac-grayling-on.html
Ichthyic
Probably the latter, but if you drink as much as I do it’s
sometimes difficult to tell.
All I know is that I’m going nowhere if my life so far is any indication.
Uh, by the way, it wouldn’t do for us both to be the same. We need diversity, even if it’s a social construct that keeps us apart. It’s what makes America . . . so fucking lame.
Cher. (As in Sonny and . . . .)
All I know is that I’m going nowhere if my life so far is any indication.
oh, don’t be so sure. sometimes it’s good to look back at where you’ve been to get a better idea of where you are going, and just how far you’ve already gone.
~or~
roadtrip.
both work.
#95 – S. Scott – Sarah Palin frightens me – I’m absolutely scared of her. She’s evil…
Sheee-it man!
Come on. Sport some tits or grow a pair – but be scared of Palin – no. You’re ten times smarter than she is.
Alan,
And 2 centuries later we have a central bank “regulating” the economy. OK. Not a great point, but the guy had foresight. Also, he was adamantly opposed to political parties because he saw the rancor they engendered.
‘Yes, I think I will see Jesus come back to earth in my lifetime.’
Can’t come back to something he never left.
Maybe it’s time for Sarah to come back to earth.
#124 – I’m going no where in my life…
You lucky bastard! It’s good to sit at home, sip a fine sangria, and inhale the perfume of the hibiscus.
The golden harvest moon is out tonight. Enjoy going no where!
Ichthyic,
I haven’t been on one of those forever. White dogs and cute drivers are all in my past and Pennsylvania (not to mention most of the lower forty-eight above the Mason-Dixon Line. Hey, I was no fool). I get mine via delusional commenting now. Not the same thing, but it works after enough scotch.
I hope you’re posting Pacific time or later.
(I have to go sit with a semi-psychotic kindergartener tomorrow.)
And Patricia,
She’s scary ’cause she’s “shrewed.”
Bruce @81
I think the article should have pointed out that Philip Munger is a liberal community activist in the area. That should have been mentioned and doesn’t appear to have been. I don’t doubt his word, but under the circumstances I’d be a lot more comfortable if there were some corroborating witnesses. Most of us have a way of remembering things in a way that is more congruent with our views after a while.
Aaaahhh Cheerful,
There you have me. “Shrewed” can be scary!
Join me in a glass. *grin*
I hope with all my heart that the Rapture will come. With people like Sarah Palin, John Hagee, and Kirk Cameron gone, maybe the rest of us could really make life better here.
I hope you’re posting Pacific time or later.
oh yes, but, uh, it’s not like I haven’t used Pharyngula as my insomniac sandbox before.
;)
Ichthyic@123,
The fact that there is even a debate being had blows my mind. When I originally read Graylings article I was gobsmacked at the whipping he gave Fuller. I may have to go over there tomorrow and comment on the carnage.
M’Cuckoo und Petrols
A Tragedige in Hopefully Few Parts…
(Part the Seconder, in which Petrols gives an interview.)
(Part the Firstest here.)
SCENE 1: The interior of airplane. Assorted inexplicitable flunkies are snoring, drinking, chatting, or bonking. M’Cuckoo, wrapped in heavy blankets, stares blankly ahead. Raving is holding a conversation with Petrols.
DISEMBODIED VOICE: This is starfleet command. We will be landing in ten minutes. Please buckle your seatbelts and disengage your phasers. Thank you.
RAVING (turns to shout at a flunky): He’s a dogdamned pilot for Jebus sakes, not some overpaid fucking two-bit second-rate has-been actor! What’s with all this “starfleet command” shit?
FLUNKY 5: Only one we could get sir.
R.: What? Why? There’s lots of collapsing airlines. Pilots are begging for jobs.
F. 5: Jobs, yes, sir. That’s the rub. You see, sir, with a job, you, uh, well, get paid. You know, money. Green stuff.
R.: We use volunteers!
F. 5: Yup. Got it in one sir! Volunteers. Care to guess how many pilots volunteered?
R.: Lots.
F. 5: A one-finger salute would count ’em all sir. And even then we had to agree to wear these starfleet uniforms.
R.: I said lots did. Lots is more than one. Don’t bullshit me boy!
F. 5: Wouldn’t dream of it your grace. But we still only had one volunteer. He’s up front now. And it was a struggle to get him sir. He really wanted some photon torpedoes installed.
R.: Well? Install some! But why just one?
F. 5: Not really sure sir. Most of the ones we contacted just laughed. There were a couple of comments about “Theory of Gravity” and “teach the controversy” and “evildunces” but I’m afraid I have no idea what they were shouting about.
R.: Bunch of libthinks it sounds like. Probably believe some hundreds year old codswallop and ancient books and even mathematics. Fools. At least this one’s Air Force. Proper patriot.
F. 5: Yes sir. Graduated from the Academy and all.
R.: Graduated! We mean we’ve being flown around by some elitist wingflapping…
D. V.: Standby to fire retrorockets!
F. 5: Bottom of class I believe.
R. (growls and turns back to face Petrols): Fucking fuckers. Now, have you got it? Tell me what’s going to happen.
PETROLS: We land. I go. To room. Interview.
R.: Right. And then?
P. (waving a loose bunch of papers in the air, some of which escape and fly away): Read script.
R.: No, no, no! You’re supposed to have memorized the script. What have you been doing?
P.: Reading script.
R.: Do you recall any of it?
P.: Most of it. The bits in big bright letters.
R.: Ok-ay. It’ll do. This is an impromptu spur-of-the-moment interview with a friend. He has the script. You’ll be great. As they say in show business, “crack a few skulls.”
F. 5: Er, that’s “break a leg”, sir.
Raving turns to shout at the flunky and is thrown back in his seat. Not being belted in he’s then jerked forward, bounces off the seat in front of them, and slides out onto the floor. The aircraft bounces again and he hits his head on the armrest of the seat across the aisle.
D. V.: Whee! That was fun! Let’s do it again!
The engines roar. Raving is thrown back down to the floor, and being so obese, starts to roll down the aisle. There’s a sput-sput sound, and then silence. The bouncing stops. Raving slows down and eventually slides to a halt near the rear of the cabin.
D. V.: Ah shoots! We’re out of dilithium crystals. Anybody got a credit card? I can see a gas station.
SCENE 2: A makeshift television studio. Clearly inside the airport. Just at the threshold of hearing are the garbled announcements of arrivals and departures, the pleas of passengers not to confiscate the orange juice and shampoo, and the odd scream as a few are tasered. The roar of jet aircraft can be heard now and then.
RANDOM TV PERSON: Thirty seconds! Places, everyone. Clear the stage!
PETROLS (having the last touch of makeup applied): Are you sure this goes well with my dress?
MAKEUP ARTIST: Yes. I get paid. Break a leg.
R. TV P.: Ok, now! You’re on.
BATS HIT: Good morning! This is Bats Hit with your morning news roundup. All the news we’ve approved. Getting your favorite facts right. This morning we have a special interview with Emperor M’Cuckoo’s newly crowned Vice Emperor, Mrs Petrols, the Generalissimo of Oilska. But first, a word from our sponsors.
R. TV P.: Good! Three minutes. Can’t we do something about those goddamn airplanes! They’re making fucking too much noise.
TV FLUNKY: Er, this is an airport. And that’s what planes do.
P.: Shoot ’em down. I’m about to speak.
FLUNKY 5: Can’t, my lady. No photon torpedos.
B. H.: Mrs Petrols…
P.: Generalissimo!
B. H.: …sorry! Generalissimo Petrols, as soon as the ads are done, I’m going to ask you a few questions. A few so people get to know you, you know, talk about your family and all. Then a couple on your selection as Vice Emperor. Then some about your experiences as Generalissimo. And then to finish up, a few about your hopes and plans for the future as our Vice Emperor.
P.: Emperor.
B. H.: Sure, bring up M’Cuckoo. But only where you’re supposed to in the script. This interview is about you.
R. TV P.: Ten seconds!
R. TV P.: Ok, now!
B. H.: Welcome back. This is Bats Hit with all the news that’s approved. Getting your favorite facts right, right now, all day, every day. And today I have with me Generalissimo Petrols of Oilska, recently crowned Vice Emperor by our glorious next leader, Emperor M’Cuckoo! Welcome, Generalissimo.
P.: Good morning Mr Hits.
B. H.: Bats, if you would please.
P.: Ok, Bats. I’m so happy we are able to meet like this, so that I can bring my message of hope and change and plans for action and fighting to the public.
B. H.: Generalissimo, sorry, Vice Emperor…
P.: Mrs Vice Emperor, please, Bats. I have a family.
B. H.: My apologies Mrs Vice Emperor. Could you tell us a bit about your family?
P.: Sure thing, Bats. I have eighteen loving children–six boys and eleven girls–and a wonderful husband.
B. H.: Eighteen? How do you manage?
P.: Servants. We’re a simple family. The older ones look after some of estates. The young ones live with me in the palace.
B. H.: How old are they?
P.: The youngest will a year old next month. The eldest is fifteen, and is already the C.E.O. of two companies!
B. H.: Smart lad then, huh?
P.: Very. ‘Cuz we carefully home-schooled him. All the boys, in fact. Reading the bible, copying the bible, the bible as a guide to living in this world. Everything they need to know.
B. H.: Very impressive! What about the girls? How many are there?
P.: Ten girls. Several are breeding already. I’ll be a grandmother soon!
B. H.: Congratulations! And they are home-schooled as well?
P.: Girls? Schooling? Nah, that’s a waste. All they need to know how to do is cook, clean, and, well, er, it. After marriage, of course!
B. H.: Tell our viewers about your husband.
P.: A lovely strong man. Chairman and The Board of Oilska Oil Pipe Stuff, responsible for keeping the oil flowing and the moose at bay.
B. H.: Moose are problem in Oilska?
P.: Not any more.
B. H.: Mrs Vice Emperor, three days ago you were the Generalissimo of Oilska. Now your the Vice Emperor of the whole country. How did this happen?
P.: Emperor M’Cuckoo offered the job to me. He said I was, a, well, this is a bit embarrassing really… (Petrols stops and blushes.)
B. H.: Generalissimo, Mrs Vice Emperor, mother of eighteen…
P.: Not all of ’em. We purchased a few.
B. H.: …what could embarrass you? Purchased?
P.: Saved ’em from a miserable existence in a heathen wasteland. Took them to Oilska, a loving family, educated the boys, and gave them a future!
B. H.: Magnificent! True Jebusian charity. Where were they rescued from?
P.: San Francisco. From the filthy clutches of Teh Gays.
B. H.: A truly wonderful story. Just how did you go about saving the children?
P.: Easy. Find one of those horrible Gay “marriages” and shoot ’em, rescuing the children.
B. H.: You shot some of Teh Gays?
P.: No, sadly, I did not. I do shoot moose though. We hired some Jebusities to hunt down the animals.
B. H.: The moose?
P.: Teh Gays!
B. H.: Of course. Mrs Vice Emperor, may we return to your choice as Vice Emperor? How did it happen?
P.: Well, Emperor M’Cuckoo called me on, ah, thing. It rings.
B. H.: Telephone?
P.: That’s it! He said, ah, well, he said, “Gen–Gen–General–is–issi–imo, ack-puft!”
B. H.: “Ack-puft!”?
P.: Herr Raving explained the Emperor wanted me to be his, the country’s, the world’s, the universe’s, Vice Emperor.
B. H.: All that from an “Ack-puft!”?
P.: The Emperor is a man of few words. But what words! When he speaks, people listen. The wisdom, the charity, the kindness, the farsightedness, the power and emotion and “Heils!” in his voice bring people to tears.
B. H. (wiping away tears in his eyes): Very moving. Why did Emperor M’Cuckoo ask you to visit him in a furin jungle?
P.: For my safety. He’s mobbed, mobbed, by people, ya know. Screaming fans chase him down the street. We needed some quiet to discuss and plan.
B. H.: Very generous of the Emperor. Where was the jungle?
P.: Junglestan.
B. H.: Isn’t that a mooslin country?
P.: Yes, but they are safe mooslins. They’re starving, you see, but the kindest heathens you’ll ever meet.
B. H.: Why are they starving?
P.: Not enough supermarkets.
B. H.: What makes them safe mooslins?
P.: They know their place. We send the Marines over every few months to let ’em know how much we appreciate ’em.
B. H.: Supporting the troops, eh?
P.: Absolutely. Unlike the libthink atheist evilunist ecoerrorists who want to turn this great country of ours into a mooslin commie wasteland without oil.
B. H.: Mrs Vice Emperor, I see we’re about out of time. Could you briefly say what your greatest accomplishment in Oilska has been?
P.: Oh sure! Shooting moose.
B. H.: Thank you, Mrs Vice Emperor. This has been a fascinating interview with a true leader of our time, the Generalissimo of Oilska, the Vice Emperor to be of the whole country, a loving mother, a kind-hearted Jebusian, an expert in world affairs, in energy, and the fairest and most law-abiding person I’ve ever met. This is Bats Hits, your source for your news, all day every day, only the facts we want you to know, unbiased hard-hitting coverage of the world’s, the nation’s, and your local events. Good morning and may Jebus bless!
(End of Part the Seconder.)
The fact that there is even a debate being had blows my mind.
mine too, mine too.
not that you can’t stretch that up to the culture war at large and basically say the same thing.
I made the second anonymous comment over there, btw (I can’t remember my login there for the life of me).
Raven @ #72:
Right wing fruitcakes will always get about %30 support in the because about 1/3rd of human race has an authoritarian (RWA) mindset. Read Altemeyer’s work on this.
What makes US politics scary is that the authoritarian third have a higher voter turnout than normal people and that the wingnuts have been very successful at attracting 5-10 percentage points over their natural RWA constituency. Absolute support from the 1/3rd RWAs plus %10 of the generic ‘low information voters’ is enough to give wingnut ideology a lock on public policy even when the GOP is out of office.
:-(
Screw this election. I’m heading over to cuteoverload.com.
Ah! Kitties!
Palin is scary? This fucking thread is scary.
Patricia,
I’ve joined with you in too many. It’s bed-ways is the right ways, eh? (For me at least.)
And wrpd,
The Rapture has happened. Witness the fact that these folks “souls” have preceded their incarnate bodies by a bit. (But I quibble.)
@blf…
Is that part of the script for the upcoming movie “W”*?
*before anyone asks, yes, there really is going to be a movie made about his life…
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1175491/
note the genre…
biography/comedy.
more like comedy/tragedy.
blf = Yikes!
(And I didn’t exactly read your screed ’cause I need to shut down, but it was a tad too loooong. Just paste a link next time, okay?)
Zzzzzzzzzzzz
(And not as in the Type-Z personality)
Snizzle, yo!
In case some haven’t seen it yet, here’s an interesting article recently published in Edge:
WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN?
don’t let the clip at the start deter you, wade through it all and decide for yourself if it’s really psychology, or more like pop-psychology.
I found his closing argument to be worth thinking about, from an “understand you enemy” pov.
I think there is a worthy point in there somewhere, amongst the platitudes, appeals to “golden mean” type thinking, and a tendency to sound an awful lot like Nisbet’s framing arguments.
In fact, I rather think the key point missing in the article is not what progressives miss about conservatives, but rather WHY progressives reject adopting conservative framing to begin with.
If religious zealots hate this planet so much that they want to see it destroyed in their life time. I suggest we buy them new shoes and give them a comet schedule. ta ta, In other words a self cleaning genetic pool.
If religious zealots hate this planet so much
I think you’ll find, if you push them hard enough, that they really have nothing against the planet; rather they hate themselves.
HOW THE GOP CAN WIN
Stage a (fake) assassination attempt against Sarah Palin.
It would take some arranging and timing would be critical but if it were right they’d win for sure.
How surprised would you really be?
Isn’t it about time we found Bin la-din… oh wait that’s suppose to happen in October.Have to take in account American’s short memory span.
Stage a (fake) assassination attempt against Sarah Palin.
a poorly staged fake terrorist ‘attack’ would probably suffice, if timed right.
OTOH, I think W is saving that for his non-exit strategy.
I haven’t heard much about the absurd notion fundagelicals have about not having a woman “over” them. I think this is going to be a real problem for them, especially considering that from an actuarial standpoint, there is a very high probability that McCain won’t make it out of his first term alive.
..Chuck..
I am a bit curious, but I remember when I was young, US political types were occasionally mentioning these words “Life”, “Liberty” and the “Pursuit of Happiness”. Now we have god all the time.
Most of the religious ancestor’s moved to the US to either get out of the shit hole they were living in Europe or find religious “Freedom”. Ironic that they are now busy building a new religious intolerant empire in your country.
It may not be long before you see the above three parts of your declaration physically removed, it would appear that they are on the way to being forgotten philosophically.
pk, #140?
I doubt I can face a future with her face plastered on every available venue.
Talk about nightmare. That would be when the era of terrorism transitions full-blast into horrorism.
SHRIEEEEK
My friend was working in Alaska for the past several years, and he hates Pailin. I was telling him something that pissed me off one day, right after the Republican VP announcement, and he responded with the question, Know what I hate?”
This is what he wrote when I asked, “What?”
“”Sarah Palin,” and here is some reasons why:
1. She’s uber conservative.
2. She’s against sexual education in schools, and preaches abstinence-only (Boy, that really worked out well in her house didn’t it?)
3. She’s nutso pro-life.
4. She fires librarians for refusing to remove books that she found to be “somehow morally or socially objectionable.”
5. She’s against “big government”, but she advocates ideals/programs that would hand over control of our private lives to “big government”.
6. She has offered no solutions for the economic downward spiral the country is in.
7. She reduced spending on a museum, opposed funding for a bigger library, but increased local taxes in order to build a sports complex (she criticized the incumbent for what she called wasteful spending and high taxes when running for mayor).
8. She fires people (like police chiefs and fire chiefs) who don’t agree with her under the pretence that they “weren’t acting in the best interest of the party”, or that they “didn’t fully support her”.
9. She opposes placing polar bears on the endangered species list, and drove the lawsuit filed by AK to stop the listing amid fears that it would hurt oil and gas development in the bears’ habitat off Ak’s northern and northwestern coasts.
10. She denies human involvement in global warming, recently stating after her nomination as VP that she’s “not one though who would attribute it to being man-made”.
11. She advocates the exploitation of AK’s natural resources, and is itching to open ANWAR for oil drilling. (Her VP speech was met with chants of “Drill, baby drill”.)
12. She gave Alaskans a $1200 tax-free check from the windfall surplus in the state’s oil reserves instead of putting that money to good use, such as fixing the state’s deplorable infrastructure and education system. Why replace 10-year old text books when you can appeal to the greedy populace and thereby inject steroids into your approval ratings? No wonder it’s at 80%.
13. She vetoed funding that was for over 300 construction projects and reduced the state’s overall construction budget. Having lived there, I can’t understand it…
14. She’s for the oxymoronic lie called “clean coal”.
15. She’s not what you’d call “educated”, having only a communications degree. Nor is she worldly by any means, having just recently purchased her first passport.
16. She gave a VP acceptance speech that said NOTHING about the reality of climate change, but instead spouted the same old tired hollow meaningless bullshit about “looking into” alternative energy sources… past legislation of which McCain has consistently shot down every single time it came to congress.
17. Her bio actually lists her beauty queen competitions and captain of her high school basketball team as being noteworthy achievements.
18. She opposes giving uninsured Americans affordable healthcare.
19. She opposes education support programs.
20. She rode the Senator Ted Steven’s band wagon of funneling federal monies to worthless programs in AK for years, yet says she is an advocate for cutting federal spending…. To that end, her campaign for AK governor promoted the “Bridge to Somewhere”, but after taking office, she canned it as the “Bridge to Nowhere”…. and apparently kept the money intended for the project anyway.
21. She thinks that being mayor of a town of 7,000 for 6 years and governor of an isolated state for 2 years that has the population of Santa Monica, has given her ample experience for the vice presidency… and presidency should the need arise.
22. She uses her Army infantry son as propaganda to promote why the Iraq war was a good idea.
23. She talks a tough game…. She throws hard punches and plays the part of a “bulldog” with lipstick quite well… but it’s all the same tired rhetoric we’ve heard coming out of male politician mouths for years…. shallow promises of resolve with sugar-coated insults and threats. Worthless.
24. She actually thinks that calling herself a “hockey mom” is a good thing.
25. And best yet… she’s a Catholic who became a non-denominational bible-banging holy-rolling Pentacostal.”
So it seems all people living in Alaska didn’t quite like Palin …
Lago, #153, wrote:
Can you skip the obnoxious, insulting comments about communications degrees? Yeah, it’s mostly the choice of the less-gifted who do it for the sake of doing a degree, but some (myself included) chose to do it because that’s what we were interested in – and I don’t for a second regret doing it since what I learned made my life a heck of a lot more interesting and enjoyable.
Just because you can get your name on the diploma without being particularly educated – some of my classmates are good examples – but that doesn’t mean that everyone who gets one is sailing through without gaining something worthwhile from it.
Sarah Palin, however, is an embarrassment to graduates of all kinds, not just communications.
Michael@91,
Re Gramm-Leach-Biley, see particularly:
http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-vs-mccain-on-gramm-leach-bliley.html
Why hasn’t Obama been shouting “I told you so!” from the rooftops?
Hey, PZ, got to point out to you that Fascism does not equal Nazism or racism.
Oh lol Wowbagger.
Right, because “taking the high road” has worked SO WELL in past campaigns.
OBVIOUS CONCERN TROLL IS OBVIOUS
So, in your opinion, a person’s ideas about how society should be organized and function, and how government should operate relative to the people, are not relevant to the desirability of electing her?
OBVIOUS ([ ]CONCERN TROLL [ ]LUNKHEAD) IS OBVIOUS (Check all that apply)
What a choice! Go Sarah Go! I watched CNN special on Sarah, and it was surprisingly a good piece on her. She supports the war in Iraq and backs that up with her son going to fight over there.
Also, Sarah is not running for President, only VP. So how did Al Gore affect Clinton policy? More like Hillary had more experience in policy than Al. Speaking of foreign policy who other than the President of the United States has experience? I believe the President is the only one who can dictates foreign policy. Congress doesn’t come up with a foreign policy to be voted on, the President does, and if anyone says Sarah lacks foreign policy that is correct because she never was President…lol…Joe Biden does have experience only in foreign affairs but he had never created a foreign policy, so he has no experience either. 36 years in office, I think Joe it’s time to go…lol
On a more serious note, watching you people trying to destroy Sarah is sad…
I submit that the past 8 years would have been a LOT less hellish with a Gore administration. For one thing, global warming and science in general would be taken more seriously. And while Afghanistan may have still been invaded, I really doubt we’d have gone into Iraq. – Falyne@106
Almost certainly not: the invasion of Iraq was the aim of the PNAC crew around Bush right from the start, and might have happened sooner but for 9-11.
Your site is terrible Michael. If that were a foetus, I’d abort it on principle. It’s worse than a Downs baby.
Yes, Sarah Palin is a religious nutcase who is associated with an inflammatory, racist demagogue. We need to elect someone rational like Obama, who believes in the REAL invisible sky fairy (not Palin’s fake one), and who is associated with voices of reason, science, and racial harmony, such as Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Phew, I’m glad the democrats provide a sane alternative to the republicans. After all, since we all agree the government should control all aspects of our lives, it’s important we highlight these fundamental, substantive differences between the candidates.
It’s not a question of whether the government should continue to expand it’s size, scope, and power over the citizenry, but rather of who is going to lead the way. And I want to make sure my next master believes in the right invisible sky fairy.
Kel, #157, wrote:
What? You think just because a guy
reads comicshas a communications degree he can’t start some shit?I have been a McCain watcher since 1980.
I didn’t think he could do it but John McCain has found a running mate crazier than himself.
And I want to make sure my next master believes in the right invisible sky fairy.
You can’t get elected to high office in the US unless you profess belief in invisible sky fairies. Sad but true.
I’d assume people who do communications degrees know only how to fight, and occasionally drink…
Only joking there Wowbagger, I did a degree of choice (Computer Science) as opposed to going into Physics or Philosophy.
You are so right, BluesBassist. A pro-science progressive who has been using the church as a tool for social support is just as bad as a flaming fundy who’s going to stack the SCOTUS and executive branch with her fellow nutters. *facepalm*
Kel wrote:
Drink – back in the old days, yes. Fight? Not so much. Communications wasn’t really the subject choice of footballers (which is what I suspect is the case in the US) when I did it; my classmates were mostly girls who wanted to be editors of Cleo or Cosmo (or maybe Dolly), some sci-fi/fantasy nerds and one or two quasi-literary types – like me. I enjoyed myself and learned a lot about things that interest me.
Of course it wasn’t much use for getting a job – but that isn’t why I did it. I stumbled into a decent enough job so I’ve got the best of both worlds.
Sounds like you picked the right degree. There was one in my course out of about 20 people. That’s what happens when you do game programming: for some reason it attracts young nerdy males. :P
i’m the millionth!
Michael@160: “On a more serious note, watching you people trying to destroy Sarah is sad…”
Sad indeed. Why can’t we have decent candidates?
Full support of Kel at # 162. That is a truly and utterly shit website Mikey.
Moother at # 171
You may have just had a case of premature exlamation my boy.
I have just three points to add to this debate:
1. Modern Christian fundamentalists ignore the fact that along with the Deists, many of the early secularists were Baptists who thought that by having government entangled in religion it would spoil religion. They only had to look back across the oceans to see how religion had been used by government, They wanted independence. There are Baptists who actively work against encroachment.
2. The focus on Palin is exactly what the McCain camp wants. It takes the focus away from McCain, which is still who Obama should be hammering on.
3. Obama, even though he talks about his religion a lot, at least recognizes the value of secular government. Palin doesn’t mask the fact that she thinks that religion and government go hand in hand. I would rather have Obama nominating the members of the next Supreme Court than either McCain or Palin (and yes, I am aware of Obama’s position on Faith-Based Iniatives. As liberals we need to be aware that once an agency gets funding you can’t get rid of it even long past the time when its failures have become obvious.)
Mike @175
Surely we need to focus on both McCain AND Palin.
Very little.
Re frog #59 – Spot on. Godwin’s law was made by fascists to stifle criticism.
and Joe #54 – Also spot on.
It seems to me that progressives have the numbers on our side if we can only mobilise.
What can you do or say to get the vote out? How can you overcome caging and the challenging of ballots? How can you give the young guy upthread some hope? ‘cos if palin gets in, new zealand just won’t be far enough to run.
Given you can’t get off planet, GET THE VOTE OUT! (eleventyone)
…millionth what?
i’m the 999,963rd!
If the Republican ticket wins again, we’re all doomed.
Please, tell me that someone in the media has stated the obvious.
McCain picked Palin because she can gather the ultra-conservative and religious votes, as well as sway female fence sitters. (Stupid) Women and men will vote for her because she is female! All the wile thinking they are radical rule breakers!
Scary.
There is so much drama surrounding this woman…who is willing to put America’s future in her crazy hands?
@110: I agree. I was just balancing the fact that people often have too a rosy view from afar. By way of example, a lot of people who’ve never been to one of the Pacific islands wouldn’t think of the poverty most of them have. (Away from the resorts, that is!) For the sake of international relations, I would have thought that the USA leadership should at least appear to atheist.
if Palin gets in that’ll be the worst thing to happen to this planet since G.W. Bush became president!
There is so much drama surrounding this woman…who is willing to put America’s future in her crazy hands?
Anyone have room in their country for me? I will be emigrating as soon as this election is over(that is, if these two nutjobs win).
As for the “dino/human tracks”, Answers in Genesis have the information on it, just google exactly “Dinosaur human tracks” and you will get a ton of hits.
Yes, these people believed we walked, talked, lived, and breathed, with carnivorous, giant, fanged, animals.
toni
if Palin gets in that’ll be the worst thing to happen to this planet since G.W. Bush became president!
What I want to know is how Palin will deal with the Cylons?
I find it utterly bizarre that people can be taken in by this display of ignorance and/or insanity without questioning anything. The McCain/Palin choice is such a bad choice for USA and for the world that I find it near impossible for any educated citizen even consider voting for them.
How many would vote for someone who said she still believed in monsters under her bed, or that the boogeyman had chosen the closet in her bedroom as his hideout? Of course not… but really, why would that be crazy, and her current beliefs are sound?
Why do Christians get to call us the crazy ones? It has got to stop.
3. Obama, even though he talks about his religion a lot, at least recognizes the value of secular government.
What does it matter if you believe as Obama does or believe as Palin does? They both believe in the very same thing. They are no different.
Obama believes that Man walked with Dinosaurs?
@Lago:
BWAHAHAHAHA. You think 10 year old text books are bad? In my social studies class (this would’ve been around 1983 or so), there was a line in the book “Someday, Man will reach the moon”
This was upstate NY, not AK.
lol
Obama believes that Man walked with Dinosaurs?
I don’t know about that, but since he’s willing to believe the in the same God as Sarah Palin, I guess it’s possible.
Joel wrote:
Not where it matters most to politics:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/03/why-obamas-christianity-doesnt-bother.html
Obama is both a believer and a secularist. Believing in God, even in Jesus, doesn’t preclude one from being a secularist and supporting separation of Church and state. And, in fact, because Obama has said other things we can know he is a secularist. For example, this speech, the “Call to Renewal Keynote Address”:
1) Doesn’t anyone here actually know what Godwin’s Law is? Hint: It’s a decriptive, not prescriptive, Law. “As any discussion on the internet grows the probability of someone mentinoning Hitler approaches 1”. The corollory is that once that happens rational discussion is pretty much over. The second corollory is that if you Godwin a thread you automatially lose. Godwin’s Law is a wry and amusing observation about the habits of trolls, and has just about nothing to do with fascism or the stifling of dissent. STOP TAKING IT SERIOUSLY.
2) 14,000 people? I think that’s the entire adult population of Nunavut.
3) Our turn to build a border wall.
Sure it’s possible I guess. It’s also possible he thinks the world is 6000 years old and that Noah actually had every kind two by two (though every indication is that he does not) but he doesn’t want to have it added to the school curriculum.
I want to know how Noah kept track of his 2 placozoans.
Calling Palin a she beast insults animals.
You have to be more self aware, cognizant, and human to be truly as evil as she is. The Palins of the world have always been with us as agents of hate, chaos, and mass murder.
The Reformation, the inquisition, the witch burnings, Pol Pot, the Taliban, Jonestown Guyana, the FLDS, the 9/11 murderers, Osama bin Laden and on and on. Nothing like religious fanaticism to bring out the darkness of the human mind.
#178 eddie Re frog #59 – Spot on. Godwin’s law was made by fascists to stifle criticism.
Nope. It was a joke – not a “fascist plot” of any kind, just pointing out the fact that folks on the left had a tendency to throw out the word “fascist” at anything they disagreed with – just like right-wingers call communist anything that’s to the left of Ratzi.
Neither fact diminishes the reality of fascists and communists. They do actually exist – the words have analytic value – and throwing around Godwin’s Law willy nilly, rather than as a joke to make fun of inappropriate and hyperbolic use of the terms is just really, really stupid. Just like using other jokey terms, like “reductio ad fascium” inappropriately is just stupid – that fits only for the absurd proposition that “X was done by fascists, therefore anyone who does X is a fascist”, such as when communists get called fascists because they have some totalitarian policies in common!
I think there is good reason to suspect that Palin leans toward a contemporary form of fascism, in a way that doesn’t fit Bush or McCain. Those guys are corporatists and oligarchists, and are willing to use fascist impulses – but they’ve always shyed away from outright fascism, since it’s bad business. But your third-waver’s, “Capitalist Jesus”, immantize the eschaton, theonomic type folks, they’re the real thing.
Norman, thank you for the answer.
Graculus: Doesn’t anyone here actually know what Godwin’s Law is?
Thank-you Graculus. That’s why I suggested frog’s codicile, that the serious application of Godwin’s law is in itself a sign of trollage.
“As any discussion on the internet grows the probability of someone invoking Godwin’s Law inappropriately approaches 1”.
Additionally, the inappropriate usage of Latinate rhetorical terms (“reductio ad …”) as “logical fallacies”, also is inevitable.
Ummm, why? If you saw a demon ascending from the deepest depths of hell, wouldn’t you try to push it back?
It is just survival and self defense. Rest assured, if we are unsuccessful in opposing Palin and her minions, they can and will can do as much damage as they can to as many people as they can.
These are fascists to be sure, but more than that they are Nihilists whose goal is to destroy for the sake of destruction. Palin is on record as saying god is going to show up in her lifetime, destroy the earth, and kill 6.7 billion people. She thinks this is a good thing. Even Stalin only wanted a few tens of millions of people out of the way so he could be a dictator.
frog @#201: Whenever people cite Godwin against seriously argued comparisons with fascism I think of this.
It wasn’t just about leftists throwing around “Nazi” was it? I thought the point was that, in the before-times when they were the only two groups with modems, lefties and libertarians would race to shout “Nazi” at one another.
Matt Heath:
XKCD reference. You win!
The usenet period was my computer interregnum, so I can only speak from “historical research”. It wasn’t a BBS issue in the early ’80s – and from the late 90’s on the Libertarians weren’t nearly so ready to throw Hitler around, after their Clinton paranoia kicked in. But I expect you’re right.
frog: The “XKCD reference wins thread” rule IS serious, of course ;).
I am talking entirely from secondary sources on the Godwin thing too, btw.
Yeah I remember reading such a thing, not on FactCheck but some other web site via copypasta. I was not impressed with those arguments either.
As for the protest:
McCain/Palin
Unstable/Unable
Those protesters are REALLY creative to catchy slogans!
Isn’t it about time we found Bin la-din… oh wait that’s suppose to happen in October.Have to take in account American’s short memory span.
Yeah, and that’s what was said before the last election, too. Don’t you losers *ever* get tired of being WRONG?
Funny how those conspiracy theories never pan out.
It is just survival and self defense. Rest assured, if we are unsuccessful in opposing Palin and her minions, they can and will can do as much damage as they can to as many people as they can.
These are fascists to be sure, but more than that they are Nihilists whose goal is to destroy for the sake of destruction.
Can you try to be a little more dramatic.
I have to grant Obama a pass on teaching ID in schools:
“Intelligent design is not science. We should teach our children theology to get them to think about the meaning of life. But that’s separate from how atoms or photons work.” – Obama source
I’ll even be generous and assume that the “atoms and photons” reference was directed at science in general rather than biology. He gets a fail on the “teach our children theology” part though, and a big fail for belonging to a racially motivated hate group, that, apparently, he found instructional regarding the “meaning of life” – how precious.
Face it folks, there is no “they’re crazy” gotcha when it comes to religion. Every strata of American life bleeds religiosity. Believing crazy religious stuff is normal, espoused by each and every candidate wholeheartedly, without a shred of embarrassment, and without critical response.
Mind you, I don’t think any of the candidates are completely off the deep end within an American context. They’re just every-day god-bent.
frog@201,http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CE3DB153CF936A25753C1A962958260
Do you have any good URLs on this stuff that I haven’t found?
I’ve been googling on various of your terms, and the Alaska Independence Party are certainly a bunch of right-wing kooks, but they seem to be affiliated to the “Constitution Party”, which judging from its platform, I’d call socially authoritarian right-populist rather than outright fascist (but I don’t know the US right that well, there may well be tell-tales I’m missing); the AIP attended the First North American Secessionist Convention, as did the Southern League (League of the South, as it now calls itself), but I can’t find any other link between the League and AIP. Their founder, Joe Vogler, died in mysterious circumstances, but as far as I can discover there’s only the word of his admitted murderer that he was trying to buy explosives:
Why is it that in most parts of the world parties that advocate independence tend to be right-wing to extreme right-wing ?
And is the UK the exception in that the nationalist parties in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are all left of centre ?
“We grow good people in our small towns…”
…and we use horse shit as fertilizer…
I came here looking for science and all I found was a DU clone.
Dummy underground.
NG: I haven’t kept track – I probably should have.
On the other hand, the Constitution Party may not be explicitly fascist, but I find it hard to believe that you can run to the edge like they do and then stop. Maybe my sense of smell is bad, but I smell a front.
For example, according to the League of the South website (http://dixienet.org/New Site/index.shtml), the Constitution Party’s presidential candidate is speaking at their 15th annual convention, and the Constitution Party’s presidential candidate of ’04 proudly proclaimed the LS’s endorsement of him: http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?action=eventview&event_id=295
I can’t think of what else to call neo-Confederates other than fascists – in the stream of the falangists and other religious fascists of the hispanophone world.
So, the AIP is a part of the Constitution Party, and endorses the Constitution Party’s presidential candidate (http://www.akip.org/). The CP’s proudly allied with the neo-Confederates, who are closely tied with the militia movement, the dominionists and the other assorted movements that believe in “Capitalist Jesus”.
As I said, it smells to me of the same pattern that was seen with Spain and Italy, where you had an alliance of right-wing anarchists, old-school theonomists, business and racists (less of the racists in the Spain/Italy form than the US). They are clearly right-wing revolutionaries with a heavy, heavy authoritarian bent, yet wrapping their rhetoric in a “Libertarian” language – just as the Fascists co-opted anarchist language.
@213: In Spain the various separatists range from centre-left to hard left. Also Kurdish separatists in Turkey and Tamil separatists in Sri Lanka have Marxist-derived ideologies. I think the Quebecois nationalists lean leftwards too.
So it can go either way.
Yes, sure. But it won’t do much good. The English language has limitations and isn’t really capable of dealing with vicious mental defectives like Palin and her xian nihilist buddies.
She thinks god will show up in her lifetime, destroy the earth, and kill all 6.7 billion people. And that this is a good thing. Hard to top that until the xian nihilists figure out that there really is a 13.7 billion light year universe with trillions of stars. There are drawbacks to being scientifically ignorant, not enough imagination.
In the unlikely event that one of them ever reads and understands an astronomy textbook, they will have a new mantra. So many solar systems to destroy, so many heathen aliens on other planets to convert or kill, so little time.
“unlikely to co-operate” with democracy “so long as it remains tainted and run by partisan individuals that have a pre-determined conclusion”
where is jebus cripes now? surely he would stand beside her so she has nothing to fear? or is the devil stronger?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7618524.stm
bk @ #140 whined:
So while a young earth creationist with fascist tendencies and a firm conviction that a dead Jewish carpenter is going to return to the Earth in her lifetime is running for the second highest office in the land, you are more frightened by the people who express concern over this? Really? I shudder to imagine the sort of world people like you would prefer.
“Right-wing anarchists”? What are you talking about? And what time period are you discussing? There is no necessary politics linked to separatism. In the late 19th century the Catalanists were a rightwing “party of order,” very traditionally authoritarian and connected to the traditional elites and the Catholic Church. They tended to side with the Conservative party of the turno, pushing the national government toward stronger “state security” measures, especially against anarchists and republicans. (Catalan republicans, in contrast, were generally nationalist and tended to ally with the Liberals in government.) In the early 20th century, Catalanism also became the movement of “modernizing” industrialists – still rightwing, but now with a new rhetoric. Although there was a left-leaning Catalanist wing in the first decade of the century, it wasn’t until much later that a real Catalanist left emerged. Now both leftist and rightist Catalanism exist. Neither has anything to do with anarchism/anarchosyndicalism, which in the Spanish context has always been a strongly transnationalist movement of the far left (the real far left I mean – not state-communism). Anarchists in both Spain and Italy, and the US for that matter, were a major force speaking out against and opposing the rise of fascism in the ’20s and ’30s.
In Scotland, we have at least four separatist parties, all to the left of any of the main unionist parties (not a demanding requirement, it should be said): the well-known SNP, which now forms a minority Scottish government, plus the Scottish Green Party, and two Trot-led parties, the Scottish Socialist Party and Solidarity.
SC@221, when frog talks of “right-wing anarchists” in this context, maybe he’s thinking of Georges Sorel? (About whom I know little, but he was apparently influenced by Proudhon and Bakunin, and on the other hand praised Mussolini.)
Michael #160 said:
So how did Al Gore affect Clinton policy?
an implied rhetorical question that really only implies how little Michael knows about what Al accomplished as a VP under Clinton.
…but then, it hardly surprises me that someone who supports the current GoP would have little knowledge of actual policy.
@#221: Far be it from to speak on frog’s behalf but from context (we were talking about the rise of fascism after all) it is reasonable to assume he meant that right-wing anarchists= National Syndicalists who had been part of the (Anarcho-Syndicalist) CNT and then joined the Falange. The word “anarchist” was probably poorly chosen to describe them, though.
Here in Wales Plaid Cymru (literally ‘Free Wales’ but the English name used by the party is ‘The Party of Wales’). They too are to the left of the unionist parties, and are in coalition with Labour in the Welsh Assembly. I agree with a good number of their policies but they do seem a rather earnest bunch.
The political situation in Spain prior the civil war has always struck me as being rather convoluted.
Is there anyone who understands what all those acronyms stood for, and who was allied with who and when ?
I meant the fascists co-opted anarchist language, and thereby picked up folks who could have been swayed to either side. Wasn’t Proudhon taken as a fascist hero, just as he was an anarchist hero, for example?
It’s what I always find with too much of Libertarianism in the US – the language of liberty concealing authoritarian impulses. After a few beers, I’ve had more than one Libertarian start into a spiel about how if we were only free, then the Strong would be released from their fetters to dominate, like some kind of Ayn Randian superhero.
I have always taken that to be part of the Libertarian agenda. I am disgusted by much in Libertarianism but I think the not so hidden assumption of superiority over the masses is the worst aspect.
It seems Sorel can variably be called a socialist, a Communist, a(n anarcho)syndicalist,… if you focus on different aspects of his thought. In any event, he was French, and was not a figure of influence among southern European anarchists, even in discussions of the general strike. Makes little sense as an explanation for the reference to “an alliance of right-wing anarchists” with fascists in Spain.
Who were they? The cenetistas led the revolution in Barcelona, and allied with the Republicans and the POUM.
What about Obama’s stand on Gay Marriage? Opposing it it due to his belief in God.
To demonstrate tolerance, however, he would enact prejudice into law with a civil union substitute for fundamental rights. This would institutionalize second-class citizenship while relegating gays to our own Jim Crow railroad car on America’s new Freedom Train. It’s not mere audacity but downright chutzpah, for an African American civil rights lawyer to oppose due process and equal protection for no reason other than deep faith and religious connotations. This demonstrates contempt for the doctrine of separation of church and state to which he pays lip-service.
http://ebar.com/common/inc/article_print.php?sec=guest_op&article=73
Wow, Joel, you’re really reaching there. The article you’ve linked to doesn’t actually cite anything that can be independently verified, and considering the writer’s over the top rhetoric you’ll excuse me if I have a hard time taking their word at face value.
A much better source (http://pewforum.org/religion08/compare.php?Issue=Gay_Marriage) says the following:
I don’t know who these folks are who could be swayed to either side if the two sides are anarchism and fascism.
Anarchism doesn’t have heroes. In my study of fascism, I haven’t found much mention of him (and I would’ve noticed). To the extent that he may have been appropriated by fascists, it would have been more for what he opposed than for his more anarchistic ideas.
This is absolutely true, and it’s disgusting. (If you had just said this, you would’ve spared me a rant. :)) I’m wary of another discussion of this, since I just had a row with JoJo last week about whether libertarians can be called anarchists and whether such a thing as “anarcho-capitalism” can exist. I don’t believe they can – anarchism historically has been anticapitalist, and no libertarian can in practice support the abolition of the state. Often, the figures they point to – e.g., Benjamin Tucker – did not really have the ideas they attribute to them, so it’s important to be careful. Also, some of the more individualist anarchists had some interesting insights on various subjects, but the more Supermanish aspects of their thought were explicitly opposed by anarchist movements in Europe and South America.
José Álvarez Junco and Adrian Shubert’s (2000) Spanish History since 1808 is a good place to start.
A poll
This just goes to show that the Republican party has gone completely insane. McPander vetted this loony tune for a whole 15 minutes before deciding to ask her on to the ticket. Apparently no one vetted her speech to root out the quoting of a home-grown American fascist. It is just absolute insanity! I am an American expat living in Europe for nearly 20 years now, and I am just astonished that America has allowed the knuckle-draggers to get this close to the corridors of power.
Aauurrgghh! Link no work … try this. (Bottom right of page)
http://www.news4jax.com/index.html
SC: I don’t know who these folks are who could be swayed to either side if the two sides are anarchism and fascism.
I obviously don’t have the historical depth here. But wasn’t there a national syndicalism in Italy and another one in Spain that used the anarcho-syndicalist language of opposition to the “bourgeoisie” and local autonomy (but in a perversely nationalist way?)
It’s always been my impression that the “doctrine” of fascism — other than what it is, a revolutionary populist nationalist authoritarianism — is just a melange of political ideologies intended to sway folks from other groups. In other words, it doesn’t have a doctrine per se, but doctrine is just a propagandistic game. So they’ll throw in some anarchist words, some socialist words, some Libertarian words, Christian words, whatever… as long as it makes enough sense to appeal to folks with a passing attachment to those groups. That’s why when folks try to analyze fascism as if it were a coherent ideology, they always end up arguing over angels on a pin head (are Catholic fascists fascists?)
So who would those folks be? Just folks, folks who haven’t worked out a coherent personal code so you can pull them in with appealing words, words that touch the right bases, but without any substance. The same kind of folks that will mouth Libertarian platitudes, because they believe in “Liberty”, and then agree with the Constitution Party because the “sound” Libertarian…
WWSD? What Would Sarah Do? Blast it, ban it, burn it, bomb it–and birth it. [Sorry I can’t think of a b word that means to prevaricate about it.]
and I am just astonished that America has allowed the knuckle-draggers
to get this close tointo the corridors of power.fixed.
Here’s what Kropotkin (OK, a hero, but a hero to many nonanarchists as well!) had to say about the individualist anarchism of Max Stirner* in his 1910 entry on anarchism in the Encyclopaedia Britannica:
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/britanniaanarchy.html
*Again, Stirner did have some fascinating things to say. I’ve long wanted to read more about/by him.
…btw, I WAS astonished when I learned how much most americans prefer knuckle-draggers… back when Reagan was elected; but I was young then (18 for his re-election) so I had an excuse.
I’m hardly astonished any more. Instead, I’m astonished when the majority of us manage to resist the inane rhetoric and appeals to safety and authority for actually debating and voting the real issues at hand. Even if the issues are ones that directly impact their daily lives, it appears the case that the majority of americans will readily abandon their own cause in favor of some nice, pleasing, rhetoric coming from the mouth of someone they’d be “happy to have a beer with”.
“…btw, I WAS astonished when I learned how much most americans prefer knuckle-draggers…”
It’s always depressing, and the consequences of the last quarter century are obvious–American prestige has definitely declined under GWB. The only hope is that the demographics of the country will eventually put white social/religious conservatives in the minority. I really think this is what scares them about Obama–he’s a harbinger of the change that is inevitable.
That is as long as a President Palin doesn’t get a chance to usher in Armageddon. Of course if she does, the red states will be even redder and deader.
SC: Here’s what Kropotkin (OK, a hero, but a hero to many nonanarchists as well!) had to say about the individualist anarchism of Max Stirner* in his 1910 entry on anarchism in the Encyclopaedia Britannica:
That’s the thinking that links them! I’ve always puzzled over this, the tendency for anarchism and fascism to be so active so often at the same time, for fascism to steal anarchism’s “lines” from time to time, for these kind of Libertarianisms to flourish that claim freedom, but are impulsed by authoritarian tendencies.
Stirner. It should have come to mind. Basically, anyone who came out of the Hegelian matrix appears to be a piece of crap! A clever piece of crap, but at the end, a piece of crap nontheless.
As I said before, ideas or rhetoric from anarchism and syndicalism – as well as a number of other isms – were appropriated by fascist movements. The idea of opposition to capitalism or “the bourgeoisie” certainly was, although this is rich with irony for obvious reasons. I’m not sure about “local autonomy (but in a perversely nationalist way?).” Fascist movements were very explicitly nationalist and centralizing, so any calls for local autonomy were anathema.
The question of anarchism and separatism is a fascinating one. As I mentioned above, in Catalonia, the Catalanist regionalists were the political adversaries, not the allies, of the anarchists. Spanish anarchists, in naming their organizations in the 19th century, sought names that weren’t tied to the nation – the Federation of the Spanish Region, the Federation of Workers of the Spanish Region, etc. The precursor to the CNT, Solidaridad Obrera (Workers’ Solidarity), was so named intentionally to set it against Solidaritat Catalana (Catalan Solidarity), which had formed just prior. They wanted to emphasize the transnational nature of the federation (and it was transnational, with connections to organizations across Europe and in the Americas). That the CNT includes “National” should not be taken as any indication of nationalist sentiments.
One place where tensions between local or nationalist movements and anarchism is Cuba at the turn of the 20th century. It’s a very interesting case. Constructing political identities that are based on values but at the same time rooted in particular places is complicated…
But I’ll emphasize again that anarchist movements have been among the most vocal opponents of fascism (Carlo Tresca and Luigi Fabbri are particularly interesting in this regard).
I think you definitely have a point here, but we need to be careful. Fascism has an ideology, and there have been groups that have historically formed its political base. Michael Mann (from whose Fascists I’ve quoted here recently) and Robert O. Paxton have, I think, the most solid definitions of fascism and analyses of its social bases.
But it doesn’t link them! Those ideas of Stirner’s that would be useful for fascists were precisely those that were rejected, as Kropotkin points out, by actual anarchist movements. When he says the support for these ideas was confined to a few narrow intellectual circles, he’s accurately describing the scorn of these ideas in anarchist organizations. Evidence of this is all over the anarchist working-class and anarchosyndicalist press of the era. They were very clear in their opposition to these ideas. It’s irresponsible to take a handful of notions espoused by certain individuals and attempt on that basis to draw a link between historical phenomena.
Natalie, I don’think it is a reach at all. Here’s what Barack Obama says: Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, “I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”
http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm
If we are going to be concerned about our representatives keeping their religious views out of our legislative process, shouldn’t it apply to all areas?
SC: I think you definitely have a point here, but we need to be careful. Fascism has an ideology, and there have been groups that have historically formed its political base.
I was reading Mussolini’s “The Doctrine of Fascism”, to clarify my understanding — who could be a more “authoritative” author. Mostly what I found was the kind of fancy gobbledy-gook that you find in deconstructive writings, where every word means everything, anything but always it’s own exact opposite.
But here was the nub: the writer of these pages has already defined Fascism as an organized, centralized, authoritarian democracy. where by “democracy” he meant populist and totalitarian — everyone has no choice but to be involved in government.
Well, what kind of ideology is that, except for the negation of ideology? The ideology is power, without any rational justification. All the justifications are irrational references to “will” or “spiritualism” or “God” or “State” (with the capital S) or “Struggle”. It just seems to say that winners should win! If they’re losers, they should become winners! The rest is rationalization, not reason.
That’s the kind of thinking that seems to underpin the radical right in the US as well — worship the Constitution, as long as it means whatever the hell I want it to mean. Fuck the minorities — they have no rights other than those we deign to give them. What is dominionism except a Protestant cloaking of “Will To Power” in this irrationalist sense, where morality is whatever we say it is because we can say it is so?
If we are going to be concerned about our representatives keeping their religious views out of our legislative process, shouldn’t it apply to all areas?
read again:
And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue…
what does that mean to you? Obama has repeatedly stated that his religious beliefs have little impact on his policy decisions. while a little muddled, this is just yet another reinforcement of that.
do you see the same statements coming from the mouths of the likes of Palin?
There is a great gulf between those who base their decisions SOLEY ON their religious beliefs, vs. those who feel their religious beliefs are merely another input.
Short of having an atheist in office, I’d much rather have someone of the latter stripe, wouldn’t you?
someone who actually is able to compartmentalize, like say, Ken Miller, vs. someone who has completely failed to, like say, Jonathan Wells.
SC: But it doesn’t link them! Those ideas of Stirner’s that would be useful for fascists were precisely those that were rejected, as Kropotkin points out, by actual anarchist movements.
I wasn’t suggesting that the organized movements to any great extent were coopted. But doesn’t it stand to reason that people who are attracted to concepts of anarchisms are thinly divided by the position of egoism to fascism? That it would be quite easy to grab some 20 year old kid interested in fascism and “convert” him via Stirnerism to the mirror image of anarchism?
For example, I do understand that Proudhon’s ideas had quite a bit of currency in anarchist circles – Kropotkin’s statements that you linked to support that, and his ideas were also influential in the sixties post-wobbly anarchistic discussions. Proudhon was also an anti-semite and racist rejected by some anarchists as not being one at all.
Just from reading the Kropotkin link, it’s pretty clear that there is a literary overlap – a conceptual overlap – at work. It’s very easy to go from communal anarchism to logically justifying a kind of superman ideology, and that it is particularly common in American history.
It makes discussions much more complicated when you have weasel words like “Freedom” that can mean the exact opposite of themselves.
To be clear, I’m not suggesting that anarchism leads to fascism. But in some sense, fascism is an inversion of anarchism, a kind of authoritarian judo move on anarchism, that seems to solve the same kinds of problems as anarchism does.
SC: Let me give a recent example I read. There was a controversy within the “Vermont Secessionist” movement, which seems to view itself as a primarily left/anarchist kind of movement, with the addition of a combination of agrarianism and such.
The controversy was that one of their leaders had made an alliance with neo-Confederates… How does this happen? It makes no sense! But there is enough overlap in their language about the modern state, that it is possible to jump between them. To portray yourself as a champion of no-government, while at the same time actually being a proponent of the very essence of state (as Kropotkin accuses Tucker).
Interestingly I was just now reading about the Finnish-Swedish anarchist, war hero and author Harry Järv. I think you’d be interested in him but unfortunately I don’t think his works have been translated into English.
what does that mean to you? Obama has repeatedly stated that his religious beliefs have little impact on his policy decisions. while a little muddled, this is just yet another reinforcement of that.
Sounds to me like Obama is making an exception for Gay marriage. Sounds like he said that in tradition and his religious view is that relationships between men and women are sanctified by God, so he cannot support Gay marriage and supports a separate, but equal treatment via civil unions.
do you see the same statements coming from the mouths of the likes of Palin?
While not the same, similar.
Sounds to me like Obama is making an exception for Gay marriage
where does the word “gay” appear in what I quoted?
do you understand why I deliberately chose to leave out the specific instance?
no, probably not.
I’m wasting my time.
But that’s an ideology. What’s more, it’s an ideology that is the antithesis of anarchism: centralized, authoritarian, totalitarian, and with a definition of “democracy” that is entirely opposed not only to the anarchist vision of participatory democracy but to liberalism’s as well.
I didn’t say that Proudhon’s ideas – not the antisemitic ones – didn’t have currency in many anarchist circles; just that he hasn’t been an anarchist “hero” or a fascist “hero.”
A “literary overlap”? It seems strange for you to continue to point to this when Kropotkin makes the point explicit that these ideas are rejected by anarchist movements and I’ve said the same thing. You can find such an overlap at certain points between almost any two political ideologies or self-proclaimed variants thereof, especially when you just look at individual aspects of the writings of particular people. What I’m saying is that these two movements, if we look at their comprehensive ideologies and the history of the ideologies as embraced by the movements acting in their name, are about as far from one another on the political spectrum as you can get. For pity’s sake, one of the key features of the 20th-century anarchist movement is its antifascism, in words and actions. You’ll find far more points of connection between fascism and state Communism or fascism and traditional forms of conservatism, as these are statist and rightwing. There is no natural affinity between anarchism and fascism. None.
You seem to be going back and forth between fascism and libertarianism, or conflating the two (fascists never reject the state, while propertarians sometimes claim to). I don’t know much about the “Vermont Secessionist” movement, but I’ll look into it. I’ve never heard of it in any of the NEFAC materials, and there are quite a few anarchists in Vermont. Saying that it “seems to view itself as a primarily left/anarchist kind of movement” is extremely broad, and I would need to know a lot more. (By the way, Kropotkin’s program for the development of scientific horticulture had nothing in common with the communes or back-to-the-land movements that people often think of as anarchist-inspired; he totally rejected them.) In any case, I don’t think one guy’s alliances are evidence of anything.
By the way, here’s Mann’s definition of fascism from Fascists (2004): “I define fascism in terms of the key values, actions, and power organizations of fascists. Most concisely, fascism is the pursuit of a transcendent and cleansing nation-statism through paramilitarism” (13).
He does sound interesting! To clarify, I didn’t mean that no anarchists are heroes, but that the anarchist movement doesn’t have cults of personality in the way that many other movements do. I have personal heroes who are anarchists, but I’m still critical of a number of their ideas.
No, this isn’t at all easy. Communal anarchism is totally opposed to any kind of superman ideology. This was a feature of the thinking of some individualist anarchists – not of anarchist communists or anarchosyndicalists.
Joel, Obama may be against gay marriage within his sectarian religious morality (which I find deplorable) but still he can apparently distinguish his personal feelings from what should and shouldn’t be inscribed into the law books. Which is what one would expect from a Constitutional law teacher.
Obama was unapologetic in his opposition to the California same-sex marriage ban. That’s a fairly courageous move for someone standing in the middle of a U.S. Presidential campaign, and it gives me some confidence that “separation of Church and state” is more than just a string of words to him.
do you understand why I deliberately chose to leave out the specific instance?
Because it bolsters your argument and allows you to act all indignant when I point out the real meaning of Obama’s statement?
Stirner did have some fascinating things to say. I’ve long wanted to read more about/by him. – SC@239
Hah! An anarchist (of sorts) who I’ve read and you haven’t. Tried to read in translation, anyway, in my teens. The experience is not recommended. There’s a book on him The Nihilistic Egoist by R.W.K. Patterson – who argues that this is a better characterisation of him than anarchist.
There is an anti-rational, anti-science strain in some forms of anarchism or quasi-anarchism (Stirner, Sorel, also a primitivist tendency exemplified by a publication called “Green Anarchist” that used to appear in the UK, advocating a return to pre-industrial life, maybe situationist anarchism) which echoes the much stronger anti-rationalism of fascism.
Palin is convinced that utter certainty in the face of danger is essential to our security. Bertrand Russell had it right when he said: “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.”
That’s why idiots get elected and the thoughtful get called “flip-floppers.”
Joel, the link you provided is blocked at my office, so I cannot check if they provided this information but that quote is from 2004. His recent statements have made it clear that he is far and away more supportive of legalizing same-sex partnerships than the only other major party opponent. He is also, as I said before, opposed to a constitutional gay marriage ban and the full-faith-and-credit defying DOMA.
In The Audacity of Hope he said “It is my obligation, not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided … and that in years hence I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history.”
Assuming you agree with the opinion piece you quoted earlier, that civil unions make GLBT people second class citizens, what are they now? Most GLBT people have access to neither marriage nor civil unions – are they third-class citizens? Of the two candidates with a real chance of actually being president, who is more supportive of gay rights? I think if you examine the records of McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden, it’s clear that Obama/Biden is a better choice.
Maybe so Peter, but in the same article it says this: “Obama’s position (on same-sex marriage) can be used against him in a few states, like Ohio and Pennsylvania,” Cain said. “But same-sex marriage is unlikely to have anything like the impact it did in 2004 since issues like the economy and the war will provide him with a lot more cover than Kerry had.”
It is also possible that Obama knows it is much safer in this election to take the stand that he has? Who knows?
I understand creationism and all this other stuff is really important. Gay rights are also important, and if Obama can allow his religious views to cloud this issue, why not other issues?
Well, you’ve had so much more time than I have. :P
Probably. My interest arose primarily from reading Ficciones Anarquistas (very good when he sticks to the literary world, dreadful when he ventures into a larger sociopolitical analysis – may be explained by his Cuban upbringing). I don’t have it here (damn my lack of shelf-space!), but I recall a very interesting discussion of Stirner’s writings on language and power.
I agree that this strain exists. Primitivists are one of the reasons I don’t spend a lot of time on anarchist boards. But as I was saying above, if you take some views of some people who form part of any two movements you’re going to find points of connection. Antiscience, antirationalist elements can be found in religion, Marxism, etc. I’m working on anarchism and science right now, and those strains haven’t been dominant, either among leading theorists or among actual movements. Quite the contrary, in fact – anarchism has been extremely pro-science. Of course, there’s a difference between rejecting the current social/political organization of science – corporate and statist – and wanting the organization of scientific work and the dissemination of scientific knowledge to be radically different – and being antiscience or antirational. It’s incredibly frustrating to talk about Kropotkin’s work in horticulture or contemporary anarchist agricultural visions and then hear a response that calls it “new agey.” I don’t think people are paying attention, since nothing could be further from the truth. It’s bizarre and totally annoying.
Joel:
It’s one thing to allow one’s views to cloud his personal opinion of gay marriage. It’s quite another to enact those views in law. Obama has not made any statements (that I’m aware of) suggesting that his personal views should become the law.
Obama has not made any statements (that I’m aware of) suggesting that his personal views should become the law.
I would say supporting civil unions over marriage is a suggestion that his personal views should become law.
BTW. Oh come all ye faithful…
God-o-Meter has learned that the Obama campaign is about to email religious supporters an annoucnement about a new line of Obama faith merchandise–bumper stickers, buttons, and signs with three different messages, featured here–along with the following note:
Dear friends,
Great news! We now have faith merchandise available for you to show your support for Barack Obama as a person of faith.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/godometer/2008/09/obama-rolls-out-new-line-of-fa.html
SC: A “literary overlap”? It seems strange for you to continue to point to this when Kropotkin makes the point explicit that these ideas are rejected by anarchist movements and I’ve said the same thing.
This is what I see:
Kropotkin says:
Anarchism continued to develop, partly in the direction of Proudhonian ‘mutuellisme’, but chiefly as communist-anarchism, to which a third direction, Christian-anarchism, was added by Leo Tolstoy, and a fourth, which might be ascribed as literary-anarchism, began amongst some prominent modern writers.
…
A prominent position among the individualist anarchists in America has been occupied by Benjamin R. Tucker, whose journal Liberty was started in 1881 and whose conceptions are a combination of those of Proudhon with those of Herbert Spencer. Starting from the statement that anarchists are egotists, strictly speaking, and that every group of individuals, be it a secret league of a few persons, or the Congress of the United States, has the right to oppress all mankind, provided it has the power to do so, that equal liberty for all and absolute equality ought to be the law, and ‘mind every one your own business’ is the unique moral law of anarchism
He seems to be saying that this is a minor, but significant thread, in American anarchism. I understand that anarchism is anti-fascist, but I still see a literary overlap.
Bakunin is not a marginal anarchist, and he was an antisemite, correct? That should have been obviously an eliminating characteristic, even in the 19th century, right? That’s not just a personal failing, but a fairly deep ideological one. There’s some emotional tenor that connects militant nationalism and militant anti-nationalism…
Maybe you’re right, and I’m still missing what I’m looking for here. But there’s something dangerous here that needs to be watched for — not in anarchism, but some kind of penumbra that can lead folks astray.
Joel:
I’m not making myself clear. When has he said that he is politically opposed to gay marriage? As in, he is opposed to enshrining it in the law?
All you have right now is that he is personally opposed to gay marriage and politically supports civil unions. It does not follow that he is politically opposed to gay marriage and personally in support of civil unions.
SC: No, this isn’t at all easy. Communal anarchism is totally opposed to any kind of superman ideology. This was a feature of the thinking of some individualist anarchists – not of anarchist communists or anarchosyndicalists.
I didn’t say it wasn’t opposed. But from an individual perspective, it just takes changing a couple of assumptions about human nature, and you go from one to the other – from a communal ideology to an individualist one. That may not happen with someone sophisticated, but with someone unsophisticated? I think it’s not at all unimaginable.
Maybe it just applies in the more irrationalist tendencies – since radical individualism is ultimately irrational. Maybe I’m just transferring my fear of deconstructionist-type thinking, which grows out of the left but has been, and will be I’m sure, mostly a tool of the radical right; it could be a misapplication of that pattern, which just happens to also have some roots in anarchist thinking, and I’m overgeneralizing.
You’re grasping.
Kropotkin on Stirner:
Kropotkin on Tucker & co.:
I’ve added to this above. I really don’t know what more to say. Let me ask you this: Why do you think antifascism has been such a defining feature of anarchism over the past nine decades?
Well, no, it’s not unimaginable. If you change your thinking, you can go from anything to anything: Catholic to Protestant, Communist to liberal, republican to anarchist, libertarian to fascist. Especially if you’re unspohisticated and don’t really understand what these ideas mean. You’ve been arguing that there exists some sort of natural affinity between anarchism and fascism that makes converting from one to the other particularly easy and makes alliances between the movements more likely. This is wrong, as history has shown.
Are you serious? He was a 19th-century Russian. He was antisemitic in the same way millions of people were, no more or less so. In fact, he was as anti-German as he was antisemitic, and I suspect that both were related to his hostility to Marx (ultimately; earlier, he had done the first translation of Capital into Russian). There were anarchists, like Reclus and others, who weren’t antisemitic and were antiracist even then – and anarchists were involved in the movement to support Dreyfus – but anarchists were people of their time. There was no more antisemitism among anarchists than among any other political movement. Indeed, many prominent anarchists, including Emma Goldman, have been Jewish
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_anarchists
and there were large Jewish anarchist groups and organizations in the early 20th century in the US.
I have no idea what this has to do with antisemitism, so it seems a non sequitur. It’s a bizarre assertion in any event. What on earth is an “emotional tenor” and what is your evidence for this connection to counter the enormous mass of evidence showing that anarchists have historically been overwhelmingly both antinationalist and antifascist (and antiracist, for that matter).
Because it bolsters your argument and allows you to act all indignant when I point out the real meaning of Obama’s statement?
epic fail.
For more about small town values, read anything by Sinclair Lewis, but especially Main Street, Elmer Gantry, and, most especially, It Can’t Happen Here.
They aren’t. The media companies don’t want an informed electorate any more than the major parties do.
One of The Grundian’s op-ed writers has weighed in with an dose of concern and outrage over the resignation.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/17/religion.evolution
Palin:
Dumb as Quayle
Evil as Cheney
Scary as Stepford
Thanks frog, graculus and matt heath for your feedback.
But how exactly are we meant to characterise the situation? When you compare the state of israel’s settlement land grab with the nazi govt.’s policy of lebensraum in then czechoslovakia? When you point out the “we are chosen people/ master race, you are terrorists/ untermensch”? When you point out the israeli govt’s practice of surrounding those they dislike with barbed wire fences and starving them?
When people rightly take the israeli govt. to task for these crimes against humanity, they are labeled asanti-semitic. Where is Godwin then? Is it being decriptive or prescriptive?
Also, re Nick Gotts – “I’d call socially authoritarian right-populist rather than outright fascist”.
Please call a spade a spade. Euhpemisms kill kids. Calling the israeli govt out is not anti-semitic. Denying that they do these things is the same as holocaust denial.
Yes. I fully expect to get flamed for this but please stick to the facts. Then we can maybe come to an agreement on terminology.
Just to be clear: When I said “Denying that they do these things is the same as holocaust denial” I am in no way accusing you guys of such denial.
Just pointing out that such denials have been done. I will find citations if you need them but it’s 3.30am here and I’m pooped.
“If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, then it is good enough for Texas children.”
–Texas Governor Ferguson (on Spanish being taught in Texas public schools.)