Archive for category Conservative
The blogosphere has been chuckling – okay laughing uproariously – at Bryan Fischer, spokesperson for the American Family Association. Fischer, you see, recently declared “proof” that America is a Christian nation because . . . bacon.
“You want one single item of proof that America is a Christian nation and not a Jewish nation and not an Islamic nation?” he asked. “One single bit of proof is all you need: we freely allow restaurants and grocery stores to sell and to serve bacon. That can only happen in a Christian country.” “So the sheer fact that we freely allow the sale and consumption of bacon,” he continued, “is absolute proof that we are, in fact, a Christian nation”
The part that fascinates me is that Fischer offered this bon mot as if it were an actual argument. I can’t help but wonder – are there conservative Christians out there for whom this argument is persuasive?
Ed Kilgore at Washington Monthly highlighted a report from Media Matters, detailing the depth and breadth of the right’s bizarre Benghazi! obsession. Ed noted:
Short of gavel-to-gavel coverage of the Watergate hearings, I’m not sure we’ve seen anything quite like it in modern electronic media. And we wonder why in the strange alternative universe of the conservative movement, jabbering about Benghazi! is like discussing the weather.
From the Media Matters report:
Media Matters reviewed Fox News transcripts and identified segments including significant discussion of Benghazi on The Five, Special Report with Bret Baier, The O’Reilly Factor, Hannity, and On the Record with Greta Van Susteren between September 11, 2012, the night of the attacks, and May 2, 2014, when House Speaker John Boehner announced the formation of a select committee to investigate the attacks and their aftermath. This report does not include The Kelly File or Fox Report because they did not run for the full period of the study.
?1,098 total Fox News evening segments that included significant discussion of Benghazi — an average of about 13 segments per week
?In 18 of 20 months studied, Fox ran at least 20 Benghazi segments per month, with a high of 174 in October 2012
?382 segments aired on Special Report, the network’s flagship news program
?478 segments invoked the talking points used for Susan Rice’s 2012 Sunday show appearances
?281 segments alleging a “cover-up” by the Obama administration
?144 interviews of GOP members of Congress versus only five interviews of Democratic members of Congress and Obama administration officials
?120 comparisons to Iran-Contra, Watergate, and the actions of the Nixon administration
?105 attempts to link Benghazi to Hillary Clinton’s potential presidential ambitions
?100 segments promoting the lie that the administration issued a “stand-down order”
Media Matters points out that Fox’s talking points have been repeatedly refuted by actual facts but that hasn’t stopped the sludge from flowing. The right’s obsession with Benghazi is a perfect example of the mighty wurlitzer at work. It’s depressing – people on the right have an almost religious belief that Benghanzi! was some sort of scandal and that if they just keep digging the nefarious, black-hearted truth will emerge.
Conservatives have now spent 2 years shrieking hysterically about BENGHAZI, convinced of some sort of malfeasance or deliberate wrongdoing by the Obama Administration. According to the Republican led House Intelligence Committee, not so much.
Among the key findings:
– Intelligence agencies were “warned about an increased threat environment, but did not have specific tactical warning of an attack before it happened.”
— “A mixed group of individuals, including those associated with al Qaeda, (Moammar) Khadafy loyalists and other Libyan militias, participated in the attack.”
— “There was no ‘stand-down order’ given to American personnel attempting to offer assistance that evening, no illegal activity or illegal arms transfers occurring by U.S. personnel in Benghazi, and no American was left behind.”
— The administration’s process for developing “talking points” was “flawed, but the talking points reflected the conflicting intelligence assessments in the days immediately following the crisis.”
Anyone betting this will mean conservatives will stop hysterically shrieking about Benghazi is taking a sucker’s bet.
When Sofonda Cox, Dixie Normous, and Johnny Hotballs are some of your sites most prominent users, you’re either a gay porn site or a new conservative social media site known as ReaganBook.
Yes, my friends, anti-gay nutjob Janet Porter was offended by Facebook and the fact that some of its employees walked in a pride parade, so she launched her own, independent social media site and named it ReaganBook. Let’s be clear, the name was not intended ironically.
Porter, for those who don’t know her, is a conservative of the evangelical sub-variety. She was previously known a Janet Folger. She founded and runs Faith2Action from which she endlessly advocates for her “heartbeat bill” which would ban abortion after a heartbeat is detected in the fetus. She’s a young earth creationist and a diehard believer in the myth the Christians are persecuted in the US. IOW, she’s a garden variety wingnut, bigot and loudmouth.
Anyway, so Janet Porter got her ever bunchable panties in a bunch over something Facebook did, she decided to launch a Facebook for patriots. The site launched and had about 30 or so members. Then various websites noticed it – namely Joe My God. Within hours, the number of users swelled into the hundreds, including the previously mentioned Sofonda Cox, Dixie Normous and Johnny Hotballs. ReaganBook was quickly swamped in a flood of porn, pages dedicted to Ronald Reagan’s titties, and generally offensive and surreal content. Users such as Al Zheimers, Ben Ghazi and Parah Salin signed up to participate in the fun and games.
The Dailybeast observed:
ReaganBook shows no discernable signs of longevity. It’s already been forced to temporarily shut down, after many of its thousand-plus members are trolls calling themselves things like “Albradorft Lincler,” “Al Zheimers,” and “Ben Ghazi.” The site runs tremendously slowly, and its attempts to interact with members through a messaging platform have proven fruitless. There’s hardly any involvement in thought-provoking (and clearly troll-created) pages like “Cut Dicks for Christ,” which simply says: “Calling all cut dicks.”
Everytime you start feeling sorry for Porter and her naive, non-ironic ways, remember this:
Is this immature? Oh, you bet your ass it is. It’s also hilarious. As mean as it may seem to just never let the right have anything nice, let’s not forget that their whole schtick in the first place is to deny actual human rights to a good portion of the country, which is a lot meaner–and quite frankly far more petty and immature than making fun of their sad Ronald Reagan Facebook. They are actively horrid to the left, and really, all we have these days is the fact that we’re right and we’re funnier. Which, my god, they really do hate–so it is important that we keep this up.
Porter and her minions (by minions I mean minion and by minion I mean an IT student from a Christian university), tried frantically to salvage the situation. At one point, the site included a message to users:
Everyone note: We’re under attack. All the disturbing posts and new members are coming from another site. This site is another site. We’ll fix it soon. If you see a friend who has posted disturbing images, tehy (sic) have been hacked.
Within 24 hours of going live, Porter and her abused IT student switched the site into offline mode, effectively shutting it down.
This is a question that must have been asked 12 years ago when the US invaded Iraq. Well the initial predictions were positive. The war will be quick, cheap, we will be hailed as liberators, there will be peace, so on and so forth. Of course none of that happened. They were dead wrong, but even me when I witnessed the reports of chaos in Iraq, I could not comprehend that this would happen. What is the worst that can happen? ISIS can happen. The relatively new Islamic terrorist group is different from other organizations because they are successful. They have the oil fields, they are surrounding Baghdad, they have both Iraqi and American weapons in their inventory and they are gaining more ground. This is made worse by their tendency to be very destructive. So far, over 1,700 Iraqi troops have been executed. So yes, that is the worst that can happen and the Bush administration is completely at fault no matter how indirectly this is. Maybe this is a question Obama should consider, especially with an upcoming midterm and a country filled with pissed off liberals.
Twenty-five years ago I delivered the McDougall Lecture at the Cathedral of the Madeleine. Some modest part of that essay recommended that it is time and beyond time to ordain women to both the Mormon and Catholic traditions and, by implication, all other faiths. A productive firestorm erupted that continues still. How tragic, how brutal, how disconnected to real people with real hearts, real children, dear mates to be so abused as the Mormon church discards with no more than a pious statement, or simply a sniff, their best and brightest.
I’ve said before that Mormon leadership all too often reflects an anti-Darwinism, that is, the survival of the least fit, by cultivating a culture that obeys leadership with no sense of the necessity of checking any act of leadership with one’s own brain, one’s own agency. This tendency,if unchecked, will produce at least two terrible results: poor leadership at the top and right on down the ecclesiastical ladder. Second, leadership will continue to boast of growing membership but it will be looking only at those coming in the church’s front door but not noting those exiting the back door either formally, or just by staying home on Sunday, de facto un-churched.
Mormons need not fear its loving critics. Mormonism, Catholicism, and all faith traditions really should be terrified at the prospect that huge numbers now see churches as irrelevant to their lives. People who engage their leadership quite obviously care very much about their faith, or they would not give such enormous time and energy to help, as they see it,their churches. The really scary elephant in the room is apathy. An even scarier specter is when hundreds of thousands of members, each year, determine that perhaps, just perhaps we really don’t need priests or bishops to mediate between God and all of us. We can, after all, talk directly to God and cut out the middleman and his ten percent finder’s fee. Women should hold any priesthood for which they qualify by abiding neutral rules. And priests and sisters should have the god-given right to choose marriage or celibacy, as they choose, by serious thought and by prayer.There is nothing in holy writ that requires that men mediate God to women.
Posted by Firmage Ed in 9/11, Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan, Biological Weapons, Bush Administration, Bush Failures, CIA, Civil liberties Infringement, Conservative, Crimes, Democracy, Democrats, Dick Cheney, Drone Strikes, George W. Bush, Guantanamo, Hezbollah, Human Rights, Iran, Iraq, Israel, John McCain, Liberal, Libertarianism, Mahdi Army, Mormon LDS, National Politics, nazis, Neocons, NSA Surveillance, Nuclear Weapons, Oliver North, Pakistan, Proof Bush Lied, Rumsfeld, Syria, Syria, Terrorism, This Blog, War Crimes on June 5, 2014
I’m so sorry to write this missive as a lead article (for 15 minutes) but I don’t remember how to find the comments and respond to them. The lonely little side-bar response to my article I’ve not seen, except for half a sentence. It seemed to be saying that the old days are gone now, and so we need NATO and the JN. I agree. With NATO, it is the trip-wire provision that we go to war, automatically if any NATO nation is attacked, regardless of who the attacker is. This takes not only the United States Congress, but the president, as Commander in Chief, from the decision to go to war. I support both the UN and, if handled correctly, NATO. But President J. Reuben Clark and I oppose the automatic going to war. Just like the fools, the ancient general staffs of all sides in WW I. No one wanted that war. There was no Adolph Hitler in that war that destroyed the entire 20th century. Better to have shot the general staffs, who came to deserve exactly that. What President Clark called for, and I, are what the United States has always done, before NATO. That is, to have treaties of peace and friendship with our allies and then, should hostilities commence, such treaties would call for all parties to go to war, or not, as their constitutions provide. In this way, we don’t declare war against a nation, and surely all the people, have not yet been born. How, pray tell, do we justify going to war against, and for, people not, or no longer, live on earth. With a few caveats, ditto for the UN. No provision of law allows the UN to overreach Congress in the decision for war or peace. For anyone interested, read my book with the late Francis Wormuth, To Cain the Dog of War. It is by odds the best book ever written on the way we go to war. Every single war we’ve ever fought, including our wars against the Indian tribes, is there analyzed. Francis did not live to see this book in print. I worked two years after his death to finish it. And I updated it 4 or 5 times, alone. I still put my dear friend’s name first, because I am honored to be linked, now, forever. Something like Mormon marriage through time and eternity. ed firmage xoxo
All twentieth and twenty first century human rights cases owe their start to Brown v. the Board. Race and color cases led to ethnicy, alienage, sexuality and gender cases of the past 20-30 years and back again, to the founder of the feast, Brown v. the Board. Just as Catholic and Mormon and Jewish case law led the pack in the nineteenth century, see, e;.g., Reynolds v. United States, making polygamy illegal. In other words, the skunk at the garden party, i.e., the group on which we project our own fears, the projected scapegoat, makes the great law of the time.
Now, with gay rights, including marriage, almost assured de jure, with much to be done de facto, we will turn by the very nature of case law, to the polygamous and bisexual cases, just as from Brown, we went to color, alienage, ethnicity,nationality, gender and sexuality. It simply follows. Scalia saw the connectlion early on between polyggamy case law and homosexual case law. To him, this was the most hated thing he could imagine. I saw the same thing, before he did, and I applauded.
Now, consider the linkage between bisexual rights and polyggamy. With gender and sexual case law in place, i.e., no preference for male over female rights, both polygamy and bisexuality are linked and therefore acknowledged. That is, one man AND one women can choose to mate with male or female, polyganously or monogamously, at his/her choice. This will be the cutting edge of human rights for us all, in the coming decades. As was said as Utah faced statehood with a polygamist elected to the Senate, I think by Senator Albert Jeremiah Beveridge, the greatest biographer of John Marshall ever (and Lincoln, but Beveridge died befoe the last valumeJ): ” I’d rather be a polygamist who didn’t polyg than a monogamist who didn”t monog.” Horray!
I’ve been very sick for a long time and it’s good to have a brain once again ed firmage xoxo