How Jesus Killed The Elephants

Once upon a time, I was a Republican. I spent my formative years under the watchful, avuncular, rheumy eyes of Ronnie Ray-gun and was raised to fear and distrust the institutions of government, particularly the Russian government but also my own. I learned that heavy-metal was evil, gay people were all child molesters and that animals only had themselves to blame for getting in the way of progress when it brutally, remorselessly crushed them and obliterated their habitats.
When I was finally able to participate in my first election, I voted, as a good Republican and a good sailor, for George Walker Bush in 200o. At last an end to the freedom crushing, morally bankrupt Communist abetting Clintons with their pot, broken home, Marxist agenda and orgies.
Then with horrific slowness, as I began to see what effect my vote had had on the country and the world, the protective, insulating scales were spitefully pried from my eyes and I could see exactly what had taken place.
All drama aside (as fun as it is) the fact is this: I was raised a Republican (by a hippie no less) and I genuinely believed most of former president Reagan's positions were correct. Communism was a bad idea, it dehumanized people and turned them into commodities. The free market created wealth through innovation and competition. No nation could enjoy freedom peacefully without being prepared to defend it with violence. These were what I took to be the foundation of the Republican party. What escaped my young mind and continued to escape me until we were several years into W's reign was that times and people change and political realities possibly do so faster than anything else out there. George H. lost to Slick Willy (that's Bill Clinton for you kids) and that loss frankly decimated the party. To be fair, Ronnie had only won in 1980 by creating a coalition that captured a large number of fiscally conservative Democrats (often called "Reagan" or "blue dog" Democrats"). His immediate successor failed to hold on to them. Republican strategists at this point had hit on a new plan however. It took years to come to full fruit but resulted in the recovery of the White House for the Republicans by George W. Simply put, the fiscal conservatives courted and won over the social conservatives.
Unfortunately for us all, "social conservative" isn't as broad a term as it sounds. Here in the United States what it tends to mean is christian fundamentalist. Even more unfortunately this group of previously dormant voters (who had up to this point voted primarily on the basis of relevant national issues, like the rest of us) soon realized that they could use their new found influence over the Republican politicians who voted for them to direct broader national policies in line with their fundamental, religious views. It was no longer sufficient to live their own lives in according with the wishes of a supposed omnipotent sky-fairy, it became, in the collective mind, absolutely vital to ensure that everyone else did too.
This was the beginning of what we now politely refer to as the culture wars. In reality, what we face now is a full scale religious war, a crusade fought in the name of fundamental religiosity against anyone and everyone who doesn't kneel at an approved altar. And it this, the direct result of using these people for the sake of their votes, that the Republican party has to thank for their current unpopularity.
It is a somewhat (but not very) bizarre fact that the act of including a group of people has resulted in the diminishing of the party. In brief, as the fundies became more prominent their irrational and frankly combative ideology has push away an ever growing number of other Americans. What's worse, the majority of the fundies are also largely ignorant, rural types.
As a quick note, I am not using either "ignorant" or "rural" in a derogatory sense. The group I am referring to are ignorant in that they tend to have an ill-informed world view, that is they lack a great deal of information that is relevant (but only on/to those issues that stretch beyond their backyards) and being rural simply means that they are more often than not insulated from the larger world and thus, other perspectives. Only those persons in said communities that willfully and with knowing intent remain ignorant or isolated are worthy of fear, anger and/or contempt.
Getting back to my point however, all of this tends to blend together and get pressed through the filter of assumed authority that religions create. Net result?
Out-group xenophobia and comprehensive intolerance, backed by absolute conviction. As my dear, sainted mother (HA!) put it, "It's no longer simply I'm right and you're wrong, its now I'm right and you're evil."
The core problem with this being that as long as such a large block of people persist in assuming...even insisting on the absolute veracity and righteousness of their positions on all fronts, they absolutely cannot debate or compromise on anything and by definition you cannot have a compromise by one party alone. Politics is essentially defined by compromise. It is the fine old art of giving and thereby receiving concessions from your rivals/neighbors in order that you can live together, peaceably. Finally, just to put the icing on the cake, this has been going on for so long now that people who have been raised on this sort of thing have been elected into office and are therefore even less likely to set aside their desire to introduce policies based on their own religious convictions in order to serve the common good. Indeed, in many cases they cannot even conceive of the idea that we can have a collective, national interest that _doesn't_ stem from their particular dogmas.
Thus, I contend that the Republican party has lost its ability to engage in the basic activity of a political party; the ability to negotiate, peacefully and loyally, with other national political factions and find mutually acceptable compromises on policy decisions. They are in fact in tremendous danger of devolving into something like a less violent, though no less militant reflection of the Taliban. As such, it is no longer a political party in the truest sense of the word.
And that, Friends, is How Jesus Killed The Elephants.

Impeached Cobbler

Here's the short version for those person's who've managed to live under a rock for the last few months, there by escaping the events pouring out of the Land of RodZ.
"Blago" found himself under investigation by federal powers a few months ago. This by itself is not exactly uncharacteristic of politicians in Illinois in general and Springfield in specific. What makes it entertaining is that the nut job (knowing this fact, that he was under scrutiny from federal law enforcement) continued to say and do things that make him look guilty. Specifically, if the federal prosecution is to be believed, he continued to have phone-calls where in he revealed that he was trying to auction off an Illinois Senate seat! This is the definition corruption.
Now, that established, let me move onto my actual point.
I am not interested, at this moment, in the matter of innocence or guilt on the part of Blago. What matters in the matter of an impeachment, in this instance, is the question of whether or not the Governor demonstrated an inability to properly execute his office. Operating under the assumption of innocence (because this is America, dammit) I have to say that the Wizard of RodZ, so thoroughly bungled this thing that his credibility is still in tatters. As a perfect example, let's look at his recent media blitz. Among other things, Blago arranged for an audience with the King. That's right; Larry King. "Captain-frigging-Softball" himself. Wonder of wonders, His Majesty actually dusted off the grill and put the coals to Blago's feet, "Did you say that? Well, but you know if said that," referring to the following;
"It's a (EXPLETIVE LANGUAGE) valuable thing -- thing. You just don't give it away for nothing."
Another quote: "I've got this thing and it's (EXPLETIVE LANGUAGE)
golden. And I'm just not giving it up for (EXPLETIVE LANGUAGE) nothing. I'm not going to do it. And I can always use it. I can parachute me there."
Larry King? A hard interview?
I almost choked.
I get the impression Blago had a bit of indigestion as well. His answers are universally evasive. I mean, "I don't know if I said that, I haven't listened to the tapes yet?" Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. Furthermore, Blago keeps trying to talk about how unfair it is that he "can't call witnesses," when this isn't (repeat, IS NOT) a criminal proceeding. He has gone on since then, implying that regardless of his actions A: the people love him for what he's done on their behalf and B: everyone in the state government does the same crap anyway, and you're all a bunch of hypocrites for crucifying me.
Now I am not one to get caught up on what are called "character issues" (meaning "things we can blast you for when you get ahead on actually concrete issues") but Blago has demonstrated two things at least which suggest he isn't fit to lead a sewing circle, let alone the Illinois state government. First is his apparently obliviousness to the actual reality inhabited by the rest of us and the second his general inability not to behave like a litigious prat and offensively arrogant power broker.
All of this is fine though, if the people of Illinois are interested in having either a spoiled, adolescent bully or a loon in charge.
I'm not taking odds on that one.

Subconcious Antilogic

Let us begin with a simple statement: Logic can reveal shortcuts in processes, but cannot, itself, be the subject of a shortcut.
Processes in general include thought processes in specific, thus logic can reveal shortcuts in the forming, refining, understanding, criticism and expression of thought.
Because logic demands careful and attentive adherence to a deliberate, step-by-step sequence of actions the tendency of humans to favor comfort will at times disincline them employ logic.
Often logic also demands confronting and examining ideas or concepts that evoke an uncomfortable, displeasing or otherwise agitating emotional response, further compounding the tendency towards irrationality.
The inescapably useful methodology of logic creates the paradox of its disuse.

First Interview, Foreign Press and Fire Breathing

I was fortunate enough to get through to Pete Dominick's show today as I was barreling down Interstate 80 in PA this afternoon. The man put the word out for us to call in if we disagreed with either the content of the President's interview with Al-Arabiya or had a problem with his giving that interview (notable as his first in office) to them in the first place. Like most of the day's callers (I'd assume all but dropped out out halfway through today) I completely ignored this simple instruction and instead threw my support behind Obama on this one. I'd like to note that I _did_ suggest that the move was going to be controversial domestically once Brothers Limbaugh and Hannity got on the air tonight. They will undoubtedly prove, once and for all, that this clearly unamerican act, combined with the blatant absence of a Christian Bible (KJE, of course) at the procedurally prudent re-issuing of the oath of office, demonstrates Obama's commitment to the downfall of the nation and vehement anti-Christianity. The will do whatever it takes, including completely ignoring all rules of evidence and setting aside their own, personal, financially remunerated impartiality to warn us all of this (further) impending doom.
What would we do without such men as these?
Myself, I've listened to the interview (I have a condition that causes me to prefer to listen attentively to radio rather than passively stare at a television, its called a Commercial Driver's Licence) and based on Obama's answers to the questions I think we may have a window to change the view of our nation and our people held by the general population of the Sandbox. Importantly, our Fearless Leader left the ball in _their_ court. By committing us, very publicly, to listening to what they have to say he puts their leaders in the position of either engaging or attacking. This is, subtly, obliquely, a complete change of the rules of the game and that may be what produces the aforementioned fire breathing from the self-styled Conservative Underground.
To put it in simplest terms; "They" can either A: talk with "Us" and build some solutions or B: continue shooting and pursuing conflict. In the first case "We" win because "They" stop shooting and help "Us" make a better (though not perfect) situation in that part of the world. In the second "They" give "Us" the moral high ground from which to multi-laterally remove "Their" ability and will to fight. It's the philosophical equivalent of Sun-Tzu meets General Sherman and that's where most ditto-heads are going to become enraged. This isn't king-of-the-hill, its chess. This method does not obviously involve any rattling of sabers or swinging of members and as such seems, to the simple person, to be backing down. Intolerable for "The World's Lone Superpower."
Its late in the cycle but I haven't checked the broadcasts yet so I'll make a prediction; by tomorrow afternoon the various reactionary wing nuts and mouthpieces will have likened this to attempts at German appeasement during the War Era.

Beginings Are Important

...so said Surrac of Vulcan in a most exellent piece of Sci-Fi writting. The basic point thereof being that motivations effect and in fact infect (say that 3 times fast, bub) the process and result(s) of our actions. So what are my desired processes and results?


Well the process seems self-evident; I want to use this blog to make myself heard by the largest number of my fellow sentients possible. The result I want is to have input in the world and, if I am honest, to have a measurable effect on the rest of you. I suspect we all do, if we are honest.


Further questions are then raised; Why this medium and not another? Why would I (or anyone else for that matter) want to have a hand in the affairs of others? The former of these two is easily dealt with; I haven't the time or resources to use any other medium...except possibly standing in the street yelling. Town-criers have been hard put for steady work these days though, what with all the competition for air-time from random lunatics who meander about loudly declaiming the end of civilization or the entire world for free. As for why one might want to effect the lives or thoughts of others? That, I must uncomfortably admit, is a harder nut to crack and may have something to do with my general interest in god-like power over the affairs of mortals. Unfortunately I haven't yet won a bid for any meaningful elected office and so I must content myself with observing the world and then not-so-quietly making remarks off-stage.



You, dear reader, have the dubious pleasure of experiencing this.
Tickets please.