Malkin's Faux Outrage - Palin's Demand for "Refudiation"

Sarah Palin has been all over President Obama for his racism as she demanded that he "refudiate" his remarks made regarding the NAACP's decision to condemn the Teaparty movement for their racism. Refudiate? I've heard of conflating issues, but words? Now Michelle Malkin and others at Faux are on board as well.



President Obama's words that were particularly offensive to Malkin et al., included;

"Radical Islamists in Africa, believe any efforts to modernize, any efforts to provide basic human rights, any efforts to democratize are somehow anti-Islam."
"And what you've seen in some of the statements that have been made by these terrorist organizations is that they do not regard African life as valuable in and of itself," Mr. Obama added. "They see it as a potential place where you can carry out ideological battles that kill innocents without regard to long-term consequences for their short-term tactical gains."

As commenter tbone at Media Matters said in response to this exchange,

"African audience - "African" adjective. If this has occurred in Norway, he could have said "Norwegian". When we speak of 9/11, the phrase "American lives" or "they want to kill Americans" is and has been used repetitively notwithstanding that they do want to kill the infidels.

Only in the Faux-Bot mind does an adjective for nationality immediately become one for ethnicity. "

The Republicans can't get any traction from the economy or healthcare reform, their apologies to BP and support of the oil companies are drawing the wrong kind of attention, and according to a poll commissioned by the National Employment Law Project, 74% of Americans would prefer that Congress extend unemployment benefits and payments for health insurance subsidies than worry about the deficit.

Immigration reform may play well on the news, but the more experienced Republicans know that, especially in the border states, alienating the Hispanic voters is a good way to lose elections. It may be politic to jump on the teabag bandwagon and behave as if Rush Limbaugh were their BFF, but in their heart of hearts, most Republicans who have been around for any period of time know that true party purity and adherence to the teabag values would be disastrous to the country and to their party.

So, what do they do? Racism is no longer taboo, it's out of the closet since President Obama's speech during the campaign. Too many people don't understand that racism is insidious and just as sexism is more than overt harassment, racism is more than using the "n" word. An organization can claim to be without racism, to welcome all comers, to be diverse, but the proof is in the actual makeup and actions of the organization itself. Thus, completely missing the point, the Republicans have chosen racism as their cause celebre. Unfortunately, they seem not to understand that racism towards Hispanics is still racism.

During the time of Affirmative Action, many believed that it was about quotas and that it was totally unfair to whites - a kind of reverse racism if you will. To this day, many do not understand that opening the doors of opportunity does not reverse hundreds of years of institutional thinking. Social capital (that intangible something necessary to overcome institutional racism) is built out of many things, including a family's position in society, the educational achievements of the parents, and something as simple as whether or not the parents value reading. Because there is so much ignorance over what exactly racism is, and isn't, people are afraid to discuss it and are terrified that by doing so, they may open themselves to accusations of racism.

Racism is when Sarah Palin refers to our president as "half-white" and sees nothing wrong with that comment. Racism is when, because we have an African-American president, that everything is viewed through a racial lens. Racism is when it is still okay for our politicians to say that the "papers please" law in Arizona is okay and that it is not racial profiling and that even if it is, so what. Racism is when members of Congress are spat upon as they walk into the Senate and members of the media say, "there's no video, so it didn't happen," rather than taking the word of the members who were there and saw it happen. Racism is distributing photos of the President wearing African tribal garb or in white-face and thinking that it is okay.

PHOTO: Zina Saunders

A national journalist shows a photo of Sarah Palin that was photo-shopped and goes on air to apologize. President Obama is vilified daily and photos of him as Hitler or in other demeaning ways are shown on national networks and it's business as usual. That is racism. Not only are many of the Republicans racist, they're dinosaurs. They want to return to attitudes and policies of the past that enriched their bank accounts but contributed to the mess this country is in. Half-governor Palin inserts herself into every conversation of the day, has advise for the president at every turn, and now has the gall to tell him that he is a racist because Faux News and Michelle Malkin say so. As commenter tbone said above, were he in America, President Obama would have referred to Americans, if in Norway, Norwegians. How many times does Sarah Palin refer to Alaskans as if they were God's chosen people (no wait, that's Israel)?

Just as with the healthcare reform debates, conversation normally helps more than it hurts. The fear and anger that was generated by the misinformation disseminated by the insurance industries and their lackeys played to people's emotions and when emotion is involved, decisions are based not on logic, but on fear. When every decision the President makes or comment that is heard is viewed through the lens of racism, people respond emotionally.

Decisions made (and votes cast) based on emotion are rarely the right ones. Even votes cast for hope leave us open to turning on (in this case President Obama) him when he inevitably disappoints us when he makes decisions we don't like. We can't ignore our emotions, but we can recognize when our leaders and our media are manipulating us (or trying to) in order to use our emotions to generate anger and fear so that we act in the ways that they choose for us to act.

What do you think? Is it okay for the President to call out others for their racism? What about Sarah Palin and Michelle Malkin?  Do they even understand what racism is? Do they care or are they just trying to get attention?

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Lara Logan Calls Reporter a Liar for Committing Journalism

I've always liked Lara Logan. I always liked Christiane Amanpour and other women strong enough and brave enough to report from war zones and do, what I believed, real journalism.

For years, women on the news side of television were little more than talking heads, hired for their appearance and instructed on how to wear their hair, how to accessorize, and what to wear. Not real journalists, they read what they were given to read and if seen at an actual news event, it was usually as a celebrity presence, not as a reporter.

I have enjoyed watching women on television news age; their jaws becoming slightly less firm as did mine, their waistlines a little thicker, and their smile lines staying in place when they stopped smiling. A few years ago, women were fired when they were no longer Miss America beautiful; now they are allowed to be human, mostly.

When Michael Hastings wrote his article about General Stanley McChrystal in Rolling Stone that led to the General's firing and eventual retirement from the military altogether--reported yesterday--the backlash was not against McChrystal and his reported disrespect to his Commander in Chief. The backlash was not toward his staff and the frat boy atmosphere that encouraged such a wealth of material for Hastings to choose from. No. The backlash was against Hastings for having the temerity to write such an article. And the backlash was from the mainstream media who were universally appalled that a "reporter" would so abuse the honored privilege he had been given by writing so negatively about General McChrystal. The consensus was, "Rolling Stone? Who cares what they say. They're not 'real' journalists anyway." Fortunately (unfortunately?) the readers of Rolling Stone (including evidently the President), do care.

The most egregious example, to me, was an interview given by Lara Logan on CNN. The rising star of the Afghan war with her glowing reports conducted while embedded with the troops, Ms. Logan has, apparently, the gravitas to give the final word on the actions of Mr. Hastings. Not.
WATCH:








Watch Hastings appear on the program earlier:







Talking to the oh so neutral Howie Kurtz on "Reliable Sources," Logan claims that:

"Michael Hastings, if you believe him, says that there were no ground rules laid out. And, I mean, that just doesn't really make a lot of sense to me ... I mean, I know these people. They never let their guard down like that. To me, something doesn't add up here. I just -- I don't believe it. "

Using loaded language, she referred to Hastings' "game" when describing his earlier comments about his methods to build trust between himself and the subjects of his report. She denied that reporters write only positive articles to ensure continued access to their assigned "beats" saying,

"What I find is the most telling thing about what Michael Hastings said in your interview is that he talked about his manner as pretending to build an illusion of trust and, you know, he's laid out there what his game is. That is exactly the kind of damaging type of attitude that makes it difficult for reporters who are genuine about what they do, who don't -- I don't go around in my personal life pretending to be one thing and then being something else. I mean, I find it egregious that anyone would do that in their professional life."

What, the military didn't know Hastings was a reporter? Or are they so used to "reporters" who buy access by saying only nice, sanitized things about the conduct of the military?

Angered at Hastings' suggestion that reporters edit themselves in order to maintain access, Logan said: [emphasis added]

"I think that's insulting and arrogant, myself. I really do," Logan said, "because there are very good beat reporters who have been covering these wars for years, year after year. Michael Hastings appeared in Baghdad fairly late on the scene, and he was there for a significant period of time. He has his credentials, but he's not the only one. There are a lot of very good reporters out there. And to be fair to the military, if they believe that a piece is balanced, they will let you back. Michael Hastings has never served his country the way McChrystal has."

Can she not see that she just contradicted herself? "...if they [the military] believe a piece is balanced, they will let you back." By whose standards? The military? What is balance? Is this the same military that  embeds journalists to make sure that they see what they want them to see and report what they want them to report? I remember watching images of Vietnam over the dinner table and know that it was those images that had a lot to do with the national mood that ultimately led to our leaving. Journalists in Vietnam were not "embedded" nor were they limited on what they could see, do, or say. As a result, we have a vivid, albeit ugly, history of our time in that country. And, we now have a generation of American's who have a real understanding--without having been there--of the real meaning of war, not the pretty, Disney version the Pentagon would have us see.

By the way. What branch of the military was Logan in? And this has to do with what, how?

Discussing the issue of "on-the-record" vs. "off-the-record," Taibi notes that although he works for Rolling Stone, he does not know Michael Hastings, but can sympathize for him after listening to Logan's interview because;

"...when some would-be "reputable" journalist who's just been severely ass-whipped by a relative no-name freelancer on an enormous story fights back by going on television and, without any evidence at all, accusing the guy who beat him of cheating. That's happened to me so often, I've come to expect it. If there's a lower form of life on the planet earth than a "reputable" journalist protecting his territory, I haven't seen it."

Commenting on Logan's remarks about the "understanding" between reporter and subject and trust that is built up so that--in this case--McChrystal knows he can talk freely knowing that anything negative will not be reported, a trust that she says Hastings broke, Taibi says:

"...the reason Lara Logan thinks this is because she's like pretty much every other "reputable" journalist in this country, in that she suffers from a profound confusion about who she's supposed to be working for. I know this from my years covering presidential campaigns, where the same dynamic applies. Hey, assholes: you do not work for the people you're covering!"

Somehow in this country, we have come to the conclusion that if we speak out against the war, we are against the troops. That if we show the horrors of war, we are anti-war. Clearly Lara Logan has become enamored of the military. Who wouldn't? Her rise to fame (and I'm sure, fortune) is directly tied to American's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. What is sad is that true support of the troops would be to bring them home, to fight the war they signed up for and then bring them home. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We "won" Afghanistan in 2002. There are (according to the military) less than 50 Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan at this time. Even McChrystal does not believe in his much touted anti-insurgency policy and President Obama is fighting a sinking approval rating and believes somehow that a withdrawal from Afghanistan will make him appear weak. It is the Lara Logan's in the mainstream media who are responsible for our going to war, our continued presence there, and the nation's ignorance of the true agenda of the Republican Party.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Dear Sarah Palin

Sarah, President Obama is Not a CEO (& You Weren't Either)

As appropriate, today President Obama met with the Chairman of BP, as well as CEO Hayward and other officials. Yesterday, half-term quitter, I mean, ex-governor Palin said on the O'Reilly show that President Obama should meet, CEO to CEO with Hayward to resolve the Gulf oil disaster. Watching her body language and interaction with Bill O was quite amusing as she did not receive the beauty queen treatment she normally expects on Fox News shows. The grim expression and shrill voice said more than her words as she demanded actions already taken (how many foreign flagged vessels are already working in the gulf?) and claimed, again, her lengthy experience working with the oil companies. Did anyone else catch her on the one hand claiming that the oil companies lie, while at the end demanding that we not demonize them so they don't fail. She also demanded throughout that the fault was the lack of regulation and oversight by the Obama Administration (in office for a whole 16-months by now) and this by someone claiming membership in a party and sub-party pleading for enough government to fit in a bathtub. Sigh.

Not only can Sarah Palin not stay on script, she cannot remember what she said three sentences ago in order not to negate herself. Much as I hate to say it, Bill O pushed her just enough that any half-thinking person (although not sure there are any watching Fox) would catch the inconsistencies. He certainly did.

Let me try to explain. Sarah. President Obama is not a CEO. The United States is not a corporation. I am not a shareholder. Congress is not his Board of Directors. They do not have the authority to fire him as they did not hire him (the duty of a Board). Although he proposes budgets and oversees departments in a very broad sense, his bottom line is not profit. A CEO's reason for being is profit. The purpose of government is to spend money on its citizens, not to create profit for its own sake. The purpose of a corporation is to create profit for its shareholders. Period. A CEO that does not produce profit is fired. A CEO that does not focus on the bottom line and does not put his or her shareholders first before all other factors, is behaving in an unethical and possibly illegal manner.

Much as we would like BP to be warm and fuzzy and care about the animals and the people of the Gulf, it's not their job. Their job is to make lots of money. It is the job of government to make sure that the people of the Gulf are taken care of and that the animals and the environment are taken into account. That's why we have such things as the Clean Water Act, the EPA, and the MMS. Regulations were put into place because corporations are there to create profit and governments are there to protect its citizens from the corporation. Anyone who questions this should locate a copy of Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" and then go buy a hotdog. Or any kind of processed meat. Go on. I'll wait.

So, what is a CEO? Why do you and others who continue to call the President (and themselves when Governor) a CEO look foolish when you do so? It's because you ignore the complexity of government and the corporate world. You not only talk only in buzz words and catch phrases, but evidently, you can only think in them as well.

***************************************************

Chief Executive Officer (CEO) -- per Investopedia

"The highest ranking executive in a company whose main responsibilities include developing and implementing high-level strategies, making major corporate decisions, managing the overall operations and resources of a company, and acting as the main point of communication between the board of directors and the corporate operations. The CEO will often have a position on the board, and in some cases is even the chair."

"There are various other titles for the position of CEO including president and executive or managing director. The role of the CEO will vary from one company to another depending on its size and organization. In smaller companies, the CEO will often have a much more hands-on role in the company, making a lot of the business decisions, even lower-level ones such as the hiring of staff. However, in larger companies, the CEO will often deal with only the higher-level strategy of the company and directing its overall growth, with most other tasks deligated to managers and departments."

An article in Business Week in April of 2009 discussed the need to redefine the role of the CEO in light of the financial meltdown of Wall Street and the need to avert government interference in the operation of corporations. The discussion said, among other things that,

"Appropriate management of financial risk involves elevating the function so that it reports at the top of the company to the CEO and board and is treated as an equal in status (if not precisely in pay) to business generators. It then entails evaluating both business processes and real results in the core tasks of assessing, spreading and controlling risk. It should focus on fundamental issues of capital adequacy, leverage, and liquidity—integrating off-balance sheet activities into assessments of these risk issues and using early warning systems to spot unforeseen risks." [emphasis added]

***************************************************

I'm disappointed in President Obama's apparent lack of understanding of the seriousness of the mess we are in, but I understand that 1) BP and the other oil companies are the only ones who have the knowledge to clean this up, and 2) it is the policies and de-regulation of the previous administration that created the environment that led to this disaster.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Join the FB Group "1,000,000 People Who Want to Plug the BP Oil Spill With SP"

Got a Facebook page? Join the group, "1,000,000 People Who Want to Plug the BP Oil Spill With Sarah Palin" by going here

Sarah Palin's "Tells" Tell Us When She Lies

I try to avoid watching Sarah Palin anymore, although I have written in the past about how she presents and what I observe. During the 2008 campaign, my main concern was for the children as they were paraded before the media while at the same time, the Palin's demanded that the children be left out of political discussion. Watching the dynamics of the Palin family while on-stage, while waiting to go on-stage, during video clips of the campaign plane and the various interactions available to us via hours of video and still photographs was an education in family dysfunction.

I am gratified that we see very little of Trig or Piper - perhaps she is now attending school and he is receiving the intensive one-on-one attention necessary for an infant with Down Syndrome? The parading of Bristol and now Willow in inappropriate venues in inappropriate clothing is a disappointment, but it is clear that the Palin family business is business, and that the commodity that they have to sell is themselves. As Sarah ages and her lack of substance becomes more apparent, perhaps she is counting on her daughters to step in and fill the family coffers. Who knows. Hopefully the day will come when we can cease caring - the day when if the Palins have not left politics, that at least politics will at least have left them.



Sarah's most recent video appearance was with Greta Van Susteran as she addressed the buzz that is all over the internets about the possibility of breast implants. She seems somehow surprised that feminists have not joined in supporting her as her attempts - she says - to wear layers to avert attention away from her breasts (what was that very thin t-shirt at Belmont?) has failed and she is being objectified (my word, not sure she knows that one).

When I watch someone speak or appear in an interview, just as in a counseling session, I pay more attention to how they say what they are saying then to the actual words said. Obvious "tells" alert me to moments when the words probably mean more, but overall, it is how someone says something and the meaning behind the words that mean the most. In counseling, of course, the purpose and goal is quite different than in "real" life where - especially in politics - words do matter. However, Sarah has some really interesting tells that I am surprised that at this point in her public life, remain. With all the 'gates and media attention one would think that she would have received better advice (as well as voice coaching), but she apparently knows it all already and is unable and/or unwilling to acknowledge any faults, the first step necessary to self-improvement.

As I watched this video, 2 things struck me. I re-watched it several times to ensure that I had seen what I thought I had seen, and believe me, it was like nails on a blackboard. But even though she was prepared for the questions about breast implants, Sarah was very angry that she had to address the issue, and despite her statement to Greta that she had great respect and love for her, it was one of her bigger lies of the interview. The other? Claiming that she did not want to be judged on appearance. Lie. The tells were huge for anyone who knows what to look for.

During the entire interview, Sarah's behavior was incongruent with what she said. Watch her eyes, her neck, and her mouth. Stress is apparent as her neck cords, as she swallows, and in the tightness of her mouth. I think she wears glasses believing they hide (filter) her eyes - they do not. (BTW - anyone notice that she did not refer to the mainstream media as lamestream media? she actually said mainstream this time - significant stress signal when that is one of her favorite slurs).

Throughout the interview, she either nodded (very infrequently) or shook her head. Most of the time when she was speaking, she was also shaking her head, which tells me that she does not agree with what she is saying. There is shaking your head to suggest dismay at something or someone (i.e., "oh, those poor...), but behavior incongruent to what one is saying that is excessive and continuous is problematic. For her. For us? I'm glad she continues to get such poor advice, especially with the mid-terms coming up.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

President Bush - Ongoing Serial Stupidity & Willful Ignorance (Or Is He Just Evil?)

PHOTO: mindfully.org

I've written 15 posts about torture and although I am deeply disappointed at the Obama Administration's decision to let Bush and Cheney get away with their actions leading up to and during the Iraq war, I had thought that the discussion had subsided into a low murmur.

Unable to keep his mouth shut, President Bush made a cavalier comment while speaking in Grand Rapids, Michigan yesterday, saying that he did indeed have Khalid Sheikh Mohammed waterboarded, and would do so again if it would save lives. Never mind that there is significant evidence, as discusssed by Matthew Alexander here, that details how waterboarding detainees made us less safe.

Extensive research, readily available to the President and much of it conducted by the FBI - experts at interrogation - and the Department of Defense, has been conducted on how to elicit useful information from people. As a counselor, it is my job to be able to get people to open up as I have discussed here that I have related to SERE training and torture.

Today, Dan Froomkin reports on the response of top military leaders to Bush's comments. Anger appears to be the universal response. They are appalled that Bush, still, has no conception of the illegality of his actions nor does he appear to care (although, why should he? apparently ex-Presidents are above the law).

"George W. Bush's casual acknowledgment Wednesday that he had Khalid Sheikh Mohammed waterboarded -- and would do it again -- has horrified some former military and intelligence officials who argue that the former president doesn't seem to understand the gravity of what he is admitting."

There is no question that waterboarding is torture regardless of what has been discussed in the media in the past year or two. This country has imprisoned people and even executed people for waterboarding, and as recently as a few years ago, a sheriff's deputy in Texas was jailed for using waterboarding as an interrogation technique. More discussion here.

The article goes on to quote military leaders:

"Waterboarding, a form of controlled drowning, is "unequivocably torture", said retired Brigadier General David R. Irvine, a former strategic intelligence officer who taught prisoner of war interrogation and military law for 18 years."

"As a nation, we have historically prosecuted it as such, going back to the time of the Spanish-American War," Irvine said. "Moreover, it cannot be demonstrated that any use of waterboarding by U.S. personnel in recent years has saved a single American life."

Irvine told the Huffington Post that Bush doesn't appreciate how much harm his countenancing of torture has done to his country.

"Yeah, we waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed," Bush told a Grand Rapids audience Wednesday, of the self-professed 9/11 mastermind. "I'd do it again to save lives."
But, Irvine said: "When he decided to do it the first time, he launched the nation down a disastrous road, and we will continue to pay dearly for the damage his decision has caused.

"We are seen by the rest of the world as having abandoned our commitment to international law. We have forfeited enormous amounts of moral leadership as the world's sole remaining superpower. And it puts American troops in greater danger -- and unnecessary danger."

The article continues by quoting other military leaders:

"James P. Cullen, a retired brigadier general in the United States Army Reserve Judge Advocate General's Corps, told HuffPost that the net effect of Bush's remarks--and former Vice President Cheney's before him--is 'to establish a precedent where it will be permissible to our enemies to use waterboarding on our servicemen in future wars."

"Cheney famously once agreed with an interviewer that a 'dunk in the water' was a 'no-brainer' if it saves lives."

What is it with these men? Don't confuse me with the facts? As I wrote about yesterday, this is willful ignorance in the extreme, and the serial stupidity of the Republican Party to the nth degree.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

SUN: 7:02PM Edited for duplicate section

Why Are Teabaggers Willfully Ignorant? A Social Psychological Perspective

PHOTO: Trish Wend

My last post discussed the tendency of so many Americans to complain about government while at the same time relying on the services it provides, all the while, likely not understanding how dependent they are on those services. One of the comments, posted by Lexcade said:

"i think the problem is that too many people are ignorant about what the government actually does but they have no interest in gaining the knowledge they need to understand. they're perfectly willing to let the pretty women on fox tell them what to believe, and they buy it without a second thought. i'm sure there's some sort of psychology term for this, but i don't remember what it is. i just call it laziness."

There is a form of mental laziness that allows us to ignore that which is uncomfortable and would require effort to correct. Cognitive dissonance is the state in which ones behavior is in conflict with one's beliefs; in this situation, the individual complains about the government intruding into their lives while at the same time knowing - perhaps unconsciously - that without government, their lives would be extremely different and very likely, uncomfortable.

In order to resolve that dissonance, you have to change either your beliefs (okay, government isn't all that bad) or your behavior (stop complaining about it or do something pro-active to change it). Somehow, waving signs and chanting pre-packaged slogans that have required no real thought doesn't quite do it.

It is very difficult to change behavior and research has found that cognitive dissonance is usually resolved by changing beliefs or attitudes. In the case of the teabaggers, the change required on either end of the spectrum is so radical that it is far more comfortable to ignore it.

In order to recognize dissonance, one must have a certain level of self-awareness and be willing to recognize the dichotomy that exists within us all. Introspection and self-improvement are not fun and one of the reasons that I know I have had a successful counseling session is if my client cries. Real work is not easy or comforting and to accomplish anything lasting requires what one of my professors called "kicking it down into the basement and keeping it there."

In social psychology, we learn that one of the strongest social desires is to be liked. In a group, we tend to accommodate our beliefs and desires to those of the group and over time, resolve any conflict within ourselves by telling ourselves that those are our real beliefs. We tend to associate with and like those who are most like us, and studies have shown that when presented with negative information, we tend to think better of people that we like and rationalize away the negative information. We also tend to believe that people we like believe in the same way that we do and people we don't like, don't (all cats are animals, therefore, all animals are cats). If someone is different, we are quick to believe the worst and given the choice, will ignore exculpatory evidence weighted in favor of a stranger over proof of wrong-doing against someone we like.

Whether it is some sort of genetic/tribal memory or environmental conditioning, most people fear that which is different and the teabaggers, most of whom are not highly educated, fear the changes brought by an African-American President and a Democratic Congress. Rather than listening, they respond on an emotional level which limits the ability to reason. By leading with emotions, people are then extremely vulnerable to politicians and pundits who cater to that vulnerability (read Fox).

By projecting their feelings of inadequacy onto others, people such as the teabaggers are able to blame others (the government, immigrants, the Democrats, liberals, etc.) for everything that is wrong in their lives. One social theory is based on social structuralism and agency theory. How does the individual fit into society? How much agency does the individual really have? Agency means how autonomous is the individual? How much free will can they exercise? It is thought that within the social structure, we all have a certain place and manner of behavior based on the existing structure (people act towards us as we expect them to, we react as they expect us to and so on). With greater agency, we are able to affect that structure and our place in it. The greater our knowledge of social structure and the greater our own self-awareness, the greater our own agency.

In psychology, we look at the locus of control - is it internal or external? A healthy individual has an internal locus of control, meaning that they look to themselves for agency. They take responsibility for their own actions whereas someone with an external locus of control blames everything on outside influences beyond their control. Can't get a job? Immigrants fault. No money? Government taking too much in taxes (never mind that this past year we paid the lowest taxes in decades). Everything is always someone else's fault. Life is ruled by fate, God, or others. By ceding responsibility to someone or something else, they no longer have to do anything about it. Life can continue to be lived by sitting on the poofy recliner, watching Bridezilla while eating TacoTime and letting others make all the decisions, accept all the responsibility, and write the scripts for life.

Sorry. Probably more information than anyone wanted or needed, but I can cope with ignorance - after all, we just got through eight years of No Child Left Behind - but willful ignorance on the part of the teabags and the blind obedience to party and church is just crazy-making to me. And it is willful. It's just too upsetting, depressing, confusing, boring, hard, complex, irritating, or just plain time-consuming to stay informed and be a good citizen, so they'd all rather wave their Dick Armey printed slogans, fantasize about Sarah, or daydream about whatever it is their teeny, tiny little minds dream about while they stuff their faces with cheese puffs and watch the tv machine.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Sarah Palin and Her Redneck Jokes UPDATE: Link Fixed

P

PHOTO: fanpop.com

This is a couple of weeks old, but if you missed it, it is a must read for all us Sarah Palin watchdogs. Moving from True/Slant back to Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi writes about Sarah's trolling for jokes off the internet and the decided lack of substance in her speeches. Noting that she appears to have found a successful format for her particular audience, Matt says that:

"...I don’t think you can steal more than four or maybe five jokes before some kind of line is crossed..."

Plagiarism has been in the news lately, especially as she "borrowed" a poem which she tweeted for Memorial Day, later crediting Fred Thompson's previous use to avoid the already rampant plagiarism charges.

On a side note, she seems not to understand that Memorial Day is a celebration of those who have died, not her all-purpose support for the troops that she links everything to. Don't get me wrong, I support the troops, but I don't find it necessary to include that fact as a link back to every issue, discussion, or appearance. People who find it necessary to loudly and repeatedly proclaim something about themselves be it their patriotism, religiosity, or in this case, support for the troops, usually are projecting. For a discussion of projection, go here, or here.

Sarah chuckles at her use of Google to prepare for her various appearances - still lacking the self-awareness to understand that she looked foolish by telling Glenn Beck that she Googled the Statue of Liberty prior to their interview, assuming that because of the location of the interview that he would quiz her on it. She used quote finders during her campaign and in her book, and sees nothing wrong with helping herself to whatever she likes wherever she finds it (remember the swag bags?). Does she really imagine that we want a cutesy president? Especially as most of us outgrow cutesy at about age 13.

Matt goes on to note that whatever it is that she is doing:

 "She’s tuned in to the fact that her audiences literally can’t get enough of having their lunatic self-images massaged (“I’m a violent, illiterate pig who eats with her mouth open just like all you outstanding Americans!”) and aren’t really interested in much else beyond that — issues are really secondary."

"...all that boring stuff is really secondary to the more important business of reassuring her audiences that that it’s okay to be a slob who does nothing but shoot cute animals and watch TV. Most of all, Americans — the same Americans who buy everything TV tells them to buy and vote for the same shysters year after year, swallowing one lie after another whole — love to be told how tough and fearsome and independent they are."

Unfortunately, I think Matt is absolutely correct in his interpretation of her audience.

"It’s basically a risk-free strategy. You get up on stage and you say, “I’m just like all you idiots. And you idiots rock!” People will fall for this stuff. The ingenious part in Sarah Palin’s case is that she probably genuinely believes it."

I've mentioned before that we get what we deserve, and the rest of us will pay the price.

Talking to spouse last night and the point came up, what exactly do all these people think will happen if they achieve their goal of minimal government? They sit in their poofy recliners, watching their satellite dish tv machines, drinking beer and eating cheese-puffs and complain about government interference in their lives. They bitch about taxes and government takeover of healthcare as they put their twice-monthly paycheck in the bank and head off to WalMart to buy their Chinese produced toys.

If they lose their job, the first stop is the Unemployment Office where they demand that government do something for them, and if they have a heart attack from their sedentary lives, will expect 911 to send them medics in time and the emergency room staff to save them. If the neighbors are too loud, or the dog barks, they are the first to call the police to complain, and write letters to the editor or post on Facebook or blogs about those damned liberals who are trying to destroy their country.

They have no understanding of the concept critical thinking and believe that all members of their party believe as they do and if someone says they are Christian, then they share their belief. Self-awareness requires introspection and the desire to accept responsibility for those aspects of ourselves that are in need of improvement.

It is sad and it is funny, but it is also scary as too many Americans allow themselves to be lead by people who do not have their best interests at heart.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Liz Cheney, Again, Shut the F*ck Up & Go Home

PHOTO: go2wordpress.com

Liz Cheney appeared on Fox this past Sunday outraged that Rahm Emanuel brought in Bill Clinton as a "cut-out" (oooh, love that 'spy' talk) to try to convince Joe Sestak not to run against Specter in Pennsylvania. She of course sees this as a major crime, never mind that President Reagan did the same thing with Senator Hayakawa, and as Juan Williams pointed out later, it is a normal part of politics - ambassadorships for example. But to Liz, if the Obama Administration does it, it's bad. if Daddy did it, it's good. So, if President Obama does something that the Bush Administration did not do or that contradicts what they did, then nothing for it but for Liz to make the rounds being outraged, which is really all she knows how to do. Seriously. Why does she get the air?

Juan Williams who is usually a total Fox apologist actually scored a few points with me by taking on not just Liz but Bill Kristol.


@Fred Thompson tweeted "Re: Clinton & Sestak: the point man on this credibility issue is only President in history to have been impeached for perjury." which is such a lovely thing for a Republican to say, considering the sexual peccadilloes of members of that party that we have been exposed to in the past year. Somehow, the most investigated couple in the history of this country, including every action taken prior to their political life, was concluded with the finding that the President lied about a question that we had not right to ask in the first place. Now, how many of those House managers had their own sexual scandals? Not wise to focus attention on sex when attacking, even Clinton.

And Liz, let's talk about perjury. Al Qaeda, Iraq, yellowcake, Niger, Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, torture, enhanced interrogation, rendition, Guantanamo, Jay Bybee, John Yoo, Scooter Libby, I can't recall, defying Congress because I'm VP and therefore the 4th co-equal branch of government, sending you out to shill for him. Your Daddy is a piece of work and if you look up perjury in the dictionary, his picture is there. Right next to his boss. If anyone needs to have a special prosecutor appointed, it's your Dad.

So, how about you pack it in and go away and when your Dad and his boss are ready to talk about things, under oath, to Democrats, then maybe you can criticize President Obama. Until then, you need to go home and practice your presentation and learn how to participate in discussions with other people (it's considered appropriate to wait until someone has finished their comment before talking) and how to research your 'facts' before spouting off on the national tv machine. It's been real nice not having you around for awhile and I think I speak for many others when I say that it would be nice not having you around for awhile more.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Gulf Spill NOT Obama's Katrina, and Action We Can Take

The GOP and others on the right, ever seeking to find something to use to attack President Obama, have been calling the Gulf oil spill "Obama's Katrina." In The New Republic, Yuval Levin in The Corner wrote:

 "I think it’s actually right to say that the BP oil spill is something like Obama’s Katrina, but not in the sense in which most critics seem to mean it.

It’s like Katrina in that many people's attitudes regarding the response to it reveal completely unreasonable expectations of government. The fact is, accidents (not to mention storms) happen. We can work to prepare for them, we can have various preventive rules and measures in place. We can build the capacity for response and recovery in advance. But these things happen, and sometimes they happen on a scale that is just too great to be easily addressed. It is totally unreasonable to expect the government to be able to easily address them—and the kind of government that would be capable of that is not the kind of government that we should want.

Let’s say a major hurricane hits a large and densely populated American city with five hundred thousand inhabitants. Much of the city is below sea level, and the flood-waters that follow in the wake of the storm quickly overrun it, filling nearly every street with water, in many places fifteen feet in depth. The magnitude of human suffering and destruction of property is mind-boggling. But within six days, everyone is out of the city and in total approximately one thousand people—one in five hundred residents—lost their lives in the calamity. Hour by hour, the government response was messy and ugly—it could hardly be otherwise given the magnitude of the disaster. But looked at with a little perspective, is that really a story of a failure of government response, or is it an example of how to contend with an immense natural disaster in a densely populated urban center? Is it a model of incompetence, or the most effective mass evacuation in human history?"

It sounds almost reasonable, and if someone had no understanding of the actual role of the federal government, particularly in regard to hurricane preparedness and disaster relief, the above makes some sense. Kind of.

Kevin Drum in his column in Mother Jones, responds. What he says, in part: [emphasis added]

"This conflates two very different things. Katrina was an example of the type of disaster that the federal government is specifically tasked with handling. And for most of the 90s, it was very good at handling them. But when George Bush became president and Joe Allbaugh became director of FEMA, everything changed. Allbaugh neither knew nor cared about disaster preparedness. For ideological reasons, FEMA was downsized and much of its work outsourced. When Allbaugh left after less than two years on the job, he was replaced by the hapless Michael Brown and the agency was downgraded and broken up yet again. By the time Katrina hit, the upper levels of FEMA were populated largely with political appointees with no disaster preparedness experience and the agency was simply not up to the job of dealing with a huge storm anymore.

The Deepwater Horizon explosion is almost the exact opposite. There is no federal expertise in capping oil blowouts. There is no federal agency tasked specifically with repairing broken well pipes. There is no expectation that the federal government should be able to respond instantly to a disaster like this. There never has been. For better or worse, it's simply not something that's ever been considered the responsibility of the federal government."

I respect President Obama claiming that "the buck stops with me" and that he is ultimately responsible for the disaster in the Gulf. I know that he is remembering the response to President Bush after his mishandling of Katrina and, especially in an election year which historically should bring the loss of Democratic seats, is trying to show that he is the anti-Bush, but I'm not sure that he is making the right move.

Yes, the federal government must be involved and hold BP, Deepwater, and Haliburton responsible. I think the government should have taken control over BP sooner, however, it is not his responsibility. It is his responsibility to ensure that BP is held accountable in a way that Exxon was able to avoid, and it is his responsibility to ensure that the MMS is either dissolved, or restructured, but this is in no way the fault of his administration except in the sense that his Secretary of the Interior Salazar did not move fast enough to clean up the mess that he inherited.

It won't be much longer before the public gets tired of this story--we can only take so much disaster before we need to turn away--and the media directs its attention elsewhere. As citizens, it is up to us to continue to put pressure on our representatives to keep this on top of the news and to support the legislation that will remove the limits on BP's liability, and ensure that BP does not get to have all future court hearings before the judge of their choice. Ask your representatives to make sure that all hearings related to this disaster are heard in the Gulf states, not in Houston before BP's handpicked judge. Make sure that those most harmed can participate in the process and will not be limited in the damages that they can seek.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Today's Theme: Sarah Misinterprets, Again, As Does Peggy Noonan

PHOTO: Louis Page

Sarah Palin:

"And you know what they say about "fences make for good neighbors"? Well, we'll get started on that tall fence tomorrow, and I'll try to keep Trig's squeals down to a quiet giggle so we don't disturb your peaceful summer. Enjoy!"

The poet Robert Frost actually began the poem she references with this line:

"Something there is that doesn't love a wall"

The whole point of the poem is a man wondering why he and his neighbor must rebuild their wall each spring.

There where it is we do not need the wall:
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, 'Good fences make good neighbors'.
Frost asks: 'Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows?
But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offense.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down.'

 Once again, Sarah Googles a quote and misses the point. Hugely.

Continuing with today's theme.

Peggy Noonan wrote of President Bush after Hurricane Katrina and the projected impact on his presidency:

"Is the Bush Era over? No, no, no. It has three more years. That’s a long time. History turns on a dime. There is much ahead, and potential for progress."

Of President Obama and the BP oil disaster in the Gulf?

"I don’t see how the president’s position and popularity can survive the oil spill."

She continues:

"I wonder if the president knows what a disaster this is not only for him but for his political assumptions. His philosophy is that it is appropriate for the federal government to occupy a more burly, significant and powerful place in America—confronting its problems of need, injustice, inequality. But in a way, and inevitably, this is always boiled down to a promise: "Trust us here in Washington, we will prove worthy of your trust." Then the oil spill came and government could not do the job, could not meet need, in fact seemed faraway and incapable: "We pay so much for the government and it can't cap an undersea oil well!"

She does have a point. After all, Bush never promised a government that would hold a powerful place in America--confronting its problems of needs, injustice, inequality...He just demanded that we trust him.

The problem with Noonan's piece is that:

1. Bush knew ahead of time what would happen and how to prevent it
2. He avoided New Orleans afterward
3. He claimed that everything that could be done was being done (heck of a job, Brownie)
4. Bush to this day accepts no responsibility, none, for any mistakes that were made
5. President Obama was in the Gulf on May 2
6. He has already acknowledged the mistakes made
7. Rather than trying to evade responsibility in an off-year election year, he is trying to ensure that the American people know what is happening and that ultimately, it is his responsibility for the failures of the MMS even though it was the Bush Administration that made the decisions resulting in this disaster

Another GOPher apologist spouting the party line. Get in line. That woman is an idiot.

Thanks for stopping by.  Come back soon.
k

Mississippi Clinic Needs Our Help - Perhaps a Donation in Our (not) Favorite Politician's Name?

This morning, I received the following from Ellie Smeal of the Feminist Majority Foundation. Once again, a minority of Americans have decided that they get to decide how the rest of us live. Regardless of how you or I personally feel about abortion, the majority of American's still believe that it is a decision best left up to a woman and her doctor. Extremists would have you believe that wanting to allow women that choice automatically means you support that choice, conflating an extremely complex issue into a black and white, either/or question that is typical of the ignorance of the radical fringe of the extremist right.

The lives of doctors and clinic employees at Jackson Women's Health Organization in Jackson, Mississippi, are being threatened. This is the only abortion provider in the entire state of Mississippi. Extremists are trying to shut down this vital women's clinic. This clinic and its doctors need our help now.

One year ago Dr. George Tiller was brutally murdered. His killer, Scott Roeder, has been sentenced to life in prison, but the extremists have not been deterred.

The leading anti-abortion extremist in Jackson is an advocate of Justifiable Homicide - or the belief that justifies the murder of doctors who perform abortions. The clinic and its doctors have been repeatedly threatened.

The clinic needs immediate help to pursue legal strategies and to enhance its security system.

Our National Clinic Access Project legal coordinator has just traveled to Jackson to assist the clinic. She met with clinic staff and community pro-choice supporters to discuss ways to improve security, to assess legal needs and to devise new ways for the local community to support this critically needed health facility. We are determined to do everything we can to keep Jackson Women's Health Organization open and its patients, doctors and staff safe.

Help the doctors, health care workers, and patients of Jackson Women's Health Organization today by making an emergency, tax-deductible contribution. Half your contribution will go directly to the clinic to help pay for enhanced security measures.

The other half of your emergency contribution will help support our National Clinic Access Project's work to keep this clinic and other besieged clinics across the country safe and open. The demand for our work is dramatically increasing.

As I write this, we are working with Dr. Carhart and his clinic in Nebraska. Dr. Carhart, who had worked with Dr. Tiller, and his clinic were immediately targeted by Wichita-based Operation Rescue after the murder of Dr. Tiller. This group had harrassed Dr. Tiller for seven years.

And we are also working very closely with Family Reproductive Health in Charlotte, NC under siege by Operation Save America/Operation Rescue. Recently, anti-abortion extremists published the photographs of and information about the clinic's doctors in a WANTED poster. Similar posters appeared before the brutal murders of two doctors in Pensacola, Florida.

Without doctors and clinic to provide safe, legal abortions and access to birth control, there can be no choice for women. Please make an emergency contribution today to help Jackson Women's Health Organization and our National Clinic Access Project.

Together we are making a difference.

If you are able to contribute, please do so here.

Just as a belief that war is wrong or that our presence in Iraq or Afghanistan means you are against the troops--that for almost all of us could not be more wrong--the GOPhers and others on the right continue to narrow the issues into sound bites and buzz words that trigger an emotional response. Once that emotional response is triggered, room for rational thought is lessened and the individual is easily manipulated in the direction that is desired. Politicians, marketing firms, and "commentators" are very aware of how easily this is done. The attack on our freedoms is well-coordinated and well-orchestrated. Witness the immediate response to Rand Paul's interview with Rachel Maddow and the immediate attacks on Rachel, not on the incoherent response to her questions. Issues are not addressed, rather the individual raising the issue becomes the issue in Tea Party land.

As an aside, during the 2008 campaign, many individuals contributed to the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund which at that time, included a stuffed wolf as a free gift with a donation. Many people had their free stuffed animal delivered to Sarah Palin. Unfortunately, they no longer offer incentive gifts, but there is always the acknowledgment card... Personally, I donated to Planned Parenthood at that time, in her name, and asked that the thank you card be sent to her and I know of a number of others who followed suit. After all, she had told Katie Couric that she was a feminist, so I know that Sarah Palin would, of course, appreciate the donation in her name...

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Thurgood Marshall Fund Responds to Limbaugh Hissy Fit About Kagan. CORRECTED

Climbing onto his high horse yet again, Rush Limbaugh is having a hissy fit over the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court claiming, among other reasons, that statements made by the late Justice Thurgood Marshall about the Constitution, whom Limbaugh states that she idolizes, (idolizes? do we all 'idolize' our mentors?) disqualify her.

Limbaugh quotes Marshall as saying that;

"The Constitution as originally drafted and conceived was defective..."

Limbaugh continues by relating Marshall's comments about how it was only over the course of the next 200 years after the signing of the original Constitution that the people on the Supreme Court had made it worth anything. To Limbaugh, of course, this meant that Marshall was referring only to himself, because that is what he would do as everything is apparently all about him.He is outraged that anyone, particularly a Supreme Court Justice would question the Constitution. Hello? Does anyone want to tell him what the Court is for? Because it is not a perfect document, it needs people to interpret it and apply it to everyday life - thus the Supreme Court.


Has Rush ever actual read the Constitution? Does he understand that in the original, the Founders were referring only to white men, and landowning white men at that? That when they said that, "All men are created equal," they meant exactly that? Women in this country, with the exception of some individual states, were not granted full suffrage by Constitutional right until 1920 with passage of the 19th Amendment.

How about the Bill of Rights, Rush? Not included in the original Constitution. Those 1st through 10th Constitutional rights all the teabaggers get excited about are actually amendments. Including that pesky 2nd Amendment about the right to keep and bear arms, and the 10th that you Republicans love so much about states rights.

I know all you Republicans wish some of the more recent Supreme Court decisions like Brown v Board of Education (the one Marshall is most famous for, actually), and Roe v Wade had never happened, but you have to admit, if we still had just the original Constitution (which, by the way is amended because the Founders knew they were imperfect human beings and thus allowed in its creation for the amendment process to occur) our country would look very, very different. A lot like an elitist-run, no opportunity country they claim to love. Imagine that.

In a statement released today by the Thurgood Marshall Fund regarding Limbaugh's attacks, they said that;

"The story of Brown vs. The Board of Education is one of hope and courage. May 17, 1954 was a truly historic day for our nation as the United States Supreme Court handed down a landmark unanimous decision striking down Plessy v. Ferguson, a holding that, since 1896, made “Separate But Equal” the law of the land and kept our nation’s schools segregated. The Brown decision not only integrated our public schools, but it ultimately opened up so many doors of opportunity wrongfully closed to people just because of the color of their skin. Thurgood Marshall, the lead attorney in the Brown case, became our nation’s first African-American Solicitor General and later the first African-American Supreme Court Justice."

"The Late Justice Marshall challenged America to continue to “Knock down the fences that divide, tear apart the walls that imprison, and reach out, for freedom lies just on the other side...”

Slavery and gender inequality were embedded in our Constitution. The Founders could not have known the changes that would occur in our world in the time since this nation was created, however, they had the vision to understand that without change, this nation would die, and thus produced a living document. A document that has embedded in its foundation that process for change.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Tasers Again, Prayer Warriors, and Sarah Palin's Advocacy of Violence UPDATED

I have discussed the increasing use of tasers in our society here, here, and here. As a sociologist, I am concerned about the increasing violence and the consequences, and as a counselor, I am concerned about the effects of that violence. This past weekend, Sarah Palin spoke at the Women of Joy Conference and referenced the Prayer Warriors, admitting again her connection to that group whose admitted aim is the destruction of the demons that are destroying our society. Warriors. Violence. I guess anything goes if you achieve your goals.

Digby writes frequently about tasers as well and discusses here the recent tasering of a baseball fan at a Phillies Cardinals game for the heinous crime of running onto the field. Her point? We have truly sunk as low as we can get. The included comments posted to the YouTube video attached.

Randalrister thanks for postin the video, only thing us cards fans got to see was closeup video of molina laughing at him. 53 minutes ago
rustytrombone1027 Tazed his ass! Nice. 20 minutes ago

r1rav3n me and my boy were in sec 145 left field front row seats to the action. this was the greatest thing we ever seen 27 minutes ago

SavageJon123 Only a Btown kid. lol go Steve 35 minutes ago

DallasWillAlwaysSuck phuckin' hilarious, CBP rules!!!!! 45 minutes ago

StLouisKing05 this was the funniest thing i have ever seen! i sat in section 307 so i saw him hop over the wall and start running!! 49 minutes ago

CheetoSantana The smile on Molina's face was awesome 54 minutes ago

MatthewMitchell3434 I go to school with the kid hes 17
As she goes on to say;

She goes on to comment on the attitudes displayed by those making these comments;

"Real Americans don little tri-corner hats and carry on about "freedom" and "the constitution"

In my opinion, they listen to Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and other looney toons right-wing extremists and as Digby says;

"They are paranoid about a non-existent invasion of killer immigrants and are freaking out about a non-existent plan to send gun owners to Fema camps. They threaten to kill census workers who ask them how many times they flush their toilets."

I watch the news and see them at their Tea Parties and their marches as their tens of hundreds march in Washington as they strap on their guns, wave their "Don't Tread On Me" flags, threaten to water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants (of course, never their own) when they clearly have no understanding of what they are talking about. Digby continues;

"But torture? Not a problem. Whether it's administered by the CIA or some minimum wage security guard, they seem to think electric shock, waterboarding or any other sick form of coercion worthy of the worst low rent dictator in the world is just ducky..."

This past weekend, Sarah Palin spoke at a Women of Joy Conference and referenced Prayer Warriors, something she has done in the past, including thanking their (fortunately failed) intercession during her vice-presidential campaign. The Christian religion, particularly the evangelical branch, has always had violent tendencies, rooted as it is in the Old Testament, regardless of its constant calls to praise Jesus. Evangelicals love to cite the passages that support their strong law and order tendencies (an eye for an eye as an example) and the patriarchal family structure, ignoring those passages that do not suit their modern lifestyle (only prostitutes wear red [Sarah?] and eating pork is bad...wonder what they would have said about moose meat? and the laws of usury in the Old Testament...).

Anyway, I bring this up to make the link between the increasing use of tasers, the acceptance by our culture of same, and the rise of the law and order movement alongside the Christianisation of our political system. People turn to religion in troubled times as a way to cede responsibility to someone/something else. Let God take care of you and you do not have to take care of yourself. If it is all determined by God, then you have no responsibility for your own life. Lose your job? Your home? It is God's will. (Lose an election? It is a conspiracy led by the Devil, however).

The Old Testament is full of violence and a retributive god--as opposed to the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus who taught us to love our neighbor as ourself and to turn the other cheek. It was Jesus who said that if someone steals your coat, offer them your shirt. I wonder what he would think of tasering someone for bad attitude? Just saying.

At her conference the other day, Sarah Palin said;

"I beg you, Women of Joy, to bring light and be involved, loving America and praying for her. Really, it is our solemn duty. Praying for true spiritual awakening to overcome deterioration. That is where God wants us to be. Lest anyone try to convince you that God should be separated from the state, our Founding Fathers, they were believers. [unfortunately, Sarah, they just were not believers in what you want them to be believers in] And George Washington, he saw faith in God as basic to life." [h/t Crooks and Liars]

Who are the Prayer Warriors? Just their name evokes images of violence, warriors, a group fighting for their cause - which is to take control of nations through an apostolic reformation. This is a group which has maps delineating where the demons are that cause all the ills of society. Through a global network of prayer chains, the warriors hope to overturn healthcare reform, maintain Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and were significant players in overturning California's Proposition 8. This group includes members of Congress, leaders in business, and where even 10 years ago might have been laughed off the front pages by media, is referenced in speeches by Sarah Palin without anyone questioning it.

Has Sarah Palin advocated the use of tasers? I do not know. Has she advocated the use of violence? Yes, indirectly. Anyone who thinks that her comment to not retreat, but reload was used metaphorically should contact me about purchasing some fairy dust. Our culture is morally bankrupt when on the one hand our citizens protest against taxes and the loss of freedom over a bill to provide healthcare to those in need, and believe that spilling blood in freedom's cause is totally acceptable, then turn around and actually ignore the Constitution (torture, denial of the 1st Amendment, 14th Amendment, suggestions to deport children of undocumented workers [remember that little part of the Constitution about anyone born in the United States...?]) and it is totally okay.

Sarah Palin and her ilk haven't got a clue. George Washington and the other Founding Fathers were deists, a fact that is well-known. No matter how many times someone says something, it is still not going to make it true. This is not, and never was, a Christian nation. The Founding Fathers were very specifically opposed to making it one. The part of the Constitution about separation of church and state was not an accident. It was included for a reason (anyone with even a basic understanding of United States history knows why this country was formed - religious freedom anyone?).

The media has given a disproportionate amount of time to reporting on the Tea Parties, Sarah Palin, and other right-wing radicals. Huge marches occur protesting immigration problems, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Proposition 8, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and receive minimal media coverage. A few thousand Tea Partiers march in Washington and the airwaves and newspapers cover it as if it were the event of the decade.

Sarah Palin claims membership in a group that believes in demons and witches, that is connected to another group supporting a bill in Uganda that would execute homosexuals, and it is barely a blip on the radar. Christian groups rant against violence on television and in the movies and try to censor what we read and see and hear, but see nothing wrong with carrying handguns into bars or national parks (what a great combination, guns and alcohol - as someone who has worked extensively with domestic violence victims and substance abuse clients, I can safely tell you that you almost never see a DV case without the involvement of alcohol).

Right-wing extremists and Christianists blame teh liberals for the moral decay of our society, yet rape the environment (drill, baby, drill anyone?), let their constituents freeze and starve (Emmonak and Nunum Iqua just to name two) then take Franklin Graham to another village entirely and deliver  cookies.

So, taser a 17-year-old boy for running onto the baseball field? Go for it. He deserves it. After all, he interrupted the national pastime! I would bet that the majority of those posting those comments would call themselves Christians, most likely Republicans, carry guns, and probably include a number of proud Tea Party Sarah Palin fans. Do I say this just because I don't like Sarah Palin? No. I say this because the Republican Party, the Tea Partiers, and Sarah Palin, (and yes, I generalize here) are people who seem to be selfish and out for whatever they can get with no thought for others or the future. They see no connection between calling themselves prayer warriors, laughing about "targeting" Democrats with gun sight maps, and a total desensitization to tasering children, the disabled, the aged, and those who are ill.

We are truly not only financially bankrupt, but morally bankrupt as well. If Sarah Palin and her followers are successful in their endeavors, then we get what we deserve.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

UPDATE 05/04/10 2:10p.m: Speaking of Constitutional Rights, John McCain was on Imus today, and declared that Faisal Shahzad, just arrested for the attempted bombing in Times Square should not have been given the Miranda Warning and that "...there are probably about 350 charges he's guilty of - attempted acts of terror against the United States..." ignoring, of course, that Shahzad is a United States citizen and even if not, entitled to Constitutional protections while in the United States. sigh. Read about it here

Additional sources include:
Crooks and Liars - Sarah Palin's Speech Women of Joy
Heads Up: Prayer Warriors and Sarah Palin are Organizing Spiritual Warfare to Take Over America
Photos: GOP Clown Collage