Democracy in America, Skewered

Well, I can safely say that I've taken a look at the candidates following the Iowa Caucus and think that all the front-runners are putzes. However I do precurser this diatribe by saying that I think Obama is the least putzy.

Obama emerged with a wide lead over Clinton and Edwards, jump starting the brand new overarching theme that America wants Change! Really? You think? While Edwards has been spouting off talking points with his po' boy accent, he called Clinton part of the big status quo.

Meanwhile, in a debate about an issue that is driving American citizens nuts with worry, if not driving them into a second mortgage with jacked interest rates, let's talk about health care.... Video courtesy of crooksandliars.com.

Clinton attacks Obama for not mandating health care for adults because that "wouldn't make the system universal," (Obama is flipflopping). Whereas Clinton points out that Obama requires children to be covered, thus making it a two class system where children are covered and adults aren't.

Obama shoots back that he doesn't think people are opting out of health care because of a freewill decision, but because they can't afford to have a doctor give them a pill for $300. Let's focus on the high costs, but perhaps a mandate would further distance the public?

Obama maybe has a point. And a mandate for children's coverage makes sense given their complete lack of money, and no choice in the matter. Hillary tries in vain to point out the loophole in this logic: so adults have a choice but kids don't, so that's why it should be mandatory for kids? I thought you said choice wasn't the issue.

Admist the circle of logical struggle, Obama, as the brand spanking new "frontrunner," extends the peaceful message of not distorting records but rather discussing differences in policy perspectives.

The following is fake dialogue meant to satirize the situation.

Obama: "Let's not fight, Hillary. Let's chat about our differences and enjoy the white powder. Remember how one of your staffers attacked me on my "blow problem," Obama jabs.

And Edwards chimes in as his perpetual running mate self, backing up Obama agaist their newfound, common foe.

Edwards: "Hillary, you're just bitching because you're losing; I like Barak."

Hillary: "At least I'm not a stupid campaign slogan," retorts Hillary.

At this point in the campaign, all the stereotypes are coming out.

Obama is the promising new voice and frontrunner, spouting off much hot air. And hopeful hot air is still hot air. Edwards is cozying up to his future running mate. Still injecting the anti-corporate, yay working class feeling into the campaign.
Hillary is the wonkish shrew, casting off her pleasant facade and thus having her good points lost in the middle of a popularity contest.

And now lets get to the Republicans. Another live-action debate about an issue where US citizens are dying: War on Terror!

Ron Paul, another candidate that I admire/think is interesting, explains that perhaps fundamentalists abroad are angry with the US because we've interfered with their country, installing military bases, doling out weapons and protecting our resources by telling them how wonderful Jeffersonian democracy can be. See the future Taliban in the 1980s, or "Freedom Fighters," as Reagan liked to say.


Romney, who has more personalities with different positions than Sybil, says that Paul "just doesn't understand jihad." This coming from a guy that fights for gay rights, then says he's against them, fights for gun control, then boasts of his love for hunting-having shot a bird once or twice. I'm to think that this asshole understands Jihad?

I don't even want to get into Mayor 9/11's perspective. Most of his responses involve, "Hey, remember 9/11?" But here he says this "hardcore Islamist revulsion towards the states has nothing to do with our foreign policy (contrary to the 9/11 commission, mind you), but they're just bad people who need to be shown moderation.

Paul tries to explain the US policy-foreign revulsion link again: What if China came over with the best intentions and installed military bases here to change the backwardness of our society. We'd be pissed, right?

Romney, the Mormon love child shouts back with a stupid chuckle, "Your just feeding into their propaganda." Guiliani 9/11 chortles in approval for good measure.

"I've read their propaganda," said Romney with John Kerry-esque self-aggrandizement

Guiliani, Romney, Goebbels: The "Islamofascists" are against our freedom...

All in all, an iota of truth in all their perspectives. Fundamentalist Islam doesn't look too kindly on Western values, and perhaps they need to change. But is interference from a culture with which their at odds going to help? I'm inclined to say that a Muslim Martin Luther would be more productive than an Uncle Sam, but Martin Luther really doesn't have a concern about oil and national security.

I digress...Maybe these presidential candidates should have a similar conversation instead of attacking each others' patriotism or affinity for hunting...

Hey kids, speaking of propaganda. Check out the similarities in these photos between Romney and Mormon founder Joseph Smith.




On top of all the political chicanery, Bill O'Reilly accosted an Obama staffer! Wow, I need a cigarette. Shit! I can't smoke either in this democracy. Glad that we exported it to Iraq...

JESUS CAMP, mind control, and the uncanny power of self-loathing

Palestinian camps are putting hand grenades in their kids' hands, so America has to train their kids to be part of the "God's Army." So says Pastor Becky Fischer at her Bible Summer camp, "Kid's on Fire"

"I wanna see young people who are as committed to the cause of Jesus Christ, as the young people are to the cause of Islam," Fischer says in the documentary "Jesus Camp." She explained that Christian kids should be just as ready as young Muslims to "lay down their lives" for their own creed, rationalizing that "we've got the better message."

Last night was the first time that I saw award-winning documentary. At times it wasn't easy to watch, as kids were being manipulated to hate anything un-Christian, but it really is a must see, a provocative look into a dysfunctional world.

I found the formula for manipulation to be somewhat familiar, as I was often fed the message that I was dirty, needed salvation from my own impurities as a K-12 student at Catholic Schools.

Step 1: Fischer welcomed the kids with a smiley face and caring persona to the camp,

Effect: Makes the kids feel at-ease, in a compassionate environment.

Step 2: Fischer alienated the kids, calling them evil. Example: She said that Harry Potter would have been "stoned to death" for being a warlock. She then implied that they brought unclean souls to the camp (swearing, doing bad just like the other kids), and washed their hands with...Nestle bottled water.

Effect: The children may be bored, ashamed, miserable but Fischer instills in them the idea that they are that way because they are "sinners." And eureka, she has a way to help them! And makes the salvation fun!

Step 3: The path is laid as kids are taught to hold their faith above all else, convulse with the spirit of the lord, and are told that half of the world is pure evil.

Effect: Kids can be alienated from the "sinners," everyone else. They conceptualize their duty to "save" everyone.

Step 4: Fischer and friends reaffirm that the kids are important, will be the future leaders, and need to go out and convert others, oppose homosexuality, abortion rights, support President Bush, the war in Iraq, the conversion of Muslims at all costs.

Results: Kids are wearing camouflage face paint while swinging sticks, praising the "Christian flag" and spreading the word to evil doers.

One kid even said that he got saved at age 5, because he was looking for more in life. (Though he probably didn't think his life was so worthless until people like Fischer told him so) And I can't forget the 10-year-old girl who said she only dances for the Lord, "not for the flesh."

See for yourself:



Fischer justified her actions, saying that kids cannot make choices -good or bad- (not much faith in kids...).

Repeatedly through the film, the "teachers" are praising the way that Christianity can influence kids, that their greatest asset is malleability. Not their creativity, innocence, or intelligence.

Fischer describes the enemy/Muslims as radicals who dogmatize their kids in a violent view of the world, and that it's her job to set them straight. And what are you doing to the kids, Fischer? Honoring their freedom of choice and presenting them with multiple viewpoints?

What's more is that even the evangelical heads are not without "sin"...

In many spots in the film, Fischer is seen primping herself, flaunting openly about how lovely she is. She also places a cardboard cutout of Bush for the kids to praise.

...The 7th deadly sin forbids excessive pride, and that first commandment forbidding the praise of idols before God...

And let's not forget our buddy Ted Haggard, who mad a cameo in the film bashing "the gay lifestyle." He was an adviser for Bush, by the way.



After the film and earlier this year, Haggard was caught with his own "sexual improprieties" and moral quandaries. Such as being caught with a male prostitute and using methamphetamines.

"...let he who is without sin cast the first stone..." -Jesus

But the sin is not homosexuality, or even meth use, but hypocrisy.

Good thing for Haggard, he became a heterosexual once again, and was saved from his gay tendencies. Maybe he feels this was all the result of a meth bender?

After observing all this hypocrisy, it occurs to me that the leaders of this radical, violent, politicized brand of Christianity are unable to deal with their own vices.

Like the children they exploit, perhaps they were once told that they were evil, made to feel dirty, and forced to embrace an ideology that seemed unnatural. The failure to work through sexual insecurities, addiction, violent tendencies (due to the disapproval in the social sphere of Church) had forced these currents to manifest themselves as problems later in life?

But self-loathing is nothing compared to how the extreme Christian right loathes their enemies, be they homosexuals, secularists, Muslims, or liberals.

There seems to be never-ending cycle of self-manipulation, that feeds itself with tax-free donations.

God might not have planned it better...

Coulter takes it to the next level - From nonsense to complete nonsense

I do have qualms with some of the fund-raising through 501(c)4's, and use of said funds by the Edwards presidential campaign.

But Ann Coulter had taken it to the nonsensical level, personal attacks such as implying that John Edwards is gay, and that the Edwards couple uses their son's death to raise funds. And don't forget when she said that when she would talk about John Edwards in the future, she'd wish he'd been in a terrorist assassination plot.

Then Elizabeth Edwards took her to task, politely asking her to stop...



Coulter initially denies ever making a personal attack. What?
And then Coulter doesn't distinguish between the sort of attack she made and the sort of criticisms that I have, other policy criticisms.

"She's asking me to stop writing..." says Coulter. What? That wasn't the case.

Of course, it should come as little surprise that she puts things in a black and white paradigm, and that Coulter uses criticism of her actions to go off on some tangent, which has nothing to do with the discussion.

ARGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!! COMPLETE NONSENSE

We should all be aware of the amount of vitriol that we send to partisan opponents.

On the left, Al Franken and Michael Moore are prone to hark on President Bush's problem with alcoholism, or the hijinks of his daughters.

There's enough real criticism of Bush's foreign policy, attacks on civil liberties, No Child Left Behind, cronyism...

Fighting barbarity with barbarity

Ben Hancock over at the Cap Times writes about fear of a backlash among UW-Madison Korean students. Reports from the dean of students say some threats and hate messages were left on several Korean profiles on Facebook.

The shootings last Monday had nothing to do with race, but a homicidal, reactionary maniac making vast generalizations about the students at his school. Cho called them all charlitains and snobs.

It's terribly ironic how a few reactionaries can feel justified about generalizing about South Koreans, an entire nationality. Their mentality is essentially the same as a man that they hate/fear. It's things like this that make the tragedy of Virginia Tech unsurprising.

See a related column about insecurities, masculinity, and violence at the New York Times. Registration Required.