One Flew Over the GOP's Nest

Back in April, Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone magazine wrote an article called The Class Clowns, where he talked about the current state of the Republican party:

Following the Republican Party of late has been a movingly depressing experience, sort of like watching Old Yeller die — if Old Yeller were a worm-infested feral bitch who spent the past eight years biting children at bus stops and shitting in neighborhood swimming pools. As a useful force in American politics, the Republicans have been dead for a while now. But in the seven months since Sarah Palin's nomination, they have taken on an intriguing new role: providing much-needed comic relief during dark times, serving as the unofficial rodeo clowns of the Financial Crisis Era.

I recommend looking for it (the excerpt from the Rolling Stone site is nice, but get a back issue of the April 30, 2009 Rolling Stone for the full beauty of his words - it's got the Kings of Leon on the cover, if that helps). But I'm starting to wonder whether Taibbi went far enough. The current Republican party is littered, not merely with class clowns and ass-clowns, but with the actively insane. Even Taibbi pointed out, for example:

The real prize for nutty Red-baiting went to Rep. Michele Bachmann, a drooling dunce of a Minnesota soccer mom who is now a serious contender for the title of dumbest person ever to sit in the House of Representatives. When the Chinese recently proposed creating a new system for international reserves, Bachmann - who founded a charter school that banned the movie Aladdin for promoting witchcraft - sponsored a bill establishing the dollar as the official US currency for ever and ever, despite the fact that no one anywhere was talking about doing anything to the dollar. It was like calling for an end to aid to Turkey because we eat them on Thanksgiving anyway.

And Ms Bachmann certainly hasn't found a hidden stash of sanity since then: she's gone on record saying that the new energy bill is "tyranny" because "the federal government will virtually have control over every aspect of lives for the American people."

And now she's saying that she will break the law and not send in her census form, and she urges every other American to do the same; see, she explains, in the 1940s, "that’s how the Japanese were rounded up and put into the internment camps." Which shows that she is simultaneously ignorant on history, how the census works, and the fact that aluminum foil won't protect her from the evil mind-control rays.

This isn't the first time that Michele Bachmann has brought up the specter of internment camps, incidentally - the last time, she said that the AmeriCorps program was going to become "re-education camps for young people, where young people have to go and get trained in a philosophy that the government puts forward and then they have to go to work in some of these politically correct forums."

(Are we starting to notice a theme in Ms Bachmann's lunacy? She's apparently fallen into the 1984/Big-Brother-themed brand of insanity, which, I understand, can barely be controlled by lithium and electroshock therapy. Perhaps it's become time for Michele to be fitted for a straight-jacket before she stabs herself in the eye with a pencil - I once helped arrest a 6'2" screaming crackhead who was trying to smash his head through a car window, and he was making about as much sense as Ms Bachman has been lately.)

Even the right-wing talking heads on TV and radio are crazier than ever these days: one of the most popular, Glenn Beck, is also a direct philosophical descendent of those late-night radio talk shows where the UFO's were taking over the world, mind-control devices were being implanted in our goldfish, and we were being monitored from secret moon-bases where eighth-dimensional hive-minds were injecting radioactive isotopes into our movie-theater speakers.

Paranoid psychosis seems to be the only defining characteristic of the GOP these days. And the fact that ranting delusional maniacs are being mainstreamed into "normal" society (if such a thing exists) is leading America down an ugly path where wide-eyed gun-wielding killers shoot up churches for not believing exactly the same way they do. Whether it's Scott Roeder killing abortion providers, or Jim Adkisson killing people just for being liberal, this is an ugly, evil side to right-wing politics that needs to be stamped out.

Back in April, when the Department of Homeland Security came out with a report on right-wing extremists, members of the right-wing wouldn't stop screaming about how "Obama's claiming all right-wingers are evil!"

And, as I pointed out elsewhere:

So let's go back to the report. Derided by the right, what exactly did it say?

— (U//LES) DHS/I&A has concluded that white supremacist lone wolves pose the most significant domestic terrorist threat because of their low profile and autonomy—separate from any formalized group—which hampers warning efforts.

— (U//FOUO) Similarly, recent state and municipal law enforcement reporting has warned of the dangers of rightwing extremists embracing the tactics of "leaderless resistance" and of lone wolves carrying out acts of violence.

— (U//FOUO) Arrests in the past several years of radical militia members in Alabama, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania on firearms, explosives, and other related violations indicates the emergence of small, well-armed extremist groups in some rural areas.

Now, if this report was wrong, please explain James Von Brunn. And Scott Roeder. And James Adkisson. And Richard Poplawski.

For that matter, please explain the rise of right-wing violence across the country. There's nothing particularly new about it, but why are we seeing this increase?

Here's the thing. If you have Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh talking about these blatantly stupid lies, like "DHS reeducation camps" or "Obama is a Muslim/communist/socialist/anti-american/selling us out to the terrorists," and any one of the thousands of brain-dead chuckleheads who've been feeding off the lies of the Bush Administration (as filtered through the mouth of Karl Rove), and now believe that Obama is the anti-Christ, sent to earth to bring down "the greatest, best country God has ever given man on the face of the earth," do you think that maybe this same chucklehead might be incited to violence? Maybe?

Now, I want to be clear. I'm not saying that the Freedom of Speech of the media talking heads should be diminished. They are welcome to have these nut-job views if they want them. But at a certain point, their national platform should be removed, in the interest of public safety; if they're inciting violence, I'm pretty sure that's a crime. For example, let's look at Ann Coulter's column from this week (since we're talking about the batshit-insane, and she epitomizes that description):

I wouldn't kill an abortionist myself, but I wouldn't want to impose my moral values on others. No one is for shooting abortionists. But how will criminalizing men making difficult, often tragic, decisions be an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the shootings of abortionists?

Following the moral precepts of liberals, I believe the correct position is: If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, then don't shoot one.

Now, let's put logic like that into the hands of somebody who is both batshit insane and owns a gun.

See, what the Republican party has now given us is the single best argument for Universal Health Care. If we had decent health care for every American, perhaps a few of these people could be placed on antipsychotics (or in the worst cases, locked up), just to prevent them from harming themselves and others.

Now Eric's mad at me, too (apparently part 3 in a three-part series)

Geez, you go away for a week, you come back, and look what's happened to the place.

Not here. Over at the descriptively-named Pathetically Incorrect. Odd how fitting that name is, considering how often he is, you see...

My short relationship with Eric is chronicled here. We debated for a while, and then last week, he banned me from his blog. I mean, I could post some responses anyway - Diogenes does, and he was "banned" four or five times over the course of a week. But many of his comments get yanked, and I don't think it's worth the effort, really.

See, E-man reprinted a column by Ted Nugent, which I made fun of last week. And this apparently annoyed Eric. Because he then wrote a response entitled "An Open Letter To Bill From Eric About Ted..."

(Which means I could have titled this "An Open Letter To Eric About An Open Letter To Bill From Eric About Ted..." - yeah, I thought about that. For ten seconds or so. Gave up on it pretty quickly.)

You can read it yourself, if you'd like. But it has some fascinating formatting problems, and is currently in black on red - kind of hard on the eyes (the background and header picture changes about once a week or so - everybody needs a hobby, I guess). But in essence, he was upset because I was picking on Ted Nugent.

Did I make fun of Ted? Well, yeah. But he's a millionaire rock guy, so he can probably take it.

Do I use "strong words?" Well, yes. I always do. But when the Nuge is talking about "(the Democratic leadership's) ongoing program to bankrupt the entire nation," or that Democrats are "compromising our values, beliefs, and ideals," I think I'm justified in firing back.

But why would Eric get all cranky about me "demeaning and humiliating" Ted Nugent? The man does that all by himself. The last time I posted a link to a video of Ted and quoted his own words, Eric refused to post it: he apparently thought it was obscene.

Ted Nugent was arrested once for firing a flaming arrow into his audience. He doesn't need my help making a fool out of himself. For example, in this column of his that I made fun of.

And I wasn't even complete: I could have gone on for paragraphs more, pointing out one by one the stupidities and lies he was quoting. But I'd used up the humor and was in danger of going into pedantry. Thought I'd avoid that.

But all things considered, I think that I should respond to Mr Graff. (And actually, it might be helpful to try to read the original at this stage. But I'll try to summarize his points, in case you don't have the stomach for it.)

Dear Eric,

When I said "I only wish that the conservatives had control of the Republican party. Sadly, the neocons, religious lunatics and the inbred have taken it over. I had respect for the Republican party once, but lately they're just sad and outdated," you responded with:

If that were true, they never in a million years would have nominated John McCain to represent them as their president... The Republicans may be searching for a leader, but McCain was not it because many of them voted for Obama because the base was ignored.

And then McCain nominated a former beauty queen with a trailer-trash soap opera family as his running mate, as a sop to the religious right and a sad attempt to lure women to his side. Because the wimmenfolk will vote for anything with a vajayjay, right?

(I'll be happy to point out the numerous inadequacies of Ms Palin, but that's a column all to itself. Let me just say that I'll be thrilled and excited if the woman runs in 2012. It'll throw the GOP even further into the dustbin of obscurity.)

They nominated Michael Steele as leader in an effort to hide the fact that most racists are Republicans (if they support either major party, that is), but then the GOP strips him of power, and even tries to take away his access to their money.

So who's the real leader of the GOP? You get to choose between Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh. Nice. Like I said, neocons, religious lunatics and the inbred.

How does Bill know Ted surrounds himself with the unemployed?

Ah, ah, ah, Eman. I said he surrounded himself with musicians. A group with, as I further said, a ridiculously high unemployment rate (at least in music - hence the need for day jobs). I should know, my wife is an operatically-trained soprano. For that matter, you should know - don't you have some musical outreach going?

Yeah Bill, like YOU pay for your music downloads.

Actually, I don't download much, but when I do, I have an ITunes account for that. You really don't know me as well as you think you do.

First Bill says Ted hangs around with the unemployed, then he calls Ted rich.

Well, he is. He's a musician who "made it." And he hangs out with other musicians. What, exactly, are you arguing here?

The country is in trouble because the stimulus package stimulated nothing,

* sigh *

And we needed a stimulus package because why, again? Perhaps because the country was already in trouble?

And by the way, only a small percentage of the stimulus money has been spent so far. So your point makes no sense on two levels.

Government increased payrolls by thousands.

And those are jobs, right? Isn't that good?

Government employees pay no federal taxes Bill. That means less people paying taxes and those people who do pay, pay more.

What? Where do you even get that? I'd say "urban myth," but it's not one I've ever heard.

OK, I spent 21 years in the military. Paying taxes. I then did a year with the DOE. Paying taxes. Every year, the president's tax records are released to the public. So, at what point are you saying that government employees don't pay taxes? (The military, in combat zones only, are the only exceptions to this.)

OK, let's try this. Timothy Geithner, before he was nominated as Treasury Secretary, worked for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. You know that's a government job, right? And then he got in trouble for using Turbotax to do his income tax, right? Why would he need Turbotax at all if he didn't pay taxes?

It's like I said. Sometimes, the things that you think you know turn out to be horribly wrong.

WOE!!! OK ..STOP RIGHT THERE!!! Business people aren’t giving out jobs because they have to cut back because of huge tax increases on business.

Woe, indeed. Your argument makes me very sad.

December 2008, if you'll recall, was before Obama was elected. For the past twelve months, the national unemployment rate had increased 2.3%. Even the government was calling it a recession back then.

So if the phenomenal growth in their taxes is the reason businesses aren't hiring now, why weren't they hiring then? Or could this just be a continuing trend, and you're trying to conflate two unrelated points?

Don’t be sorry Bill, we understand your public education on economics impairs your ability to think rationally.

You like to run down "public education" a lot, Eric. Did you notice which one of us has facts to back up our points here? And spells things right? Your private (or possibly home-based) education isn't doing you any favors here, my friend.

What business is it or yours or the governments what a business makes or does or pays it’s employees? What you want is SOCIALIZOM so you and the president can dictate what we make. It’s WAR on PROSPERITY!!!

Well, aside from figuring out tax levels and things, "pays it’s employees?" Really? Do you even know what socialism (that's how it's spelled, by the way) is? Look at China. Describe their government. Consider the concept of "sweat shops."

And now wander into Walmart and look at the tags on most of what's sold there. Note the profusion of "Made in China."

The Chinese own us, Eman. Body and soul. A good part of that is because Bush borrowed more from foreign countries than all previous 42 presidents combined. Added together, Japan and China hold 47% of US public debt.

My public education tells me that's a bad thing, Eric.

And by the way, can you please explain how you can have a "war on prosperity" during a depression? The defining aspect of a depression (or even a recession) is the overall lack of prosperity.

AGAIN Bill sees a need to be snide and obtuse. Equate to liberal minds.

Do you see the humor in being snide and obtuse when you're talking about me being snide and obtuse?

Bill, the French get 80% of their power from nuclear. How has that damaged anything at anytime in your lifetime?

Oy. Chernobyl. Three Mile Island. Here, look it up yourself.

Technologies today make storage of spent nuclear fuel safe and effective. Or are you still thinking from the 70’s???

"Storage." Please note that word. What happens when we run out of places to store it? Do we just build new places? You're like some guy driving down the road throwing your trash out the window. "Oh, it's fine. The state hires people to pick that up."

Let me just quote a physician on this.

Plutonium, the most significant element in nuclear waste, is so carcinogenic that hypothetically half a kilo evenly distributed could cause cancer in everyone on Earth.

Lasting for half a million years, it enters the body through the lungs where it is known to cause cancer. It mimics iron in the body, migrating to bones, where it can induce bone cancer or leukemia, and to the liver, where it can cause primary liver cancer. It crosses the placenta into the embryo and, like the drug thalidomide, causes gross birth deformities.

Finally, plutonium has a predilection for the testicles, where it induces genetic mutations in the sperm of humans and other animals that are passed on from generation to generation.

Where do we put the garbage, Eric? Will that storage site always remain secure? (Does "Love Canal" mean anything to you?) And that's only one of the many problems with nuclear power.

I'm not entirely opposed to nuclear power, but I see the problems. Do you?

if we did drill (offshore), the supply would explode and Bill overlooks this because of convenience, and lack of common sense.

Again, you make me sad. Aside from the facts I quoted (and you even reprint), now it's you oversimplifying. Here. read this. Consider the bigger picture.

Then you quote me saying "I thought you (Ted Nugent) were a big supporter of conservation? What happened to that?" And you follow that up with:

No, you thought wrong Bill, Ted is a drug free rocker. Has been all his life. And he is a hunter, big time hunter. A Big game hunter.

Yup. Correct.

Ted Nugent on conservation.

When the Canadian provinces were drained for increased agricultural production, it was the hunters, the waterfowl hunters that saw the destruction of nesting habitat and came to the aid of Ducks Unlimited and Delta Waterfowl. These are hunting organizations. And I can name the Rocky Mountain Elk foundation, Pheasants Forever, Quail Unlimited, National Wild Turkey Federation. We [hunters] stop the bulldozer boogie. We put value on wild ground. Because not only does the wild ground produce more ducks, of which we only shoot a minor percentage, but that ultimately is going to be where our quality air, soil and water will come. As a hunter, fisherman and trapper, I am proud to join this honorable community in taking credit for that.

But back to you.

Michigan... Everyone’s moved out of the place. No jobs, no money, all because of a LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC GOVENOR AND LEGISLATURE!! This would bring jobs to a job-starved state!!

Wait. Let me think. Michigan... Detroit... joblessness... I'm sure those things are related somehow...

Come on, Eric, grow up! Don't try to link "socialism" and Obama bailing out the car companies, and then ignore the very real problems that happen when those car companies fail.

No Bill, (the Founding Fathers are) not Gods, they are the ones who sacrificed their lives, their money, their families and everything they had for Freedom, the very thing you and Obama want to regulate. Not me, not now, not ever. Ted would back me on that... They knew people like you would come along and destroy the very fabric of our freedoms. Ted knows too.

Really? Here's some concepts I want you to look up. Habeus corpus, Freedom of Speech, and the relationship between illegal search and seizure and government wiretapping without a warrant. Now, look up what happened to those concepts over the last eight years. (And those are just three off the top of my head. Don't get me started...)

And then explain what the hell you mean by "you and Obama want to regulate." Because it's really sounding like you're off your medication again.

We got into crime, and you said:

Where concealed carry is the law, crime is down. Way down. Look up TEXAS!!

Really? Because according to the Census Bureau, Texas ranks higher than average in crime overall. Or, to put that in simple terms for you, Texas ranks as the 15th most dangerous state to live, when you consider violent crimes only. (In case you're curious, South Carolina is the most dangerous, and Maine is the least.)

See, the facts don't back up this "common knowledge" you keep relying on. (Or is this more of those "private/home education" problems?)

But then you get into some weird territory, Eric. Just before you ban me from your blog.

bill likes to put links in every other line he types. Yeah Bill, now I know I've debated someone who believes everything he sees on the internet.

No, I don't believe everything I see on the Internet. Nor do I believe everything I read in the library. But like the man said, the truth is out there. You should consider looking for it. Did you notice that many of my links in this post are to government websites? There are these things we call "facts." I like to base my opinions on them. Unlike you, who likes to pull non-facts out of your ass and pretend that the crap that adheres to them is chocolate.

Think, my good man. Find out where reality lies, and then form an opinion. Because right now, you're just making my points for me.

The man confuses me. After all, he invited me to debate on his site. And then he bans me for doing so?

I'd think about that, but it makes my brain hurt.

An open letter to Ted Nugent

Dear Ted Nugent,

You know, my new debating buddy showed me a column that you wrote, and it's the perfect example of the fact that, just because you're an expert in one thing, it doesn't follow that you're an expert in everything.

Ted, you've always played some serious guitar. I'll give you that much - you are awe-inspiring on the strings. But you are not, however, a particularly deep thinker, and this column is proof of that.

Let's start with the title. I mean, you have a perfectly good bumper-sticker slogan, but you rush to explain what you means in the first six words people are going to see, instead of letting the rest of the column explain it.

The Party of 'Know,' Not 'No.'

You should have cut that off after the first four words, Ted. Let me draw you an analogy. (Oh, sorry: an "analogy" is where you compare two things and show where they're a lot alike. I'll try not to use too many of them educated words on you.)

This is like when you're playing along on a guitar solo, and you realize that you repeated a phrase one time too many. If you repeat something too often, it gets redundant... sorry. It gets "boring." (No, really - that word had nine whole letters. I'm sorry. I'll try to do better.)

But the title, which is just... well, Ted, it's like writing lyrics. Sometimes they just don't work. But then we get into your actual column, and I'm afraid that things only get worse.

In an effort to deflect criticism of (the Democratic leadership's) ongoing program to bankrupt the entire nation

OK, Ted, right off the bat you get it wrong. The Democrats are trying to fix everything that Bush and company screwed up over the last eight years. (I mean, you do know that it was Bush who started this whole bank nationalization/bailout thing, right?)

Let the guitar boy help the spelling-challenged Democrats understand what the bedrock of the Republican Party -- conservatives -- instinctively know.

Well, Ted. Sorry, I only wish that the conservatives had control of the Republican party. Sadly, the neocons, religious lunatics and the inbred have taken it over. I had respect for the Republican party once, but lately they're just sad and outdated. And very, very wrong. Much like your column.

Sometimes, the things that you think you know turn out to be horribly wrong. People used to think that the world was flat. As it turns out (I'm not sure you're aware of this), they were wrong.

You hang out with musicians, Ted; you're used to the people around you having a ridiculously high unemployment rate. For the rest of the country, that isn't considered a good thing.

So let's see what else you messed up on.

We know that stimulating the economy and getting America growing again begins with tax cuts across the board, including payroll, corporate and individual taxes.

Look, Ted, I know that you're rich. And I know that you miss your tax cuts. But you're really going to have to pay a little bit. The country is in trouble, and it needs your help. I thought you loved this country. Why do you want it to fail?

I'm sorry. Things aren't like they were back when Bush was in office. (We already covered the fact that Bush was the major force screwing all this up, right?)

We know that prosperity can not be brought about by taxing, borrowing and spending trillions of dollars.

OK, here's another new word for you - "oversimplification." You're taking a big problem, and trying to sum it up in less than twenty words.

The sad part is, to explain this to you, I've got to do the same thing. So try this: poor people need jobs. The business people aren't giving them out. The government has work it needs done. So the government gives them jobs. This helps the poor people out. And now the government needs to get the business people to start hiring, too.

Again, I'm sorry - I know this is confusing for you. It's a big problem. It takes a big plan, not small words.

We know the economic producers cannot be punished without also punishing the working class.

Wow. By that philosophy, business people can do whatever they want and never face any consequences. Of course, I guess that you don't produce much of anything except music, so maybe you don't understand business, either.

(Oh, how is that whole "music" thing going for you? Did anybody buy that album you did two years ago? Even with the help of your Damn Yankees friends?)

We know that GM and Chrysler will ultimately fail because they are now being run by the federal government and the labor unions.

You really don't know the difference between "stockholder" and "management," do you? Wow, you don't know jack-shit about business.

We know energy independence includes drilling off-shore and building many new nuclear power plants...

"...because completely destroying the environment will make everything better!"

Christ, Nuge. I know reading is hard, but the information is out there. Instead of just spouting off, you could actually look around. Best estimates tell us that even if we drilled on every inch of coastline, it would work out to one percent of daily consumption, and wouldn't kick in for ten years. It wouldn't do much of anything for us.

I thought you were a big supporter of conservation? What happened to that?

And nuclear power? Well, studies by the people actually building them tell us that building a new nuclear power plant costs more per kilowatt hour produced than any other type of power plant. Weird, isn't it?

I mean, there's other reasons, but I'm trying to keep this simple for you.

And let's ignore that we don't know what do do with the nuclear waste we already have lying around. Oh, wait! You have all that land in Michigan, and probably some other land! You should volunteer to store it for us!

No, huh?

We know that bailing out failing businesses with tax dollars is not what our founding fathers had in mind

Why do overwrought Republicans keep bringing up the Founding Fathers as if they were gods or something? It's true. The Founding Fathers didn't think of that. Of course, for that matter, using the internet, mass production, and the concept of a "global economy" were also not figured into their equations.

Do you really think that a pre-industrial society is the best source for economic advice? See, that's something else you missed out on in school, Nuge. It was called "history."

We know that more gun control laws will not reduce violence but will instead create more victims. We know that more guns equal less crime.

Hey, that's right! And since the United States has more guns than any other industrialized country, we must have less crime!

Actually, not so much. The overall US crime rate is pretty much the same as in other, similar countries, except for violent crimes: our homicide rate is three to five times higher than anybody else's. So really, guns haven't reduced crime, and the fact that they're easy to get has killed a lot of people. Where's the upside here?

And you keep going! I've already written more than you did, and I'm only halfway through. I mean, my god, Ted! How can you stand to be so wrong on every subject? Is the ADHD really that much of a problem at your age?

Tell you what, Teddy. You stick with playing the guitar, and leave the deep thinking to the people who can actually do some of it, OK?

Here we go again

I might, or might not, have joined a very small debating circle this week. We'll see how it goes.

In the course of putting together last week's post, I used my typical research method, of wandering around in the conservative blogs and seeing how they react to my points. It's effective - perhaps they have some information I haven't seen yet, or a different viewpoint which might shine a light on the subject in a new way.

(I'll admit, it doesn't happen often: the disadvantage of getting all your information from Fox News and World Net Daily is that they tend to try to argue from a very small pool of data, much of it wrong.)

And so I found myself on a site calling itself Pathetically Incorrect. Now, Eric (the guy who runs it) seems to believe he has a web-stalker named Diogenes, who is "rude and unable to stay on subject." To be honest, I didn't see that - Diogenes didn't add a lot to the discussion, but at least he was trying. Maybe there's a history there. Or maybe Eric sees his comments differently than I do.

Eric, who posts under the name Eman (no relation, as far as I can tell, to the Eighties superhero), seemed interested in the fact that I was willing to confront him with facts instead of insults, and offered to debate me. Initially on the subject of cars, in which I have little more than a passing interest.

(Heh, heh... get it? Passing? Cars? ...oh, never mind...)

It went OK, I thought. He presented his side, I presented mine, and he offered a second one. I suggested the murder of George Tiller (you know, the abortionist from Kansas). And he even let Diogenes post again. Which was nice of Eric, since he'd just banned Diogenes in the previous post.

And that's when things went horribly awry. For some reason, Eric thought I called him an extremist. (Perhaps because I compared the pro-life movement to the Taliban. Could that have been it? Him being pro-life and all?)

I'm still in there plugging away. Don't know if Eric will want to come out and play any more, though.