Conservatives without Brains

This is kind of long, because I've reprinted a piece from the Daily Camera...
In last week's paper (from the ever-liberal Boulder), was a piece from a local named Don Lloyd, complaining about the "liberal hate mongers." Here is what he had to say:

It is worrisome to contemplate how the numerous liberal hate mongers will react to the sudden loss of their opportunity to express their unprecedented disrespect and hate of our President. Will it be something like drug withdrawals, or will it be depression? Surely, the Camera cartoonist will be saddened that he can no longer express his narrow-minded hate by regularly casting our president as an ignorant monkey.

No, this will not be replaced by similar but conservative purveyors of disrespect, because they seem to have the ability to communicate criticism more constructively. It’s similar to the treatment of liberal versus conservative guest speakers on the CU campus. We never see liberal guest speakers taunted or blocked from speaking, yet the campus liberals, who loudly declare the merits of freedom of speech and the right to self-expression, are quick to prevent any significant conservative voice from speaking at CU, even when they’ve been invited for the engagement. And such behavior is vindicated by what great moral justification? Certainly it isn’t freedom of speech, or a balanced political venue. And now someone has even dared to suggest the need for a new seat of conservative thought on our fair campus – horrors!

It isn’t going to be easy for the libs, when they begin to see the bill for the massive promises being made by President Obama and his inability to deliver on many. But they will readily commit their complete support to our new president, exercising the same respect and support so completely denied President Bush.

If you think this concern for liberal withdrawals isn’t well founded, just consider the numerous hate-filled harangues printed over the past few weeks, trying to get in the last bash before President Bush leaves the oval office to his successor.

Noting that Mr. Lloyd is patently wrong on a few points, let me take this opportunity to point out just what the conservative jackass pretends to know, but really knows nothing about.

First, let me acknowledge that he is correct that there has been much Bush-bashing going on, not just in the end of Mr. Monkey's term, but throughout. As an educated person, I think that the bashing was warranted. The man was an idiot and a fraud, and not fit to lead this country.

Next, Mr. Lloyd goes on to mention the negative treatment of conservative guest speakers at CU. Mr. Lloyd says that the campus liberals "are quick to prevent any significant conservative voice from speaking at CU, even when they've been invited for the engagement." Well, Mr. Lloyd, I hate to disappoint, but at the time of your writing there were prolific advertisments of a conservative speaker, coming to the CU campus to speak. On January 26, the conservative author Dinesh D'Souza engaged in a debate entitled "What's so great about God," on campus. So much for that idea. D'Souza is a best-selling author, a former senior policy analyst for the Reagan Administration, and was described by New York Times Magazine as one of the nation's leading conservative thinkers. Seems to me just like the kind of person Mr. Lloyd was describing.

The other major point in Lloyd's column I'd like to address is his statement that we liberals will essentially follow President Obama in blind faith. Even if we do, I'd really like to know how that is at all different from the astonishing blind faith I saw conservatives put in President Bush, even when he couldn't form complete sentences and had to lie his way through the war in Iraq.

Mr. Lloyd accurately illustrates the ignorance espoused by so many conservatives, and it's always nice to see them put their feet in their mouths in public.

Democratic National Convention

Thursday I had the great fortune to attend Obama's acceptance speech at Invesco Stadium in Denver. I'll start by saying that yes, I was a Hillary supporter, but I (a while back) conceded the loss and am 100% behind Obama. He is a great politician and really will be an awesome President.

We got to the stadium at about 1:15 to make sure we wouldn't miss anything (though apparently we missed HUGE lines by arriving so early). Our seats were waaaaay up in the nosebleeds, but we were facing the stage and I can't complain. Besides, they had plenty of big screens. Yonder Mountain String Band was playing when we arrived, and played again after a couple-hour lapse in activity. Since I'm kind of a hippie, I love them and it was good entertainment. Then, around three o'clock will.i.am re-created his Obama endorsement video Yes We Can.

We went to get food, and I will complain about this. As someone who is relatively affluent, I can afford stadium food prices ($5 for a soda, and they claimed only to have large sizes). However, for Obama supporters who are not wealthy, a hot dog for $6 is a little steep. We were also told that we had to purchase water (not true, there are water fountains in public places like a stadium). Again, for someone on a low income, that is outrageous. Attendees were not permitted to bring in food or drink, including water. The campaign should have made some accommodation in this respect, because people need to eat over an eight hour period, and we spend a WHOLE LOT of $$$ on food.

Anywho, we got to see Sheryl Crow and Stevie Wonder play, and that was great. We saw Martin Luther King III speak, which was a treat. Lots of other politicians spoke too, but I'm only mentioning the highlights. Mark Udall is a favorite of mine, so it's always nice to see him speak. Al Gore gave a great speech, of course focused on the climate. All of the speakers gave wonderful endorsements of Obama, and the energy was great in the stadium.

Before Obama spoke, the campaign had a number of ordinary people come out and speak. Of note were those who were staunch Republicans, but because of the way the party treats the working man, they had jumped ship and were voting for Obama. All of these speakers were heartfelt, and it was emotional because they illustrated how the American people are suffering under the Bush Administration.

Obama himself was incredible. He really railed against McCain, which was a departure from his typically patient, reserved style. It was totally appropriate, and all the more effective because he had been so reserved--it didn't sound like the whining that Republicans say it is. As he harped on his policies, you couldn't help but nod your head and agree and cheer, because he is so on point. Obama knows what we need--new energy policies, the right to choice, economic fixes, lower taxes for the middle class, more higher education funding, better K-12 services, and so on and so on. When he was finished, and the fireworks started going off, there were tears in my eyes. It was so powerful, and the energy so incredible, that I couldn't help myself. This party is on the right track, and we need him so badly.

Separation of Church and State, anyone?

I am strongly opposed to any shift away from the separation of church and state as it was intended. Which is to say, I think that the separation should remain (nay, be more so) clearly demarcated with no blurring of the lines. Giving federal funds to faith based groups is, to me, an evangelical right-wing conservative action, one that I think other liberals like myself abhorred when Bush proposed more of it. Luckily, he proposed such action but it never really took root--it was one of those things designed to appease his evangelical constituents but lacking any cognizable result. Unfortunately, Obama announced that he supports this program and intends to expand what Bush started. While Mr. Obama assures the American people that there will be checks on the system to ensure that the line between church and state doesn't become too blurred, I think that this is a truly awful stance. I thought that Obama was nominated to be the Democratic nominee. So why is he proposing that our federal government utilize religious groups to perform the work that would otherwise be performed by state run agencies? It is not just the addition of religious programs, it is giving the money that could otherwise go to existing state programs, to religious ones. If we didn't have state run programs, and it would be too onerous to create them, I might understand. But shifting activity from government to churches when we clearly have the programs in which this activity could be improved? That I have a problem with. A BIG problem.

If I can't see it, it's not there.

EPA decided to classify GHGs as a pollutant, pursuant to Massachusetts v. EPA, the April 2007 case that required the EPA to determine whether or not they are. This is, of course, the only logical decision. If you don't think that GHGs are a pollutant (defined as "endangering the public health or welfare), then you are a moron and surely voted for Bush. Twice. Well, it would be a giant leap in the right direction for EPA to make this decision, except that the Bush Administration refused to open the email containing the decision. In refusing to do so, it has de facto refused to accept the ruling, and so it doesn't matter. This is really how it works? If I don't read the email, it didn't happen? So now EPA will go back and write another memo that doesn't come to a conclusion as to whether or not GHGs are pollutants for purposes of the Clean Air Act; it will just review some science and say the evidence is incomplete (along the lines of, we're not sure about climate change/global warming, the science is inconclusive). Stevens is gonna be so pissed.

HeeHeeHeeee

So I was going to publish this hilarious comic, but the HTML doesn't work and cuts most of it off. But here's what it says:

After refusing to sign the Kyoto Protocol for almost a decade, on Monday George Bush announced an initiative to "get rid of 100% of U.S. greenhouses."

It's funnier as a comic, but I had to post it somehow.

This is a great photo...

Not photoshop. NYT.

Sadder news for young Americans

Another great article (this one's an op-ed, also from the NYT). It outlines abstinence-only sex education, and how awesome it is (detect a note of sarcasm there?). Here are the high points:

• Gonorrhea and syphilis rates are on the rise for the first time since the 1980s, and chlamydia is being diagnosed TWICE as often as a decade ago. MmmmmYummy
• 93% of Americans have pre-marital sex before 30, and abstinence-only education teaches that they will suffer psychological and physical damage as a result. Good thing to teach little Johnny and Jane-- this is about as good as the "hairy palms" myth for "self-abuse."
• We have the highest teen pregnancy rate in the developed world. Because apparently, condoms are bad. So the converse must be true: extra babies to unfit parents are good?
• Abstinence-only sex ed includes lies about HIV, including that it may remain in your body undetected for up to 10 years. I think they have this confused with Mad Cow. But they are different. I promise you they are.
• And the kicker (which goes to my last post): if we cut funding for this terrific abstinence only sex education, Congress could fund insurance for 150,000 children per year. Now that's prioritizing.

Way to go, President Bush. As usual, your laws and initiatives are so super-duper the rest of us wish we could extend your term. But alas, we cannot. You're OUT in '09, thank Jebus.

Sad news for SCHIP

SCHIP, the child healthcare bill, failed to secure enough votes to override Bush's veto (article here). I am not surprised that Republicans hate children, just sad. Ok, so that's a tad dramatic. But I am in mourning. C'mon, let's do something for the little 'uns?

re: Bush's veto of Child Healthcare

Congress wanted to spend $35 billion on health care for poor children, and in vetoing that, Bush said that he is "more than willing to sit down with the leaders and [find more money]" if it is needed. Specifically, he said he'd give $5 billion over the next 5 years. Which is almost "a little more money." Except that it's actually less. A lot less. And in my world, less does not equal more. Not in dollars, anyway. I think this could be good reasoning, though, because I could go to Nordstrom and tell them I want those $245 Blinde sunglasses, and I'll even give them a little more for them, say $50. Total. Because in this new way of thinking, $50 is more than $245. And I've really been wanting to start shopping at Chanel but could never afford it before. Now that more money = calculating 1/7 the stated cost and running with it, I can be the designer dud wearing girl I've always wanted to be. This sounds like fun! I'm going shopping, armed with Bush's unflappable logic.

P.S. Congress has vowed to override the veto, and while I do want to be able to shop at Chanel, this bill needs to pass and I hope it does. Sometimes, you gotta take one for the team. Which means that today my team is comprised of poor uninsured kids. I'm okay with that.

P.P.S.: A great quote from the article: "My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions."