Quick Notes: Michele Bachmann, Eilish De’Avalon, and a Catholic Fertility Ritual

Jason Pitzl-Waters —  May 18, 2011 — 127 Comments

Just a few quick news notes for you on this Wednesday.

Bachmann’s Gay-Bashing Friends: Mother Jones reports on the cozy, friendly, relationship between Rep. Michele Bachmann (R–Minn.) and Christian musician/activist Bradlee Dean. Both Dean and Bachmann are scheduled to appear at the upcoming Tea Party Founding Fathers-sponsored Freedom Jamboree in Kansas, billed as the national Tea Party straw poll convention. Journalist Tim Murphy notes that Bachmann has been an ongoing supporter of Dean, despite the incendiary and hateful anti-gay rhetoric spouted by the Minnesota-based talk-show host and Christian youth leader.

“But over the last five years, Bachmann, the politician, and Dean, the metal-head, have formed an unlikely but powerful alliance. Bachmann has helped raise money for Dean’s traveling youth ministry, You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International; guest-starred in his television series; and prayed for his ministry to multiply 10-fold. Dean, for his part, has embraced Bachmann, whose district includes his suburban community of Annandale, as an ally against the gay agenda. But his inflammatory rhetoric and past links to an anti-government organization make Bachmann’s own controversial views seem downright pedestrian—and raise serious questions about the congresswoman’s choice of associates.”

Dean is perhaps best known for his admiring comments concerning Muslim countries that call for the execution of homosexuals (though he says his words were “twisted”, but it’s all on tape for anyone to judge for themselves) and seems to be all for locking gays and lesbians up. Dean’s ministry is directly linked to the scandal of Target donating to anti-gay hate groups. As for Bachmann, we already know she’s no friend to modern Pagans. With Bachmann seriously considering jumping into the presidential race, we’ll have to keep our eyes open to see if conservatives anoint a woman who would seem to have no qualms radically changing our country.

The Unfortunate Return of Eilish De’Avalon: Australian Pagan priestess and Witch Eilish De’Avalon, who garnered international attention last year for dragging a cop by the arm during a routine traffic stop, is now appealing her conviction, despite the fact that she’s quite plainly guilty of dragging the police officer.

“A self-proclaimed witch who says she is not subject to earthly laws is appealing against convictions for dangerous driving and recklessly causing injury. She was sentenced to jail after pleading guilty to dragging a traffic policeman by the arm for 190m. Highton marriage celebrant Eilish De’Avalon told Sen-Constable Andrew Logan in February last year she was not subject to earthly laws because she was from another world.”

Australian Pagans have been concerned about the negative publicity this incident has garnered, especially now that there’s documented widespread distrust of modern Pagans in that country. Ms. De’Avalon’s appeal simply gives the anti-Pagan pundits and culture warriors more fuel for their rhetorical fires. Here’s hoping the unfortunate return of De’Avalon to mainstream press attention is short-lived.

Catholicism and Fertility Rituals: Reuters reports on a centuries-old May fertility ritual at Obando in the Philippines.

“The rite has taken place in Obando for centuries and apparently originated from a pagan fertility ritual where couples once rubbed their body parts against an idol. But the act was later changed by the Catholic Church when they introduced Saint Claire, the patron saint of fertility, to the locals. [...] The Philippines, with 80 percent of its 100 million population devoted Catholics, holds many festivals honouring patron saints that are believed to grant miracles.”

One wonders how many of its Catholic festivals originated as pre-Christian celebrations, and simply substituted a saint for a local deity. There are still a smattering of “animists” preserving the old ways, do they celebrate these festivals in their original forms still? It would have been interesting to know, too bad the report couldn’t have dug deeper.

That’s all I have for now, have a great day!

 

Jason Pitzl-Waters

Posts

  • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

    I don't think anyone from the radical right of the Republican party has a chance in a national election. Remember that Bush only got elected in 2000 by (1) posing (and fairly effectively) as a moderate "compassionate conservative", (2) garnering a whopping (for a Republican) 35% of the Latino vote, and (3) staging a judicial coup d'etat. Bush's reelection in 2004 was a lot easier, as it always is for an incumbent, especially in the middle of a shooting war. But he still won by only a 2.4% margin, which is pretty unimpressive for an incumbent during a shooting war.

    The thing to watch out for is a "likable" candidate who can sucker people into believing he or she is a moderate. None of these yahoos like Bachmann has a chance of pulling that off. Huckabee might just possibly have been able to do it, but so much was coming out about his Dominionist connections that this was unlikely. The Republicans will do one of two things: (1) hold their noses and nominate someone who is "electable" (but who they actually despise), like they did with McCain (for all the good it did them), or (2) follow their instincts and nominate someone they actually like, but who will end up getting less than 40% of the popular vote.

    As long as the economy makes at least some moderate improvements, and Obama doesn't get caught in a sex scandal, the Republicans might as well just go ahead and pick a name out of a hat. And that's a very good thing for one very important reason: The Supreme Fucking Court.

    • http://xkcd.com/285 Eran Rathan

      Ap wrote:

      The Supreme Fucking Court.

      Well, THAT's a mental image I didn't need.

    • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

      Actually, now that I think about it more, Obama has got this so in the bag, it's really time to start focussing on Congress. If the Republicans don't pull a rabbit out of their hat pretty soon, they are going to end up with either a nobody or something worse at the top of their ticket. And that could lead to the Dems regaining control of the House and picking up a few Senate seats.

    • http://quakerpagan.blogspot.com/ Cat C-B

      Thank you, thank you, thank you, Apuleius.

      I am mortally tired of people who tell me that it doesn't matter who gets elected, "the Republicrats or the Demicans." It sure as hell does matter–even as a heartsore liberal who hasn't seen a Democrat worthy of the name since Teddy Kennedy's funeral, the last thing I want is more people on the bench of the Supreme Court who think that Citizens United was good law.

    • Bill Wheaton

      I believe Obama was one of these 'likable' sorts. I certainly fell for it and campaigned hard for him, but I am disappointed now. I will campaign for him again though, because I think the alternative is ghastly.

      And when I say ghastly, it is with the knowledge that warrentless wiretaps are still going on, we are not closing Gitmo, we are still give no-bid contracts to the Blackwater mercenaries, and Comcast and NBC were allowed to merge, and Dick Cheney is a free man.

  • chuck_cosimano

    None of this matters. What will matter is what is the price of gasoline a year from now because that is the only thing the voters are going to give a damn about. Right now, Obama is well under 50% approval in the Gallup poll and no president has gone into an election with less than 50% in that poll and been re-elected. So, if Obama's numbers stay the way they are, the Republicans could run a Kramer/Sprenger ticket and win.

    It's going to be about the economy, it always is about the economy. Nothing else matters.

    • http://www.bryonmorrigan.com BryonMorrigan

      Obama's fine in the polls when you look at all of them. (http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html) Scientifically, you have to look at them all, rather than limiting your analysis to a single poll.

      • http://norsealchemist.blogspot.com NorseAlchemist

        That or you realize that statistics is nothing scientific at all, but merely a numbers game based on opinion, chance, and leading questions.

        A better way is to ignore statistical data and just watch "unscientific" markers. For instance, one can look at the ratings of cable news networks and their programing. The fact is that Fox (much hated though it be in these forums) is pretty much the highest rated network, and it is rather Un-friendly to Obama. CNN, MSNBC, and so forth, are rather to very pro-Obama, and they are much farther down the ranks. Now, one can of course argue that only Idiots watch Fox News and are being brainwashed (as I'm sure many people are going to claim) but the simple fact is that if those people who are watching Fox News are Idiots, they are idiots who are keyed up about something and they are going to go to the voting booths.

        Me, personally, I didn't think that Obama had much of a chance of re-election. Then we got basically the same run around from the Republicans (who I figured were in for a victory this season) that we did at the last election. There are no GOP front runners. There's a bunch of chaos, and the one guy I figured had a chance at getting a lot of votes by being rather non-partisan (Trump) has decided not to run. Obama way win by default, regardless of his actual popularity, simply because there is no opponent to equal him.

        That said, Chuck has a point. It won't matter what Obama's popularity is. If gas prices keep going up like they are, it might not matter who he runs against, all they have to do is come up with a half workable plan to drop gas prices and raise employment (something Obama has failed to do spectacularly, even his supporters have to admit that).

        Politics is mess. Best not to get emotionally involved.

        • http://xkcd.com/285 Eran Rathan

          Norse Alchemist writes:

          That or you realize that statistics is nothing scientific at all, but merely a numbers game based on opinion, chance, and leading questions.

          Chance = probabilities, which are the heart of statistics (though by no means the only part of it). Yes, opinion surveys can be incredibly biased, however your statement above indicates that you don't understand statistics.

          • http://norsealchemist.blogspot.com NorseAlchemist

            Actually, I got the concept that statistics are meaningless from my statistics professor in college :)

          • http://xkcd.com/285 Eran Rathan

            Then your statistics prof didn't understand them, or you misunderstood him.

        • http://www.bryonmorrigan.com BryonMorrigan

          Also, Fox News's demographics are extremely skewed towards the elderly. In fact, they have the absolute oldest demographics on television, "clocking in with a median age above 65," in comparison to the median age of the general public at 38 (SOURCE: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117988273?refCa….

          And for the record, if you prefer to get your "news analysis" from uneducated dropouts like Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity…instead of, you know…people with advanced degrees in political science like Rachel Maddow, Ph.D….well, "brainwashed" may not be the right word, but "uninformed" certainly seems apt, as studies by the University of Maryland (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/dec10/Misinformation_Dec10_rpt.pdf) and Pew Forum (http://people-press.org/2007/04/15/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions/) have shown. Incidentally, look at the Pew Forum's list of knowledge level by news source and have a gander at which show's viewers are most informed on the whole.

          • http://kauko-niskala.blogspot.com kauko

            Not only does Rachel Maddow have a PhD in politics from Oxford, she's also a Rhodes Scholar (and the first openly gay American to win a Rhodes Scholarship at that).

          • http://norsealchemist.blogspot.com NorseAlchemist

            And once again you miss the point. I said that people who watch the news are more likely to get out and vote because they are upset. I said the thing was unscientific. I still think it's rather valid though. But that's my opinion and I am not going to force it on you.

            Also, I never said I watched fox news, or believed what they said, or that I listened to "conservative" pundits. I merely remarked that Fox had the highest ratings and this was an indicator of things. Please stop personally attacking me by claiming I get all my facts from people you feel are idiots, simply because I do not believe as you believe.

          • http://www.bryonmorrigan.com BryonMorrigan

            "You" in the context above is used in the sense of "you plural," and is referring to the masses that watch Fox News that you cited, not "you" specifically.

            And as I noted above, Fox News having the highest ratings is about the most UN-scientific way of trying to gauge public opinion that I have ever heard of, and Fox was still on top of the ratings in 2008 when President Obama and the Democrats took control of the House and Senate. Obviously, it doesn't mean a damned thing. (On the other hand, the RCP averages predicted those victories…as well as the Republican victories in 2010…)

          • MH_grul

            One factor being overlooked in this discussion is that Fox News is available on basic cable while CNN and MSNBC are not. Because many cable customers have only basic service, obviously that also skews viewership in favor of Fox.

        • Souris Optique

          …and by your "unscientific" markers we can of course conclude that McCain won the last election.

  • sarenth

    The Tea Party had its named stained when a decent enough of them signed up, or at the least, were portrayed as being with the birther crowd. The Tea Partiers that I have talked to in my local area are Religious Reich-types. I have no interest in joining them, or any Republicans in the near future; both groups, Tea Party and Republican, have worked in local, State, and national elections to jack the poor while enriching the already odiously rich.

  • cara

    See…and Conservatives look at many Liberal ideas as doing the exact same thing ("Screw the poor"), with a side helping of "Father knows best and will help you noble savages" thrown in. But I don't think that the people who are behind those ideas intend to be doing that, or mean anything hurtful, it's just a result of their actions.

    • Nekowolf

      I'm sorry, but, I fail to see how conservatives seem to think that. As the Republicans are consantly fighting to perserve taxes for the wealthy. Of course, those are the Republicans in Congress, so there may be some disconnect here.

      But anyway, and to be frank, from my persective of what I have seen, the concepts on the Right isn't that what liberals are doing is "screwing the poor," but rather, in some bizarre sense, screwing everyone by (in their claims) wanting to raise taxes as a means to deprive them of their wealth. Like, we're trying to beat down their door and raiding their homes, figuratively, of course. What I've heard the most isn't that we're trying to stick it to the poor, it's that "they're trying to take our money!"

      • cara

        As someone who is on the Right, I do see many Liberal policies as harmful to the people they are intended to help. The idea may be compassionate, but the outcome, in many cases, isn't.

        But yes, you are also correct that the Right does believe that the government is not *more* entitled to our possessions than we are. We realize that in order for the government to function, we do need to put money in the kitty, but the attitude that private citizens don't deserve what they earn and others deserve it more is unhealthy – both for the person it is being taken from and the person it is given to.

        • Guest

          First, thanks for all the responses: I believe I have a much better understanding of at least where you're coming from. I disagree but I respect that you are doing/believing what you think is right.

          Second, I was under the impression all Americans are liberals. The picture of the USA they painted for me in my youth was basically that the average American was a dangerous radical bent on world domination through capitalism. In a lot of the rest of the West: UK, Canada, etc I get the impression they view the average American as a radical right Christian fundamentalist. Obviously, both those views are extreme but what I mean by "all Americans are liberals" is I thought that this was a liberal country (in principles, policies, etc), am I misunderstanding the meaning of liberal?

          Third, I though the position in America was that the government did not own anything?

          • Don

            It's liberal in an eighteenth-century sort of way.

        • harmonyfb

          the Right does believe that the government is not *more* entitled to our possessions than we are.

          See, and us Moderate Liberals don't think of "the government" as a separate person. It exists to work for us – therefore, we have to fund it. Everybody has to kick in their share so we can get things done to benefit us all. Like driving on a nice even road? Government. Like having your trash hauled to the dump for you? Government. Like being able to call 911 in an emergency? Government. Etc.

          What I don't believe is that corporations are citizens, or that the obscenely wealthy should pay less in taxes than the poor. And I believe that is also connected with my Paganism – because the wealthy and corporations should also be responsible for their fair share.

          • caraschulz

            That's pretty much what I said "We realize that in order for the government to function, we do need to put money in the kitty"

            Fair share is a subjective term. What you consider a fair share may not be what someone else considers a fair share. And that's where the disagreement is – what is fair?

          • Souris Optique

            Nothing is certainly not a "fair share." The corporations paying nothing I am sure *think* it is fair, but that doesn't make it so.

          • harmonyfb

            I think $0.00 is clearly NOT a 'fair share' (and that's what quite a lot of big corporations paid in taxes last year: nothing.)

        • Nekowolf

          See, and that's the problem. Because, what I see is that they consciously think that we are out to get them, that it's not figurative, but literal. The thing is, it's not a matter of entitlement, at least not to us. We aren't say "Rawrgh, give money now! I deserve you money!" Or take the health care thing, you had Palin running around screaming about fictitious "death panels," that there was literally going to be a group of people who decide if a person lives or dies. Or that, well, it's a matter that we think those people don't deserve their wealth.

          It's all wrong, the narrative is completely wrong. That's not how we think of these subject or what we mean by them at all. But at the same time, you can't really argue with someone who is arguing about something that isn't true.

          Take raising taxes, we see it as: you live in the United States. The nation is partly responsible for the well-being of everyone who lives in it in matters outside of their control. So as a citizen of the United State, everyone who is able should pay just a little more so that it benefits everyone. It has nothing to do with "you don't deserve wealth" or any of that. So how can we argue about something that they don't seem to be understanding or care to understand?

          • sarenth

            I would just like to say one thing about "death panels". In a way, insurance holders have death panels: they're administrators or lower echelons of workers who approve or deny claims for insurance payments. Hospitals have ethics boards that, among a good deal of other things, decide whether or not to have this or that operation for clients with higher risk. It's simply a matter of the 'death panels' we have accepted or rejected in this society.

        • Souris Optique

          "Right does believe that the government is not *more* entitled to our possessions than we are."

          Great! Neither does the Left! Can we get over that little fiction now?

      • Souris Optique

        "they're trying to take our money!"

        Usually with a followup of
        …and give it to those shiftless, lazy, undeserving folks who aren't like me."

  • Nekowolf

    Well, it didn't help that Gingrich is such a ravaging oppertunist that he'll flip-flop in a heart beat. And then he got caught. And then the whole criticism on the Ryan budget plan which literally made some people (like Rush Limbaugh's) head asplode. And then he (Gingrich) pretzel'd himself until he broke the boundries of intelligence and is now currently floating in space, collapsing in on himself, creating a black hole, absorbing all rationality, which is inevitably destroyed upon approach.

    In short: WOW. He's completely blowing it! Not that I mind, since I find Gingrich such an unbelievable -ass-

    • cara

      Gingrich is completely untrustworthy.

  • http://www.bryonmorrigan.com BryonMorrigan

    The most important aspect of propaganda is setting the definitions of words. Of course, I prefer to rely on dictionaries for such things.
    ____________________________________________________

    lib·er·al·ism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberalism)

    A political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.

    ____________________________________________________

    con·serv·a·tism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservatism)

    The disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change.

  • MickyFinn

    Well, who can blame people wo taking a negative veiw with the likes of Eilish De’Avalon pulling that sort of stunt. It wasn’t a beat up, she caused the circus. She’s “not subject to earthly laws” because she’s “from another world”, but apparentl she still needs a car and a cell phone to talk on while driving it. Don’t expect not to be derided for this sort of behaviour which makes a joke out of something very dear to us all. Some people have a lot of growing to do.

  • caraschulz

    Bachmann doesn't have my vote. And although she gets crowds at Tea Party events, the majority don't want her to run for President.

    Also note – The Tea Party Express (which puts on events like this one) is just a front for the Religious Right in the GOP. Unlike Tea Party Patriots and the TEA Party, which are grassroots groups. The TTP, TEA Party, and other grassroots TP groups are very hostile towards the Tea Party Express and they are (still, I believe – the lawsuit started in 2009) engaged in a law suit against them. The Tea Party Express is trying to subvert and direct the TP groups.

  • Baruch Dreamstalker

    Isn't Bachman a formal leader of Tea Party Representatives? Or am I mixing her up with someone else?

  • http://www.tigerseyetemple.org/ DanMiller

    And that is why the Tea Party as a socio-political movement will never succeed. Just more marginalized and disparate groups further fracturing any good ideas that might have come from them at one time. Struggling to satisfy their corporate masters from one side of the mouth and lip service to those who vote. It's a hard spot for whatever name the Tea Party goes by.

  • Bill Wheaton

    TTP and TEAP aren't as grassroots as they once might have seemed, if the ever were. Many of them are heavily funded by large anonymous wing donations that they don't make transparent. Other than that, I'll bite my tongue.

  • Dennis Nock

    I agree, we need to keep a eye on radicals of any kind right or left. tis the radicals that seem to be making all the noise and getting the attention . as long as they are marginalized or do it to themselves we don't have alot to worry about , all i'm saying tis good to keep an eye on them , bachman's ilk, and such loonies. a group like the tea party starts out w/ an honorable enuf ideas . heck, i consider myself a liberal libritarian . but as has happened a group such as the tea party can be easily hijacked by the religious right . i personnaly believe our govt. is too big spends way too much money , but hurting the common people and social programs is not the way to do it .we spend way too much on military spending and support of large companies that don't need it . for example the oil companies.our govt. must learn to live within its means in a fair way to all . Kilm

  • cara

    Actually, the TP as a movement has had a deep affect as a socio-political movement in such a short time. So far, very successful in both getting candidates elected and changing the conversation the USA is having about issues such as national debt, taxes, spending, etc.

  • Baruch Dreamstalker

    The Reps who are resisting the TP Caucus at least have my respect if not my agreement. This kind of staying power on the part of a movement, to keep from getting "co-opted" as we said in the Sixties, is the mark of a seriousness about political issues that goes beyond politics. If those TP-not-Caucus Reps can get themselves re-elected without "selling out" (another Sixties-ism) that will be really impressive.

  • Bookhousegal

    If you're our usual Cara, you' claim to some kind of rationalism and idealism. You *must* by now know that the effects of what you demanded aren't what you insisted they must be. Even in our most-provincial interests as Pagans of any kind?

    Surely?

  • http://www.tigerseyetemple.org/ DanMiller

    I disagree. All I see the TP candidates doing is saying 'NO' and not offering any kind of rational solutions. They haven't moved anything forward, while their polling numbers drop like a rock. They got candidates elected because of fear-mongering.

  • cara

    No. I'll say something to you. I'm absolutely sick of people acting like they have the moral high ground while calling me a homophobic and misogynic slur. "Teabaggers" is what people called homosexual males because it was supposed to be an insult to say that they would put another male's balls in their mouth. Teabagger is also what people called women when they found the word slut or whore just too pedestrian.

    I understand that when old ladies first started sending tea bags to the White House and they called themselves Teabaggers that it was a bit of a giggle because they had never heard teabagger used as a slur before. I get that the media tripped all over themselves to use it so they could say the word on air and not get fined. But that doesn't excuse people like you who know what the word means and how it was used. It isn't funny and it isn't cute to use homophobic slurs to denigrate people.

    You know what I expect to happen here? I expect people to be able to have a discussion without resorting to this kind of garbage. To show some respect for yourself and others. That's what I expect.

  • cara

    The Tea Party movement was a game changer in the 2010 elections and has continued to affect political discourse in the USA in 2011.

  • Bookhousegal.

    Actually, given the 'Tea Party's' actual agenda, begun while they called *themselves* 'Teabaggers' and well since, (And it's not actually homophobic slang, whyever the Tea Party prudly named themselves that and refused to get the joke, since it's actually a thing straight men claim about *women,* and *therefore* think it's something to joke about gay male bottoms with…) Let's say that it's not something 'liberals' called 'you,' it's just something we're not letting you off easy on calling *yourselves, * get it? (Ersatz tea metaphors aside, more importantly. People who care about tea don't think it *comes* in bags. :) )

    No, though, what I asked about 'What do you expect to happen here' is the same question as when you were shilling for the *current* Dominionist anti-gay, anti-Pagan crop.

    And which you still haven't answered about how more of the *same* is supposed to help, cause what they have *done* isn't what *you* said, it's what *we* said they'd do and you called 'liberals' 'prejudiced over' for saying, 'Actually, they aren't your spin, they say they hate us.. And say they'll do these things you insist they won't.'

    I asked, 'What do you expect to happen here,' *then,* and it's not like you claimed *now,* and now you want *more?*

    What *do* you expect to happen here?

    Reset.

    Look at it.

    What are you asking for, and what do you expect to happen next?

  • Bookhousegal

    And just on Teabags, it's really *not* all about the double-entendre Teabaggers advertised all that time: It's that you claim the American Revolution, but it's *fake.* It's not *tea,* it's *tea-bags.* It's not even the real thing. Even in just plain tea terms.

  • Guest

    I don't have any love for the Tea Party whatever that may be (I've not seen a form yet that I found personal agreement with) but I have to second Cara on this. Whatever your opponents ideology it should never be acceptable to resort to personal attacks. Particularly when all your personal attacks accomplish is painting your side of the argument as virulently homophobic. Grow up, get civil, and learn to make a cogent argument.

  • http://kauko-niskala.blogspot.com kauko

    “I will stop calling them teabaggers when they stop calling it Obamacare.” -Bill Maher

  • Nekowolf

    Then the Tea Party can stop calling people like me out as Nazis. Oh dear freaking god, yes, I'm a socialist! I hear that crap from the Tea Party and the Republican Party in general just how evil socialism is, being equated to Stalin and Hitler, equating socialism and Communism (no, I'm NOT a Communist) essentially to totalitarianism and fascism and just generally the very worst of human governmental history.

    So you think Teabagger is bad? How about being called a group of people who tried to genocide an entire religious group as well as others in horrific ungodly ways for a madman just because I happen to believe in the concepts of universal welfare.

  • Cheryl

    The Teabaggers where I live call themselves Teabaggers and use it on signs about bagging and tagging liberals. If they can make jokes about shooting people like game, why can't others make fun of a name they use themselves?

  • Souris Optique

    I'd never heard or seen it used as a noun *anywhere* until you guys picked it up. Before that it was only ever teabagGING — which is slang for a sex act.

  • Guest

    Did the game change or are we playing by the same rules with different pieces? Obama was supposed to be a progressive/liberal "change" bringer but all we got is 4 more years (so far) of Carter/Clinton. Just another glib professional politician covering their own butt and looking out for their own interests.

    What specifically about political discourse has shifted besides the fact that we're now talking about the Tea Party instead of the Moral Majority? I'll even grant you the idea that the GOP is trying/succeeding to co-opt the Tea Party fan base (I definitely agree with you there). Besides suing them and refusing to caucus with the GOP infiltrators what are they actually doing to differentiate themselves? What is the core message of the "true" Tea Party movement?

    I'm not asking this rhetorically or because I'm interested in bashing anybody, I seriously am curious: What is so appealing/fascinating about the Tea Party movement? I just don't get it.

  • http://twitter.com/lysana @lysana

    Yah, nice game change. Killing unions, reversing abortion law, and defunding Planned Parenthood. Brilliant. How noble. How pagan. Wake up.

  • Nekowolf

    The "game change" is, or rather, possibly will be, destroying the Republican Party. Either the Republicans will have move over to more moderate positions to maintain political standing with independents, in which case the Tea Party and more extreme right-wingers will tear into them like wolves and split the vote, or Republicans will have to cater to the Tea Party and such, and scare away independents, while at the same time possibly provoking Democrats and other liberals (such as in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, etc).

    That's the big game change; the Republicans created a Frankenstein's monster that threatens their political viability outside of the base, or rather, exacerbates their problems (on top of problems like voting down a cut into oil subsidies just recently, for example).

  • Guest

    Because "they started it" is always a winning comeback.

  • Bogomil

    Please remind me which sex act is known by the slang term "Obamacare." I seem to have forgotten.

  • kenneth

    There ARE a host of legitimate grievances which draw ordinary decent people to the Tea Party movement, broadly speaking. However, I see nothing which convinces me that particular movement will ever be a meaningful vehicle for change, nor anything I would ever want my name associated with. As with all populist movements, it is built on anger and disaffection and the seductive but false notion that complex problems have simple, intuitive, common sense folk solutions.

    As with all populist movements, it is built upon a narrative which seeks to deny our individual and collective responsibility for our own problems and instead seeks to blame "them" – some sinister outside forces corrupting the soul of our nation. Who "they" are, of course, varies with the ideological and historical bent of the movement in question. Jews, other racial or ethnic groups, homosexuals, the intellectual class, capitalists, corporations – all can serve as a convenient bogeyman for such movements. The message of populism is that "we" – the real folk of the country, will "take our country back" by any means necessary. It's a platform built upon payback, not real solutions,
    I have no doubt that there are decent, sane, intelligent people involved in the Tea Party movement. But it is also awash in racists, homophobes, Christian dominionists, conspiracy theory loons and people who are openly flirting with the idea of armed rebellion and political assassination. This is not alarmism I pulled out of the air. This is evident from the day to day rhetoric and actions and choice of candidates put forth by that movement. If the movement's moderates think they are going to win the fight for the soul of a populist movement, they don't know how history works.

    Even though I share some of the same frustrations as Tea Partiers, they are not something I can support as an American or a pagan, and I would urge anyone else here to consider carefully before casting their lot with them.

  • http://twitter.com/lysana @lysana

    They called themselves Teabaggers until it was pointed out that the word is slang for a sex act. And almost two years later, I was still seeing Tea Party members using the term. Who started what?

  • Baruch Dreamstalker

    Maher is right. They should call it by its proper name: Romneycare.

  • Baruch Dreamstalker

    Don't forget to look for the next domino. If the GOP implodes, liberal Democrats will want their agenda legislated promptly and centrist Democrats will disagree, thus impending a split in that party, too.

  • cara

    The unifying theme to various TP groups are these three issues: limited government, fiscal responsibility, free markets. They aren't a group that just says "no" as people like to ignorantly claim, but they did say "no" quite a bit while the Democrats were the ones propsing legislation that was at odds with those three ideals. That shouldn't be a surprise.

  • cara

    "What specifically about political discourse has shifted?"

    1. There are many issues that TP groups have pushed to the front or supported that wouldn't have been on the national radar otherwise Not raising the national debt ceiling is the latest. Not an issues that most Americans paid attention to or talked about until the TP groups did. This certainly isn't a DNC idea and the GOP was willing to keep raising it until the various TP groups started calling the GOP politicians and leaders and raising hell about it. They also helped change public opinion about the debt ceiling. Now, 63% of Americans oppose raising the debt ceiling (NYT/CBS poll)

  • cara

    And although people point out that the TP has a disapproval rating of 36%-30% – they are in better shape than either the democrats (42%-37%) or republicans (43%-31%) – NBC/Wall Street. But the biggest thing is it has shift the center of the conversation. Now, both Parties in Congress are talking about how much to cut from the budget, not if cuts should be made. The TP movement with their focus on economic/limited government issues has helped do this. Also – TP groups have still been voicing loud opposition to things like the Patriot Act but since the Left has dropped this issue and most of the Right likes the Patriot Act…well…we have no traction on this.

  • cara

    4. It put fear into the GOP establishment and has caused them to be more responsive to the voters (This fear is why the GOP is working so hard to try to co-opt the movement) Some GOP incumbents who were NOT fiscal conservatives were booted in the Primary. The TP groups have shown a willingness to lose an election rather than back an electable candidate who is not a fiscal conservative. When the GOP has strayed from economic issues or backs down on economic issues, the TP groups start calling and telling them this is unacceptable. In Minnesota, the Senate decided to waste time by voting to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot banning gay marriage. TP groups are neutral on gay marriage, but not neutral and being pissed that they are straying from economic issues. So we've been calling and writing and meeting with House members (the vote goes before them) to tell them to vote this crap down and get back to the work we elected them to do – deal with the budget and economics of the state. We'll see if we are successful in this. We keep telling the GOP we will not put Party first so don't tell us we have to vote for who ever you put in front of us – we won't.

  • cara

    5. It is a very inclusive and diverse political group, which is unusual, and more closely mirrors the General Population than most other groups. Looking at just TP groups and Pagans – There are 9 Pagans who are in leadership/organizational positions within major TP groups. Can any other political group claim this? Looking at this from a female perspective – Most of the leadership is female. Women make up almost of the TP members. Can any other political group say this, other than ones that are specific to womens rights? Hispanics, Asian Americans and African Americans combine to make up almost one-fourth of TP members.

  • cara

    That's just a bit of an answer. There have been many books, articles, etc written about how the TP movement has affected political discourse in the USA. Can it remain outside of the GOP's control? Will the RR be successful in subverting it? Will it dwindle and go awy? I don't know. But I can tell you from my experience and from the experience of many, many other Pagans involved in it – we are staunch libertarians working to keep this movement decentralized, grassroots,a nd free of manipulation. And though we (those Pagans that lean left and those that lean right ) may disagree on what path to walk, we are all good people trying to make good decisions.

  • http://quakerpagan.blogspot.com/ Cat C-B

    I wish we had four more years of Carter, or even Clinton! Not so much because I see Obama as unusually cynical, but because I see the Democratic Party moving farther and farther to the right every year.

    I'd love to vote for a liberal again–someone, ANYONE to the left of Gerald Ford would be nice.

  • Nekowolf

    A possibility, yes. But on the other hand, such a case could be more easily tended by the Democrats. If the GOP implodes, I don't think it'll wipe the party completely. They'll still manage to hold various seats. It's just you may see stronger, or at least more, majorities by the Democrats for a time. But on top of that, you need to look at the structure of the Republicans as a party. It really is quite lock-step, with deviants being either exiled politically from the party, or consumed by it into voting in a way that the majority of the party wants. Whereas Democrats, while sure, it certainly happens, are not so well "united." Basically, Democrats are a bit more used to in-fighting and divergance. Although the threat of a voting split is still there, of course.

    These upcoming years could, politically, be very chaotic, depending on what happens in regards to Republicans and the Tea Party.

  • http://quakerpagan.blogspot.com/ Cat C-B

    Do we still have liberal Democrats?

  • cara

    I don't see both Parties imploding as a bad thing. The Tower card is needed to make way for something new and hopefully better.

  • http://www.bryonmorrigan.com BryonMorrigan

    That's pretty much what happened in 2009. Instead of passing the extremely popular "Public Option," the Liberal Democrats caved to the Blue Dog Democrats…who witheld their votes in order to make us model the "Individual Mandate" on the Republicans' plan.

  • http://norsealchemist.blogspot.com NorseAlchemist

    I fail to see what Unions, Abortion Laws, and Planned Parenthood have to do with our Pagan/Heathen religions. As far as I know, none of the Gods or Goddesses (at least the European ones I know and know of) have said much of anything about those things. Those are mortal matters, and it shouldn't matter if one is Pagan, Heathen, Christian, or Jew in ones practice of these mortal matters. Do not imply that someone is not a real Pagan just because their views on those subjects.

  • Star Foster

    None of that has anything to do with being Pagan. Pagans are not the left's answer to the Religious Right. Becoming the mirror image of Evangelicals is not the end goal of Paganism.

  • http://norsealchemist.blogspot.com NorseAlchemist

    Too true

  • Bill Wheaton

    Most of the ideas we take for granted were considered to be radical at some point. Safe workplace for example, but there are a ton of others. We need the radicals, because it is from them that we get ideas that eventually become mainstream. We need to be very careful what we adopt though.

  • Souris Optique

    The problem there comes in when centrists are erroneously labeled "left – wing radicals."

  • Star Foster

    It's posts like this that prove tolerance and hospitality is merely paid lip-service in Paganism. The personal attack is completely unnecessary.

  • http://twitter.com/PCPPodcast @PCPPodcast

    Well, I think that Obama is probably the best Republican president since Lincoln. /snark

    - Dave

  • Bill Wheaton

    I know plenty of people on both the right, left and other shades that are Pagans. It doesn't bother me at all from a Pagan perspective. From a political perspective, rightists, conservatives, 'libertarians' and free market capitalists bother me a lot, and I try to counter it whenever I can. And while that is integral to my perception of my Pagan religion, I fully (and sadly) recognize that it is not every Pagan's view. I see that as my contribution to tolerance.

  • Souris Optique

    Stripping health care from women and the poor and disallowing people to band together to protect themselves from corporate interests should be of interest to ANY religion.

    If what you have isn't at all concerned with how people should treat each other, it's not much of a religion.

  • John Drury

    Indeed, such venom really doesn't show a lot of tolerance.

  • John Drury

    If it pushes us to reduce the deficit and reform entitlements, then the movement will have done a great service (warts and all).

  • Khalin Elvenstone

    I kinda liked the "Teabagger" thing. Thought it was clever and funny and somewhat ironic. It's a shame they had to lose their sense of humor and change it.

  • http://twitter.com/PCPPodcast @PCPPodcast

    I have a friend who registered himself officially as a member of the Socialist party because 1) that was his actual political beliefs and 2) he was making a stand that the word Socialist needs to be less demonized in political discourse. Just thought I'd add that to this conversation.

    - Dave

  • http://www.bryonmorrigan.com BryonMorrigan

    It is politically impossible for a Liberal to be a "Fascist" or "Nazi," and anyone making that claim exposes his/her complete ignorance of political science and history.

    FASCISM: an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
    –(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fascism?view=uk)

  • caraschulz

    Look…there are jerks everywhere. I can ignore that, you probably mostly ignore it, too. But when someone says it right to me, I'm going to call them on it and so should you. I haven't called you a Nazi and I wouldn't. I'm always very clear that i think intelligent people can see the same information and come to different conclusions. But I'll direct your attention to how I am treated just in this thread and what is said about the TP right now in this thread. And how others, through their voting on the comments, show their approval of of this kind of demonization and hostility towards me as a conservative. I've had my spirituality questioned, I've been called slurs, and yet I have been patient, calm, and polite in response.

    Are you OK with that in these comments? Have you spoken out about it? If not…well…how is that any different from the jack asses that called you a nazi?

  • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

    "I fail to see what Unions, Abortion Laws, and Planned Parenthood have to do with our Pagan/Heathen religions."

    We humans are free to do as we please. But not without consequence. And the Gods favor what is Just and those who act justly.

    Besides, the Gods matter to us only to the extent that they concern themselves with human affairs. Otherwise only fools would bother with religion.

  • Khryseis_Astra

    Funny, when I lived in Massachusetts, arguably the most "Blue State" in the nation, I received a ticket for that very thing: not wearing my seatbelt. LOL Having grown up in PA, where you didn't have to wear a seatbelt if you were in the backseat, I had no idea I could even be ticketed for such a thing!

    As a liberal myself, I don't consider PA all that liberal, at least not my area of it.

  • http://quakerpagan.blogspot.com/ Cat C-B

    With a bit of competition from Eisenhower, perhaps. ;-)

  • http://quakerpagan.blogspot.com/ Cat C-B

    A sample size of two doesn't make much of an argument, Dave.

    I think it would be more accurate to say that liberals and conservatives favor individual responsibility in different areas of life. Liberals, for instance, believe it is the role of society to make sure that education is freely available to all citizens, that air and water are kept clean by laws and regulations, and that hungry children are fed by the public if their parents don't get that done for whatever reason.

    Conservatives believe that private education is sufficient, want the government to back off on regulating things like air and water (because individual freedom to pollute–er, excuse me, property rights–trumps the right to be able to breathe or drink clean water) and that if parents don't feed their kids, the kids can ask for assistance from a church–or pull themselves up by their bootstraps and feed themselves.

    It's not for nothing Molly Ivins used to refer to Texas as the "National Laboratory for Bad Guv'mint." Though I'll always be grateful to Texas for giving us L.B.J.–a cranky, manipulative S.O.B., but he got it done…

  • Khryseis_Astra

    See that all depends on what you classify as an "entitlement." :) For instance, Social Security often gets put under that heading. But I pay into Social Security every paycheck. So yes I am "entitled" to get that money I paid back!

  • http://quakerpagan.blogspot.com/ Cat C-B

    As a Massachusetts voter? Little as I like Romney, and loathe though I am to take away arguments against his presidency, the truth is he had about as much to do with our health care reform bill as a sperm donor has with raising a child.

    His contribution was not attempting (and inevitably failing) to veto the law. Took him a few seconds.

    Others have shown more commitment. (By the by, again as a resident of Massachusetts, I couldn't be happier with the law. Because if it, my daughter, a recent college graduate, has health care. And more motivation to stay in the state where I live. As a fond parent, I love that part.)

  • http://quakerpagan.blogspot.com/ Cat C-B

    The Emancipation Proclamation, women's suffrage, minimum wage, child labor laws… Yep. Watch out for them radicals.

    Again, I'd be overjoyed even to find some liberals in office right now. Other than Bernie Sanders and Barney Frank, has anyone spotted any lately? Radicals… well, a girl can dream. Maybe we could accomplish a few other dangerous things–like single-payer healthcare, ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, reducing carbon emissions, protecting endangered species, or recognizing the full equality of gays, lesbians, and the transgendered?

    The world would probably end from so much radicalization.

  • http://quakerpagan.blogspot.com/ Cat C-B

    You forgot NPR. Even if it does make me a walking, talking, breathing cliche to acknowledge how much of it I listen to.

    However, NPR is not on cable, so this still supports your overall point.

  • http://www.bryonmorrigan.com BryonMorrigan

    I live in PA, and frankly…outside of Pittburgh and Phillie, it's a Red State. The locals refer to it as "Pennsyltucky" or say, "Pennsylvania: It's Pittsburgh and Phillie…with Alabama in between." Just look at the voting records and elected officials in the state. Outside of those big cities, it's all "red."

    Just this morning, while waiting with my daughters at the school bus-stop, I heard one of the African-American kids being repeatedly referred to by the "N-word." I'm originally from the South…and I'M not used to seeing that kind of racism out in the open! (And don't get me started about how many of the local parents have forbidden their children from playing with my daughters because we aren't Christian…)

  • http://www.bryonmorrigan.com BryonMorrigan

    I don't know how it is where you live, but every time I've ever listened to NPR/PBS, the news programming has only been available at certain parts of the day, on certain days. Otherwise, most of the time, when you tune into a PBS station, you get jazz or classical music…or if you're lucky, "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" or "Prairie Home Companion." ;)

  • kenneth

    That's what I'm talking about, Khryseis. The Tea Party advances this notion that our budget mess is something "they" (the liberal politicians) did to "us." They took "our" money and gave it to welfare queens. That's absurd and any serious review of government spending bears that out.

    Every dime spent by our government has a constituency behind it. "We" signed off on it, either explicitly or out of negligence by consistently hiring politicians who told us we could have everything and tax cuts. We have decided as a society that we are not going to live without the things government does, and we're also not going to pay the real cost of it. We decided to live a millionaire's lifestyle on a cab driver's salary. It's as simple as that. We allowed Social Security to become a payday loan fund for everything else, and to allow very large demographic groups to draw far more in benefits than they or their employers ever paid in. Same with Medicare. I recently heard some analysis that people pay in $50,000 and draw $300,000 in benefits over their lifetime.

    We allowed our military budget to grow to levels that is insanely above and beyond anything any nation needs for self defense. It is an Imperial army designed to subjugate an entire planet and to give military contractors a literal blank check. That's an entitlement program if ever there was one.

    We're spending trillion dollar amounts on laser cannons and super-advanced fighter jets that are designed to fight enemies that simply don't exist. We're preparing to fight space aliens when our real enemy is bleeding is to death literally and financially with $100 worth of high explosives and hardware store parts. We've also allowed policies which have virtually eliminated taxes for corporations and the wealthiest individuals. We do this despite decades of experience that shows they do not use that benefit to create jobs, but rather to create speculation bubbles and market crashes (which the taxpayer also picks up). We pay subsidies to oil companies, which are among the most profitable enterprises in human history. We use tax money to pay for basic research which is then developed and exploited and sold back to us with 1,000 percent markups by the drug industry and then forbid Medicare to drive any sort of volume bargains with them. Another blank check.

    These things are where most of the money is going, not to fat entitlement checks to some single mom in the ghetto. This is why the Tea Party movement is disingenuous and why it will fail. There is no way at all we can cut spending by cutting off "their" entitlements. It will not come by robbing hard working middle class teachers and mid-level government workers of the pay and pensions they were promised. It will come only through tough grown up decisions that are painful for all of us.

    If we want deep cuts in spending, that means we close hundreds of military bases and get out of all overseas land wars now, not someday when we've "won the war on terror" whatever the hell that means. Ending entitlements will mean that YOU, and not Medicare, will be on the hook when granny gets incontinent and combative and needs 24-hour/ $5,000 a month nursing care for the decade or so it takes Alzheimer's to run it's course.

    I don't see anyone in the Tea Party talking about the real nature of the problem or adult solutions and consequences or the reality that we all have our snouts in the trough of government benefits. What I mostly see is a crowd of angry people with an adolescent sensibility which says their entitlements are "earned' and everyone else is the parasite class. I mostly see candidates who have little to no experience in governance or any knowledge of the complexities of public policy. In fact most of them are in open contempt of the idea that one needs to learn the complexities of anything. That's "beltway insider" thinking to them. In their minds, all we need is someone tough enough to put the screws to "them" – the parasite class they imagine is holding us down (see my previous rant about populism). Whether they care to admit it or not, the "parasite class" they aim to eliminate is actually the middle and working classes of this country.

  • Souris Optique

    Oh they already sold out. If they weren't bought and paid for to begin with.

  • Souris Optique

    Not in my area of the country they don't. Around here they're 99% white and want to repeal the 14th amendment.

  • harmonyfb

    Women make up almost of the TP members.

    Not here, they don't. Cara, frankly, you're the only woman TP member I've ever met. And every single TP member I know is white.

  • kenneth

    True liberals have not been a significant force in the White House or Congress since the decade following Watergate. The Republicans and conservatives generally have owned the White House for most of the past quarter century, and have dictated the terms of debate even when they weren't in formal control. Bill Clinton and most of the Democrats of any note since then were not "liberals" in any sense of the word. In most countries in the West, they would have been considered Center Right. The term "liberal" has been abused to the point where it is applied to anyone who doesn't take marching orders from leading Evangelicals.

  • http://www.bryonmorrigan.com BryonMorrigan

    Remember who the most Left-Wing faction of the American 19th century were? The Radical Republicans? Yeah, without them we'd have….um…slavery?

    Also, as I was pointing out on Wikipedia earlier today…when Newt Gingrich said that he opposed "radical changes," whether from the Left or Right…and it pissed off the Republicans…it was actually one of the clearest statements of REAL Conservative principles in a long time…which is why it infuriated the Right-Wing extremists.

    What these Republicans/Tea-Partiers propose is REACTIONARY, which is far to the Right of "Conservative." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary)

  • http://norsealchemist.blogspot.com NorseAlchemist

    Emancipation, women's suffrage, minimum wage, all radical that are now considered good laws.

    Nazism, Soviet Socialism, Jim Crow….also all done by radicals, and all also viewed as good in their day by the people who put them forth.

    Good and Evil is a matter of perspective. No man or woman should be a slave, All should have the right to vote, but remember, not all radicals are good, and we should be careful of any radicals, regardless of how noble their cause. After all, the Nazi's believed they were protecting the German people under all to terrible conditions. The Soviets believed they were saving people from the ravages of capitalism (which so many here have protested as something close to being as evil as the Nazis), and Jim Crow laws were put in place by one fearful group in the hopes of protecting themselves from another group that to their minds had an all to real grudge against them.

    I support the call to be careful of radicals. They all seek what they believe to be good. But sometimes the results are not what we would wish.

  • cara

    That is in no way an accurate representation of a Liberal vs Conservative view of issues.

    EXAMPLE: Conservatives believe that more local control should be granted over public education for several reasons – the citizens would be more involved in the schools if they had more control, there would be fewer unfunded manadates that cause schools to financially struggle, and different locales have different needs (a one size fita all approach doesn't work).

  • cara

    Actually – Gay Tea Party people have t-shirts that say "Why yes, I AM a Teabagger" on it.

  • Star Foster

    But how you express that caring can be very different. Self-sufficiency is a core value for Heathenry, so they tend to see self-care and/or community care preferable to government-backed care. That they tend to be less liberal than other branches of Paganism does not make them less a part of our greater Pagan movement.

    The problem isn't that people don't care, it's how they believe that care should be implemented that is different. It's too easy to demonize other people as irresponsible or heartless, or (my pet peeve) claim they aren't spiritual enough.

  • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

    Souris Optique: "Stripping health care from women and the poor and disallowing people to band together to protect themselves from corporate interests should be of interest to ANY religion."

    Personally I would go further and say that those things are of particular interest to Pagans.

    One of the things I love about Leland's "Aradia: Gospel of the Witches", is that it frames the Old Religion as a movement of the poor, the oppressed, women, and slaves against the rich, the powerful, and, especially, the Church.

  • Guest

    This is another area of confusion to me. I thought that conservative meant "one who supports the status quo" essentially? As in to conserve what exists. Am I using the wrong definition?

  • Khryseis_Astra

    *Nods* I hear you.

    "We've also allowed policies which have virtually eliminated taxes for corporations and the wealthiest individuals."
    And IMO, those are the *first* "entitlements" that should go. They had a decade of tax cuts, which they claimed were necessary to "create jobs" and yet resulted in the disastrous unemployment and economy we have today.

    Another good point to make: unemployment numbers can be misleading… they stop counting you when you run out of benefits. They don't count the unemployed who still haven't found work but can't collect unemployment anymore. Not to mention those who lost full-time jobs but are trying to scrape by with part-time work. And don't get me started on how wages have stagnated for the average worker who's lucky enough to even find a job at all.

    The politicians all want to talk about cuts, but only when it comes to those who can least afford it.

  • harmonyfb

    But "self-sufficiency" is not incompatible with government-backed care (first of all, our taxes help pay for it, so it is self-care in that we've all paid in to make sure it happens, if necessary.)

  • Souris Optique

    "self-care and/or community care"
    And aren't unions just that?
    I'm also unclear on how that is a realistic answer to the healthcare crisis.

    I haven't claimed anyone wasn't "spiritual enough." But I'm not going to pretend that what is termed social justice (or used to be, before it became a dirty word) in Christianity hasn't been a traditional concern of *most* religions, varieties of Paganism included. And I won't accept that believing those who cannot help themselves in an increasingly rigged system deserve whatever exploitation they get is somehow a spiritual value.

  • Nekowolf

    I've though about it. Generally, though, I always go Democrat. See, the way I see it is you can vote for who you want, sure. But, well, let's be honest, if you vote for someone who won't have a snowball's chance in Hell, that's great that you're trying to make a statement but the guy still loses. So I see voting more as a strategy than an opinion, in some respect. Vote for who has the highest probability of winning who is also closest to what you want.

    Just as a hypothetical, I may end up voting for a moderate Democrat, but it'd be a hell lot better than a radical Republican. That's just how I decide to use my vote, anyway, so it's a personal preference rather than a philosophy.

    But, yeah. It's ridiculous that people demonize the concept of socialism while at the same time… using socialism. I mean, the most popular programs in the US, Medicare and Social Security, are pretty close. What really irks me is that people use different political philosophies interchangeably, like socialism, and Communism, and fascism. No, they are not the same! A hamburger and a hot dog may both be made from bread and meat, but they're still different! Drives me up a wall.

  • caraschulz

    Socialism isn't a dirty word.

  • harmonyfb

    They had a decade of tax cuts, which they claimed were necessary to "create jobs" and yet resulted in the disastrous unemployment and economy we have today.

    Oh, they created jobs, all right…in China, where they don't have to pay a living wage.

  • http://www.bryonmorrigan.com BryonMorrigan

    That's the real definition, Guest. They've been trying to 'change' it over the last decade or so, in order to distance themselves from their horrid past of supporting racism, sexism, religious intolerance, homophobia, and other 'lovely' positions.

  • caraschulz

    Conservative are, generally speaking, slower to adopt change. That doesn't mean they don't accept change, desire change to happen, or at times demand major changes.

    Conservatives and liberals are both needed in a society. A society with all one or the other will quickly cease to function. think of it like this: settlers and pioneers. Pioneers go forth into the unknown. They press forward into uncharted land. Sometimes this turns out well, most times it does not. They die or come back in failure. But a few make it and are successful. Word gets back to the old town the pioneers came from. Soon, settlers start the slow journey to where the successful pioneers are. They build all the infrastructure along the way and bring the people and supplies needed to make a new village that will be sustainable.

    We need people to push the boundaries, but we also need people to keep the home fires burning.

  • http://www.bryonmorrigan.com BryonMorrigan

    …which were obviously created AFTER the controversy, to make a joke. Show me one t-shirt like that from before 2009.

  • http://www.bryonmorrigan.com BryonMorrigan

    "Radical" is a term often misused, by people on both the Left and Right. (For example, there is no such thing as a "Radical Right-Winger," since the two concepts cancel each other out….) Nazism was an extreme Reactionary ideology, as it was meant to bring Germany back to an idealistic "status quo ante," or theoretical "golden age", and Jim Crow was the very definition of "Conservative," since it was legislation designed to impede any changes or reform in the social status quo. The only truly "Radical" ideology that you mentioned was Soviet Socialism.

    RADICAL:
    n. A person who advocates thorough or complete political or social reform; a member of a political party or part of a party pursuing such aims
    n. One who advocates fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions

    REACTIONARY:
    adj. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) of, relating to, or characterized by reaction, esp against radical political or social change
    n. An opponent of progress or liberalism; an extreme conservative.

  • http://www.bryonmorrigan.com BryonMorrigan

    "The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out, the conservative adopts them." — Mark Twain

  • Souris Optique

    Jim Crow was absolutely the establishment – backed status quo at the time. The Civil Rights Activists were the "radicals" in that instance.

  • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

    BryonMorrigan: " … the Liberal Democrats caved to the Blue Dog Democrats …"

    To a large extent this decision was already decided by the Democratic party "base" in nominating Obama in the first place. Obama was, from the beginning, weasely the "universal" part of "universal health care". Hillary Clinton had a much stronger and much more "liberal" position on that than Obama all along. Obama also frequently made alarming statements about Social Security during the primaries. Those who followed Krugman's critiques of Obama during the primaries remember this, and remember that Hillary was clearly to the left of Barack on domestic issues. And, of course, we all now know that Bill Clinton was 100% correct when he stated that it was a "fairy tale" to claim that Obama was "the anti-war candidate". Anyone who was really paying attention in 2008 (both during the primaries and during the general election campaign) knows that Obama is being quite true to how he actually campaigned. I'm just sayin'.

  • caraschulz

    Even though I am a conservative, I would have voted for H. Clinton over McCain or Obama. If we were going to change healthcare, then just do it. The plan that Obama and the Congress came up with is the worst of both worlds – it doesn't benefit from market pressure to rein in costs and yet doesn't benefit from the government taking it out of the private sector and making it a service.

  • Khryseis_Astra

    That's a shame… :(

    I live about an hour from Pittsburgh, and that's far enough to put me in "Alabama." LOL

  • Cheryl

    Where have you been? It is in this country. According to the Teapublicans, it's just another way to spell communism which is just a short way to say "government slavery". People are supposed to be leaving socialist countries as fast as they can to get to America because socialism has supposedly destroyed Europe and Canada.

  • MickyFinn

    Well, who can blame people wo taking a negative veiw with the likes of Eilish De’Avalon pulling that sort of stunt. It wasn’t a beat up, she caused the circus. She’s “not subject to earthly laws” because she’s “from another world”, but apparentl she still needs a car and a cell phone to talk on while driving it. Don’t expect not to be derided for this sort of behaviour which makes a joke out of something very dear to us all. Some people have a lot of growing to do.