Fear and Loathing in ConservativeLand

Why are Conservatives so naturally paranoid? Is paranoia a circumstance of conservatism or, conversely, is conservatism a circumstance of paranoia? Why do these fearful, threatened, rightwing "patriots" loathe and ridicule anyone that is not as scared as shitless as they are?

I ask these questions only to enlighten myself, for I find the entire exercise of understanding the conservative mind perplexing and more than just a little disturbing, troubling even.

C-PAC has, predictably, been as loony as a Star Trek convention; Texas State Senator Dan Patrick goes on Fox to claim that Texas is in a virtual state of war with Mexico and that the National Guard is on "high alert"; Sean Hannity asks his faithful just which form of violent revolution (armed insurrection, secession, etc.) they would prefer - in a poll - on HIS website; and through it all, the establishment conservatives, supposedly the sane ones, nod knowingly, even appreciatively, agreeing with each other that they knew all along this would come to pass if that imposter, that elitist liberal, Obama, managed to wrest power from the wise and steady hand of the GOP.

And it's not like things aren't bad enough, what with two wars (of their own making) and a paralyzing recession (again, of their own making), Oh, Hell No! They also seem to have a compelling need to manufacture fears all on their own, for their own entertainment and self-validation. Like the non-existent reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine (why do all conservatives listen to AM radio anyway? Because they believe FM is a commie front, or what?). Or the outrageous program to monitor volcanoes. Or the heresy of teaching science in science class. The list is goes on…

Maybe, just maybe, the paranoia is the fear of change in any form. Or maybe it’s what I questioned at the beginning of this post. Paranoia is a consequence of conservatism and conservatism requires paranoia to validate it’s own existence.

Damn, that is just a little disturbing, troubling even.

Conservative Pathology

As I watched Jindal's Republican Response to President Obama's address to Congress, I was struck by how absurd the reference to the botched Katrina rescue operation was. Why would one remind us of the rampant incompotence of the Bush era. Maybe he is just being honest, telling it like it was, letting the chips fall where they may, so on and so on.

I should not have worried, because, you see, the story was just made up. A fabrication, a stretching of the truth - a lie.

It turns out that it did not happen as Jindal so earnestly told America. His staffers are now busy spinning the story and trying to put a happy face on their boss, but it's to late.

Jindal lied to us.

I don't know why I am surprised, because, after all, he is a Republican.

The Lost Republicans

The Republicans are wandering in the Wilderness, so to speak. Jindal is just the latest to try to claim the title of heir apparent, and came off last night as a weak version of Mr. Rogers (I swear that's what I was thinking as I watched his response). Invoking the Bush-led Katrina debacle as an example of how the government can fail the people was strange and surreal to the point of one asking "what the hell is he thinking?". He was preaching to the choir, not addressing the concerns of American people.

The real problem for the GOP is not the lack of a figurehead, but the lack of substantive message. All, but the most die-hard, right rail of the party, are tired of hearing the same worn, old mantra of cutting taxes, fiscal responsibility and smaller government from the same people, perceived by most Americans, to have landed the nation in this financial crisis in the first place. The electorate wants answers, stratagy, planning and direction, not sound bites like "Americans can do anything".

With people like Palin, Steele and Jindal stepping forward to assert a claim of leadership for the party, it really makes me wonder who the Republicans can successfully field in the 2010 mid-terms and 2012 general elections. More importantly, what new ideas can the GOP promolgate that will make it a viable party once again. So far, since 2006, their vision of viability and selling their message has presented them with less than happy results.

I don't see it changing any time soon.

Atheists Have Only One Common Denominator

There is something peculiar about atheists.


Among readily defined groups that we see and hear during the course of our daily lives... Republicans, Democrats, Baptists, NASCAR fans, etc..., common threads run through the groups that bind them together, adding strength to their perception of correctness, individuality or mission. It is easy to spot the NASCAR aficionado from across the street, or the Harley rider in the bar. It is apparent to all that an Ohio State fan is not a backer of Michigan football and equally determinable that a Southern Baptist convention does not constitute a huge draw for the local strip clubs. Certain assumptions are made and can usually be relied upon to draw certain conclusions about the individuals who comprise a certain group.

Not so with atheists.

The reason for this is that, along with the basic tenants, interests, or world views of each of the various demographics in our society, the people who comprise these groups have usually more than one thing in common. Atheists just don't believe in God. That's it. Nothing more.

An atheist can be a conservative or a liberal, a scientist or a laborer, male or female, rich or poor, evil or good. The only true thread between them is that they do not believe.

And that, dear reader, is what makes atheists such special, interesting people.