RNC Surveys in Lieu of Facts, Ideas

This is the unedited version of an article that originally appeared in the Missouri State University newspaper, The Standard.

________________________________________________

Recently, in a show of absolute desperation in the final weeks of a close gubernatorial race in the swing-state of Virginia, the Republican National Committee issued a survey meant to influence and misinform anyone who received it. The answers you give in the survey aren't important, it's what you take away from the questions the GOP is interested in.

The survey is so spurious, even the Washington Post called it out, featuring the most biased of the right-leaning questions. Because this development is so awesome, so desperate and devoid of intellect, I thought I'd address the questionnaire, and specifically the questions highlighted by the Post, because I only have so much room.

Please, though, try to find the full survey online. It's pure gold the whole way through. The selection is purely for my own convenience. But, to address just a few of the more ridiculous accusations/questions...

“1. Do you agree with Barack Obama's budget plan that will lead to a $23.1 trillion deficit over the next ten years?”

This one isn't just misleading, it's a bit stupid. Apparently, no one involved in the production of these surveys realized their's a difference between “deficit” and “national debt.” Just to clarify, there is a difference – deficit is the annual shortage of funds, national debt is the total accumulation of deficits over time.

Easy to confuse, right? Well, no, not really... Especially if it's your job to know these things, y'know, like if you work for the RNC. The benefit of the “confusion,” though, is that the national debt over the next decade is way bigger than the annual deficit; about twenty-three times larger. What an unfortunate mistake.

“4. Should English be the official language of the United States?”
The correct answer to this question is also a question - “Exactly how racist is the Republican party?” See, official language requirements would have little to no effect on anyone in the country save school children, who are required to be taught in their native language.

Any such legislation wouldn't stop illegal immigration, for example, nor would it place more than a few basic language requirements on potential new Americans. Businesses would still print packaging in multiple languages, much to the consternation of easily-confused Republicans, and government would only reduce its efforts to instruct immigrants at the expense of public safety.

“9. Do you support the creation of a national health insurance plan that would be administered by bureaucrats in Washington?”

Of course not – screw the bureaucrats. It's corporate cronies that truly have our interests in mind. Or, most telling, I heard of a plan recently that truly reveals conservative intentions.

A church-funded insurance co-op, called Samaritan Ministries, is operating on the same basic principles that a government-run co-op would have – instead of worrying about your own insurance costs, you contribute to a group plan or account that would cover anyone who chose to participate. In fact, the only real difference between this plan and proposed government programs is the role of the church.

Conservatives, or at least conservative Christians, are only opposed to welfare if their opposition is holding the purse-strings.

“13. Are you in favor of reinstituting the military draft, as Democrats in Congress have proposed?"

There is at least one Democrat proposing the reinstitution of the draft. So far his efforts have garnered little to no support among fellow Democrats, who seem strangely preoccupied with their “careers in politics” or whatever.

This is pretty awesome, though. What do you do when attacking your opposition as a party of cowards and draft-dodgers loses its impact? Why, accuse them of the exact opposite! Instead of handing out purple-heart Band-Aids – which cost money, by the way – you can just make sweeping and baseless accusations about your opposition, which is completely free.

What do you do when you're entire political party has run out of ideas? I guess you send crap like this out to your constituents and hope they don't know how to Google. God, what a great time to be liberal.

Glenn Beck and international law (and why I love Marc Randazza)

There exists a particularly funny web site that mocks the investigative style of Fox News personality Glenn Beck. The web site is http://glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com/. It satirizes the whole tactic of making some frivolous speculation and then saying that they were only asking questions - a technique regularly employed by Beck. It's positively abominable behavior for anybody considering themselves a journalist, but hey, it's Fox News.

Anyway, Beck has filed a grievance with WIPO (the World Internet Property Organization) that seeks to strip the URL from its owner, thus silencing the site. Pure gold. But there's an important question to ask here: why did Beck file his complaint with an international body rather than with the courts here in the good ol', god-blessed, US of A? The web site's attorney, Mike Randazza, puts forth a hypothesis in his response brief, along with batting down the allegation that the site was set up to confuse fans of Beck into thinking that Beck was tied to the site somehow:

There is no indication that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to confuse anyone searching for Mr. Beck's own website, nor that anyone was unintentionally confused - even initially. Only an abject imbecile could believe that the domain name would have any connection to the Complainant.

We are not here because the domain name could cause confusion. We do not have a declaration from the president of the international association of imbeciles that his members are blankly staring at the Respondent's website wondering "where did all the race baiting content go?" We are here because Mr. Beck wants Respondent's website shut down. He wants it shut down because Respondent's website makes a poignant and accurate satirical critique of Mr. Beck by parodying Beck's very rhetorical style. Beck's skin is too thin to take the criticism, so he wants the site down. Beck is represented by a learned and respected legal team. Accordingly, it is beyond doubt that his counsel advised him that under the First Amendment to the United States' Constitution, no action in a U.S. Court would be successful. Accordingly, Beck is attempting to use this transnational body to circumvent and subvert the Respondent's constitutional rights.

Sofa king, beautiful.

He also provides comparisons from Beck and from the web site in order to highlight the satire. First, from Beck:

No offense and I know Muslims, I like Muslims, I've been to mosques, I really don't think Islam is a religion of evil. I think it's being hijacked, quite frankly. With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying let's cut and run. And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview because what I feel like saying is, sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies. And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy. But that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.

Then, from the web site:

Why won't Glenn Beck deny these allegations? We're not accusing Glenn Beck of raping and murdering a young girl in 1990 -- in fact, we think he didn't! But we can't help but wonder, since he has failed to deny these horrible allegations. Why won't he deny that he raped and killed a young girl in 1990?

But don't worry - this gets better.

Yesterday Randazza emailed Ed Brayton, alerting him to another brief he had filed. It contains a quote from Beck that Beck must have just forgotten about:

Let me tell you something. When you can't win with the people, you bump it up to the courts. When you can't win with the courts, you bump it up to the international level.

And the irony begins to reach neck-level. Randazza also has another spectacular Beck quote, in which Beck is explaining why he called Harold Koh, the Dean of the Yale Law School, a "threat to American Democracy" for his position on transnational law. Beck said:

[Koh] wants to subordinate the American Constitution to foreign and international rules. We see that in his attack on First Amendment free speech principles, which he finds opprobrious.

Randazza provides one last Beck quote just for good measure:

Once we sign our rights over to international law, the Constitution is officially dead.

A lot of people would just be tempted to leave it there, but Mr. Ranazza is apparently no ordinary lawyer. He concludes his recent brief with the following request:

I hate to presume anything about anyone, but I presume that Mr. Beck will agree to this stipulation. It would be an interesting day indeed if Mr. Beck preferred to risk that a panelist would apply French law to a case between two Americans over a matter of public discourse...

I am certain that neither party wishes to see First Amendment rights subordinated to international trademark principles, thus unwittingly proving Mr. Beck's point. Lest this case become an example of international law causing damage to the constitutional rights that both of our clients hold dear, I respectfully request that your client agree to stipulate to the application of American constitutional law to this case.

I would like to become a lawyer, but I don't think I could ever be this good.

Glen Beck ties gang fight to atheism

Interesting video, and a good lead-in to our upcoming show in which religion will be discussed.

In the video, Beck is right about one thing: atheism is on the rise. In 1990, those in the United States identifying as non-religious was 7.5%. In 2001, it was 13.2%. Now it's 16.1%. These come from the Pew Forum on Religious and Public life.

However, he is wrong about quite a bit. Religion is not necessary for a healthy society. In fact, irrationality is required for a society to not reach its potential, and irrationality is the heartbeat of religion. Beck flies off the handle about the ten commandments not being posted in a courthouse, scoffing as though atheists are opposed to the notion that murder is a bad thing. It's just that to hang the commandments up would be a violation of the Constitution and downright idiotic. Here are the 10 commandments:

Count how many of them are represented in our laws. Two, maybe three if you count perjury as lying. Moreover, some of the behaviors prohibited by the commandments are necessary. It is not wrong to covet, for instance. You could hardly maintain a job if you didn't want a house or other niceties. Coveting pushes us to achieve. It is wrong to steal something of someone else's, but it is not wrong to wish you had it. Also, don't work on Saturday (the historical Sabbath)? Who gives a shit?

God, that's who. Because if you catch your best friend making a graven image, working on Saturday, or committing adultery, by edict of god in the old testament, you're supposed to kill them. And, if you are unwilling to kill them, your neighbors are supposed to kill you. When we read the bible, it is we who decide that such commands could only be, at best, the demands of a monster. We make the moral judgments when reading the bible, which is why our laws reflect an algorithm for societal happiness acquired through many millenia of human ingenuity. We are moral despite religion, not because of it.

Statistics would indicate that many of the violent people in Beck's video were believers in Jesus. Did it stay their hand? Yet how sure of himself is Glen Beck, and every other pious goon like him?

Mr. Nietzschebags

Capitalism is dead. Or, at least Michael Moore says so - and it has nothing to do with ginning up controversy for his new film (in theaters now!).

Moore's new film, Capitalism: A Love Story, is more or less the same movie he's been making for years, just with a broader focus. Instead of harping on the greed and misdeeds of a single giant corporation, like GM, or of a portion of our economy, like health care, Moore is taking a step back to bash the system that made our nation what it is.

In the film, and the subsequent media and interview blitz, Moore has been decrying the times. Goldman Sachs is "public enemy number one," capitalism is anti-Christian and anti-democratic, and apparently he's even "embarrassed" about all the success his films have brought him. And, really, he kind of should be, in light of his latest work. Moore is an overweight blowhard fortunate enough to live in one of the few countries in which one can become a professional grouse; a walking, talking testament to the virtues of the American economy. And I say that as a fan. Really.

I know that, as a liberal, I'm supposed to take Moore's film as the HD Gospel, but I'm actually a bit alone in my staunch defense of the self-interest-driven market system that our nation pioneered. Most of my friends have nothing positive to say about our economic system, and I can understand their frustrations, but I do think they're being rather short-sighted.

It's important to remember, for all the wannabe socialists out there, that when Adam Smith first formulated his radical economic theories, they were just that. The rest of the Western world was still wallowing in Mercantilism and Colonialism, laughing at the mongrel Americans and their idea of the average man running not only the government (horror of horrors!) but the government's economy, too. In the short history of the USA, our little experiment has accrued more wealth in less time than any other nation in modern history. (Suck it, Brits.)

"I don't think capitalism is on its death bed at all," Dr. David Mitchel, director of the Bureau of Economic Research here at MSU, told me. "People in 1470 B.C. lived with about the same conditions as people who lived in 1470 A.D. Then you had Adam Smith, and that era, and then look at where we've come just in the last 200 years."

Yeah, turns out economists are pretty keen on capitalism, and every one of them I spoke with disagreed with most of what Moore (who is decidedly not an economist) had to say. Like, the idea that capitalism is essentially un-Christian.

Dr. John Schmalzbauer, Associate Professor of Religious Studies, believes early Christians "didn't really live in a world with a modern market economy, so it's sort of hard to say what Jesus would say about Wall Street." In other words, just because the first Christians were essentially communists doesn't necessarily mean Jesus would have opposed capitalism.

Moore does have a bit of a point - capitalism as it was, the pure theory formulated in the afterglow of French intellectualism, has ceased to exist. But the same thing can be said for our Republic, the automobile, Jesus Christ - things change. Government has encroached on capitalism's traditional turn, yeah, and we haven't had a legitimately free market since the first National Bank was founded in the 1860's.

To say that the ongoing global recession is a sign of some sort that we need to abandon the principles of our forefathers is ludicrous - throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, we need more regulation in certain areas. Yes, we can experiment with socialist programs (like fire departments, schools, a military, police, or even universal health care). But that doesn't kill our capitalist system. It's our damned system to start with; we can do with it as we please. It doesn't make it dead. It makes it stronger.

Patriot Act abuse

The way the Patriot Act works for authorizing sneak-and-peeks, searches without judicial approval or warrant, is that it allows the FBI, CIA, and the Pentagon to produce their own National Security Letters (NSLs), which convey the authority to make those searches. Here are some figures about how the privilege has been abuse:

143,074: The number of requests for information from 2003 - 2005. Approximately half concerned U.S. persons.

0: The amount of information obtained by use of NSLs that the law currently requires to be destroyed – even after the information is determined to concern innocent Americans.

3,000: The number of different telephone numbers that the FBI requested information on, and telecommunications companies turned over, in false emergencies under so-called “exigent” circumstances, in the complete absence of any legal authority.

34,000: The number of law enforcement and intelligence agents who have unfettered, virtually limitless access to phone records collected through NSLs.

11,100: The number of different phone numbers whose subscriber information was turned over to the FBI in response to only nine NSLs.

43: The number of confirmed criminal referrals made to prosecutors from the FBI after it obtained information through a NSL. (19 involved fraud, 17 were immigration-related and 17 were for money laundering.)

1: The number of terror-related convictions the Inspector General was able to confirm (material support) stemming from the 143,074 persons’ info that was collected through NSLs.

Whoops.

Now, in 2009, the government has admitted that almost all of the NSLs used in 2008 were not used for anything terrorism-related.

Only three of the 763 "sneak-and-peek" requests in fiscal year 2008 involved terrorism cases, according to a July 2009 report from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Sixty-five percent were drug cases.

But here's the kicker, Attorney General David Kris defended this.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) quizzed Assistant Attorney General David Kris about the discrepancy at a hearing on the PATRIOT Act Wednesday. One might expect Kris to argue that there is a connection between drug trafficking and terrorism or that the administration is otherwise justified to use the authority by virtue of some other connection to terrorism.

He didn't even try. "This authority here on the sneak-and-peek side, on the criminal side, is not meant for intelligence. It's for criminal cases. So I guess it's not surprising to me that it applies in drug cases," Kris said.

"As I recall it was in something called the USA PATRIOT Act," Feingold quipped, "which was passed in a rush after an attack on 9/11 that had to do with terrorism it didn't have to do with regular, run-of-the-mill criminal cases. Let me tell you why I'm concerned about these numbers: That's not how this was sold to the American people. It was sold as stated on DoJ's website in 2005 as being necessary - quote - to conduct investigations without tipping off terrorists."

Kris responded by saying that some courts had already granted the Justice Department authority to conduct sneak-and-peeks. But Feingold countered that the PATRIOT Act codified and expanded that authority -- all under the guise of the war on terror.

Feingold, the lone vote against the PATRIOT Act when it was first passed, is introducing an amendment to curb its reach. "I'm going to say it's quite extraordinary to grant government agents the statutory authority to secretly break into Americans homes," he said.

Russ Feingold, troop-hater and communist sympathizer.

Salute to Ed Brayton over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

I must have one

Herobuilders has added a new doll to its line-up: Rep. Michelle Bachmann. She's one of my favorite loons in congress. Seriously, listen to the things she says about science. Pure gold. Apparently the first model of the doll had her holding a gun, but company CEO Emil Vicale didn't want to go over the top. I think I like this guy. :D

I wish I had the $39.95 to buy this doll. Hell, I may even give it away on the show. But no, neither heresy nor studentship pay what they should.

Other figures that Herobuilders have come out with include Sarah Palin, Joe Wilson (after his "You lie!" episode), George W. Bush, and Joe the Plumber (with handy crowbar).

How not to "dirty" the reputation of Islam

There is a growing movement in Iraq (emphasis mine)...

Sitting on the floor, wearing traditional Islamic clothes and holding an old notebook, Abu Hamizi, 22, spends at least six hours a day searching internet chatrooms linked to gay websites. He is not looking for new friends, but for victims.

"It is the easiest way to find those people who are destroying Islam and who want to dirty the reputation we took centuries to build up," he said. When he finds them, Hamizi arranges for them to be attacked and sometimes killed.

You heard that correctly. He, and presumably the movement he speaks for, is not worried that the reputation that Islam has built up over the last few centuries is one of a sociopathic culture of wackos who are willing to kill for the most trivial of reasons, but that some Muslims may elect to discretely date the same gender. Only through faith can we so mismanage our moral priorities.

So how bad is the problem?

Dr Toby Dodge, of London University's Queen Mary College, believes that the violence may be a consequence of the success of the government of Nouri al-Maliki. "Militia groups whose raison d'être was security in their communities are seeing that function now fulfilled by the police. So their focus has shifted to the moral and cultural sphere, reverting to classic Islamist tactics of policing moral boundaries," Dodge said.

Homosexuality was not criminalised under Saddam Hussein – indeed Iraq in the 1960s and 1970s was known for its relatively liberated gay scene. Violence against gays started in the aftermath of the invasion in 2003. Since 2004, according to Ali Hali, chairman of the Iraqi LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) group, a London-based human-rights group, a total of 680 have died in Iraq, with at least 70 of those in the past five months. The group believes the figures may be higher, as most cases involving married men are not reported. Seven victims were women. According to Hali, Iraq has become "the worst place for homosexuals on Earth".

We invaded Iraq and ousted Saddam Hussein who, though a monster, was iron-fisted enough to keep the three warring Islamic tribes in Iraq from each others' throats. We preened ourselves as we announced that the Iraqi citizens would forge a new, democratic government.

This is it, the government we sent people to die for. When you have a populace enthralled by seventh-century delusional certainty, you are not going to see a government representative of 21st century wisdom. We've seen the results of unquestioning religious faith in plenty of other Islamic nations as well, such as Mali and Yemen.

The killings are brutal, with victims ritually tortured. Azhar al-Saeed's son was one. "He didn't follow what Islamic doctrine tells but he was a good son," she said. "Three days after his kidnapping, I found a note on my door with blood spread over it and a message saying it was my son's purified blood and telling me where to find his body."

She went with police to find her son's remains. "We found his body with signs of torture, his anus filled with glue and without his genitals," she said. "I will carry this image with me until my dying day."

[...]

The roommate of Haydar, 26, was kidnapped and killed three months ago in Baghdad. After Haydar contacted the last person his friend had been chatting with on the net, he found a letter on his front door alerting him "about the dangers of behaving against Islamic rules".

Yes...it is the homosexuals besmirching the reputation of Islam, which currently includes that of daily suicide bombings, flying planes into buildings, and erupting into murderous riots over cartoons.

PZ Myers once said it best...

It is unassailable certainty in their positions that allowed good Christians to march people of another religion into ovens at bayonet point; that allowed good Christians to hang widowed old women for witchcraft; that led to wars and genocide over trivial matters of theology, like the degree of god-nature in Jesus’ existence; that allows racists and homophobes to declare a significant portion of our population to be second-class citizens; that encouraged priests to appease imaginary beings by burning babies; that led to monsters cutting the living hearts out of their neighbors so that the sun might rise. Let’s leave certainty to the oleaginous evangelists, the jingoistic war mongers, and the other con artists selling us bogus solutions to imaginary problems. A little uncertainty, a little willingness to accept that deeper knowledge might change our minds, is a good thing.

This is why we must criticize religion, and why we must do so as loudly as possible. It is why we must provide nothing but the most profound disrespect for unrespectable ideas. Because ideas govern our actions, and unreasonable ideas in the hands of people with nothing but the best of intentions, can produce unreasonable, often deadly behavior.

The problem is not that they have misconstrued faith - the problem is that they have allowed faith to replace reason, and the greater problem is that humanity, often including the skeptics, continues to abide this as though it were harmless.