Holiday wishes from Republicans that failed Logic

 
This cartoon, forwarded by one of my neocon in-laws (they are at least pro-choice, but our political agreements end there), is a great example of the one of the pernicious untruths upon which conservative philosophy rests.



This is just one of many examples of this logical fallacy memed-up into jokes and cartoons. It wasn't too long ago I was sent the joke about a girl who returns from school a Socialist, at least until her father suggests she donate one GPA point to her hard-partying friend; when she balks, he says "Welcome to the Republican Party."

Let me try to break this down for the simpletons.

If someone is lazy, they will be poor. Fair enough. But from that, it does not logically follow that if someone is poor, it is because they are lazy.

If someone works hard enough, they will succeed. Again, fair enough. But from that, it does not logically follow that if someone has succeeded, they work hard. (ahem, cough, *BUSH*, cough-cough)

Need a simple proof? If a shape is square, it is also a rectangle. Absolutely true. If a shape is a rectangle, it is also a square. Not so much.

This is important, because it is the base of McCain's "that one wants to spread your wealth around" attacks. The idea that a person's success or failure in a free market system is a direct indication of their desire and ability to work hard and nothing else, that every asshole standing on third hit a triple and every strikeout caught 'em lookin', is a foundational belief of Republicans. And it willfully ignores the realities of our economic system.

Our system has for years skewed wealth upwards - the poor aren't poorer now, the middle class hasn't shrunk, because everyone but the top 5% has gotten lazier. We still fund schools locally, which is a fucking travesty, because it follows that the poorer you are born, the poorer your education and future prospects tend to be. Hard-working people lose their homes because of unforeseeable catastrophic illness, ferchrissakes. Far more than lazy people end up poor, and far more than self-made mean and women end up rich.

It's an insidious myth because it serves so many purposes. It allows the Republican masses to look down upon those "others" who are not living the American Dream as lazy. It allows the wealthy many self-congratulatory pats of their own back. And it keeps the Republican hoi palloi in line, as they think of themselves as hard workers, and so destined to get their just rewards.

And that last part is such a lie.

Can hard work pull someone from poverty to wealth? Sure. But it reminds me of the 10-1 ratio in sports. Roughly 10% of high school athletes believe they will play Division I with a scholarship, when less than 1% actually do, and roughly 10% of college athletes think they will go pro, when less that 1% do.

The Right, because they are shamelessly shallow, has become quite good at perpetuating narrative strands like this. And they are effective in that they manage to demonize and piss off Democrats in one fell swoop.

FAIR's Top Ten (this one goes to eleven)

FAIR released a Media Advisory yesterday titled "Top Troubling Tropes of Campaign '08." Were they not such elite liberal media snobs, they could easily have opted for the more crass, less alliterative, equally accurate "Bullshit Narratives '08." It's an excellent rundown, in FAIR's typically thorough style, of the dominant and disingenuous strands of spin the corporate-owned media is weaving.

I have some favorites. Skip right past #1, John McCain as Maverick, and you arrive at Obama as Elitist. This has been one of the most puzzling to me. Apparently, because McCain, born into Naval royalty and currently living in seven houses purchased with the money Joe SixPack dumps into his wife's purse, is kind of an asshole, and Obama, who was raised by a single (mostly) mother and worked as a community organizer, is both eloquent and humble, McCain "gets us" and Obama is "out of touch."

Hey, America, just because McCain reminds you of your skirt-chasin', gamblin', angry buddies doesn't mean he gives a shit about or understands you. Did you learn nothing from wanting to have a beer with W?

I'm also quite fond of #5, Shifting to the Right is "Good Politics." I actually, unfairly, blame the Green Party for the continuing existence of this trope. Because they insist on trying to be relevant in the national elections, something they were given premature access to with Nadar's two reasonable showings in how many tries, they essentially chop off the most progressive end of the Democratic Party. Tactically, if Obama isn't going to get McKinney supporters votes, it could be justified to say the smart move is a slight Right shift, hoping to capture more at the Center to compensate for what is lost on the Left. Still bullshit, but reasonable or at least arguable given the tenor of the discourse.

(And, listen before I get a bunch of flak from angry Greenies, my personal political views align more closely with the Green Party than the Democrats. Yes, I believe we need multi-party national elections, absolutely. I just don't think the Greens are there yet. The last 16 years have polarized the political landscape, and there is too much at stake in any given national election - I don't have time for the preciousness of your ideals, not in this climate. Stop going on AirAmerica and taking shots at Obama - you'll be gladly welcomed back after the election and encouraged to push him hard for the Progressive agenda. For now, push for run-off voting, get more state and local officials elected, demand media access for your candidates. When the Green Party is strong enough to take a seat at the national table, instead of shrill squeaks resplendent with "should" that amount to a request, please, for perhaps a seat, then and only then will it be time.)

Ooh, and #9, False Balance, is one to keep an especial eye out for these last two weeks. As McCain/Palin continues to flail and blunder, mounting ever more desperate and dubious attacks, the corporate media will continue to try and level the field. They, remember, have the most to gain from a down-to-the-wire horse race.

And, besides, should the seventh seal be broken and McCain actually wins, they don't want to get thrown off the plane.

It's not redistribution, its re-redistribution

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Right-Wing Myths About ACORN & CRA

As the economy tanks and our country hemorrhages jobs, the Republicans have retreated to their tried and true tactics once known as the Southern Strategy.

The strategy? Blame the minorities and the poor for the country's problems.

The conservative crowd has decided to baselessly blame the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) for the country's mortgage crisis, despite all evidence to the contrary.

There are a lot of people a ton smarter than me to explain this (here, here, here, here, here) so I will just put out there a few basic facts that people should know and you'll need to have when you are trying to debate your crazy relative who keeps screaming that this whole mess is due to the CRA and liberals forcing banks to make risky loans.

First of all, the CRA does not force banks to make loans to people who can't pay them back. It made banks stop "redlining" minority neighborhoods and making it harder for people in those communities to get loans. The CRA has been chiefly responsible for creating whole new communities of home owners and responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households.

Second, it is estimated that only 20% or less of the sub-prime mortgages out there are ones covered under the CRA. Not only that, but most banks say that CRA loans have had a low default rate.

Third, related to the above, the vast majority of sub-prime mortgages have been made by brokers not covered by the CRA or any real regulation. Many of these predatory lenders knowingly made loans to people they knew wouldn't be able to keep up with the payments and the high rates. But it didn't matter to them because they were going to sell the loans to Wall Street as mortgage-backed securities. Brokers make their money and take on none of the risk.

I even read somewhere (I don't remember the source) that an ongoing review of the sub-prime mortgages has found that maybe up to half the people that were given these high rate loans were really eligible for normal rate loans that they nay have been able to pay. There was some major fraud going on by the greedy brokers who sold these loans.

Anyway, there is more and it makes the brain hurt to learn all of this stuff. Check out those links I put in there for more complete info about this mess and the conservative lies about it.

And then there is the recent turning of ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) into the new bogeyman of the election. Conservatives are accusing them of the serious crime of voter fraud.

ACORN is a pretty damn good organization overall and they have registered millions of minority and poor people to vote. The issue that has the right-wing all fired up is that there were a bunch of voter registration cards filled out by paid workers who filled in the names of fake people, people from the phone book and celebrities.

Is this a not-so-good-a-thing to see? Sure. Is it voter fraud? Not even close.

At best it would be voter registration fraud, which won't do one thing to effect the outcome of the election.

They are trying to make it sound as if ACORN is knowingly turning in fraudulent voter registration cards. This ignores two things:

One, ACORN pulled aside the fakes they caught and pointed them out to the various election commissions themselves.

And two, in most of the states ACORN was working in they can't discard the fake registration forms. They are required by law to turn them in.

This happens to all organizations that try to register voters by using paid workers. Not a big deal.

But the GOP will do their best to use this as an excuse to purge voter rolls in places where poor people and minorities will vote. Voter suppression is the name of this game.

There is also an attempt to pain Obama as some sort of ACORN stooge. Maybe that's what McCain was setting up when he referred to Obama's "cronies" in the last debate.

Just another blatant attempt to paint as evil anything Obama has ever touched and then exaggerate his connection to said person/organization.

Obama worked on their behalf when they were party to a lawsuit to force the state of Illinois to implement the Motor Voter registration, which was required by federal law. The League of Women Voters and the Justice Department were also plaintiffs in that suit.

Just another red herring for the Republicans.

And somehow in the minds of the kind of people that attend McCain-Palin rallies ACORN and CRA are the same exact thing and are to blame for our housing and financial crises.

I don't even want to get started on the preposterous claim that ACORN is so powerful they were able to force all those corporate banks into making bad loans.

As my Jewish friends like to say: Oy.

Take a point off the tally

One of the things I thought McCain likely scored a point with last night was his plan to buy mortgages and refinance them at their current value. It has a common sense ring to it, and one I imagine plays well to trouble Middle America. The fact that the homeowner won't be bailed out, but rather readjusted to a different expectation of repayment, appeals to their sense of fairness while also solving their individual problems.

But, as I sensed was possible last night before I had looked into it, it won't work. Or at least this is the opinion of Georgetown law professor Adam Levitin, as detailed in Salon's "How the World Works" column.

In fact, the basic premise of the "American Homeownership Resurgence Plan" belies a lack of understanding of the fundamental interconnectedness, or the Gordian Knot is perhaps more accurate, of financial markets. These mortgages aren't quaint notes on parchment stored down at the City Hall; they are complex financial products with complex ownership relationships.

But, I don't think that matters to McCain, because the plan is really a chit being played in a political game. His campaign knew it would sound good, and that would be enough for Joe SixPack. "Details are for elite sissies, or any other rube foolish enough to think I actually believe this plan will ever see the legislative light of day."

McCain's a flip-flopping, disingenuous hypocrite. He's rolling out a loose, detail-less "plan" that will hugely inflate government and demand giant piles of taxpayer money, shredding any notion of him as a conservative or even vaguely competent to help run this economy. Don't hesitate to disabuse anybody that spouts McCain's plan of the notion it is workable or sensible or coherent, and don't doubt this shows just how without ideals McCain is in pursuit of victory.

Salon: The fatal flaw in McCain's mortgage plan

This is what a counter-punch looks like

I have to say, for me, Palin's recent humping of the Ayers dog has been a low point of the campaign so far. Her attempt to paint Obama with terrorist taint because of his acquaintanceship with Ayers, despite that fact Obama denounced Ayers former activities, is sickening, and frankly an attempt to tie into racist leanings that want to connect Obama to every dark-skinned, funny-named monster lurking in Joe SixPack's collective psyche.

So, here's the counter-punch, and the Obama campaign ought to go ahead and use it. David Talbot talks in Salon today about the Palins and the Alaska Independence Party. Founded by a continually-armed man whose rhetoric was incendiary to say the least and who spoke at the UN under the auspices of Iran, the AIP held Todd Palin as a member and their tactics were given the old Sarah Palin wink-and-nod when she was governor.

It is time for the Obama campaign to step things up a bit. If they want to fight a personality campaign, let's expose just how wretched, self-centered and hypocritical their personalities are.

In Al Franken's book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, he tells the story of the time Paul Wolfowitz said to him "Fuck you!" at the White House Press Dinner. And Franken concludes the book, which exposed so much Right-wing dissembling and treachery and malice, saying, and I paraphrase, "The next time an asshole like Paul Wolfowitz says 'Fuck you!,' look him in the eye and say, 'No, fuck YOU.'"

It is time to counter-punch, it is time to say to these two ruthless, lying (sons-a-)bitches, "No, fuck YOU."

Why fact-checking Palin doesn't work

Let's say that you've been dieting, working out, trying to drop a few pounds. Perhaps 175lbs is your target weight. You step on the scale one morning and it reads 175lbs. Great! You step off the scale and go about your day.

But, what if the scale had read 177lbs? What does the average person do then? What would you likely do? Step off the scale, let it reset, and then step back on, weighing again. And, as you do get some variance from the everyday bathroom scale, it might very well now read 175lbs, in which case you go about your day happy, or it might read something else, in which case, step up again.

This is an aspect of attributional bias - a cognitive bias that affects the way we see causality and judge effects. We tend to stop questioning once we arrive at the answer for which we were looking.

And this is why fact-checking Palin won't, for a vast majority of her supporters, make any difference. Yes, even as egregious as her bumbling, dissembling public comments are.

Because the genius of the Palin pick for the McCain campaign wasn't her experience, because she has none, but how comfortably she fit into a narrative niche that the Right had ready and waiting. They were ready for a tough, maverick social conservative who also looks great in a skirt, lives up to her womanly duties and won't talk down to them.

There are those who can be swayed. My mother was in town recently, declaring herself a former McCain supporter but now undecided, and this shift was due mainly to discoveries about Palin's beliefs, particularly her stand against abortion in every situation, even incest, rape or the health of the mother (she supports abortion in the latter only in the case of imminent danger to the mother's life).

But the rest? Those still, today, supporting her despite the revelations since her nomination probably can't be moved. Their logic, their narrative is hard-wired. They will find a way around every Palin-trocity sent their way, they will keep stepping on that scale until they see the weight they want.

There was an example I used to use with my composition students, taken, as was my wont, from a book more pop-culture than lit. In Jurassic Park, the mathematician Ian Malcolm repeatedly stresses to the dino-keepers that, despite their best efforts, life will find a way to push forward. They respond that their computer monitoring system, which counts the dinosaurs every day, prevents this; they check on their dinosaurs every day. But, as Macolm points out, the system stops counting when it reached the expected number of dinosaurs. Malcolm asks them to take that restriction off, to allow the system to count beyond the expected number. And, lo and behold, many, many more dinosaurs than expected show up. They've got a big problem.

I used to tell my students after this story, "Keep asking questions, or your going to leave a bunch of dinosaurs running around." But, as satisfying as I find wrangling Palin's rampaging dinos, her supporters don't care. They are done asking questions. They've reached their precise number of dinosaurs and weigh 175lbs on the button.

Frankly, they wouldn't recognize a T-rex if it bit them on the ass.


Salon: The fungible candidate

And, just for fun:

ThinkProgress.org: The Sarah Palin Digest

Media Hate

I don't plan to make a habit of posting the same thing to both my blogs, but I thought this one was appropriate. I have a regular feature I started a couple of months ago on my main blog where every Monday I rant about the the things I'm hating at the moment. It can be anything from dog poop on the sidewalks to the mole on my neck and range from just one thing to a long list of a half-dozen or more. Sometimes I want it to be tongue-in-cheek, other times I'm really pissed. It has for obvious reasons been political at times, especially with the election season really going now.

Anyway, this is my Monday Hate post today. Which I titled Monday Newsman Hate.

-------------------------------------------

I've got just one thing I'm hating today, besides my mother. (Don't even get me started. I found out she believed and forwarded that awful email going around lying about what was in Michelle Obama's Princeton thesis, basically accusing Mrs. Obama of being a "black power" racist. It is one of the most disgusting things I've seen in all of the awful slander being thrown at that family. It looks like something written by the KKK)

But bitching about my mother will do none of us any good at this point, so I'll just stick with one item for today's hate list, which I'll also post over at my political co-blog.

Here's who I'm really annoyed with today:

Scott Pelley. The hiring of Pelley as a correspondent for 60 Minutes marked a low point for the news magazine, at least until they tragically let the fluffy Katie Couric sit at the adults' table.

Pelley's interview last night with John McCain was infuriating. He doesn't lob softball questions, he gently arcs badminton shuttlecocks at perfect spiking level.

As to be expected, McCain made sure to take every opportunity, no matter what the question was, to: a) Bring up his five years in a prison camp in Hanoi and: b) make false accusations about Barack Obama's record and his own record.

And what does Pelley do, especially when McCain tells lies about Barack Obama? He moves on to the next topic.

It's not like McCain said anything new that Pelley wasn't able to check on right away. McCain came out with all the same stupid talking points he's been saying for weeks now, stuff that Pelley could have easily had follow-up questions to challenge McCain on his claims.

McCain claims that Obama has never reached across the aisle to to work with the other party, despite there being a mountain of evidence to the contrary for both his time in the Illinois Senate and the U.S. Senate. Pelley says nothing.

McCain says Obama is the most liberal Senator based on "his voting record." It should have been pointed out that Obama was called that by a right-wing magazine attack machine, the same one that called Kerry the most liberal in 2004 (gee, what a coincidence), and that their survey has been easily discredited due to the fact that they just pick and choose which votes to count in the survey.

Hell, you wouldn't even have to go through all of that. Just mention that the U.S. Senate still includes both Bernie Sanders, a self-described Socialist, and Ted Kennedy to make the point that it is kind of a silly accusation.

But did Pelley do either?

Even in his own record McCain tells really big lies and Pelley can't bring himself to challenge the Senator. He asked McCain how his administration would be different from Bush's and two of the things he mentioned were torture and the 9/11 Commission recommendations.

Did Pelley then ask him why, if that were true, he has either voted "no" or not even voted every time the 9/11 Commission recommendations came before the Senate and that he also voted against the bill banning torture?

Do I have to answer that question for you?

Pot, Kettle & The Moron Masses

With all of the crazy, slimy, slanderous lies that the right-wing smear machine is saying about Obama, I've often thought to myself that this shit is just too unbelievable for anyone to buy.

Then I spoke to my mother today.

A card carrying member of the moron masses, my mother is exactly the kind of red state (Florida) dimwit that the right-lunatic fringe is counting on to sway the election with their lies and distortions.

And it appears to be working.

My mother called me today to ask about my wife's OB appointment yesterday (the downside of breeding, I have to talk to my mother a hell of a lot more often) and somehow the conversation turned to my brother and his new job or something.

My brother is a bible-thumping, born-again (like our mother), free market Republican with a big house and four kids in the upper limits of rural northern Illinois. He's a guy who completely believes that the bible is the "truth" (he actually said it that way to me one time), gets his news from FOX, thinks Ronald Reagan is the greatest person who ever lived and parrots silly GOP talking points about things like socialized medicine. He once told me that it was a "fact" that all the rich people in England come to the U.S. for their health care and that people are dying in the streets of countries with national health care.

In other words, he's a huge ass hole.

Anyway, I said something to my mother about wondering how much he'll like it when McCain starts taxing his health care insurance for his family of six (that's got to have a value of over $20,000).

My mother said, "And Obama's plan isn't any better. Let me tell ya, this election is just choosing between two bad candidates."

Oh brother.

I tried to tell her that there was a big difference between the lying, crazy, right-wing agenda of McCain-Palin and Obama.

My mother said, "that guy (Obama) talks out both sides of his mouth" and brought up Reverend Wright.

"Don't tell me he sat in that church for 20 years with that racist preacher and doesn't agree with him."

She claimed to have heard the tapes herself where he (Wright) made racist comments.

And this is where the bigots on the right have become successful in calling Wright, and by extension Obama, a bigot. My mother didn't hear racist comments. She heard some snippets of something that sounded provocative and then a commentator proclaimed them to be racist.

The conservatives, creators of the"southern strategy," have the stones to accuse Obama of being a racist.

And unfortunately, there are people out there like my mother, soft racists who "have lots of black friends" (meaning a guy they work with) and are looking for a reason to vote against Obama so they can tell themselves its not because they are racist.

So my my mother, who once referred to Martin Luther King as an ass hole, can claim she doesn't trust Barack Obama because he's a bigot.

I thought we were done with this not trusting Obama thing after my sister spent a good hour or so explaining to our mother that Obama was not a Muslim, which she was convinced was true.

Why does it always come to this? Why does the direction of this country always get decided by several idiots in a just a few places?

Big Jerk

I watched a good bit of the "national service" forum with McCain and Obama tonight. When McCain was asked about the negative swipes at community organizers at his convention from his campaign he decided to, instead of disavow such insulting remarks, he decided to blame Obama for it instead. From the AP story:

McCain said the negativity that has infused the presidential race - on hiatus for one day in honor of the Sept. 11 anniversary - could have been avoided had Obama accepted his proposal for them to tour the country together doing town-hall meetings, a format in which McCain shines best.

"I think the tone of this whole campaign would have been very different,'' the GOP nominee said.

So what he is basically saying is that if Obama had agreed to let McCain set the rules for the campaign, then McCain wouldn't be out there calling him a sexist and a pervert who wants to teach your kindergartner how to have sex, and generally lying about every other aspect of Obama's life and career.

What a miserable old man.

Wipe that lipstick off, mister!

Good for you, CBS and Katie Couric. McCain's "Pig in Lipstick" campaign ad - you know, the one that created a bullshitstorm of false indignation with the specious claim that Obama was calling Palin a pig when he used a common colloqialism - has been pulled from YouTube because of a copyright claim from CBS.

The Couric clip was an especially difficult-to-swallow part of that ad, as it implied in juxtaposition that Couric was criticizing Obama for his treatment of Palin, when the clip is from months ago during the Democratic primary.

And while the countdown clock to the first issues-oriented, substantive McCain ad continues to roll, the calling of bullshit must continue. At some point, I want to see McCain publicly called out, asked a direct question, about his campaign's advertising strategy.

MediaBistro - TV Newser: McCain Ad Featuring Katie Couric Removed From YouTube

GET (the fuck) OUT (of) THE VOTE!

Once again, already, we've got word of Republican efforts to suppress the vote. This from The Michigan Messenger (Michigan Messenger is an independently-produced political news daily featuring original and investigative reporting, which is part of the Center for Independent Media.):

"The chairman of the Republican Party in Macomb County Michigan, a key swing county in a key swing state, is planning to use a list of foreclosed homes to block people from voting in the upcoming election as part of the state GOP’s effort to challenge some voters on Election Day."

Now, while I fully believe it is the job of Obama to start saying what the Democratic vision, what his vision, is, as opposed to what it is not, while I believe he has to focus on building his campaign's identity (because the quote below scares me with its 2004 Election resonance) over attacking the Republicans, it is absolutely our job, and his campaign underlings' job, to name the Republicans as they are, as they prove themselves to be through their actions, as opposed to what they claim to be.

It is anti-democracy to actively seek to disenfranchise anybody. Period. Our country was founded on principles of representation, African-Americans and women fought, literally, for their voting rights in struggles that shaped our history.

This is nothing new. The Republicans used this tactic in the last election, and they've already tried it elsewhere in this election. And it is, frankly, fucking bullshit. It isn't "Country First," it is Party Interests First. It is un-American. And no matter how many flag lapel pins you wear, no matter how many flags you paste on your SUV, it makes you a fucking traitor to the ideals of America.

You could see it in the Omega House frat party atmosphere of the RNC that the Republicans play politics like a nasty game, and rationalize tactics like this one, sure to most negatively impact sub-prime mortgage holders (read: the poor, or barely-middle class, and disproportionately of color), as gamesmanship, as excusable despite its nastiness as stealing a rival high school's mascot. Call bullshit, call it what it is: treason.

The Michigan Messenger: Lose your house, lose your vote

-----

Scary Quote of the Day (so far):

I don't always agree with Thomas Friedman, but I respect his mind, and thus this observation, as I mention above, scare the shit out of me:

"Because, while the pollsters tell us it is still really close, my own totally unscientific, seat of the pants poll tells me this: When you say Obama’s name today and ask people for their first impression — a quick, flash, gut, first impression — no single word or phrase or policy comes to mind. His opponents will fill that vacuum if he doesn’t. They already are."

New York Times Op-Ed: From the Gut

Here We Go Again...

There is a little piece of news that is still not getting the coverage it deserves. There is an attempt to suppress voting among college students going on in in Virginia.

The county registrar in the part of the state where Virginia Tech is located sent out a couple of releases with completely false information in an attempt to scare college students from registering in the county, or to cancel a recent registration. This is after a voter registration drive by the Obama campaign signed up thousands of VT students.

This is such a blatant attempt to suppress the vote of a demographic that is polling heavily in Barack Obama's favor in a state that he is going to be very competitive in.

Among the outright lies the county registrar put in this release:

If students register under their college address their parents could lose the right to claim them as dependents on their taxes.

They might be kicked off their parents health or car insurance.

They could lose scholarships.

Just as in 2000 and 2004, the GOP will lie, cheat and steal to win this election.

What's really sad is that this should be front page news in every newspaper in America, as any effort to disenfranchise voters should be, but in the supposedly "liberal" New York Times it was only on page A14.

The press should be ashamed of themselves for not making this bigger news.

Holier Than Thou Hockey Moms

Good god, could there be any more white people at the Republican National Convention? This is the "big tent" party?

For those of you moderate Republicans out there who thought that having McCain as the nominee would sweep away the religious right with their "culture war" crap to focus on real issues instead of silly ones, boy were you wrong! The culture wars are front and center once again.

The VP nominee hates gay people, women who have abortions, family leave laws, equal pay for her own gender, gun control and comprehensive sex education. And they sure do like to walk the moral high ground. I'm supposed to live by their code of right and wrong, despite the fact that I don't belong to their silly little thing called Christianity.

I'd be more willing to listen to their nonsense if they actually believed what they preach. But they don't. Let's take just one Commandment, shall we? Here are some things we heard last night in speeches at the convention

Sarah Palin: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."

The truth is basically the opposite of that. She supported the bridge and said many times it should be built by the feds and not by the state. When it became a big national issue, that's when she backed off. Palin also lobbied hard to Congress for earmarks for her town when she was mayor and as governor. Three of the projects that she asked for are even on McCain's list of "objectionable" pork spending.

She also claimed that Barack Obama never authored a single piece of legislation in the U.S. Senate or even the Illinois Senate. Nothing could be further from the truth.

My favorite, though, has to be Mike Huckabee, he of the "amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards" proposition. Here's a couple of things Mikey said last night:

Huckabee (speaking about McCain): "He could have eased his own pain and even cut short his imprisonment by uttering a few simple words renouncing his country. But he loved his country and knew that to return with honor later was better than to return without it now."

Except that McCain, like most other soldiers tortured during Vietnam, did denounce his country after lengthy and brutal torture. He's human, there's nothing wrong with breaking.

And my favorite Huckabee line: He claimed that Palin "got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States."

That's a great one Mike. Would be a great line if it were even close to being true. Biden dropped out after the Iowa Caucus and still got over 76,000 votes in the primaries in states where he couldn't take his name off the ballot. That's more than ten times the number of people in Wasilla, Alaska. For the record, the number of votes she received in her two winning elections for mayor was 1,525. Combined.

So to all of those telling us that this is a Christian nation and that we need to change our laws or Constitution to fit that of the bible, what exactly is it that the bible says about lying? I forget.

And this doesn't at all even touch on the fact that the Republicans are out there cheering on Rudy Giuliani, a guy thrice married and shacked up with his current wife while still married to the previous one. They are nominating a guy for the highest office in the land who had a much younger mistress (the now-Cindy McCain) while still married to the mother of his oldest child.

Again, my memory is failing me, what does the bible say about adultery?

But hey, as long as we keep those gays from getting married we are protecting "traditional" marriage.

Sources:

Chicago Tribune

L.A. Times

Time blog