More Whacky Tea Party Pictures : Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Profile

Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)

Search

Other Information

Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb

Ed Brayton is a participant in the Center for Independent Media New Journalism Program. However, all of the statements, opinions, policies, and views expressed on this site are solely Ed Brayton's. This web site is not a production of the Center, and the Center does not support or endorse any of the contents on this site.

Ed's Audio and Video

Declaring Independence podcast feed

YearlyKos 2007

Video of speech on Dover and the Future of the Anti-Evolution Movement

Audio of Greg Raymer Interview

E-mail Policy

Any and all emails that I receive may be reprinted, in part or in full, on this blog with attribution. If this is not acceptable to you, do not send me e-mail - especially if you're going to end up being embarrassed when it's printed publicly for all to see.

My Ecosystem Details

« Afghan Detainees Can Challenge Detention | Main | Bank Bailout Blues »

More Whacky Tea Party Pictures

Posted on: September 15, 2009 9:16 AM, by Ed Brayton

Matthew Delong, one of my colleagues at the Washington Independent, was at the 9/12 tea party in Washington DC and he's got some great pictures of some of the whackier signs he saw there. Here's my favorite, a 9/11 truther who thinks Dick Armey is too liberal:

For many more whacky signs, go here and here.

Find more posts in: Politics

Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

Comments

The worst part is the kids. The pregnant woman who wants government sponsored boob jobs really takes the cake. The future looks bleak for that baby soon to enter the world of stupid.

Posted by: MikeMa | September 15, 2009 9:22 AM

I find it interesting that he's wearing a troofer T-shirt. I have had discussions locally about how much overlap there is between troofers, which overall tend to be on the left, and birfers, which tend to be on the right. It takes a real glutton for conspiracy to accept both.

Posted by: Herod the Freemason | September 15, 2009 9:34 AM

Wow, I really don't understand that woman with the pink hair. Any government plan won't cover abortions (although they certainly should be covered), but even if they were covered, how is that analogous to a boob job or nose job?

Posted by: catgirl | September 15, 2009 9:37 AM

Herod,
So much distrust and gullibility in one package. I would have thought walking would be difficult for these loons.

Posted by: MikeMa | September 15, 2009 9:38 AM

The impression that I've gotten is that most 9-11 troofers are not liberals, but libertarians and Ron Paul supporters. (I could be wrong though)

Posted by: TK | September 15, 2009 9:46 AM

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=912+Tea+Party&s=int

One of the signs say "What an Ego". Well yeah, you would expect a giant ego from someone who ran for the top political office in the land. Lol.

Posted by: 386sx | September 15, 2009 10:01 AM

386sx - I get a laugh out of that, too. Who wants a wallflower president? I don't even think that Jakob Dylan would want that.

Posted by: MIke Haubrich, FCD | September 15, 2009 10:06 AM

TK, #5: The impression that I've gotten is that most 9-11 troofers are not liberals, but libertarians and Ron Paul supporters. (I could be wrong though)

That's what I thought, too. But I also can be wrong. The problem is that the left wing press tend to ignore or ridicule their wackynuts while the right wing media seem to be embracing theirs, so it's hard to compare the level of insanity that exists in the two wings.

But in my personal anecdotal experience, all the truthers I have come in contact with were Ron Paul libertarians. Maybe other people have other experiences or have kept up with the more fringe elements of the left wing media.

Posted by: Chiroptera | September 15, 2009 10:26 AM

I can't recall who posted this flickr link, but it meshes with the one at 6:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/42406957@N04/

Who knows? Maybe tom van dyke will come by here and "troll" around a little bit today, saying that these photos "cherry-pick", that the 12ers aren't racists, and that we should make up our minds on the issues before he will consider our arguments (and never actually reading and responding to anyone's responses or statements in the context in which they were written). Or he might have some strange bit of nutty logic based on the presence of a 'truther' out there last Saturday.

...needless to say, I await his entry with baited breath. (Apologies to everyone smelling my breath - I do need a mint.)

Posted by: mercurianferret | September 15, 2009 10:26 AM

catgirl, I do not think that is a woman. I think it is a man dressed as a pregnant woman and I am probably giving him too much credit, but I think that he was trying to make some kind of point about how decisions would be made as to what procedures would be covered and what would not, although I am not clear as to what that point is.

Posted by: Losnek | September 15, 2009 10:33 AM

What's so wacky about that sign? Dick Armey does indeed seem to be sympathetic to amnesty:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaqd1qY1KsM

Maybe the guy holding the sign is wacky, but the sign doesn't appear to be.

Posted by: mroberts | September 15, 2009 10:37 AM

"Progressivism always promises Utopia, but always leads to tears & tyranny" (from the first link)

...and that's why we should keep the status quo on healthcare. I don't know what train of logic that follows, but I'm pretty sure that it left the tracks early on. "Always"? So, say, emancipation, and women's suffrage weren't "progressive"? Is "progressive" the new codeword for "things I don't like"? (And on that poster are a bunch of progressives? Really? Do words mean anything anymore?) ... There's blood coming out of my ears. That happens a lot lately.

Posted by: Modusoperandi | September 15, 2009 10:47 AM

Actually the firt place I ran into 'truthers' was on the Pakistani forum I spent several months on before geting into the blogosphere. (I was the only non-desi American on it, and started there to discuss Pakistani Pop music -- worth knowing, btw -- but wound up discussing alomst everything.) The truthers there were generally young and 'talked down' by the older members. It was, for them, a way of denying that ;one of us' could do such a horrible thing.

But paranoia (and paranoids) can migrate all over the spectrum. We forget that during the last campaign Republicans -- even Palin -- ignored the birther nonsense, which was being pushed by Larry Johnson and the PUMAs -- who started as last-ditch Hillary supporters and eventuslly turned into pure Obama-hater. (Some of you may remember the interview Chris Mattews had at the Democratic convention which ended up with Matthews shaking his head and calling them 'nuts.')

Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | September 15, 2009 11:03 AM

Mrroberts - How are you? Long time no hear. How is the 'Leftorium' going? Well, I hope (in spite of tough times).
This Dick Armey character seems to love the idea of liberty. And he thinks that setting up a private company to handle immigration processing in Mexico is a solution that will allow law abiding, good, honest, hard-working Mexicans to become Americans (and who wouldn't want that kind of citizen?)
Seems like a pretty typical American solution to me. Would it work? Why or why not? These seem like real questions that can be debated, not just fodder for 'bumper sticker' criticisms. - DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | September 15, 2009 11:14 AM

catgirl:
"...how is that analogous to a boob job or nose job?"

I'm not getting into the whole abortion debate (as an atheist libertarian I'm comfortable arguing both sides) but, with the exception of danger to the mother, an abortion is by definition, a voluntary procedure. The vast (vast) majority of people recover from pregnancies just fine, therefore it's not a 'disease' that requires a 'cure.'

You may be perfectly entitled to one, but I understand someone else's desire not to have to pay for it.

Posted by: Sean L. | September 15, 2009 11:17 AM

Increasingly I'm coming to value the internet for bringing these folks into the light. They always used to be there doing this kind of thing but under the harsh light of publicity people can now see how far out some folks are.

The problem is that some of your media are pointing to them as equally valid contributes rather than whackjobs.

I'm sure the Dispatches readership is well traveled. Can anyone name any other country's media who would give these folks the time of day with any level of seriousness? (certainly not here in the UK)

Posted by: David Durant | September 15, 2009 11:19 AM

Herod: I think the difficulty comes from confusing who was in office then with the point of view of right-wing conspiracy nuts. As far as they're concerned, the government is always in the hands of the East-Coast, multi-ethnic, over-educated, Jewish elite. I'd bet money there are people out there that think Clinton and Gore planned the whole thing; its no more of a stretch than to believe that Reno locked the Branch Davidians in their own compound and burned them alive as part of a Liberal plot to kill religious people, which plenty on the right still believe.

Posted by: Julian | September 15, 2009 11:56 AM

sean, #15: ...an abortion is by definition, a voluntary procedure.

So is cosmetic surgery to fix a disfigurement caused by an accident. Which I think is a closer analogy (if still not perfect) than a simple "boob job". Purely voluntary, but I think most would agree that it would be very churlish to deny this kind of a "voluntary" procedure.

Posted by: Chiroptera | September 15, 2009 12:05 PM

The impression that I've gotten is that most 9-11 troofers are not liberals, but libertarians and Ron Paul supporters. (I could be wrong though)

That's always been my experience too. I have no doubt that there are some liberal truthers, but it seems pretty clear to me that the main political undercurrent of the large majority of truthers dovetails pretty well with typical right-wing anti-government paranoia -- i.e. the government wants to seize control of their guns, their money, and their liberty. They are pro-gun and anti-tax, and the only difference between them and the other teabaggers is that they claim that there is not difference between the Democrats and Republicans.

So yeah, conservatives and Ron Paul libertarians with an extra twist of paranoid and delusion sums it up pretty well.

Posted by: tacitus | September 15, 2009 12:13 PM

Off-topic...

Ed, what happened to the issue of Declaring Independence you said was ready to roll...?

Posted by: David Durant | September 15, 2009 12:17 PM

Incidentally, the Australian Navy does pay for breast augmentation surgery for female servicemembers. I’m not sure why, but I suspect DingoJack is somehow behind it.

Posted by: Abby Normal | September 15, 2009 12:17 PM

modusoperandi, #12:

What is more interesting is that I haven't heard progressives advocate any kind of utopia for a long while. Most of the progressives I've read and heard are more interested in fixing a number of specific problems. To be fair, though, some of the proposed fixes involve deep systematic changes to solve deep systematic problems, and this might be mistaken for "utopian thinking."

On the other hand, it seems that it is the conservatives, especially the religious right, who seem to be advocating some sort of conservative "Father Knows Best" utopia. But then, maybe I am the one who is confusing proposals for systemic changes for utopian thinking.

Posted by: Chiroptera | September 15, 2009 12:18 PM

Also, Talking Points Memo has a good slideshow and a depressing/alarming video by Max Blumenthal of the teabaggers on the mall.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | September 15, 2009 12:31 PM

@Pierce R. Butler - Yikes, I thought number 30 was the worst of the lot, but then I clicked "next". Words simply fail.

Posted by: Imrryr | September 15, 2009 12:40 PM

The Confederacy lost the war but never admitted defeat. These are the descendants of the losers.

Posted by: Nattering Nabob of Negativism | September 15, 2009 12:44 PM

Abby normal - more than a mouthful is waste*. :) - DJ
___________________________
*maybe It's got to do with 'floatation devices' or Mae ("Is that a pistol in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me.") West, who knows? The ways of the Naval persuasion are mysterious and obscure.

Posted by: DingoJack | September 15, 2009 12:56 PM

Picture 17 in Pierce's first link shows threats of violence and use of firearms to suppress democracy. I'll have to book mark that to show off to the various reactionaries who insist people bringing guns to political debates is about the second amendment and menacing people who want health care.

Posted by: JohnV | September 15, 2009 12:58 PM

Incidentally, the Australian Navy does pay for breast augmentation surgery for female servicemembers. I’m not sure why, but I suspect DingoJack is somehow behind it.
Posted by: Abby Normal

What about reduction mammoplasty? That's an operation that's covered by a lot of private health plans. It's a rare thing for a woman to want a reduction for the sake of appearance- it's more likely to be because she's fed up with being unable to take a shower without severe pain.

About the guy in the photo- what look like white lines under the main design on the T-shirt are actually text reading "www.infowars.com" and "www.prisonplanet.com". You can't see it because the resolution of the photo is too low, but I'm familiar with the design.

Simply put, that mook is an Alex Jones fanboi, and nobody who possesses more than one functioning brain cell will ever describe Jones or his crowd as anywhere left of center- in fact, "wingnut" is the most apt description.

I've had bountiful opportunity to observe the antics of twoofers, and as far as I can tell they exhibit all of the behaviors identified in Altemeyer's work as characteristic of the right-wing authoritarian-follower personality. I would go further and say that the majority of the Paultards I've encountered, for all their claims to be libertarian, were also authoritarian followers.

The conspiracist worldview, with its backward start-with-the-conclusion mode of reasoning, contempt for learning and expertise and its love of scapegoating and demonization of an Evil Other, exerts a peculiar attraction for people who already have a predisposition to authoritarian intolerance.

I know of no remedy for this. Refuting conspiracist memes with facts usually just makes a committed conspiracist feel more threatened by difference so that he simply clings more tightly to the lies he's been fed.

Posted by: Ktesibios | September 15, 2009 1:00 PM

Once again, The Onion gets there first: http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/onion_news2003.jpg

Posted by: Big Nasty | September 15, 2009 1:05 PM

MikeMa:

The pregnant woman who wants government sponsored boob jobs really takes the cake. The future looks bleak for that baby soon to enter the world of stupid.

Uh... don't worry, Mike: that "pregnant woman" has a five o'clock shadow. I think "she's" going to give birth to a pillow.

Posted by: Rieux | September 15, 2009 1:11 PM

Abby, the Australian navy simply wants to ensure that its female member don't drown.

As to Utopian thinking - isn't that exactly what the Religious Reich promises their messiah will bring? Are they afraid of competition?

Posted by: Rob Jase | September 15, 2009 1:18 PM

Implants are made from either saline, which is buoyancy neutral, or silicone, which actually has negative buoyancy. Until Nike starts making a pump versions, implants won't help you float.

Joking aside, the official word from the Australian Navy is that it considers health in a holistic way, both physical and psychological. They don't just do it because someone wants it. They will do it (and have) if a medical evaluation indicates it would contribute to their psychological wellbeing.

Posted by: Abby Normal | September 15, 2009 1:36 PM

What others have said regarding the "pregnant woman." That's clearly a dude.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | September 15, 2009 1:49 PM

Rieux, Sadie, others,
I saw the idea that the preggers she-loon was a he-loon in several posts. I REALLY didn't want to look that closely the first time and I sure wasn't going back for a second look. He/she was pretty homely. Might also indicate that pregnant women might be slightly smarter or otherwise occupied.

Posted by: MikeMa | September 15, 2009 2:07 PM

Chiroptera "What is more interesting is that I haven't heard progressives advocate any kind of utopia for a long while."
The closest I've ever come to a modern utopian was the hippy chick in high school. Hot, but terribly naïve, if memory serves. The Utopian mistake is assuming that everybody else is just like you. (on a side note, the laissez faire mistake seems to be the assumption that nobody is a greedy douche)
"Most of the progressives I've read and heard are more interested in fixing a number of specific problems. To be fair, though, some of the proposed fixes involve deep systematic changes to solve deep systematic problems, and this might be mistaken for 'utopian thinking.'"
So, trying to make things better is "utopian"? They really should be protesting those utopian Founding Fathers, then! The Declaration of Independence is Socialism! The Constitution is Slavery!
"On the other hand, it seems that it is the conservatives, especially the religious right, who seem to be advocating some sort of conservative 'Father Knows Best' utopia."
But that's Jesus, so it's totally different. Jesus is so competent that all True Christians agree on exactly what to do (see my earlier comment about the Utopian mistake).

Posted by: Modusoperandi | September 15, 2009 2:33 PM

I like at least half of 'em, Mr. Ferret, and they were the cherry-picked ones.

especially

http://washingtonindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Abortion-367x275.jpg

which is completely true that the president is not telling the truth about abortion in the plan.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-is-fabricating/

Posted by: tom van dyke | September 15, 2009 4:22 PM

Modusoperandi, #35: The Utopian mistake is assuming that everybody else is just like you.

That's actually the best one-line description that I've heard. Thanks.

Posted by: Chiroptera | September 15, 2009 5:04 PM

Two weird teabagger notes.

We had em in Ann Arbor on Saturday before the football game.
All two of them. It wasn't even worth yelling at them.

I was at mom's watching tv news. She's fairly conservative but is drifting left as she gets older and the mainstream tacks hard right. She was outraged at the signs, etc(and she's not an O fan)and was saying that they ought to be arrested for them, especially the threats of violence, the nazi signs (she grew up in Germany during the war and knows what the real nazis are like). I was listening to her, thinking, "damn, you're starting to sound like me."

Posted by: teammarty | September 15, 2009 7:16 PM

Uh... don't worry, Mike: that "pregnant woman" has a five o'clock shadow. I think "she's" going to give birth to a pillow.

So your hypothesis is that there will be an increase in intelligence with the next generation?

Posted by: Azkyroth | September 15, 2009 9:27 PM

WAIT A MINUTE!!! Does Glen Beck know about this guy and his belief that 9/11 was an inside job?!?

Posted by: Tony | September 15, 2009 9:33 PM

Tony, #40:

Knowing the wingnuts' deficiencies in history, I fully expect to eventually hear them claim that 9/11 occurred during Obama's Presidency.

Posted by: Chiroptera | September 15, 2009 9:43 PM

the laissez faire mistake seems to be the assumption that nobody is a greedy douche

Actually, modusoperandi, you should read Adam Smith. In rather more delicate 18th century English he said something that translates into modern English as, "all businessmen are all greedy douches."

Posted by: James Hanley | September 15, 2009 10:33 PM

...and that's why we should keep the status quo on healthcare.

Who's saying that? Right now, pretty much the only people who want to keep the status quo are the ones who get "free" health care.

Posted by: Juice | September 15, 2009 11:08 PM

The total laissez-faire people actually do realize that most people are selfish and greedy. I think their major mistake is thinking that "free" people with lots of resources and power won't immediately use it as a force on people with no resources or power.

The progressives (which can mean just about anything really) tend to go wrong by thinking that since central planning and force can sometimes change things for the better for a lot of people, or keep things fairly neutral, that it doesn't also have the capacity to totally wreck everything. Of course, they tend to assume that the right enlightened people will be running things. Oh, and they also tend to forget that people in power are usually greedy douchebags who game the system to their advantage.

Posted by: Juice | September 15, 2009 11:25 PM

@tom: Hahahahaha. You really are a cad.

Posted by: mercurianferret | September 15, 2009 11:33 PM

Juice, #44: The progressives (which can mean just about anything really) tend to go wrong by thinking that since central planning and force can sometimes change things for the better for a lot of people, or keep things fairly neutral, that it doesn't also have the capacity to totally wreck everything.

What country do you live in, Juice? Progressives here in the U.S. don't tend to think about central planning much at all.

Posted by: Chiroptera | September 15, 2009 11:53 PM

Sean L #15:
Pregnancy is also (in most cases) a voluntary situation and not a disease. Would you suggest that both live deliveries and abortions not be covered? Or maybe put a limit on the number of births an insurer covers -- since many people may not want to have to pay for what they might regard as contribution to over population?

Posted by: Gerry L | September 16, 2009 1:44 AM

Nice doing business with you in the marketplace of ideas, Mr. Ferret.

Our remarks stand.

Posted by: tom van dyke | September 16, 2009 3:09 AM

Chiroptera,

Remember Robert Reich arguing for industrial policy in the Clinton administration? That was an argument for central planning, albeit for only a part of the economy. I woud argue that those arguing for a national health care plan are also arguing for central planning.

However I wouldn't take my argumen too far. American progressives are basically capitalists at heart who only want to plan certain parts of the economy, rather than communists who want to plan it all. So I'm only partially in disagreement with you.

Posted by: James Hanley | September 16, 2009 6:51 AM

James Hanley, #49:

I'll accept that we partially disagree, although I think our disagreement will lie in what technically constitutes "central planning".

In a discussion in the comments section of an internet blog post about tea parties, when the term "central planning" is used, most people are going to be thinking about a highly centralized bureaucracy that will micromanage each and every decision of each and every doctor and health care employee. Maybe Juice meant the term in a broader technical sense, and can justify it being a bad thing in the case of health care reform, so I'm giving him or her the opportunity to clarify.

P.S. I don't remember the details of Reich's arguments for industrial policy, so I will concede that point.

Posted by: Chiroptera | September 16, 2009 9:46 AM

Media Double Standard: Only the Right's Signs Are Worth Covering
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2009/09/16/media-double-standard-only-rights-signs-are-worth-covering

Posted by: StewartIII | September 16, 2009 9:03 PM

Chiroptera,

And I willingly concede the point that in the comments of a blog, "planning" is most likely to mean overall central economic planning on the Soviet scale. I was just nibbling around the edges, so to speak, but my guess on that particular issue is the same as yours.

Posted by: James Hanley | September 16, 2009 10:08 PM

StewartIII, #51: Media Double Standard: Only the Right's Signs Are Worth Covering

Well, I don't pay much attention to the mainstream media (msm), so I can't comment on any double standard there. However, let me tell you something about the truly left wing media. The left wing media did present the wackaloon signs at left wing protests, and then proceeded to explain why those people were wackaloons. There were very few people on the left, for example, who had patience with the wackaloons who glibly compared Israel to the Nazis. Some did, but most did not. At any rate, the wackaloon signs were usually a minority at most rallies and protests.

On the other hand, the current tea parties seem to be all wackaloon all the time. And look at the reaction of the right wing media. As far as I can see (I don't spend a lot of time examining the right wing media, so I might be wrong), the right wing wackaloonery is embraced by most of the big name right wing media celebrities. Furthermore, the few conservatives who do speak against it seem worried that the wackaloonery poses a threat to a viable conservative movement itself, indicating, I think, how pervasive it is.

An important difference, I should think. That might explain any difference in coverage by the media.

Posted by: Chiroptera | September 16, 2009 10:19 PM

James Hanley, #52:

I don't mind you nibbling at the edges. I do have a bad habit of speaking too fast or making overly broad generalizations, so any attempt to keep me "honest" is welcome.

I also appreciate your views. I disagree with much of what you say, but I always feel that it's important to pay attention when you speak. Your comments are usually well-thought out and usually contain important factual information.

Posted by: Chiroptera | September 16, 2009 10:24 PM

They will do it (and have) if a medical evaluation indicates it would contribute to their psychological wellbeing.

Like, for instance, after breast cancer patients have mastectomies. Which are totally super funny and make for thought provoking, enlightening protest signs.

I know if I was going to a rally, the first thing I'd do is drink a case of Blatz, put on a pink wig, pretend I was pregnant, and make a sign mocking people who have had breast cancer.

After that, I'd go home and and make the teenage girl trapped in the well in my basement put on lotion while I pranced about the house in nothing but my pretty pink wig, touching myself and singing along to Hall and Oates.

Posted by: Leni | September 17, 2009 12:15 AM

Leni - Personally I'd have someone for dinner, and afterward, enjoy a nice white 'Chianti'.
*Hmmm ... Fava Beans* :D - DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | September 17, 2009 12:41 AM

That's not a pregnant woman. Or a woman at all.

Posted by: Ian | September 17, 2009 1:29 AM

Chiroptera, I appreciate the "usually." ;)

Posted by: James Hanley | September 17, 2009 8:39 AM

James Hanley:

I wouldn't want to make too broad a generalization and have to be corrected. :D

Posted by: C\ | September 17, 2009 4:52 PM

James Hanley "Actually, modusoperandi, you should read Adam Smith. In rather more delicate 18th century English he said something that translates into modern English as, 'all businessmen are all greedy douches.'"
Is it in comic book form? I only read things in comic book form.

Posted by: Modusoperandi | September 17, 2009 7:03 PM

with the exception of danger to the mother, an abortion is by definition, a voluntary procedure.

Having a child is also voluntary. Does that mean the any government-sponsored health care should not pay for delivery? After all, it's your right to choose to have a baby, but you shouldn't expect me to pay for it.

Posted by: catgirl | September 18, 2009 11:14 AM