Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
From our old friend Chuck Norris:
By now, you most likely know that Texas has become ground zero for the latest battles in the textbook wars. While conservatives and progressives take their stands on the issue, I wondered, what would America's founders think about this feud?
Two things. First, a rational person would wonder what individual founders might have thought, not what "the" founders would have thought. Does Norris really believe that they all believed and thought the same things? If so, he only reveals his complete ignorance of history. There are lots of men who are considered founding fathers of this country who opposed the ratification of the constitution, including one who is no doubt one of Norris' favorites, Patrick Henry.
Second, perhaps that question should be asked of Thomas Jefferson, whose name was removed from a key world history standard concerning 18th century political revolutions. Confused as to why they would remove a man who played a key role in both the American and French revolutions from a history standard that specifically dealt with those revolutions? You should be.
I think it's actually quite easy to understand why they did it. Just look at who replaced Jefferson in that standard - Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin. Both are, of course, major figures in Christian history; neither, however, had any role in the political revolutions of the 18th century. The goal of the school board was obviously just to throw more Christian figures into the mix, logic and historical accuracy be damned.
Politics
Comments
Thomas Aquinas+John Calvin = Enlightenment history?
(Robot voice) "Does. Not. Com-pute." *head explodes*
Have any actual historians weighed in on this?
Posted by: Anyong | March 16, 2010 12:16 PM
You have to remember that these people are using Google to do their research -- one of the wingnuts admitted as much just the other day.
They would have the willing cooperation of any number of educators and real experts if they only bothered to ask... but they prefer to use Google. No doubt because they can select which search results to use without fear of contradiction.
Posted by: tacitus | March 16, 2010 12:23 PM
Um, I don't know what your definition of "actual historians" is, but I have a degree in history even though my day job doesn't involve history at all. This is a massive load of hogwash.
Their goal is to, quite literally, re-make history in their image. The Christian Right in America has long been making statements about how America is a Christian nation and, as such, we should all be Christians. But the problem is that this is not backed up by actual history. We are an Enlightenment nation that was specifically constructed in such a way as to allow free thought and free expression and keep the church and state in separate spheres.
As such, history itself stands against the would-be Christianizers. The problem, though, is that history is far less permanent than we'd like to believe. Accounts of history are sometimes wrong, sometimes lost, and sometimes simply fade from memory. It's also extremely possible to create and push a wholly wrong accounting of history and, in effect, create the past whole-cloth. This is what much of Orwell's 1984 was about. It's what much of Huxley's Brave New World was about. It's what much of Bradbury's Farenheit 451 was about.
Those who control information control the future. Which means that for anyone whose agenda is damaged by reality, reality itself must be re-shaped. The only way to do that in a social sciences setting is to re-make history itself in to your own desired image.
As such, this is a troubling and potentially dangerous situation. On some level it's far, far more unsettling than their attacks against science. Science, if lost, can be re-discovered. History, once lost, is gone forever.
Posted by: Geds | March 16, 2010 12:28 PM
I think Jody (@29 on the previous Texas thread) had the winning comment: Chuck Norris defends the elimination of Thomas Jefferson from the standards by quoting Thomas Jefferson. Three times, no less.
Posted by: eric | March 16, 2010 12:36 PM
Did you know that Carlos Ray (Chuck) Norris just turned 70?
age and head shots have taken their toll.
Posted by: Chilidog | March 16, 2010 12:37 PM
Geds: "Their goal is to, quite literally, re-make history in their image."
I am reminded of a certain line in 1984: "The mutability of the past is the central tenet of Ingsoc."
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | March 16, 2010 12:51 PM
The right has decided that the "founding fathers" were all teabaggers (they held the original tea party, after all). Backfilling from that, they've decided the FF agreed with the entire wingnut program.
There was a sign at the teabagger rally in DC: "What would the founding fathers do?" Shut up and pay their taxes, is what I figure.
Posted by: shargash | March 16, 2010 1:24 PM
Probably.
Posted by: catgirl | March 16, 2010 1:25 PM
As long as crazy anachronisms are acceptable, I'd like to nominate Angelina Jolie for inclusion in the Enlightenment unit (her early work, of course). It's not that I think she had anything to with the 18th century revolutions; I just want her to be included in the photo illustrations.
Posted by: Dr X | March 16, 2010 1:36 PM
While I have immense respect for the founding fathers, I think it' too much to assume they would somehow be entirely pure and never complain. Everyone complains about taxes. It's the best way to make sure someone isn't a Cylon.
Posted by: Tamarron | March 16, 2010 1:37 PM
And even then, in my experience, you still can't be 100% sure.
Posted by: Rick R | March 16, 2010 1:54 PM
Of course they did. The proof is simple:
1) Chuck Norris is a Real American Patriot.
2) The Founders were Real American Patriots.
3) Therefore the Founders all agreed with Chuck Norris.
4) Thinks that are equal to the same think are equal to each other.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | March 16, 2010 2:21 PM
Well, given that they raised an army to put down a tax rebellion in Pennsylvania (Whiskey Rebellion), I'd have to agree with your assessment.
The reality is that Obama hasn't raised a single significant tax since entering office and has, in fact, cut numerous taxes for small businesses, etc. The only tax increased is the "sin" tax on cigarettes, which frankly I don't have a problem with given its impact on our health care systems, long run impact on those who don't smoke, etc.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 16, 2010 2:25 PM
How can you not love Chucky. Who else can say :
My personal warning to educational tyranny and tyrants is this: best not to test or mess with Texas. If you thought we fought hard for the Alamo, wait until you see what we can do for the right to educate our children. You can hide behind your No. 2 pencils, but our branding irons will find your tail sides.
without imploding from irony. He is basically saying education is for wimps. Our education is no match for his mob violence. Does he even know what happened at the Alamo, arguably the most well known event in Texas history? Is he saying that if we push hard, he and a bunch of Texans will lock themselves in a church, give a good fight, but eventually be slaughtered by the Mexicans? Why not allude to battle of San Jacinto where the Texans actually won?
Posted by: holytape | March 16, 2010 2:29 PM
I had the opportunity last evening to go through the Oct-09 amendments to the draft presented by historians. This was the curriculum for World History and U.S. Government. I assume the live-blog from this month are regarding further amendments of these drafts. The Oct-09 amendments were far worse than what's been exposed recently.
They're looking to argue that biblical law is the root of “trial by jury”, “innocent until proven guilty”, and “equality before the law” based on a “Judeo-Christian” legal artifice they create. None of this was presented to them by historians of course, it was all added.
I found they removed Abraham Lincoln in the section focused on “significant individuals in the field of government and politics” while adding Ronald Reagan. Historians also had language providing teachers with the latitude to decide which modern political leaders should be selected. I'd argue if they’re going to mandate Reagan one would also need to add LBJ and Clinton as well. How one can justify removing Lincoln is beyond me.
The SBOE also added Moses as a figure to be studied when looking reviewing the basis of America's founding documents while taking out Thomas Hobbes. They also demand that biblical law be portrayed as part of the major documents informing our founding when it comes to issues of “liberty, rights, and responsibilities of individuals”. Actually biblical law is opposed to both liberty and human rights in relation to their government; I highly doubt that is their intention or the anticipated result.
It should be noted I only covered a very narrow scope of these two documents since I was looking to answer specific questions regarding Thomas Jefferson.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 16, 2010 2:35 PM
Because it's always good to reference a genocidal maniac when discussing America’s history. I’m sure they can figure out a tie in between the Hittites and Native Americans some where.
Posted by: Chilidog | March 16, 2010 2:47 PM
Do the new standards mention Thomas Paine anywhere?
Posted by: Chilidog | March 16, 2010 2:48 PM
I can see that their Biblical scholarship is right up there with their profound understanding of history.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | March 16, 2010 2:52 PM
One of the buffoons on the BOE actually argues that the Bible says you will be more rewarded the more profit you make. Talk about missing the point... I'll criticize the Bible all day long, and point out that for every positive admonition, there are ten places that contradict it -- except in regards to being nice to the poor and willing to sacrifice wealth. On that point, the Bible is pretty fucking consistent.
Perhaps they are talking about the Moses from the Jesus and Mo cartoons?
Posted by: James Sweet | March 16, 2010 3:03 PM
I don't claim to be an expert on Calvinist theology, but IIRC you can get there without too much of a stretch if you follow a vector from Calvin through the Puritans.
Prosperity theology and the concept of the predestined Elect fits in Real Damn Well with the current theopolitical right.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | March 16, 2010 3:43 PM
dogmeatib @13: "The reality is that Obama hasn't raised a single significant tax since entering office and has, in fact, cut numerous taxes for small businesses, etc."
It should be recalled that the Tea Protest movement began during the Bush presidency. While it's now been taken over by astroturf Republicans, it was not originally conceived as an anti-Obama movement. And the reality is that you can't run record-level deficits without raising taxes at some point, so your argument is essentially equivalent to saying that you shouldn't care if your credit card gets stolen, at least, not until you see the first bill. The fact that the bill hasn't come due yet doesn't change the fact that the Bush/Obama policies are going to give us a big bill in the future--and quite possibly one that will force the entire United States government into bankruptcy.
Also, the Tea Movement began as a protest against the bailouts, not against taxes per se. (I'm amazed that seemingly intelligent people can ask the question "Why are the Tea Protesters so angry about increased taxes when there are no increased taxes?" without realizing that this probably demonstrates a gap in their understanding of the motives of the Tea Protesters.) The current nonsense straw-man of their views comes in part from the intrusion of mainstream Republicans (who are more interested in big-government pro-war and anti-immigration policies than they are in the goals of the members of the movement) and from the fact that an anti-corporate faction on the Right didn't fit in with the standard left-right narrative and so has been intentionally adjusted by the media until it fit into their preconceptions.
Posted by: Miko | March 16, 2010 3:46 PM
James Sweet - If you really knew this, sorry - can't tell without a smiley - The "Mo" in Haysus and Mo is Mohammed.
Posted by: John | March 16, 2010 3:49 PM
"A Dentist's History of the United States" - a great publishing opportunity for someone.
Posted by: Les Lane | March 16, 2010 4:00 PM
My memory of Texas history is poor: did we pay money for that place, or did we just steal it from the Mexicans? And what would be involved in returning it?
Seriously. And my cousins wonder why I never visit.
Posted by: JustaTech | March 16, 2010 4:01 PM
The history of Texas is long and glorious. From the liberation of northern Mexico by freedom loving slaveholders, to the rebellion of those freedom loving slaveholders against the duly elected undemocratic repressive regime which wanted to take away their slaves, to the noble victorious defeat at the Alamo, to the picking of a fight and victory by the United States against Mexico, liberating even more territory of Texas, like California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah. I especially like the part where the freedom loving slave holders of Texas remove their anti-secession (ummm freedom) governor in order to fight another war of liberation against those who weren't going to take away their freedom to own slaves.
It's a wonderful history, full of consistent and honorable actions up to and including governor Perry and his loyal calls for secession.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 16, 2010 4:07 PM
Funny that Chuck and I had the same question. I wrote to Clay Jenkinson, a Jefferson scholar who has a weekly radio show- The Thomas Jefferson Hour. He takes on the persona of Jefferson, speaking his opinions. (Thankfully he doesn't try to affect J's personality.)
So I wrote in to ask "Mr. Jefferson" what he thinks about these new standards. We'll see what an Enlightenment scholar has to say about this (if they take my question, that is.)
Posted by: Tyler | March 16, 2010 4:29 PM
No, it was a complete brain fart. Moses has made like two appearances in the Jesus and Mo cartoons, and for some reason I was picturing him in every cartoon. Wow, that was weird.
Posted by: James Sweet | March 16, 2010 4:45 PM
So at what point does the Texas SBOE run clearly across the Church/State boundary? The statements and actions of the conservative faction of the board seem similar to those that led to the Dover trial. The board members are injecting their religious views into the public school standards and have made public statements as to their religious motivations. How far does this have to go before they can be sued for constitutional violations?
Posted by: Dave v. | March 16, 2010 5:00 PM
I was a big fan of Norris -- when I was 8. That was the golden age for believing one could do a flying kick through the windshield of a moving car and coming out of it unscathed.
I also had the opportunity to meet him a few years back when the production company I was working for brought Norris in for a reality show. I got the distinct impression Norris still believed one could do a flying kick through the windshield of a moving car and come out of it unscathed.
Nothing I've read recently has dissuaded me from this opinion.
Posted by: Jody | March 16, 2010 5:03 PM
No such thing: they've written it out of the curriculum.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | March 16, 2010 5:18 PM
The founders were well aware that there are dumbasses in the world and people who would happily lie to control their people. They put in their best efforts to come up with a system with some measure of protection - nor did they think the system could stand as it throughout eternity, but changing the system to preserve the ideals is something which could only be left to future generations. John Adams, only the second president, already tried to subvert the system.
Posted by: MadScientist | March 16, 2010 5:47 PM
>>>Does Norris really believe that they all believed and thought the same things?
I agree that this popular myth on the right is absurd, as is the notion that the framers were ideological patriot brothers who thought alike.
In more than one way, it's a miracle that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution ever came to be from the years of intensive inter-colonial nit-picking that both documents had to endure.
Posted by: CHV | March 16, 2010 5:56 PM
Surprisingly, far fewer people realize that the framers' rallying cry was "Wolverines!"
Posted by: xebecs | March 16, 2010 6:37 PM
@28: So at what point does the Texas SBOE run clearly across the Church/State boundary?
IANAL, but I think that they can put into the requirements whatever they want. I think it only becomes a problem when someone actually implements those standards to try and proselytize the kids. Just picking and choosing what points of history to cover, even making up false points, even lying, doesn't run afoul of the First Amendment. There is nothing in the first amendment that says the State has to always tell the truth.
For example, a teacher might faithfully implement the given standards by saying, "And, by the way, Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin had nothing to do with 18th Century revolutions." That implements the letter of the standards, and certainly doesn't cross the Church/State boundary, so the standards by themselves don't cross the line.
Words on paper don't cross the line. Actions do.
Posted by: Scott | March 16, 2010 6:43 PM
dogmeatib,
You need to learn your history you anti-American commie. The U.S. never invaded Mexico. Just ask noted conservative historian Michelle Malkin.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 16, 2010 6:47 PM
"It should be recalled that the Tea Protest movement began during the Bush presidency."
No it didn't. It started in early 2009 as a response to the stimulus and the proposal to use part of the TARP money for foreclosure assistance. The CNBC guy ranted about foreclosure assistance helping the 'losers'.
Posted by: Jon H | March 16, 2010 8:19 PM
I figure chuck norris (along with idiots on the texas board of education) thinks that the founding fathers = right-winged americans = whatever glen beck/rush limbaugh say ≠ what thomas jefferson said, so clearly he doesn't belong in any American history book.
Posted by: mxh | March 16, 2010 11:00 PM
Sweet and Session: To a Calvinist, temporal success is a sign of elect status. This is significantly different than the nutters Prosperity Theology; for Calvin, winning the Great Lottery at the Beginning of Time led to you being successful during your allotted time on Earth (of course, no Calvinist would admit to being a predeterminist; they'll simply say that God, who is responsible for everything, all-knowing, and infallible, knew you would be good at the beginning of time when he put together the Plan for Everything, and so freewill still exists, somehow). The Prosperity theologian is much more akin to the witch-hunters and practical polytheists of the medieval period in that he believes his temporal actions will earn temporal results. Either through becoming rich he earns god's favor (because god wants us to succeed, making poverty a sin), or by being godly (which, to their entirely works-dominated and church-centric view means "giving materially to the church") he will win god's favor and become rich. This is merely the flip side of thinking that the magical power of the Host will cause your cow to give more milk, that god will accept a check in lieu of good deeds and penance, or that bad luck, plague, and war will descend on any community that doesn't hunt down and torture to death every witch in it, quickly.
Posted by: Julian | March 16, 2010 11:32 PM
Jon H @36:
You beat me to it. Coincidently, the Oath Keepers formed about the same time.
Posted by: democommie | March 16, 2010 11:35 PM
So at what point does the Texas SBOE run clearly across the Church/State boundary?
There's a quote in a New York Times article on this that pretty much answers that question:
“I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state,” said David Bradley, a conservative from Beaumont who works in real estate. “I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.”
Yup. What can you say in the face of such willful stupidity?
Posted by: Geds | March 17, 2010 1:06 AM
@#40
You can say "I'd like that $1000 donated to..."
Posted by: mxh | March 17, 2010 3:57 AM
@40 and 41,
I agree that it's willful stupidity, but you'll never collect because the words themselves aren't in the Constitution, allowing Bradley and his ilk to stick their fingers in their ears and keep yelling, "I can't heeeeaaaarrrrrr you." These people are literalists in a very bizarre way. For a particular issue they'll latch onto literalism--in this case the absence of the particular phrase--but they can't see the necessary consequence of literal interpretations of the words that are there.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 17, 2010 7:41 AM
Julian,
Not true at all. Unless by "To a Calvinist" you mean that some particular Calvinist believes that. The P in TULIP does not stand for Prosperity.
Posted by: heddle | March 17, 2010 8:09 AM
"neither, however, had any role in the political revolutions of the 18th century."
Overstatment here. When I taught World History I had several goals in mind. One of the main ones was for the students to see how the past and the present were connected and a good way to do that was to indentify this is other periods of time.
For many Westerners, the Enlightenment is the starting point. For Christians it seems to be the Protestant Reformation. But much what these movements handed down to us was begun with Aquinas when the West came out of the Dark Ages. Though much of the progress that was made was beaten back by the Plagues and superstition, these ideas lived on. In fact, the first doctrine on Human rights was taught in Salmanca, Spain in the 1500's under Thomism, many that were educated in these circles joined Las Casas in his outcry against how natives were treated in the New World, and Aragon had a government based on the consent of the people pre-Ferdinand.
This is no where to be found in the World History standards. I taught it outside of the standards. Before you cry foul realize that I leaned Protestant Evangelical at the time and had no real religious reason to do so and understand that I taught that the Protestant Reformation was a blip on the screen of a much bigger trend toward humanism and the value of the individual being seen again which was totally in line with one of the core skills that wanted the kids to see overarching trends that transcended specific time periods.
My goal was to get the kids to see that the beginnings of the last great global expansion, that is similar to globalism today, began with Spain and had two competing world views vying to take root in the new world. This is because there were two Spains: Aragon that was touched by the Renaissance and Castille that was tribal and local. The former was a cosmopolitian trading culture and the latter was a warrior conquistador culture.
We know which view one out in Spain and made it to the New World and the man who slaughtered millions. The thing that most do not know was that Cortez was a student in Salmanca at the time and dropped out. You should have seen the kids faces when I tied together the ideas of the Middle Ages to this period and showed how the world could have been different if the ideas of Aquinas and the later humanists would have made it to the New World.
There is a thread here that agendas snip apart. Aquinas most certainly has a place at the table and those that teach that the Enlightenment and America were the beginnings of the modern idea of rights and government by the people are fools that do not know their history. All that I just stated about Salmanca and Aragon happened at least a hundred years before the Enlightenment.
The problem is that the Protestant world of Calvin that made it to the US ignores this.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 17, 2010 8:28 AM
Why was TJ a bit of a dick?
Posted by: Matty | March 17, 2010 8:31 AM
*chuckle* I stand corrected by her extensive knowledge. On an unrelated note, generally I find women of Asian ancestry attractive ... in her case I make an exception.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 17, 2010 1:54 PM
Actually the Tea Party movement is significantly older than that. It's roots are libertarian pure anti-tax-ism. The latest version, I prefer to refer to them as "Tea-baggers" to point out their stupidity is, as you said, a product of anti-Obama-ism portrayed as an ethical stance against taxes. It is a total bullshit movement dedicated to jingoism, quasi-covert racism, and a collection of idiotic anti-Democrat at any cost talking points. The original Tea Party movement was stupid (taxes are a necessary part of society) but they had an ethical, consistent stance. The Tea Bagger movement is a collection of bigoted assholes, utter hypocrites, political ideologues, and absolute simpletons.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 17, 2010 2:02 PM
By now, you most likely know that Texas has become ground zero for the latest battles in the textbook wars. While conservatives and progressives take their stands on the issue, I wondered, what would America's founders think about this feud?
It may have gone something like this:
"Hey, what's a textbook?"
"A.. book for everybody to learn from?"
"Well.. Reading.. Ok, public school.. How could.. wait.. Black people too?"
"Public school? You mean.. The government pays for everybody to get an education? How.. Oh, more taxes, ok. Well.. Who would want to farm if they could do less.. What? Service industries? Well.. Are the textbooks on cooking and washing tables? Television? What? Chinese people make everything? What is this hell you're talking about?"
"What do you mean separation of church and state covers teaching relig.. wait.. ok that sort of makes sense, but, that just puts the burden on me doing it at home, right?"
"Can I just have the mammy.. Oh, right, emancipation.. But, my wife doesn't know how to teach children, she never went to any sort of scho.. oh goddamnit, women too? Wait.. No slaves and the kids are in school, who's going to make all the food? No.. really, giant machines in really big fields but only in a couple states?"
"Where are we gonna get all the gold for.. what? Fiat currency? Fake paper money? Well what happens if.. Banks, right. Profit? But then the paper money.. Right. So.. how long? Right. But.. Wait.. You have any of these "textbooks" on economics I could borrow?"
"So.. it's easy to control the information, right, you just.. write what you want in the book, right? Hey Tom! We can fix your little problems!"
"Wow.. shit sure is more complicated in the future.. You guys are fucked up"
Which may have startled our buddy Chuck.
Dogmeat, I didn't read the rest of the comments, I just happened to see the bottom of your at the top of mine.. It seems you really think people that hold a different set of views from yours are, carte blanche, really bad and really inferior. How democratic of you...?
Posted by: Buffoon | March 18, 2010 3:14 PM
You might want to actually consider what I said rather than kneejerk react to it.
First, blind irrational hatred of taxes is stupid. That doesn't mean that the people who hold these positions are stupid, perhaps unrealistic, idealistic, but generally those I have met aren't stupid.
Second, I was differentiating the original tea party movement, who I disagree with but at least have a legitimate philosophy, from the Tea Baggers who are, from what I've seen, as you put it, "bad and really inferior." Yes, they are generally hypocrites, liars, bigots, fear mongers, and quite often, quite hateful people. Given what I've seen at rallies, I don't have to respect them or give them the benefit of the doubt any more than I do the KKK or Neo-Nazis. They have every right to express their opinion, and I have every right to express my opinion that they are full of shit.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 18, 2010 3:29 PM
What's the difference between hatred of taxes and blind irrational hatred of taxes? Accepting a certain amount of tax even while hating it vs. protesting a certain amount of tax even while paying it? I'm confused there, because it seems like both groups hate taxes and pay them, one is just willing to talk about it.
Throw a stone to either side of the political fence and hit a hypocrite, liar, bigot, fear monger and hateful person.
My comment was on the value of your opinion as it was apparent to me, and that opinion as stated reduces an entire spectrum of people under a small label down to several valueless groups. It's venomous, hateful and unbecoming of what I've seen of your intelligence, but I guess it is the way you feel, so that's what matters.
If you said the same thing of, say, global warming proponents in general (a group I happen to disagree with on almost every level, finding amongst their number bigots, hateful people, elitists, fear mongers, most definately hypocrites and apparently quite a few liars,) and called them all "a collection of bigoted assholes, utter hypocrites, political ideologues, and absolute simpletons" it dismisses the inherent merit of any and all members of that group, and it is still disgusting, even if I could point out examples of each. It is easy to feel that way, and hard to try to sympathize, understand and reason. It is a behaviour I certainly have that I try to recognize and eliminate because it always prevents true understanding for me. It is a closeminded way to mandate an opposing view and all proponents of it into the trash, not the intellectual void of disagreement.
So I'll express my right to express my opinion on your opinion of their opinion, which is, "that's so snarkily democratic of you"
That's all I'm sayin, brah, no biggie.
Posted by: Buffoon | March 19, 2010 12:57 AM
Buffoon - firstly, I must congratulate you on your singly well-chosen and appropriate screen name, kudos!
Secondly, the difference between Teabaggers and ordinary grumblers about tax is this: Teabaggers are complaining about tax increases that are non-existent and about taxes created by the previous administration. Teabaggers seem to think that taxes are automatically bad, as opposed to those who generally hate paying taxes but realise that they are 'a necessary evil'.
Thirdly, you seem to be unaware of the extent of 'astroturfing' within the Teabagger movement. They are all using the same GOP talking points to complain about issues (even long after their talking-points have been completely de-bunked). The level of homogeny amongst the voices allows ease of identification, discipline and focus on issues their masters think resonates with the electorate. The danger for the Teabaggers is that is makes clear the artificial nature of their protest and allows their views to characterised and de-bunked more easily by their opponents.
Fourthly, global warming proponents could possibly be characterised in such a way, except for one detail, the evidence. Unfortunately for AGW-deniers the bulk of the evidence is running against their position, do they come up with evidence to bolster their position? No. They simply try to shoe-horn their denialist god into the gaps. The bulk of the "...collection of bigoted assholes, utter hypocrites, political ideologues, and absolute simpletons" seem to exist as a majority in the 'anti' camp and as a minority in the 'for' camp despite your attempt to create a false equivalency of 'assholes'. If they ant to be understood, let them produce peer-reviewed evidence, rather than sophism. - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | March 19, 2010 2:35 AM