…and this is a 
That's easy to say in San Francisco
Category: Politics
Posted on: September 21, 2007 9:12 AM, by PZ Myers
Mark Morford has an exceptionally optimistic — dare I say, "triumphal" — article on the collapse of the religious right today. People are reacting (in the right way, so far) to the tremendous damage the Bush presidency has done to our prestige, our security, our economy, our rights, and the legacy we'll leave to our children, and every reasonable person that Morford knows is reveling in the growing political morbidity of the Republican party. And it was all so inevitable.
But when you come right down to it, the Great Truism has been validated once again: Righteous fundamentalism, be it Christian, Islamic, or otherwise, has the seeds of its own destruction built right into its very framework, a priori and de facto and by default. Powered by the deeply joyless engines of fear and shame, it can never quench its own impotent desires.
He also points out that the response of the Right to their impending irrelevance is an escalation — they are demanding more adherence to their puritanical and repressive dogmas, widening the disconnect between liberal ideals and conservative shackles.
We're waiting for a lot of chickens to hatch, though. I'm a little worried.
I'm not seeing a lot of movement away from the failed policies of the neo-cons out here in the most emphatically non-San-Francisan midwest. George W. Bush is being regarded as a personal failure, and people are looking for a new neo-conservative savior — they aren't changing their minds, they're busy shifting blame. Look at the Republican presidential field, and what you see is the dark eye of mindless chaos looking back at you…and people will vote for one of those chthonic goblins in the next election.
Look at the Democrats. Oh, god, don't bother — it's like staring into a vat of jellyfish. If the Religious Right is scuttling back into the darkness in defeat as Morford says, why aren't some opportunistic Democrats leaping up to harry them off? Is it because they're all incredibly stupid? Because they're cowed? Or is it because the system has been crippled to the point where it doesn't work anymore, when even faced with a power vacuum the 'opposition' is tied in place by money and corruption?
Let's not fool ourselves. Righteous fundamentalism also has its own strengths: simplistic answers, deep if misplaced convictions, and the willingness to act ruthlessly. It also has the great power to turn shame into anger, and right now they're in embarrassing defeat. One terrorist attack, one economic disaster, and they're back — armed and willing to do murder for the cause of their immortal soul.
Politics
Comments
Is the US and Canadian dollar trading on parity also considered a sign of this right wing apocalypse?
Posted by: Kurt | September 21, 2007 9:17 AM
Posted by: Allen | September 21, 2007 9:19 AM
I think you hit it on the head with "tied in place by money and corruption", PZ. I think you're being a bit unfair to jellyfish though. A jellyfish is at least interesting.
Posted by: SeanH | September 21, 2007 9:20 AM
Careful, PZ. You're starting to sound like me.
Posted by: Caledonian | September 21, 2007 9:22 AM
To comment #1, Maybe.
But it is a sure sign that there is something wrong with your country.
Might be the billions being flushed down the toilet on that war thing you've got going but I still think the US economy is in bad shape for a few reasons, not the least of which is the current admin.
Won't last, I know, but means I can get stuff for my boat cheaper for a while.
Posted by: bearguin | September 21, 2007 9:26 AM
I like jellyfish, too. No one would consider them forthright advocates for political principle, though.
Posted by: PZ Myers | September 21, 2007 9:27 AM
Any terrorist attack on America will be undoubtedly be the fault of us atheists (and homoseculars and commies). God uses these incidents to show that we're wrong and to bring us back into the fold. Simple answers are the easiest way for them to maintain their tenuous grasp on reality.
Posted by: Bruce Anderson | September 21, 2007 9:29 AM
Mark Morford is a terrific writer, but as you say, he may be a little too optimistic here. If I remember correctly, Bush got 12% of the vote in the great city of San Francisco -- I'm sure things look just a little different in the midwest and south.
Posted by: Richard | September 21, 2007 9:35 AM
Again, you've waxed exceptionally eloquent. Nice essay, PZ.
Posted by: Ric | September 21, 2007 9:38 AM
I suspect part of the problem here is that for a long time, the Democratic party hasn't actually had any positions of its own to attract voters - instead, it merely presents itself as the only viable alternative to the Republicans, which its voting bloc views as even worse.
Put in a situation where they have the opportunity to enforce their positions instead of merely opposing the Republicans, the Democrats have no positions to enforce.
Posted by: Caledonian | September 21, 2007 9:38 AM
I'm reminded of the 'debate' staged by Saturday Night Live during the 1988 election. Dana Carvey did his impression of Bush the elder speaking in nothing but vapid soundbites. Jon Lovitz, as Michael Dukakis, quips ' I can't believe I'm losing to this guy!' American presidential politics has long been a question of who to vote against, rather than who to vote for, with the voters acting mostly, if not completely, out of emotion or possibly greed.
There is of course one thing the two parties are completely united on; the prevention of a viable third party.
Posted by: Ray S | September 21, 2007 9:45 AM
PZ, the Dems aren't analogous to a vat of jellyfish. They're more like a group of 3-year-olds that have been fed too much sugar and missed naptime. Bill Clinton had the answer on the Daily Show last night. The Democrats aren't spineless; they're sleep-deprived. Ditto the Republicans. They're not evil, they just need naps. Everyone in Congress is so wrapped up in endless fund-raising and travel for fund-raising they no longer have time to sleep, which in turn means they've lost any ability to think rationally.
Unfortunately, that theory does nothing to explain the severe disconnect with reality evidenced by the current occupant of the White House.
Posted by: Nan | September 21, 2007 9:46 AM
On a recent flight, I sat behind someone who had given her life to Jesus - and would not stop talking about it.
Then, on a bus ride, two well-dressed men in silver suits with "Jesus Saves" plastered on the front (on their way to some kind of convention) were so damned nice and friendly to their fellow passengers that I practically converted right then and there.
This was all in California.
They aren't going away.
Posted by: CalGeorge | September 21, 2007 9:47 AM
I loved the mock Bush campaign commercial: "Vote for Bush. He's whiter!" Still the basis for a lot of Republican poliics.
Posted by: MAJeff | September 21, 2007 9:48 AM
I have to agree that the article was a bit optimistic, as much as I love Mark Morford. He did have some very valid points though, especially about extreme religion being it's own downfall. The Daily Kos article he linked to, The Evangelical outcasts (Sept 18), was more balanced on the issue and is worth the read too.
Posted by: Kelley | September 21, 2007 9:56 AM
Nan:
After about 3 or 4 days without sleeping, a person will begin to hallucinate. Paranoia or other craziness often follows.
Posted by: llewelly | September 21, 2007 9:59 AM
#13
CalGeorge: I think this is where we need to step up and come "out of the closet". I used to just nod nicely and let my eyes glaze over as I was confronted by the jesus freaks, but due to people like PZ, RD, and CH--I now speak up. I'm friendly, and try to be non-confrontational, but I let them know my beliefs and I don't hesitate to show an interest while asking some difficult questions. Questions that I hope will give them pause for thought and keep them thinking. If we can get them thinking instead of just believing, we may stand a chance.
Alan
Posted by: alan | September 21, 2007 10:00 AM
Mark Morford is being deliberately provocative when he lays it on so thick. The San Francisco Chronicle has received letters and e-mail (some published in the paper or on its website) demanding that Morford no longer be published. He knows how to poke a sore spot, and he pokes it hard. Here are two reactions that appear on the Chronicle website:
It looks like they can't handle the truth.
Posted by: Zeno | September 21, 2007 10:05 AM
A vat of jellyfish? I wish! At least they have nematocysts. Democrats, where is thy sting?!
Posted by: Dan S. | September 21, 2007 10:09 AM
It's all very well and good for those thinkers and rationalists to point out that the evangelicals are getting more and more nutty with their demands on the political system here... but to the nuts they're just getting better and better.
We're not out of the woods by a longshot.
Posted by: dorid | September 21, 2007 10:15 AM
Until the religious right realizes that 6+ years of absolute control has resulted in absolutely zero abortions stopped, they will continue to blindly follow the Republicans.
Posted by: CaucasianJesus | September 21, 2007 10:18 AM
Very close to the reason that Chrstians never leave their religion behind even after they find out about closeted gay homophobe pastors, priests raping children, and so forth. They never see that it's a conceptual problem. They say that we can't judge God by the failures of mere humans.
Posted by: writerdd | September 21, 2007 10:19 AM
Of course. But at the same time, it's a sign that said apocalypse will not be financeable.
The Chinese have something against apocalypses (unless one of their own dynastic cycles is over), and the Japanese...
Posted by: David Marjanović | September 21, 2007 10:39 AM
...
...
Morford nails it on fear being the driving force of the right wing evangelical movement. Something I figured out not long back, and that continues to scare me, is "Human beings under the lash of strong emotion become less intelligent."
Fear-driven as they are, though, they're not about to change tactics or learn new ways of looking at the world. Of course they expect more radical and restrictive anti-freedom positions from their candidates -- the fact that they're failing makes them more afraid, and inspires them to more frantic demands for action.
Are they dead, politically? MY fear is that they're not. There really is still a chance we might have another Republican president. Seems to me it would signal the real end of any America I ever knew, but I don't kid myself that it couldn't happen.
I continue to believe this White House, these Republicans, this nexus of combined power (in which I include not just the evangelicals but most of the current Democrats in office, and a consciously-complicit corporate news media), is capable of literally anything. In the shadow of this President, this Congress, I haven't heard a single dark scenario -- including paranoid conspiracy theories such as the suspension of the 2008 elections -- that hasn't seemed at least a teeny bit plausible.
As to the Democrats, I wish ...
Well, I wish there was a Democratic Ron Paul.
And in a way, I can't figure out why one hasn't appeared. There's tremendous desire for one, I think. I see a huge landslide of support, a massive outpouring of unstoppable approval, just waiting for the guy.
It would require a lot of blunt and lively talk about the disaster that Bush and the evangelicals have been for America, and he (or she) would have to overcome some initial outrage from the winger talking heads. But this is actually an asset, publicity-wise, seems to me.
So where's the fanfare of trumpets, and the Man on the White Horse? Is EVERY Democrat really so uncaring, so unaware, so frozen into the political ice that this guy just doesn't exist? And can't exist?
...
...
Posted by: Hank Fox | September 21, 2007 10:39 AM
Hey, surprise! More blah, blah, blah. How about someone who REALLY wants to see a change run for office? I'm sure all the talkers would vote for him, right? Or would they just see it as one more thing to complain about? Let's see some action instead of constant complaints. Complaining in a blog is the same as apathy and that's exactly where the government wants us. Yup, flap yer lips all you want as long as you don't actually DO something, that way the next clown they choose for us falls into office. Think about it. Better yet, DO something about it.
Posted by: K | September 21, 2007 11:00 AM
To put it in an appropriately apocalyptic tone:
This is the ultimate battle between fantasy and reality.
As George W. has learned, no matter how loud you shout, or how widely you bomb, reality, eventually wins.
Posted by: Jason Failes | September 21, 2007 11:02 AM
Well they say the trend starts in California and spreads to the rest of the country. The California GOP has been a joke the last ten years thanks to their wingnuttery. Arnold is the only California Republican elected to state office in that time and all his fellow Republicans do is sneer at him as a RINO. Will this be the future of the GOP at the national level? We shall see.
Posted by: Bob L | September 21, 2007 11:05 AM
Re the Theocratic party candidates. Don't knock Bush too hard. It can always get worse! We saw that in Iraq for those with short memories. Saddam H. was a murderous thug no doubt. But is Iraq better off since his removal? Are the "leaders" in Iraq any better? He at least kept a lid on a situation once considered potentially explosive. It has now exploded. Some say that Saddam didn't create modern Iraq, Iraq created him. Only a murderous thug could have survived to govern.
The cthonic troglodytes of the theocrats are basic Bush clones. Bush had a few redeeming qualities. He was a pea brained moron with all the charisma of a
jellyfishslime mold. Imagine a Bush clone with some intelligence and a normal personality. A lot more dangerous IMO.My take. The theocrats have no brains and no soul. The Dems have no brains and no leadership. 2008 is theirs to lose. They might well lose it.
Posted by: raven | September 21, 2007 11:06 AM
You think the CA Repubs are weak? Here in MA last year, the Greens ran more candidates for statewide office than the Republicans.
Posted by: MAJeff | September 21, 2007 11:08 AM
That's Morford for you. His writing veers back and forth between giddy intemperate optimism and bleak intemperate pessimism. It gets a little tiresome, actually.
But then, I haven't been a fan for a while. Not since he started honking on about how pathetic it is when people can't relate to the mystical divine energy of inanimate objects, and how laughably blind science is when it investigates consciousness and spiritual experiences and "the hot cosmic goo of the mystical" (i.e., religious experiences on drugs). I'm over it.
Posted by: Greta Christina | September 21, 2007 11:09 AM
Re: The collapse of the religous right. A bit of a misleading name. The neocons are really just Old Fascists. This is pure fascism in a new plastic bag.
I've been saying for a while that there is a backlash against the fundie death cultists. With toads like these, one has to steer between wishful thinking and excessive pessimism. But:
1. They did lose the congress in 2006.
2. People are sick of their human child sacrifice rituals. They would like their kids alive and breathing, not buried in some cemetary in a flag draped coffin.
3. A recent poll from Newsweek? showed that 49% of the US population was tired of Xian death cultists trying to impose their views on the rest of us.
Too early to say whether this trend will last or reverse. Simply not enough data.
But as Goldwater once said, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." Believe it, the death cults will just crawl back under their rocks. For a while. They have no where else to go and will always be there in the dark. Waiting.
Posted by: raven | September 21, 2007 11:19 AM
Caledonian wrote:
Put in a situation where they have the opportunity to enforce their positions instead of merely opposing the Republicans, the Democrats have no positions to enforce.
A typical empty generalization by a know-nothing. On health care, the environment, the military and just about every other issue the Democrats have markedly different positions than the Republicans. Unfortunately, they don't have the opportunity to enforce these positions.
Posted by: tomh | September 21, 2007 11:54 AM
I don't think the Dems are spineless republican light types. Just the ones who have any chance of being president.
Posted by: G. Shelley | September 21, 2007 11:58 AM
"They're not evil, they just need naps."
Maybe if he had had a nap Craig would not have had that nervous foot-tap?
Posted by: sailor | September 21, 2007 12:37 PM
I kind of agree that the Democratic party is kind of like spineless critters, not necessarily jellyfish, because of the lack of sting as mentioned above. Sponges perhaps? If we are going for a comparison to sea life, can the GOP be considered to be urochordates? They are definitely covered in slime and do tend to get quite sessile (complacent) after a while.
What I'm annoyed with today is that Senate resolution which whines about moveon.org. The Republicans (plus Leiberman of course) didn't want to make the in-county time equal to the home time and pass a resolution to bring them home but the troops had to be protected from evil people who make childish alterations to people's names. Oh, the horror! This little gem passed 72-25, my guess is that half of the democrats didn't want to deal attack ads in the next election. I'm not a fan of moveon.org because I don't like extremists of any stripe but please. Jeff Sessions and John Cornyn gave the same speech, listing Gen. Petreus' degrees, etc. Cornyn even went on about liberal activists. He surely must miss the 109th Congress.
It is just as true today as it was in Mark Twain's time: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."
Posted by: mena | September 21, 2007 12:42 PM
I've always liked something Molly Ivins said (she may have been quoting someone, and I'm paraphrasing it): "If you took all the crooks and fools out of the legislature it wouldn't be a representative body anymore."
Posted by: MAJeff | September 21, 2007 12:48 PM
moveon.org "extremeist?" are you shittin me? Therein lies the trouble. They aren't "extreme" enough. In order to fight these shitbag faith-heads we need to nail them sumbitches up to crosses - line I-95 with the faithful. First door on the left, one cross each. NAIL EM UP!!!
There, that's extremist.
Saying that calling Gen Patreus "Betray-us" is extreme is like saying Italian long hot peppers are extremely hot. Habaneros are extremely hot. Calling for armed insurrection is extreme. Calling for violence is extreme. Calling someone a shill and a liar - especially when it's the truth - is necessary, not extreme.
And Caledonian, why don't you plug your arse and stop spewing the lie that Dems lack their own ideas. I know, if you repeat it loudly enough it becomes true for some people, but those of us that know better are pretty sick of hearing it. So come up with a new line of bullshit, huh? That one is as old and dry as a pop-corned fart.
Posted by: bybelknap, FCD | September 21, 2007 1:03 PM
Yeah... I'll believe it when I see it.
I learned to never count Conservatives out in '04.
Posted by: Andrew | September 21, 2007 1:05 PM
Put in a situation where they have the opportunity to enforce their positions instead of merely opposing the Republicans, the Democrats have no positions to enforce.
This is unfair and untrue - the Democrats' problem has always been that they have TOO MANY positions. The Democratic coalition has always, always, always been a fractious lot who are only willing to work together grudgingly. Unlike the Republicans, who are perfectly content to stake out a position on an issue and have the entire coalition drive full force behind that issue. There are plenty of ideas there, but the Dems aren't united behind them. (This is why Clinton was actually happy that the Republicans took over Congress in 1994 - he knew he'd only have to fight against one position opposing his instead of dozens that he had to fight against when his own party held the Congress).
The Dems' major problem is that there's no one to ENFORCE anything. The current Dem leadership is weak, weak, weak, which is not how you get things done with a fractious lot that could easily be their OWN opposition party if the Republicans didn't exist. Reid and Pelosi have actually done a decent job of keeping their coalition together (good gods, better than any leadership I can think of in my lifetime - I think you have to go back to when LBJ was in Congress to find tighter leadership over the chaotic grouping of interests known as the Democratic Party), but they keep making the mistake of thinking that the Republicans are "colleagues" that need to be dealt with rationally instead of an opposition party that needs to be humiliated politically in public when they do stupid things. That's the Dems' real problem right now - not a lack of ideas.
Posted by: NonyNony | September 21, 2007 1:25 PM
Nan said:
Too much nap, may be? delusions of grandeur in dreams? absolute monarchy in la-la-land?Posted by: Kausik Datta | September 21, 2007 2:02 PM
As long as the theocratic nutcases have the financial backing of corporate America they'll continue to have power. If they all went green, became anti-war and opposed big money their political power would vanish.
As to what invertebrate the GOP most resembles may I suggest priapulids?
Posted by: Rob Jase | September 21, 2007 2:10 PM
#24:
There's plenty of 'em, assuming you just mean a populist maverick with a well-articulated agenda not necessarily 100% inside party lines. Dennis Kucinich leaps to mind, as does (the late lamented) Paul Wellstone.
The thing that baffles me is how consistently these voices are marginalized. I'm not surprised the party elite considers these guys undesirable, but I am absolutely flabbergasted that damned near everybody consistently falls for it. Glenn Greenwald over at Salon has practically made a running joke out of asking the question - what exactly have people like Kucinich or Mike Gravel said that is crazier than, say, publicly threatening to nuke Iran, or openly supporting fundamentalist Christian organizations dedicated to supporting Israel as a means of hastening the apocalypse?
One of his better articles on the subject is at
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/26/lieberman_hagee/
Posted by: K. Signal Eingang | September 21, 2007 2:25 PM
Individual Democrats have ideas. The party as a whole? Nope.
Posted by: Caledonian | September 21, 2007 2:47 PM
So you guys are saying that the higher than normal incidence of moon jellyfish out on my local reef really isn't a political convention? Shucks, I was all ready to support some Aurelia Aurita for political office. They're pretty, pink and hardly sting at all. That has to be better than what we have now.
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | September 21, 2007 2:50 PM
Hank Fox #24 wrote, "Morford nails it on fear being the driving force of the right wing evangelical movement."
I think Frank Herbert said it a little better, "Fear is the mind-killer."
I didn't know what he meant until about six years ago.
Posted by: Flex | September 21, 2007 3:11 PM
Well, there is Dennis Kucinich, who really has called the Bush Administration on every one of its misdeeds, who endorses the impeachment of both Cheney and Bush, and who is Officially Irrelevant. The rest of the Democratic field doesn't want to suffer the fate of being labelled Officially Irrelevant, so they posture as "serious." With "serious" meaning that they completely buy into the current ideology, but they promise to manage it more effectively. (Hank Fox, there's your Democratic Ron Paul--and he doesn't even come with racist baggage.) So, given that political cowardice is so highly valued, PZ, I'll go with choice C, "the system has been crippled...by money and corruption."
I'd best stop. I find myself on the verge of an extended tirade about the death of good citizenship. So I'll summarize by saying that we have largely ceased being citizens and have acquiesced into being mere subjects.
Posted by: yanub | September 21, 2007 3:13 PM
Nothing can stop religious faith combined with political ideology.
-- 'Jayne Cobb', Joss Whedon, FireflyPosted by: Caledonian | September 21, 2007 3:16 PM
Re. #44: "So I'll summarize by saying that we have largely ceased being citizens and have acquiesced into being mere subjects."
Unfortunately, he current trend is away from citizenship and towards "consumers", not mere "subjects". We are increasingly expected to not voice our opinions but just consume, and shut up.
Posted by: CHANGCHO | September 21, 2007 3:43 PM
This echos my reaction to the pharse "liberal ideals" tossed in to the OP. Wow! Now that's a typical whine! "Oh, even when wer'e in the majority we can't get nothin' done against the evil right-wing cabal."
It's no the Democrat's postions that the peopel voted for in '06, it was the people's postions and the Democrats were supposed to enact them in the government. But all they can do is wail about how much trouble it we be for the country if they actually did what the people asked them to.
This is why the '06 Democrats are going to hand the Presidency to the Republicans ... again.
Posted by: Sike | September 21, 2007 3:58 PM
Raven:
I've been thinking this for a while. Republicans are in the trouble they're in at the moment because they've very stupidly overplayed their hand. If they'd been just a tiny bit less stupid, and had acted with just a tiny bit more subtlety, especially in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, we'd still be listening to Tom DeLay talk about permanent Republican majorities.
Take the Iraq war: As stupid, unnecessary, and immoral as it clearly was to invade Iraq, Americans didn't start to turn against the war in large numbers until it started to go badly. A handful of better tactical decisions at key moments (e.g., if Bremer had not summarily disbanded the Iraqi army), and we'd still be seeing 60%+ approval for the war... even though it would be no less reprehensible, from a fundamental moral POV, than it is.
Similarly, if this administration had been just a little cleverer and less obvious about bowing to the agenda of the religious right, we wouldn't be seeing any significant backlash at all. Thank the nonexistent God for their hamfistedness!
I think PZ had it right in another thread when he said that the most apparently inoffensive religion is the most dangerous one. The stupid loudmouthed jerks motivated by dangerous ideas are bad enough, but the smooth, friendly, smart people who push those same ideas are much worse.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | September 21, 2007 4:37 PM
"One terrorist attack, one economic disaster, and they're back -- armed and willing to do murder for the cause of their immortal soul."
PZ, they're not doing murder for the cause of *their* immortal soul. They've no doubt those are entirely safe. It's *your* immortal soul they're saving. Don't you get it? They're doing you a favor by murdering you!
Posted by: scottb | September 21, 2007 5:12 PM
I always thought that the most telling passage of Dune is the quote from Kynes's dad.
"No more terrible disaster could befall your people than for them to fall into the hands of a Hero."
That's the meaning of the entire series, summed up in fifteen or so words.
Posted by: G | September 21, 2007 5:17 PM
"chthonic goblins" -- my new favorite label for right-wingers.
Posted by: Tim B. | September 21, 2007 6:35 PM
Sike wrote:
It's no the Democrat's postions that the peopel voted for in '06, it was the people's postions and the Democrats were supposed to enact them in the government.
So you think a bare majority in Congress and a Republican president translates into the Democrats enacting whatever legislation they want. What fantasy land do you live in?
Posted by: tomh | September 21, 2007 6:55 PM
There are really three series: Dune, the next three books, and the additional ones Herbert added on when he needed even more money.
Dune was the most subtle, complex, and nuanced of all of the books. The next three were Herbert's repudiation of the consequences of his writing Dune (and his need for more money) and the last were purely out of monetary need.
Posted by: Caledonian | September 21, 2007 7:11 PM
tomh,
Yes the Democrats have a bare majority (in the Senate particularly). And yes there's a Republican President. However, they've still caved on far too much shit they didn't need to: FISA, warrantless wiretapping, today's bullshit resolution against Move-On. The leadership was incompetent as an opposition party, and refuses to be as ruthless as they need to be in opposition to the President. They are still operating as though Republicans like Dave Durenberger (one of our old Minnesota moderates), Jim Jeffords, or Lincoln Chaffee actually had clout or mattered. They refuse to play hard ball.
yeah, there are structural difficulties. But they cave far too often and too easily...often in the name of a comity that their counterparts on the other side of the aisle have never been willing to reciprocate. They need to smash the R's in Congress over the head.
Posted by: MAJeff | September 21, 2007 7:14 PM
Caledonian,
Man you really can't just be appreciative, can you? Granted I wouldn't call Chapterhouse and Heretics great works of Science Fiction in themselves, but they definitely play a part in the greater whole of the Dune saga themselves. Especially when you think about how Chapterhouse still has references to the effect Muad-Dib had on the universe.
Posted by: G | September 21, 2007 9:02 PM
Well they say the trend starts in California and spreads to the rest of the country.
Well, then here's a discouraging data point (which I emailed to Morford since it's in San Jose, thus of local interest):
Posted by: thwaite | September 21, 2007 9:07 PM
today's bullshit resolution against Move-On
...which should be seen as a GOOD thing, as far as Move-on is concerned.
people are listening enough to what they have to say that congress feels motivated to feaux moral outrage.
I'd chalk that up in the "win" column for Move-on, and another win for the general influence the blogging community is having on public discourse in general.
...another loss for congress, though.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 21, 2007 9:12 PM
Of course it's faux moral outrage, because the Republicans who drafted it have a faux morality (along with most of the Democrats who voted for it, says this MA registered Democrat).
Immoral moralistic posers.
Posted by: MAJeff | September 21, 2007 9:19 PM
The California GOP has been a joke the last ten years thanks to their wingnuttery.
it's more complicated than that.
for 30 years, the neocons have been taking over the republican party in CA (and of course, do a great job in the larger GOP as well).
also known as "Orange County Republicans", because by and large the vast majority of the money comes from Orange County republicans, who also tend to influence the direction the neocons in the party go.
Howard Ahmanson, for example, was a key player in both the neocon takeover of the CA republican party, and the CA xian reconstructionist movement.
Arnold, after seeing the proposals the neocons convinced him were so grand go down in flames (did i say flames? I mean, incineration, annhilation, er, is there a stronger word?), has finally gone back to his more "old style" republican platform; the kind of cooperative work he used to talk about before the neocons funded his back-door entry in to the governorship.
It could all be an act, but I do hope this is the sign that the idiotic neocons are finally being seen for the worthless morons they really are, and their platforms and ideology will be left completely in the dust in the next few years.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 21, 2007 9:25 PM
Ichthyich,
Don't forget Pete Wilson and the alienation of Latino voters in the 1990s. That obviously didn't help the fortunes of the Republican Party in CA.
Posted by: MAJeff | September 21, 2007 9:29 PM
That obviously didn't help the fortunes of the Republican Party in CA.
yeah, i don't think they foresaw how much that particular incident would backfire on them.
especially given the poll data regarding illegal immigration at the time, which, strangely enough, doesn't seem to have changed all that much in the intervening years.
ah, the dangers of relying on poll data...
OTOH, the Orange County Neocons funded and were directly involved in the successful recall effort of former gov. Davis, that allowed them to woo Arnold as a back-door replacement.
they still have a lot of power (money). and they can still control a lot of the media exposure in CA.
I just hope Arnold abandoning them isn't just a bluff. so far, based on the gnashing of teeth from the neocons, I don't think so, and that puts a smile on my face.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 21, 2007 9:35 PM
I keep forgetting, what was that prop #? (169 and 184 keep popping in my head but those also don't seem right.)
I remember attending the NGLTF's Creating Change conference in Dallas shortly after passage. Queers of color and liberals have always been more prominent in NGLTF than in HRC (even if much less so than is necessary to create a real broad-based justice movement), so on the first night of the conference there were a lot of people in a state of shock. What did we do to buck up spirits? We sang civil rights songs. There's nothing quite like being in a group of justice activists singing "Ain't Gonna Let Injustice Turn Me 'Round" (which is also used in the opening of the "Eyes on the Prize" series). It's a powerful experience.
The only other time I can say singing civil rights songs had a more profound effect on me, indeed had me crying, was on the steps of the Minnesota Capitol the night Paul Wellstone died. Still one of the worst days of my life.
Posted by: MAJeff | September 21, 2007 9:48 PM
yeah, I think i abandoned politics and people in politics getting me depressed long ago (about the time I stopped working for the larger NGOs).
now i just get angry.
;)
must be why I'm a fan of Lewis Black.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 21, 2007 9:52 PM
how can one not be angry?
However, there's a Cornell West line that I can never get out of my head, that haunts me:
I remain a prisoner of hope.
Posted by: MAJeff | September 21, 2007 9:57 PM
I remain a prisoner of hope.
meh.
you'll get over it.
:p
er, but then I'm moving to New Zealand, so I think that says volumes about my actual levels of hope for the political/sociological situation improving round these parts.
I don't envy prisoners of hope, but I do wish them luck and success, and a winning superlotto ticket.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 21, 2007 10:02 PM
Holland for me, so to me you're actually moving to Nieuw Zeeland.
Posted by: MAJeff | September 21, 2007 10:04 PM
Not only will people VOTE for one of those Republican candidates, but if the Democrats are stupid enough to nominate Hillary Clinton, that Republican candidate will be the next President of the United States.
Posted by: cureholder | September 21, 2007 10:43 PM
actually, I think for the first time, the republican field is so weak and disagreeable that there might actually BE a chance for our first woman pres.
here's hoping the neocons put even MORE money behind the campaign of Fred Thompson.
if that happens, and Hillary DOES end up being the nomination, I really think the rethuglican vote will be so split that Hillary will win practically by default.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 21, 2007 10:57 PM
re: Comment #11
It may well be that the two major political parties are dedicated to preventing the rise of a viable third party. However, it's not because of those parties that we have a two-party system. That outcome is built structurally into our system. Even if the Democrats and Republicans WANTED a viable third party, it would be impossible.
Any system with single-member representative districts and winer-take-all elections will have only two political parties. This proposition is considered the only real "law" in political science, and it makes sense when you consider that, when only one candidate can win in any district ("single-member districts"), and that everyone but the winner goes home with nothing ("winner-take-all" elections), only two parties can exist with any real shot at winning an election (each appealing to slightly more or less than one-half of the electorate).
In a proportional representation system, parties that do not "win" any given election still get SOME seats in the legislature. Thus, multiple parties can be viable and can form coalitions to wield power. However, in a non-PR system, only two parties can be viable at one time. If a third party arises and becomes viable, by definition at least one of the current two parties would have to fade to irrelevance.
Posted by: cureholder | September 21, 2007 10:59 PM
Hillary Clinton will not win by default no matter whom the Republicans nominate. If the Republicans nominated Ron Paul and the Democrats nominated Hillary Clinton, Ron Paul would win no matter how much the Republicans were divided over him. The simple reason: The religious right HATES Hillary Clinton. It's not that they think she is simply BAD, they believe she is truly EVIL. Literally, they believe she is Satan incarnate or Satan's agent on earth. I wish I were exaggerating, but I am not. I spent the first 25 years of my life among these people, including the time when Clinton rose to power. The religious right literally believes that Hillary Clinton is the antichrist. Thus, millions of religious Republicans will turn out in droves to vote AGAINST her, no matter WHO is on the other side of the ticket.
Karl Rove touched on this in one of his first post-WH interviews. He pointed out that at this point in the election cycle, the winning candidate usually has positives in the mid-40s to low 50s, and negatives in the 20s or low 30s. Hillary Clinton has positives in the mid-40s and negatives in the high 40s to low 50s. That is, HALF the electorate has an actively negative opinion of her (as opposed to a positive opinion of someone else), and included in that number are 25 million people who believe it is their religious duty to show up at the polls and vote against her.
Hillary Clinton cannot win. If the Democrats nominate her, the next President will be a Republican, no matter whom the Republicans nominate.
Posted by: cureholder | September 21, 2007 11:08 PM
Ron Paul would win no matter how much the Republicans were divided over him.
complete nonsense.
I'll wager a case of scotch on that one.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 21, 2007 11:18 PM
Karl Rove touched on this in one of his first post-WH interviews.
LOL.
and if you believe everything Karl Rove tells you, I gotta bridge to sell you.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 21, 2007 11:20 PM
They feel that way about every Democrat and liberal in the country. There is not a single person we could nominate they would not hate.
And honestly, who gives a fuck who the theocrats love or hate. If Dobson, Robertson, Schlafley, Bauer, et. al. don't hate our nominee, we've made a mistake.
Posted by: MAJeff | September 21, 2007 11:22 PM
5 million people who believe it is their religious duty to show up at the polls and vote against her.
by the way, I don't seem to recall a "negative vote" box on the last ballot I filled out.
you can only vote FOR someone.
ergo, your logic is flawed, if as I say, the republican vote will be heavily split between the moderates and the extremeists, and the more press and money Thompson gets, the more votes he will attract away from whatever reasonable candidate the majority of the rep party was favoring previously.
then the reps can blame thomspon for losing, rather like the dems blamed independent candidates previously.
I'm gonna laugh hard when Hillary gets elected pres.
hell, I'm already laughing that she is the front runner (and thats OVERALL, btw, not just within the dems):
from:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/