Republicans and the Tea Party are responsible for the Tea Party Crash

The Republicans caused the problem by reducing taxes while embarking on two costly needless wars and increasing spending on their favorite projects. The Republicans refuse to follow the advice of most economists and support more stimulus legislation and bring taxes back to the level they were before the Bush tax cuts. The Republicans created this unnecessary situation by trying to use the debt ceiling as leverage to get what they wanted instead of simply raising the debt ceiling like they did for Bush. They control the house and can block anything in the Senate and didn’t need the leverage. The debt ceiling is not the Democrats debt ceiling, it is the nation’s debt ceiling, yours and mine. The Republicans risked our financial well being through this stupidity. John Boehner said that the Republicans got 98% of what they wanted with the debt ceiling bill as it is, so if the debt ceiling bill isn’t what it could have been, it must be 98% their fault and 2% the fault of the Democrats. Republican intransigence is mostly due to the presence of the Tea Party – old line Republicans would never have let the situation get this bad. Don’t thank the Democrats for your losses, thank the Republicans and the Tea Party. If you voted for them, you deserve what you got.

An atheist at 11

My mother believed in a nebulous supreme being, but thought the bible was a collection of stories not to be taken literally and was dubious about the divinity of the Christian Jesus. From that background, though, she thought that it would be a good idea to send us to Sunday school so that we could learn about the Christian religion. She picked a fundamentalist church, Cumberland Presbyterian, because it was within walking distance of our house.

That church naturally taught the bible as the literal word of God but I found most of the stories were pretty silly and made fun of them and was generally disruptive in the classes (I was also generally disruptive in regular school as well, so that wasn’t a specific reflection on Christianity). When asked to make up a prayer, I usually responded with something ridiculous, and often giggled and whispered stupid stuff during silent prayers. Prayers were something I never really understood.

My brother and some of my friends would occasionally talk about God and religion and fantasized about heaven and other myths. Taken to the logical conclusions that an eight to ten year old might do, it all seemed pretty stupid.

So when the minister, also the father of a school friend, wandered by one fine day to talk to my mother, he expressed his disappointment in the demeanor of my brother and I and asked about her beliefs. After she related her thinking, he asked her why she sent us to his church and she responded, “I don’t really know.”

After that we never had to go again and by the time I was eleven, I had decided that the whole thing was a crock, the Christian religion was made-up and there was no God. However, I had attended church just long enough to get my religion merit badge and made Eagle Scout, something I wouldn’t be able to do today.

I was pretty open about my lack of belief in God and religion around my friends and in school and was never “in the closet.” Once I had decided, that was it.

Unlike a very few religionists I know, I don’t walk up to people, introduce myself and tell them that I’m an atheist. But I won’t wear a beanie to attend a Jewish ceremony, I won’t engage in group prayer at someone’s house or at a death or marriage ceremony, nor will I ever deny my lack of belief when pressed by anyone. I will swear on the bible though because most Judges and jurors are Christian and because I don’t think that I’m thereby swearing on anything that means anything.

There, at great length, you have it.

Why “In God we trust” and “Under God” Are Not the Province of Government

This piece was originally written for a forum on Newsvine on the use of the phrase “In God we trust” on money in the United States as recently approved by a Federal District Court 2 to 1.

In this forum, there were many comments by Christian bigots supporting their right to force their religion down our throats through state sponsorship.

The usual right wing Christian lies are apparent here: Our country was NOT founded as a Christian nation, it was founded by a group of men, some of whom were indeed Christian, but most of whom were deists. They were fully cognizant of the role of different Christian sects fleeing other countries to practice their faith in America, not that at the beginning these sects were any more tolerant than the established religions they fled from. But from that mix, it was clear to the founding fathers that established religions were the problem and that a truly free country should not have a state religion. Since many were deists of varying degrees of belief, they also recognized that not having a state religion means freedom from religion if one so chose.

“In God we trust” and “Under God” essentially support a state religion, ignoring a significant and rapidly growing minority who either don’t believe in any god, or at the very least reject the organized religion of a personal god.

Our growing minority may someday be the majority, but don’t worry your little Christian bigoted heads, we won’t take away your right to believe in whatever you want. Since we don’t have to defend bullshit, we don’t have to try to force anybody to think as we do. We don’t have your burden of having to defend your silly, illogical mythology for which there’s no evidence; religions will change, new religions will come, old religions will die as many have already, but there will always be a significant number of people who see the ridiculousness of belief in things for which there’s no evidence, who have no unsupported dogma and they are we, the atheists.

Republicans Are Holding the Country Hostage – Anti-American!

Congressional Republicans are refusing to address the business of running the country. They are blocking everything, even things you’d think they’d want to support, trying to discredit the Democrats for not accomplishing anything. Doing so, the Republicans are putting the stability of our country at risk.

It is time for the Democrats to go on without the Republicans, pass needed financial reforms, pass health care legislation, pass bills to keep the government running. It is time to send those bullies back to their constituents to explain why they hate the country so much or love themselves so much that they refuse to help run the country.

We shouldn’t let them continue this charade. Republicans don’t want to do the right thing, they just want to be the ones in power and if they’re not, they’re just going cause trouble in their petulance. Screw Them!

The Extent of Free Will in Human Actions

Free Will. Something that has beguiled philosophers for a very long time. Strict Determinists who think you can predict the future if you know the past, believers in a soul, independent of the body and brain, that can direct the mind, many, many variations in between are all found, over and over and over.

So what can an alcohol-modulated philosopher like myself add to this debate? First guess, nothing. It’s been done, all of it, by some ancient and a very few more recently. Some have put together a synthesis on Free Will simply so that they may better understand what they think thereon, something like I’m going to do here.

My slant is that because of quantum  indeterminism, the future cannot be predicted and therefore, strict determinism is probably wrong. My second point is that to the extent that humans practice decision making based on mulling over choices, this procedure is indistinguishable from the free will that might be practiced by an independent sentient entity such as a soul directing our choices.

There are caveats: First, the reason quantum indeterminism means that you cannot predict the future absolutely  is that all changes in state have some element of randomness, more for really small objects such as subatomic particles, but much less for large objects such as a moving vehicle. An example of a deterministic change in state comes when you know  the position and velocity of a traveling electron, photon, baseball, car, rocket or other object which allows the relatively accurate prediction of position and velocity of any of these objects at some future time such as one second later.

OK, you just said, “What is he talking about.”, so here’s a longer version, still with a lot of not easy to understand intuitively concepts. Admittedly, I don’t have a good understanding of the whys of quantum mechanics. However, some examples of quantum indeterminism are based on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle where there is a limit to how well you can determine both the position and momentum of, say, an electron or photon. In general, at the subatomic level, one can determine either the position or the momentum, but not both on the same particle, new ideas on quantum entanglement notwithstanding. Interference patterns of single photons show that somehow they interfere with themselves, but the action is random. Generated interference patterns depend on observing many photons, but individual photons will be more likely found at interference maxima from standard wave theory and less so at minima. This phenomenon means that it is not possible to predict exactly where any photon is going to be, even though there is a probability distribution for possible observed positions.

In this way, quantum indeterminism can have real effects not only with subatomic particles, but in atoms, molecules and in the function of biological molecules. Brain function depends on the interactions of a huge number of biological molecules and metal ions and since these have a random element in their action, there must be a random element in brain function and decision making.

Because of the large number of entities that may make random contributions to this process, there is probably a large random element in any decision making. So past memories of events and decisions come forward to consciousness in an unpredictable way where, given the same situation, some memories would appear one time and others the next, or the memories may come forward in a different order. In this case the decision made isn’t dependent just on past experience, but in the random way that experience is brought to bear on the situation at hand in which a new decision has to be made.

Because this randomness of process means that you can’t use the past to predict the future in an absolute way, it eliminates a few of the determinists’ lines of thought including strict determinism with its absolute predictability of the future, but it doesn’t eliminate determinism. The mix of the random with the non-random is still deterministic, because at the moment any random event happens, it still determines events for a while, even if it’s only for a very short while. Of course the collection of a huge number of random contributions may make it difficult to follow, but in the end, this collection has a result that, together with non-random causes, determines the course of thought. So, even though you can’t use the past to predict future thoughts with any precision, the process is still deterministic in a mechanical sense.

Deterministic non-random events must also affect brain function. Past experience, to the extent that memories thereof are not affected by quantum indeterminacy, a blow to the head injuring a brain area that is important for a particular type of brain function or understanding, and many other things may be more or less deterministic in affecting choices made.

If, in the strict deterministic sense, Free Will is defined as being able to make a decision independent of all possible past contributory factors, random and non-random, then the term is worthless. This rigid definition does not allow for any alternative, in which case it does not distinguish from any other possibility.

If, however, Will is defined for a sentient being presented with a situation, deciding on a course of action after evaluation of alternatives, then in that sense that Will is at least somewhat Free and the term Free Will may have some meaning that can be used in common discourse.

In what sense can Free Will have meaning? First, the decision is made by the individual and not by some outside controlling factor such as a powerful human exercising mind control, a powerful space alien, or a powerful god by whatever means. Presently, there is little evidence that any of these outside influences actually occur and can therefore be discounted.

Second, the decision is made over a course of time considering alternatives. This second criterion suggests that the “fight or flight” response is not a case of Free Will, but of a lower brain function that facilitates quick action in an immediately dangerous situation. There is probably a discontinuous spectrum of brain function among animal species that incorporates only reactive processes such as the “fight or flight” response, smelling and going towards a food source and reflexively responding to pheromonal signals from the opposite sex, and that which uses conscious decision  making.

Third, the process is not predictable. No matter how much we know of a person’s past, we cannot predict their response with high accuracy. If it were possible to easily predict a person’s decisions, that would be evidence for obvious elements of the past determining the decision. Card players depend on being able to predict opponents’ moves with some accuracy while being refractory to opponents’ predictions of their own. But this is not quite what is meant by the lack of predictability of a person’s decision. That person may be inclined to stupidly bet on filling an inside straight, but his process in doing so would be different each time he encountered the situation, even if, in the highly unlikely event the cards were the same in a new case. So some predictability doesn’t mean that a person is not exercising Free Will.

However, it is not easily possible to predict the decision making pathway of a non-sentient being either, so the lack of predictability doesn’t mean the being is either sentient or has Free Will. Lack of predictability is just a necessary component of Free Will.

Finally, if you could imagine a universe in which there was some essence of decision making that was not connected to the events of that universe, that essence would constitute Free Will. If you compared individuals for decision making with the essence with sentient individuals  from our own universe without the essence, it would probably be hard to come with a test to differentiate the two processes. [need to allow for some experience-based decisions here]. Therefore, beings who use our process for decision making, deterministic or not, would be indistinguishable from those who have a non-deterministic essence determining their Free Will. If our Will is the same as their Free Will, we, then effectively have Free Will.

The Republicans are authoritarian, anti-American, anti-freedom and anti-democracy

The Republicans of today are the worst thing to happen to freedom, being American, democracy, anything of evidence or reason or even having a good time. Darth Vader was a really nice guy compared to these people.

Evidence: purging moderates from the Republican Party. Republicans purged moderate NY Assemblywoman, Dede Scozzofava, running for an open Congressional seat as a Republican because she wasn’t conservative enough. “Former House majority leader Dick Armey’s group FreedomWorks mobilized against her. She said she heard conservative robo-calls in the district describing her as a “child killer,” a “lesbian lover” and a “homo.” ” Republicans are now going after Florida governor Charlie Christ because Obama hugged him. Plus, still in Florida, they’re going after a moderate Republican who wants to run for the Senate. Apparently, even the architect of a Republican takeover of Congress and the leader in stonewalling Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich is now too moderate for these wackos.

What is democratic about purging people who don’t fall perfectly into line with the nutso right? They don’t want you to have an opinion unless it’s theirs. They want to force you into their way of thinking and doing things. They don’t want discussion, they want lock step.

Moderates, the conservative Republicans are taking away your rights to your own opinions, they’re taking away your rights to express yourself from within the Republican Party, they’re taking away your votes in legislatures, in Congress and in the Senate. This is not democracy, this is oligarchy. This is anti-American. Americans traditionally have believed in freedom of expression, freedom to their own opinions, freedom to vote their own way. The conservative way is against all of this, which means that it is anti-American. It is anti-freedom. The loudest proponents of “freedom” don’t actually believe in freedom, at least not for you.

Your Soul and Your Brain, No Brain, No Soul

For at least as long as we can remember, we humans have had this feeling of self awareness, consciousness and uniqueness, all of which are incorporated into the concept of the soul. Without a biological foundation, it was natural to wonder about the fate of this consciousness after death, with religions often postulating a continuation of the soul after the demise of the body.

When there was no concept of a universe beyond earth and there was little understanding of natural phenomena such as life on earth, earthquakes, weather happenings like rain, snow, lightening, tornadoes, hurricanes and so forth, gods were created in the minds of humans to explain these happenings, including death. It’s possible that early humans thought of the earth beneath the surface as a fiery place because of volcanoes. The sky might have been similarly associated with being a nice place because sunny days were always considered the best. When it came to the fate of souls in some cultures, initially souls would have only down to go as in the Hades of the ancient Greeks. Other cultures sent people upwards to a heaven and many gods were also upwards, be they on a mountaintop or a heaven. Yet other cultures had some nebulous idea of a soul that progresses to other levels and don’t have a heaven or hell comparable to that of the Christians. But all religions have some concept of a soul and a fate for that soul upon death.

The first and last question is what, exactly, a soul might be. Not an easy question for there are various answers depending on what other questions are being asked. In a more complex concept than a simple association with adult consciousness, western religions would have you believe that you have a soul at the moment of conception, when you are just a fertilized cell with no neural function, no concepts of anything. Later as an embryo develops, it still may be indistinguishable from that of a similarly formed fish, chicken, or frog (some classical drawings that were not accurate but used to prove this point are notwithstanding of course, but the general concept is sound), but some neural function may be present. As you grow, are born, grow up, you develop a greater sense of self, something I might have thought would be incorporated into the concept of soul. But, since you had a soul when you were a single cell, were an embryo with no sentience, a newborn baby who couldn’t recognize himself in a mirror like most animals other than a select few, your soul no longer seems to be associated with your sense of self. In this case, the existence of the soul clearly does not coincide with consciousness and doesn’t answer the question of what happens to consciousness after a person dies. So if this definition of soul is not related to consciousness, what is it related to? The essence of you, perhaps. Just another word that begs the question. The concept of soul was most likely invented to cover conscious self-awareness, but has now been corrupted to some nebulous, meaningless concept of essence with no other property attached to it.

So let’s say that the concept of a soul independent of consciousness is not useful because it doesn’t have any discernable properties, doesn’t answer anything and can’t be used to predict anything. This concept of a soul is simply a religious construct that gives Christians in general and Catholics in particular power over the bodies of everybody for no particular reason.

So, let’s return to the concept of the soul as a marker of consciousness and the question of the fate of that consciousness upon death. It’s not really important where the soul may go, but only that it can be an entity separate from the mortal body and might go somewhere after death. But since the function of the brain and consciousness itself can be affected by injuries to the brain and various biological malfunctions of the brain, it calls into question whether there can be any soul distinct from the brain.

Knowledge of brain function and consciousness started slowly, but has accelerated in recent times. Early evidence consisted of injuries to the brains of people who lived and had their personalities markedly changed. A commonly referred case is that of Phineas Cage whose brain was penetrated by a rod, resulting in a change in his personality and general function. A number of other brain injury cases have been shown as well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traumatic_brain_injury, History section). In general, this wikipedia reference discusses the effects of traumatic brain injury, its stages, treatments and prognoses. The important point here is that brain function is affected by brain injury. If a soul of a person can be thought to be embodied in the personality of a person and the personality can be affected by brain injury, brain injury must therefore be able to affect the soul and the soul must be changeable through these events.

The brain also changes throughout life. A newborn baby’s brain understands neither language, social mores, what it sees, what’s happening around it or much of anything. But this baby can grow, its brain can grow, its knowledge can encompass all these things and much, much more. Its personality develops, it develops a sense of right and wrong, a sense of normal social interactions. It becomes a person.

Brains can be dysfunctional, having neuroses, psychoses and so forth. Many of these dysfunctions can be treated with drugs or talk therapy. Is this still the soul, and if not, what is the soul in the event of a diseased brain? You can say souls are the basis of a person and what they would be like before and after their disease. But what about people born with their disease, people who never recover their previous function? At what point is there a base soul? The age of say, 7, 15, 19, 27, 69? Maybe it’s an event in life like attaining puberty, getting married, or simply realizing you exist. It seems pretty unlikely that we’d ever be able to pin down just when you get your base soul, so maybe we just have to accept that the soul, like the consciousness it’s based on just has to change with life’s stages.

We have discounted the concept of the unchanging soul as meaningless. So what is the meaning of a soul that follows the development of the brain, injuries to the brain, and any other influence such as disease that affects function of the brain. Indeed, life experiences affect the brain’s understanding of things and therefore its function. If there’s no difference between soul and consciousness, then soul has no meaning beyond consciousness and isn’t a useful term.

Religionists claim otherwise. The soul goes on after death.

But when the brain dies, consciousness dies. I mean if consciousness is affected by things that affect the brain, that consciousness decreases as brain function decreases as in Alzheimer’s and other dementias, and it seems that consciousness must die with the brain.

So where does that leave the soul? An unchanging soul, not coupled to any bodily function except for fertilization has no meaning. A soul that changes with consciousness is not different from consciousness and must die with consciousness, meaning that there is no life after death.

The TV and movie concept of life after death often allows us to gaze at our dead bodies as we are dying. An extracorporeal experience, if you will. Something beyond the brain. But who is this who can be gazing outside of our bodies? Wherein does this function reside? Even if we can’t answer either of these questions, if this viewer is not of our brain, how can it be related to our consciousness?

This would be a more complex concept of soul, a soul that  incorporates our life experiences, may derive from the brain, but is not of the brain. So, at conception, you have an entity that’s just formed, has nothing to it, and develops in parallel with the brain, the brain’s function, with life experiences and anything that affects the brain all incorporated into it. This soul can go on after the body and the brain die.

At conception, this type of soul can’t amount to much, especially since there’s no brain. The argument here is pretty much the same as that of the soul being associated with consciousness with all the problems of dysfunctional brains and if you should die when your brain is dysfunctional. You’re going to argue that the soul only incorporates the functional aspects of your brain and life and the dysfunctional aspects are cast aside.

But you’re also going to argue that the soul of a fertilized egg that is naturally sloughed off as many such eggs are for whatever reason, is equivalent to the soul of a person who has lived a long and fruitful life with many experiences. How can this be? We’ve already dealt with the problem of the independent constant soul as meaningless it if is indeed independent of the brain and life’s experiences. So, you’re going to argue that this meaningless concept of the soul of a sloughed fertilized egg is equivalent to that of a person who’s live the long fruitful life? Seems pretty absurd.

Now, we’ve dealt with the concept of soul as independent of the brain and a normal life, found that meaningless. We’ve dealt with the concept of the soul as a marker of the brain and found that since the brain can be sick and die, that the soul that follows brain function must also be able to be sick and die. And finally we’ve dealt with the concept of soul as independent of the brain, but which also follows the brain and found that concept suffers from the problems of both of the first two concepts of soul and is therefore also invalid.

That leaves us with there being no meaning to the soul, associated with the brain or not. That also leaves us with there being no meaning to the concept of an afterlife, you know, no soul, no afterlife.

Don’t get all pissy now and complain that your life has no meaning unless you have some sort of soul and afterlife. First, forever is a very long time (see my essay on this topic) and an eternal life is fraught with problems. So much so that your life can only really have meaning if there is some actual end to your existence, your life, if you will. So get out there, live your life, don’t pay any attention to the self-serving religionists who may want your worship, your obedience or your monies. Fill your life as best you can, enjoy it to its fullest, for there is and can be nothing beyond that.

Forever is a very long time; Bored in Heaven

After Death.

Think about it: Forever is a very, very long time. Time to do just about anything you want. And do it again. And again, again, again…. You can start with the standard course of harp playing and you can play until you get really, really good at it, or, since it’s Heaven, you’re probably already really, really good at and can play just about anything without even needing music.

Hey, not only can you do just about anything you want, you can be really, really good at it as well. Golfers can get a hole in one on any hole, bowlers can get a 300 every time, race car drivers not only win every race, but absolutely stomp the competition, presumably driven by minions of the Devil. Sorta like winning rigged video games.

You can read every novel as many times as you want, you can know everything anybody’s ever known, you can understand the most intricate physics. Why you can be smarter than God!!! OK, that was a little hyperbole there, but you could be almost as smart as God and know almost as much as well, I mean, if you wanted to.

See what forever can do for you!

Oh yes, some will squander forever and just work on producing the loudest farts, the biggest turds, the longest pees. If sex is allowed in Heaven, these miscreants can have the biggest orgasms, the most fun. Maybe some will piss away forever by getting pissed forever. Druggies may just be high all the time on being in Heaven, not really giving a crap about it being the same forever and ever and ever.

So just how much meaning can there be in doing a lot of things over and over and over and oooovvvverrrrrrrrrrrr. How much meaning can there be in being the best you can be at everything you want to because you have forever to perfect your skills, whether it be physical, technical, fun or other? How much meaning can there be in the boring drudgery of Heaven?

Well, there are several possibilities here; you might be able to forget what you’ve done before so that you’re always starting over, making everything an interesting challenge again, you could have your abilities limited but not know that they’re limited so that you keep trying over and over to accomplish something that you can’t accomplish, you could have your abilities  gradually fall off with degree of difficulty so that you can attain higher goals, but it would just take longer, or, hey, here’s a novel idea, you could just die, you know, have a limited lifespan that you can do as much or as little as you want to give it meaning, forgetting totally about Heaven and forever.

It has also been suggested that when one dies and goes to Heaven, he becomes a part of the essence of God and doesn’t actually need to do anything forever. While this solution gets rid of the forever problem, it’s hard to see how it’s distinct from just dying. I mean, you’re not you anymore, you’re just another infinitesimal cell in the whole of your God. If you’re not you, it doesn’t really matter if your so-called soul has a fate or not.

Dealing with the other suggestions, we find that forgetting what you’ve done before is also a lot like just dying: if you forget your previous actions and lives, be they on earth or in Heaven, each time you do so you’re essentially a different entity, a different person, starting over.

Having your abilities limited, whether it be totally or just to slow things down a bit doesn’t really solve the forever problem. You’ll  just keep doing the same old stuff over and over and over, I mean forever’s a really, really long time and your forever life’s going to run out of any meaning pretty darn fast.

Nope, the only way to have any meaning to your life is to have a limited lifetime. That doesn’t mean that we humans should be content with our industrialized nations average lifetime of 80 years or our apparent biological maximum of around 120. We can and should do things to extend our lives for quite a long time. But expansion of lifetimes ultimately at very long times brings to bear some of the same issues as living forever in some sort of heaven.

There will be limits, of course, most likely the limits will be mental, since despite the common wisdom that we use only a small portion of our brains, resent findings suggest that we apparently use most of it and we have a limited capacity to remember events that happened a long time ago. So the longer we live, the more of our previous lives we’re going to forget, which essentially means that we reinvent ourselves to some extent every day. Over a long period of time we’d be nothing like the person we were when we were younger. So the maximum lifetime in which you are you might be arbitrarily set at, say, the oldest you can be and still remember events from your 10th year. After that you’re a new you and having a longer life again becomes indistinguishable from dying.

So living a long time by itself may be similar to one of the solutions to living forever; you’re continually being renewed, forgetting things in your previous life, allowing you to accomplish those things again if you choose to.

Don’t fear death. Forever in Heaven is a false promise, meaningless in its length, meaningless in its repetition. Your life only has the meaning you choose to give it in a limited lifespan.

The right and hate speech

Jimmy Carter was correct when he accused the right of racism and hate in their statements and postings.

Perhaps Barack Obama was being his usual dickless self when he denied what Carter was saying. However, there are good political reasons for Obama’s denial, like trying to suggest that racism doesn’t exist and that his presidency is that of just another President, like taking away right-wing umbrage at being called racist. Obama’s just another politician and has to take the political line. That doesn’t mean that he’s dumb enough not to know the truth of what President Carter says, he just can’t say so. For political reasons. Doesn’t this make you dislike politics? You can’t say what’s true, because you have to be the voice of political moderation, even if the hate-filled, racist crazies don’t give a fig for what you say and ironically still want to paint you, the President, as the extremist. But the fact, and I mean fact, capital FACT, is that the language of the right is riddled with racist phrasing and remarks and it’s being led by the right wing pundits on FOX everything and ABC Radio. If you know anybody that’s even slightly right wing, you only have to let them talk, wait awhile and sooner or later they’ll come out with either thinly veiled or outright racist commentary.

A couple of months ago I was at a gathering of motorcycle riders, most of whom were fairly right wing (no surprise here if you know anything about motorcycle riders). By the time I got there, they were talking n-word this and n-word that and the n-word only was for the President. One of them from Florida had a picture of himself in his backyard with a noose and a picture of Obama. On-line motorcycle sites that you’d think would only be about motorcycles spend a fair bit of their time pushing the rightest hate agenda. Right-wing acquaintances don’t mind sending me emails with truly questionable pictures, quotations and admonitions. Want to find out for yourself? Go to any gathering with a preponderance of right wingers, keep your own mouth shut and listen. Before long you’ll hear the racism, the hatred.

Get the picture. This is what’s going on in conservative America. Hate! Racism! Overt Racism! That is the primary basis for why they disagree with Obama on everything, absolutely everything. Wake up! These aren’t nice people. They are the worst.

The right has been about mindless hate for a long time. Since Reagan. Since Gingrich. Since George W Bush. They have no useful ideas, they are entirely reactionary, entirely hateful, entirely obstructionist. The right is the cancer of America. They will drive us to third-worlddom and soon. History shows that countries controlled by the intolerant religious right doom countries to an inevitable slide to oblivion.

If you don’t agree with the right and their constant hate speech, you can object, object with passion, especially if you care about your country, your President, your freedom, none of which the right is now for. Hate and its subcategory, Racism, should be shown as the nasty stuff it truly is. People pushing it should be called out, made public, shown to be the awful people they are. Sorry, but you can’t just sit back and let the hate-mongers forge ahead. We’ve had enough. Stop this madness now. Stop the hate. Loving them isn’t going to stop the hate – they don’t even slightly like the rest of us, they hate us and loving them won’t make them even slightly like us – fighting them, exposing them, embarrassing them, especially embarrassing them, that will work.

Priveledged People Who Say the Right Isn’t Racist Haven’t Talked to any Regular Joes on the Street

We see it all the time now: politicians, particularly conservative politicians, conservative pundits who write columns in your local paper, well-meaning, but ignorant, moderate pundits, all telling us that we shouldn’t use the word racist with respect to the right. The conservative politicians and pundits are lying and the moderates are just lost in their own little world. We hear that the right is not racist and that right-wing commentators are not racist and that we are overusing the word, racist. Bullshit!

The right is racist at its core, along with its general culture of hate, hate for anyone not exactly like them.

First, let’s consider the not-so-subtle code phrases like “non-Christian Muslim President” that one of my right wing  acquaintances used in a Facebook post on my page before I dumped him. Maybe we should do a casual search of the web for various parodies, songs, pictures, stories, many with the n-word, many with more subtle racism, but all with racism and hatred at the core.

Next, let’s wonder if any of the more moderate pundits who think we’re over blowing this racism thing have actually talked to anyone outside of their sheltered circles. It’s not hard. Especially if you have any acquaintances on the right. Send them provocative emails, talk to them in person, bait them in other ways as you will, but, and this won’t take very long, many, but not all, will come forth with some sort of racist comment. The core of racism runs deep, it is strong, and it is one of the main reasons the right hates Obama. Do the experiment yourself if you have any right-wing friends or acquaintances, and of course if you’re normal you should have some whether you’re liberal or not (I do, and I pretty liberal) and you’ll soon see.

So look, the pundits who fancy themselves of the middle can’t in good conscience claim that the right is not racist if they’ve done their homework. Pundits on the right know damned well that their best fans are racist and are lying when they say otherwise. So let’s stop pretending; the right is racist and racism is behind a lot of what they think, whether it be health care reform, war in Iraq, human rights, their religion. The right also happens to be generally into hate of other types as well, but that’s another subject; racism is just another subclass of hate.

We’ll call out the right on their more general agenda of hate another time, but for now we just have to realize that they are truly racist and deniers are either liars or stupid.