GOP Analysis From a “Friendly” Atheist

Not that the GOP isn’t guilty of straying further from limited government… but …

I read this post from someone who calls himself “The Friendly Atheist” quoting a book by CJ Werleman on why atheists can’t be Republicans.

It’s apparently because Republicans are “stupid”.

Well they do have a crappy P.R. wing, for sure. If you can’t sell liberty and economic and religious freedom, your P.R. sucks. And it admittedly does.

One thing that stuck out was that the author stated: “America can’t become great again by making the rich richer and constantly repeating the word “no.””

Two things — apparently the author believes that America was once great. When was that? What changed?

The second is, examine what Republicans are saying “no” to before deciding whether or not that’s a good thing. Especially if they are saying “no” to more of the changes that have lost America her “greatness” … “No” is the right thing to say.

America can’t become great again by spending itself into oblivion, either. More top-down Federal Government isn’t the solution to every problem. It’s not the solution to most problems. Unfortunately it is seen as a shortcut to coercing others to do what you want them to do against their will. Which is why its power was limited the way it was by design.

Which is why there are indeed lots of Atheist Republicans no matter what disparaging names the “Friendly” Atheist calls them for their intellectual heresies. The nature of political parties is that lots of people with different beliefs come together in agreement on some core things, and they argue and even compromise over others. Thus it has ever been, and thus it will always be as long as there is, to use the catch phrase of the day, diversity — of thought — and freedom to express and peruse our own.

The book’s subtitle also says an atheist can’t be a Republican “if facts and evidence matter” and then the poster proceeds to post an excerpt  that goes through a litany of dubious claims, hyperbole, and outright falsehoods that fly in the face of facts. (my comments in color)

The Grand Old Party (GOP) is not only a theocratic sponsor (based on what, exactly? That it champions religious liberty, freedom of association, and free speech? That it recognizes and embraces the cultural heritage of the Republic? Or that it believes that at the very least late-term partial-birth-abortions are murder?) it’s a party that has been proven wrong on just about everything in the past three decades or more: from evolution (while most Republicans believe Darwin was right, they also believe in the right to believe whatever you want about it — it has not been, nor can it be “proven” that there is no conscious creator) to climate change (the Republicans are dead right on climate change as the data shows, and even the IPCC is backpedaling on its alarmist predictions in the wake of the release of the E. Anglian CRU emails and the fact that there has been no sign of warming for about 15 years — despite increased carbon emissions), trickle-down economics (the Republicans are right about trickle-down economics as well), that the Iraqis would greet us as liberators (well there weren’t parades in the streets, no. Partly because many of their brethren would kill them if they did – witness the mass executions going on in Iraq right now that we’re gone carried out by people who now have control over quite a stockpile of that “non existent” chemical weaponry. They were definitely happy to be rid of Saddam Hussein, but thanks to the U.S. telling the new Caliphate when they could expect us to leave, they’re headed toward as bad or worse), that the Bush tax cuts would lead to jobs . It didn’t. (they did lead to jobs, which is why the Obama administration was reluctant to get rid of them too close to an election. That’s because Obama is more interested in being the arbiter of wealth redistribution, not in an increase in jobs) It added $3 trillion to the debt. (First, spending leads to debt, not reduction in income. And lowering tax rates doesn’t even necessarily lead to a reduction in revenue and more often, in fact, leads to an increase in revenue as even President Obama admitted in the 2008 debates. That being said, it was mainly the Afghan and Iraq wars that added more [than was already being added] to the debt. If this is a measure that leads you not to vote Republican, then atheists definitely shouldn’t vote Democrat, either after the “stimulus” and the fact that the debt has increased almost $7 trillion in the last 6 years.) They were wrong when they said the stimulus would trigger inflation (I dunno, been to the grocery store lately?), that austerity stimulates an economy in recession (I don’t think anyone said that, but it doesn’t mean we should rack up debt, either – because that clearly doesn’t work and just leaves us more debt) and that universal healthcare is worse than slavery (now he’s being just as silly as the Democrats who call them “terrorists” when they stand up for their principles), and they continue to prescribe debunked policies — “debunked” – as in Paul Krugman wrote articles excoriating them — but Paul Krugman et. al. have a religious belief in Keynesian economics that they will never back down from despite the data and evidence).  That is when they aren’t carrying out a reenactment of the American Civil War in the chambers of the U.S. Congress i.e. obstruction, nullification, and disruption (because Democrats never do any of this when they’re in the minority while Republicans push policy the Democrats disagree with.  And speaking of the American Civil War, where the Republicans fought to end slavery and in some states nullified the Federal Fugitive Slave act … and otherwise obstructed attempts to preserve institution of slavery … THAT American Civil War?)

It’s clear where the author’s loyalty lies, and it is in the self-anointed progressive oligarchy that wants to dictate to people that they must accommodate and serve that which they find abhorrent if the elite say so, that religious liberty is an afterthought … it’s ok as long as it doesn’t conflict with what they believe, and that fruits of your labor belong first to the collective and they’ll decide how much of it you get to keep.  Otherwise you’re “costing them money”.

A pox on this kind of “friendliness”.

Gleichschaltung Watch: The Washington Redskins

ESPN reports:

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Patent Office has ruled the Washington Redskins nickname is “disparaging of Native Americans” and that the team’s federal trademarks for the name must be canceled.

Much like Our Betters, the liberals, are always willing and eager to hear different viewpoints provided they are exactly the same as theirs, so Our Masters in Washington are staunch defenders of free speech.  Here in Weimar America, you’re absolutely free to say whatever you like… if you’re willing to get crushed financially for expressing an Unapproved Thought.

Gleichschaltung.  Learn it, know it, live it.

A Word from Captain Obvious

I’m sure y’all will be shocked to learn that Our Betters, the liberals, ban people from social media way more than conservatives do.

Liberals are the most likely to have taken each of these steps to block, unfriend, or hide. In all, 28% of liberals have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on SNS because of [political] reasons, compared with 16% of conservatives and 14% of moderates.

But remember — we’re the closed-minded ones.  Liberals are always eager to hear different viewpoints and new ideas.  Except when those conflict with their opinions.  Then they’ll ban your ass.

(via David Thompson).

Sadly, I Don’t Really Think I’m Kidding

Has anyone in the media tried spinning this as some part of Obama’s grand-master n-dimensional chess strategy yet?  Something along the lines of

since the terrorists are now outfitted with the latest US military equipment, we can be sure of their capabilities… and vulnerabilities!  This is a long-term strategic advantage for our forces, and gives President Obama unprecedented tactical flexibility.  No longer hindered by the “fog of war” that so hampered the Bush administration, our forces can…

That sounds like a pretty reasonable Voxsplanation, doesn’t it?

A Good Excuse for Some Cheesecake

feel the appropriation

feel the appropriation

Belly dancing is, of course, racist.  Ain’t first world problems great?

Ummm…. union rules require at least 300 words of “content” to justify a picture of a half-naked chick in a post, so:

Way to think it through, lady.  I know, I know, if they were good at following things up they wouldn’t be liberals, but you’d think there’d be a floor, even for the organ banks at Salon.com.  So lemme get this straight:  Susie Lasagna of Great Neck, New Jersey, does a belly dance and it’s some kind of micro-aggression against all of “Arab” culture, as she has appropriated “their” unique style of cultural expression.

But if Susie Lasagna’s dad’s pizza joint refuses to sell a pie to Abdul Tabbouleh on the grounds that pepperoni is his unique style of cultural expression, the whole weight of the federal government comes crashing down on him.  Makes sense.

It also makes total sense to talk about huge, undifferentiated categories of people like “Arabs” and “whites.”  Because there’s absolutely no difference between a Turk from Istanbul and a Berber nomad from Saudi Arabia, just like there’s no difference whatsoever between a Pole, a Russian, a German, a Frenchman, and a Greek.  That’s why there has never been any intercultural violence anywhere in Europe.

I’d play my tiny micro-violin of sorrow for this poor Salon lady, except that violins were invented by Susie Lasagna’s people way back when, and I’d hate to be guilty of “appropriation.”

[Meanwhile, astute readers of the linked piece will have picked up the real reason this ditz — who, if you google her, looks as white as Robert Byrd — is hacked off at belly dancing:  “She was not a terrible belly dancer. But she was incredibly thin…”]

UPDATE (6/16/2014): As with all entries in the Big Book of Goodthink, the fundamental frivolity of the “appropriation” charge is revealed by flipping the script.  Liberals are always sanctimoniously intoning that rap is art.  (Who can forget John F. Kerry’s famous shout-out to the poetry of the streets?).  And rap, of course, relies entirely on sampling, a.k.a. taking music written by white people and repurposing it — often without permission.

Got that?  It’s art if MC Funnetick Spellyn does it, but it’s genocide if some white chick starts shaking her grundle in a falafel joint.

Let’s treat this with the seriousness it deserves, and let The Onion have the last word:

“This is an extremely serious situation,” said Def Jam president Russell Simmons, whose label—which has featured such artists as Public Enemy, Beastie Boys, EPMD, and LL Cool J—was responsible for much of the sample depletion of the mid- to late ’80s. “Rappers may have to wait upwards of 10 years between albums, until there’s enough new pop songs to sample. Other than that, the only solution is for rappers to come up with the music themselves. Let’s just hope it never comes to that.”

The Zen of Comment Spam

I think Jeff Goldstein used to do something like this pretty regularly.  A little palate-cleanser for the brain.

This post is actually a fastidious one it helps new web
visitors, who are wishing in favor of blogging.

What does it mean?  Can it mean anything?  To ask is to answer, young padawan.

It’s still more coherent than most of the liberal troll comments we get around here, though.

Another Thing I Don’t Get

This:

Regardless of whether it made sense to fire Eric Cantor — the guy had an ACU rating of 95 — and putting aside any questions about David Brat, I think his victory is a positive sign for the midterms. Base elections are about intensity and turnout. Can anyone dispute that the results in VA-7 demonstrate that the GOP base is energized?

That’s from Jonah Goldberg’s G-File today.  Now, I like Goldberg.  His books, particularly Liberal Fascism, are good and informative and advance an important thesis.  He’s one of the few conservatives with a Q-score who doesn’t always seem to be auditioning for the role of Official GOP Spokesdork.  He’s also one of the few conservatives who understands that pop culture matters, but doesn’t express it by getting his panties twisted over every Hollywood product post- Leave It to Beaver.

But that statement up there is nonsense.  To the (admittedly small) subset of people who a) pay attention to politics and b) aren’t Beltway insiders, Eric Cantor IS the GOP.  The “base” isn’t energized at all.  The “base” got its ass kicked when Cantor lost, and Cantor lost primarily because he spent all his time pandering to the amnesty-loving, ObamaCare-enabling, squishy Democrat-lite “base.”  You did know that the GOP, like the so-called “Tea Party,” invested exactly zero dollars in David Brat, didn’t you?

It’s usually a mistake to attribute to malice what’s easily explained by stupidity.  But, as Goldberg’s comment demonstrates, the GOP seems committed to both.  They simply will. not. learn., even if it kills them.  And it will.

Things I Don’t Get: Portlandia

I was told I’d love this show because “it makes fun of liberals.”

It doesn’t.  For one, the traits which are supposedly exaggerated for comic effect really aren’t.  I live in a college town, and trust me, it’s nearly cinema verite. 

But, more importantly, the “satire” is really self-congratulation.  Liberals love them some Portlandia.  Indeed, it’s almost always a liberal who urges me to watch it, which should tell you all you need to know right there.  The “comic” exaggerations are all of the “cares too much” variety.  The characters are just so exquisitely sensitive, so finely tuned to all possible offenses, so filled with love for the Earth, the stars, and their fellow man.  The “comedy” is that they’re just such wonderful, wonderful people that this poor fallen world can never accommodate them.

It’s nauseating.  I really can’t understand what conservatives who like this show are thinking.

QUILTS x3: Amnesty and GOP Donors

It’s taken as read on the Right that squishy Republicans want amnesty because, and I quote, “their big money donors in industry want cheap illegal immigrant labor.”

Well, ok then.  Three questions I’d like to see asked:

1) Who, exactly, are these “big business donors”?  The nearest thing I can find to hard numbers in a brief google search is this:

back1013from here (table 7).  That’s as of 2007, and from what I see, the top “immigrant” (presumably including both legal and illegal) jobs are in “farming, fishing, &forestry;” “building cleaning and maintenance;” and “construction and extraction.”

So who’s “Big Cleaning”?  Which firms are “Big Forestry”?

2) Assuming there are such firms, what good does legalizing their labor force do?  Seriously?  I thought the point was to avoid minimum wage laws, ObamaCare mandates, etc.  If they’re amnestied, “Big Cleaning” has to pony up.  I suppose this would encourage the further flow of illegals, but wouldn’t that be offset by the mass firing of the now-legal workforce, resulting in unemployment co-pays and the like?  How does that make sense?

3) Assuming there’s a coherent answer to 1 and 2, why aren’t we, the Outlaws, the Tea Party, etc., boycotting “Big Cleaning”?  Obviously the GOP will push amnesty.  Nobody can seriously doubt this by now.  They keep proposing it, and there’s always a massive voter backlash, which inevitably results in… another amnesty proposal.  Because “the big money donors who want cheap labor” &c.  So why not direct the backlash at them?  It’s the only way to get results, but I’ve never even heard this suggested.