Conservative Cognitive Dissonance -- Guns = Masculinity

Ok. At first (I usually write the title of a post before the actual text) I was not sure if my use of the term "Cognitive Dissonance" was the best or even accurate to the circumstances, choice. Well I googled it, and having reality-tested my understanding of the term, I feel not only properly calibrated, but spot-on with it's use.

So here goes. No wait. Before I get into it I will say that as I was typing the previous line, it occurred to me that "Reality-Tested" is a related concept to the discussion. Let's see if I can weave that in before I am done (as usual, I am just sorta banging this out, as I think it up.)

The inspiration for today's essay was some insanely stupid comment I read somewhere. Ya it was on that stinkin' message board full of wanna-be trigger-happy conservatives. Hell's bells -- today I read some vitriol about how these at-least borderline sociopaths believe that some members of congress deserve capital punishment! These enfeebled psychotics did not even possess the sense of shame to even couch the horrid idea is so many words; they were blatant about it. But I digress. Anyway the comment was following some remark about some obviously and silly joke Hillary Clinton made on The David Letterman Show, last night.

Now the specific and obvious joke was obvious as it was a line in the "Top Ten List" sketch, as delivered by Ms. Clinton. The joke was, she would not pick a VP who would shoot anyone in the face. And the insanely stupid comment? The Psycho-Con-Commentator said something to the effect that his interpretation of the joke was that Ms. Clinton would not pick someone MASCULINE enough to pick up a gun.

Now here is where Cognitive Dissonance comes in (oh, and lack of reality-testing, prior to letting the world know the stupid thoughts one may have.) Now I have definitely shot guns in my life so I know what they can do. And I have been in physical fights, and I know that guns are an equalizer for the physical shortcomings of a person. Ain't really nothing inherently masculine about using a gun. Take a 115 lbs 20 yr old female, and a 195 lbs 20 yr old male, train them in how to skillfully use a low-recoil rife, like a M-16. Now put them at opposite ends of a football field. Now as long as both are adequately and relatively equally trained, the tiny fem and the large man are equally matched for a fight, as long as it is a gunfight.

Never mind the fact that (too) many a child has managed to blow away a sibling or play friend with a badly secured pistol.

So why do these cons deceive themselves into thinking gun=macho? Again, I provide Cognitive Dissonance as the answer. Correction; it is their ability to work through their Cognitive Dissonance that allows for them to carry off the deciet.

Here are the two irreconcilable conflicting thoughts:

(A) I see my self as a Super He-Man (cause if I am not a Super He-Man, I am a limp-wristed tinkerbelle.)

(b) I like guns, but a 7 year old can blow someone away with a cheap 9 mm with a low-set trigger pull.

Now how can I be a Super He-Man and a Gun Lover, if a gun makes a 7 year old as dangerous and deadly as myself? How can I maintain my inflated sense of machismo if the little 66 year old lady up the block has a Glock, knows how to use it, and can take me down as easily as some CEO doing canned hunting at some boar that has already been tied to a tree?


Here is how they resolve the disconnect; with great powers of self-deception. They disconnect the reality-testing function on this issue (meaning here, forget about how guns are basically unmasculine) and just persist in the belief that guns are masculine (despite all the reasons and evidence that points in the exact opposite direction.) But isn't it true that under the rules of Cognitive Dissonance, the subject is supposed to experience negative feelings from having to deal with the conflicting thoughts?

Well, sublimating that actual facts of the conflicting thoughts is one part, and either consciously or subconsciously accepting reliance on self-deciet and outwardly-directed deceit is the next part. But the negative feelings are still there. So channeling that negative energy is the last part of it. The subject will likely "Act Out" their negative feelings at any suitable target. They could take their guns out to play, and shred some targets, and persist in their self image as macho man. Or, they can hang around some lame message board, and call people who do not play with guns, "Wussies."

Ya. Now that is how to prove to the world one is a Super Macho Man; call others "Wussies" on the Internet.

War Crazy, or Just Plain Crazy?

(One must wonder when one knows his ass from his elbow, and can see those who clearly can not.)

Again, I am perplexed and preoccupied by them that still support the Iraq Debacle. And yes, I can not honestly say that everyone who still (claims or actually) believes this shit was justified, and/or still a smart if not necessary thing to do, has mad cow disease, but hmmm, so many of them act like it, or . . . . at least act like they can't tell their asses from their elbows.

Now do I develop that ass/elbow analogy now, or do I run with the more insane things some of these war supporters say? I choose the former . . . . as I originally chose the latter, and went way too long in this post.

So on to the analogy. Case in point? That totally bullshit talking point about how the antiwar people (2/3 of the country strong, we are, remember?) are moving the goalposts? They say we are being tricky in shifting attention to the non-existing, non-functioning government, as opposed to doing the Happy-Happy, Joy-Joy Dance over the alleged 'some' success of (alleged, as that shit in Anbar with the Sheiks pre-dates) "The Surge."

Never mind the actual fact that "Surge" is not a recognized military term. You will not find that in any military textbook published prior to 2006. But still, the war's supporters are saying that because there are some (emphasis on the meaning of the word some, as more than no, and less than many) signs of positive tactical results, that the "Surge" (again, an invented military term, likely invented by Karl Rove), is "Working?" Sorry to be harsh, but even giving the slightest bit of credibility to Karl Rove's rewrite of Military Terminology, is a sign of not being sufficiently rooted in reality. Remember, these are the bullshiters who serve plastic turkeys to hungry soldiers. In any event I dare anyone who thinks that the "Surge" is working, in relation to and as a sub-component of the unified strategy of the Intervention in Iraq, to actually provide causative proofs for that assertion. Otherwise, anyone currently doing the Happy-Happy, Joy-Joy Dance over the "Surge" may as well be doing it for no more special an occasion than the fact that several adults in the world today were able to tie their own shoes.

In any case, my reaction to the introduction of the term "Surge," into the discussion?

WTF! Do you take me for an idiot? Do you take me for a fool? Do you take me for someone who did not earn all those credit hours in World History and Political Science?

Ok, that was a purely for-show vent. It is now time to logically explain why anyone who knows their ass from their elbow could not possibly take the mere evidence of some positive tactical results as evidence "The Surge" is working, and, as well, why the lack of political stability has always been the point, dammit!

Now to paraphrase the Prussian military expert, Clausewitz (as I saw it said so succinctly on the net recently) says:

War is violent politics.

In other words, if you are not looking at war as some activity where the end result is a political goal, you don't know WTF you are talking about. Period. Go read a book. And I suggest this one.

http://www.fullbooks.com/On-War.html


Or, at least, learn the meaning of strategy:

"Strategy is all about how (way or concept) leadership will use the power (means or resources) available to the state to exercise control over sets of circumstances and geographic locations to achieve objectives (ends) that support state interests. Strategy provides direction for the coercive or persuasive use of this power to achieve specified objectives. This direction is by nature proactive. It seeks to control the environment as opposed to reacting to it. Strategy is not crisis management. It is its antithesis. Crisis management occurs when there is no strategy or the strategy fails. Thus, the first premise of a theory of strategy is that strategy is proactive and anticipatory."

and tactics:

"Tactics concerns itself with the parts or pieces; operational art with the combination of the pieces; and strategy with the combinations of combinations."

http://dde.carlisle.army.mil/authors/stratpap.htm


In other words, if you make the claim that some small tactical gains are evidence that your overall strategy is sound, and that you are "winning the war," you either don't know what you are talking about, or you are lying/full of shit. Any objective graduate of the Army War College would tell you the same. (And the link above? That is to a subdomain of the Army War College.)

Next, what was the goal of this "intervention?" Granted, the Bush Adm. changed the spin on the why and the what so many times I can forgive, nearly, any one's confusion but again, saddled with knowing my Clausewitz, I got the idea that the goal was

(a) Take out Saddam and his minions, and

(Oh and pay very close attention to this part. It is the "regime change" part explained a little bit more particularly . . . ya following me? Ok. Here goes)

(b) Help install a functioning and more democratic government.

If you don't get the (b) part, go to the White House website and read it ya damn self!

"We will help you build a peaceful and representative government that protects the rights of all citizens. And then our military forces will leave. Iraq will go forward as a unified, independent and sovereign nation that has regained a respected place in the world."

President's Message to the Iraqi People -- April 10, 2003

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030410-2.html


Hell, what was the original name of this misadventure?

Hint; it was “Operation Iraqi Freedom," not, "Operation Kick in Doors and Blow Shit up for the Mere Joy of It."

Oh and there was some other bullshit about finding weapons of mass destruction. As a political goal, finding them was a total failure ('Whoops our bad!') However, and even if I did not buy it, personally, that clearly met the mere definition of a strategic and political goal.

Last point. Even if I am the son of a grunt, advanced infantry, Airborne, Ranger, bloodied in actual combat vet, and I respect grunts for what they do, it seems to me that too much of the Rah-Rah chorus for this war are stuck in the grunt mentality. To explain (and I sorta hint at that above), the job of the grunt is to kick in doors and blow shit up. But that is not the purpose of war.

Now to be honest here, forgetting that is not necessarily evidence of being crazy. However it is a sign of what I was talking about a couple of posts ago:

Not being able to see five minutes past their faces.

Didn't I Warn Ya'll that Giuliani is a Douche?

Correction; I likely said dangerous sociopath. But let's not split hairs here (even if I am self-correcting).

Today's headline from Detroit:


Giuliani, in Detroit, wants Chertoff for top attorney.


http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070828/POLITICS01/708280397/1020

I guess his good buddy Keric is too busy being a customer of the Justice Department to be able to be in the running for the job, himself.


Come to think of it (and to quote the Boy Blunder himself), I say . . . "Bring it on!"


"Chertoff's selection also could cause its own complications: It would require two Senate confirmation hearings for a lame-duck presidency - one to fill Gonzales' post and another to confirm someone to replace Chertoff.However, Chertoff supporters say he could weather a tough confirmation fight. He already has won near unanimous Senate confirmation as assistant attorney general, judge and Homeland Security secretary."


(Emphasis Added)

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-uscher285349055aug28,0,7149277.story


The part that I bolded, is my inspiration for hoping they (The Boy Blunder and his minions) actually try this. I mean if it were not for the actual record of this Administration I would guess that no Administration in such a position ( tanking in the polls, reeling from scandal after scandal, including the criminal conviction of a Senior WH Advisor, who's commutation of sentence is itself another scandal, elected and baseless and unpopular war that no matter what amt. of tiny good news just seems to be the greatest geopolitical blunder since? Since? Ever!) would have the audacity to push for yet another POLARIZING and PARTISAN because of the WITLESS CHOICE contested confirmation.

But that would be the smart choice, to avoid all that shit. But remember. Bush is the President who tried to serve a plastic turkey to troops in-country. There is no limit, it seems, to the shit these folk will attempt.

It is Almost Sad, Really.

Not Gonzo's retirement (and I should not have been so chicken with the time frame for my guess as to when he would be gone.)What is sad is watching Bush and Bush Administration apologists.

It is like seeing little old ladies wearing clothes that went out of fashion decades ago, oblivious to the fact that they look more than a little dotty.

It is like watching the poor fool who is trying to look all smooth and cool, walking across the banquet hall, oblivious to the fact he is trailing a tail of toilet paper from his shoe.

It is like watching some dork try to sound all-smart while talking about some topic, but his zipper is down, and everyone knows it, but him.

It is like seeing someone in the fancy restaurant, in their fancy clothes, with the fancy sauce stain, dribbling down the front of their blouse.

Ok. I think I made the key point. Obliviousness is the key point, particularly being oblivious to the reality that (lemme check the polls) about only a third of Americans still have a positive view of Bush (and that figure is damned close to those who still support the Iraq Debacle. I believe that that is not a coincidence.) So before one gets to the matter of how weak (or totally delusional) any particular defense of Bush or his Adm. happens to be, there is the premise, that 2/3rds of Americans ain't gonna buy the argument no matter how calmly and sanely the argument is presented.

That is the first level of why it is almost sad. The next level? Well, it depends, as some of the Bush Fan Club are clearly not living in the same stream of time and under the relatively same definitions and meanings for 'sanity,' 'reality,' and as well, the rules of usage for the English Language. But it breaks down into at least two groups, after that. There are the ones like I say who are just looking a little sad, that they are so far behind the curve, and really have no idea that their arguments are just that weak. But then there are the others; the psychotics. I could give examples of some of the truly disturbed psychotic babble I have seen on the Internet. Shit, hell, damn. I just today read some truly vile thread on the Hannity Board where the most extreme of the psychotics were discussing a "Final Solution" for the libs. Yes, there are limits to how far one can go in discussing violence and murder, over there, and if these sick puppies did not cross the line, they are as close to it as is possible, but really? A discussion about the ways to kill the liberals?

That is not sad, that is scary.

Anyway, oh! Here is the quote that sorta explains (by way of a semi-sarcastic remark) how crazy the (non violent) crazies who are still on Team Bush, are:


The cartoon monsters you create in your mind are truly horrible.

Try sleeping with a night light.



Not all of them still on Team Bush are paranoid. But some? I think that is the only state of mind some of these folk entertain. Well, as bad as it must be to be that paranoid, that much of the time, it could be worse. I mean I have covered the violent ones, here.

Last remark for now, on these matters:

I know I should not spend that much time, reading the crazy, hateful, deeply-disturbed, and sometimes psychotically violent things some of these folk post on the Internet.

Call the following a cop-out if you like but I do get a certain benefit from doing it; schadenfreude. After all, I read some of what the more disturbed ones' post, and I think:

"Damn. It must be AWFUL having them kind of thoughts controlling one's mind. I can't imagine living life that way. Glad I am not that messed up!"

Don't Believe The Hype.

I was googling for historical information on "Regime Change," to see if I could find a single example of a foreign invader actually pulling that off, in a fractured and heavily-factionalized country, such alleged-country only having been anything resembling a country while under the despotic rule of a vicious tyrant.

(Ya that was my intent, to prove the negative. Well, I intended to do that until I got bored and moved on to something else. But anyway . . .)


I came aross something that triggered an idea for a post (and that trigger was some nitwit's repetition of the lie about how the US "WON" the Cold War against the Soviet Union.) And that idea is:

My preliminary list of Lies and Bullshit, damaging to America, But Believed by Too Many People.

Here goes my first crack at it:

(1) the US "WON" the Cold War against the Soviet Union.

(2) Ronnie Reagan "WON" the Cold War against the Soviet Union.

(3) Ronnie Reagan was a conservative.

(4) Ronnie Reagan was a good president.

(5) We could have "WON" the Vietnam War, but for (fill in the blank with dem/lib/media/pinko/hippie) bastards.

(6) George W. Bush is a conservative.

(7) George W. Bush is a good president.

(8) (Even if it so far beyond human ability to be able to measure and learn the content of some politician's character, if all you have for your data-set are sound bites, vid clips, print media gossip, and their own manufactured bullshit) people can accurately measure the content of a candidate's character, so they "honestly" can claim they voted for the more moral/decent/godly, or said as 'better' man.

(9) (Incorporating by reference the parenthetical clause, above), character matters more than ability or intellect in a politician (never minding the objective fact that character is way more of a subjective and elusive quality to quantify.)

(10) We would be sure to win the war in Iraq, but for the (fill in the blank with dem/lib/media/pinko/hippie) bastards.

(11) First we need to provide security, then Iraq can have a functioning government.

(Only need to reference the following bullshit/lie phrases to make the point):

(12) Iraqi People.

(13) Iraqi Nation.

(14) Iraqi Government.

(15) Iraqi Security.

(16) Iraqi Democracy.

Oh. And to end, the following, and it is a quote from that NYT OpEd written by the 82 Abn. troopers.* As such, I am not going to edit it, but instead I will post it as they wrote it; that means it will show their negation of the bullshit, as opposed to the assertion of such bullshit:

" To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html

Shit. I haven't even touched on either general foreign policy nor domestic issue. Another time, perhaps.

* For the record, my dad did some of his earlier Airborne Career as a member of the 82nd. Call me biased or not, I am providing full disclosure here. Oh, and for the record, my Dad's real Unit Allegiances are to :

(a) 2nd Ranger Company (Korea) the Buffalo Rangers, and

(b) 187 Regimental Combat Team ("Ne Desit Virtus"). RAKKASANS!!!

As only the military can complicate things, the 187 "Regiment" is currently The Third Brigade of the 101 Airborne Division.

Quote from "Matrix Revolutions." And I'm Not Doing a Blogger's Bait and Switch. This Train's Stopping At The Iraq (war mongers') Station.

First the quote. Well, just in case someone reading this is not familiar with the Matrix Trilogy, I should set up the scene. A hover craft ship, trailing a cloud of attacking mechanical menaces, some of which are actively cutting into the ship's hull, has just made a spectacular crash landing on the underground city's cavernous dock, which happens to be under heavy fire by another larger wave of invading enemy machines. The ship makes it to the dock, and the ship sets off its EMP Blast, halting the mechanical invaders' attack (for the present.)

Lock is the Commanding Officer of all forces. The Ship Captains are his subordinates.

Niobe and Roland are Ship Captains.



LOCK: Three captains, one ship. I assume the other ships were lost under equally pointless circumstances?

NIOBE: Good to see you too, Jason.

LOCK: Council's waiting to hear an explanation. You'll forgive me for not attending, but I have to try to salvage this debacle.

ROLAND: Did I miss something, Commander? I thought we just saved the dock.

LOCK: That's the problem with you people. You can't think for five minutes in front of your face.



Now even if it might not be obvious to all what this has to do with the Iraq war, I will explain that just a bit further. Or let me say it not as a declarative fact but as . . . . my impression.

It is my impression that it was not the subordinates but the planners of the Iraq War who could not think five minutes out.

I mean how it the hell could that shit hole end up pretty much nearly exactly as bad as the war's naysayers (myself included) predicted?

Seems that some of us were very accurate at thinking five minutes out front, and well, just speaking for myself (as I am not authorized to speak on anyone else's behalf, at this moment) I must say that NO NO NO! I am not going to do a "Nanner, nanner, toldja so." That would be so inappropriate, and anyone who insinuates that I do, either by particular and deliberate reference, or gross generalization, should be seriously and deeply ashamed of themselves. (Ya -- that is sorta begging the question, as if they really had a sense of shame they never would have mongered this war.) However I will say this much. Damn it, I wish that this foreign policy disaster had never been started.

Shortsightedness is not only a bad thing, but it should be considered the most inexcusable of malfeasance for government officials, particularly when the cost of that shortsightedness is death and dismemberment and loss of billions and billions of dollars. The offence is much greater, particularly when (as in the case of the debacle in Iraq), there was a very loud, and in many cases (not me -- I am just a nobody), very knowledgeable and expert chorus of people who basically were shouting about the short-odds of success, and most-likely awful results.

Courage of their convictions MY ASS! I don't care about how deeply one is convinced of the rightness of their cause, particularly when the math says:

"Odds are against you, fella. Oh, and if things go as expected, if no miracle, no act of God, no magic Genie pops up and by virtue of the ability to override all the laws of the universe, suspends the laws of causality and probability, therefore allowing for a happy ending . . . .

be certain that there will be death, destruction, loss, and great failure."

Well Said. Wish I were the author . . .

and before I get to the meat of it, I have been thinking a lot this past couple two-three weeks about one of those recurring themes of my interest -- hate and the haters of the world.

(Yes, I have been spending way too much time reading ugly garbage at the Hannity.com message board. I confess. I know I should not. I know it is self imposed torture to suffer the goons and thugs of the world, when I could be doing something more wholesome like watching Shakira videos. Anyway . . .)

Moving on here, I have to say . . . NO! NO NO NO! During my net search for a very intelligent essay on that or related topics, I did see that most insane argument -- that hating haters is as bad as being a hater on account of the usual irrational reasons?

Sorry, but that sort of apologia, even if the innocent product of a enfeebled mind, is just not freaking getting the point! Irrational hate is baseless and therefore condemened by polite and decent society. And as far as what are the possible areas of "rational hate?" Well, time to calibrate, kids. Perhaps hate is too strong a word (but it does cut through the fog, quickly), so instead what we really are talking about there is a collective refusal to condone, at all, a violation of one of the gravest socially-agreed standards of decency.

No doubt. There surely is an objective baseline for minimum decency in a society, and here in the USA in the 21st century all manners of irrational hate are condoned. Now, tolerance (the goal of decent society) is not (to borrow the often-misused phrase) a social suicide pact that requires that we put Nazis and Islamic Terrorists, and anti-semitic polemicists, and delusional demagogic partisans, and your barely-concealed basically-really racists on the same level as Kindly Aunt Hellen, who never has a bad thing to say about anyone (bless her little heart.) Nope. Tolerance is about fostering and encouraging More Tolerant Thinking and Behavior in society.

(Apologies, I saw the mostly-same idea expressed somewhere else tonight and do not have the cite. Grr.)

Anyway, That being that, time for the goodly quote:


Arabs, by the way, are a minority of the world's Muslims, and not all Arabs are Muslim. Some are Christians. Christianity, after all, was born on the West Bank in Bethlehem. It would be as stupid to try to racially profile Muslims as it would be to racially profile Americans. We come in all shapes, sizes and colors, and so do Muslims. If he shaved his beard and moustache, Osama could easily pass for an American.

I learned a long time ago that if you want to know something, go to the source. If you want to know what communism is like, talk to people who lived under it. If you want to know about Islam, talk to Muslims. The great thing about America is that whatever country you want to know about, you can find people who were born there and lived there. Whatever subject you are interested in, you can find people who know it firsthand.

Don't be a sheep. Don't let demagogues, politicians and special interests herd you hither and yon for their hidden purposes. Use your public library. Use the Internet, and recognize that television is an unreliable source, especially those yahoos who have to yakety-yak for a living. They are celebrity talkers, not newspeople – though God knows, print journalism has its own faults.

Life is too short to hate, and public policy is too important to be based on fiction, imagination and propaganda. We have the capacity to be rational beings, but only if we have the will and are willing to learn how to think accurately. The world is complex, and none of us can afford to stop learning.

It really is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness, and it is certainly better to add to the light of reason than to contribute to the darkness of ignorance and hate.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese109.html

That is the end of the essay, and I recommend you read all of it.

Good stuff, I think!

Forget UGLY NASTY PARTISAN BULLSHIT!!

I am back to doing what The Lord God put me on this earth to do, above all else, and that is:




To PRAISE the Divine Goddess of FUNK!























Damn, and I mean DOUBLE DAMN. I MUST see The Goddess on her next tour.

It is the only thing I have in life to live for (well for now at least!)

(Borrowing the Fox News Cheap Trick) George W. Bush Killed Conservativism & the GOP?

For the record, the Fox trick is to put a question mark at the end of a otherwise declarative sentence and hope the reader misses the 'qualifier' and takes the 'question' for a declaration of fact. (I really hate those guys and that is only ONE reason why. Anyway . . .)

I really do not have that intent. Far as I am concerned, despite the obvious presidential election successes of Ronnie Reagan, and that long national nightmare known as the 1980's, I think it was really he who (nearly, if not all but) killed conservatism as an actually factually conservative-rooted philosophy of political identity, by making nice with the Amen Corner of the RW christian Evangelicals and Fundys.

For years, since those nightmarish Reagan years, specifically, I have compared the modern GOP to a shotgun marriage. That is because the two main factions, the corporatists and the RW christians really despise each other. The only thing they really have in common is they despise democrats/liberals just a little bit more. Here is another way of explaining it. Imagine a mixed pair of natural wildlife enemies, like a cobra and mongoose. Now introduce some third species that both other species may not like, such as tiger. Under those circumstances, the cobra and mongoose very well may forget their natural animosity, in order to tag team the other 'foreign' hunter.

But I digress . . .

Anyway, let us consult the last real conservative, Barry Goldwater, for the skinny on the RW christians' . . . . lack of true conservative sentiment:


However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C," and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."

From the Congressional Record, September 16, 1981.



Ya. Now there was a man who knew right from wrong, and as well, right from right wing radical.

I will stop here for now, even if when I started writing this, I was thinking more about the large decline in both identity as and membership in the GOP. There really has been a drop, and the Bush W. Years seems to have a large part in that. However, I have already stated the core of my thesis. Reagan's deal with the RW christians was either the beginning of the if-not end, or the start of the inevitable decline into decrepitude. I imagine I will pick up this theme again, later.

Nota Bene. Since I did let the cat out of the box, I may as well be clear, and state (if not restate) my personal First Amendment Religious Freedom Policy:

As an American who has sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution (but not the government or the POTUS, yea for that distinction), I am willing to fight for the right of any and all Americans to believe in what ever dumbassed, close-minded, magic-dependent, reality-denying, delusional, deviant, and or just plain loopy stoopid-assed shit they want.

However the minute they start trying to FORCE ME to RESPECT what ever dumbassed, close-minded, magic-dependent, reality-denying, delusional, deviant, and or just plain loopy stoopid-assed shit they want, is the minute they become my enemy, and I shall (if possible and only metaphrically speaking, as long and until the coming of the actual revolution) as did St. Atilla . . .

"raise the Holy Hand grenade up on high, saying, "O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade that with it Thou mayest blow Thine enemies to tiny bits, in Thy mercy." And the Lord did grin and the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and breakfast cereals, and fruit bats and large chu..."

Ok, so sue me. I was making a very serious point there, and made an uprovoked twist into a routine from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." In my (perhaps weak) defense, I say as follows. One of the most effective weapons against humorless, sociopathic, authoritarian religious bigots is to Not Take Them Seriously.

Oh, and since I plugged Python there, I might as well plug the Musical Spamalot.

I have seen it, and it was very NI!

And yes. You will get to see Brother Maynard recite from The Book of Armaments (Chapter 2, verses 9-21), dealing with St. Atilla and The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.

Message to the LESS THAN 1/3 of Americans who still support the misadventure in Iraq . . . .

twice as many Americans think all ya'll are outta your freaking minds.


Shifting ideas, slightly. Consider the following checklist:


1. Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
2. Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
3. Authoritarian
4. Secretive
5. Paranoid
6. Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
7. Conventional appearance
8. Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
9. Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life
10. Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
11. Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
12. Incapable of real human attachment to another
13. Unable to feel remorse or guilt
14. Extreme narcissism and grandiose
15. May state readily that their goal is to rule the world.


Do ya know anyone who exhibits at least half these features? More?

Hmmm do you think these are desired qualities in any type of position, like POTUS?

Do you think that our current POTUS, his staff, or admirers resemble that?

Well don't be suprised; this is a checklist for SOCIOPATHY.


(And to think some people still don't get it, why I think many of my fellow Americans are basically domestic terrorists!)


Cry Discordia!

Special Saturday Bonus Feature. Kyrie Eleison!

(Kyrie Eleison (Greek for "Lord have mercy"; the Latin transliteration supposes a pronunciation as in Modern Greek) is a very old, even pre-Christian, expression used constantly in all Christian liturgies)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08714a.htm


To explain my sudden outburst of Church Latin, I just took one of those on-line tests, & this one was about "Christian Orthodoxy."


Now, I usually describe myself as a rotten excuse for a Catholic. I sometimes go further and say that I am "Technically still on the books in Rome, but I likey have been dodging some Monsignore for years, and if he ever catches up with me, he will hit me with my "Letters Excommunicant" (Yes my God has a sense of humor; much more so than than some Bible Thump'n stick up their ass, authoritarian, half-sociopathic, post-schizmatic King James version mangling, blowhard who has no understanding of the doctrine of Christian Humility particularly when they talk about it, hypocrite. Sorry for the rant there. I have just met so many "christian" phonies that I have a hard time keeping a leash on my Hypocrite-Hounding Hell-Hounds. )


Getting back on track, here is my totally unsuprising result:


Your Score: Mostly Heterodox.
You are 50% Orthodox.

You have some correct ideas about God and religion, but are mostly in heretical error.


That was the expected part. And here is the UNEXPECTED part:


I scored better as in more orthodox than 99% of my tracked "gender" on this test.

But I should not take too much meaning out of that (or cause for alarm). I have no idea how many others took this test.

Authoritarians majorly suck. Totalitarians suck even more!

I am not up for all that much of my own blather today. I have been grinding mental gears here, while doing the laundry two-step. One of the things on my mind lately, however, is how much I believe that authoritarians suck, and how I am actually more afraid (not in the cowering in the corner sense, but what I take as a realistic and menacing threat to my well being and constitutionally-protected rights as an American, afraid) of our home-grown authoritarians.

Well, after six years of living under the home grown Terrorists, a/k/a The Bush Administration, can you blame me for fearing what massive damage home grown authoritarians can do? Dude! Open your eyes! If this is the future, I despair!

Ok. I will stop with the overstating things, but I really do not like it that our elected officials are trying to scare us.

Scare = Frighten = Terrorize. Savvy?


Oh, and I have understood that for quite a long time. Most scary thing is there still are way too many Americans who do not get that obvious bit of truth.

Oh, and speaking of obvious, here is my vote for quote of the year:

"[i]n an era of mass delusion and denial on the party of leaders in both major political parties, stating the obvious can be a radical act."

John Nichols, in The Nation. No disrespect, but I do not think this is a true original quote. It seems way too universal to be anything new. KnowwhatImean? I just finished watching season II of Rome, and I can imagine Cicero or Brutus, or Cassius saying much the same thing, if not on the steps of the Senate, at least in a private residence, where the few remaining citizens loyal the idea of a true Republic, meet in secret and plot against the Tyrant.

Tyrants are at least authoritarian, if not worse, ya know!

Ya know how some people get all bat-shit, bullshit when a famous person dies?

I was meaning to give examples of that kinda bullshit, but I decided to be kinder than that, and move on to the real topic here.

One of the great innovators and masters of Be-Bob Jazz, Max Roach, has died.

Now I can not claim to have ever met him. I don't think I ever saw him in concert. But he played with Charlie Parker's Quartet, back in the day. Oh, and my my uncle used to jam with Charlie Parker, back in the day. And if you know anything about musicians, generally, and jazz players, specifically, you should know about the continuum. That means (in brief) every musician is on some line of descent, like with a family tree, but it is based on who were your teachers and who you played with, and who they did, and so on. Therefore, I am sorta on the Be-Bob continuum (even if I never was a pro, I tie in to the Be-Boppers through my uncle.)

Anyway, back to Max Roach. Genius Drummer. And I started playing drums when I was in the fourth grade. Even if I was exposed to Be-Bop at an early age, it was not until high school days that Max Roach influenced me, for real. Suffice it to say, my jazz solo style was hugely influenced by the Max Roach style. And this is me talking, not what some body has posted on the net in some obit. Yet, if I had to sum up what was the hallmark of Roach's genius was that his innovative solo style stood for a very important 'truth' in music, generally, and jazz drumming, particularly. That truth can be expressed as follows:

"The space between the notes are as important as the notes."

This may sound like nothing important to someone who is not a musician (or a rhythm player) but jazz drum soloing had followed a nice enough but sorta not exactly thoughtful style throughout the big band era, and that was one where there was always something being banged on with a drum stick or some pedal being pressed. That can get to be relentless and even tiresome, after a while.

Now Roach? Here is how I describe a max Roach solo.

Badda ba crash/splash-bang . . . .

He gets up from behind the drum set, goes across the street, bowls a couple frames, comes back and

Ticky-ticky, baddda da badda-bum . . .

He hops a flight to Havana (if we are talking about the hey day of Be-Bop, the early 1950's) has a couple Cuba Libre's at the Trop., gets back to Birdland, and behind the kit and we get

Tat, ta tat, badda.

Kick-kick, chick. radda ratta . . .

You get the message I hope?

I will screw my mind to that place where I can talk 'academic' and say it the other way.

Mr. Roach's spatially and temporally staccato and delayed cadences highlighted the aural difference between the played notes and the naturally unplayed rests; his deliberately seemingly yet deceptively haphazard syncopation served to illuminate the symbiotic relationship between the beats and the rests.

Oh, and it sounded sooo cool!

Anyway, before I get too long, let me find a decent tribute page.

http://www.drummerworld.com/drummers/Max_Roach.html

Oh, and Max. Say hi to Uncle Billy for me.

As Willie Nelson sings it, You Were Always On My Mind . . .

and I mean Iraq, and I don't mean I like it. I hate that Iraq is always on my mind. Then again, I thought the "invasion" or as I call it sometimes, the "misadventure" was so wrong headed, and so obviously the product of obviously disturbed and ignorant minds, that (using my new favorite indicator of disorganized and impaired thinking) people must have been, "Smokin' crack, 'n crackin' 40s," to believe that there was any basis at all for believing ANYONE could pull it off, leave alone the specific gang of idiots in this administration, specifically being led by our Messianic and Sociopathic boy-blunder POTUS.

(I will stop there on that vein. I did get fired up I admit!)

Anyway, sorry in advance, if I am repeating myself, at least partially. But it needs be said, at least based on the fact some folk still have not seen the light, or otherwise experienced the epiphany that, "It is the POLITICS stupid," not the kicking in of doors and blowing of shit up that is what this war is really about.

Time for the refresher course.

Herr Clausewitz says it this way.


"War is not an independent phenomenon, but the continuation of politics by different means."

And I quote him as I have been witnessing (via sight and sound) far to much, lately, the hue and cry of the warbirds, regarding the imminent report of Gen. Petraeus, that the opponents are going to (or have started):

"The Dems will diveret attention/blame from the military to the Iraqi politicians." (That is a direct quote from some warbird on a message board.)

Failing to see that yes, the point of foreign policy with guns and bombs is to change or otherwise force a political matter is a stunning and excuseless level of ignorance, I say. Then again, that shows how we got stuck in this mess; too many people don't get it, that the purpose of war is to continue politics and taking that one step further, achieve a political objective.

Hell, I heard some AM radio NeoCon telling what was an absolute whopping steaming pile of bullshit, the other day. The bullshitter in question was Mark Levin. His steaming pile? I can not quote it directly but it was to the effect that we should not be too concerned that the gvt. in Iraq is a failure, and that once the military gets things right, that then the Iraqi gvt. would fall together.

My (theoretical) reply to that? Dude! Give me just ONE example of a similar situation working out that way?

(Never has worked that way, far as I know. )

To say it simply, that without something resembling a functional gvt. there, what ever we do is fundamentally pointless. And furthermore, keeping Americans there (and letting them die there) is a pointless mission. My point is simple and obvious to anyone who knows the most basic fundamental Geopolitical and/or Military Science Theory. Them that don't get that are either truly ignorant (as in have not quite yet learned the most basic of either Geopolitical or Military Science Theory), or are so evilly partisan they are willing to let more Americans die rather than admit that they fucked up. (Ok there are in theory more answers to the question, but hey. I am trying to make a point here.)

Oh and as I jacked a quote from a certain message board, I might as well sum up, at least re the Patreus Report, with another jack:

"General Petraeus (taking his cue from Vietnam's General Westmoreland), is gonna say in essence, that if he gets a few thousand more troopies he'll have the war won in about six months. And of course, he'll get his troopies and . . ."

That sorta sums up my forcast about the report. Even if I was a youngster during the 'Nam Years, I sorta have been having flashbacks. That has been not so much on account of the situation on the ground, but becuase the bullshit being tossed around sounds mighty familiar to me. And in closing, I will make another song reference, as that is where I stared this, with a musical reference:


Everything old
is new again.

Da dadda da
da da da da da
da da
da da da
(chick.)

I was so close to the Imperial City that

I spent time, for the past five days, driving on the D.C. Beltway.

I am none the worse for it, although I have to say the guards at the NIH facility were very helpful when I asked for directions. I messed up, and did not follow their expert advice (shame on me) and made it halfway to Alexandria before I managed to turn around and get myself on the right heading. Anyway . . . )

Well were are we, then?

I could talk about so many things, but I will do a few quickies:

1. Dennis Miller has a radio show, now. Majorly sucking, it is. He knows less about politics than a dust bunny, and he was not funny. He was not even trying to be funny. He was playing it straight. Barf, Barf.

2. Rove is retiring. However, from my POV that is not enough good news. I mean, if he really did not commit a felony during his White House years, I hope some of Satan's Minions pop up out of the Hell Mouth, like in the Opera, Don Giovanni, and drag his nasty ass down to the lower levels of Hell. He has earned it, I believe for sure. I would bet my life that if there truly was an objective standard, he would be judged as part of the problem of what is wrong with America, generally, and American Politics and Government, specifically. And ya'll know I hate bullshit, and he is about as bullshit a person as it gets.

And lastly . . .

3. I wanna hear/see more about Sean Hannity's (likely at this point technically legal, but) sleazy, essentially bullshit charity. I heard the douchebag railing on the dems today for using the troops, and he is running a charity that is allegedly for their (the deceased hero's) kids, and millions of the money collected is going into some peoples' pockets.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=112179

Looks like Hannity cares more about taking care of his "good friends" than the scholarship program.


Hmmm. Maybe them Satanic Minions should grab his ass up too, when they get here to get "Turd Blossom's" stank ass.

Dontcha just HATE people like that?

(Follow up from the previous post. This is a JOKE, originally -- far as I know -- from the commedian Emo Phillips and the original form of it goes back to 1984 or so. OH and I used the "H" word in the title, there but don't judge me. I am talking about the lesson of the joke, not agreeing with the narrator of the joke. Hmm kay?)



I was walking across a bridge recently.

I spied this guy who looked like he was ready to jump off. So, I thought I'd try to stall him until the authorities showed up (or at least until I had time to put film in my camera).

"Don't jump!" I said.

"Why not?" he said.

"Nobody loves me."

"God loves you," I said.

"You believe in God, don't you?"

"Yes, I believe in God," he said.

"Good," I said. "Are you Christian or Jewish?"

"Christian," he said.

"Me, too!" I said. "Protestant or Catholic?"

"Protestant," he said.

"Me, too!" I said. "What kind of Protestant?"

"Baptist," he said.

"Me, too!" I said. "Independent Baptist or Southern Baptist?"

"Independent Baptist," he said.

"Me, too!" I said. "New Evangelical/Moderate Independent Baptist or Conservative Independent Baptist?"

"Conservative Independent Baptist," he said.

"Me, too!" I said. "Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist or Lose-Your-Salvation Arminian Conservative Independent Baptist?"

"Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist," he said.

"Me, too!" I said. "Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist OR Historical Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist?"

"Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist," he said.

"Me, too!" I said. "Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist OR For Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist?"

"Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist," he said.

"Me, too!" I said. "Unashamed Fundamentalist Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist OR Strict Separation of Church and State Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist?"

"Unashamed Fundamentalist Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist," he said.

"Me, too!" I said. "Pro-Disney Boycott Pro-Life Unashamed Fundamentalist Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist OR Anti-Disney Boycott Pro-Choice Unashamed Fundamentalist Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist?"

"Pro-Disney Boycott Pro-Life Unashamed Fundamentalist Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist," he said.

"Me, too!" I said. "KJV Only Pro-Disney Boycott Pro-Life Unashamed Fundamentalist Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist OR Modern Versions Pro-Disney Boycott Pro-Life Unashamed Fundamentalist Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist?"

"MODERN VERSIONS Pro-Disney Boycott Pro-Life Unashamed Fundamentalist Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist," he said.

"Auugghh!!! You heretic!" I said. And I pushed him over.

*********************************


NOTE!

I am not personally picking on Baptists here. The original version of the joke dealt with Lutherans, and was only about a quarter(?) as long, as there are only so many divisions of the Lutheran Church (That form of Protestantism is more hierachal than Baptists who seem to have so many more particular 'dividing lines.') The pre punch (or should I say PUSH) line in the original had to do with the difference between Missouri Synod and Evangelical Lutheran Church (or some such thing. I am no expert.)

The longer version of the joke seems funnier to me as it so well demonstrates the lunacy of putting that much import into iddity biddy biddy petty differences.

That is the meaing of the joke. And my shorter version of such a joke (see last post) made the petty point about which flavor of Crest Toothpaste is best. Same lunacy in my mind; it is only a different petty difference that is the twist of the joke.



EDIT TO ADD:

Thought occured to me that I ought to make double-sure I am crystal clear here -- that bigotry is VIOLENTLY standing up for one's own beliefs or VIOLENTLY railing against others' beliefs (two sides of same coin).

Don't take my use of the word violent as a restrictive there. Violent does not always mean physically violent. Merely saying people should die on account of not believing the same shit you do is violent opposition to . . . opposing points of view.

Savvy?

Monday Morning Mental Vapor Lock

Hmm. Monday's are often a slow day for not only my mind, but for the entire world (of issues, ideas, and events.)

I don't know where to (bother to) start. Let me review what I have rejected, thusfar.

Racism, other forms of bigotry and the (excuseless) apologists.

Na. I was deep enough into that shit last week. Granted, the bigots of the nation are still there, and it seems they are using the internet to virtually sniff each others' farts and say to each other something like:

"Sweet. Just like mine. Funny how farts that smell like mine smell sweet to me. You are my BFF! Now let's go to some web forum and insult anyone who's skin/religion/politics/favorite brand of toothpaste is different than ours. Oh. You like Crest Tartar Control? Well I say the only one fit for me is Crest Extra Whitening. You dissagree? Well oh ya? Fwck you you suck. You should be dead (for daring to think other than I do.)"

Ok. Turns out that once I got started there, I kept going. That proves that once I get to thinking too much about racists and bigots, I tend to get on a roll.

Oh and just so no one thinks I am a plagarist, I give creds and props to Emo. He is the commedian (well I have no idea what he is up to these days) who wrote the classic "Lutheran Bit," back in the mid-80's, from which I have sorta jacked the style of my bit, above.

Hey. Let me look for that. Even if I have posted it before, It is worth another look see.


Oh LORD. I should have guessed. Over the past 20 - more years, the joke has morphed not only as to which religion is poked, but it is now longer and funnier, making the point that much more forceful.

Ok. I have to start another post; it is too long!

"No amount of troops in no amount of time will make much of a difference” in Iraq if there’s no functioning Iraqi government.

Granted, that is what I think, but this is not me quoting me. This is me quoting the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Adm. Mullen.



Ok so who are you going to trust?



The senior Military Chief, or some one like:

Well she is easy on the eyes and all that. But she still is a ninny.

Oh. And in case you have not figured it out yet (I have not been crystal clear on this point, I admit.)

Here are the reasons I more often than not use the word douchebag, instead of some other expression of the descriptive idea that I am trying to communicate.



Firstly, there is that whole, what it means/how I have explained what it means to me thing. If you have read the explanations in the prior posts, you know that I mean to convey a very particular descriptive message there.



Next, although I sometimes use the phrase semi-sociopath, the term sociopath is not even approved by the American Psychiatric Association, anymore. So if I were using the proper clinical language I would have to say it this way:


Person with Anti-Social Personality Disorder.



That is way too much to type. And douchebag does have the right emotional ring, don't it?



And before I stop I declare, that I do not have cred. in psychology. I am going off of what I have learned over the years both out of text books, and from living here on this planet. And one last last thing? I know that most people who seem to fit my definition of douchebag do not have a full blown case of Anti-Social Personality Disorder. Few people do (mercy, that.) However the kind that you and I are likely to meet are partially there, or half way there, and honestly that is a bad enough experience, dealing with someone only half way to being a total sociopath.



You don't ever want to get close to a full sociopath.

Related to last post. Which person is more deranged?

The person who is genuinely a semi-sociopath (what I would call a genuine douchebag) or someone who claims, only, to be acting that way?

Seems mostly like a rhetorical question to me as if you walk the walk and talk the talk, you are it (leastwise, according to Aristotle, that quote I posted last week.)

Now there is a total exception: actors. If you are portraying a heinous character, in furtherance of the Thespian Arts, you are exempted.

Then, there is the murky territory. There are those people who are not really working off a script but are in the public earning a living by presenting themselves to the public as douchebags; AM radio talk show hosts, acidic pundits, politicians.

Personally, I do not give them any slack. I hold them to the Aristotelian standard of you are how you act. Or to say it otherwise, I am not impressed if I hear it said that they shower their spouse with love, and treat their pets kindly, and call their momma every week. All that really matters to me is whether they are human (in a good way) to me or whether they act like a douche around me.


Oh, and there are the amateurs; people who act like douches to amuse themselves, primarily, and secondarily, to amuse anyone vulgar enough to find that shit entertaining.

They get no wiggle room at all. And here is why that is the case.

Now it is one thing when you see someone either singing badly or dancing badly, or basically proving that NO they DO NOT have talent.

To those people, the following old joke line applies: "Don't give up your day job."

However, for an amateur caustic commentator? For a person who chooses to portray the part of La Douche, when not performing in character via a script, or even other wise for money as a paid professional? Here is the line for them:

"There is a pill for that, and many psychotherapeutic options to choose from."

Everything Old is New Again. Retro-Racism Rears It's Ugly Head. Reasonable People are HORRIFIED!

Fellow bigots and sympathizers craft weakly-reasoned apologia.


That would be the head line, but before I go back to that idea, let me do the set up. Yes, we live in a better world regarding matters of race, than the world I was born to, of 1962. Many more people seem to at least get it, that they don't "Get It," when it comes to issues of what it means to be victim of discrimination based on the narrow minded hateful bigotry of members of the dominant ethnographic group. Said simply, a lot more whites know, now, that they have no clue what it feels like to be on the receiving end of racist shit. That is progress.

Many more people in the USA than before seem to get the idea that 'In Theory,' if not in practice, that the differences between the so-called races is not a fact, biologically, at least (beyond melanin levels.) That is progress.

Oh but I still suspect, personally, that for way too many Americans, their breadth, depth and totality of understanding of issues concerning the racist form of bigotry (and ya there are many forms of bigotry) is limited to the following:

"It is not good, to be thought of as a racist."


And now we get to the retro-racists. What is a retro-racist? That is a hateful douchebag who understands that it is not good to be thought of as a racist, but embraces some seriously unreasonable racist bigoted beliefs about some group. (Merely, for example of such racist hate, I present the holding of vile racist beliefs against brown skinned people from south of the border who happen to speak some form of Spanish, or brown skinned people who speak Arabic or Farsi or some strange distant foreign language, as the two most popular flavors of racism, currently active.)


Now how does a thoroughly modern American retro-racist resolve the two incompatible realities; that it is bad to be seen as a racist, but that one embraces racist beliefs?

Here is how.

They change the definition. They pull out of their asses the asinine thought, belief, justification that:

"Well I have A REASON for how I feel. So I am not a racist. I am merely being rational."


Needless (but I will) to say, I instruct that the mere fact someone can articulate a claimed justification for racist thoughts does not mean the claimed justifications are at all reasonable. Nor does the claim of justification, under any understanding of the meanings of the words, make the hateful bigoted beliefs, any less racist. All throughout the history of our too-often hateful species, racists and all kinds of bigots have claimed justification. That does not make them less hateful people. It means, only, that they are capable of creating claims of justifications for their own hate.

So that is why I call them retro-racists. They seem to think they have figured out some clever new way to cloak themselves, however all they have done is reclaimed and resumed using one of the oldest tricks in the hatemongers' book.

Oh, and I should not skip mentioning the other kind of retro-racist. I call these the Neo-Archie Bunkers. You can peg these hate bags for their use of the (or some similar) phrase:

"Well that is how I think, and if that makes me a racist, so be it."


Before I close, let me offer my suggestion for at least one way of addressing a racist using the Archie Bunker trick. I suggest saying something like:

"Well. Hmmm. Ok. Well I applaud your honesty. But even if you are honest, you are, still, a racist douchebag. Now get the hell away from me, and stay the hell away from me. I do not want to risk being labeled as a sympathizer of or apologist for racism or racists."

After all, honesty deserves honesty.