'Tis the Season for Eco-bashing

"The month of rolling blackouts was totally worth it"

Okay, so the holiday season is not typically the most environmentally-conscious of seasons. In fact, it's probably one of the toughest few weeks of the year for the environment, with all the holiday travel, increased heating costs, forests worth of discarded wrapping paper, and let's not forget all the lights! Reason would suggest that a time of such great environmental strain would be an opportune time to help the environmental cause.

Unfortunately, many on the Right like to savor this time of year, hoping that those "crazy whack job environmentalists" will take a much-needed vacation from their cause. They employ the "Is Nothing Sacred?" argument to mask their true intention, pandering to big business at the expense of the environment.

Michelle Malkin recently went on the attack following what she perceived to be a heretical act by the mayor of Seattle to instill a little environmental awareness into a holiday tradition. Mayor Greg Nickels got the Right into an uproar with his "Letter To Santa", an effort to use Santa's Christmas rounds as a reminder to children that global warming is having an observed effect on the North Pole. The letter also launched the mayor's campaign to give out energy efficient light bulbs this holiday season, and announced the use of efficient LED Christmas lights for the city's holiday tree.

Malkin was not alone in piling on the mayor. Conservative blogs leaningstraightup.com, The American Pundit, crushliberalism.com, rightvoices.com and brutallyhonest.org all voiced their displeasure with Mayor Nickels' environmental message. Malkin herself later shed a tear for the eventual phasing out of the incandescent light bulb, a mandate of the new energy bill signed by President Bush in December.

If you're anything like me, you're probably asking yourself, "So what's all the uproar about?" Unfortunately, reading these blog posts does virtually nothing to answer that question. Rather than putting up any real argument as to why we shouldn't be environmental aware at Christmas time, these blog authors instead relied on the following tactics:

1. The aforementioned "Is Nothing Sacred?" argument. This states that because Christmas is -or at least was intended to be - a religious holiday, that any discussion of environmental issues is tantamount to sacrilege. Now I would be offended by, say, Christ-centered pornography, if that even exists. One could reasonably use the "Is Nothing Sacred?" argument in that case. But with the Seattle mayor, we're not talking about Jesus, we are talking about the secular, mythical tale of Santa Claus and his reindeer. And we're talking about energy efficient light bulbs, not anything illegal, immoral or even slightly unpleasant. Not exactly a crucifix in a glass of urine. For example:

"Can’t Christmas be Christmas without Al Gore wannabes polluting the air and scaring the kids?" - Malkin

"Now they’ve crossed the line. Dragging Santa in the Global Warming debate has gone too far!" - rightvoices.com

2. The Idiotic Knee-jerk Reaction. Right-wingers have some nerve ending in the brain that fires whenever the words "environment" or "global warming" are uttered, sending these impulses to the thalamus resulting in a heightened state of arousal, sometimes referred to as a "fight or flight" response. (Wow, I did remember something from college) This results in the righty reacting without understanding what is really going on, often embellishing on the original story or fabricating one of their own. Like the human knee-jerk reflex, there isn't really any conscious thought going on here either. A few of the right-wing headlines for this story:

"Seattle mayor: Santa hates kids who aren’t eco-kooks like me." - crushliberalism.com

"Seattle Mayor: Use Eco-Friendly Lightbulbs or Santa Will Die" - The American Pundit

"Seattle Mayor Nickels to kids: Stop Global Warming, OR SANTA WILL DIE!!!!" - Leaningstrightup.com

Okay folks, let's not get carried away here. There is no environmental fear-mongering going on. Nickels says nothing about Santa or his reindeer dying, nor does he claim that Santa hates any kids. Real fear-mongering (the kind mastered by conservatives) involves warning of the demise of real people over a fictitious threat (see George Bush, mushroom cloud). What the mayor of Seattle did was the exact opposite. He warned of the demise of fake people (Santa, et al) over a real threat (global warming).

3. The "Closed Loop" method. This is when far-right conservatives exclusively use other far-right conservatives as backup for their arguments. You have to give it to this group, though. At least they attempted to make an argument.

- In slamming the new energy bill, Michelle Malkin based her position solely on the Business and Media Institute's assessment of the bill. The Business and Media Institute is a right-wing watchdog group dedicated to promoting conservative, free-market economic theory in the media.

- For their part, Leaning Straight Up used multiple far right sources to slam energy-efficient light bulbs, linking to both Capitalism Magazine and the Washington Policy Center, the self-proclaimed purveyor of "high quality analysis on issues relating to the free market and government regulation."

Because nothing says "sound argument" quite like exclusively citing unabashedly right-wing organizations. A less-overtly partisan source usually makes for a better argument. For example the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Academy of Sciences, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the EPA, would all provide a more well-rounded summation of environmental issues than the energy-funded organizations conservatives exclusively tap for their environmental [mis]information.

Election '08: The Huckabee Factor

Recent 2008 presidential polls have former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee coming out of nowhere to lead in Iowa and pull virtually neck and neck with the Republican front runners in national surveys. Clearly, the religious right was not pleased with the choice of candidates, and has thrown support in the corner of an evangelical ally, which has many within the Republican Party scrambling to smear him.

Why attack one of their own, you say? Huckabee represents a break from the traditional GOP way of doing things: He is a actually a true social conservative. Where Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. only pandered to social conservatives to get elected, Huckabee appears committed to the "Christian" conservative cause.

This is troubling to the GOP for several reasons. Huckabee stands to split Republican voters into two factions. On one hand, you have the social conservatives (SC's), and on the other, the fiscal conservatives (FC's), classical conservatives or Goldwater conservatives. Until now, the two factions (while having virtually nothing in common) were able to coexist under a single GOP banner. This was largely due to the SC's distancing themselves from the Democratic party over issues like abortion, civil rights and gay marriage, and from a concerted effort by the FC's in power to give the SC's just enough "faith-based" government to keep them happy.

But now, in walks Mike Huckabee, who is without a doubt a true blue Christian Conservative. If George W. Bush and Karl Rove could have the SC's convinced they're good Christians, Mike Huckabee may have them believing he's the Second Coming. Huckabee is an ordained minister. He is against civil unions, abortion and gun-control. He doesn't believe in evolution. He believes that homosexuality is sinful, and he has credited God for his recent jump in the polls.

It is not difficult to grasp the implications of Huckabee's meteoric rise. Social Conservatives, Christian Conservatives, Evangelicals, or whatever you want to call them may not be able to recognize if a Republican is or is not a Christian, but they sure as hell can tell who is more Christian. Among the pro-choice, cross-dressing adulterer, the cult follower, the Hollywood actor, and the Baptist Minister, I think the SC's can find their guy. And if you consider John McCain to still be in the running, remember that he lost the 2000 primary largely due to his reluctance to pander to the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells of the world.

So what we have is a candidate in Huckabee who may actually be too socially conservative for the FC's. While Huckabee is busy locking up the "I-ain't-come-from-no-monkey!" vote, the "Lower-my-taxes-and-screw-the-middle-class" voter may start to look outside the Republican Party. This is where a moderate candidate like Hillary Clinton gets a boost, as she is clearly the more fiscally conservative of the Democratic candidates. For example, Hillary supports not a single-payer universal health care plan, but a health insurance mandate, much like automobile insurance is required for all drivers. While the government would assist in helping people adhere to the mandate, Americans would now have more of their tax dollars devoted to pure profit for insurance companies. But I digress...

Huckabee's ascent to the top of the polls has started to alarm the FC's, and the FC's are starting to fight back. Presumably worried that Huckabee is not as fiscally conservative as a Republican should be, conservatives are fiercely trying to stave off Huckabee's rise.

Rush Limbaugh claimed that Huckabee is essentially a Democratic plant designed to ensure the Democratic nominee has a beatable candidate to compete against in the general election:

"Why are the Drive-Bys, why are they pushing Huckabee? Because they think that Huckabee is a nut. They think that Huckabee is a Bible-thumping preacher that's going to be marching into every woman's home and telling her, "No, you must not and cannot have an abortion." And then they think he's going to hijack the Constitution and write Roe vs. Wade out of it without even going to the Supreme Court. And then they think he's going to make every liberal kid go to Sunday school. This is what they think of him. This is what they think of any God-fearing pastor or conservative religious person. And, as such, they think that would be easy to beat."

While this isn't necessarily an "attack" on Huckabee, it's an ominous warning to Republicans that Huckabee will be like pigs to the slaughter if he wins the GOP nomination. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

This week, a "prominent, DC-based Huckabee ally" had this to say about why Rush didn't support his candidate:

"Honestly, because Rush doesn’t think for himself. That’s not necessarily a slap because he’s not paid to be a thinker—he’s an entertainer. I can’t remember the last time that he has veered from the talking points from the DC/Manhattan chattering class. If they were praising Huckabee, he would be too."

Of course, truer words were never spoken, but that didn't prevent conservative water-carriers from slamming the Huckabee camp:

Michelle Malkin: "What an unbelievably knuckle-headed move by Huckabee’s minions....I believe this Rush-bashing incident may turn out to be Huckabee’s Howard Dean scream moment."

And in a bizarre twist, conservative author Ann Coulter slammed Huckabee in her blog, despite sharing his disdain for evolution, saying, "Liberals adore Huckabee because he fits their image of what an evangelical should be: stupid and easily led."

And in a truly strange episode, Glenn Beck attacked Huckabee for, of all things, claiming that Mormons believe Jesus and Satan are brothers. Huckabee, the Southern Baptist made the comment to call into question the faith of fellow candidate Mitt Romney, a Mormon. Beck, also a Mormon, responded by calling Huckabee a "one-eyed Mullah," in an apparent reference to Islamic jihad. If all this religion has your head spinning right now, you're not alone.

I don't know what is more entertaining: watching Social Conservatives have it out with Fiscal Conservatives, or watching the Republican nomination being decided over whose religious beliefs are less crackpot.

Of course, this is all good news for the Democrats. Huckabee is attacking the policies of George W. Bush, and neo-cons are fighting back, warning the nation of the next coming of Jimmy Carter. Now all the Democrats have to do is sit back and watch the GOP break apart from the inside and 2008 will be a rout.

Sorry Guys, Iran Has No Nukes

The recent NIE report confirming Iran's dormant nuclear weapons program has done more than just expose the Bush administration as disengenuous fear-mongers; it has created a "vacuum," as Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank so eloquently put it on Hardball w/ Chris Matthews. It had created an issues vacuum, which the GOP candidates must scramble to fill with gay marriage bans, flag burning amendments, and the like. Iran was always the ace in the hole for these candidates, and now the NEI has taken that from them.

On the December 4th broadcast of Hardball, Milbank summed up the GOP's 2008 election strategy:

The playbook sort of seems to be about 2002, pushing measures through congress, whether it was the authorization for war, basically creating something of a drumbeat, putting pressure on the Democrats to be strong on national security. This [NIE report] makes it very, very difficult to go back to that same playbook.

The leading Republican candidates have been eerily silent on Iran since this report was made public this week. Unfortunately, they are already on the record with regard to the Iranian nuclear threat. Since the United Nations had already determined that Iran had no nuclear weapons program, the NIE report is nothing new. All it does it put a final nail in the coffin of the GOP's 2008 Iran strategy. Now that Iran is clearly not going nuclear any time soon, that drumbeat will soon fall upon deaf ears. This solidifies Iraq, not Iran, as the dominant national security/foreign policy issue in the next election, and that is not good news for the Republican candidates.

Here are a few of the ways these guys have already been using the non-existent Iran situation to build a 2008 election platform:

"If for some reasons they continue down their course of folly toward nuclear ambition, then I would take military action if that's available to us." - Mitt Romney, 10/07

"... the military option is not off the table and the Iranians should understand that, that America will not allow them to become a nuclear power.... Their regime is too irresponsible. The world would be in too much danger" - Rudy Giuliani, 10/07

“The theocrats ruling Iran need to understand that we can wield the stick as well as the carrot, by undermining popular support for their regime, damaging the Iranian economy, weakening Iran’s military, and, should all else fail, destroying its nuclear infrastructure.” - Rudy Giuliani, 8/07

"I know that our liberal friends shake their head when a conservative talks of a nuclear Iran.... But for conservatives like me, facing reality is not a source of fear. It is a source of confidence." - Mitt Romney, 6/06

"Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." - John McCain, 4/07, to the tune of The Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann"

Bush: Hot is Cold, Up is Down

We all know George W. Bush has said some idiotic things during his presidency:

"They misunderestimated me."

"Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?"

"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."

"I think we agree, the past is over."

Ok, so this is not going to be a post poking fun at Bush's War on English (although that can be fun). These quotations are innocently stupid. Yet there is a whole other class of perplexing Bushisms that really cut to the core of what an insincere and evil tyrant the man really is. They paint Bush as either completely out of touch with reality, or a sadistically compulsive liar. The following quotations are not as much funny as they are disturbing:

"You work three jobs? … Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that."

"Heck of a job, Brownie."

"Bring 'em on."

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

(to hear many of these Bushisms, go here)

This week, Bush continued to lose his grip on reality after a National Intelligence Estimate (NEI) confirmed an international intelligence finding that Iran, next in line to be pre-emptively attacked by the U.S., had shut down it's nuclear weapons program in 2003. (story here) The Bush administration has relied heavily on Iran's supposedly active nuclear weapons program to fuel public support for war on Iran:

"Apart from few very sophisticated uses for uranium metal by the most advanced nuclear programs in the world, the only real use for uranium metal is a nuclear weapon." - John Bolton, United States ambassador to the UN

"We've made our choice. We will continue to work closely with our allies to find a diplomatic solution, but there must be consequences for Iran's defiance and we must not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon." - President Bush

"Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust." - President Bush

Before we delve into the latest NEI finding regarding Iran, here are a few items of note:

1. The UN has never believed Iran had an active nuclear weapons program. The US report is consistent with what the international community and Iran have been saying for years.

2. Iran has never directly threatened the United States.

So it would appear that the pre-existing notion (or near-certainty in Bush's mind) that Iran is developing nuclear weapons is pretty flimsy to begin with, and the further conclusion the Bush administration is hoping we all come to, that Iran is planning a nuclear attack on US soil is completely without merit. The NEI report further erodes this idea, putting a serious dent in the Bush administration's effort to start a new war before his term expires.

So what did Bush have to say in response to the "Good" news that Iran's nuclear weapons program was dormant? Well, as any great warmonger would do, Bush went right back on the offensive. While your average radical, peace-obsessed hippie might see this news as a sign that another large-scale war in the Middle East is not necessary, our fearless leader remained ever vigilant. In another break with reality, Bush actually used the news of Iran's non-existent nuclear weapons program as a launching pad for more saber-rattling. He called the news a "warning signal," and in grand fear-mongering fashion, resorted to outrageous denials and ominous hypotheticals.

"What's to say they couldn't start another covert nuclear weapons program," Bush suggested. "I have said Iran is dangerous, and the NIE doesn't do anything to change my opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world."

So once again, we have seen the President make ludicrous and contradictory statements for the purpose of advancing his agenda. This time, the agenda is war. In the above examples, the agendas Bush was driving were slightly less destructive. The mother working three jobs ("The economy is just fine") or the gushing endorsement of Brownie ("My government appointees are neither corrupt nor incompetent") are sinister enough. But when Bush starts lying to lay the groundwork for another war, Americans should be alarmed, especially in light of the fact that the very same tactic of targeting a boogieman (Saddam/Ahmadinejad), cooking up intelligence and exaggerating a threat worked on Congress and the American people in 2003.

Frighteningly enough, to this point, the President's Iran PR campaign has worked. According to an October 2007 CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, 77% of Americans believed that the government of Iran is attempting to develop its own nuclear weapons. Hmmm...Where have I seen numbers like this before? Oh yes, the Iraq War! After an intense and dishonest propaganda campaign aimed at conflating Iraq and 9/11, approval of the Iraq situation peaked at 75% in April, 2003 polling. That percentage has since dropped to the 30% range, as, you guessed it, doubts about both the necessity of the war and the ability to succeed have swayed public opinion 180 degrees.

Is there a bad time to spew right-wing propaganda?

The recent wildfires that raged across Southern California are of particular interest to me. As a resident of Los Angeles, a graduate of Rancho Bernardo High School in San Diego, and the son of wildfire evacuees, this story touches very close to home. That is why I find it so abhorrent when politicians and media figures use the fires as a springboard to advance extreme right-wing claims. Certainly no one is suggesting that the Right should not be allowed a forum for free speech, only that, considering the 1,500 homes destroyed, 500,000 acres burned, and 950,000 people evacuated, a more opportune time certainly would have presented itself. And considering how outlandish some of these far right claims are, perhaps they should be permanently bottled up.

The first perpetrator of this nonsense was none other than Fox News. On October 24th, the Fox & Friends morning program (shown above) reported an alleged link between al-Qaeda and the wildfires. (video here)

The alleged "link" turned out to be a 4-year old FBI memo, detailing a purported al-Qaeda plot to start wildfires in several Western U.S. states. The plot was suggested by an alleged al-Qaeda detainee, and California was not one of the states mentioned. And while the the exact cause of all the fires is not yet known, the evidence is not at all hinting at any kind of coordinated effort. Thus far, fires have been attributed to fallen power lines, an overturned semi-truck, a boy playing with matches and arson. So, what we really have here is not a concerted effort on the part of an international terrorist organization to kill Americans, but a concerted effort on the part of a national news organization to frighten Americans. What makes Fox's "reporting" so heinous is the fact that suggesting al-Qaeda involvement in a natural disaster is pure, unadulterated propaganda. If the White House had chosen, I don't know...Belgium instead of al-Qaeda as the medium by which to scare Americans into relinquishing their civil liberties, taking on massive national debt, and watching soldiers come home from battle dead or wounded, then Fox News would be telling us Belgium was responsible for the California wildfires.

Conservative blogger/columnist Michelle Malkin, appearing on Fox News, blamed the wildfires on illegal immigrants. (video here) Discussing with Neil Cavuto the possibility of one of the fires being started by a Central American immigrant, Malkin stated :

Of course, massive, uncontrolled immigration touches every aspect of life, particularly in Southern California. So whether you're in an emergency situation like they are now with the wildfires, or in regular everyday life, illegal immigration and massive, uncontrolled immigration has an impact....It's enough to deal with the problems that are "native born" in Southern California without having to import more headaches.

Just a couple of problems with Malkin's analysis:

1. The immigrant suspect in question was in fact in the United States legally.
2. Michelle Malkin is, herself the daughter of legal immigrants
3. Nowhere in her anti-immigrant rant does Malkin actually explain what immigration has to do with the forest fires.

With no evidence tying the California wildfires to illegal immigration, it is clear that Fox News and Michelle Malkin were simply exploiting a terrible situation to advance their own xenophobic agenda.

But by far the most despicable example of the politicization of the California wildfires is Conservative TV and radio host Glenn Beck. The smug, ill-informed, and almost comically un-funny Beck has long had some ethereal disdain for all things liberal. I'm actually surprised that this is the first time Beck's mug has graced the pages of my blog, as he is as agenda-driven a water-carrier as any that exist among the GOP's media enterprise.


On the October 22nd edition of The Glenn Beck Program, Beck took a cheap shot at the fire victims. Tastelessly tacked on to the end of a pro-war, anti-healthcare, anti-education rant, Beck added:

We all love America. We just disagree on how we should function, what we should do, big government, small government. It doesn't mean you hate America. I think there is a handful of people who hate America. Unfortunately for them, a lot of them are losing their homes in a forest fire today.

I could maybe ignore yet another refrain of the conservative mantra that "all liberals hate America." Perhaps I could overlook the fact that among the wealthy San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, and San Bernadino County residents effected by the fires, liberals are likely a small minority. If Beck intended his liberal-bashing "joke" (as he later described it) to be aimed at Hollywood, well, he missed. What makes Beck a poor American (and a lousy comedian) can be summed up in one word: timing. It's probably not the best idea in the world to use fire victims as a punchline to some lame effort to smear Hollywood liberals. And it's definitely not a good idea to question one's status as a model American, while in the same breath mocking your fellow American for having his/her home burned to the ground.

If this episode of political "hitting below the belt" weren't enough, Beck later took a swipe at environmentalists. Beck has long been in the 10-15% of Americans that comprise the global warming skeptics. I guess "skeptic" is a nice way of putting it. The word "skeptic" implies that there is some lack of empirical evidence preventing one from embracing a widely held belief. Evidence like, I don't know...melting polar icecaps, more frequent and destructive hurricanes, devastating forest fires! So call him what you will, but Beck's stance on the environment is basically as far right as possible, just shy of actually going out and burning down trees and slaughtering bunnies. I think Beck may actually HATE rainforests.

So Beck's comments from the October 23rd broadcast of his cable TV program on Headline News should really come as no surprise. With assistance from R.J. Smith, environmental analyst from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a Right-wing, oil-funded think tank, Beck claimed that environmentalists were actually to blame for the California wildfires:

...[T]he environmentalists, the same ones that going to tell me it’s my fault because I have an SUV, these same damn environmentalists are the ones that have stopped people in California from clearing brush on their own property.

Beck has apparently conflated liberal opposition to deforestation with opposition to property owners clearing brush near their homes. With Beck, it's almost as if the more ridiculous the claim (i.e., environmentalism creates forest fires), the more likely he is to advance it. Of course, no green-bashing orgy would be complete without an assault on global warming theories. To do this, Beck, in the same segment, also employed another CEI fellow, Chris Horner, to downplay global warming as a factor in the fires. In a bizarre menage a trois, cleverly disguised as some kind of debate, the anti-environmentalist Beck and the two Big Oil think-tankers put the blame for the California wildfires squarely on the shoulders of the greens. It really is a must watch. Beck introduces his two guests as if they were two polar opposites, ready to square off in a heated debate, when in fact Horner and Smith likely have adjoining offices at CEI.

So in summation, we can clearly see that anytime is a good time to advance the conservative agenda. What makes the talking heads even more disingenuous in this case, is not so much the inappropriate timing of it; From Jerry Falwell's post 9/11 comments to Barbara Bush's post-Katrina remarks, we have come to expect national disasters to be a green light for conservatives to launch into anti-liberal tirades. The insincerity in the California fire comments stems from the fact that, in each case, the media figures in question did not offer any unique political perspective on the fires, but simply echoed their own previous ideologies, disguised (with the exception of Glenn Beck) as concern for the fire victims. Fox News traditionally likes to ramp up fears about Islamic terrorist organizations. Michelle Malkin is a noted opponent of almost all forms of immigration. Glenn Beck is perhaps the leading champion of the global warming deniers movement.

I guess that those on the left don't really expect conservatives to stop making ridiculous statements. We just hope they might better pick their moments, so as not to make it seem as though they are exploiting disaster victims for their own political benefit.

SCHIP: More Hypocrisy from the Right

Less than one week after asking congress for an additional $190 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, President George W. Bush has vetoed a bill expanding SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program) by $35 billion. The program, which would be funded entirely by an increase in cigarette taxes, would extend health coverage to over 4 million more children.

Now this veto alone is not really cause for alarm or cries of hypocrisy. Conservatives have long sought limited government and lower taxes, and expanding SCHIP does not jive with this vision of small government. Where the disingenuous underbelly of the conservative leadership comes to light is in the PR spin in support of the veto. Now I am not particularly fond of politicians using children to support their political agendas. No Child Left Behind and Bush's Stem Cell Veto quickly come to mind as largely Republican agendas bolstered by the use of children as visual aids. The supporters of the SCHIP bill certainly were guilty of this as well, parading out 12 year-old SCHIP recipient Graeme Frost to speak of the benefits of the program. If a program or a bill has merit, then I don't see the need to have children endorsing it. Call me crazy, but I actually trust most politicians to be better at making and interpreting legislation than children.

So say what you will about using children as political props, but if you are going to criticize Democrats for their employment of this tactic, you had better damn well have never employed it yourself. Yet, in a twist of irony that would make O. Henry jealous, Republicans quickly went on the attack following young Frost's address. A spokesman for congressman John Boehner (R-OH) said on Sept. 28:

“To use an innocent young child as a human shield and misrepresent the position of the president of the United States is, frankly, beyond the pale."

For those that are unaware, this guy with the impeccable tan is John Boehner:

This is also John Boehner (circled in red) at the signing of the No Child Left Behind Act:




This is also John Boehner, handing out school computers for Visa:


No one is saying that giving kids laptops on behalf of a major financial institution is necessarily evil, nor is posing with kids for the signing of a controversial educational program, essentially a thinly-veiled effort to dismantle the public school system in the United States. But similarly, having a child speak on behalf of a very beneficial social program like SCHIP (however you may feel about this political tactic) is not in any way devious in and of itself. What is devious is the fact that Republicans would attack Democrats for employing a tactic that has become a staple of conservative policy making in recent years.

As if it weren't enough for the GOP to call the kettle black, they have now launched an all-out attack in an effort to discredit the 12-year Frost as a child of privilege and luxury. Conservative bloggers have led the way. Freerepublic.com's icwhatudo posted the discovery that Graeme and his sister both attend private schools. Freerublic.com is the self-touted "premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web." What was left out of that scathing report was the fact that Graeme attends the school almost entirely on scholarship. His sister, permanently disabled from a car accident, attends a special-needs school, the entire cost of which is paid by the state.

In addition, the Frosts's Baltimore home has been the subject of much scrutiny, as estimates of it's value have ranged from $400,000 to $500,000. Now, as a resident of Los Angeles, the first thing I say is, "yes...and?" $400,000 here gets you a two-bedroom, 1-bath, hardly enough to house the 6-member Frost household. In Baltimore, $400,000 buys you a pretty decent home. But the bloggers fail to mention that the Frosts actually paid about $55,000 for the home in 1990, and inflated real estate markets, an improved neighborhood, and improvements made to the home have increased the home's value. The value of the Frost's home is really insignificant as it relates to a family's ability to pay for private health care. It's not as if the house is some liquid asset, that can be converted into cash whenever the family needs it. For a family of six taking home a reported $45,000 per year, it's not really a mystery that a major car accident involving multiple children could cause financial hardship.

The right-wing's attack on the Frost family is wrong in several ways:

1. Graeme Frost is 12 years old.
2. Most of the claims made against the Frost family have been found to be completely false or conveniently incomplete
3. Attacking a single child in no way refutes the value of SCHIP.

So, clearly, the Frosts are not what we would think of as "dirt poor." The point of all this is that in the United States, the nation with the most expensive healthcare in the world, you don't have to be dirt poor to be unable to afford to insure the health of your family.

What the Right doesn't want you to know is their real concerns behind SCHIP, and why the have embarked on such a fervent attack to stop it's expansion. The American Right sees the expansion of SCHIP as the first phase in an effort to bring about a national socialized healthcare system. What the Right fails to mention (or come to grips with) is that 72% of Americans favor the expansion of SCHIP.

But, come on, that's just health care for kids, right? Everyone wants healthcare for kids, don't they? Well, no they don't. The big-business neo-conservatives don't want healthcare for kids. Big Pharma and Big Healthcare don't want healthcare for kids. And, sadly blind followers of President Bush, even when it would be to their benefit, don't want healthcare for kids. Also it's not only that most Americans want healthcare for kids, but a majority of Americans favor a universal healthcare system for all Americans, even if it means higher taxes.

The SCHIP debate is just the latest in a vast right-wing effort to shrink government to the point where it serves essentially no function. The preamble of the U.S. Constitution reads:

"We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

While the preamble is not a binding document, it should be noted that the founding fathers saw fit to include "promot[ing] the general Welfare" in the introduction to laying out the foundation of law in the new nation. In recent years, conservative ideology has sought to promote the welfare of only an elite few. Conservatives would have you believe that those unable to afford health insurance have no one to blame but themselves. Yet, as estimates of the uninsured in America approach 50 million, one has to believe that in reality, it is the nation's leadership that has failed these people.

GOP in '08: Pinning Their Hopes on Symbolic Patriotism

How can hundreds of the Right-wing's most decorated brass hide behind a 3/4" square piece of, well, decorated brass? When it's the hundreds of pro-war Republican congressmen and Bush administration officials taking safe refuge by donning the ubiquitous American flag lapel pin.

Recently, Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama explained in a campaign speech that he no longer wears his American flag lapel pin because of what it had come to symbolize.

...I probably haven't worn a flag pin in a very long time. After a while I noticed people wearing a lapel pin and not acting very patriotic....My attitude is that I'm less concerned about what you're wearing on your lapel than what's in your heart. You show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who serve. You show your patriotism by being true to our values and ideals. That's what we have to lead with is our values and our ideals.

The truth is that right after 9/11 I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security.

The whole thing is really a non-issue. I mean, it's a lapel pin, and Obama only brought it up because a reporter questioned him about it. It's not as if he called together a press conference or put the word out in a prime time TV ad. Of course, I don't need to tell anyone how Joe Righty felt about Obama's comments:

"Seeing something wrong with a flag pin or the flag ain’t too sharp. What an ASS!!!!!" - comment from stuckonstupid.com

Here's your textbook right-wing kneejerk reaction. "Look, everyone! Obama hates the American flag! I always knew there was something fishy about that guy, what with that weird name and tan complexion."

"Remember, he WAS wearing one after 9/11. Then he feels the need to put out a press release when it takes it off. He's a pandering piece of crap." - comment from RedState.com

First of all buddy, after 9/11, everyone was wearing a lapel pin, sporting T-shirts or driving around with those car window flags. If there was a positive consequence of 9/11, it was the temporary boost in the sale of cheaply produced patriotic merchandise imported from China. But I digress....The point is, if you finally decided to take down those American flags from your car windows, it doesn't make you a hypocrite. It doesn't make you un-American. And as I mentioned earlier, Obama was responding to a question specifically about the pin, so no, lapel pins are not going to be a central issue on the Obama '08 ticket.

"I have no flagpole at the moment to hang Old Glory, but proudly hang my Blue Star flag in my bedroom window until The Man comes home. Also, I place my ‘Support the Troops’ yellow ribbon magnet on the front of my car, so leftist hippie morons know precisely why I am about to run them down." -comment from MichelleMalkin.com

Very nice. Let everyone know what a great American you are right before you threaten to run your fellow Americans over in your car. The right really does it with class, don't they?

"If you cannot display an American Flag lapel pin to show Patriotism, you are NOT worthy of American air." - conservative blog Take Our Country Back

How about this: If you cannot display any patriotism other than displaying an American Flag lapel pin, you are NOT worthy of American air.

Fortunately, not everyone got it wrong. On Redstate.com of all places, a user commented:

"The only country I can think of where citizens are required to wear pins to prove their patriotism and loyalty is North Korea. Look closely at a picture of North Koreans, and you'll see the ubiquitous little lapel pins of Dear Leader.

He's also not wearing a sandwich board that says 'I love my Mom,' but it doesn't mean he doesn't. Let's let the man accessorize in peace."

Many of these flag-impaled lapels adorn suits belonging to some Republicans who have, in recent years, been "less than patriotic" to put it nicely. Some have been downright bad Americans. Yet the lapel pin remains, not as some symbol of one's inner character, dedication to that which is noble or devotion to country, but as a quick reminder that "Hey, you can't question my character or patriotism! See here? See this lapel pin?"

(more to come...)

Bill Clinton: More popular than ever

Approval ratings for George W. Bush and Bill Clinton

(source: ABC News/Washington Post Poll)

As time passes, the Bill Clinton presidency seems to be picking up steam. While his "bump in the polls" isn't exactly staggering, it is significant. According to the above ABC/Washington Times Poll, Clinton's post-presidential approval rating has risen 11 points, from 55% to 66% from 2003 to 2007. What might account for Clinton's increased favorability?

Keep in mind that the poll in question read:

"Thinking back to when Bill Clinton was in office, would you say you approve or disapprove of the way Clinton handled his job as president?"

So we aren't talking about anything he has done since leaving the oval office, but changes in public perception of his abilities as President of the United States while in office. The most compelling evidence for Clinton's approval ratings increase is the seemingly proportionate decrease in the approval ratings of President George W. Bush. As Bush's presidency moves closer and closer to being cemented in history as a colossal failure, it is bound to make previous presidents (especially those most recent) look better by comparison. As the above graph suggests, the approval ratings of Presidents Clinton and Bush have been near mirror images of each other since 2003.

I wonder if Bush realizes that he is making Bill Clinton more popular. Therein lies the power of the Presidency: the ability to effect public opinion of a third party based solely on the public opinion of the President.

Rudy Giuliani: CA$HING IN ON 9/11

The prospect of a former city mayor leading the Republican party's list of presidential hopefuls - a list that includes both current and former senators, governors, veterans, a former speakers of the house - is a truly astonishing idea. A man with no experience in national government or foreign policy, a person who has been out of politics for nearly six years is enjoying roughly 2 to 1 favorability ratings and is polling virtually neck-and-neck with leading Democratic candidates in an election year where the general public undeniably favors electing a Democratic president in 2008.

So to what should we attribute Rudy's early 2008 successes?

-His alleged ties to organized crime and disgraced NYC Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik?
-The way he "singlehandedly" diminished crime in NYC? (despite the fact that crime was down nationally over the same period)

-The scandal surrounding cocaine trafficking by his South Carolina campaign chairman?
-His ever-changing stance on gun control?
-His personal life? (He has been married thrice, once to his second-cousin, and twice to "live-in" mistresses.)

Okay, so we all know why Rudy Giuliani is the Republican frontrunner in 2008. Two words: Nine Eleven. But has anyone who supports Giuliani's candidacy on the assumption that he was this "hero" really examined these claims? Has anyone really questioned the ethical conviction of a person that would exploit the deaths of thousands of fellow Americans for political and financial gain?

In fact, Giuliani has never been shy about touting his 9/11 "credentials" either. In April of 2007, Giuliani claimed that if a Democrat were elected in 2008, America would be at greater risk of another 9/11-type terrorist attack. He has also claimed to have been at ground zero "as often, if not more, than most of the workers." The media hasn't exactly helped to dispel Giuliani's hero status, referring to him on several occasions as "America's Mayor", "Mayor of the World," the "Hero of 9/11," and bestowing upon him some unfounded "expertise on terrorism." All of this gushing might have one believing that Rudy Giuliani had stopped the 9/11 terrorists, or had since took up arms and defeated them. A closer examination of Giuliani's handling of the 9/11 attacks has in actuality exposed layers of incompetence and corruption stemming from Giuliani himself. And above all, Giuliani has been guilty of the despicable act of propping himself up as a national hero for financial and political gain. If being in the right place at the right time makes one a hero, then by all means, I implore you to vote for this man. But first let's examine some of Rudy's post-9/11 "good fortune:"

• Was named Time Magazine's Person of the Year for 2001


• In 2002, he received an honorary knighthood from Queen Elizabeth II of England


• Used his 9/11 fame to start a consulting and security firm, Giuliani Partners, which has since earned an estimated $100 million.


• Was appointed as a panelist on the Iraq Study Group, only to resign five months in after missing all of the group's scheduled meetings.


• Commanded a $100,000 fee (plus expenses) per speaking engagement, grossing over $11 million from January 2006 to February 2007.


• Campaigning on 9/11 name recognition and tough talk about terrorism, Giuliani currently leads his nearest competitor by about 10 points for the 2008 Republican nomination.

If this weren't enough to cement Giuliani as, well, an opportunist, to put it nicely, Rudy's latest attempt to exploit the 9/11 tragedy should leave most Americans ill. According to the Associated Press:

The International Association of Fire Fighters accused Republican Rudy Giuliani of exploiting the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks because a supporter is holding a $9.11-per-person fundraiser for the presidential candidate.

The union — already a vocal critic of Giuliani's — said Tuesday that the fundraiser's $9.11 for Rudy" theme is an abuse of the image and symbols of the 2001 attacks.

"It is nothing short of disrespectful to the legacy of the thousands of civilians and 343 brave firefighters who died at ground zero," IAFF president Harold Schaitberger said.

This is merely the latest episode in Rudy Giuliani's enduring effort to permanently embed the Giuliani-9/11 link into the subconscious of all Americans. I wouldn't be surprised to see him at the next Republican debate, with a freshly tattooed "9/11" emblazoned upon his forehead. His latest $9.11 fundraiser is slightly more vile in my opinion, because it is an apt microcosm of everything Giuliani has done since 9/11: He has now literally attached a dollar sign to 9/11, something he has only been guilty of in a figurative sense until now.

In a way, I can hardly blame him. With all of Rudy's aforementioned shortcomings, it's easy to see why he clings so desperately to his 9/11 notoriety. Without it, he has nothing. He could eradicate all of the porn and sex shops and prostitution in the whole world, and he still wouldn't be fit to be President of the United States. But 9/11 gives him this illusory credibility as some expert on terrorism and foreign policy. I mean, what would Rudy Giuliani know about the Iraq War to the degree that he would be nominated for one of only 10 positions on the Iraq Study Group panel? Giuliani's claims of his own 9/11 heroism are flimsy enough as it is. The idea that Giuliani could be elected on 9/11 fame alone is not only inconceivable in my opinion, but also would qualify as just about the lowest form of exploitation one could ever imagine.

Shooting Down the Pro-Gun Logic

Recently, Virginia Tech played it's first football game since the April shooting that left 32 students dead. This, along with the recent antics of Ted Nugent, got me thinking again about gun-control and the pro-gun lobby. Clearly, in countries where guns are less available, or banned altogether, citizens experience markedly less gun-related crime. But that's never evidence enough for gun people. The whole pro-gun logic is faulty to begin with, but here is a run-down (and rebuttal) of their greatest hits:

1. We need guns to defend ourselves.

What's wrong with pepper spray or a stun-gun? Why does defending oneself naturally mean killing the other guy? I think we should all be allowed to carry non-lethal arms. That would do the trick. Let the police carry the real guns.

2. Only criminals kill people with guns.

That's like saying only rapists rape people. Every criminal was a non-criminal at some point in their life. The VT gunman wasn't a criminal. Well, not until he killed 32 people with his legally-purchased handgun.

3. Guns don't kill people....If someone wants to kill someone, they'll find a way, gun or otherwise.

Someone please tell me how the gunman at VT could have killed 32 classmates with a hunting knife or a slingshot? Something tells me that if he didn't have the ability and the precedent to blow away a lot of people with a gun for the spectacle of it, he wouldn't have killed anyone.

4. The 2nd amendment guarantees my right to bear arms.

Okay, so maybe the Family Guy interpretation is a stretch, but the 2nd amendment is certainly ambiguous and outdated. It was written in a time when there were regular militias, a young, unstable government, and a depleted regular army. It could certainly be interpreted to mean a number of things. We assume that it doesn't permit citizens to possess nuclear weapons, but why not? Where's the ACLU on that one. I want my nukes! "Arms" could mean a pocket knife or anything. BTW, the constitution has been amended before. I believe they are called "amendments."

5. The "if-one-student-had-a-gun-this-wouldn't-have-happened-theory."

Study after study has shown that a gun in the home increases the likelihood of being involved in a gun-related accident, homicide, assault, and suicide. If one student or teacher in the class was packing, sure, maybe only 5 or 10 people would have died. But how many more incidents of gun violence would the presence of more guns create? We can't say for sure, but we know it would be more. And if this scenario had played out, would we be talking about the heroic, gun-toting student that saved the day? Hell no. We'd just be talking about a slightly-less-horrific massacre.

The GOP: One Big, Horny Elephant

Politicians and civic leaders have for many years proven to be just as vulnerable to "sins of the flesh" than your average American. Certainly both Democrats and Republicans have had their fair share of scandal. Democrats, for example, can boast the infidelities of JFK, Gary Hart, Bill Clinton and Gary Condit, to name a few. While nothing can excuse the actions of these men, there is something that makes the sexual infidelities of Republicans much more insidious. Democrats do not typically campaign on the platform of moral values. If they do, they certainly do not do so by pointing out the moral flaws of their opponents. In contrast, Republicans consistently pander to the social conservatives, or Religious Right, earning votes with tough talk about morality.

All this makes it all the more amazing that the GOP almost constantly finds itself embroiled in some sexual scandal. The most recent case involving Senator Larry Craig of Idaho, seems to be more the rule than the exception. Here's a review of some of their more recent lapses in moral judgement:

Senator Larry Craig (R-ID): Craig allegedly solicited sex from an undercover police officer in a restroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Craig pleaded guilty to one count of disorderly conduct. Rather than apologize, Craig denied the allegations, regretted having plead guilty, and, most importantly, let the world know that "I am not gay. I never have been gay." Not surprisingly, Craig is a staunch supporter of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which sought to impose bans on same-sex marriage.

Glenn Murphy Jr. (former national chair of the Young Republicans): Murphy resigned his post with the Young Republicans after allegations surfaced that he performed an unwanted oral sex act on a 22-year old man while masturbating. Murphy and the victim had attended a Young Republicans function earlier that evening, and had been drinking. Murphy contended that the act was consensual, interesting because the victim claimed to have been asleep at the time. In 1998, Murphy was accused of a nearly identical sex act, but no charges were ever filed in that case due to lack of evidence.

Senator David Vitter (R-LA): Vitter's phone number appeared on a customer list supplied by the so-called "DC Madam" Deborah Jeane Palfrey. Despite the fact that the records dated back to 1999-2001, and there was widespread public knowledge of the existence of the lists since May of 2007, Vitter waited until the lists were disclosed in July 2007 to admit to using the prostitution service and issuing an apology. Vitter (who is married), also a supporter of the Federal Marriage Amendment, has in the past attacked the "Hollywood Left" and Bill Clinton for infringing on the sanctity of marriage.

Rev. Ted Haggard: The former preacher at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, and former head of the National Association of Evangelicals admitted to "sexual immorality" after allegations surfaced that he paid a man for sex and methamphetamines. Haggard met with President George W. Bush or his advisers on a weekly basis, and it has been said that "no pastor in America holds more sway over the political direction of evangelicalism."

Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL): Foley resigned his seat in the House of Representatives in September 2006 after sexually explicit and/or inappropriate emails and instant messages sent by Foley to underage congressional pages surfaced. Foley also is reported to have had sexual liaisons with former congressional pages. At the time of his resignation, Foley was chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children.

Florida State Rep. Bob Allen (R): Another member of the Florida Gay Republicans Caucus, Allen was arrested in July of 2007 for allegedly offering to perform oral sex on an undercover police officer for $20. When asked about the incident, Allen claimed he made the offer out of his fear of a "pretty stocky black guy." Because we all know that when you're about to get your ass kicked, offering the other guy a BJ usually tends to smooth things over. The arresting officer's report differed from Allen's account, claiming it was Allen who approached the officer in a bathroom stall and propositioned him. Interestingly enough, Allen supports a Florida state ban on gays adopting children.

Dick Morris, political strategist and commentator: Despite having worked on President Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign, and being a self-proclaimed "bipartisan" Morris prefers to work exclusively with Republicans and is certainly ideologically conservative. Morris has since gone on the attack against the Clintons and other Democrats, is currently featured on Fox News and the ultra-conservative Newsmax.com. Morris resigned from the Clinton staff in 1996 after a lengthy and much-publicized affair he was having with a prostitute. It's unclear whether or not sucking the toes of call girls is part of Morris' "family values" agenda.

Newt Gingrich (former Speaker of the House): Ohhhh, where to begin....Newt's first wife was his former high school math teacher. While married, Newt had an affair with a campaign staffer, which ultimately led Newt to divorce his first wife while she was in the hospital suffering from cancer. Newt later remarried, until that marriage was again dissolved due to an affair he was having with another member of his staff. In fact, Gingrich, who helped spearhead the House's impeachment of Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, was having the affair at the same time as Clinton's impeachment.

Profiles in Right-Wing Lunacy: Rush Limbaugh

Okay, so we all are aware of Rush Limbaugh, so I'll spare a full biography. The once fat, once relevant, once virile talk show personality and GOP lapdog has had his fair share of moronic moments. In fact, the media watchdog organization, Media Matters, online since 2004, currently has 465 entries on Limbaugh.

I compare the Rush Limbaugh Show to those old Chips-Ahoy ads, claiming "betcha bite a chip!" For those too young to recall, the commercials claimed, essentially, that there were so many chips in one cookie that you couldn't avoid eating one, no matter how small a bite you took. That's the way I feel about Rush. I'll tune into the show every so often, and it usually takes no more than 30 seconds for some idiotic statement to come spewing from his mouth. There is no increment of time short enough to avoid hearing Rush say something dumb, misleading, or just plain wrong. "Betcha say something stupid!"

I don't have the time today, or even this year to recount all of Rush's garbage, but here are some of the greatest hits:

• Claimed (without evidence) that the Virginia Tech shooter "had to be a liberal."



• Said that Parkinson's-stricken actor Michael J. Fox (appearing in a pro-stem cell campaign ad) "didn't take his medication or he's acting, one of the two."



• Regarding disgraced congressman Mark Foley, Limbaugh said "there's not even any real problem with what Foley did," and the Democrats "set Foley up" by possibly threatening or bribing underage congressional pages.



• Blamed food stamps for America's obesity epidemic, claiming the government is "killing the poor with too much food."



• Claimed that Cindy Sheehan (anti-war activist and mother of a soldier killed in Iraq) was a fraud. "Her story is...not real."

Recently, Limbaugh went on the attack again. Interestingly enough, he chose liberals as the target of his bilious nonsense.

On an August 21 broadcast of his radio program, Limbaugh claimed that the main reason Democrats feel compelled to combat the genocide in Darfur is to secure the black vote:

What color is the skin of the people in Darfur? It's black. And who do the Democrats really need to keep voting for them? If they lose a significant percentage of this voting bloc, they're in trouble.

Limbaugh went on to compare potential U.S. military involvement in the Darfur conflict to the Iraq War, claiming that involvement in Darfur was unnecessary because it did not constitute a "vital national interest."

The problems with Limbaugh's rationale are many. First, Limbaugh is taking the extreme conservative position that humanitarianism is not a worthwhile endeavor. If action by the U.S. does not serve a "vital national interest," then it serves no purpose in Limbaugh's eyes. This egoism permeates throughout all elements of neo-conservative ideology. Anything that aids your fellow man -whether it be public assistance, health care, low-income housing, minimum wage increases - should be vehemently opposed. Meanwhile, in claiming the the Iraq war qualifies as serving a national interest, Limbaugh seems unwilling to come to terms with the fact that the Iraq of 2002-2003 represented no real threat to the United States, or that all or most of the pre-war justifications have since been debunked.

Secondly, Limbaugh is attributing positions to liberals that are, in reality, overwhelmingly bi-partisan. In the same diatribe, he attacked "liberals," not only for their support of action in Darfur, but other "liberal" efforts like dismantling South Africa's Apartheid government and sending humanitarian aid to Tsunami victims. While President Reagan was certainly a staunch supporter of the Apartheid government, the U.S. Congress had enough bi-partisan clout to override Reagan's veto of a bill sanctioning South Africa. You may also recall that the humanitarian effort following the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami was lead by former Presidents Bush(R) and Clinton(D). Similarly, the Durfur situation is not a polarizing issue in America. In 2006, Congress passed the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, an effort to impose sanctions and aid in peacekeeping. The bill passed the House by a margin of 416 to 3.

I know it really doesn't take this much effort to expose the folly of Rush Limbaugh, but once you get going, it's hard to stop.

Fox News: By the Numbers

Just some interesting figures about Fox News and its viewers:

• Fox News currently devotes 7.9% of their coverage to the ongoing occupation in Iraq, compared to 17.8% for CNN and 15.1% for MSNBC.



• In 2004, 88% of Fox viewers supported George W. Bush, compared to 7% who supported John Kerry
  
  
• Of the three most common misconceptions about the Iraq war, a) there was evidence of a Saddam-Al Qaeda link, b) WMD were found in Iraq, and c) The rest of the world supported the US-led invasion, 80% of regular Fox viewers held at least one of these mis-conceptions, higher than consumers of any other news source. In addition, 43% believed all three misconceptions



• 49% of Fox viewers believe the media treats George W. Bush unfairly.



• Fox News devoted twice as much air time to the Anna Nicole Smith story than CNN and MSNBC.

• In a national political quiz by Pew Research, Fox News viewers scored the lowest of all regular news consumers, lower than Comedy Central, local news, and network morning show viewers. Fox viewers scored in the 50th percentile, meaning that watching Fox News regularly made one no more likely to know current political events than the average American.

Profiles in Right-Wing Lunacy: Michael Savage

Michael Savage (formerly Michael Weiner) is a conservative radio host, author, and former TV host. Don't ask about the name change. I can only assume Savage was considered to be more "hip" than Weiner, and we all know that when you're an apologist for the neo-conservative elite, you had better have hipness in spades.




Savage has made a career of making outlandish, often troubling assertions and accusations aimed at the American Left. Much of his rantings would make one question if he is mentally competent to be a radio host, or hold any job for that matter. Below are a few of my faves:

• Attributed the Columbine massacre to gender reassignment surgery.


• Claimed a Democratic win in the '06 midterms "could lead to the breakup of the United States"


• Defended the actions of disgraced congressman Mark Foley, claiming "the kid was leading him on."


• Advocated bombing the United Nations.
  

These examples alone are probably enough to diagnose Savage with having paranoid schizophrenia. But his latest hairbrained theory indicated that the man's fragile mind is finally at the point of rupturing.

On July 30, 2007, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts suffered a mild seizure while at home. Savage, ever the opportunist, used Robert's ailment to make conspiratorial, baseless -and downright insane- attacks on unspecified "Democrats." Savage asserted:

Am I to believe that there's no connection between Charles Schumer on Friday saying that he would never appoint, or never, excuse me, approve another Bush appointment to the court, to any court? And then the chief justice suffers so-called seizure two days later? You're telling me there's no possibility of a conspiracy by the Democrats to have caused this seizure in some manner?

As if baseless allegations weren't enough, Savage took the opportunity to cement his legacy as America's Most Delusional Radio Personality with the following:

And so, this is pretty amazing to me that he's had a seizure at age 52. That's a pretty amazing thing. They say that he had a similar episode in 1993 and that now they're telling us there's no cause for concern and you don't know what to believe.

So if I understand correctly, Justice Roberts had a history of seizures in his 30's, yet a seizure in his 50's is "amazing?" Does Savage actually listen to the words that come out of his mouth? In this example, he provides evidence that his whole previous diatribe was nonsense, and then just keeps on going with it.

The problem with guys like Michael Savage is that they typically reach wide audiences of loyal, uninformed, unquestioning, easily-manipulated conservatives. I actually feel sorry for his feeble-minded listeners. Apparently Savage has some Jim Jones-type effect on his listeners. If you are among the people who listened to Savage spew this garbage and didn't immediately grasp the utter lunacy of it, then God help you because you are a complete moron.