14 February, 2009

Can We Dig to the Bottom of Human Stupidity?

In reference to a neocon doofus whose idea of "civil disobedience" is to refuse to engage in what she calls "the crypto-fascist hand jive" (known to sane people as a simple dap or fist jab) and carefully turning magazine covers so they don't show Obama's face, Ed Brayton writes this:
Some day I hope to find a bottom to human stupidity. It appears that will require more digging.
No kidding. One needs a backhoe for this work, especially when the leader of the Virginia GOP disses Darwin:

Steve Benen partially transcribes if you prefer your pain at one remove:
First, paying tribute to Lincoln, Frederick explained, "Abraham Lincoln is best know [sic], as you all well know, for freeing the slaves by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation affirming in his Gettyburg [sic] Address in 19, I'm sorry, 1863...."

From there, the state party chairman and state delegate, told the legislature, "Darwin, however, is best known for the theory of evolution, arguing that men are not only, quote, are only, not, not created, but they are not equal, as some are more evolved."
That, I admit, is some pretty high-grade dumbshittery. But personally, my favorite bit of this sea of idiocy was when he said, "Whereas Darwin's theory was used by atheists to explain away the belief in god, the last Act of Congress signed by Abraham Lincoln, before he was shot, was to place the phrase 'In God We Trust' on our national coin."

You know what a driving force Lincoln was behind that effort? He signed the Act. He had about as much to do with our inane national motto as Darwin did with what uses other people chose to put his theory to. From this, as well as his sneering at evolution, we can conclude that Del. Frederick is an ignorant nutbag.

No bottom to human stupidity yet. Let us keep digging:

Now that the Democratic press conference is over, it's Amateur Hour!

Boehner derides the bill as costing a billion dollars a page.
Compared to Paulson's billion dollars a word ransom note that is pretty damn good.
But somehow more is less with these guys.

He claims the bill won't work.
He claims their solution would have been better.
He is adamantly opposed to it.

He also claims that no one has read the bill.

Anyone notice the non sequitor?

They just prove that Mark Twain was right when he said:

People who don't read have no advantage over people who can't.

Lawmakers deriding a bill they haven't read. They haven't read it, but they absolutely know it won't work. How the fuck do they know? They're so ignorant about it that they've been busy bleating about mouse money that doesn't exist, which they'd know didn't exist - if they'd read the damned bill.

Certainly no bottom to human stupidity there, although I'm not surprised - our Cons have always seemed bottomless fonts of dumbassery to me. I do believe Rep. Louise Slaughter sees them the same way, considering how exasperated she sounds debunking their little but-nobody-was-bipartisan-with-us! tantrums:

They are being disingenuous, or worse. These are the facts:

The bill, as it came to the Rules Committee, the last stop before the floor vote, already incorporated 12 Republican amendments. The Rules Committee then added the 11 amendments: 6 Democratic and 5 Republican, in addition to a complete Republican substitute, and a motion to recommit. They were unable to muster the votes necessary and lost on bipartisan votes. House Republicans may have come together to vote against the final bill, but they split on their own amendments with 40 to 60 Republicans voting with Democrats. Some Republicans even voted against their party’s alternative bill, and it failed on the floor.

The Republican alternative didn’t have a final price tag, consisted entirely of tax cuts, and would actually raise taxes for 26 million American families. In two years, the Democratic bill would create 3.6 million jobs. The Republican substitute: 1.2 million – a third as many as the Democratic bill that passed the House.

President Obama even met with House Republicans more times in two weeks to discuss this legislation than President Bush did with House Democrats in two terms.

The Republicans were certainly allowed in the process, but they wanted to obstruct.

Yup. Bottomless. Let's dig elsewhere, then:

Prominent fundamentalist Christian leaders with deep ties to the Republican Party have, over the years, generally rejected the notion of being "politically correct." It's ironic, then, that they've decided "religious right" doesn't sound good, and they'd prefer we stop using it.

Gary Bauer said this week, "There is an ongoing battle for the vocabulary of our debate. It amazes me how often in public discourse really pejorative phrases are used, like the 'American Taliban,' 'fundamentalists,' 'Christian fascists,' and 'extreme Religious Right.'"

A Focus on the Family official added that the "religious right" label might generate negative impressions: "Terms like 'Religious Right' have been traditionally used in a pejorative way to suggest extremism. The phrase 'socially conservative evangelicals' is not very exciting, but that's certainly the way to do it."

This is pretty silly. The religious right is an established political movement, and the phrase has been common for decades. I can appreciate the fact that people like James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and their followers would blanch at labels like "American Taliban," but "religious right" is clearly (and deliberately) bland.

If the movement's leaders believe "religious right" has become synonymous with extremism and hatred, perhaps the movement should be less extreme and hateful.


We're not talking about a
branding problem here. These clowns have become publicly reviled because they embrace a radical worldview, starkly at odd with American traditions, laws, and culture.
What the fuck is it with people thinking a name change will solve everything this week? First it's Blackwater, now the raving right. This is right up there with our own local buffoon Dino Rossi thinking he was oh-so-clever by saying he "prefers GOP party" rather than calling himself the Con he is. They think they're oh-so-sneaky, but while it's impossible to dig to the bottom of human stupidity, just enough Americans are wise to name-games.

Sod this for a game of larks. Digging for the bottom of human stupidity is a fool's errand. Myself, I shall do the smart thing: sit back, pour me a drink, point and laugh.

1 comment:

Mike at The Big Stick said...

They haven't read it, but they absolutely know it won't work. How the fuck do they know?

Doesn't that logic go both ways? Knowing that you haven't read the bill Dana, how do you know this will do any good? Because Nancy Pelosi told you it would? I wonder, what flavor was the Kool Aid they offered you?