Why Are Churchgoers More Likely To Support Torture?

That is the question asked in a recent poll, and reiterated by CNN's Jack Cafferty. He gets quite a few responses that are all over the board but the one I agree with most comes at the 2:35 mark. "All radicalized forms of thinking lack innate tolerance," is a quote that anyone who doubts the findings of the poll should consider. Not all churches (or any house of worship) preach against tolerance but there are plenty that do, and that is one of the many reasons why torture has become accepted by far too many people in our society.

Conservatives Starting To Lose Constituencies That They Have Failed

For years, nay, decades now, liberals have torn many a hair out when Americans who would benefit from Democratic representation went Republican instead. These "Reagan Democrats" voted on wedge issues and from excessive fearmongering. They voted for the Bushes and perhaps even Bob Dole, but this past election things have started to change, especially in areas that have been hit hard by economic devastation brought on by the laissez-faire attitude of the GOP. This just doesn't apply to those that switched parties, Republicans who stayed put are moderating as well.

From RawStory:

In New York, for example, a number of Republican members of Congress appear to have grown more moderate -- either that or the ACU's standards have become more extreme. For example, Rep. Peter King came in at only 50% in 2008, down from 68% the previous year and a lifetime record of 75%. Rep. John McHugh was at 40%, compared with a lifetime figure of 72%.

Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan are other states where a number of Republican members of Congress drew ACU scores between the 40's and the 70's. These figures are in many cases 10, 15, or even 30 points lower than their lifetime ACU records.

Most of these Republicans remain clearly conservative according to their own standards -- but the ACU figures suggest that Rust Belt conservatism may have the potential of striking a different path from Limbaugh conservatism.

If the Republicans want to hold on to what they have left in the Rust Belt, they would do good by ditching Rush as their leader. It may be easy to see Indiana's vote for Obama as a fluke, but if the GOP remains as out of touch as they are and does not return to what they looked like thirty or forty years ago, the Rust Belt could start looking as deeply blue as the Northeast is now.

Misspelling Conservatives Hold Well-Orchestrated "Protest" Against Obama

George Bush attracted thousands, tens of thousands and countless millions of protesters at various points during his Presidency. Barack Obama is only a little over a month into his term and already he has groups taking to the streets to protest his quest to stimulate the economy. Conservatives fear that by spending money on vital infrastructure programs and putting people to work, that Americans will see that government can work for them. That possibility has the potential to put the Grover Norquists and Pat Toomeys of the world out of power for decades. So what does a corporate-loving, poor-people loathing, bunch of elitist white guys do about this threat to their very existence?

Start a faux protest of course:

The extensive media coverage of the event was perhaps disproportionate to the actual size of the protests, which drew around 200 to 300 participants in most locations. The greatest turnout may have been in St. Louis, Missouri, where some 1000 people showed up. The protest was inspired by a rant against Obama's housing bailout plan delivered last week from the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade by CNBC's Rick Santelli, who denounced struggling homeowners as "losers." Planning moved ahead quickly, thanks to the use of YouTube, Facebook, Flickr, and especially Twitter.

Sounds exciting and "revolutionary," especially as the group tried to compare themselves to the founding fathers that dumped tea in Boston Harbor to protest a tax that they had no influence on (unlike now when the American people overwhelming elected Barack Obama to do exactly what he is on track to accomplish). The only problem with their grassroots endeavor was that it wasn't exactly "grassroots."

Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin calls the protesters "a fledgling grassroots movement." However, sociologist Eugenia Deerman, a student of conservative social movements, told the Christian Science Monitor, "I’m suspicious only because ... the conservative movement has repeatedly used this tactic of creating an appearance of grassroots activism when they’re actually very well orchestrated." Many progressives are also skeptical of the grassroots claim. For example, blogger Jeffrey Feldman points out that the Washington, DC sponsors of the events include such old-line anti-tax groups as Americans for Prosperity, Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, the National Taxpayers Union, and FreedomWorks.

To people like Norquist and Toomey, smoke and mirrors is SOP without having any real, substantive movement behind them. Perhaps that is because Obama is planning on cutting taxes for 95% of Americans and raising them for the wealthy income earners and the special interest groups that represent them. Fighting progress must be hard, especially when you can only muster a few thousand people to protest the agenda that seventy million voters whole-heartedly endorsed this past November.

Conservatives Lament McCain, Yet They Really Should Take A Good Look In The Mirror

An article in the Observer this morning asks if John McCain is a "lemon" for the portion of America that calls themselves conservative. Basically McCain has been a terrible candidate with no true economic vision and a consistent flip-flopper that at times sounds like Barack Obama when it comes to dealing with our fiscal woes. Examples include the $300 billion mortgage buying scheme mention at the last debate and then pulled back, endorsing the bailout by Paulson and his meaningless focus on $3 million dollar earmarks while everyone else is talking about numbers in the hundreds of billions.

Yes, I agree with the fact that McCain is a lemon to those that hold on to their fiscal conservative roots. Yet, he is merely one lemon that hangs on their tree full of sour ideas. The fact is, conservatism (or what Republicans have made of it) is dying a terrible death. For twelve years in Congress and for twenty out of twenty-eight in the White House, conservatives have implemented their schemes as best they could and it failed spectacularly. De-regulation was a disaster, as America had to take in the reality that a "free" market does not police itself and when given more room, greed inevitably takes over.

Now that the situation at Wall Street has exploded and the debris is affecting everyone, the fiscal restraint we've been preaching to other (poorer) nations becomes hypocritical condescension. Paulson, Bush and yes, some Democrats decided that we should embrace a form of corporate socialism that gives these greedy bastards in the financial sector gobs of taxpayer money (borrowed from others of course) in order to fix their mess. To top it off, there are hardly any regulations put in place to prevent a repeat of their derivative-based economy.

McCain, in his lust for power after being robbed of it eight years ago, is stopping at nothing to get elected. He does not care about conservatism, he cares about himself. That selfishness is what ultimately connects him to their tree because when you get down to basics, conservatism is all about "me" and nothing for you. "Me" wants no taxes so I keep my wealth and/or power, "me" could careless if you are sleeping on the street, "me" wants to bomb your oil-rich nation so I can feed my petro-addiction and "me" wants all of it now without any thought of the future.

For John McCain, he wants to be President, and he'll say whatever it takes to satisfy his "me."

McCain's Problem Is Great News For America

While the Democratic primary shows a nearly deadlocked battle between Hillary and Barack, the media narrative of Democrats being split amongst themselves while the Republicans are cohesive is long gone. It is true that McCain will almost certainly be the nominee as it stands now and the Democrats race is still up in the air, but the delegate numbers only reflects the surface of the issue. McCain's problem is far more complex.

From ABC News:

In his path toward the Republican nomination, McCain has been continually hammered by conservatives including influential talk show host Rush Limbaugh, commentator and author Ann Coulter, and James Dobson, the evangelical Christian founder of Focus on the Family.

"For all intents and purposes, McCain is the Republican nominee," a defeated Limbaugh said on his radio show today. Limbaugh suggested McCain will march Republicans to defeat in November unless he picks former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, who did well among Christian evangelicals last night, as his running mate.

"Here's the thing about McCain: he can't win conservatives in the South by virtue of this primary yesterday," Limbaugh said. "These blue states that McCain won last night are places where he has no chance in November."

Coulter has suggested she will vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., if McCain becomes the nominee, arguing that Clinton has a more conservative record.

Dobson released a statement to "The Laura Ingraham Show" Tuesday announcing that he would refuse to vote in November if McCain is the nominee.

"I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative, and in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are," Dobson wrote. "A spoonful of sugar does NOT make the medicine go down. I cannot, and will not, vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience."

The news that Dobson has a conscience is more shocking than anything else, but more importantly McCain is going to suffer in terms of voter turnout come November. Now while not all Republicans heed the messages of Coulter and Dobson, they do represent a percentage of the party that will not vote for McCain in the numbers that he needs. That is especially so when you look at how energetic Democratic primary voters have been compared to Republicans. So McCain's problem is certainly good news to either Clinton or Obama, but most definitely for the Democratic party as a whole.

Thank You Captain Obvious

So I was going through The Huffington Post just now and I ran into a post by Peter Mehlman. If you do not recognize the name, he was one of the head writers for Seinfeld. Due to a couple degrees of separation, he got me on as an extra for a show he created (not Seinfeld) a few years back. He is a great comedy writer, but when it comes to analyzing the media, his message is rather depressing.

The gist of it is that in today's media, there are so many outlets for people to choose to get their news from, whether you are liberal or conservative. Because of that, he sees the Information Age is more like "it's the blather-ation age." Well I am glad you notice that Peter, the Information Age does allow many people to express their viewpoints and yes, other people can choose to read whichever they deem fit.

Mehlman highlights the works of Maureen Dowd and Bill Maher on the left and David Broder on the right, showing that as talented as these people are the only thing being accomplished is preaching to the choir. What Peter is missing here is that even though politics is extremely divisive, the world is not wholly black and white. There are (gasp) independents out there that hate both choirs and are looking for a middle ground. In fact, there are more and more Independents being registered all the time.

The most depressing part of his post was the end:

Preaching to the choir is a deadening experience.

Then again, preaching to the heathens isn't much better. On the right, a respected conservative columnist like David Brooks in the New York Times sounds more and more desperate in his attempts to gently get liberals to think another way. Ask a Maureen Dowd fan if he or she read David Brooks today and you get this put upon reaction of, "I started reading but by the third paragraph, I just couldn't stand it anymore."

Instead, we spend our lives preparing for an argument we'll never have with a person we'll never meet whose opinions we could never change.

Now I find this insulting to people that are actively engaged in politics, even if they only want to know what is going on in the world. What Peter seems to be inferring is that with all the sources of information out there, why should we even bother following the news if we can't get through to the other side?

Well if I remember correctly, it is an engaged citizenry that strengthens a democracy. Sure, not everyone is going to follow the news as meticulously as others, but that is perfectly fine. Nevertheless, people's minds do actually change, the Congress, the Presidency and all the elected offices below that do change hands based on how the public feels their leaders are doing. It is how a democracy works (even if ours has been walloped in the head over and over by the neo-cons in the last few years) and we should continue to strive for a better nation that serves its people.

Conservatives Have Way Too Much Time On Their Hands

There are many different issues and causes that a person can feel passionate about, whether you are on one side or the other. Letting women make decisions about their own body, should we help give health care to children who can not afford it, is it smart to stay in Iraq even though we are making it worse.....so many questions to ponder (though I would think the answers are easy in my humble opinion). Now to you nuts on the right, why the hell do you care so much about the logo on Google?

From The LA Times:

Google Inc. occasionally features light-hearted doodles on its colorful home-page logo to commemorate special occasions. But now they are drawing criticism from conservatives for not being more patriotic.

The Mountain View, Calif., company bathes its logo in stars and stripes every Independence Day, but last week's decision to honor the 50th anniversary of the Sputnik launch -- the second "g" in Google was replaced with a drawing of the Soviet satellite -- is being blasted by some conservatives.

Not only did Google honor an achievement by a totalitarian regime that was our Cold War enemy, they griped, but it did so without having ever altered its logo to commemorate U.S. military personnel on Memorial Day or Veterans Day.

"It's a kick to your belly," said conservative blogger Giovanni Gallucci, 39, a social media consultant from Dallas. "I understand these guys are scientists and engineers and they have their quirks and want to make sure people are recognized who might not normally be recognized . . . but why not celebrate the struggles that we've come through as a people?"

Seriously, can someone get that man a life.

Am I A Hard-Wired Liberal?

Are you one? Are you programmed to think like a conservative? One random question in the universe may have been solved by researchers at UCLA and NYU. The answer is......yes. Their studies tested the brains of liberals and conservatives with a very simple test and the results were strikingly different. Now of course the researchers claim it does not mean being liberal or conservative is a bad thing...but, well....you know.

From The Los Angeles Times:

Frank J. Sulloway, a researcher at UC Berkeley's Institute of Personality and Social Research who was not connected to the study, said results "provided an elegant demonstration that individual differences on a conservative-liberal dimension are strongly related to brain activity."

Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy.

Sulloway said the results could explain why President Bush demonstrated a single-minded commitment to the Iraq war and why some people perceived Sen. John F. Kerry, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat who opposed Bush in the 2004 presidential race, as a flip-flopper for changing his mind about the conflict.

Based on the results, he said, liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.

Hmm, sounds like there is a bias here. Scientists are more accepted by liberals, hence they cannot be trusted with God's creation....or something like that. Of course this information isn't surprising in the least. Conservatives are reluctant to the ever-changing world while liberals are open-minded and explore many different options whether it comes to politics or grocery shopping. The George Bush v. John Kerry example is one of many that you can look to see differences between libs and cons.

Not-So-Breaking News: Liberals Read More Books

It makes perfect sense to me that a new study shows that liberals read more than conservatives. Simply, liberals want to learn more and have a larger intellectual appetite. It isn't that the left is necessarily smarter, but their minds are much more open than the restriction of thought that leaders in the conservative world like to maintain.

The first person that comes to mind is Frank Luntz, who has come up with many alliterations and catch-phrases for the Republican party (as well as some Democrats). Simplification is their key asset to make sure their flock stays in line with ideological priorities. Keeping things "black and white" makes things easier for them, even though the world is full of shades of gray.

From the AP:

"The Karl Roves of the world have built a generation that just wants a couple slogans: 'No, don't raise my taxes, no new taxes,'" Pat Schroeder, president of the American Association of Publishers, said in a recent interview. "It's pretty hard to write a book saying, 'No new taxes, no new taxes, no new taxes' on every page."

Schroeder, who as a Colorado Democrat was once one of Congress' most liberal House members, was responding to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll that found people who consider themselves liberals are more prodigious book readers than conservatives.

She said liberals tend to be policy wonks who "can't say anything in less than paragraphs. We really want the whole picture, want to peel the onion."

Conservatives are quick to disagree of course. Mary Matalin was interviewed for this article as well and put in her two cents. First she says that Schroeder shouldn't interject her opinion....and that conservatives are getting more of their reading material online. Well Mary, I hate to tell you, but online readership, especially on the blogs is heavily liberal. In fact, the largest Democratic blog gets more traffic than the top 50 sites in the conservative blogosphere. In addition to that, blogs on the left are much less top-heavy.

Lets face it, liberals like to read more. We are more interested in finding out the nuances of the gray shades than simply saying it is "us vs. them" all the time. The world isn't that simple. The difference is that liberals want to learn about it and conservatives want to make it easy so they don't have to think.

Conservatives Protesting Live Earth

Get ready for a lesson in lunacy. Conservative activists (all 15 of them) descended upon the Live Earth event in Washington to protest for global warming. Apparently they like that our planet is getting hotter and the climate becoming more erratic. It seems our Al Gore haters don't pay attention to the devastating effects of this change. Whats a few islands being swallowed up by rising sea levels anyways (Not to mention stronger hurricanes, deathly heat waves, catastrophic floods and devastating droughts)?

Conservative Pundits Make A Good Point About The Supreme Court

Although I completely disagree politically with the people talking below, I do believe they make a good point about the Court and who our next President is. The 44th President has a chance to replace a few Justices and it is crucial that the right person is selected for the job.

Republicans Resort To Cannibalism

While the gloves were mainly kept on for the first Democratic debate (excluding Mike Gravel) the Republicans haven't even had their first debate and the gloves are long gone. The on-message GOP has crumbled and left in its wake is a party ripping at each other. Each candidate is trying to be the 'true' conservative while the others are just playing politics. The reality is that they are all playing politics and any casual observer can see that. While Kerry was called a flip-flopper over nothing, these guys are skilled in the art of switching sides for an issue whenever it befits them.

From CNN:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- When it comes to Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment -- "Thou shalt not speak ill of thy fellow Republicans" -- GOP presidential candidates seem to be losing their religion.

Republican candidates have been speaking a lot of ill -- sometimes quite directly.

"Governor [Mitt] Romney, his views ... have been moderate to liberal in [the] North, in the Northeast, and it's all on videotape," former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore said on "The Situation Room" recently. "And now he's trying to shift to be a conservative."

At a Republican dinner in Iowa this month, Gilmore took on his party's front-runners collectively, saying, "Rudy McRomney is not a conservative."

The former Massachusetts governor's response? He said his rivals -- Sen. John McCain and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani -- have changed their minds on issues, too.

Well if one guy has no principles, then it is fair to not have principles as well? That top notch reasoning is resulting in the fact that despite there being a top-tier of GOP candidates, no one on the right is screaming and cheering behind either of them. The problem is that these are guys have been so addicted to winning at all costs in the last few years.

That addiction has negated any conservative principles they might have had. Now I don't agree with those principles, but it would be nice if they stuck to them so we could have an honest debate in this country. The nation has grown tired of their culture of corruption and the merciless desire to please the rich and their corporate masters. So many Republicans have come out of the woodwork to float a possible candidacy but none have had any success. Fred Thompson? Newt Gingrich? Who's next, wingnut radio host Michael Savage?

The reality is there is no one on the conservative side of the debate because none of them have any real principles. Besides, even if there was a viable candidate, would America want a system that rewards the rich and screws the poor? People may have liked Reagan's persona, but the truth is, his system failed. Conservatism as we know it has led to the downfall of our country and we need a new, progressive way at this critical time.

Liberals And Conservatives Are Wired Differently

I've always joked around that there are personality differences between the two ideologies and that you can tell a Republican from a Democrat from early on. I remember one of my friends from 3rd grade was always obsessed about what things cost and all things money. So it didn't surprise me that he turned out to be a Republican (there were other factors as well). I on the other hand was more artistic, messy, cared about the environment and supported Dukakis (being 7yrs old at the time).

Now there is definitive proof by a psychological study that shows true differences between Liberals and Conservatives. All the information makes complete sense and is easily seen in real life if you know what to look for. It puts a damper on people that believe reasoning on issues is the basic motivator for determining political persuasions.

From Psychology Today:

"All people are born alike—except Republicans and Democrats," quipped Groucho Marx, and in fact it turns out that personality differences between liberals and conservatives are evident in early childhood. In 1969, Berkeley professors Jack and Jeanne Block embarked on a study of childhood personality, asking nursery school teachers to rate children's temperaments. They weren't even thinking about political orientation.

Twenty years later, they decided to compare the subjects' childhood personalities with their political preferences as adults. They found arresting patterns. As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics.

The most comprehensive review of personality and political orientation to date is a 2003 meta-analysis of 88 prior studies involving 22,000 participants. The researchers—John Jost of NYU, Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland, and Jack Glaser and Frank Sulloway of Berkeley—found that conservatives have a greater desire to reach a decision quickly and stick to it, and are higher on conscientiousness, which includes neatness, orderliness, duty, and rule-following. Liberals are higher on openness, which includes intellectual curiosity, excitement-seeking, novelty, creativity for its own sake, and a craving for stimulation like travel, color, art, music, and literature.

The article goes into sub-topics such as the bias of liberal researchers, the thinking habits of either side and many more areas of interest. Of course a liberal can be neat and orderly, but still have the majority of traits listed for left-leaners. I know that for me that I have almost all of the personality traits that signify a liberal.

Another key aspect of the piece shows the transformation of 'liberals' becoming conservative after 9/11. This proved to them that people with deep-seated fears will tend to become their true selves when a major event like that triggers life and death questions and the need to be safe. In fact, when you hear George Bush speak, he is talking to those scared conservatives that want to hear his tough talk to satisfy that safety need. Addressing issues in black and white terms also helps them cope with the world. When it comes to fearfulness and safety, describing the world in simple terms helps is easier for that part of the brain to deal with, since fear comes from the part of the brain that deals with instinct and is 'older' in a way. On the other side of the spectrum, people that are immersed in complex thought have an easier time seeing issues that have multiple sides to them. Conservatives see this as a weakness and call it 'flip-flopping', as Bush did to Kerry in 2004.

If I'm not making sense to you, go check out the article and let the experts explain. I guess I am just rambling on with my artistic, messy, liberal self.