{pic by wstera2}

Over the past year, the ideology of the Republican Party has at times seemed reducible to a single word: “No.” However, if you peruse the party’s website, you will find that the GOP’s brand of intransigent denialism is far too complex to be captured by a mere monosyllabic utterance. In fact, on a page entitled “What We Believe,” you will learn that Republicans embrace no fewer than seven tenets of historical revisionism and socio-economic fantasy that would give even the most skilled psychiatrist a run for his money:

• Just count your blessings… “The Republican Party believes that the United States has been blessed with a unique set of individual rights and freedoms available to all”: Granted, there are a few countries (like Norway, Australia, Iceland, Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden, France, Switzerland, Japan, Luxembourg, and Finland) that are ahead of us when it comes to trivialities such as health, education, and standard of living—and our grotesquely skewed distribution of wealth means that real power is concentrated in very few hands—and our political system is characterized by a whorish system of campaign finance that renders moot the concept of “public interest”—but at least God Almighty allows us to choose Coke or Pepsi.
• Leisurely be all that you can be… “The Republican Party is inspired by the power and ingenuity of the individual to succeed through hard work, family support and self-discipline”: Although, truth be told, inheriting your fortune, or living off of the stock dividends from your “golden parachute,” makes it all much easier, while requiring none of that pesky work nor inconvenient discipline. If you close your eyes and wish hard enough, the United States really is a class-less society.
• The fine art of noblesse oblige… “The Republican Party believes in the value of voluntary giving and community support over taxation and forced redistribution”: So throw a quarter or two into the coffee cup of that homeless guy down the street and do your part to end poverty and hunger in America. That homeless guy appreciates your quarters far more than he would some silly government-run program for housing, education, job-placement, or addiction treatment.
• The cowboy life… “The Republican Party…believes that government must be limited so that it never becomes powerful enough to infringe on the rights of individuals”: Government intrusion is a steep and slippery slope to Bolshevism. If you let the politicians tell you that you’re not free to own an anti-tank weapon, the next thing you know they’ll be trying to let everyone have access to health insurance. And don’t forget that corporations are “individuals,” too.
• Do less with more… “The Republican Party supports low taxes because individuals know best how to make their own economic and charitable choices”: Very true… that’s why the richest 1 percent of American families own more than one-third of the nation’s wealth, while the poorest 40 percent own less than 1 percent.
• Self-sustaining bootstraps… “The Republican Party is supportive of logical business regulations that encourage entrepreneurs to start more businesses so more individuals can enjoy the satisfaction and fruits of self-made success”: You have indeed reached the pinnacle of self-made success when you are installed as the extravagantly over-paid CEO of a corporate behemoth that privately owns the homes and livelihoods of your less-fortunate fellow Americans who actually work for a wage.
• Bombing for peace… “The Republican Party is committed to preserving our national strength while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world”: Nothing says “peace, freedom and human rights” like invading a country which did not attack you, and killing a few tens or hundreds of thousands of civilians in the process. Throw in a little torture, and you have the makings of an American-style utopia.

The fact that absurdities such as these are taken seriously by a sizable share of the American populace, rather than being relegated to the cultish political fringe, is proof that a human being really can insert his head so far into his own ass that he never sees the light of day.

{pic by Loren Javier}

The death of that most holy of con men, the televangelist Oral Roberts, is certainly welcome news to all who value reason over superstition. However, there is no cause for celebration considering that millions of his followers remain, of whom many are convinced that he was actually a faith healer and could even raise the dead. The head has been removed, but the serpentine body remains. Multi-millionaire charlatans of faith like Roberts could not flourish in this country if not for the presence of so many troubled souls willing to believe almost anything, no matter how outlandish or unsubstantiated.

Anyone wanting a truly terrifying glimpse into the fact-free collective consciousness which is shared by much of the American public should peruse a recent survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion and Public Life. The survey found that roughly one-quarter of Americans believes in reincarnation and astrology. Moreover, many Americans “mix multiple faiths” and “blend Christianity with Eastern or New Age beliefs.” As one benighted Catholic participant in the survey told The Washington Post, “even in the Bible, you have ghosts, you know the Holy Ghost. And with astrology, didn’t Daniel mention astrologists? Didn’t the Three Kings follow a star to Jesus?”

The intellectual problem with all of this isn’t the mixing of disparate religious traditions, but the fact that so many people choose to believe any of the empirically baseless gobbledygook that is so innocuously referred to as “faith.” Of course, if your plumber chooses to believe that magical fairy dust is the key to his drain-cleaning success, who cares? But what if your emergency room physician would rather not replace the two quarts of blood you lost in that auto accident because his book of religious fairy-tales says transfusion is unholy? “Faith” is a slippery slope. Once you choose to embrace one belief for which there is zero evidence, it becomes much easier to embrace other baseless beliefs. God and ghosts, gremlins and the Grim Reaper… it’s all pretty much the same from a rational perspective.

We generally expect children to let go of their imaginary friends as they get older. Apparently, this does not apply to adults…

{pic by Lex in the City}

One can be excused for sometimes imagining that the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats are in some way “radical” or “leftist.” With all the Right Wing ranting and screaming about Socialism, Communism, Maoism, Stalinism, and Islamo-Fascist Black-Nationalist Atheistic Collectivism, it’s easy to forget that there is no fire beneath all that smoke. Perhaps this is why even some progressive commentators have puzzled over the fact that the Democratic Agenda is moving so slowly through the Democratic-controlled Congress, and being repeatedly watered down in the course of seemingly endless negotiations with so-called “moderate Republicans” and “conservative Democrats.”

However, as other commentators on the Left have observed, this bureaucratic malaise is hardly a paradox. Rather, it is a predictable outcome in a political system dominated by two parties that are both firmly entrenched in a capitalist economy characterized by massive inequality in the distribution of wealth and power, and in which individual greed is glorified over human need. The Democratic and Republican parties are both rooted in the same tainted soil. This simple fact is most apparent in the corrupt system of campaign finance that still prevails on Capitol Hill, in which lawmakers of both parties reflexively drop their pants and bend over for anyone with a big bank account who needs a political favor.

But this is only the tip of the political penis, so to speak. Both parties accept the illusion which lies at the heart of U.S.-style Capitalism: that we live in a Democracy because we all—rich and poor alike—vote every few years. Your means of survival (your job and home, for instance) may be someone else’s Private Property and subject to their entrepreneurial whims, and the course of the national economy can be altered by the private decisions of a few multi-billionaires, but don’t worry about it! We all put our pants on the same way in the voting booth, so it’s all good! This is obviously a farce, but it is a farce accepted by both the Democratic and Republican parties, and by most voters. Yet, no matter how much politicians and voters alike may want to believe in this illusion, when the Hope and Change espoused in campaign rhetoric run headlong into the realities of U.S. Political Economy, the result is bureaucratic paralysis and never-ending “compromise.”

Don’t get me wrong. There are plenty of differences between the Democratic and Republican parties that are immensely important. Having the right to choose an abortion vs. not having that right. Extending health-insurance coverage to 36 million of the currently uninsured vs. 3 million. When it comes to the lives of real people, these differences are not to be taken lightly. But let us not get carried away. The election of Obama and Democratic majorities in Congress was not a Revolution, and it would be naïve to expect revolutionary results. The Democratic Party is about as “radical” as the Boy Scouts.

{pic by luna715}

Judging from the signs and slogans which are so often on display during “tea parties,” “9-12” protests, and other tawdry public gatherings of the Radical Right, there seems to be a lot of confusion within the United States about the meaning of the word “socialism.” As described by the political shock jocks of Talk Radio and Fox News, “socialism” is a dictatorial, freedom-hating ideology characteristic of the Obama administration, North Korea, Nazi Germany, and France. If this seems to cast a nonsensically wide net, it is because Right Wing demagogues and their thoughtless minions tend to use the term “socialism” as an expression of emotion rather than an intellectual concept… somewhat akin to yelling “fuck you!” If, for whatever reason, you don’t like someone—because he or she is too “liberal” or spendthrift or dark-skinned or well-spoken for your taste—then you simply yell “socialist!” as a means of conveying both your anger and your ignorance.

Of course, anyone who has bothered to do any reading about socialism knows that it is an inherently democratic ideology which bears little resemblance to the ego-maniacal authoritarianism of Stalin or Pol Pot. For instance, The Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels describes the revolutionary struggle of the working class as “the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority.” Even the politically bland Columbia Encylopedia makes clear that socialism is about “cooperation and social service”—in contrast to capitalism’s emphasis upon “competition and profit.”

From a capitalist perspective, the problem with socialist ideology is not that it is insufficiently democratic, but that it is a little too democratic. Socialism calls for real democracy in which people can exert control over the political and economic forces that impact their lives. But modern capitalist mythology depends on the fiction that it is possible to have political democracy and obscene levels of economic inequality at the same time. Even though most people would admit that billionaires like Rupert Murdoch have far more political power than dishwashers and janitors, we are all supposed to pretend that, because Rupert casts only a single vote on election day—just like us—his vast investment portfolio and media empire are politically irrelevant. However, a malcontent socialist might ask how it’s possible to have true democracy when one person’s private property (Rupert’s News Corp.) is another person’s means of survival (working as a janitor for News Corp.)—or how that janitor’s single vote on election day stacks up against Rupert’s unparalleled access to elected officials thanks to his billions, or his ability to single-handedly underwrite political campaigns with his billions, or his power to shape all manner of political and policy debates through his personal control of national media outlets.

Needless to say, these are rather heady concepts which fall far beyond the intellectual grasp of the average Glenn Beck fan or Rush Limbaugh listener. More often than not these days, the Right-Wing charge of “socialism” is directed at particular legislative initiatives which emanate from the Obama administration—like health care reform that could conceivably expand the availability of health care. Right Wingers are particularly worried that the United States might one day end up with a form of national health insurance that resembles that of {gasp!} France, where people live longer and suffer fewer preventable deaths despite lower per-capita health care expenditures. Of course, the United States already has a form of national health insurance for old people (Medicare), not to mention national retirement benefits for old people (Social Security), so one might ask why the Right Wingers aren’t calling for an end to those seemingly “socialist” programs as well. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that many of the opponents of health care reform are themselves old people who are dependent upon Medicare and Social Security.

At any rate, the convoluted mis-understanding of the term “socialism” which is so often on display in Right Wing circles was captured perfectly in one of the year’s most amusing Right Wing protest signs: “Don’t steal from Medicare to support socialized medicine.” {Sigh.…}

{pic by Big Dubya}

Now, I don’t know much about what you might call “knowledge.” In fact, it’s probably safe to say that I know less than nothing when it comes to history, politics, economics, science, and all those other fancy subjects that liberal university-type people think are so important. But one thing I do know is that this Obama administration and this Democrat Congress are socialist. It’s not that I really know what the word “socialism” means, mind you. I mean, I know it’s like what they have in China and Russia and Cuba and places like that. It’s kind of like when a Big Government takes your money and spreads it around to everyone—sort of like the Feds do with Medicare and Social Security, except that I like my Medicare and Social Security, so don’t mess with them. But I don’t want anything else like Medicare and Social Security because that would just be too socialistical. I’d be against Medicare and Social Security, too, if we didn’t already have them and I didn’t already like having them…

But that’s not the point. The point is that people on the T.V. and the radio like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Ann Coulter tell me that Obama and the Democrats are socialist, and I believe them. It’s kind of like accepting that my 1978 edition of the New International Version of the English translation of the Bible is the Word of God. It’s something you just have to take on faith, and asking for proof kind of ruins the whole thing. I mean, demanding “proof” that the Bible is the Word of God is pretty much proof that you’re an atheist, right? So demanding proof that Rush and Glenn and Ann are telling the truth about Obama being a socialist is pretty much proof that you’re a socialist.

I just know what I know, you know?

I am brimming over with ill-defined pride and faux patriotism—and nothing you say could ever change my mind.

I am an All-American Fool.

{pic by luna715}

The idea of secession from the United States is often bandied about in Far Right circles as if it were the dire Nuclear Option within the conservative political arsenal. Just last week, on September 4, conservative economist Walter E. Williams broached the topic on the Rush Limbaugh Show. Williams—an occasional fill-in and hand puppet for the Dark Lord himself—was discussing the not-quite-mass movement for secession that is afoot in New Hampshire and opined that secession didn’t work “last time” (that unpleasant Civil War incident), but it did work “the first time in 1776,” and it would be nice to “see whether we could break the tie” and “have a sovereign nation.” Similarly, Texas Governor Rick Perry, appealing to the nebulous Right Wing populist rage at one of the Fox News “Tea Parties” last April, floated the possibility of secession “if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people” (apparently, he forgot which party won and which party lost in the elections last November). And there is no shortage of neo-Confederate hate groups, such as the League of the South, which are devoted to the idea of secession as a means of escaping federal intrusion upon the God-given right of states to enslave human beings for fun and profit.

Implicit in Right Wing chatter about secession is the assumption that it somehow constitutes a “threat”; that the inhabitants of a newly shrunk United States would bemoan the day they lost the invaluable contributions which the Far Right makes to Human Progress. But let us consider what would actually be “lost” were the United States of America (U.S.A.) to jettison the original 11 members of the Confederate States of America (C.S.A.): Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. Even a cursory examination of available data indicates that the U.S.A. might benefit enormously from a southern-style divorce of this kind.

For instance, at a time when reigning in health care expenditures is a top priority for nearly every policymaker in the country, the Secession Option makes fiscal sense. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate that the U.S.A. spends more that $75 billion on obesity-related medical expenditures each year, and the C.S.A. states account for roughly 30% (or $22.3 billion) of that total. In fact, the C.S.A. states have some of the highest rates of obesity in the nation. Based on my own calculations using the CDC’s obesity-rate data for each state and the U.S. Census Bureau’s state-population totals from the 2007 American Community Survey, I estimate that secession would permit the U.S.A. to shed roughly 26 million medically expensive obese individuals, which would reduce the size of the obese population in the country by one-third.

However, the benefits of secession go far beyond the fiscal advantages of shedding excess baggage from the health care system. Allowing the C.S.A. states to secede would eliminate nine of the 22 “red” states that swung Republican in the 2008 election. More precisely, based on popular-vote totals compiled by the U.S. Electoral College, secession would remove 36% (or 21.6 million) of those U.S. voters who thought that a McCain-Palin administration would have made a nice sequel to eight years of Bush-Cheney.

Shedding surplus Republicans from the U.S.A. would be advantageous not only from a partisan political perspective, but would vastly improve the general state of knowledge among the reduced U.S. population. The base of the Republican Party consists of Evangelical Protestants, a rather Taliban-esque group that tends to frown upon Enlightenment-era ideals such as scientific discovery and the use of human reason. For instance, 65% of Evangelical Protestants believe that all forms of life have always existed in their present form ever since a magical Supreme Being zapped them into existence—the fossil record and genetic mutation be damned. Not surprisingly, Evangelical Protestants are heavily concentrated in the C.S.A. states. Based on state-level estimates of religious affiliation from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, and adult-population totals reported for each state by the 2007 American Community Survey, I conclude that secession would remove 44% (or 25.5 million) of all Evangelical Protestants from the U.S.A.

In short, the secession of the C.S.A. states might be just the sort of fiscal, social, and intellectual stimulus that the U.S.A. needs to move forward into the 21st century rather than backward into the Middle Ages. There is an apocryphal quote that is widely attributed to Miriam “Ma” Ferguson (Governor of Texas, 1925-1927 and 1933-1935), and is said to have been uttered in response to a question about the use of the Spanish language in Texas schools: “If English was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for Texas schoolchildren.” I think that pretty much says it all.

With flu season nearly upon us, the attention of public-health experts and hypochondriacs is turning to the potential perils of the H1N1 pandemic. But there is another, far more insidious disease in our midst: Demagogic Fever. We have grown accustomed to witnessing the maniacal rants and incoherent ramblings of high-profile individuals who suffer from this affliction and are therefore employed by light-weight infotainment outlets such as Premiere Radio Networks (Rush Limbaugh), Fox News (Glenn Beck), and CNN (Lou Dobbs). But it would behoove us to keep in mind that there are quite a few infected men and women who hold positions of power in the U.S. Congress. Given that Demagogic Fever is characterized by a dangerous degree of delusion, this is a matter of grave concern not only to public health, but to national security as well. Witness for yourself the degree to which the intellectual faculties of some of our nation’s lawmakers have been impaired by this debilitating ailment:

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), who currently occupies a seat in the House Financial Services Committee, believes that “global warming” cannot be real because it involves a warm-and-fuzzy atmospheric gas known as “carbon dioxide,” which not only “is a natural byproduct of nature,” but “occurs in earth” and is essential even for the life of “the fowl that flies in the air”:

In a related vein, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, believes that “global warming” is a hoax perpetrated by a Leftist cabal that includes Hollywood Elitists, the United Nations, and The Weather Channel:

Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL), Ranking Member of the House Financial Services Committee, believes that precisely 17 of his fellow congressional representatives are openly socialist, although it remains unclear who they are or if Bachus actually knows what the term “socialism” means:

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), who fills a chair in the House Rules Committee, believes—somewhat defensively, perhaps, given her advanced age—that the health-care reform legislation slowly making its way through Congress would allow the federal government to put senior citizens to death (although there does not appear to be a Euthanasia provision in any of the bills currently circulating):

It should give one pause to realize that these individuals, who are clearly not in their right mind, possess some degree of power in shaping the fate of the United States. More alarming still is the fact that a majority of the electorate in the locales from whence they come are equally ill. It may be time to start spiking the nation’s drinking water with Zyprexa.

{pic by Burns!}

It is by no means clear when a word becomes violent. Murkier still is the question of when a word becomes so violent that the person who stands behind it deserves imprisonment or some lesser form of legal censure. And trying to decide what degree of responsibility is borne by a speaker of violent words for the violence committed by others who were inspired by those words tends to be a circular exercise in ethical futility.

The many gradations of meaning and intent that transform Free Speech into Hate Speech into Verbal Violence have been on prominent display over the past month or so as the Radical Right—already apoplectic over the ascendancy of dark-hued liberalism in the nation’s Capitol—has cloaked itself in health-care drag and infested the Town Hall Meetings that congressional representatives feel inexplicably obliged to conduct during their August recess. Much of the Right Wing’s theatrics in this regard have been farcically delusional in nature. Drones who receive their marching orders from intellectual luminaries such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck parrot patently absurd talking points about Fascism, Socialism, and “death panels” while parading around with pictures of Barack Obama sporting a Hitler-esque mustache. During a recent Town Hall Meeting in Dartmouth, Massachusetts, Representative Barney Frank (D-4th/Mass.), Chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services, illustrated quite brilliantly just how seriously these kinds of histrionics should not be taken based on their merits (or lack thereof).

Unfortunately, Hate Speech is not all fun and games in which the intellectual deficiencies or mental instabilities of Right Wingers can be mocked for sport. Hate Speech can be deadly in its consequences, unintended or otherwise. For instance, Washington Monthly notes that Pittsburgh cop-killer Richard Poplawski suckled at the ideological teats of Fox News and the National Rifle Association in feeding his fantasies that the Obama administration was about to seize his beloved weapons. And the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights points out that the anti-immigrant rhetoric spouted by “high profile national media personalities” such as Lou Dobbs and Michael Savage “correlates closely with the increase in hate crimes against Hispanics.” Of course, correlation does not prove causality—and blaming the demagoguery of Dobbs and Savage for anti-Latino hate crimes is akin to blaming Marilyn Manson for the Columbine massacre because shooters Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris liked his songs.

Regardless of the precise relationship between Hate Speech by one person and violent acts committed by another, the question remains of what one can actually do about it. In Europe and Canada, for instance, certain forms of public hate speech are simply illegal—although these laws have not exactly succeeded in eradicating either hate crimes or Right Wing hate groups. In the United States, on the other hand, freedom of speech as encoded in the First Amendment to the Constitution is generally held in high regard; and for good reason. As the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) succinctly notes: “History teaches that the first target of government repression is never the last.” In other words, let the government ban the speech of your enemy and it may ban your speech next. It is for that reason that the ACLU sometimes finds itself in the uncomfortable position of defending the free-speech rights of utterly vile hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan—and opposing progressive students who seek to ban Right Wing hate speech on campus. As the ACLU argues rather persuasively: “Where racist, sexist and homophobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more speech—not less—is the best revenge.…when hate is out in the open, people can see the problem.”

Of course, that doesn’t mean one must sit back and do nothing when mainstream media “commentators” who are bankrolled by major corporations spew forth hate rhetoric day after day. For instance, the Color of Change campaign seems to be having some success in persuading advertisers to pull their ads from Glenn Beck’s show. Ultimately, however, peddlers of hate like Beck will fade away only when they no longer have a mass audience dumb enough to believe their lies. Darkness flourishes where the bulbs are dimmest. Conservative ideology tends to be a refuge for the ignorant… it is people who don’t know what “socialism” actually is who are the most likely to believe that the centrist Obama administration is “socialist.” For better or worse, an educated populace is the only viable, long-term solution to the social problems and quandaries posed by Hate Speech and Verbal Violence.

{pic by stallio}

People who are accustomed to thinking for themselves often experience confusion upon visiting the virtual salons in which Arch-Conservatives share their erudite observations concerning history, science, and current affairs. This confusion stems in large part from the vastly different evidentiary standards by which Far-Right Wingers tend to evaluate different beliefs. Some beliefs require no supporting evidence at all to be accepted as Truth in the Uber-Conservative Consciousness. But there are other beliefs for which no amount of evidence can ever suffice. For instance, no evidence is necessary to support the belief that Barack Obama is an illegal Kenyan immigrant born in Mombasa. But no amount of evidence is sufficient to support the belief that Obama is a U.S. citizen born in Honolulu.

There are no hard and fast rules among Super Conservatives as to when a belief requires evidence and when it doesn’t. Such knowledge is more of an art than a science and requires experience to master. For those readers unfamiliar with the unpredictable empirical twists and turns of the Paleoconservative Worldview, here is a handy topical guide for distinguishing Fact-Free Truth from Evidence-Based Heresy:

Cosmology

Fact-Free Truth: A magical and invisible Supreme Being created the universe about 6,000 years ago.

Evidence-Based Heresy: The universe as we know it came into being 12-14 billion years ago with an event called the “Big Bang.”

Biology

Fact-Free Truth: The magical and invisible Supreme Being created all forms of Life just as they exist today.

Evidence-Based Heresy: All forms of life change over time through the interplay of genetic mutation and natural selection; a process known as “evolution.”

History

Fact-Free Truth: The stories of The Bible tell the literal truth about the history of Humankind.

Evidence-Based Heresy: The stories of The Bible are parables created before the existence of a clearly defined “non-fiction” genre in literature.

Climatology

Fact-Free Truth: “Global warming” is a hoax perpetrated by a vast international conspiracy designed to undermine U.S. sovereignty in order to create Word Government.

Evidence-Based Heresy: Emissions of carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases” from industrial processes are causing the average temperature of the earth to rise over time.

Politics

Fact-Free Truth: The Obama administration is “socialist.”

Evidence-Based Heresy: The Obama administration is “centrist Democrat” by U.S. political standards (which qualifies as “moderate conservative” by global political standards) and does not come close to fitting the actual definition of “socialism.”

Patriotism

Fact-Free Truth: The United States of America is the greatest nation that has ever existed or ever will exist and is uniquely favored by the magical and invisible Supreme Being.

Evidence-Based Heresy: The United States of America is number 15 on the Human Development Index of nations as ranked by average health, knowledge, and standard of living—right after Iceland, Norway, Canada, Australia, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Japan, Luxembourg, Switzerland, France, Finland, Denmark, and Austria.

Sexuality

Fact-Free Truth: Homosexuals choose a deviant and hedonistic “life style” that is frowned up by the magical and invisible Supreme Being.

Evidence-Based Heresy: Homosexuals are attracted to members of the same sex.

Sex

Fact-Free Truth: Sex outside of marriage is wrong.

Evidence-Based Heresy: Sex outside of marriage is fun.

{pic by TCM Hitchhiker}

As difficult as it might be to believe, there is a healthcare crisis in the United States that has gone largely unnoticed. Although the negotiations now taking place in the U.S. Congress over healthcare reform have focused a great deal of public attention on the many failings of the U.S. healthcare system, this particular health crisis remains largely invisible to policymakers and media commentators. It is a crisis of mental health, and it seems to be growing ever more severe within Right Wing political circles. From the plebeian mosh pit of Talk Radio to the rarefied Halls of Congress, conservatives unable to come to terms psychologically with the election of President Barack Obama are becoming unhinged; their minds consumed by paranoid delusions which can only be described, clinically speaking, as psychotic.

Lest the reader think I merely jest, the National Institute of Mental Health defines “delusions” as manifested in “schizophrenia” as “false personal beliefs that are not part of the person’s culture and do not change, even when other people present proof that the beliefs are not true or logical.” Furthermore, individuals suffering from “paranoid schizophrenia can believe that others are deliberately cheating, harassing, poisoning, spying upon, or plotting against them or the people they care about. These beliefs are called delusions of persecution.”

Now, consider the persistent claims of so-called “Birthers” such as G. Gordon Liddy and Rep. John Campbell (R-CA), who harbor the belief that Obama is not actually a native-born U.S. citizen and is therefore ineligible to serve as President. With Lou Dobbs generously providing a high-profile venue for the airing of these dark fantasies, the Birthers insist that Obama was born not in Hawaii, but in Kenya, and that there is a vast conspiracy afoot to hide this from a gullible American public. And no amount of evidence to the contrary will change their minds.

Or consider the claims of Healthcare Denialists such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) that there is not actually a healthcare crisis in the United States. There is, of course, an abundance of evidence that tens of millions of Americans do not have access to employer-sponsored health insurance, cannot afford to buy health insurance or pay for healthcare out-of-pocket, and forgo medical treatment as a result. Yet the Healthcare Denialists persist in their belief that the notion of a “healthcare crisis” is simply an alarmist ploy by Leftists intent on a socialistic federal takeover of the private U.S. healthcare system.

Finally, consider Climate Denialists such as George Will, Pat Buchanan, and Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), who claim that global warming is not occurring. Despite the weight of the scientific evidence in this regard, the Climate Denialists insist that the very idea of “global warming” was concocted as part of a shadow-strewn conspiracy to siphon away the political and economic sovereignty of the United States and transfer it to a nebulous World Government.

Although it is easy to become angry at the inflammatory ramblings of deluded souls such as these, they warrant our compassion—not our hate. In the spirit of Hippocrates, we should want, and work towards, their recovery from the psychosis that afflicts them. As the National Institute of Mental Health has also pointed out, the atypical antipsychotics such as Risperdal, Zyprexa, Seroquel, Geodon that were developed in the 1990s have proven highly effective in treating the psychotic symptoms from which far too many members of the Republican Caucus and the Fox News staff suffer. With the right medications, and intensive therapy, even Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh could “improve enough to lead independent, satisfying lives.”