Encountering the right-wing mindset on a daily basis is extremely wearying, and I only do it by reading the blogs/websites of people who actually dive into the fever swamps of The Blaze or Twitchy or—Chthulhu help us—World Net Daily or Focus on the Family.  I can not imagine a more soul-numbing job.

For me these days, it’s the jaw-dropping ignorance combined with the absolute certainty that the worldview which they have created from whole cloth inside their minds—completely divorced from evidence right in front of them—that gives me a bad feeling in my tummy.

I will give two examples, the second of which I would like to examine in a little detail.

The first is the right-wing nutjob [RWNJ] who went on the teevee and simply lied about how before the 1970s gun safety instruction was standard curriculum in elementary schools.  Why would anyone make up something like that?

The second example is equally egregious.  In Alabama:

In an effort to educate the public on the divine origins of America’s founding documents, Jackson County Commissioner Tim Guffey (R) has proposed erecting a Ten Commandments monument, as well as displays of the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, outside the county courthouse.

“If you look at the documents that was written — the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence — they are all stemmed from the word of God, from the Ten Commandments,” Guffey, who proposed the projects at a recent commission meeting, told WHNT on Thursday.

The commissioner insisted that the Ten Commandments proposal is “not for any type of religion” and would only serve to “make people go back and study” the sacred history behind the country’s founding documents.

—HuffPost, 8/15/14

Where does one even begin?

A good start would be to get a copy of the Constitution and a copy of the Ten Commandments and put them on the table in front of you.  Get yourself some colored highlighters.  (I was a little worried when I started this thought experiment, because it would not be easy finding ten different colors of highlighters.  Then I came to my senses…)

Get yourself a black marker, too.

Highlight the first Commandment.  Let’s use pink.

Now read through the Constitution—remember, it’s short, barely three pages—and highlight all the parts of our government that originate in the first Commandment.

What?  Nothing?  Okay, take your black marker and mark out the first Commandment so we can reuse the pink highlighter and not get confused.  (“Confused”—get it? Because Commissioner Guffey can’t… never mind.)

Highlight the second Commandment and repeat.

I won’t belabor the point, although if I were in a room with Tim Guffey in front of teevee cameras, you’d better believe we would pursue this to the excruciating end.

Even the most sociolegal of the Commandments are not found directly in the Constitution.  That is actually one of the glories of the document: it doesn’t engage in direct legislation, unlike most of the written national constitutions since then.  We get to change the laws willy-nilly; the framework not so much.

Mr. Guffey might dig in his heels and say that the ninth Commandment about bearing false witness is the source of our right to a jury trial, but a) I myself would guess that this document had more to do with that; and b) that whole “bearing false witness” thing might not be a good topic to bring up in his situation.

Because, as one commenter in one of the evil liberal blogs I read on the topic said, the authors of the Constitution argued over Every. Single. Word.  And if they had used the Decalogue as a source, they by Chthulhu would have said so.  (It’s worth noting, too, that Benjamin Franklin proposed that they have a chaplain open every session of the Constitutional Convention with a prayer, but the delegates shot that idea down with prejudice, possibly because they thought Franklin was punking them, as was his wont.)

I can vouch for this historical view—one summer (1987) at GHP I read every single volume of Max Farrand’s The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787.  Besides Jemmy Madison’s exhaustive diaries on every single motion and debate appertaining thereunto, Farrand collated everyone else’s diaries and letters to reveal the stunning process of cobbling together the world’s first—and best—written constitution.  It was an amazing event, and a fascinating read.

Further, we have The Federalist Papers, in which Madison, Hamilton, and Jay got completely down in the weeds and explained very publicly the reasons for the document looking the way it did.

In neither artifact do we have our Founding Fathers praising Jesus and just lifting our nation up in His Name, O Father God, amen.  It. Did. Not. Happen.  (Nor, to be brief, did it happen in any other source documents from the period.)

So are Tim Guffey and his fellow Christianists ignorant or lying?  They can’t be ignorant (oh all right, of course they probably are, but I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt), but given that whole “bearing false witness” thing, how could they be lying?

One explanation for this inexplicable mindset is that they are not lying—they actually believe these things to be true.  Their minds require these things to be true in order for them to make sense of the world, and remember that, to the conservative mind, the world only makes sense if it’s full of unimaginable horrors, horrors against which only their faith, their courage, their version of reality can save us.

Of course, that’s being generous, because Tim Duffey is lying.  Go back and read the other part of the words that he made with his mouth: this display of a specifically religious document on state property is “not for any type of religion,” which he immediately follows with

“The Ten Commandments is a historical document and it has nothing to do with religion,” he continued. “It shows that these founders had great beliefs in God and the Ten Commandments and His Word and it helped them get to the point where they were. Their feeling was God helped them build the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. If you read all of the writings of John Adams, Patrick Henry, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, they speak about how that was their foundation that helped them interpret and write a great Constitution.”
Read more at http://wonkette.com/557310/alabama-idiot-thinks-constitution-based-on-ten-commandments-is-incorrect#bMSLpDJrm7ivvFDd.99

Highlights mine to underline the jaw-dropping contradiction.  (Not to mention the complete untruth about the writings/mindset of all the men he mentions, of whom only Madison had a direct role in writing the Constitution.)

So we’re back to the eternal dichotomy: is this man stupid or lying?

I have devolved into heavy sighing, shaking my head, and mixing another modified margarita.

update: Go look at the last seven paragraphs of this article on this year’s Faith and Freedom Coalition in DC.  The fear is palpable.  It’s pitiful, it really is because it’s not based on anything real.  Look at the sheer number of future tense verbs and infinitives: “wants to,” “plans to,” “going to.”  It’s all in their heads, and bless their hearts.

update redux [FFS edition]: Dear Mrs. McCarthy: Judy, sweetie, a raised eyebrow and pursed lip is not persecution.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that U.S. Representative Lynn Westmoreland is generally incoherent, so I suppose we should applaud his overcoming of such a handicap to become a member of the U.S. Congress.  Or is this one of those “necessary but not sufficient” situations?

This week I received an email from OpenCongress.org touting their new email system which allows you to hit both your Senators and your Representative with one click.  I hadn’t visited the website in a long time—in fact, I had forgotten I had ever joined—so I went over to check it out.

And there was H.R. 499, filed by Jared Polis (D-CO because of course), which removes cannabis from the federal drug schedule.  In other words, it would legalize pot in the United States.

Leaving aside for the moment whether the U.S. can do this in light of its signatory status of the U.N. 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (spoiler alert: Yes, it can.  See Bolivia (also) and Uruguay), I think this is an important step for Congress to take, and I told my elected officials so.  I expected boilerplate responses, and that’s what I got from Isakson.  (Chambliss must have his mailbox set on Ignore.)

Westmoreland’s response, though certainly boilerplate, was at least responsive.  I quote it here in full (except for the introductory and concluding blahblah):

On February 5, 2013 Representative Jared Polis (D-CO) introduced H.R. 499 which would remove marijuana from all schedules of the Controlled Substance Act. The bill also eliminates marijuana from the classification of a dangerous drug under the federal criminal code and does not allow marijuana to continue to be a ‘targeted drug’ with respect to anti-drug marketing campaigns. H.R. 499 directs the Treasury Department to issue and revoke permits for marijuana commerce purposes, as well as direct the Food and Drug Administration to treat and subject marijuana to the same authorities and provisions as alcohol.

The Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Raich regarding medical marijuana made it clear that the U.S. Congress has the authority to regulate the use of marijuana within the states. Any change to the drug laws to allow medical marijuana would require a change in law passed by Congress and signed by the President.

While I am a strong believer in personal freedom, I do not support the recreational or medical use of illegal drugs, regardless of whether the drug is marijuana, cocaine, or any other illegal substance. Congress has made decisions to protect our nation from certain illegal drugs, and allowing each state to make its own decision would adversely affect the protections that exist against those substances.

In any situation involving marijuana and other illegal substances, the Supreme Court has made clear that Congress has the authority to regulate the use of these substances at the state level, which supersedes state laws that may allow for their distribution. I am unable to support a piece of legislation that would attempt to overrule the Supreme Court’s decision and allow the protections around these illegal substances to be broken down.

I know, right?

tl;dr: “I can’t vote to make marijuana legal because the Supreme Court says it’s up to me to decide whether it’s legal or not, and it’s illegal so I can’t vote to make it legal.”

::sigh::

Then there’s the argle-bargle about states making a mess of things if we don’t keep a tight rein on them.  Yes, this is a states-rights politician telling me that we can’t let states make these decisions for themselves, like they do for every other commodity in interstate commerce.^[1]

(Also, too, Westmoreland may not be aware^[2] that there is already a patchwork approach to cannabis laws.  See here for all the 50 ways you might be punished for possession.)

You will have noticed, too, the sleight of hand with ALL THE DRUGS when H.R. 499 legalizes cannabis alone.

I don’t know about you, but I am forced to conclude that something this obtuse cannot be an honest response.

If I were of a cynical turn of mind—stop that snickering—I might imagine that this article might suggest a reason why our representatives hesitate to derail the War on Drugs juggernaut.^[3]

However, it would seem to me that there is a very simple solution to the budgeting woes of law enforcement agencies: convert the drug money to block grants for plain old law enforcement.  You might even consider embedding/combining social workers with law enforcement in order to treat drug issues as a public health problem instead of a criminal issue.  (I know—that’s crazy talk!)

At any rate, I find it very puzzling that a politician would buck a trend like cannabis legalization. Nationally, of course, a clear majority of U.S. citizens favor legalization, but even here in Georgia, 54% want pot legalized like Colorado.  It is only a matter of time before people like Westmoreland find themselves on the losing end of that election issue.

Oh well.  As I slide deeper into retirement, I figure I might as well pick up the Cudgel of Curmudgeondom and start belaboring my elected officials, none of whom are even close to representing my beliefs at the national level anyway.  For the time being, it keeps me off the streets.

—————

^[1] For example, buy a lemon tree in Texas.  Now try driving home to a) Georgia; and b) California.  Write a paragraph comparing your results.
^[2] When I say “may not be aware,” I mean “chooses to ignore.”

^[3] Yes, I am fully aware that the Juggernaut was not on rails.

Remember my post about conservative mindsets being based on fear and paranoia?

Exhibit A.

This was an elsewhere on the web ad link on one of the evil liberal blogs I read regularly.  For some reason, all those search paradigms that are supposed to be showing me cocktail recipes and cat videos keep pulling in the most incredibly stupid dreck.  And for some reason, I clicked on it this time.

Mercy.

No, I didn’t watch the video.  Yet.  It’s 34 minutes long, and I’m supposed to be writing an art song and/or an opera.

But I did scroll all the way to the bottom.  So much yummy craziness!  So much vague scariness!  So few links to supporting data!  As far as I can tell, in fact, there’s only this one page.  An ad.

Such a deal, though.  Seriously, aren’t you tempted to fork over $39 (plus s/h) for the opportunity to have all of this stuff to marvel at?

It’s porn, pure and simple, for the conservative nutjob mind.  They need to think that they will survive all on their own, striding manfully across the dystopian landscape while the weaklings are left behind.

Dangerous, dangerous thinking.  And yes, there are people who think like this.  Go search for interviews with the militia types who have swarmed to “support” Cliven Bundy.  It’s like listening to riled-up 10-year-old boys on a playground, or adolescent punks taking sides over some imagined slight.  Such tough, tough, super-lame chest-thumpings.

I have no solution, of course, other than to cede Nevada to them and make them all move there.

Remember our discussion about how the brains of conservative humans tend to operate from a basis of fear?  John Hagee, Christianist TV grifter extraordinaire, has exemplified the syndrome for us.

You are probably aware that last night was the first of four total lunar eclipses, popularly known as “blood moons” because of the color of the shadow cast by the earth onto our satellite.  Apparently, having four of them in six months intervals like that is unusual.

HOW UNUSUAL, you ask?  Let’s let John Hagee tell us:

“Is this the end of the age?” Hagee asked during a recent sermon, before quoting Acts 2:19-20: And I will show wonders in Heaven above and signs in the Earth beneath, the sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord.”

“I believe that the heavens are God’s billboard, that he has been sending signals to planet Earth,” he explained. “God is literally screaming at the world, ‘I’m coming soon.'”

Hagee predicted that the four eclipses were signaling a “world-shaking event that will happen between April 2014 and October 2015.”

“God sends plan[e]t Earth a signal that something big is about to happen! He’s controlling the Sun and the moon right now to send our generation a signal, but the question is, are we getting it?”

[from Crooks and Liars, 4/14/14]

I’m surprised he didn’t quote Joel 2:31, but perhaps he’s saving that for today’s live broadcast.  That and its analog from Revelation because of course he will.

Where to begin?

First of all, John, what exactly could you mean by “[god’s] controlling the sun and moon right now”?  Are you suggesting that he is causing them to move in a way that is creating these four eclipses at times that they would otherwise not occur?  Because that would indeed be FREAKING AWESOME SIGN FROM GOD, wouldn’t it?  The whole planet would be a-quiver with wonderment.  Tides would be disrupted; sunrise/sunset apps on our phones would be worthless.  Scientists would be roaming the streets in sackcloth and ashes, flagellating themselves for their disbelief.  Dogs and cats, etc., etc.

Because if that’s not what you mean, then here’s a simple question for you, John: How do you know about the four consecutive lunar eclipses in the first place?  That’s like 18 months of seeing into the future, you know?  ARE YOU A PROPHET, JOHN?  Because that would be a FREAKING AWESOME SIGN FROM GOD, wouldn’t it?

Oh, wait.

This is where I want Anonymous to hack into Hagee’s live broadcast and say:

The very fact that John Hagee knows about these four events 18 months in advance is because they are simply natural occurrences, just like sunrise and sunset.  The earth rotates, the earth orbits. So does the moon.  Like your windshield wipers and the song on the radio, every once in a while they will match up at exactly the right moment.  We know about these patterns, and we know when they’re coming.  That is all.  If you think that they are a sign from God, a portent, then you will need to consider the fact that the last tetrad was in 1967/68, and the one before that in 1949/50.  There have been two previous tetrads within John Hagee’s lifetime—did he ignore God’s message those two times?  Why are you afraid?

::sigh::

This is the kind of thing that drives me into impotent rages, shaking my tiny fists at the universe.

So Jim DeMint, former senator from South Carolina, goes on a Truth* in Action radio show and says that “no liberal is going to win a debate that big government freed the slaves.”

I’m not even going to get into a debate with this person about the historical record.  My concerns are rather with the framework here.  This man went on a radio show and stated point blank a lie so egregious that any elementary student could win that “debate,” and he did so without any fear of being called out on it.  He can say whatever he wants, and no one is going to say, “Hey, wait a second…”

My biggest fear for our nation is that this kind of lying simply breaks our citizens’ ability to remember history and apply its lessons.  A lie of this size simply pegs out the WTF-o-meter in most peoples’ heads; it goes sproing and they can never again distinguish truth from BS.

Indeed, now the right-wing Wurlitzer can use this lie as a statement in their own assault on an informed citizenry: “As Senator DeMint set the record straight in 2014, the federal government had nothing to do with ending slavery, and so the big government liberals should just back off pushing for legal protections for [insert right-wing boogieman du jour here].”

And to think that the Heritage Foundation used to have a plausible claim to status in the policy world.  Mercy.

—————

*for differing values of Truth

P.S. I hope everyone downloaded their paper cut-out My Little Cthulhu…