Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
fightthetheocracy!
Published Letters: 1591 Editor's Choice: 27
Ask any of the red state rubes who voted for Tom Delay about the South Asian sweatshops he helped support and they won't have any idea what your talking about. But ask them how he helped stop the rise of "secularism" in America and you'll hear nothing but praise. The right got away with this shit becuase of public stupidity and bad priorities. Any attempt to point these things out and it becomes a game of one-up-manship. They'll try and point to whatever horrible thing they heard a democrat doing on talk radio that week all the while ignoring the irony of what you just pointed out to them. Here is a man who ran on a platform of the GOP as, literaly, the party of God, yet tried to fill the coffers of some of the most corrupt people on earth. This is the real danger, that this hypocracy will go unnoticed.
I wouldn't be surprised if Delay gets his seat back in four years and all this nastiness will have been forgotten. Assuming it was ever known to his voters to begin with and not just shrugged off as a "liberal conspiracy". Oh well, as long as he hates them fags, that's all that matters!
then he'd REALLy look like a hypocrite! Anyone who spends their political career condemning something and then turns around and does it really looks like a fraud, I sure hope CERTAIN PEOPLE remember that. I also hope they remember he took responsibility for his actions. Unlike, say, an Oxycotin addict who spent a good chunk of his career condemning drug users and then denied it when he turned out to be one. Or someone who tried to impeach a presidnet for cheating on his wife only to turn around and hit on another man in an airprot bathroom.
We already limit who can vote in this country based on intellectual ability by barring the mentally retarded and anyone under the age of 18 so maybe it's time to extend it to people who refuse to use critical thinking skills. If you take everything talk radio says at face value without seeing if any of it is true (like, say, when Limbaugh said Obama had "terrorist buddies") then you are not demonstrating the ability to reason enough to make rational decisions. Same thing with annonymous e-mails that make all sorts of claims without verifying. This is also an example of not using critical thinking skills to make a rational decision.
Sexual politics would also fall into this category. If you think who someone else marries is your business and is more important then whether or not a certain candidate can keep people in jobs, then you are not exercising critical thinking skills. Needless to say, environmentalism would also be included. If you think that we can keep putting toxic chemicals into the atmosphere and nothing bad will ever happen, that is ignoring the laws of physics. Thus demonstrating that you are not using rational thought in your decision making process.
If all of this sounds "elitist" then just remember, the right to vote is already elitist, we already have rules limiting who can vote based on certain criteria on the assumption that these people being barred are not capable of making rational decisions. All I am proposing is extending that to include people whose past actions have ALREADY proven that they are not making rational decisions. To qoute our friends on the other side, "the constitution is not a suicide pact". If your past decisions have shown to be destructive to society, as the conservaitves have, then perhaps it is time to limit whether or not you should be allowed to continue in the decision making process.
We already limit who can vote in this country based on intellectual ability by barring the mentally retarded and anyone under the age of 18 so maybe it's time to extend it to people who refuse to use critical thinking skills. If you take everything talk radio says at face value without seeing if any of it is true (like, say, when Limbaugh said Obama had "terrorist buddies") then you are not demonstrating the ability to reason enough to make rational decisions. Same thing with annonymous e-mails that make all sorts of claims without verifying. This is also an example of not using critical thinking skills to make a rational decision.
Sexual politics would also fall into this category. If you think who someone else marries is your business and is more important then whether or not a certain candidate can keep people in jobs, then you are not exercising critical thinking skills. Needless to say, environmentalism would also be included. If you think that we can keep putting toxic chemicals into the atmosphere and nothing bad will ever happen, that is ignoring the laws of physics. Thus demonstrating that you are not using rational thought in your decision making process.
If all of this sounds "elitist" then just remember, the right to vote is already elitist, we already have rules limiting who can vote based on certain criteria on the assumption that these people being barred are not capable of making rational decisions. All I am proposing is extending that to include people whose past actions have ALREADY proven that they are not making rational decisions. To qoute our friends on the other side, "the constitution is not a suicide pact". If your past decisions have shown to be destructive to society, as the conservaitves have, then perhaps it is time to limit whether or not you should be allowed to continue in the decision making process.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
