Light bulbs, birth defects and sin

E. W. Jackson (R-VA).

Try though I may, I cannot understand the American right in 2013.

Thumbing through the news this morning, I came across two stories that are absolutely mind-boggling. The first is a sad commentary on the kind of mindset that is damaging and pervasive to and among the people that have it. The second is simply incredible.

The first was a study done on the benefits of CFL bulbs--those are the ones that last longer and are cheaper than incandescent ones. When not labeled as per "good for the environment", conservatives and liberals alike preferred these, but when labeled "green" or environmentally friendly, right wingers were far less likely to want them.

Roll that over in your mind. A cheaper alternative that lasts longer is less desirable because as an added feature, it's better for the only planet we now inhabit. What next? Right wingers declining cancer meds that are biodegradable? What this says to me is that they're so vested in their ridiculous ideology, they're willing to pay more and suffer more to prove a point that even they can't articulate.

The second is even more astounding. E.W. Jackson is running for Lt. Governor in Virginia (Republican) and even though he has unleashed some whoppers before (yoga is satanic, Planned Parenthood is worse for African Americans than the KKK), apparently in 2008, this minister wrote that birth defects are caused by sin.

Organic and genetic causes, nah. You were nice to a gay guy once. You rubbed one out to nudies. You and your partner rooted around unmarried and on contraceptives--that's why your baby has Down's. As even line-toeing hardcore rightists have children with birth defects, this is not a winning electoral strategy.

Virginia is a large state. It is in the US in 2013. That anyone anywhere would espouse these ludicrous ideas and be anywhere near the levers of any power is mind boggling. And yet, the GOP's candidate for governor hasn't disavowed Jackson--and why?

Because when you're marketed to shut in cable and radio junkies, you end up with them. The GOP's base is now the dregs, the pits, the most pathetic of pathetic--what used to be fringe and laughed off is now what shows up at conventions and nominates idiots.

Until such time as their moneyed elite swallow their pride and heave these half-wits out, this will continue. This is the bed they've made, lie in it. 


These people have always been with us, all we can hope to do is to defend ourselves from evangelical/pentecostal drivel.

Posted by Jack Straw on Jun. 09, 2013 @ 12:18 pm

with black conservatives Is a pretty crazy.

The position they hold is that because blacks have had too many abortion's they think, it is akin to a holocaust in some circles of the right.

It has blacks as victims although the complaint revolves around what are actual individual decisions by people. It seems there is some confluence of societal forces coercing people as a race to make individual decisions that upsets the deep thinkers of the religio right wing movement. Like the left they blame society for what in this case they consider bad decisions.

Posted by matlock on Jun. 09, 2013 @ 12:48 pm

He meant to say:

"The Planned Parenthood hatred among black conservatives Is a pretty crazy.

Their position is that abortions among blacks constitutes a holocaust of sorts -- and this opinion is also held in other sectors of the right.

This thinking holds blacks to be victims even though such a claim is based on actions that are voluntarily taken by the individuals involved.

The religio-right seem to think that societal forces are coercing people to make those decisions: like the left they blame society for what in this case they consider bad decisions."

It's amusing to see matlock has managed to weave racist and right wing memes into his putatively "balanced" spew more seemlessly than usual. I think by editting out a bunch of the superfluous verbiage it makes the inconsistency a bit more obvious. The point is that *nothing* matlock ever writes is to be taken at face value.

The fact is that there *are* sometimes societal forces which force women to undergo abortions -- and it *is* ironic that wingers promote hardship situations which will lead to more babies who have not gotten pre-natal and neo-natal care while using those hard straights to slyly impugn the character of its victims.

matlock, you suck.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jun. 09, 2013 @ 3:18 pm

The Bay Guardian says that because some demographics choose to go into certain jobs it would be unfair to lay them off. There is always some manarchy/societal reason for this of course. For example minority women and nursing or others who choose to go to work for the city and get a lay off. Tim Redmond often trumpets out these "why are they laying of black women" when in actuality they are laying off nurses or janitors.

Black right wing kooks make pretty much the same argument around abortion. They are far more tasteless than the average condescending liberal progressives. But the arguments are indistinguishable.

They booth use the "this society is horrid" reasoning and then toss around the victim card.

To pedestrian idiots like Lilli, black right wing victimology is laughable while his own is high logic, although both make the same style of argument.

Posted by matlock on Jun. 09, 2013 @ 6:27 pm

Matlock, I don't know precisely what Tim wrote before, but I do know that you are famous for pulling facts out of your ass. Often it seems you aren't even aware of what you are doing.

Since -- naturally --- you didn't provide a link, I'll just imagine what you might have been trying to claim.

You are trying to claim that Tim's observation of how a historically racist city government's layoff choices disproportionally affect historically disadvantaged communities *IS* *EXACTLY* *THE* *SAME* as E.W. Jackson's claim that Planned Parenthood's services are bad for blacks... because of course we know that if women have more babies at younger ages do better for themselves and their babies.

And questions about how sin causes birth defects? Of course it doesn't even bear mentioning. All things are basically the same; all politicians lie; leftists are the samme as rightists; blah blah blah.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jun. 09, 2013 @ 11:43 pm

Saved as a favorite, I really like your website!

Posted by AdultSexCams89 on Oct. 09, 2013 @ 4:44 am

type of article. When you're at one political extreme, those on the other political extreme are always a valid subject of attack and ridicule.

Meanwhile the silent majority of us moderate centrists have no truck with either the evangelical right nor the authoritarian left.

Aristotle's Golden Mean is the real way, and not the strident mutterings of either extreme.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 09, 2013 @ 1:03 pm

Please specify one of these "types of articles". I'm quite keen to find out about a progressive (any progressive!) making the same kind of mind-numbingly stupid statements who also stands a real shot at coming to political power.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 09, 2013 @ 2:06 pm
Posted by Guest on Jun. 09, 2013 @ 2:47 pm

Satirizing values is not the same as what the author is writing about here.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 09, 2013 @ 3:19 pm

The right may well believe that, say, AIDS is God's way of punishing homosexuals.

SF progressives believe that, say, taxpayer money should be used for sex change surgery for anyone who wants it.

Both are ridiculous postures and worthy of satire.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 09, 2013 @ 3:44 pm

"Taxpayer money should be used for sex change surgery for anyone who wants it".

And so do I.

Gender reassignment that leads to a full and happy life isn't some frivolity. Transgendered people suffer as much as someone born without a face would--for whatever reason, they are biologically not matched in body with what their brains tell them.

That anyone would make the claim that an asshole pol babbling out that birth defects--also a biological issue--are the result of "sin" is the same as sexual assignment surgery as a lark--that's completely crazy.

SAS is a legitimate medical procedure. Why wouldn't it be covered by insurance? It exists to remedy a natural flaw--should cleft palates also not be covered?

You oughtta be with your peeps over at Free Republic--that's your natural speed. 

Posted by JohnnyW on Jun. 09, 2013 @ 4:20 pm

While you may believe that there should be free, unlimited sex-change surgery available on demand to anyone who wants it, I doubt that even one percent of Americans would agree with that, nor that anyone in Congress agrees with you.

Point being, you're an extremist and therefore worthy of ridicule to those who do not share such an extreme view.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 09, 2013 @ 4:49 pm

Your argument about sex change surgery really only makes sense if the following thing were true:

- a large percentage of democrats agreed, and
- there was a running politician with a likely chance of coming to executive power gaining national media attention speaking openly about this particular matter.

Please provide a specific candidate that fits that description.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 10, 2013 @ 5:23 am
Posted by JohnnyW on Jun. 09, 2013 @ 2:09 pm

You honestly think that even a simple majority of Americans believe that the government should pay for sex-change surgery??? Holy shit. What are you smoking? A majority of the country doesn't even approve of gay marriage. Did you not notice the battle that was over Obama Care? After all of that do you really expect us to believe that more than 51% of this country would approve of government-paid sex change operations? What kind of bubble do you live in?

Just because you and your little circle of friends think this would be a great idea doesn't mean the majority of the country does.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 09, 2013 @ 8:51 pm

in order to make the enforced Obama/Obama choice seem more palatable. What we need are pitchforks.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jun. 09, 2013 @ 3:01 pm
Posted by Guest on Jun. 09, 2013 @ 3:41 pm

If parental sin causes birth defects conversely it must mean that the parents of the healthy babies who comprise the majority of live births must be sin-free. And being heterosexual is all it takes to get into heaven,nothing else required,right? Watch for this E. W. Jackson to be outed as gay,adulterous,prostitute-patronizing or some such eventually. Why is the preacher class so sex-obsessed anyway?Do they ever sermonize about business ethics or institutional/corporate sinfulness? Do they believe in paying their bills?My bounty hunter/repo man ex boyfriend used to confiscate vehicles from many of them, the bling-encrusted show-off ones. Ah, but they have all the answers.I'm reminded of one of my favorite Thomas Hardy scenes, in "Far From The Madding Crowd", several of Hardy's sardonic Wessex peasants/yeomen are discussing one of the prominent evangelicals/Nonconformists in the district and one of them says "But I hate a man who changes his religion just to get into heaven".

Posted by Jane on Jun. 09, 2013 @ 4:50 pm

E.W. Jackson is a Masshole! He was a law professor at Northeastern.

Posted by Ex-Juggalo on Jun. 09, 2013 @ 8:35 pm

Wholesale leggings from China leggings Wholesalers. You can Online Wholesale tight leggings,Wholesale knitted Leather leggings and more, Best quality and Cheap price Jeggings in China.
Wholesale Leggings China
Wholesale Jeggings China
Wholesale Jegging China

Posted by Wholesale Jeggings China on Dec. 17, 2013 @ 12:20 am

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.