Monday, January 10, 2011

Examples of Twisting Jesus' Words to Support War

This is in answer to a comment on my blog, which I guess is a fair question by Greybeard.

"Turned Jesus into a warmonger?
Can you cite an example?"
I will go ahead with examples, even though I am not exactly sure where you are coming from. Do you believe Jesus is definitely Pro-war, and you are asking for an example of why anyone would need to "twist" his word, or are you a pacifist who does not believe it is possible that anyone has twisted "turn the other cheek" to mean "bomb Iran back to the stone age?"

From http://lostmotorcycles.blogspot.com/2011/01/kos-bulls-eye-vs-palins-cross-hairs-on.html

Examples of Jesus words of peace (turn the other cheek, and others) have been reinterpreted to eliminate the implied pacifism. Also passages from the Bible promoting war have been given extra significance.

Reverend Jerry Falwell writes an article "God is Pro-War"
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36859

Pat Robertson, also a TV evangelist, supported the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela. Later retracted the call for assassination and "apologized" but actually in his apology said the USA should declare war on Venezuela, then killing Chavez would be legal. Robertson only apologized because he realized assassinations are illegal too late after he called for it. Here is the apology, looks to me like it's on Pat Robertson's own web page.
http://www.patrobertson.com/pressreleases/hugochavez.asp

A web page explaining away the words of Jesus (turn the other cheek, love your enemy etc.)

It is very common to say that "turn the other cheek" applies only to individuals, not the the state. You may call this an example of twisting Jesus' words, or you may truly believe that this is what Jesus meant.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/pacifism5.htm

These following examples are actually from the Bible, you can Google them on the internet to quickly find many web sites using them to support a non-pacifist Christianity.

Matt. 10:34 reads:

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword (New International Version, NIV)


And Luke 22:36 reads:

[Jesus] said to [the disciples], "But now the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag; and the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one." (New Revised Standard Version, NRSV)

Jesus made a whip and went into the temple and overturned the tables of the money changers. By this example, it is often argued that God wants us to act aggressively against enemies in this world.

Whatever your surprise may be that Christians twist the words of Jesus to support war and violence, there's plenty of examples of Christians actually going to war for the past 1600 years, and calling on God to support them while they do it. To me it is actually more surprising to find that there are still true Christian pacifists like the Quakers.

A Roll Pack for the Vulcan doubles as a Rider Backrest

Recently I admitted that I was looking for accessories for my Vulcan 900 LT. I would like a rider backrest, but Mary Ann was adding up year end expenses and she thought I was spending too much money on restaurant meals. So I decided that since I preferred to eat, I would do without the backrest. But then I found a way to get a backrest without paying an arm and a leg. Instead of $700 for a Mustang seat, or $350 for a chrome backrest only, I found something for $35 at the International Motorcycle Super Show in Toronto. It was a black leather (or vinyl) roll pack for the sissy bar, and I found one in black, studded to match the existing seat/bags/backrest.

My plan for the roll pack was to attach it in front of the sissy bar, and use whatever pads or spacers were necessary to make it provide back support for me while riding.

I could actually make a backrest with any old bag bungied to the back seat, but then it looks like I am loaded down for a long trip across America, and it is embarrassing to admit to other bikers that I have only been 90 km. from home. Also, all other bags look ratty. This one looks almost like part of the bike.

The roll pack also has some other advantages over other bags. It will hold a real DOT approved helmet, and I can turn the pack around and hang it off the back of the sissy bar in case I need to give someone a ride. This happens every ten years or so, that's why I need to be ready. Also, in case someone steals my regular helmet off the bike while I'm at Tim Horton's, I have something to ride home with.

Next, I need to fabricate a pad in front of the roll pack, because the roll pack all by itself is about 5-10 cm too far back for me.

I have decided on my new years' resolution regarding accessories, as a compromise with my restaurant expenses. For 2011, I resolve to only buy motorcycle accessories that I can eat. They don't have to be nutritious, but it does rule out big chrome stuff. I'm sure could eat leather if I had to.

Picture: Here is the Vulcan, and it has not been able to get out of this spot since November. There is a block of foam in front of the roll pack as a pad for the backrest. It seems to be about the right size, just needs a black vinyl bag to put it in with a loop at the top to keep it in place.

Sunday, January 9, 2011

KOS Bulls Eye vs. Palin's Cross Hairs on Gabrielle Giffords

The conservatives have scored a hard counterpunch in the blame game about the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords. On this right wing site, you will find out that Daily Kos, a left wing website, had previously put a bulls eye on Gabrielle Giffords, long before Sarah Palin put a "Surveyor's Target" on her.

In my opinion, Sarah Palin's rhetoric was far more inflammatory than KOS, if that counts for anything. It was quite a stretch to compare the KOS article to gunplay. There was a huge difference between the Daily KOS Bullseye and Sarah Palin's. I'm going to list some of the differences here, if only for people with am interest in propaganda.

Sarah was talking of an opponent, not a friend or an ally, like KOS was.

Daily KOS never had an actual graphic of a bulls eye. It was the right wingers who faked up a bullseye graphic to make KOS look bad. Here's the original for comparison: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/25/1204/74882/511/541568

Without the picture of a bulls eye, the words bulls eye also happen to mean "the precise accomplishment of a goal or purpose". In context, it was pretty obvious that this was the intended meaning for KOS. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bull's+eye

Daily KOS didn't use gunplay related slogans like Palin did with "Don't retreat, reload".

Everybody knew those were crosshairs long before the shooting. Even though after the shooting, Sarah's camp said the crosshairs were actually a "surveyor's scope". But Sarah earlier tweeted about her crosshairs icon, calling them a "bullseye" on Nov. 4th. Is it worth mentioning the difference? See the picture: Cross hairs are see-through, and are used to aim at the target, a bulls eye cannot be seen through, and it is the target. Anyway, she should know the difference between the target and the sight. http://twitpic.com/3ofie7/full

Tea partiers often bring loaded guns to political rallies, and use the language of guns in their rhetoric all the time. Liberals are usually unarmed at political rallies. The reference to guns on Palin's web entry was obvious to all.

Gabrielle herself said long before she was shot, that there would be consequences of being in Palin's crosshairs. Gabrielle did not mention the KOS "bulls eye", either was not aware of it or apparently did not consider it to be threatening or intimidating.

On "The View", right wing supporter Elisabeth Hasselbeck called Palin's crosshairs despicable long before the shooting.
http://talkshows.about.com/b/2011/01/08/hasselbeck-called-sarah-palin-crosshairs-graphic-despicable.htm

Maybe I could find a few more comparisons, but does it make any difference. This is not a debate. It's a propaganda war, and most of the heavy artillery is on the right wing side (to use a violent military metaphor.)

The right wing Christians (who back Sarah Palin) have been able to accomplish the amazing (to me) feat of twisting Jesus's words around to make him into a warmonger. By comparison this little shooting should be easy for them to turn around until the Democrats are back on the defensive.

Picture: Which is the bulls eye, which are the cross hairs? And which are best for targeting someone? We should also remember that Jesus wants us to kill Bin Laden, not Gabrielle Giffords, which is why Canada sent it's troops to Afghanistan and not Arizona.

Is Violent Rhetoric to Blame for Arizona Shooting?

"Sarah Palin has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district and when people do that, they’ve gotta realize there are consequences to that action." said Gabrielle Giffords, after windows were smashed in her Arizona office a year ago.

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/15648

March 26, 2010 my.hsj.org Newspaper

Offices throughout America have been targeted by opponents of the bill. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is one of the many victims of these acts, whose office in Tucson, AZ was attacked by vandals hours after she voted in favor of the bill. The front door and a window were smashed apparently in response to her actions.

The source of the attacks can be traced back to Mike Vanderboegh of Pinson, Alabama, a former leader of the Alabama Constitutional Militia who put out a call for modern “Sons of Liberty” to break the windows of Democratic Party offices. “We can break their windows,” he said. “Break them NOW. And if we do a proper job, if we break the windows of hundreds, thousands, of Democrat party headquarters across this country, we might just wake up enough of them to make defending ourselves at the muzzle of a rifle unnecessary.”

Here is a discussion from July 26, 2009 about right wing political violence.

A list of the recent killings of liberals.


* Gun nut who posted Glenn Beck and NRA videos on racists websites ambushes 3 cops "who wanted to take his guns away"

* Bitter Right wing extremist walks into Unitarian Church and kill two "liberals"
Leaves sucide note blaming liberals for harming America.

* Right wing extremist drives 50 miles to Arkansas State Democratic Headquarters prentends to want to volunteer...murders Chairman in his office. A man he has never met.

* Doctor who performed abortions in Kansas shot dead. Killer congratulated and defended by right wing extremist websites.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,523581,00.html


We probably havent seen the last of these. The right wing spin machine is ramping up the rhetoric....... Obama wants to throw the elderly into hospice "death camps"........ He wants to take your private insurance away........ Democrats are "Communists" and "Totalitarians"......Democrats support murder of babies..

There were 188 comments in response, and I picked through some of the right wing responses to get a sense of what the right wing extremists were thinking back in July 2009.


Padcrasher's Response:
... and your point is? ... can't stand the truth - fix it! You think those are the last attacks? guess what - people are getting REAL sick and tired of the lunacy of the left and it's got to get fixed or things may get worse.

KSigMason's Response
We could get in a pissing match over the various politically motivated killings, but I don't have all that time. Both sides of the political aisle have killed and caused problems

(Cannot see original post)
ike the Democrat supporters in the inner city who steal guns and kill innocent people who just want to rest on their porches - you two faced HYPOCRITE! All this crap and I never hear you cry about THOSE innocent people who are being killed - what does your agenda REALLY care about?? Let me say it for you "MORAL VALUES" the same one which could save lives from stuff like HIV and and inner city turmoil - which your side has done NOTHING to improve!

TheBasicsAbout's response
It has been a proven fact that American Communists and American Socialists have voted for the Democrats ...


Never Left's 2nd Response
Well, liberals are arogent agents of the state, nothing more. Leftists are completely without the ability to and imagination to do what is right. Their huberous is so deep and so out of touch with reality that they believe that their leftist ideology will be accepted by us real Americans. I see a ground swell coming, not of violence as these have done, but of prudent and thoughtful action in recognition of the lefts assault on our freedom and liberty.

TheBasicsAbout's response
I hope you are right ... but just in case ... the fire arms I own are close enough so to be loaded before anyone gets past my front door.
In this day and age - people need to understand the potential extremes of their actions
and know that more and more people are sick and tired of it
when they think they have totally won - they will QUICKLY loose in a horrific manor - because it WILL hit the fan!

--------------------------------------------------------------------
All the above commentary was a couple of years ago, long before the shooting yesterday. I wanted to see if there was any change in attitudes on the same political forum, in response to the shooting of Gabrielle Gifford.

Thread started by Teabagger with this post
Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head this morning. Sarah Palin put a bullseye on her head just a few months ago.

Toby's Response
Well according to the Huffington post he posted that among his favorite books was the Communist Manefesto. So making him out to be a right wing nut wont help your cause

Toby's 2nd response
I love it when the left tries to make out a gunman as a right wing nut when theyre influenced by the likes of Karl Marx.

Crimson Mask
I'm far more scared of unhinged lefties. They are more likely to engage in violence. Take the Black Panthers as example. And does anyone think Charles Manson and his hippie cult were conservatives?

Unifier's Response
Are you really going to politicize this tragedy?
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Responses then veered off into the usual "Was Hitler Right Wing or Left Wing" variety, and I stopped looking through them. I don't see much change from 2009.

I agree with many who think it's a waste of time to try and identify a deranged killer as left wing or right wing. But still, right wing rhetoric is far more extreme, and fear based, and laced with veiled references to guns, than left wing rhetoric.

Propaganda does not work by direct mind control. It works by making a large number of people fearful and angry, then directing that fear, hate and anger against one political group. Mob mentality and individual lunacy have their way. The Democrats are not using that type of rhetoric these days, although they did back in the days of the Vietnam war and conscription. The result today is that you do not have rampages against Republicans, they all appear to be against Democrats or liberals.

I would like to see the right wing rhetoric stepped down several notches. I think it would result in less senseless killing of Democrats and liberals. This softening of rhetoric would apply to both sides, even though no Republicans or conservatives seem to be targeted by gun-toting wackos.

Right wing followers still think "toning down the rhetoric" means surrender to the socialists. But Sarah Palin immediately took down her crosshairs website. This might be the best apology we will see.

Saturday, January 8, 2011

Motorcycle Mentoring

This is about new riders and old riders going for a ride together, not about the parking lot training phase shown in the (possibly photoshopped) picture. I am writing about going for actual rides in traffic, with new riders. I have rarely ever seen a magazine article deal with this subject, and I don't blame the writers. Its a topic where the writer can easily come across as boastful, or arrogant. But there is no denying that I have had 40 years of riding experience, and if I go for a ride with a new rider with almost no experience, there will be certain expectations, and there is of course potential for devastating consequences. So I am going to write about it because I have no boss, and few readers to annoy, and I like writing about taboo subjects anyway.

On any group ride there are things to watch out for. But a big disparity in experience levels can provide extra problems and stress.

Once, I suppose, I used to be a beginner. It's harder to remember stuff from long ago, and when I was a beginner, I did not often ride with other experienced people. But over the last ten years I have had quite a few opportunities, as an experienced rider, to ride with people who are just starting out in motorcycling for the first time. So I will write this from the point of view of an experienced rider only.

Experienced riders sometimes forget what its like to be a beginner, and what allowances to make. Furthermore, all beginners are quite different, and you never really know what to expect. That brings us to the first thing to be aware of in a beginning rider. You really cannot know what to expect. For example, a beginning rider may be very good at cornering, but very bad dealing with cross winds. Just because a beginner is good at something, do not assume they are able to deal with every situation. An experienced rider usually has seen just about everything and can deal with it. Inexperienced riders may cope well with some things, but may have never experienced others.

Speed is a well known issue when two or more motorcycles ride together. I will assume that all the riders know that in a group ride you do not attempt to overtake one another except in an emergency, or to pull over. Beginners usually tend to ride slowly. Others may sometimes ride too fast. Experienced riders are more likely to fall in with the average traffic speed. That's why usually you do not put the beginner in front. So even though you may be a very fair person, who does not want to be bossy and a know-it-all, you probably should volunteer to go in front, where you set the speed, especially at first, and in difficult situations. And you need to be aware of the comfort level of the beginner, in dealing with the speed. You might need to encourage them to go faster if a line of cars is forming to the rear, trying to overtake. You could possibly remind them of something most experienced motorcyclists know, which is "motorcycle speedometers tend to have about 10% error on the high side". You may be going slower than your speedometer says. And don't go too fast. Just fast enough to avoid collecting a tail of frustrated car drivers, which can lead to a dangerous situation. On the other hand, if the beginner is in front and goes too fast, you don't have to match their speed. Go as fast as is reasonable, and the next time they stop, you can discuss the situation. In the mean time they may get completely out of view up ahead, because beginners don't check their mirrors often enough. (to be honest, I don't either. Just something else to be aware of)

Another thing to be aware of is that just because you have 40+ years of riding, compared to three weeks, your beginner friend may have a few things to teach you. That makes it even harder, because most of the time, they are wrong and need to be set straight about something. It's actually pretty confusing. Let me give an example. Riding with a new rider for several days, I found he was checking the tire pressure all the time. He wondered why I was neglecting to check my tire pressure. Well, sure enough I do sometimes neglect my tire pressure, and maybe I should check more often. Like before I start a trip. And if the pressure is OK, maybe once more after several days of riding. That's what I would call adequate, and in fact anything more than that and you may be asking for trouble. Like when you're checking air pressure, a bit of dirt gets wedged in the valve and sets up a slow leak. Or each time you check the pressure you lose some air, then you have to go to a garage to get it pumped up and the free air dispenser has a faulty pressure dial. Or you drive over a nail near the air pump and get another slow leak. Anyway, given the frequency of this problem, I know that you do not need to be constantly checking the air pressure. But technically this beginner is right, it says in all the owners manuals, and you are taught in the courses, to check tire pressure every time you get on the bike.

Something I don't like about riding with new riders is the worried looks I get from spouses or parents. This does not happen when I ride with experienced riders, for obvious reasons. It's not a safety issue, I just wish I didn't feel that additional pressure. So I try to not get involved in domestic disagreements in whether they should be buying a new motorcycle or going for a trip. By "try" obviously, I don't get involved in the actual argument. I try to not even arouse suspicion that I may be the one leading this person astray, which is tough to do with some extremely suspicious wives. Even if their spouse's case of motorcycle fever had nothing to do with me.

Although some people might, I don't like to act as an official "mentor" to a new rider, unless it happens to be a family member. I probably would enjoy the occasional ride with this new rider, but I would prefer that they also ride with other people, or alone, or with a club. That way, they develop their experience faster, and I am more comfortable with the situation. Also, I am one of those people who really does enjoy riding alone as much as riding with other people. Here is an article about mentoring.
http://www.womenridersnow.com/pages/story_detail.aspx?id=2524

Here is a list of things that come to mind, a partial list of problems that have come up riding with other people. Fear of wind, rain, gravel roads, cold, freeways. Issues with butt burn, worry about mechanical problems such as hot engine, leaking fluids, tire pressure, not wanting to go overnight, not liking ferries. Taking medication that causes drowsiness, getting lost, luggage falling off, running out of gas, and running red lights. And yes, sometimes the problem is me.

Picture: If it is photoshopped, I was not the one who did it. http://www.guzer.com/pictures/motorcycle-noob.php

Friday, January 7, 2011

Are Conservatives Really Hard Working?

Conservatives like to boast that they are hard workers, while lazy liberals collect welfare. How true is this stereotype, and what is it based on?

I'm going to take the conservative point of view from a page that tries to present a fair and balanced look at conservatives

Conservative Values: Duty, honesty, hard work, self-sacrifice, love of country, loyalty, and self-restraint.
Conservatives on racism: Past injustices are in the past. Current law protects equal rights for all races, and it’s up to individuals to work hard and succeed according to their abilities. There is no longer a need to tip the balance in minorities’ favor to make up for what happened long ago. To do so is reverse discrimination, and creates new injustices.

A conservative comment adds: "To the statement that it is the government’s job to solve problems that private institutions cannot solve, a conservative would respond that if the problem really needed to be solved, there would be a private solution if the government got out the way."

The political connections of "hard work" go all the way back to the days of actual hard work, which was slavery. The basic image of a liberal, in the dreams or nightmares of a Republican, is an unemployed black man or woman. Or a white person who sympathises with them. American politics has been somewhat like this ever since before the Civil War, and in fact was the major cause of that war. Since Ronald Reagan's days, "Welfare Queens" and "Willie Hortons", come to mind. In recent times, this racist image is suppressed, but, when desperate, the Republicans will not hesitate to remind us of who exactly they are talking about.

There is a basic truth to the stereotype, that black people tend to vote liberal Democrat while Republicans tend to appeal to conservative white voters. This is a result of the Democrats supporting the Civil Rights Act, further reinforcing the notion that race relations drive the political agenda. Traditionally, white people have had better jobs than black people. Among African Americans, unemployment is high and educational achievement is a problem. So it may be true that a disproportionate share of welfare is going to black people.

The picture is changing as unemployment spreads in the US. Consider a group that Obama got in trouble with during the election. These were the unemployed white workers of Pennsylvania that Obama said were "bitterly clinging to their guns and bibles". They were the ones who continued to vote republican regardless of whether Republican policies were responsible for them being on welfare. Regardless of whether Democrats policies would help them collect welfare. This idea was also personified in Joe the "Plumber", who imagined himself to be a hard working plumber, but actually was not a plumber nor was he working. Joe's main objection to Obama was the issue of taxing the rich. Even though simple math would prove that Joe would save money with Obama's taxes, he continued to support the Republicans because he preferred to identify with the rich.

Today, the issue is not about real hard work, it is not even about reality. It is about people's self image. Some people, who happen to mainly white, identify themselves as conservative because they imagine themselves to be hard working, and cannot comprehend that they are in fact unemployed. With enough conservative propaganda on the radio, they imagine their unemployment is temporary, and with a little so-called "Hard Work", vast wealth is just around the corner. They cannot imagine how hard some people have to work, to make sub-poverty wages.

Most African Americans have given up the fantasy of becoming a hard working multibillionaire CEO. They gave up this dream generations ago when the Civil War failed to bring them equality. They have given up the dream over and over again. They tend to vote liberal, because liberal policies may help ease their economic burden, help them get jobs, and get an education.

One reason why voting conservative and liberal tends to be split along racial lines is that white people still have an advantage economically in the USA and Canada. They can get the good jobs more easily. Again, Joe the Plumber was a perfect example, he could be hired as an occasional plumber and make some money that way, even though he did not have any plumbing credentials. Black people generally do not get hired in these nudge/wink jobs without qualifications. These jobs are given as favours for white people by white entrepreneurs who like to fly a bit under the government regulation radar, and can apparently get away with it. Meanwhile a black person, even with some qualifications, would be far more likely to end up with truly hard work, like garbage collector. While Conservative Joe, despite lack of training gets a job walking around checking and tightening plumbing joints, and encouraging poorly paid illegal immigrants to work harder.

Conservatives would like to keep the existing system instead of trying to make it fair for all. They are desperately opposed to Affirmative Action, the ACLU, the NAACP. They claim that Affirmative Action is reverse discrimination, actually a form of black on white racism, that unfairly favours black people in education and jobs. And of course this is all the fault of the Government, which must be "Drowned in a Bathtub".

The conservative point is that the government needs to get its nose out of people's affairs. There will always be poor people, so let the rich people care for them with charity. Never mind trying to get them into good schools and good jobs using government regulation.

Picture: A "bitter" Hank Williams Jr. does seem to be clinging to guns and religion. But is he hard working? From this conservative site http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1008/Hank_Jr_takes_to_radio_to_hammer_Obama_on_bitter.html

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Liberals or Conservatives: Who is Best at War?

Before I start, this is going to be hard reading for anyone who does not understand the difference between conservative and liberal. I know the conservatives have spread more than one stereotype for liberals, such as welfare freeloaders, immoral, and gay. I can't deal with every one of these stereotypes at once, and for now I just want to deal with a common stereotype, that liberals are soft on defence and don't support the troops.

Conservatives take great pride in their hard line stand against enemies. In contrast, Liberals are accused of being weak on defence. I am going to acknowledge that conservatives take a harder line against enemies than liberals. And this pays off for them at times when the enemy is a real threat.

But in the long run, things tend to even out between liberals and conservatives when it comes to survival. If it didn't, we would all of us be conservatives today. Liberals would have died out thousands of years ago. Instead, we have more liberals today than we did under the Roman Empire. More than there were in the Mongol Horde under Genghis Khan. And many more than in the days of cave dwellers.

Conservatives spend more on defence, including weapons and training soldiers. Liberals let the military go to hell in a handbasket, focusing more on social justice and education. Conservatives are the people of "No surrender, no talking, and no aid or comfort to the enemy." Be prepared and fight to the death.

How do things even out? Well, though it may not be immediately obvious, this conservative hard line has fatal flaws. One is the tendency to overreach. Another is the tendency to make enemies out of potential friends. And when it comes to a fight, it is not always possible to actually kill everybody who is against you. In fact it rarely is possible. Those people you have pissed off, can often bide their time and finally rally against even a well prepared military, and defeat them in the end.

On the other hand, liberals tend to not be ready when war comes, and lose the early battles. But in the long run, their better education pays off with better machinery, better manufacturing, better organization, better code breaking and electronics. You may be surprised, but education goes a long way in war. Also, liberals tend to attract more allies, even among the enemy. They earn respect by respecting the rights of others. This gives them better chance to win in the long run.

Conservatives tend to be better prepared at the beginning. But they also can go off half cocked, at the wrong time, against the wrong enemy. And despite early overwhelming victories, in the end get worn down because of missteps, and incomplete knowledge of the enemy. Also their brutal tactics, greed for spoils, and disregard for human rights and justice turn off even some sympathisers, also hurting them in the long run.

One scenario, rarely considered by conservatives, is that of an outer space invasion, where all mankind must unite in a common cause. In that case, liberals have the edge, because they get along better with all races and ethnic groups. Liberals of every country are more palatable to foreigners than the conservatives. Look at the hate the conservatives in the USA have for France, or for Mexican immigrants, not to mention Muslims and Arabs. Liberals are more tolerant towards others of different religions and skin colour. So what happens when the Martians invade and we all have to work together? Better let the liberals take over. And by the way, this scenario is not so far fetched as you might think. Substitute any enemy that all mankind must unite in order to fight, and that enemy may also be something Earth based. Either a world wide epidemic, or a giant comet, or global warming. Conservatives don't really like thinking about such things because their rigid belief systems do not allow them to communicate in a meaningful way with people not like themselves. Conservatives are far more comfortable shooting, detaining and and torturing other humans than empathising with them. And often that hard line militarism doesn't even help to win wars.


Any similarity to Iraq, Afghanistan, the fall of France in 1940, or The Empire that Strikes Back in Star Wars, are purely coincidental.

Picture: I Photoshopped a Republican bumper sticker onto an F-16