Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) says "I don't think there is objective evidence that we're precluding African-Americans from voting any longer." Why? Because "African-American voters voted at a higher percentage than whites in almost every one of the states that were under the special provisions of the government." But finding that the percentage of eligible blacks who voted is larger than the percentage of eligible whites who voted doesn't prove that states don't suppress the black vote -- he might have begun to prove that by saying the percentage of black voters who wanted to vote but couldn't vote was similar to the percentage of white voters who wanted to vote but couldn't vote, but of course he didn't say that. This game Rand Paul plays, where he sounds libertarian while still "thoughtfully" defending his party's absurd antics? It's not gonna make him President. It's not gonna make him a better public servant than his father, either.
Rush Limbaugh opines that belief in God is "intellectually" incompatible with a "belief" in human-driven climate change. He's been singing this song for years -- he used to say we can't destroy the environment because God made it and God made us, as if we'd be arrogant to believe we could destroy something God made. But the "opinion" based on the best science we have isn't "arrogant" -- his opinion is. Set aside that he's always seemed to regard governmental regulation itself as a species of arrogance, though our government belongs to us. Rush Limbaugh would have you believe God doesn't put challenges in front of people they can't overcome (when we all get at least one of those!), and would never allow the entire human race to destroy itself through its own protracted stupidity and greed -- in short, Mr. Limbaugh puts the continued existence of humankind at the center of God's concerns. Why should that be so, except that we need it to be so?
Finally, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) calls the League of Conservation voters "an extreme left group on an environmental jihad" in a fundraising email. Well, if he means jihad in the sense of an inner spiritual struggle or a struggle to better society, I suppose that's a compliment. Seriously, Mr. Johnson may be a bit behind the messaging here -- Fox News hack Eric Bolling called EPA regulators "job terrorists" two years ago already. But if Mr. Johnson thinks the LCV are "jihadists," I shudder to think how he described Greenpeace in the '80s. And people who attempt to effect change via the democratic process aren't "jihadists," but calling them that -- and receiving overgenerous coverage from the "liberal" media for calling them that, as so many other teabaggers have received -- only helps moves the center ever further rightward. The good news? It also makes people like Mr. Johnson sound like whiners.
Comments