[ By: Marc Adler ]
With the recent fervor from the Right about states’ rights, particularly in relation to health care reform, and recurring noises throughout Obama’s presidency about Texas threatening to secede, a salient question is worth considering. What would it look like if all the conservatives formed a “utopia” in Texas, say, and broke away from the United States?

The fascinating thing about conservatism is that many poor people subscribe to its principles thanks in large part to Fox News and talk radio, even though it calls for doing away with the safety net. This is crucial for forming a conservative utopia because the wealthy business interests who push for deregulation need the impoverished to provide (usually cheap and hard) labor and perform other menial tasks.

While the poor would likely suffer the most at first, since freedom from “government intrusion” in the workplace guarantees the absence of minimum wage laws, sanitation requirements and unemployment benefits, ultimately the entire society would implode, since, as the sub-prime mortgage crisis proves, unfettered free markets concentrate most of the wealth in the hands of a few mega financial firms, which would destroy themselves by creating a massive boom-bust cycle, leaving everyone destitute. This time they wouldn’t have to worry about “big government” bailing them out, and it is unlikely anyone would clamor for tax cuts as a salvation because there would be minimal or no taxes to begin with. It would be fascinating to see how a society in which nearly everyone owns a gun would settle disputes when the crisis hits.

The lack of a safety net also means that poor sick people would go without health care and infect everyone else through contagion. It goes without saying that women who need abortions would have to rely on coat hangers instead of doctors, and the population would be wildly uneducated about family planning, as the Bush administration’s refusal to share its foreign aid budget with organizations that offer advice on family planning indicates. And without social security most old people would never be able to retire (especially if they privatize their pensions by investing in the aforementioned banks).

Furthermore, there would be at first little and eventually no separation between church and state. The compulsory inculcation of creationism in the classroom would undermine any hope for scientific advances, since the building blocks of biology rely on evolution, and the society would look like America did before Jefferson and Madison wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. As Christopher Hitchens explains in God is not Great, in some states Jews and Catholics were not allowed to hold office, and in Maryland, an extremely Catholic state, the law punished those who spoke “profane words concerning the Holy Trinity” with torture and “death without benefit of clergy.”

However, I must concede there are some problems they would likely eliminate. For one, illegal immigration would no longer be an issue because nobody in his right mind would dare sneak into a conservative utopia. In addition, terrorism would likely be a nonfactor because few to no Muslims would want or be allowed to live there, and neo-Nazi militias would have nothing to be upset about, or at least, nobody to scapegoat.

Playlist: Secession Threats — Flirting With TREASON

As for the rest of America, we may be hurt in the short-term by losing Texas, but we’d no longer have to contend with free market fundamentalism, party sanctioned bigotry and religious political activism as a mainstream force. The only serious problem that could arise for the rest of us is that, while we’d finally be able to lead the world in curbing greenhouse gases, Texas would pump so much C02 into the atmosphere (at least until the boom-bust cycle wipes them out) that our efforts might be for naught.

Watching the conservative utopia disintegrate would be satisfying because I reject the notion that “ignorance is bliss” and believe that people should and usually do suffer because of their ignorance.

Which brings me to the real lesson from this exercise (which is all this is—I don’t advocate secession because, as Lincoln rightly understood, it would set a dangerous precedent). America itself looks far too much like the fictional society I just described: in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment unambiguously guarantees the right to bear arms; 60 percent of GDP belongs to a few banks; and a boom-bust cycle almost obliterated the global economy in 2008. Meanwhile Muslims are being systematically persecuted, whether it be through the Park 51 hysteria, or the charge that President Obama is a Muslim as if there were something wrong with that, or the incoming Republican head of the House Committee on Homeland Security’s plans to hold h earings on radical Islam.

Millions go without health care, and the Republicans are trying very hard to uphold this shameful and embarrassing state of affairs with their fight to repeal health care reform. We’ve made hopelessly inadequate progress at combating climate change, and stem cell research is being impeded to appease religious conservatives. Clearly, we must mitigate the influence of conservatism.

————————————————————————————————————————————————
Reference: Flirting With TREASON — What Would Happen If Texas Left The U.S.? Would We Then Call it DumbFUCKistan or TEAbaggersTAN?
————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————

Richard Dawkins gives an introduction to his new book “The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution.” He explains why this book was necessary, and what readers can expect from this highly-anticipated work. Read the first chapter of “The Greatest Show” at http://richarddawkins.net/thegreatestshowonearth

The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution – Richard Dawkins #1 Bestseller Available Now

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Writes: Leonard Pitts Jr.

Of course, we all have questions for Sarah Palin:

Does she actually think living across the Bering Strait from Russia constitutes foreign policy expertise? Does she really take the parable of Adam and Eve as literal truth? How, exactly, does one field dress a moose? And why would one want to?

My first question, though, would not be one of those. I’d simply ask which books she wants to ban – and why.

Yes, there’s a list of titles floating around the Internet right now, but it’s a fake. It is, however, established fact that our would-be vice president has in the past tried to pull books off library shelves.

The New York Times reports that as a member of the City Council of Wasilla, Alaska, Palin complained to colleagues about a book called “Daddy’s Roommate,” described in promotional material as being “for and about the children of lesbian and gay parents.”

Laura Chase, who ran Palin’s campaign for mayor, explained that the book was harmless and suggested Palin read it.

Chase told the New York Times that Palin replied she “didn’t need to read that stuff. It was disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didn’t even read it.”

Later, as mayor, Palin reportedly asked the town’s librarian three times whether she would agree to remove controversial books from the shelves. Three times, the librarian refused. Palin fired her, but eventually bowed to public pressure and gave the woman her job back.

“I’m still proud of Sarah,” said Chase, “but she scares the bejeebers out of me.”

Story continues below

And in that context, it seems apropos that next week is Banned Books Week. As you doubtless know, that’s the week set aside each year by the American Library Association to bring attention to attempts by some of us to regulate what others of us may read. The ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom reports that it has seen 9,700 “challenges” – a challenge is defined as a formal written request to remove a book from a library because the content offends or is deemed inappropriate – since 1990. Chillingly, the office suggests that’s probably an undercount. It says that for every challenge reported, four or five are not.

So Palin has company, to say the least.

Count among that number the woman from a Cuban exile group who bragged to a Miami Herald reporter how in 2006 she checked out and kept an elementary school library book she felt painted too rosy a picture of life on that Communist island. Like Palin, she thought she had good reason. Would-be book banners always do.

I’m reminded of how someone challenged me the other day on my contention that anti-intellectualism has overtaken this land. I mentioned by way of example Palin’s Bible literalism, but really, there’s so much more. There’s the “Jay Walking” segment on Leno. There’s this notion that “elite” is a four-letter word. There’s the White House’s censorship and politicization of science. There’s the recent survey that found that more people can name all five Simpsons than all five freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment.

And there’s this: as many as 50,000 incidents since 1990 in which a book was forced to justify its existence. We’re talking books like “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” books like “The Color Purple,” books like “Harry Potter” and, yes, books like “Daddy’s Roommate,” books that offended because they expressed ideas that made someone uncomfortable. As if any other kind of idea was worth expressing.

We are becoming the stupid giant of planet Earth: richer than Midas, mightier than Thor, dumber than rocks. Which makes us a danger to the planet – and to ourselves. This country cannot continue to prosper and to embrace stupidity. The two are fundamentally incompatible.

So do us all a favor: Annoy Sarah Palin. For goodness’ sake, read.

[Enlarge] About The Author: Leonard Pitts, Jr. is a nationally-syndicated columnist and winner of the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary. He was originally hired by the Miami Herald to critique music, but within a few years he received his own column in which he dealt extensively with race, politics, and culture. He lives in Bowie, Maryland. He has won awards for his writing from the Society of Professional Journalists and the American Society of Newspaper Editors, and was first nominated for the Pulitzer Prize in 1993, eventually claiming the honor in 2004. He is also the author of the bestselling book Becoming Dad: Black Men and the Journey to Fatherhood. Pitts gained national recognition for his widely-circulated column of September 12, 2001, “We’ll Go Forward From This Moment,” in which he described the toughness of the American spirit even in the face of such a horrible attack. In June 2007, Pitts was the subject of a campaign of death threats and harassment by neo-Nazis angry at a column he wrote about two whites raped and murdered in Knoxville, Tennessee. In his column addressing the murders, Pitts stated “for the crackpots, incendiaries and flat-out racists who have chosen this tragedy upon which to take an obscene and ludicrous stand. I have four words for them and any other white Americans who feel themselves similarly victimized. Cry me a river.” More death threats were made in April 2008 before his appearance at the University of Puget Sound. | Read More About Leonard Pitts Jr. | Visit his website at www.leonardpittsjr.com.

John McCain announced that he was running for president to confront the "transcendent challenge" of the 21st century, "radical Islamic extremism," contrasting it with "stability, tolerance and democracy." But the values of his handpicked running mate, Sarah Palin, more resemble those of Muslim fundamentalists than they do those of the Founding Fathers. On censorship, the teaching of creationism in schools, reproductive rights, attributing government policy to God’s will and climate change, Palin agrees with Hamas and Saudi Arabia rather than supporting tolerance and democratic precepts. What is the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick. ….[ more ]

On the Republican “Fundamentalist Intolerance” Mouthpiece — ‘FOX Noise‘:

Asked on Fox & Friends about the “damage done” by having Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews anchor MSNBC’s election coverage, the Media Research Center’s Tim Graham responded, “Not only is the damage already done, the damage continues. I mean, not only are they keeping these people on for an hour a night, they’re adding this lesbian Air America radio host, Rachel Maddow, on every night.”

| read more |

Reference: Why rednecks may rule the world (By Joe Bageant — Author of Deerhunting With Jesus)

I keep my TV on CNN all the time; I’m surprised the CNN logo hasn’t been permanently etched on my screen. I’m a political news junkie, and when I’m not watching CNN or MSNBC I’m reading the online news sites.

   McCain and Palin [ Enlarge ]
But even I was surprised when John McCain selected a virtual unknown, Sarah Palin, as his vice-presidential running mate. Like millions of other Americans I googled Palin to find out everything I could about her.

The most shocking and disturbing fact that I learned is that Palin is totally unqualified to be one heartbeat away from assuming the mantle of leader of the free world. The sum total of her political experience is one and half years as governor of Alaska, and six years as a part-time mayor of a small town outside Anchorage. Her resume qualifies her to work in a Moose petting zoo, but it falls far short as preparation to be the president of the United States.

Not only is Palin unqualified, she also far to the right of most Americans. Palin is vehemently anti-choice, opposing abortion even in the case of rape or incest. The former beauty queen supported the anti-Semitic, anti-immigration Pat Buchanan for president in 2000. The governor from Alaska is an evangelical Christian who believes that creationism should be taught in public schools. Unlike most Americans, Palin doesn’t believe that humans are responsible for global warming.

Palin is unqualified and unvetted, McCain met her only twice before offering her the vice-presidency. A Burger King applicant undergoes a more rigorous vetting process before he’s offered a position flipping burgers.

Palin is unqualified, unvetted and under an ethical cloud, lawmakers in her home state are investigating whether she abused her power in firing a public safety commissioner.

Palin’s stump speeches since McCain named her as his Veep have done nothing to ease my worries. Her high-pitched delivery will drive even her most ardent supporters nuts over the next two months. This is not a sexist jibe, I have also criticized Obama for his tentative delivery in debates. For someone who is frequently lauded as eloquent, Obama has a habit of saying “you know” or “ah” almost every other sentence.

In her first three appearances Palin has delivered the same speech with only slight variations. This indicates a person who can’t think on her feet; she relies on memory more than smarts. I do give her props for removing any mention of Hillary Clinton from her stump speech, after she was booed for giving her credit for cracking the glass ceiling.

Sarah Palin is Patrick Buchanan in a beehive and high heels; and I tremble at the thought that one day she may be president of the United States.

John McCain has irrevocably stained his reputation with this desperate act of political expedience. To appeal to Hillary’s disaffected voters and to appease the right wing of his party, McCain has put the security and safety of America at grave risk.

I’m hoping that Americans will punish John McCain for his reckless act by voting for Obama/Biden in November.

REFERENCES:

1. 8 Reasons Sarah Palin is More Qualified than Barack Obama