More Friday Fun Day.

The WaPo came out with a news piece covering "Melanoma" Trump, speaking about what she will do when she is first lady.

No porn-posing illegal immigrant (allegedly) has any business in our White House. This is NOT a woman who should be held up as a model for American men, women and children.

But there can be no greater hypocrisy than Melanoma's chosen issue - cyber-bullying.  Donald J. Drumpf is the very WORST example of cyber bullying and bullying generally.  This man is himself a deplorable human being.

This should result in Melanoma Trump being laughed off of any stage upon which she chooses to posture and plagiarize.

From the WaPo:

Melania Trump vows to take on cyberbullying as first lady

By Errin Haines Whack and Jill Colvin | AP November 3 at 7:59 PM

BERWYN, Pa. — Donald Trump’s wife, Melania, made a rare appearance on the campaign trail on Thursday, pledging to focus on combatting online bullying and serve as an advocate for women and children if her husband is elected to the White House.
Her description of the perils of social media seemed at odds with her husband’s divisive and bullying rhetoric throughout the campaign.

Conservatives want us to believe they support our military. They do not.

We see this kind of failure to support our military in exclusively Republicans voting against adequate funding for the VA. We see this kind of failure to support our military by failing to pay them enough so they can be independent of a social safety net. We see this kind of failure when the GOP cuts funding for food to feed military families. Shame on conservatives; REAL support for our military and their families who make so many sacrifices for their country means more than bumper stickers -- or bumper sticker thinking. It means we pay them and provide for them adequately.

Update: Katie Couric vs. Conservatives: the Under the Gun controversy

Update: The controversy over the "Under the Gun" documentary centers on an inserted pause during a question about terrorists being easily able to access firearms.

In the face of the incident early Sunday morning in Orlando, Florida, that question could not be more timely.

Conservatives are not factual, and conservatives whine, claiming they are victims when they are not, in fact, victims at all.  And conservatives are massive hypocrites, holding others to a more rigorous standard than they hold themselves (or other conservatives).

I would argue that the hypocrisy alone would be sufficient to disqualify conservatives from criticizing others, but that the additional factual deficiency renders them the ones who merit harsh criticism.

The latest controversy over a gun violence documentary in which Katie Couric conducted an interview is simply the latest iteration.

Katie Couric was a news personality on ABC in 2008, when she exposed the lack of qualifications of Republican candidate Sarah Palin for the position of VP.  That still gripes the behinds of conservatives, who will look for pretty much any pretext to jump all over her, fair or foul.  That Couic continues to enjoy some measure of success, while Palin is at best a marginal figure, only adds to conservative irritation, especially by those less successful conservatives in the media (including the blogosphere).

What is she doing now?  From the Wrap:

Couric is the current Yahoo global news anchor and a legend in her field. The former “Today” show staple is an anti-cancer advocate, documentary film producer and New York Times best-selling author of “The Best Advice I Ever Got: Lessons From Extraordinary Lives.”

Let's start with the facts; Katie Couric did not insert the controversial 'dramatic pause' in the documentary in question, Under the Gun. and did not agree with the insertion, but was over-ruled.
Continuing from the Wrap:

Katie Couric said she “didn’t feel comfortable” with the controversial edit in her recent documentary on guns, but hopes it starts a broader conversation about the gun control in America. “I can understand the objection of people who did have an issue about it,” Couric said at TheWrap’s Power Women Breakfast in New York on Thursday morning.

...Couric did not edit the interview herself, and said last week that she questioned director Stephanie Soechtig and an editor about the pause when she screened the film, “and was told that a ‘beat’ was added for, as she [Soechtig] described it, ‘dramatic effect.'”

I would posit that the dramatic pause was not particularly significant, that the controversy is a tempest in the proverbial tea pot. But I would add to that criticism that the pause should not have been inserted in a documentary; dramatic license belongs in dramatic productions, not in non-fiction features.

But to return to the massive hypocrisy of the right, who are kvetching about a lack of factual content by Couric, and/or 'fake footage', let's recall here for a moment the appalling actions of convicted criminal James O'Keefe when HE inserted footage of himself as a pimp in undercover interviews with ACORN, while actually appearing in the real interviews as a normally dressed boy friend of a woman appearing to be an abuse victim.

Not a peep out of conservatives, about deceptive editing, or fake footage when it is 'one of theirs', not then, not in the past year, not ever.

Rather they defended O'Keefe, trying to justify false claims as 'B roll' and other flimsy excuses. Again, as another example out of many, the insertion of fake footage from other sources, representing it as from Planned Parenthood, was deliberately misleading and unethical. Like James O'Keefe,who was convicted of illegal activity in his filming, those faux documentarians are also now facing criminal indictment for fraud. Did anyone here much criticism of these far more egregious examples of bad faith documentary making? Heck NO! Far from it, the right tried to find pretexts and excuses to condone THAT conduct.

Unless they drop the double standard BS and their whining, I would argue that conservative critics should sit down and shut up.  If and when they are willing to do the right thing, not just the right wing thing, then and only then do they have a legitimate complaint about others; in the successful PROFESSIONAL and more ethical media.

And rounding out the weekend's funnier confrontations of right wing hypocrisy

We do not see conservatives trying to make THESE more legitimate challenges to the sanctity and success of traditional marriage illegal. In fact we have seen some of the clerks who claim sincere religious belief as a failed excuse not to do their jobs turn out to themselves have multiple failed traditional marriages to their credit, raising questions about how sincerely they really believe in monogamy.

For example, Rowan County, Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, who is suing to be able to refuse to issue same sex marriage licenses on religious belief grounds, is apparently on her own fourth marriage. From Snopes:

A 9 July 2015 report from Lexington station WKYT on David Moore’s video noted the rumor that Kim Davis had herself been married four times and stated that her marriage certificate confirmed that fact

My understanding and impression is that Ms. Davis has undergone multiple divorces, not multiple deaths of spouses.


Quite the opposite of supporting traditional monogamy in practice, we see conservatives engaging in more cheating on spouses, more use of pornography (remembering that committing adultery in one's mind and heart are the same as doing it in the flesh), higher rates of divorce, and high rates of multiple marriages (mostly while ex-spouses are still living). So the concept of one man/one woman until death do us part is just simply bullshit; the right does not defend this kind of traditional marriage. Rather it is more a case of TREAD-itional marriage, where they trample all over it. No, the objection to same sex marriage equality is about one thing and one thing only -- screwing over the LGBT community and doing their level best to treat them as second class citizens. Shame shame shame on them; they do NOT deserve respect for their position. They instead deserve to be called out for their hypocrisy and hatred of others, and their desire to harm others.

A federal judge promises to rule later this month on the Davis sincere-religious-belief suit. Rowan County is claiming they are immune from this suit, since the county is not refusing to issue the same-sex marriage licenses, which could leave clerk Kim Davis on the hook for some considerable cash. However as her position and suits are being funded by the radical right wing instead of her personally, I'm sure there will be a generous outpouring of bigot bucks in her direction to help defray judgments against her, since it looks highly likely she will lose, and lose big.

Right Wing Hatred of Muslims Is Hypocritical Bigotry

ban Islam bigotry symbol

Conservatives are the quintessential hatriots, ignorant bigots, and most of all, HYPOCRITES, and never more so than when they have an opportunity for religious intolerance at the same time they are protesting non-existent intrusions on their own religious freedom.

Since the deplorable shooting in Chattanooga, Tennessee, the swell of hate on the right towards not just those extremists who oppose western society, both sacred and secular, but also demonstrate a level of ignorance mixed into that hatred, fueled by propaganda intended to keep them scared and angry.

Just relying on the comments in social media against Muslims is horrifying - including against Americans who are Muslim.  Statements like "they should all be rounded up and either killed or at least kicked out of America".  Statements like "every Muslim should be bombed out of existence" and that we should nuke every country with a significant Muslim population (sub-thread, send every Muslim to those countries before we blow them off the map).  Statements like every Muslim wants to kill us, and no Muslim can be trusted anywhere ever, and that no Muslim can be an American.  I think I was most offended by the conspiracy theorists who not only rejected even the possibility that Muslims could be peaceful, or tolerant of other religions, but who made up ugly, crazy conspiracy theories to explain the charitable effort to collect money to fund burned black churches in the south.

In particular the prophet Mohammed comes in for disparagement.  He is described as a pedophile and a violent mass murderer himself, and particularly condemned for his position on killing non-believers and for engaging in polygamy and sex slavery, way back in 570 - 632 CE.  He is also blamed of course for modern terrorist martyrdom.

There is only one problem with this criticism from predominantly Christian Right wingnuts of predominantly European ethnicity --- it is hypocritical, criticizing historical figures on the basis of religion, while NOT criticizing European ethnic Christians for exactly the same conduct, either modern or historic. 

The history of Christianity in Europe is rife with all of those same things -- polygamy was approved and solemnized for a long time by the Christian Church.  Charlemagne, the first Holy Roman Emperor ( a position that essentially established him as the top Number 1 Christian of his day, sanctified by the Pope, hence the 'Holy' in Holy Roman Emperor) had an estimated 18 wives (some may have been concubines, an official legal status similar to marriage, but a step lower in terms of rights and privileges).  Christianity was spread at the point of the sword, convert or die, as in the massacres of Verden, where Charlemagne, later the first Holy Roman Emperor, ordered Pagan Saxons to convert or die, some 4,500 of them.

Now let us move on to the claims of pedophilia and child marriage.  Pedophilia is sexual arousal by children; it does not appear correctly to apply to Muhammad who did in engage in one instance of child marriage and other instances of adult polygyny.  Muhammad lived between 570 and 632; within Judaism and Christianity in that period, polygamy still occurred as did child marriage. 

Child marriage not only occurred in that earlier period of the middle ages, but later -- and it extended into the early colonies that became the United States.  A few examples:

Gratian, the influential founder of Canon law in the twelfth century, accepted the traditional age of puberty for marriage (between 12 and 14) but he also said consent was "meaningful" if the children were older than seven. Some authorities said consent could take place earlier. It was this policy which was carried over into English common law. Similarly Gratian's ideas about age became part of European civil law.

Judges honored marriages based on mutual consent at age younger than 7, and there are recorded marriages of 2 and 3 year olds. The 17th-century lawyer Henry Swinburne distinguished between the marriages of those under seven and those between seven and puberty. He wrote that those under seven who had said their vows had to ratify it afterwards by giving kisses and embraces, by lying together, by exchanging gifts or tokens, or by calling each other husband or wife. A contemporary, Philip Stubbes, wrote that in sixteenth-century East Anglia, infants still in swaddling clothes were married. The most influential legal text of the seventeenth century in England, that of Sir Edward Coke, made it clear that the marriage of girls under 12 was normal, and the age at which a girl who was a wife was eligible for a dower from her husband's estate was 9 even though her husband be only 4 years old.

...the children of Henry II "had been married in babyhood," and the Council of Westminster (1175) conceded that these could be valid marriages "pro bono pacis" (for the sake of peace), even although it also said that "where there is no consent of both parties there is no marriage, and so those who give girls to boys in their cradles achieve nothing" [Brooke, p. 140]. 

(Except when they did receive financial benefit, which is pretty well documented as occurring often. - DG)

 Let's move on to colonial America:

The American colonies followed the English. For example in Virginia in 1689, Mary Hathaway was only 9 when she was married to William Williams.

In England for example in the parish of Middlesex County, Virginia, there is a record of 14-year-old Sarah Halfhide marrying 21-year-old Richard Perrot. Of the 98 girls on the 10-year register, three probably married at age 8, one at 12, one at 13, and two at 14.

But let's look to the post-American Revolution in the US, when it was arguably predominantly a nation of Christians making these laws, consistent with canon law:

In the United States, as late as the 1880s most States set the minimum age at 10–12, (in Delaware it was 7 in 1895).

Now we would call that legalized, predominantly-Christian-approved traditional child marriage.

So we've covered killing the unbelievers / conversion by the sword (of which there are many more examples in Christian history) and we've demonstrated the prevalent, institutionalized evil of child marriage, let's move on to Christian polygamy.

Early Christian Church:

Joyce, George (1933). Christian Marriage: An Historical and Doctrinal Study. Sheed and Ward. p. 560.
"When the Christian Church came into being, polygamy was still practiced by the Jews. It is true that we find no references to it in the New Testament; and from this some have inferred that it must have fallen into disuse, and that at the time of our Lord the Jewish people had become monogamous. But the conclusion appears to be unwarranted. Josephus in two places speaks of polygamy as a recognized institution: and Justin Martyr makes it a matter of reproach to Trypho that the Jewish teachers permitted a man to have several wives. Indeed when in 212 A.D. the lex Antoniana de civitate gave the rights of Roman Citizenship to great numbers of Jews, it was found necessary to tolerate polygamy among them, even though it was against Roman law for a citizen to have more than one wife. In 285 A.D. a constitution of Diocletian and Maximian interdicted polygamy to all subjects of the empire without exception. But with the Jews, at least, the enactment failed of its effect; and in 393 A.D. a special law was issued by Theodosius to compel the Jews to relinquish this national custom. Even so they were not induced to conform.

Moving a bit later:

Matilda Joslyn Gage Women, Church and State. Ch VII.
Socrates of Constantinople wrote in the 5th century that the Roman Emperor Valentinian I took two wives and authorized his subjects to take two wives, supporting that Christians were then practicing plural marriage.

Spanning the centuries to after the period of the historic figure Muhammad, during which polygamy (technically polygyny) continued in Christian Europe; Charlemagne live a little more than a century after Muhammed.

Charlemagne had at least twenty children over the course of his life time with three wives and five concubines. He had five wives but no offspring with his second and his last.

Let us move later in the history of polygamy in Christianity, the Reformation:

The founder of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther wrote: "I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter." [Luther later changed his mind somewhat on this issue - DG]

Lutheran theologians approved of Philip of Hesse's polygamous marriages to Christine of Saxony and Margarethe von der Saale for this purpose, as well as initial disapproval of divorce and adultery. As well as Phillip, there was much experimentation with marital duration within early German Lutheranism amongst clergy and their erstwhile wives.

The theologian Philipp Melanchthon likewise counseled that Henry VIII need not risk schism by dissolving his union with the established churches to grant himself divorces in order to replace his barren wives, but reluctantly, and with remorse afterward, consented that polygamy was an allowable alternative.

Anabaptist leader Bernhard Rothmann initially opposed the idea of plural marriage. However, he later wrote a theological defense of plural marriage, and took 9 wives himself, saying "God has restored the true practice of holy matrimony amongst us.

The Lutheran pastor Johann Lyser strongly defended plural marriage in a work entitled "Polygamia Triumphatrix".

And more recently:

The Anglican church made a decision at the 1988 Lambeth Conference to admit those who were polygamists at the time they converted to Christianity, subject to certain restrictions

And for those who claim that good Christian Americans don't engage in acts of terrorist martyrdom against Muslims, we have this from just two months ago, from the HuffPo and the Daily Beast:

Christian Minister Robert Doggart Reportedly Caught Plotting An Attack On American Muslims In Islamberg

Have you heard about the Christian terrorist Robert Doggart, who was plotting a violent attack against a Muslim-American community in New York state? Probably not, because as opposed to when U.S. law-enforcement officials arrest a Muslim for planning a violent assault, they didn’t send out a press release or hold a press conference publicizing Doggart’s arrest.
So let me tell you about Doggart and his deadly plan to use guns and even a machete to attack American Muslims in upstate New York. Doggart, a 63-year-old Tennessee resident, is an ordained Christian minister in the Christian National Church. In 2014, he unsuccessfully ran for Congress as an independent, espousing far right-wing views.
But don’t dismiss Doggart as some crazed wingnut howling at the moon. He served in the U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps, worked for 40 years in the electrical generation business, has a master’s degree and a Ph.D. from La Salle University, and claimed he had nine “committed” men working with him to carry out this attack.
Doggart came to the FBI’s attention via postings on social media and a confidential informant. Why attack these Muslims? Doggart’s own words highlight his motive being grounded in at least partially in his view of Christianity: “Our small group will soon be faced with the fight of our lives. We will offer those lives as collateral to prove our commitment to our God.” Doggart continued, “We shall be Warriors who inflict horrible numbers of casualties upon the enemies of our Nation and World Peace.”
Doggart, who was also recorded via wiretaps speaking to militia members in Texas and South Carolina, didn’t mince words about his plans for the Muslims of Islamberg: “We will be cruel to them. And we will burn down their buildings [Referring to their mosque and school.] ...and if anybody attempts to harm us in any way... we will take them down.”

He also detailed the weapons he would use in the attack, including an M-4 military assault rifle, armor-piercing ammunition, explosives, pistols, and a machete, because “If it gets down to the machete, we will cut them to shreds.”
Doggart expressed a hope that he would survive the terror attack, but explained, “I understand that if it’s necessary to die [in this attack] then that’s a good way to die.”

Sounds a lot like a Christian version of Daesh (ISIS). I believe I make my point: conservatives are the quintessential hatriots, ignorant bigots, but most of all, HYPOCRITES who apply a higher double standard to other people than they do to themselves and people they perceive to be like themselves.

The Right doesn't like to face this - our debt and deficit, both, are their fault

GOP, Conservatives, on the wrong side of history - Shep Smith Nails It

Conservatives have been on the political right, but they have not been on the right side of history since some conservatives (by no means all of them) were the driving force behind abolition of slavery. They have been wrong on the overwhelming majority of other positions they have taken.  It is too clear a pattern to ignore, and it is something that our modern conservatives should consider in forming their positions.

The right is wrong, consistently wrong.

Because conservatives are trying to go backwards in history - to reverse civil rights, to reverse feminist gains of equality, to reverse the sexual revolution which gave us contraception and legal abortion allowing women to participate equally in living their lives with men, and now, trying to go backwards from the gains same sexually oriented human beings are making - they are going to find themselves on the wrong side of history. Conservatives have favored segregation, anti-miscegenation laws, Jim Crow laws, anti-evolution laws, comprehensive sexual education, revisionist history, bad science, bad economic policies, and bad social policies like removing minimum wage and child labor protection. They aren't doing well so far, and they haven't corrected their far right extremist course yet. How long do they have to continue finding themselves on the wrong side of history before they stop going backward? They don't live up to the values they claim, and in many cases violate them far worse than what they accuse others of doing, making them the party as well of rampant hypocrisy. Shep Smith nails it: