So I guess this blog is still here?

I know I have been absent from the blog for a while.  Not even sure why I have not been writing.  Some of it was battling allergies.  Some was applying for a job.  No, I didn't get it, but the process was useful, and I am not sure I would have enjoyed the amount of travel probably necessary.

I am still working through my sense of identity in the aftermath of all of this.  On one hand, I am doing just fine, but there are times when my frustration at being a really good teacher without a teaching job really gets to me.

But in other news, I have joined the board of a local arts group that hosts concerts here locally.  That is already proving to be a lot of fun and getting me connected to the artists and the process of choosing and recruiting acts.  In addition, I have devoted a lot of my time to improving my own musical skills and have even taken up the task of song writing.  I have about 4 relatively reasonable songs--reasonable in that they are essentially songs--and am enjoying that process.

More later.

Irony of Ted Cruz

Not really the main point of this piece, but the real irony is the assertion that his American mother makes him a citizen regardless of being born in Canada immediately and completely makes the Birther's look idiotic.  Not that they needed one bit of help.

In Renouncing Canadian Citizenship, Ted Cruz Sounds Like A DREAMer | ThinkProgress

House Republicans reject proposal to ban gun sales to suspected terrorists | The Raw Story

This isn't the first time.  I don't get this at all.

House Republicans reject proposal to ban gun sales to suspected terrorists | The Raw Story

But what will happen to those people?

Been a while since I blogged over here.  We have a sick cat, for one thing, as our 10 year old cat, Molly's kidneys appear to be functioning at about 25%.  We will have to do more home care for her for as long as we can, and she isn't the easiest cat to work with.

In addition, my reinvention moves forward.  I went to Tulsa this last week and made some connections with people running food banks and working with non-profits.  Part of that inspired this post, as I came back to read this story about Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan wanting more cuts to food stamps.  At the same time, of course, we see that the deficit is decreasing at one of the fastest rates in modern history, so we know that conservatives lie when they say this is just about fiscal responsibility.  It is, for many, a deep dislike of the poor.

But for my Republican friends and family, I suspect a version of truncated thought, and that relates to more than just food stamps.  But SNAP is a great example.  It goes something like this:

• We should cut food stamps because we have far too many people dependent on them.  And anyway, the churches should take care of the poor.  When I point out that churches are incapable of feeding all of those people, and that many churches and faith organizations are swamped right now, with SNAP at its current levels, my friends usually nod.  That will leave a swath of Americans who get some assistance now without much, and they know that.  But what will happen to those people?  Silence.

 Or what about the death penalty:

• My conservative friends all support it on moral grounds.  But when I point out the racial and class bias to the law, they all acknowledge that too.  But what will happen to those people?  Silence.
• On abortion, most of my friends and family profess something approaching reason.  They all hate abortion (as do I), but most believe there should be exceptions where the procedure is used.  When I point out that Republicans are removing even those exceptions, they shrug.  When I point out that Republicans are, at the same time removing programs and clinics that provide healthcare to pregnant women and children, I get the same shrug.  But what will happen to those people?  Silence.

I would argue that most religious traditions call for taking care of the most vulnerable, and often demand it.  Christianity suggests that not taking care of the poor is the same as not taking care of Jesus himself.  In other words, those who say they love Christ, but look the other way at the needs of the poor and the sick are not truthful.  

What do you call people who purposefully harm others?

Important to remember that Norm Ornstein is hardly some left wing radical, but even he has to say that this Republican resistance is not quite treason.  And important to remember that the GOP's stated goal is to keep people from signing up for health insurance.  What do you call people like that?  I think sociopath is about right.

The Unprecedented, Contemptible GOP Quest to Sabotage Obamacare - Norm Ornstein - The Atlantic

Topics other than my career: race, politics, etc.

I have been obsessed with my career situation, but, as everyone knows, many other things have occurred outside my little world.  First, was the jury acquittal of George Zimmerman after he shot Trayvon Martin.  One of the more interesting cases of late, and one that has all the hallmarks of our current debate over race--and of course, our debate over gun usage.

The best responses, I think, didn't focus on the jury--though there seem to be some issues there as well--but looked at the problems with the law in the case.  Florida law did not require the court to even acknowledge or address the fact that George Zimmerman ignored police instructions and created the conflict.  Black observers were not wrong to note that this case was about a man stalking and killing a young, unarmed black male--and that the state of Florida said that was ok.  Zimmerman didn't have to prove that his life was actually in danger, merely that he felt threatened.

Eugene Robinson had one of the better posts on this, where he noted that while everyone talked about Zimmerman's right to self-protection, for some reason Martin had no such right.  Further, he and many have noted how this case suggests that young black males simply don't count that much.  I am reminded that capital cases are biased terribly on race--not so much the perpetrator--especially dealing with the race of the victim.  Another dead black boy simply doesn't matter that much, and that makes me terribly sad.

Speaking of that, it is time again to reread To Kill A Mockingbird, but first this excellent essay by Ta-nehisi Coates on the Fear of a Black President.

____________

In other news, the state of Texas continues their war on women by pushing through a draconian law banning abortions after 20 weeks, and effectively shutting down most clinics in the state.  I can't help but wonder if the right wing crazies have not overplayed their hand and miss that they are winning battles, but possibly losing the war.  Overnight, they made a national figure of Senator Wendy Davis, who is attractive, smart, and eloquent--only one of which Rick Perry brings to the table.


Then, we read that North Carolina Republicans pushed through a bill that gives lie to any notion that these people respect hard work or the middle class.  This law would cut taxes on the richest, while raising taxes on the bottom 80%.  Add this to the federal farm bill that gave agri-business subsidies while ignoring food stamps all together (also cutting environmental protection, btw).  Even conservative Rod Dreher sees this for what it is--cruel and horrible policies from a party that should know better.

The Republican Party is throwing corporate welfare at farmers, but telling people who are so poor they qualify for government aid to feed themselves that they are not a priority. As a matter of basic politics, the Republicans have lost their minds. This is Mitt Romney’s 47 percent remark all over again.  

I remain stunned that my friends and family continue to vote for these sociopaths who do not, beyond minor superficial words, reflect their values.

Word of the day: "Reinvention"

Though I have no idea what that looks like.

My career is at a crossroad.  The lack of a full-time position is nothing new, but my access to adjunct gigs is declining, not increasing.  I know that it is time to move to something new.

But first, I have to get this out, and perhaps it will stop the dreams.  I was good at teaching.  I had more than one student tell me I was the best professor they had in 4+ years.  I still have former students who not only keep in touch, but will tag me for coffee or beer when they are in town.  My friend and former ta D told me a few weeks ago that if the academy functioned as it should, I should be teaching, because I am good at it.  Those are kind words and I appreciate them.

But back to the dream.  During grad school, I developed a course on western film.  It started as simply a money-making venture and morphed into a pretty decent class.  I taught it for years and honed and fine-tuned the films and readings.  Students often came expecting an easy course of looking for historical anachronisms, but found, instead that they had to challenge some of their deeply held assumptions about American exceptionalism, race, gender, sexuality and history.  Watching that dawn on some students was a delight.  Some never got it or never cared.  But many found the analysis fascinating and embraced it.

I haven't taught the course for several years.  My university changed how they funded adjunct classes (revenue stream, I am pretty sure) and my department simply could not offer my film class.  I think another tenured prof teaches something similar, but I feel pretty confident that mine was better.  But for the last few years, I have been unable to teach anything but the survey (which may be one reason why this "reinvention" is timely as I have been bored with that same course).

But I often dream of teaching that film course.  In my dreams, the discussions have moved to that great sweet spot where students are arguing over imagery and history, and talking about big ideas and assumptions.  They are laughing as we often did in the class, and eager to talk about Lonestar or The Searchers.

Then I wake up.

And that hurts.  I miss that.

So I must move on to something else.  SOF believes that not only have I been bored, but that my true essence is to be an advocate, and that it was just as well that I didn't end up in a research-heavy job.  Others have told me that my skills are such that I can do a variety of jobs.  But I have no idea what that means.  What kind of jobs?  Doing what?

For now, I am in a fortunate position.  I don't have to do something right now to pay the bills.  I have the luxury of some time to figure this out.  Does it mean re-tooling in school?  Volunteering for a non-profit for a while?  I have taken some steps.  I contacted a former student now in our state legislature (a reminder, if you don't mind, that my teaching wasn't too bad) and hope to meet with him next weekend for some networking ideas.  I am having beers with a poli sci prof to ask about other opportunities and to see what some of their programs in public administration might offer me.

We will see.

Life is weird

So things have been a little weird of late.  Not only the tough last 6 months with SOF's family, but watching as my career cratered.  Of course that means that my 30th high school reunion would be this summer.  I committed before I realized, of course, and decided to brave it.  It wasn't without much fear and trepidation, and a very near last second bailout that I finally pushed my way through the door.  

It was ok.  I am still trying to process all this, because I think high school can carry a lot of weight for those short 3 or 4 years.  Not sure why, really, but seeing those people brought an emotional response that I am still trying to understand.  

I had some help getting ready.  Not only the amazing support from SOF, but my numerous friends and family members who have been so encouraging through all of this.  Then a couple of odd ones.  An ex-girlfriend who commented on my "career falling apart" comment with "career, schmeer."  Then a serendipitous meeting over dinner at the brew pub in Hays, Kansas, with a retired English professor who not only completely understood my career issue, but encouraged me to walk in with my head high.  

Not sure I did that, but I went, and had some really nice connections with people I have not seen for 30 years.  Some I expected, but many I did not.  It wasn't all seamless.  I sat down with women from my choir days (we were in a pretty elite choir in high school, so it was a small group).  One looked at me and had to look again at my name tag before she would talk to me.  "Hey, Jenny Slater.  Hey, Jenny Slater.  Hey, Jenny Slater."  

But that didn't bother me at all.  Trying to explain my life was sometimes hard, but not impossible.  It was pleasant to see some of the most successful people respond so nicely, and without a bit of arrogance.  The only annoying one was the woman who could not stop talking about just "how smart her kids were.  Sure, we were all good students, but these kids take after their dad and are just brilliant..."  Sigh.  

But those interactions didn't dominate.  It may take me a bit to makes sense of this, but I think it was a good idea.  But the universe has a funny sense of humor.  

Conservative cruelty

I have long been a critic of conservative politics, but have, for the most part, believed that my conservative friends were not cruel toward the poor and needy.  Far from it, actually, as most of them are involved in charities that help the poor, and attend churches that have an outreach.

When it came to policy, I believed that they, and the people they voted for, had an overly optimistic view of what poverty looked like.  They believed, I assume, that poor people genuinely were locked in dependency on government handouts, and reducing that would nudge them into the work place.  Or that there was so much corruption and fraud in the programs, that no actual people would suffer.

Over the last few years, however, we have seen conservative hatred toward even the working poor, best exemplified by Romney's sneer about the 47% who are dependent on the government and pay no taxes.  Conservatives have attacked working teachers and firefighters--demonized those with multiple jobs, and have actually worked to cut overtime pay and further weaken unions.  Message:  even if you work hard, conservatives and Republicans still hate your guts.

A great example of this kind of malevolence is this most recent failed farm bill.  In what has become typical fashion, conservatives decided that we are spending far too much on the poor.  Not on farm subsidies, even to people who have raked in millions in from the government, all while quoting the Bible as he called food stamps "theft."

In this recent bill, conservatives not only cut food stamps, they capped state spending on employment and training.  Hear that?  They cut food stamps, while making it harder for states to get people off welfare and off food stamps.  This bullshit about wanting people to work is just that.  They just don't like poor people, and want nothing to do with any safety net.  All while quoting the Bible.

Sigh.  Gag.

The decline of higher education

Not really hyperbole, and certainly not just about me and my latest battles with the job market.  I read this article yes, in Al Jazeera, of all places, that notes that today some 76% of college professors are adjuncts.  They average 2,700 per class with no benefits, no job security, and no say.  So I am far from alone.

And while the article focuses, perhaps too much, on the psychology of why people like me put themselves through this and don't just go find another job, it is still well worth reading.  After all, to be very honest, while I have been "exploited" pretty heavily since I started teaching college courses, for much of that time, it worked well for me.  Our economic situation was not that of many in the field, and so for a while, I was content to teach a few courses for the University (at a rate nearly double that average pay) with none of the meetings, advising, committee, to say nothing of not having to publish.  It was a symbiotic relationship with my tenured friends.  My work allowed them to do more research, and along the way, I was able to add small, but vibrant classes to majors and non-majors alike. In that, I was extremely fortunate for a while, and I am glad for that.

At my university, the student fees that paid for my modest stipend became too attractive for the administration to just let go back to the departments.  That ended my run there, and I am not exactly sure what to do with that.  Are they trying to avoid the "adjunctification" of the academy?  Or are they simply trying to make more revenue.  Student enrollment has not declined, and they already have tenure track people on salary.  I guess the argument was to make those people teach more and pocket those fees.  That seems to be what occurred, anyway.

Perhaps I am a bad one to complain about this as I was rather happy to be exploited while it lasted.  I think that in the long run, we are looking at a commodification of learning.  As one of my friends noted on Facebook this morning (and I should note that much of the support I am hearing from friends comes from tenured colleagues):

The recent mess causing all the layoffs is also a consequence of deliberate legislative efforts to starve public education into a must-commercialize mode that requires abolition of tenure and normalizes faculty work at much less than a living wage.

This is undoubtedly true.  State support for higher education has been in steep decline since the 80s, as has been support for national funding of research into science and technology.  All of that has served to force Universities to reach out to the private sector for funding.  On one hand, that isn't a bad thing, but on the other, it means that people like the Koch brothers can essentially purchase an economics department to continue support for their own economic needs.

I think all of those issues need addressing.  Universities appear to have embraced the idea of simply selling college as a consumer good, and are now building entertainment facilities to attract students.  Climbing walls, water parks, etc., rather than investing in smaller classrooms and more faculty.  Anglican and I are convinced that part of the problem with the University is that so many insiders still believe (rather naively) that their primary mission is still education and research, while the evidence suggests that for most administrations, the goal appears to be more revenue.  This is bad for the students as well, as I constantly run into students who see their degree as a consumer good they purchase, rather than a reflection of what they have learned.

For today, that is going to have to wait, and it looks increasingly like it will be someone else's issue.  The academy doesn't want me, so they will have to battle MOOCs, water parks, and the continued attacks on tenure and academic freedom.  For me, my bitterness is broadly at conservatives who continue to gleefully gut academics, but also directly at the community college for their open disrespect of my ability and contribution.  And finally, just frustration toward those inside the academy who seem to have internalized their own experience as to make them really more worthy than those of us outside.  From the Al Jazeera piece:

On Twitter, I wondered why so many professors who study injustice ignore the plight of their peers. "They don't consider us their peers," the adjuncts wrote back. Academia likes to think of itself as a meritocracy - which it is not - and those who have tenured jobs like to think they deserved them. They probably do - but with hundreds of applications per available position, an awful lot of deserving candidates have defaulted to the adjunct track.
The plight of the adjunct shows how personal success is not an excuse to excuse systemic failure. Success is meaningless when the system that sustained it - the higher education system - is no longer sustainable. When it falls, everyone falls. Success is not a pathway out of social responsibility.

Dreams die hard

I just found out that my latest application for full-time teaching ended up where most of them have--in the trash can.  This one hurts a little more because I really thought I had a chance.  I have been teaching at this particular community college for the last 5 years and have a pretty impressive resume of teaching experience both online and in person.   I have a phd, have one publication (which matters not to community colleges, to be fair), and have had very good teaching evaluations from students over the years.  When I applied last year to a different community college, I had to pull those evaluations together and was rather surprised at how the vast majority of them were positive.

Not that any of this matters.  I sit here watching Phd after Phd come out of the same school and land jobs.  Some of them are in places I would never want to live, to be fair, but many of them have landed in very good positions.  I have no idea how to make sense of any of this.  As I have written before, those inside academia often act rather cultish about it, and look at those of us who teach the majority of the courses in about the same way that suburban dwellers look at the migrant workers roofing their house.

I kind of get that.  If you get inside, you have to believe it is on your merit, and not just the luck of the draw of being in the right place at the right time.  Either that or the people who get hired are just better than me.  That is a possibility.  A frustrating one, but one nonetheless.  I am told over and over that I am an excellent teacher, though most of those who tell me that have never actually seen me teach.  I am told that I am good with people (not that my blog readers can tell) and that I would make an excellent colleague.  I am told that I am very good in interviews.  Last year's community college told me that I had put together an excellent presentation and he had absolutely no suggestions for improving it.

But they weren't going to hire me.  With this one, even more frustration as they didn't even bother to interview me.  This from a department who has hired several people with only master's degrees and with very questionable people skills.

I apologize for the whining.  I know there are people here in Oklahoma who are homeless after major storms.  I know there are people suffering with serious health issues and family loss and tragedy.  In that context, my life still looks pretty good.

But this one hurts.  I have been studying history at a serious level since 1990.  I have been teaching and honing my craft since 1997 (off and on).  When I put together my vita this last time I had to re-categorize all my teaching experience because listing the individual classes would take too much space. All for nothing.  Well, not nothing.  Those classes and those students still matter.  But I have had a dream for a long time of being able to teach fulltime at a place where I could do more than teach the intro course.

But some dreams are not meant to be.  Clearly.

Prayer and Tornados

I am sure all of you know of the massive storm that hit Moore, Oklahoma from Monday.  I watched on TV as that monster formed and knew it was going to be bad.  I didn't realize it was going to be this bad.  I still haven't been up to see the damage as the last thing I want to do is get in the way.  There will be time for that.

Meanwhile we have already had some craziness.  First, it was our own Oklahoma Senator Coburn suggesting that aid will come to Oklahoma only after it has been offset by other budget cuts.  As I told someone else, this is the equivalent of offering to save a drowning man, but only after he signs off on payments to you.

Then, we got the ubiquitous crazy right wing fundamentalist in the form of Pat Robtertson suggest that the victims could have avoided the storm had they prayed harder.  I know.  The man is a complete loon and nutjob.  But here he has more in common with saner Christians than they would like.  Robertson says that if enough people prayed, God would have intervened.  That is essentially how many Christians already talk about prayer.  This is the logical conclusion.  If more people praying is better than less, then God somehow needs prodding, and he is prodded in a democratic fashion.  And if a bad thing like this happens, then it is a result of not enough people praying.  All of this is reminiscent of Smitty's great comments on equally bad theology coming from a ND legislator who blamed gun violence on abortion.

A friend recently panicked when her mother had a severe health issue, and asked that people "pray hard."  One of her friends commented, "I just prayed."  What does any of that mean?  Is God only swayed when people pray "hard" or does he take note of those comments?  I feel like I am stuck in Bill Moyer's story about LBJ asking him to pray in a cabinet meeting.  Moyers started and heard LBJ shout from the other end of the table, "speak up, Bill.  I can't hear you."  To which, Moyers responded, "I wasn't talking to you."  I doubt very much that any of this is aimed at God.

Robertson sees all of this as literal.  I suspect that for many people, "I will pray for you" or "can you pray for me" is simply an expression of concern or a cry for help.  I have no problem with that.  I have no problem with praying for people in crisis that they might be able to find peace or comfort.  But I have a big problem with prayers that turn God into an ogre.

this too is gun culture

North Dakota lawmaker: Blame Roe v. Wade for school shootings - Salon.com

gun culture and right wing stupid culter

All in one.

Rand Paul: UN has secret plot to ‘CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL’ of America’s guns | The Raw Story

The age of Christian persecution

We are in an age of Christian persecution.  Just ask any conservative Christian, and they will suggest that their values are under attack, that they are unwelcome for their views, and they are on the verge of actual persecution.  Facebook will light up with stories of supposed persecution--"did you hear about the one where the house church was closed down?"  Or the more recent one:  "Obama has the military prosecuting Christians for proselytizing."  Never mind that isn't true, it fits a narrative that my Christian conservative friends prefer.

I remember that narrative from my youth.  Our churches often talked about the passage where Jesus said that we would be hated.  And that is usually quoted when Christians are criticized for a stance; such as their opposition to same-sex marriage.  Or when former NBA player Chris Broussard said that recently outed player Jason Collins wasn't a "real Christian" as an openly gay man, and received his share of criticism for that statement.  For my Christian conservative friends, that is proof that Christians can be called names just for their beliefs.  Or, as Louis Gohmert said last weekend, we are in an age where the liberals are the most intolerant of all, and where the only acceptable intolerance is toward Christians.

This persecution complex is hard to take seriously, I must say.  But some of this is because historically Christianity enjoyed a special place in our public square.  That wasn't really correct or constitutional to do so, but it occurred.  Schools led sectarian prayers, and Christians dominated political discourse for most of America's history.  When you drill into that, btw, you will find a lot of conflict that most today don't remember--for example, that Protestants were early proponents of public education because of their opposition to Catholic parochial schools.

But however you slice it, Christianity is no longer the only game in town.  It no longer gets to dominate that public square.  But that isn't persecution.  I don't care if a school has a "Spring celebration" rather than Easter or if a local vendor says "Happy Holidays "  That isn't persecution.  That also means that when you call homosexuality an abomination or antithetical to Christianity, you are going to get criticized.  That isn't because you are closer to Jesus.  It is because a good many people, including a lot of Christians, find that attitude bigoted toward our gay friends.  And no, saying you have a gay friend doesn't erase the bigotry.  Haraldsson has a pretty good take on that here.

But hidden in it is this gem:

Blake also cites the examples of Edward Johnson, a communication professor at Campbell University in North Carolina, “[who] says we are now living in a ‘postmodern’ era where everything is relative and there is no universally accepted truth. It’s an environment in which anyone who says ‘this is right’ and ‘that is wrong’ is labeled intolerant, he says.

Look beyond the persecution complex to the idea that truth is relative.  Don't you find it funny that the people who are claiming universal truth and calling things "right" and "wrong" are the same ones who respond to evolution with "were you there?"  Or talk about evolution and climate change as issues of faith rather than science.  Issues, of course, where they believe they can decide that facts are not facts and they don't believe them to be facts?

Anyway.

This is gun culture

Connecticut Gun Group Attacks Father Of Sandy Hook Victim | TPM LiveWire

The NRA is crazy, and doesn't even seem to hide it

I know these clips are filtered through a liberal comedian, but I am not sure any honest person can look at the NRA's convention--their speakers--and not say that this is an unhinged right wing insanity.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Good, the Bad and the Crazy
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Indecision Political Humor The Daily Show on Facebook

Nope, the NRA isn't crazy or hostile at all.

The New NRA President Fantasizes About "Whipping" Anti-Gun Opponents

"Save it for the blog"

So it has been a pretty wild couple of months here.  SOF lost her mother back in February, and then her father last week.  Needless to say, that has been difficult and continues to be so.

In the middle of that, we attended my niece's graduation, which was very cool and inspiring.  So proud of her and her sister for becoming such amazing and interesting people.  We had such a nice time with friends and family.  It was all more than worth the mad scamper there and back.

The one "but" in the weekend came in the graduation speaker.  Turns out the President of this University is friends with Representative Louis Gohmert.  Do I really have to note that he is a Republican?  I think not.  Friday night, while waiting for a table, I saw a man walk into our restaurant with a confederate flag patch on his shirt.

Yeah.

So back to Gohmert.  For a rundown of his greatest hits, go here.  The man is one of those accusing Hilary Clinton of hiring a Muslim extremist, has suggested that the Muslim Brotherhood has influence in the Obama administration, which is why he continually says that "everyone knows the threat of Islamic terrorism except this administration."  Like so many of the far right, he is convinced that gay marriage will lead directly to bestiality, and that any gun control will lead to a complete confiscation and all guns being illegal.

My niece M warned me about the speaker, and told me to bring my Ipod.  When I said anything before the ceremony, she cut me off with "save it for the blog."  :)  And she was right.  After I realized just how dumb the speaker was going to be, I approached it as an anthropological exercise--where I could observe a right wing Tea Partier speak to many in their choir.  (I say many, in that I heard some applause, but know there were several who had to find him as annoying as we did).

His speech was actually better than I expected.  Better in that he didn't accuse Obama of being a Muslim from Kenya.  And he actually opened up with a couple of relatively funny jokes.  Not Jon Stewart funny, but still, not bad.

But then he started in on us liberals.  He was there to speak the truth (just ask him) and the truth could be summed up in the following propositions:

1. Liberals are more intolerant than any conservative, and in fact, the only people you can be intolerant of are Christians.  
2. Political correctness allowed the Boston bombing because, of course, Obama doesn't regard Islamic terrorism as a threat.  Or something.  
3. Christians are under attack and are persecuted.  

Throughout the talk, he repeated right wing talk about Boston, or about how the Pentagon is making Christianity illegal, or that, in fact, 50% of America got more from the Federal government than they paid in taxes.  That last part was in the portion where he said that we were in danger of losing America--not that it was bad that so many people were poor.

I seriously was glad that he didn't go birther on us, but the basic talk was a series of outright lies preceded by a claim that he was there to speak the truth.  That was very disheartening.  And disingenuous   In one part he spoke about the past when we could disagree with each other, but "fight to the death for your right to disagree."  That had been replaced with, he said, attacks on Christians for their beliefs.  Not enough to disagree with persecuted Christians, they had to be persecuted as well.

All with absolutely no sense that conservatives had defended Japanese internment, Red Scare witchhunts for communists real and imagined, or that they had defended attacks on liberal patriotism for those who might disagree with the Iraq war or Patriot act.  (Has anyone forgotten that Saxby Chambliss accused a triple amputee--Max Cleland--of siding with Saddam for his opposition to Bush's Homeland Security bill?).

No, in Gohmert's world, Christian conservatives are only the victims of persecution.  This complete lack of perspective or honesty--all shrouded in his belief that he was speaking the truth--made him the perfect Christian conservative Tea Partier.  After all, when facts are inconvenient, you just ignore them.

NRA demonstrates how sane they are by having the most insane person give keynote address

Glenn Beck at NRA Rally: 'Freedom of All Mankind Is at Stake' - ABC News

Still going to say that the NRA political wing is sane?  Going to even try?