Renee Ellmers's Racist Ad

Congressman Bob Etheridge is the Congressman from the Second District of North Carolina. The Second District stretches from downtown Raleigh, through the suburbs of Southern Wake County, and into the surrounding suburbs and farmland of Johnston and counties south. It's a changing area, formerly rural, now rapidly urbanizing. It is the very definition of a swing district.

Now, thanks to the Tea Party, Congressman Etheridge is in a dogfight. And he's fighting a woman, Renee Ellmers, who has risen to Tea Party prominence on the back of a campaign against the Health Reform Plan, a campaign based on misinformation and gullible people who don't read for themselves.

But she just outed herself as a racist Islamophobe in her new campaign ad.

I promise you, you won't believe this one.

Today, the racist Mrs. Ellmers issued her very first ad. It's not about Congressman Etheridge. It's not even about Renee Ellmers, who she is, or why she's running for Congress.

It's a racist appeal to the worst elements of the Republican Party. Take a look:




If you want another Tea Party embarrassment to get elected, then ignore this, and let Bob Etheridge fight by himself.

But if you want to fight this kind of crap, and show the world that North Carolina and America do not reward extremists of ANY sort, then help Bob.

If you want to reward a true Democrat who cast tough votes FOR our agenda, then reward Bob. Unlike some Democratic Congressmen in this state who opposed their President's agenda (ahem, McIntyre, ahem, Shuler) or promised to support it and then voted against it (looking at you Kissell), Bob Etheridge told you how he would vote and then he supported the health care reform plan when asked to do so. He's a good man in a bad fight.

Here is Bob's wonderful statement on his health care vote.


And now you know what is opposing him. Racism. Ugliness. Extremism. Ignorance.

I think it's the worst ad ever in North Carolina politics.

And that is saying something.

Really saying something:



.I just gave money to Bob Etheridge.

.You can too.

Cross posted at The Daily Kos.


*edited. She's not a doctor. Good.

Hell No

The Carolina Coast, 2009.

The Carolina Coast, 2029?

Hell no.

Interesting post showing the differences between American and non-American attitudes

I'm watching the UK elections with some interest so this article, linked via Andrew Sullivan (who's starting to annoy me but that's another post), was of interest too. Background: the person who would become Home Secretary (equivalent to Secretary of the Interior) was commenting on a B&B operator who wanted not to rent rooms to gay couples. I'm not so concerned here about the subject matter of the article as about this comment:

Grayling's excuses for allowing on-going discrimination against gay people are bizarre. Nobody is forced to open a B&B. They choose to do so – and that means they can't turn away people based on arbitrary prejudices.

In the USA, that example would be turned completely on its head. It would read: "Nobody is forced to stay in a particular B&B. They choose to do so - and that means they can't force the owners to accept people they would want to turn away based on arbitrary prejudices." Because in the USA private parties are allowed to discriminate if they want to and there's not really all that much one can do about it.(*)

Americans often find it curious how non-Americans don't see the world the same way they do. This felt like a good way to show one difference in how a legal principle can set your way for viewing society.

(*) Yes I know that hotels are addressed specifically by an interstate commerce judgment whose cite I can't remember right now. But since it's the Masters and Augusta discriminates against women with no sanction, maybe you'll take the bigger point.

Here comes the science...

From TFA:

The February issue of Personality and Social Psychology Review has published a meta-analysis of 55 independent studies conducted in the United States which considers surveys of over 20,000 mostly Christian participants. Religious congregations generally express more prejudiced views towards other races. Furthermore, the more devout the community, the greater the racism.

We also read this additional fascinating conclusion from the authors' summary:

"The authors failed to find that racial tolerance arises from humanitarian values, consistent with the idea that religious humanitarianism is largely expressed to in-group members. Only religious agnostics were racially tolerant."

Seriously. What the hell is wrong with you people?

Republican Terri Leo, a member of the powerful Christian conservative voting bloc, called the standards "world class" and "exceptional."

Yes, those are the words I would use. But as adjectives.

Oh, Canada

The effect of hockey on Canadian toiletry, graphically demonstrated.

The Jihad 7

Am I the only one who thinks that, if/when the Jihad 7 or whatever the hell they're called produce a report on detainee treatment, they might not advocate for turning them all free with 40 acres and a mule or whatever we do in this country these days to people whose lives we've ruined? And if so, does that mean they were too soft on them because of time spent representing them? Or maybe it's evidence that representing them didn't make them soft?

I get dizzy from all the excitement.

Why Liberals and Atheists are More Intelligent

Hey, I'm not the one saying it, I'm just the one proving it's true.

"The Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis, derived from the Savanna Principle and a theory of the evolution of general intelligence, suggests that more intelligent individuals may be more likely to acquire and espouse evolutionarily novel values and preferences (such as liberalism and atheism and, for men, sexual exclusivity) than less intelligent individuals, but that general intelligence may have no effect on the acquisition and espousal of evolutionarily familiar values (for children, marriage, family, and friends)."

Market-subsidized health insurance

Citing the examples of the mobile phone providers offering subsidized handsets in exchange for a multi-year service commitment and Google providing free broadband (to say nothing of tools like this) in exchange for ad sales, Mark Cuban asks whether there might be room for companies to provide health insurance to their customers and not just their employees. He goes on to suggest that perhaps for a commitment to buy all staple products from Walmart, Walmart could provide health insurance.

Interesting idea, but I'd revise a bit. What if, instead of a commitment to buy, you actually had to hook up your bank account so there would be an EFT of $X per month from you to Walmart and you'd get $X in Walmart store credit. That is, you'd get the full value of your transfer but it would only be usable at Walmart. Then Walmart would provide you with health insurance "for free" - it's free to you but not really because Walmart makes the profit from the goods you buy.

I don't know that I like this idea, but it's interesting to see someone finally think outside the box about ways the market could provide health insurance. Would the Reps actually consider recommending something like this though? Don't hold your breath: that would be suggesting a solution. That feels too much like work.

Oops...

"After years of speaking publicly about her belief that MMR shots (immunization for measles, mumps, and rubella) caused her son to suffer from autism, Jenny McCarthy now faces the reality that her 7-year-old son Evan — who no longer shows any signs of autism — may likely have lived with completely different illness."

Oops. Tough break about that whole "encouraging people not to protect their children against deadly diseases" thing.