things that go uh..what?

So Ron Paul has three challengers in his primary with some sort of farther right, Tea Party type endorsement. Yes... Ron Paul. The guy who is sort of like the lightning rod of grassroots fiscal restraint rebellions against government largess and waste (and antiquated ideas about the central banking system, which forms the core of my major concerns about him but the basis for a lot of his national level support). The apparent basis of these challenges are his opposition to things like the Iraq and Afghan wars and the lack of support for spending of federal relief dollars in the wake of Hurricane Rita (which effected his district I guess).

As I imagined, the Tea Party "movement" such as it is, will disintegrate, fracture, and lose its importance the moment it strays off of fiscal and budgetary matters like the stimulus or bank bailouts and the general ire and concern over the deficit, and into things like foreign policy and the usual concerns of local citizens for more federal importance for their own people in competition with those of those awful people in the next state.

Also amusing: people getting up in arms over someone pointing out the obvious similarities between Christianist extremism in American politics and policies and the jihadist extremism of groups like al Qaeda. Sorry. That's not obviously ridiculous or extremist to point that out. At least to me. That actually seemed like the most obvious development over the past 8 years in politics. A relatively famous movie documenting such things, Jesus Camp, which was favorably looked upon by the people involved, openly states that their object is to radicalize and mobilize the American youth in the precise manner and purpose that Islamic fundamentalists are perceived to be engaged in. If you don't want to watch people worshiping George Bush because of abortion, then fine, just observe the various policies of subjugation that we have influenced or compelled upon other foreign nations (such as the Ugandan death penalty clauses and penalties for homosexuals or the Iraqi Constitution's strict controls over abortion rights) in addition to actual policies that could be written into law as executive order that would have some difficulty passing Congressional and public scrutiny (the Mexico City resolution that was immediately overturned by Obama and Clinton). It does not make sense to state that all religious fundamentalists, both Islamic and Christian, seek to politicize their agendas, radicalize their children, and fundamentally alter the society around them to suit their own goals. Some people are quite reasonable and seek accommodations with others or simply wish to live, or try to, within a stricter interpretation of their messages of faith. But to say that the violence advocated against Islamic radicals by Christian radicals (largely, with some Judeo-Christian crossover) is not equated by the rhetoric of their opposites, or the absurd focus by both groups for cynical political advantages over the Palestinian and Israeli troubles is not some mirror-image effect, and that the strict, integral reading of their faith as a meaningful set of rules and laws that should apply to all peoples is not, for all intents and purposes, an identical proposition reached by both groups, is far more ridiculous a proposition than to state the opposite (that these things are likely true).