My enthusiasm for Barack Obama has definitely flagged. My fundamental problem is that he does not appear to be taking the budget deficit and national debt issues seriously enough.
Now, he is caught between a rock and a hard place. It’s quite likely that taking steps to get the deficit under control will lead to an increase in unemployment and might very well send the country back into a recession. That won’t help him at the polls in 2012.
But that’ no excuse not to be wrestling with the problem.
Back in January of 2010 I wrote a post bemoaning the Federal Deficit. At that time the budget deficits were expected to be 2009: $1.8 trillion, 2010: $1.2 trillion, 2011: $900 billion, 2012: $500 billion and 2013: $500 billion with the understanding that the further out you go the less accurate you get.
It is now about a year and a half later and the actuals for 2009 and 2010 were 2009: $1.4 trillion, 2010: $1.3 trillion so we actually did slightly better than projected. The problem are the new estimates for 2011 through 2013 which are now 2011: $1.6 trillion, 2012: $1.1 trillion and 2013: $770 billion.
How the hell did 2011 have, all by itself, almost as big a deficit as originally projected for 2011 through 2013? We’re now looking at a projected $3.5 trillion in deficits over the three year period instead of $1.9 trillion and who’s to say these estimates aren’t way off as well?
In 2000 the Federal Government spent $1.8 trillion and took in $2.0 trillion. That was a surplus of $200 billion. By 2008, spending had increased to $3.0 trillion while revenues, after dipping to $1.8 trillion in 2003, were at $2.5 trillion leaving a deficit of around $500 billion. That’s when things completely went to hell.
The Stimulus Package sent spending to $3.5 trillion in 2009 and 2010. A increase of $600 billion dollars which was more than the total of $590 billion spent in 1980. Even adjusted to 2011 dollars the 1980 federal government spent only about $1.6 trillion. In the meantime revenues actually dropped to $2.1 trillion.
What the hell is going on? Where is the money going?
If we compare 2000 to 2010 we have a net increase of $1.7 trillion, almost double. So what were the big hitters?
#1 – National Defense +$399 billion to a total of $693 billion
Clearly the toll of our Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
#2 – Income Security +$368 billion to a total of $622 billion
No, this isn’t Social Security. It’s Federal Pensions and Disability, Unemployment, Housing Assistance, Nutrition Assistances and something called “Other Income Security.” Unemployment took the biggest chunk of the increase to the tune of $137 billion followed by “Other” by $94 billion. What I’m guessing are the three main welfare categories, Housing Assistance, Nutrition Assistance and “Other” accounted for a increase of $187 billion up to $335 billion. However only about 50% of “Other” consists of welfare. The rest is money paid into by workers and earned so that reduces true welfare to $242 billion or about 7% of the federal budget.
#3 – Social Security +$297 billion to a total of $707 billion
#4 – Medicare +$254 billion to a total of $451 billion
#5 – Health +$214 billion to a total of $369 billion
These five categories account for $1.5 trillion of the $1.7 trillion increase and $2.8 trillion of the $3.5 trillion budget. This is where you have to make cuts. However you can’t touch Social Security in the short term so that leaves the other four and the dribs and drabs left over. The next biggest item is Interest at $196 billion and that’s a dependent variable.
I don’t think you can get it all with cuts. I don’t see any way to avoid a tax increase. If the Republicans tell you different, they are playing magic with mirrors.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Friday, June 03, 2011
Home Depot tells AFA to Stick It?
Apparently the American Family Association (AFA) has presented its petition to Home Depot with 500,000 names of people who have sworn to stop shopping at Home Depot until the company decides to “remain neutral in the culture wars.”
Home Depot’s reaction appears to have been to tell the AFA to take their petition and stick it and reiterated their commitment to diversity.
This upsets the AFA because gays “are in the clasp of Satan.”
The AFA is on The Southern Poverty Law Center's official list of “hate groups.” Do I really need to explain why?
Now excuse me because I really need to go buy a few things at Home Depot.
Home Depot’s reaction appears to have been to tell the AFA to take their petition and stick it and reiterated their commitment to diversity.
This upsets the AFA because gays “are in the clasp of Satan.”
The AFA is on The Southern Poverty Law Center's official list of “hate groups.” Do I really need to explain why?
Now excuse me because I really need to go buy a few things at Home Depot.
The “gainful employment” Rule
The “for profit” college industry has flourished over the past ten years. This is a good thing right? Well, maybe.
The business case for some of these schools is to sign up students that have absolutely no hope of actually graduating but are eligible for federal loans. The school gets paid and the student ends up with nothing but a debt which they can’t repay and they default. That’s YOUR tax dollars at work.
According to the National Center for Education “for profit” college students account for 12% of the college population but 25% of the Federal Loans and a whopping 43% of the defaults.
College expenses are divided into three categories, Instruction, Research and Public Service and Student, Academic and Institutional Services and Support. Public colleges spend, per student, approximately $9,400 a year on Instruction, $6,100 on Research and $6,600 on Services and Support for a total of $22,100 per year. Private, non-profit colleges spend approximately $15,300 a year on Instruction, $5,800 on Research and $14,100 on Services and Support for a total of $35,200 per year.
The colleges offset these costs by charging an average tuition of $6,400 for public colleges and $24,900 for private colleges. The rest has to be made up by state subsidies, grants and donations.
Now let’s consider “for profit” colleges. They spend $2,700 on Instruction, basically nothing on Research and Public Service and $9,000 on Services and Support for a total of $11,700 per year. They charge an average tuition of $15,300 per year. That’s a profit of $3,600 per year per student.
Now here’s the good part. Federal student loans pay for $9,700 of the “for profit” tuition as opposed to $6,000 in public colleges and $7,700 in private colleges.
What’s that you say? What about graduation rates? The graduation rate, for 4-year programs, from public colleges is 55%; at private non-profit schools it’s 65% and at “for profit” schools it’s a dismal 22%. To be fair however, “for-profit” 2-year programs have a higher graduation rate than public college 2-year programs.
What the “gainful employment” rule does is attempt to insure that students get reasonable value for the tax dollars being spent and there is a reasonable hope of getting loans repaid.
Career programs offered by “for-profit” schools will no longer be eligible for federal student aid if they do not hit certain benchmarks indicating they are not saddling students with unsustainable debt. The career programs would have to demonstrate that at least 35 percent of their former students are repaying their loans; that the annual loan payment of the average graduate is less than 30 percent of his or her discretionary income or that the graduate's annual loan payment is not more than 12 percent of his or her total salary.
If the programs fail to meet these benchmarks three years out of four, they would no longer be qualify for federal grants. Enforcement of the new rules would begin in 2015.
This strikes me as a pretty weak set of rules but at least it’s an attempt to protect both potential students and tax dollars. Needless to say, the two leading Republicans on the House Education Committee, John Kline of Minnesota and Virginia Foxx of North Carolina, Chairman of the Higher Education Subcommittee, are opposed to the regulations. Kline has vowed to undo any Department of Education attempt to withhold funds from “for profit” institutions.
I guess that fact that both Kline, to the tune of $100,000, and Foxx have received campaign donations from the “for profit” industry have nothing to do with those positions.
Here is the perfect example of regulations that could both save money and help people from getting ripped off and the Republicans are against it. So what else is new?
The business case for some of these schools is to sign up students that have absolutely no hope of actually graduating but are eligible for federal loans. The school gets paid and the student ends up with nothing but a debt which they can’t repay and they default. That’s YOUR tax dollars at work.
According to the National Center for Education “for profit” college students account for 12% of the college population but 25% of the Federal Loans and a whopping 43% of the defaults.
College expenses are divided into three categories, Instruction, Research and Public Service and Student, Academic and Institutional Services and Support. Public colleges spend, per student, approximately $9,400 a year on Instruction, $6,100 on Research and $6,600 on Services and Support for a total of $22,100 per year. Private, non-profit colleges spend approximately $15,300 a year on Instruction, $5,800 on Research and $14,100 on Services and Support for a total of $35,200 per year.
The colleges offset these costs by charging an average tuition of $6,400 for public colleges and $24,900 for private colleges. The rest has to be made up by state subsidies, grants and donations.
Now let’s consider “for profit” colleges. They spend $2,700 on Instruction, basically nothing on Research and Public Service and $9,000 on Services and Support for a total of $11,700 per year. They charge an average tuition of $15,300 per year. That’s a profit of $3,600 per year per student.
Now here’s the good part. Federal student loans pay for $9,700 of the “for profit” tuition as opposed to $6,000 in public colleges and $7,700 in private colleges.
What’s that you say? What about graduation rates? The graduation rate, for 4-year programs, from public colleges is 55%; at private non-profit schools it’s 65% and at “for profit” schools it’s a dismal 22%. To be fair however, “for-profit” 2-year programs have a higher graduation rate than public college 2-year programs.
What the “gainful employment” rule does is attempt to insure that students get reasonable value for the tax dollars being spent and there is a reasonable hope of getting loans repaid.
Career programs offered by “for-profit” schools will no longer be eligible for federal student aid if they do not hit certain benchmarks indicating they are not saddling students with unsustainable debt. The career programs would have to demonstrate that at least 35 percent of their former students are repaying their loans; that the annual loan payment of the average graduate is less than 30 percent of his or her discretionary income or that the graduate's annual loan payment is not more than 12 percent of his or her total salary.
If the programs fail to meet these benchmarks three years out of four, they would no longer be qualify for federal grants. Enforcement of the new rules would begin in 2015.
This strikes me as a pretty weak set of rules but at least it’s an attempt to protect both potential students and tax dollars. Needless to say, the two leading Republicans on the House Education Committee, John Kline of Minnesota and Virginia Foxx of North Carolina, Chairman of the Higher Education Subcommittee, are opposed to the regulations. Kline has vowed to undo any Department of Education attempt to withhold funds from “for profit” institutions.
I guess that fact that both Kline, to the tune of $100,000, and Foxx have received campaign donations from the “for profit” industry have nothing to do with those positions.
Here is the perfect example of regulations that could both save money and help people from getting ripped off and the Republicans are against it. So what else is new?
Thursday, June 02, 2011
A Palestinian State?
There is an international and domestic political train wreck that could happen in September of this year.
Here’s the situation. The Palestinians are working toward the recognition of a Palestinian State by the United Nations and expect things to mature sometime in September. What the Right Wing has missed, or chosen to ignore, about Obama’s recent speech was his statement opposing such a course of action.
Despite all of the hullabaloo, stating that the 1967 borders was the starting point of negotiations is not a change in U.S. policy. Stating that the U.S. opposes the U.N. initiative was the important point and the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, blew it by ignoring this critical point and harping on the 1967 borders thing. I suspect he did that as a play to his Right Wing supporters here in the U.S.
The Palestinians need 128 votes in the General Assembly to approve a Palestinian state by voting it admission to the U.N. They currently have 112 votes but hope to increase that number to 130 or 140 by September.
Of course, first they have to get the resolution to the General Assembly. In order to do that, the 15 member Security Council must first vote for statehood and the U.S. has veto power in the Security Council. All the Palestinian votes in the General Assembly are useless as long as the U.S. vetoes the resolution.
So, what’s the point?
The Palestinians are hoping they can pressure Obama by staging protests for independence and reform similar to those in Tunisia and Egypt. The Palestinians ask, “what would be the argument of President Barack Obama in trying really to disregard this wish?”
Duh, the argument would be domestic U.S. politics. There is no way a sitting U.S. President would not order the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. to veto this resolution unless a previous agreement with Israel had been reached. According to Gallup, a whopping 63% of Americans say their sympathies are with Israel in the Mideast spat against only 17% that sympathize with the Palestinians. The remaining 20% claim to be neutral.
The Palestinians U.N. diplomat, Riyad Mansour, said if the negotiations didn’t work, the Palestinians had “other tactics” available. He didn’t expand on what these “other tactics” might be but did make the point that neither Israel in 1948 nor the U.S. in 1776 “negotiated” their independence.
Personally I think such threats are hollow. The Palestinians can’t win independence through violence. That would only lose them supporters. They need to figure out a way to get U.S. support. The problem of course is the U.S. will not publically meet with the Palestinians without Israeli participation.
The Palestinians have made no headway in U.S. public opinion. As a matter of fact the current 63% is pretty to a record support level. They’ve actually lost ground. In the 1990s a lot of Americans claimed to be neutral.
Personally, my sympathies are evenly divided. I feel sorry for the Palestinians but I can’t bring myself to support people that strap bombs onto teenage girls in order to kill other teenage girls in grocery stores. If you want to fight, then wage war on the Israeli army and not on children.
On the other hand, the Israelis deserve to live in peace but that doesn’t excuse some of their current tactics either. It seems to me that the Palestinians are doing a lot of dying over there because the Israelis tend to be a tad heavy handed.
So at the moment I find both sides both sympathetic and reprehensible. Therefore I stand neutral.
Here’s the situation. The Palestinians are working toward the recognition of a Palestinian State by the United Nations and expect things to mature sometime in September. What the Right Wing has missed, or chosen to ignore, about Obama’s recent speech was his statement opposing such a course of action.
Despite all of the hullabaloo, stating that the 1967 borders was the starting point of negotiations is not a change in U.S. policy. Stating that the U.S. opposes the U.N. initiative was the important point and the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, blew it by ignoring this critical point and harping on the 1967 borders thing. I suspect he did that as a play to his Right Wing supporters here in the U.S.
The Palestinians need 128 votes in the General Assembly to approve a Palestinian state by voting it admission to the U.N. They currently have 112 votes but hope to increase that number to 130 or 140 by September.
Of course, first they have to get the resolution to the General Assembly. In order to do that, the 15 member Security Council must first vote for statehood and the U.S. has veto power in the Security Council. All the Palestinian votes in the General Assembly are useless as long as the U.S. vetoes the resolution.
So, what’s the point?
The Palestinians are hoping they can pressure Obama by staging protests for independence and reform similar to those in Tunisia and Egypt. The Palestinians ask, “what would be the argument of President Barack Obama in trying really to disregard this wish?”
Duh, the argument would be domestic U.S. politics. There is no way a sitting U.S. President would not order the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. to veto this resolution unless a previous agreement with Israel had been reached. According to Gallup, a whopping 63% of Americans say their sympathies are with Israel in the Mideast spat against only 17% that sympathize with the Palestinians. The remaining 20% claim to be neutral.
The Palestinians U.N. diplomat, Riyad Mansour, said if the negotiations didn’t work, the Palestinians had “other tactics” available. He didn’t expand on what these “other tactics” might be but did make the point that neither Israel in 1948 nor the U.S. in 1776 “negotiated” their independence.
Personally I think such threats are hollow. The Palestinians can’t win independence through violence. That would only lose them supporters. They need to figure out a way to get U.S. support. The problem of course is the U.S. will not publically meet with the Palestinians without Israeli participation.
The Palestinians have made no headway in U.S. public opinion. As a matter of fact the current 63% is pretty to a record support level. They’ve actually lost ground. In the 1990s a lot of Americans claimed to be neutral.
Personally, my sympathies are evenly divided. I feel sorry for the Palestinians but I can’t bring myself to support people that strap bombs onto teenage girls in order to kill other teenage girls in grocery stores. If you want to fight, then wage war on the Israeli army and not on children.
On the other hand, the Israelis deserve to live in peace but that doesn’t excuse some of their current tactics either. It seems to me that the Palestinians are doing a lot of dying over there because the Israelis tend to be a tad heavy handed.
So at the moment I find both sides both sympathetic and reprehensible. Therefore I stand neutral.
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
Reclining Seat Leads to Air Force Scramble
Huh? Now that just sounds utterly ridiculous doesn’t it? Here how it apparently went down.
1. Shortly after take-off from Dulles International in Washington, Passenger in crowded Boeing 767 on its way to Ghana fully reclines coach seat smashing knees of passenger sitting one row back.
2. Passenger one row back takes exception to knees being smashed.
3. Heated words are exchanged over reclined seat and smashed knees
4. Passenger with smashed knees smacks reclining passenger in head.
5. Scuffle ensues.
6. Flight attendant and another passenger attempt to intervene
7. Pilot, uncertain what the ruckus is all about, decides better to be safe than sorry and heads back to Dulles.
8. Pilot can’t land with full fuel tanks and needs to fly around for about an hour.
9. The Air Force gets wind of the confusion and scrambles two F-16 fighters from Andrews Air Force Base.
10. The two F-16 fighters take position 1,000 feet above airliner “just in case.”
11. Airliner finishes burning off fuel and lands.
12. Fighters return to Andrews AFB.
13. Dulles police take arguing passengers into custody.
14. Passengers get to stay at flea bitten airport hotel until the next morning
15. Arguing passengers are released by Dulles police.
16. Flight heads for Ghana 12 hours or so late.
17. Disposition of arguing passengers is unknown.
Now if would be interesting if the airline and the U.S. government presented these two morons a bill for the airliner fuel, the lost time and the F-16 fuel and wear and tear. I suspect it would be a healthy sum.
Simple courtesy says, given the lack of leg room on airliners, you don’t recline your seat unless the one behind you is empty. On long fights this is a bit annoying but those are the breaks. If it’s so important to you to be able to recline, buy both seats.
Can you imagine what it was like for those two yo-yos on the trip back to Washington and during the time circling to burn off the fuel? You could get lynched for making people spend extra time on an airline flight like that. I hear Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin are blaming Obama for the whole incident. After all, Obama is black and there are black people in Ghana so obviously it’s his fault.
1. Shortly after take-off from Dulles International in Washington, Passenger in crowded Boeing 767 on its way to Ghana fully reclines coach seat smashing knees of passenger sitting one row back.
2. Passenger one row back takes exception to knees being smashed.
3. Heated words are exchanged over reclined seat and smashed knees
4. Passenger with smashed knees smacks reclining passenger in head.
5. Scuffle ensues.
6. Flight attendant and another passenger attempt to intervene
7. Pilot, uncertain what the ruckus is all about, decides better to be safe than sorry and heads back to Dulles.
8. Pilot can’t land with full fuel tanks and needs to fly around for about an hour.
9. The Air Force gets wind of the confusion and scrambles two F-16 fighters from Andrews Air Force Base.
10. The two F-16 fighters take position 1,000 feet above airliner “just in case.”
11. Airliner finishes burning off fuel and lands.
12. Fighters return to Andrews AFB.
13. Dulles police take arguing passengers into custody.
14. Passengers get to stay at flea bitten airport hotel until the next morning
15. Arguing passengers are released by Dulles police.
16. Flight heads for Ghana 12 hours or so late.
17. Disposition of arguing passengers is unknown.
Now if would be interesting if the airline and the U.S. government presented these two morons a bill for the airliner fuel, the lost time and the F-16 fuel and wear and tear. I suspect it would be a healthy sum.
Simple courtesy says, given the lack of leg room on airliners, you don’t recline your seat unless the one behind you is empty. On long fights this is a bit annoying but those are the breaks. If it’s so important to you to be able to recline, buy both seats.
Can you imagine what it was like for those two yo-yos on the trip back to Washington and during the time circling to burn off the fuel? You could get lynched for making people spend extra time on an airline flight like that. I hear Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin are blaming Obama for the whole incident. After all, Obama is black and there are black people in Ghana so obviously it’s his fault.
The KKK as the Good Guys?
What does it take to make the KKK the Good Guys? Answer, the Westboro Baptist Church.
Apparently the KKK doesn’t take to the WBC’s antic of demonstrating at soldier’s funerals and showed up over the weekend to protest the protesters.
The WBC says it doesn’t care because the KKK has “no biblical support.” As if that meant anything to anyone with at least half a brain.
I have an idea. Since football this season is looking a bit iffy, let’s schedule one on one gladiatorial combats, to the death of course, between the KKK and the WBC as a substitute for the NFL games.
I can see the advertisements now. Two bigoted assholes enter, but only one leaves. Who could argue with that? We’ll blindfold the combatants, to add to the suspense, arm them with battleaxes and kick them out onto the field. We’ll legalize gambling for the events and Las Vegas can set the odds. It can’t miss.
I suppose that would violate some law or other. Too bad.
Apparently the KKK doesn’t take to the WBC’s antic of demonstrating at soldier’s funerals and showed up over the weekend to protest the protesters.
The WBC says it doesn’t care because the KKK has “no biblical support.” As if that meant anything to anyone with at least half a brain.
I have an idea. Since football this season is looking a bit iffy, let’s schedule one on one gladiatorial combats, to the death of course, between the KKK and the WBC as a substitute for the NFL games.
I can see the advertisements now. Two bigoted assholes enter, but only one leaves. Who could argue with that? We’ll blindfold the combatants, to add to the suspense, arm them with battleaxes and kick them out onto the field. We’ll legalize gambling for the events and Las Vegas can set the odds. It can’t miss.
I suppose that would violate some law or other. Too bad.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Don’t Say Gay?
Leave it to the Republicans to dream this one up. In Tennessee they are working a bill through the legislature that would prevent teachers and counselors from talking about homosexuality in grades 1-8.
I understand the natural sensitivity associated with sex education, especially in the area of sexual orientation, but I would think that educational professionals would be better judges about what should be said, and when, rather than politicians.
The head scratching stops when you hear the sponsors rationale. Allow me to quote Senator Stacy Campfield, “This legislation isn't anti-gay. It's about preventing teachers and counselors from pushing a gay agenda on students.”
Three things I’ve learned about conservatives are (1) they’re naïve; (2) they’re irrational and (3) they’re paranoid. In this statement, we have a perfect example of “paranoid.”
Every conservative seems to be convinced that as soon as they let their kids out of their sight, some nefarious individual starts working on them to shatter their respect for family, God and country. Teachers and, especially college professors, seem to be the primary culprits in the fuzzy mind of the conservative along with the “liberal media.” I’ve always suspected that this “fear” is at the root of home schooling.
I find it interesting that it never dawns on them that the more educated portions of society tend to disagree with their opinions.
This bill isn’t going to prevent school kids from “learning” about homosexuality. It’s simply going to push the “learning” into the schoolyard where the odds are the information will be warped and inaccurate. Perhaps even more warped and inaccurate that what they hear at home and in church.
I find it hard to believe there are many teachers in Tennessee “pushing” a gay agenda and it seems to me more than a bit short sighted to handcuff school counselors on the subject should it come up for whatever reason. I think this could especially be an issue at the middle school age.
This is another one of those things that tip toes on the border between fact and opinion. There are certain “facts” that are undeniable. Fact #1 = Homosexuality exists. Fact #2 = No one is certain why homosexuality exists. Fact #3 = The Bible says homosexuality is wrong. Fact #4 = Researchers believe that homosexuality is most likely not a choice.
Then there are opinions. Opinion #1 = Homosexuality is a natural human variant (based upon Facts #1 and #4). Opinion #2 = Homosexuality is a choice (based upon Facts #2 and #3). Opinion #3 = Even if homosexuality is not a choice, one should refrain from homosexual activities (based upon Fact #3). Opinion #4 = Homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals including the right to marry (based upon Fact #4 and the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution). Opinion #5 = Preachers should have the right to condemn homosexuality without being labeled bigots (based upon Fact #3 and the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution).
Now teachers and counselors should certainly be allowed to discuss “facts.” They should shy away from discussing “opinions.” Opinions related to matters of faith and morality belong in the home which is why the overwhelming majority of teachers are smart enough to stay away from them.
The Tennessee “don’t say gay” bill is idiotic. It will accomplish nothing good and may cause some harm.
I understand the natural sensitivity associated with sex education, especially in the area of sexual orientation, but I would think that educational professionals would be better judges about what should be said, and when, rather than politicians.
The head scratching stops when you hear the sponsors rationale. Allow me to quote Senator Stacy Campfield, “This legislation isn't anti-gay. It's about preventing teachers and counselors from pushing a gay agenda on students.”
Three things I’ve learned about conservatives are (1) they’re naïve; (2) they’re irrational and (3) they’re paranoid. In this statement, we have a perfect example of “paranoid.”
Every conservative seems to be convinced that as soon as they let their kids out of their sight, some nefarious individual starts working on them to shatter their respect for family, God and country. Teachers and, especially college professors, seem to be the primary culprits in the fuzzy mind of the conservative along with the “liberal media.” I’ve always suspected that this “fear” is at the root of home schooling.
I find it interesting that it never dawns on them that the more educated portions of society tend to disagree with their opinions.
This bill isn’t going to prevent school kids from “learning” about homosexuality. It’s simply going to push the “learning” into the schoolyard where the odds are the information will be warped and inaccurate. Perhaps even more warped and inaccurate that what they hear at home and in church.
I find it hard to believe there are many teachers in Tennessee “pushing” a gay agenda and it seems to me more than a bit short sighted to handcuff school counselors on the subject should it come up for whatever reason. I think this could especially be an issue at the middle school age.
This is another one of those things that tip toes on the border between fact and opinion. There are certain “facts” that are undeniable. Fact #1 = Homosexuality exists. Fact #2 = No one is certain why homosexuality exists. Fact #3 = The Bible says homosexuality is wrong. Fact #4 = Researchers believe that homosexuality is most likely not a choice.
Then there are opinions. Opinion #1 = Homosexuality is a natural human variant (based upon Facts #1 and #4). Opinion #2 = Homosexuality is a choice (based upon Facts #2 and #3). Opinion #3 = Even if homosexuality is not a choice, one should refrain from homosexual activities (based upon Fact #3). Opinion #4 = Homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals including the right to marry (based upon Fact #4 and the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution). Opinion #5 = Preachers should have the right to condemn homosexuality without being labeled bigots (based upon Fact #3 and the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution).
Now teachers and counselors should certainly be allowed to discuss “facts.” They should shy away from discussing “opinions.” Opinions related to matters of faith and morality belong in the home which is why the overwhelming majority of teachers are smart enough to stay away from them.
The Tennessee “don’t say gay” bill is idiotic. It will accomplish nothing good and may cause some harm.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Tea Party Thugs
Calling these guys “thugs” is actually a compliment. They’d have to climb about three stories to get to the ethical level of a thug. I’m talking about the bozos that have threatened Amy Myers, the 16 year old that challenged Michelle Bachmann to a debate on the Constitution and American History, with physical harm and even rape on Tea Party web sites and blogs.
Her father is, understandably, in a bit of a panic. But I agree with the Cherry Hill Police Chief that internet threats of this type are invariable hollow because the people that make them aren’t thugs as much as cowards.
This is just another example of how the Right Wing has taken political discourse out of the intellectual arena and into something that resembles the conversation at a make shift trailer park bar.
They focus on personalities rather than policies because, invariably, the evidence is against them in every case. All they can do is appeal to the baser instincts of their under 80 IQ base in order to keep them in line.
As a result you get people like the two wacko callers into Bryan Fischer’s show the other day reported by Right Wing Watch. The first railed against the "Benedict Arnolds" who are preventing the majestic eagle that is America from flying because "communistic cancers" like the NAACP and ACLU are undermining it at every turn.
The second was terrified that Muslims were going to be exempt from the health care reform legislation but allowed to serve on the "death panels" that would determine what care Christians would receive.
Thank you Sarah Palin for bringing the moronic term “death panels” into American vocabulary.
People like this are scary but, given the range of human intellect and emotional stability, it’s not terribly surprising that they exist and we learn to live with it.
But, when the Republican Party, one of two major political parties, begins to exhibit the same sort of irrationality, not simply because they’re pandering to the lunatic fringe which would be bad enough, but because lunatics are actually beginning to obtain positions of influence within the party, it’s time to really get concerned.
I worry that the corporate fat cats that have always controlled the Republican Party are beginning to lose their grip to the wing nuts.
Her father is, understandably, in a bit of a panic. But I agree with the Cherry Hill Police Chief that internet threats of this type are invariable hollow because the people that make them aren’t thugs as much as cowards.
This is just another example of how the Right Wing has taken political discourse out of the intellectual arena and into something that resembles the conversation at a make shift trailer park bar.
They focus on personalities rather than policies because, invariably, the evidence is against them in every case. All they can do is appeal to the baser instincts of their under 80 IQ base in order to keep them in line.
As a result you get people like the two wacko callers into Bryan Fischer’s show the other day reported by Right Wing Watch. The first railed against the "Benedict Arnolds" who are preventing the majestic eagle that is America from flying because "communistic cancers" like the NAACP and ACLU are undermining it at every turn.
The second was terrified that Muslims were going to be exempt from the health care reform legislation but allowed to serve on the "death panels" that would determine what care Christians would receive.
Thank you Sarah Palin for bringing the moronic term “death panels” into American vocabulary.
People like this are scary but, given the range of human intellect and emotional stability, it’s not terribly surprising that they exist and we learn to live with it.
But, when the Republican Party, one of two major political parties, begins to exhibit the same sort of irrationality, not simply because they’re pandering to the lunatic fringe which would be bad enough, but because lunatics are actually beginning to obtain positions of influence within the party, it’s time to really get concerned.
I worry that the corporate fat cats that have always controlled the Republican Party are beginning to lose their grip to the wing nuts.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
More Wonderful Christianity
While Camping is declaring his next doomsday, the trial of a woman in Ft. Wayne Indiana accused of trying to rid her three year old son of “demons,” by forcing a mixture of oil and vinegar down his throat, is about to begin. This nut job forced the concoction into the child’s mouth three times and, on the third time, held his mouth shut until he stopped breathing.
Ok, let’s face it, she’s nuts. Lock her up in a mental hospital and throw away the damn key. My only problem here is the minister that scared her with nonsense about demons and demonic possession isn’t on trial with her.
Ok, let’s face it, she’s nuts. Lock her up in a mental hospital and throw away the damn key. My only problem here is the minister that scared her with nonsense about demons and demonic possession isn’t on trial with her.
Oh No, Not Again
Harold Camping has declared that he “misunderstood” that May 21st was simply a “spiritual judgment” and the world is still scheduled to end on October 21st.
Well, if the NFL owners and players don’t work something out, a lot of us won’t care. If they do work something out, given the season I expect the Giants to have, I’ll be looking to be put out of my misery anyway.
Camping is an idiot and Christianity is idiotic. I suppose this gives him a potential five more months in the spotlight. Personally Harold, I don’t give a damn.
Well, if the NFL owners and players don’t work something out, a lot of us won’t care. If they do work something out, given the season I expect the Giants to have, I’ll be looking to be put out of my misery anyway.
Camping is an idiot and Christianity is idiotic. I suppose this gives him a potential five more months in the spotlight. Personally Harold, I don’t give a damn.
Monday, May 23, 2011
May 23rd and We’re Still Here
I ignored Harold Camping’s prediction of the Rapture arriving on May 21st because I considered it totally ridiculous. Now that we’ve arrived at May 23rd, I am a tad curious about the reaction of the faithful.
I thought one quote was a bit revealing. Camping’s PR aide says the group is “disappointed” that they weren’t whisked off to heaven while the rest of us died horrible and painful deaths. No, he didn’t say that literally, but that’s what it comes down to if you think about it.
One follower, who spent $140,000 advertising Camping’s prediction, said he couldn’t understand why nothing happened. Let me help you out there. All Religion is nonsense; Christianity is especially nonsense and Camping doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Given that, why SHOULD something have happened.
Will they learn from this? Probably not, at least one person expressed the opinion that the judgment HAS occurred and the world will still end on October 21st. Others are already saying that their prayers led to God giving the world more time in order that more will be saved.
The human race is really very good at self deception. You’ll excuse me if I don’t mark down the October 21st date on my calendar.
I thought one quote was a bit revealing. Camping’s PR aide says the group is “disappointed” that they weren’t whisked off to heaven while the rest of us died horrible and painful deaths. No, he didn’t say that literally, but that’s what it comes down to if you think about it.
One follower, who spent $140,000 advertising Camping’s prediction, said he couldn’t understand why nothing happened. Let me help you out there. All Religion is nonsense; Christianity is especially nonsense and Camping doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Given that, why SHOULD something have happened.
Will they learn from this? Probably not, at least one person expressed the opinion that the judgment HAS occurred and the world will still end on October 21st. Others are already saying that their prayers led to God giving the world more time in order that more will be saved.
The human race is really very good at self deception. You’ll excuse me if I don’t mark down the October 21st date on my calendar.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Teen Challenges Bachmann
A 10th Grader, Amy Myers by name, from Cherry Hill, New Jersey, has challenged Representative Michelle Bachmann to a debate on the Constitution, US History and US Civics.
Why? Well as Myers says in her letter “As a typical high school student, I have found quite a few of your statements regarding The Constitution of the United States, the quality of public school education and general U.S. civics matters to be factually incorrect, inaccurately applied or grossly distorted.”
All I can say is, YOU GO GIRL!
It’s about time someone called out MS. Moron.
According to the Yahoo the two things which, so to speak, broke the Myers back, was a statement by Bachmann to a Conservative group in NEW HAMPSHIRE that it was good to be in the state where the battles of Lexington and Concord were fought and a quote saying that America's founding fathers "worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States."
Pretty good trick “working tirelessly” years after your demise. Yo, Bachy, ever hear of the damn Civil War?
The fact that someone with the minimal intellectual capacity and knowledge of a Michelle Bachmann can be in the House of Representatives in bad enough, but to have this idiot as a potential presidential candidate for one of the two major political parties is a complete disgrace.
It must be a really sad group of yokels that populate her district in Minnesota.
Why? Well as Myers says in her letter “As a typical high school student, I have found quite a few of your statements regarding The Constitution of the United States, the quality of public school education and general U.S. civics matters to be factually incorrect, inaccurately applied or grossly distorted.”
All I can say is, YOU GO GIRL!
It’s about time someone called out MS. Moron.
According to the Yahoo the two things which, so to speak, broke the Myers back, was a statement by Bachmann to a Conservative group in NEW HAMPSHIRE that it was good to be in the state where the battles of Lexington and Concord were fought and a quote saying that America's founding fathers "worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States."
Pretty good trick “working tirelessly” years after your demise. Yo, Bachy, ever hear of the damn Civil War?
The fact that someone with the minimal intellectual capacity and knowledge of a Michelle Bachmann can be in the House of Representatives in bad enough, but to have this idiot as a potential presidential candidate for one of the two major political parties is a complete disgrace.
It must be a really sad group of yokels that populate her district in Minnesota.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Quotes from Stephen Hawking
If Hawking isn’t the most intelligent person on the planet, he’s pretty darn close. Despite a body racked with a degenerative disease, Hawking has managed to claim the position of the most acclaimed physicist in the world.
In a recent interview with the Guardian Newspaper, when asked if he feared death, Hawking replied:
“I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I'm not afraid of death, but I'm in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first. I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.”
In 2010, speaking about the concept of God, he told Diane Sawyer:
"They made a human-like being with whom one can have a personal relationship. When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible."
In the same interview, when asked if science and religion can be reconciled he said:
"There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works."
Of course these are simply opinions, but I’ve always found it prudent to consider the opinions of possibly the most intelligent man on the planet.
In a recent interview with the Guardian Newspaper, when asked if he feared death, Hawking replied:
“I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I'm not afraid of death, but I'm in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first. I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.”
In 2010, speaking about the concept of God, he told Diane Sawyer:
"They made a human-like being with whom one can have a personal relationship. When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible."
In the same interview, when asked if science and religion can be reconciled he said:
"There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works."
Of course these are simply opinions, but I’ve always found it prudent to consider the opinions of possibly the most intelligent man on the planet.
Monday, May 09, 2011
The Revenge of Al-Qaeda
Unless something occurs to distract the so-called news agencies, be prepared to hear a lot of harrowing stories about the Taliban or Al-Qaeda “unleashing” violent attacks in response to the death of Osama bin Laden.
Is it possible they will attempt something major? Sure it’s possible, but that would take months and maybe years to plan and set up. They’re certainly not going to try NOW when everyone is on heightened alert.
I suspect that late summer or fall would be more likely. Maybe even next year and a lot can happen in that time. I’m sure the Pentagon isn’t about to let up on the gas.
Of course that’s not going to matter to our so-called news agencies. You can be sure that everything from a sniper in Kandahar to a street kid throwing rocks in Baghdad will be tagged as “escalating violence in reaction to bin Laden’s death.”
So, if we get hit with another terrorist attack, what then?
I don’t see that we have any choice but to keep soldiering on. With an irregular organization like Al-Qaeda the best strategy is to try and cut off its funding and it’s leaders. I suspect that bin Laden was more a symbolic leader than a day to day commander. Those are the guys we need to get.
Am I concerned? Sure, we’re in a war where the front lines can change in a matter of minutes and be almost anywhere. The sooner the rest of that unwashed crew join their ex-commander as shark bait, the better.
Is it possible they will attempt something major? Sure it’s possible, but that would take months and maybe years to plan and set up. They’re certainly not going to try NOW when everyone is on heightened alert.
I suspect that late summer or fall would be more likely. Maybe even next year and a lot can happen in that time. I’m sure the Pentagon isn’t about to let up on the gas.
Of course that’s not going to matter to our so-called news agencies. You can be sure that everything from a sniper in Kandahar to a street kid throwing rocks in Baghdad will be tagged as “escalating violence in reaction to bin Laden’s death.”
So, if we get hit with another terrorist attack, what then?
I don’t see that we have any choice but to keep soldiering on. With an irregular organization like Al-Qaeda the best strategy is to try and cut off its funding and it’s leaders. I suspect that bin Laden was more a symbolic leader than a day to day commander. Those are the guys we need to get.
Am I concerned? Sure, we’re in a war where the front lines can change in a matter of minutes and be almost anywhere. The sooner the rest of that unwashed crew join their ex-commander as shark bait, the better.
Thursday, May 05, 2011
The Right Wing is Irrational
They really are amazing. Right Wingers continue to demonstrate that they have formed an opinion and anything, absolutely anything, must be twisted to confirm to that opinion.
It’s really mind boggling.
On Monday Obama is a bum because he’s a Socialist and won’t let Business return prosperity to the American Economy. The Right yells if he would just lower taxes for corporations and the filthy rich our economy would start to boom.
On Tuesday, when the news comes out about how much profits for the top companies have increased while American workers are mired in a stagnant job market, according to the same folks he’s a bum because he’s in cahoots with big business and letting them rape the American economy.
In the meantime, to the Religious Right he’s a bum because he didn’t announce to the nation when Easter was. Excuse me, but those of us with more than an 80 IQ already knew when it was. Then there’s always Rush Limbaugh who wants Obama to apologize for not nailing bin Laden sooner. What?
Better yet, there’s the drone from the Right praising Bush for the killing of bin Laden. A claim which even Bush thinks is ridiculous. Anything not to give the black dude any credit.
I’m sorry, but I can no longer believe, based upon the pure venom in the howls of indignation, that this can be anything but racially based. I thought when Obama was elected that a melding of American divisions might be possible. It now seems that this was a very naïve hope.
Clearly there is a segment of American Society that is never going to accept a black man that owns a mule, or lives in a big house, or marries a white woman, or who gets elected to the office of president.
Let’s face it, these people are completely screwed up and there’s not much anyone can do about it. The only hope we have is educating the next generation.
It’s really mind boggling.
On Monday Obama is a bum because he’s a Socialist and won’t let Business return prosperity to the American Economy. The Right yells if he would just lower taxes for corporations and the filthy rich our economy would start to boom.
On Tuesday, when the news comes out about how much profits for the top companies have increased while American workers are mired in a stagnant job market, according to the same folks he’s a bum because he’s in cahoots with big business and letting them rape the American economy.
In the meantime, to the Religious Right he’s a bum because he didn’t announce to the nation when Easter was. Excuse me, but those of us with more than an 80 IQ already knew when it was. Then there’s always Rush Limbaugh who wants Obama to apologize for not nailing bin Laden sooner. What?
Better yet, there’s the drone from the Right praising Bush for the killing of bin Laden. A claim which even Bush thinks is ridiculous. Anything not to give the black dude any credit.
I’m sorry, but I can no longer believe, based upon the pure venom in the howls of indignation, that this can be anything but racially based. I thought when Obama was elected that a melding of American divisions might be possible. It now seems that this was a very naïve hope.
Clearly there is a segment of American Society that is never going to accept a black man that owns a mule, or lives in a big house, or marries a white woman, or who gets elected to the office of president.
Let’s face it, these people are completely screwed up and there’s not much anyone can do about it. The only hope we have is educating the next generation.
Osama Bin Laden Photos
I’m glad the government decided not to release the photos.
It wouldn’t help with the “Osama’s not dead” crowd anyway and would be in poor taste. My attitude would be “if you don’t want to believe me, then don’t believe me.”
What do I think? I think he’s dead for a number of reasons. First, there’s just no rational reason for the administration to make the story up and, second, there are too many people who could blow the lid off of a falsehood.
To those fools who say it would eliminate any doubt, I refer you to the “birthers” and the release of Obama’s birth certificate.
It wouldn’t help with the “Osama’s not dead” crowd anyway and would be in poor taste. My attitude would be “if you don’t want to believe me, then don’t believe me.”
What do I think? I think he’s dead for a number of reasons. First, there’s just no rational reason for the administration to make the story up and, second, there are too many people who could blow the lid off of a falsehood.
To those fools who say it would eliminate any doubt, I refer you to the “birthers” and the release of Obama’s birth certificate.
Monday, May 02, 2011
Osama bin Laden is Dead
Or at least that’s the report out of Washington. It took almost 10 years, thousands of lives and who knows how much money but we finally nailed the son of a bitch.
U.S. Navy Seals attacked a million dollar mansion compound in Pakistan early this morning and in a 40 minute firefight killed bin Laden, one of his sons and several other people.
The Seals withdrew with bin Laden’s body which was subsequently buried at sea.
With no body to display, I’m surprised the claims haven’t already started that either it wasn’t bin Laden or that he actually escaped the attack. Should be interesting to see what develops over the next few days but I’m sure the U.S. has compiled adequate evidence. We’re talking about the Navy here not Congress.
So now that the greatest manhunt in history is over, where do we go from here? I guess only time will tell but I don’t really expect things to get much better any time soon. There’s a lot of fighting left to do, both here and abroad, before we finally lay the real dog, fundamentalist religion, to rest. But that day will come. The only questions are how long will it take, and what will be the cost?
U.S. Navy Seals attacked a million dollar mansion compound in Pakistan early this morning and in a 40 minute firefight killed bin Laden, one of his sons and several other people.
The Seals withdrew with bin Laden’s body which was subsequently buried at sea.
With no body to display, I’m surprised the claims haven’t already started that either it wasn’t bin Laden or that he actually escaped the attack. Should be interesting to see what develops over the next few days but I’m sure the U.S. has compiled adequate evidence. We’re talking about the Navy here not Congress.
So now that the greatest manhunt in history is over, where do we go from here? I guess only time will tell but I don’t really expect things to get much better any time soon. There’s a lot of fighting left to do, both here and abroad, before we finally lay the real dog, fundamentalist religion, to rest. But that day will come. The only questions are how long will it take, and what will be the cost?
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
A Red Letter Day
Mark this day down, April 27, 2011, because it’s the day that Barack Obama release his long form birth certificate and made lots of people look foolish.
Donald Trump immediately “took credit” for making it happen thereby making himself look even more foolish.
Will this shut up the birthers? I doubt it. Evidence has never influenced True Believers before whether they be birthers, or 9/11 conspiracy types, or creationists, or homeopath users, or moon landing hoax wackos, or dowsers, or Fundamentalist Christians.
I’m sure they will rationalize the new evidence away and simply expand the conspiracy. Anything other than admitting they were wrong all along.
Donald Trump immediately “took credit” for making it happen thereby making himself look even more foolish.
Will this shut up the birthers? I doubt it. Evidence has never influenced True Believers before whether they be birthers, or 9/11 conspiracy types, or creationists, or homeopath users, or moon landing hoax wackos, or dowsers, or Fundamentalist Christians.
I’m sure they will rationalize the new evidence away and simply expand the conspiracy. Anything other than admitting they were wrong all along.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Prop 8 Judge was Gay
Yes, we know that. It isn’t a surprise that Vaughn Walker, the California judge that overturned Proposition 8 is gay. But now, since Walker revealed a 10 year relationship, proponents of Proposition 8 have filed a motion to toss out Walker’s decision claiming that he should have recused himself.
I don’t think so. That would imply that black judges couldn’t rule on racial discrimination cases and females judges couldn’t rule on sex discrimination cases. This idea would work us back toward a tiered society where some people can’t do certain things simply because of their color or race or having green hair for all I know.
Walker has stated that he does not believe his sexual orientation impacted his ability to render a decision and constitutional law experts appear to agree with him.
The 9th Circuit Court is already reviewing the ruling, let’s leave it in their ballpark for the moment shall we.
I don’t think so. That would imply that black judges couldn’t rule on racial discrimination cases and females judges couldn’t rule on sex discrimination cases. This idea would work us back toward a tiered society where some people can’t do certain things simply because of their color or race or having green hair for all I know.
Walker has stated that he does not believe his sexual orientation impacted his ability to render a decision and constitutional law experts appear to agree with him.
The 9th Circuit Court is already reviewing the ruling, let’s leave it in their ballpark for the moment shall we.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Iranians and Dogs
I always thought that the U.S. political process spent a ridiculous amount of time with inane issues. Well the Iranians appear to have us beat.
Doggies, they’re worried about doggies being kept as pets. We’re not talking about Pit Bulls, Dobermans or other potentially dangerous breeds either. We’re talking about your average, run of the mill pet dog.
Apparently, according to the Iranian mullahs, the keeping of pet dogs is a particularly depraved and un-Islamic vice.
Up until now the practice has been tolerated although government radio and TV lectures Iranians about the diseases spread by canines. Now it looks like the end is in site for Iran’s pet dogs. Lawmakers in Tehran have proposed a bill in parliament that would criminalize dog ownership and formally define its punishment within the country's Islamic penal code. The bill warns that that in addition to posing public health hazards, the popularity of dog ownership "also poses a cultural problem, a blind imitation of the vulgar culture of the West."
Now what was it Mitt Romney said a few years ago about “freedom needing religion?” Like I said then, freedom is undoubtedly far better off without religion. Show me a theocracy that is free.
Dogs are un-Islamic? That’s because by custom dogs are considered “najis or “unclean.” Muslims who come in contact with “najis” things are put into a state of ritual impurity and must undergo purification (that’s washing up to you and me) before performing any religious duty such as saying daily prayers.
Clearly the whole “najis” and purification business is a primitive attempt at addressing the problem of bacteria. Primitive peoples may not have known about germ theory but they could observe cause and effect and, over time, mitigation actions would emerge. I suppose that tying these actions to religion helped insure compliance. I guess if you don’t have an answer to the question of “why,” and they probably didn’t, saying “because God said so and you’ll burn in hell if you don’t listen” worked as a pretty good substitute.
Hey, I’m all for cleanliness. Washing your hands after any number of activities, and certainly before handling food, is usually a pretty good idea. But to attribute the necessity to some imaginary Sky Daddy is just silly in this day and age. Outlawing dogs, when any diseases they might spread just by being around are easily handled by run of the mill hygiene, is utterly ridiculous.
Tell me again why religion hasn’t outlived its usefulness?
Doggies, they’re worried about doggies being kept as pets. We’re not talking about Pit Bulls, Dobermans or other potentially dangerous breeds either. We’re talking about your average, run of the mill pet dog.
Apparently, according to the Iranian mullahs, the keeping of pet dogs is a particularly depraved and un-Islamic vice.
Up until now the practice has been tolerated although government radio and TV lectures Iranians about the diseases spread by canines. Now it looks like the end is in site for Iran’s pet dogs. Lawmakers in Tehran have proposed a bill in parliament that would criminalize dog ownership and formally define its punishment within the country's Islamic penal code. The bill warns that that in addition to posing public health hazards, the popularity of dog ownership "also poses a cultural problem, a blind imitation of the vulgar culture of the West."
Now what was it Mitt Romney said a few years ago about “freedom needing religion?” Like I said then, freedom is undoubtedly far better off without religion. Show me a theocracy that is free.
Dogs are un-Islamic? That’s because by custom dogs are considered “najis or “unclean.” Muslims who come in contact with “najis” things are put into a state of ritual impurity and must undergo purification (that’s washing up to you and me) before performing any religious duty such as saying daily prayers.
Clearly the whole “najis” and purification business is a primitive attempt at addressing the problem of bacteria. Primitive peoples may not have known about germ theory but they could observe cause and effect and, over time, mitigation actions would emerge. I suppose that tying these actions to religion helped insure compliance. I guess if you don’t have an answer to the question of “why,” and they probably didn’t, saying “because God said so and you’ll burn in hell if you don’t listen” worked as a pretty good substitute.
Hey, I’m all for cleanliness. Washing your hands after any number of activities, and certainly before handling food, is usually a pretty good idea. But to attribute the necessity to some imaginary Sky Daddy is just silly in this day and age. Outlawing dogs, when any diseases they might spread just by being around are easily handled by run of the mill hygiene, is utterly ridiculous.
Tell me again why religion hasn’t outlived its usefulness?
Arizona Governor Vetoes “Birther” Bill
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoed the so-called Birther Bill which would have required all Presidential candidates to demonstrate that they were natural born American citizens eligible to be president.
Well that’s a bit of a surprise and may sound the death knell for similar measures in other states. Four states have already rejected similar measures in the legislature.
According to the AP Brewer said in her veto letter that she was troubled that the bill empowered Arizona's secretary of state to judge the qualifications of all candidates when they file to run for office. "I do not support designating one person as the gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate, which could lead to arbitrary or politically motivated decisions."
She also took a bit of a swipe at the legislature saying "In addition, I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for president of the greatest and most powerful nation on Earth to submit their 'early baptismal circumcision certificates' among other records to the Arizona secretary of state. This is a bridge too far."
The baptismal certificate was among a list of alternate evidence that could be presented if for some reason the birth certificate was unavailable.
Critics of the bill had pointed out that this could give Arizona another black eye to go with the one it has from the immigration bill last year and no one likes to look foolish.
Well good for Governor Brewer. Like I said before, I was a bit concerned about the potential of 50 different procedures that would just tie up time and money but I could have lived with some sort of common requirement such as a certification from the state of birth.
Oh well, here’s hoping this is the last we’ll hear of this nonsense, but I doubt it.
Well that’s a bit of a surprise and may sound the death knell for similar measures in other states. Four states have already rejected similar measures in the legislature.
According to the AP Brewer said in her veto letter that she was troubled that the bill empowered Arizona's secretary of state to judge the qualifications of all candidates when they file to run for office. "I do not support designating one person as the gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate, which could lead to arbitrary or politically motivated decisions."
She also took a bit of a swipe at the legislature saying "In addition, I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for president of the greatest and most powerful nation on Earth to submit their 'early baptismal circumcision certificates' among other records to the Arizona secretary of state. This is a bridge too far."
The baptismal certificate was among a list of alternate evidence that could be presented if for some reason the birth certificate was unavailable.
Critics of the bill had pointed out that this could give Arizona another black eye to go with the one it has from the immigration bill last year and no one likes to look foolish.
Well good for Governor Brewer. Like I said before, I was a bit concerned about the potential of 50 different procedures that would just tie up time and money but I could have lived with some sort of common requirement such as a certification from the state of birth.
Oh well, here’s hoping this is the last we’ll hear of this nonsense, but I doubt it.
The .xxx Domain
Well, it’s official. The Internet Corporation for Assigned names and Numbers (ICANN) has taken the .xxx domain live to join other Top Level Domains (TLD) such as .org, .com and .edu.
The .xxx domain is a voluntary domain that is dedicated to pornography. It’s voluntary today, but there are those who fear it may become mandatory tomorrow.
Of course having all pornographic sites under a common TLD makes it very easy to filter out or censor such sites.
So what do you folks think? A potential threat to freedom of speech or a welcome means of protecting children from inappropriate internet sites?
Personally, I think it’s a great idea and the sooner it’s made mandatory the better.
If you, as an adult, want to go the pornography route, that’s up to you, but I think it’s reasonable for schools and parents to be able to easily prevent access to such sites by minors in their charge.
The .xxx domain is a voluntary domain that is dedicated to pornography. It’s voluntary today, but there are those who fear it may become mandatory tomorrow.
Of course having all pornographic sites under a common TLD makes it very easy to filter out or censor such sites.
So what do you folks think? A potential threat to freedom of speech or a welcome means of protecting children from inappropriate internet sites?
Personally, I think it’s a great idea and the sooner it’s made mandatory the better.
If you, as an adult, want to go the pornography route, that’s up to you, but I think it’s reasonable for schools and parents to be able to easily prevent access to such sites by minors in their charge.
Friday, April 15, 2011
The Nails from Jesus’ Cross?
Simcha Jacobovici is at it again. This is the guy that a few years ago claimed to find the family tomb of Jesus, now he’s claiming he has two of the nails used in the crucifixion.
His evidence? The nails were found in the tomb of Caiaphas, the high priest when Jesus was crucified. Caiaphas was only involved in one crucifixion, that of Jesus, therefore these must be the nails used.
Wow, that has so many holes I’m actually shocked I’m bothering to write about it. Let’s list a few shall we.
(1) Is the tomb actually that of Caiaphas? According to the Israeli Antiquities Authority, that’s not at all clear.
(2) How unusual is it to find nails in an ancient tomb? Again, according to the Israeli Antiquities Authority, it’s quite common.
(3) Were these nails used in any crucifixion? Not every ancient nail found in Palestine was used in a crucifixion. As a matter of fact, I would think only a very tiny percentage were.
(4) Who says Caiaphas was involved in only one crucifixion? Two other men were supposedly crucified with Jesus and this was a common Roman execution method. Who’s to say Caiaphas wasn’t involved in other crucifixions?
(5) Were nails even used in Jesus’ crucifixion? The only gospel that mentions nails is John in John 20:25 and that’s the story of doubting Thomas not of the crucifixion itself.
(6) Was Jesus crucified? We have the gospel account and Josephus mentions the cross but no other contemporary historian mentions the crucifixion. Tacitus only says that Pilate had him put to death.
(7) Did Jesus even exist? Obviously the ultimate argument. If Jesus was a myth, then there was no crucifixion and these are just ordinary rusted nails.
The chances of these being the nails used in the crucifixion are about as close to zero as you can get. I’m not impressed with the so-called evidence. Sounds more like wishful thinking.
His evidence? The nails were found in the tomb of Caiaphas, the high priest when Jesus was crucified. Caiaphas was only involved in one crucifixion, that of Jesus, therefore these must be the nails used.
Wow, that has so many holes I’m actually shocked I’m bothering to write about it. Let’s list a few shall we.
(1) Is the tomb actually that of Caiaphas? According to the Israeli Antiquities Authority, that’s not at all clear.
(2) How unusual is it to find nails in an ancient tomb? Again, according to the Israeli Antiquities Authority, it’s quite common.
(3) Were these nails used in any crucifixion? Not every ancient nail found in Palestine was used in a crucifixion. As a matter of fact, I would think only a very tiny percentage were.
(4) Who says Caiaphas was involved in only one crucifixion? Two other men were supposedly crucified with Jesus and this was a common Roman execution method. Who’s to say Caiaphas wasn’t involved in other crucifixions?
(5) Were nails even used in Jesus’ crucifixion? The only gospel that mentions nails is John in John 20:25 and that’s the story of doubting Thomas not of the crucifixion itself.
(6) Was Jesus crucified? We have the gospel account and Josephus mentions the cross but no other contemporary historian mentions the crucifixion. Tacitus only says that Pilate had him put to death.
(7) Did Jesus even exist? Obviously the ultimate argument. If Jesus was a myth, then there was no crucifixion and these are just ordinary rusted nails.
The chances of these being the nails used in the crucifixion are about as close to zero as you can get. I’m not impressed with the so-called evidence. Sounds more like wishful thinking.
“Birther” Bill Approved by Arizona Legislature
What the bill would do is require all presidential (and I assume vice presidential) candidates to prove they’re natural born U.S. citizens.
I don’t have a problem with the concept behind the bill, as a matter of fact I think it’s a good idea, I am a little unsettled about the potential of 50 different processes.
I don’t have a problem with the concept behind the bill, as a matter of fact I think it’s a good idea, I am a little unsettled about the potential of 50 different processes.
I (Heart) Boobies?
That was the message on bracelets worm by two middle school girls in Pennsylvania meant to raise breast cancer awareness. The school district, took a dim view of the fairly obvious sexual double entendre, and banned the bracelets. The two girls defied the ban and wore them on their school’s Breast Cancer Awareness Day. The school district suspended the girls for defying the ban.
Of course the girls, with the support of the ACLU, sued claiming an infraction of their right of free speech.
On April 13th, 2011, a federal court in Pennsylvania agreed with the girls saying that the bracelets were not lewd or vulgar and can’t be banned by school officials that found them offensive. The court ruled that the school district had not demonstrated that the bracelets would be disruptive.
Already I can hear the howls of “double standard” and hypocrisy considering that a few years ago the courts decided that a school was correct in forcing a student to remove a T-Shirt saying that homosexuality was shameful that he was wearing in a counter to the GLSEN “Day of Silence.”
Interestingly enough, the ACLU was on the losing side in that debate.
So what do I think of this? To be honest, I suspect that the school has a better handle on what could be disruptive that a federal judge. The school had no issue with the concept of supporting breast cancer awareness, just with the way the concept was being expressed. If were up to me, I think I might have gone with the school’s judgment on this one.
Of course the girls, with the support of the ACLU, sued claiming an infraction of their right of free speech.
On April 13th, 2011, a federal court in Pennsylvania agreed with the girls saying that the bracelets were not lewd or vulgar and can’t be banned by school officials that found them offensive. The court ruled that the school district had not demonstrated that the bracelets would be disruptive.
Already I can hear the howls of “double standard” and hypocrisy considering that a few years ago the courts decided that a school was correct in forcing a student to remove a T-Shirt saying that homosexuality was shameful that he was wearing in a counter to the GLSEN “Day of Silence.”
Interestingly enough, the ACLU was on the losing side in that debate.
So what do I think of this? To be honest, I suspect that the school has a better handle on what could be disruptive that a federal judge. The school had no issue with the concept of supporting breast cancer awareness, just with the way the concept was being expressed. If were up to me, I think I might have gone with the school’s judgment on this one.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Brain Shape and Political Views
I’m going to start by providing the quote.
“Scientists have found that people with conservative views have brains with larger amygdalas, almond shaped areas in the centre of the brain often associated with anxiety and emotions.
On the other hand, they have a smaller anterior cingulate, an area at the front of the brain associated with courage and looking on the bright side of life.”
The conclusions are the result of scanning the brains of 90 college students. Of course since the scans were done on adults, it’s impossible to tell whether the political view shaped the brain or vice versa.
That conservatives are more prone to fear doesn’t particularly surprise me. Many conservative positions have at their root, fear. Fear of what they don’t understand, fear of people different from themselves and fear of change.
“Scientists have found that people with conservative views have brains with larger amygdalas, almond shaped areas in the centre of the brain often associated with anxiety and emotions.
On the other hand, they have a smaller anterior cingulate, an area at the front of the brain associated with courage and looking on the bright side of life.”
The conclusions are the result of scanning the brains of 90 college students. Of course since the scans were done on adults, it’s impossible to tell whether the political view shaped the brain or vice versa.
That conservatives are more prone to fear doesn’t particularly surprise me. Many conservative positions have at their root, fear. Fear of what they don’t understand, fear of people different from themselves and fear of change.
9th Circuit Upholds Blocking of Arizona Immigration Law
Remember that controversial Immigration Law that Arizona passed a while back? Well, the most controversial provisions of it were blocked by a federal judge and Arizona appealed. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held yesterday that the lower court was correct.
Arizona governor Jan Brewer is considering whether or not to appeal to the Supreme Court.
This is an important issue especially for states in the southwest that consider themselves under siege by illegal immigrants. Even though I sometimes find the decisions of the current Supreme Court questionable, I think it is necessary to bring the case to the court in order to get a final resolution.
Arizona governor Jan Brewer is considering whether or not to appeal to the Supreme Court.
This is an important issue especially for states in the southwest that consider themselves under siege by illegal immigrants. Even though I sometimes find the decisions of the current Supreme Court questionable, I think it is necessary to bring the case to the court in order to get a final resolution.
Japan Raises Nuclear Accident Level
Japan has raised the rating of the nuclear power plant accident caused by the earthquake and tsunami a month ago to 7, the highest rating on the International Atomic Energy Agency’s scale. The rating implies major radioactive contamination and places the incident on the same level as the Chernobyl incident.
Obviously this is not good news although a number of experts say the new rating is something of an exaggeration and the problem in Japan is nowhere near the seriousness of Chernobyl. Still, this is another example, along with the BP oil leak, that demonstrates what can happen when technology gets out of control.
I’m not proposing we limit technology by any means, I’m just thinking that we might want to step up the precautions a bit. Even a nuclear incident is a relatively local disaster but imagine what could happen if a genetic experiment got out of control.
Obviously this is not good news although a number of experts say the new rating is something of an exaggeration and the problem in Japan is nowhere near the seriousness of Chernobyl. Still, this is another example, along with the BP oil leak, that demonstrates what can happen when technology gets out of control.
I’m not proposing we limit technology by any means, I’m just thinking that we might want to step up the precautions a bit. Even a nuclear incident is a relatively local disaster but imagine what could happen if a genetic experiment got out of control.
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
The House Budget Committee Plan Part 2
Ok, now I’ve seen a few more of the details. It’s all Republican magic with mirrors and fun with numbers. Always beware of any politician who quotes a number WITHOUT JUSTIFYING THAT NUMBER but especially beware of Republicans holding tax reform proposals.
Here are the total nonsense portions of the plan that I’m aware of:
Save $1.4 trillion by repealing the Health Care Plan.
I guess Ryan wasn’t copied on the memo sent to Boehner in January from the CBO pointing out that repealing Health Care would cost an estimated $230 billion in additional deficit.
Save $1.8 trillion by reductions in mandatory spending not related to health care or social security.
The problem is the plan doesn’t say FROM WHERE and this is an area of the budget that has been historically very difficult to cut. Where could the cuts come from, these savings could come from cuts in unemployment funding, food stamps and agricultural subsidies. Even if this were possible, it would be immoral. This number is just wishful thinking.
Tax Reform REDUCING the MAXIMUM tax rate for corporations and individuals to 25%.
And how is this going to not drive us into a revenue debacle? they’re going to close unspecified “loopholes.” I TOLD you they were going to somehow reduce taxes for the rich and corporations. How about we close the “loopholes” and go back to the maximum tax rates before the Bush cuts?
Save $735 billion by converting Medicaid to block grants.
The problem with this approach is it may very well encourage, or force, states to further restrict eligibility to this program. So who gets hurt? The poor and the handicapped.
Save $389 billion by shifting Medicare to a defined-contribution voucher plan.
The AARP appears very skeptical about this both in terms of its savings and its negative impact on health care for the elderly.
So let’s be very clear about this. The Republican plan asks the elderly, the poor, the handicapped, the unemployed, farmers and those without medical coverage to shoulder the total responsibility for reducing the deficit and the federal dept while corporations and high income individuals GET A TAX REDUCTION!
What is wrong with this picture?
But let’s continue shall we?
Ryan’s plan also assumes higher growth rates than any recent projection has indicated and is claiming, based upon a Heritage Foundation projection, that unemployment would be reduced to 4% by 2015. That would be a pretty good trick since it hasn’t been that low since the Clinton administration and 5% is considered about normal. In order to get to 4%, someone would have to come up with around 7 million jobs and people currently out of the work force, would have to stay out of the work force.
So, as usual, the Heritage Foundation has its head firmly up its posterior.
This is the old nonsense about reduce corporate taxes and the taxes of the wealthy and someone that translates into new infrastructure, new jobs and the trickling down of prosperity to us less fortunate ones.
I have a better idea. Cut taxes for the working and middle classes, then we'll go buy more stuff, which will drive demand and then prosperity will bubble up.
Here are the total nonsense portions of the plan that I’m aware of:
Save $1.4 trillion by repealing the Health Care Plan.
I guess Ryan wasn’t copied on the memo sent to Boehner in January from the CBO pointing out that repealing Health Care would cost an estimated $230 billion in additional deficit.
Save $1.8 trillion by reductions in mandatory spending not related to health care or social security.
The problem is the plan doesn’t say FROM WHERE and this is an area of the budget that has been historically very difficult to cut. Where could the cuts come from, these savings could come from cuts in unemployment funding, food stamps and agricultural subsidies. Even if this were possible, it would be immoral. This number is just wishful thinking.
Tax Reform REDUCING the MAXIMUM tax rate for corporations and individuals to 25%.
And how is this going to not drive us into a revenue debacle? they’re going to close unspecified “loopholes.” I TOLD you they were going to somehow reduce taxes for the rich and corporations. How about we close the “loopholes” and go back to the maximum tax rates before the Bush cuts?
Save $735 billion by converting Medicaid to block grants.
The problem with this approach is it may very well encourage, or force, states to further restrict eligibility to this program. So who gets hurt? The poor and the handicapped.
Save $389 billion by shifting Medicare to a defined-contribution voucher plan.
The AARP appears very skeptical about this both in terms of its savings and its negative impact on health care for the elderly.
So let’s be very clear about this. The Republican plan asks the elderly, the poor, the handicapped, the unemployed, farmers and those without medical coverage to shoulder the total responsibility for reducing the deficit and the federal dept while corporations and high income individuals GET A TAX REDUCTION!
What is wrong with this picture?
But let’s continue shall we?
Ryan’s plan also assumes higher growth rates than any recent projection has indicated and is claiming, based upon a Heritage Foundation projection, that unemployment would be reduced to 4% by 2015. That would be a pretty good trick since it hasn’t been that low since the Clinton administration and 5% is considered about normal. In order to get to 4%, someone would have to come up with around 7 million jobs and people currently out of the work force, would have to stay out of the work force.
So, as usual, the Heritage Foundation has its head firmly up its posterior.
This is the old nonsense about reduce corporate taxes and the taxes of the wealthy and someone that translates into new infrastructure, new jobs and the trickling down of prosperity to us less fortunate ones.
I have a better idea. Cut taxes for the working and middle classes, then we'll go buy more stuff, which will drive demand and then prosperity will bubble up.
Monday, April 04, 2011
The House Budget Committee Plan
The House Budget Committee is looking at the 2012 budget. This is the place where almost every economist says we need to get serious about cutting the deficit and the national dept. According to Rep. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House committee, the plan would cut $4 trillion over the next decade.
Well, at least we’re talking about the right kind of numbers. The question is how. The plan won’t be released until Tuesday so I suppose we’ll have to wait for details until then but, according to Ryan, the plan (1) addresses Medicare and Medicaid increases, (2) returns discretionary spending to 2008 levels and caps it based upon GDP and (3) pro-growth tax changes.
I don’t have a problem with (1) and (2) but (3) is often Republican jargon for increasing taxes on the working and middle classes while decreasing them for the rich and corporations under the Supply Side fiction that this will create jobs.
Demand grows the economy not supply. How come Republicans believe in Capitalism when it means taking away nickels and dimes from the poor but not when it means subsidizing corporations and the rich with $10s and $20s?
Still, I think I’ll reserve final judgment until I see the details.
Well, at least we’re talking about the right kind of numbers. The question is how. The plan won’t be released until Tuesday so I suppose we’ll have to wait for details until then but, according to Ryan, the plan (1) addresses Medicare and Medicaid increases, (2) returns discretionary spending to 2008 levels and caps it based upon GDP and (3) pro-growth tax changes.
I don’t have a problem with (1) and (2) but (3) is often Republican jargon for increasing taxes on the working and middle classes while decreasing them for the rich and corporations under the Supply Side fiction that this will create jobs.
Demand grows the economy not supply. How come Republicans believe in Capitalism when it means taking away nickels and dimes from the poor but not when it means subsidizing corporations and the rich with $10s and $20s?
Still, I think I’ll reserve final judgment until I see the details.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Obama’s Libya Speech
Wow, I felt like I was getting scolded.
The President took the high road last night and threw around a lot of glittering generalities about freedom, support of the international community, the self determination of the Libyan people and how the U.S. involvement would be a limited one.
If we were addressing all of the serious issues facing this country, perhaps not solved them yet but at least seriously addressing them, it would easily have satisfied me. But, I am getting very frustrated at what I see as the total lack of action in areas like the deficit and the national debt.
While I don’t begrudge the Libyans help, I would like to see some action to clean up our own house. I’m not pitching isolationism but simple common sense. We’re not going to be of any help to anyone if our economy collapses under this escalating debt. Enough is enough already.
I honestly do not believe that Obama understands the issue and that is a terrible disappointment.
The President took the high road last night and threw around a lot of glittering generalities about freedom, support of the international community, the self determination of the Libyan people and how the U.S. involvement would be a limited one.
If we were addressing all of the serious issues facing this country, perhaps not solved them yet but at least seriously addressing them, it would easily have satisfied me. But, I am getting very frustrated at what I see as the total lack of action in areas like the deficit and the national debt.
While I don’t begrudge the Libyans help, I would like to see some action to clean up our own house. I’m not pitching isolationism but simple common sense. We’re not going to be of any help to anyone if our economy collapses under this escalating debt. Enough is enough already.
I honestly do not believe that Obama understands the issue and that is a terrible disappointment.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Day of Silence 2011
The Day of Silence, the GLSEN yearly student protest against LGBT discrimination, is Friday April 15th this year. The opposing Day of Truth, started by the ADF in 2005, and run unspectacularly last year by Exodus International (the homosexual cure app people), appears to have died a quiet unlamented death and then was resurrected by Focus on the Family as The Day of Dialogue. It will be April 18th.
A different name but the same concept that homosexuality is a choice that Jesus and Christianity can help you overcome.
Now, in my last conversation about this a Christian claimed that this was a question of Free Will. If one had Free Will, they could choose not to be homosexual in the same way that they could choose not to steal or murder.
Well, that sort of depends upon what you mean by “not be homosexual.”
If you mean refrain from participating in homosexual acts, then yes, that is apparently a Free Will choice and even the American Psychology Association (APA) agrees that homosexuality can be suppressed.
But why should someone choose to suppress it?
If it’s part of who you are and not simply what you choose to do, and it doesn’t harm anyone else, then why should someone suppress his or her sexual inclinations?
It all comes back to the question of morality. Civilized human beings have developed a code of things that are considered immoral. It’s not a static definition either. It changes with time.
Just about any sane person would agree that, without some form of justification, killing, theft and lying are bad. Most people would also agree that slavery, racial discrimination and racial segregation are also bad but, within my lifetime, there were millions of people that argued that racial segregation was not only not a bad thing, but the moral thing.
The line moves over time. Not that long ago interracial marriage was illegal in many states and gay marriage was illegal everywhere. Now interracial marriage is legal in all states and gay marriage is legal in a few states.
Free Will allows you to choose what you do but not who you are. One cannot choose to be tall, green-eyed, handsome or intelligent. You’re sort of stuck with the genetic cards you’re dealt.
My father was left handed and he told me that when he went to school the teachers tried to get him to favor his right hand for things like writing because that was the “right way” to do it. That sounds ridiculous today doesn’t it? I imagine in the future things like The Day of Dialogue will sound just as ridiculous.
A different name but the same concept that homosexuality is a choice that Jesus and Christianity can help you overcome.
Now, in my last conversation about this a Christian claimed that this was a question of Free Will. If one had Free Will, they could choose not to be homosexual in the same way that they could choose not to steal or murder.
Well, that sort of depends upon what you mean by “not be homosexual.”
If you mean refrain from participating in homosexual acts, then yes, that is apparently a Free Will choice and even the American Psychology Association (APA) agrees that homosexuality can be suppressed.
But why should someone choose to suppress it?
If it’s part of who you are and not simply what you choose to do, and it doesn’t harm anyone else, then why should someone suppress his or her sexual inclinations?
It all comes back to the question of morality. Civilized human beings have developed a code of things that are considered immoral. It’s not a static definition either. It changes with time.
Just about any sane person would agree that, without some form of justification, killing, theft and lying are bad. Most people would also agree that slavery, racial discrimination and racial segregation are also bad but, within my lifetime, there were millions of people that argued that racial segregation was not only not a bad thing, but the moral thing.
The line moves over time. Not that long ago interracial marriage was illegal in many states and gay marriage was illegal everywhere. Now interracial marriage is legal in all states and gay marriage is legal in a few states.
Free Will allows you to choose what you do but not who you are. One cannot choose to be tall, green-eyed, handsome or intelligent. You’re sort of stuck with the genetic cards you’re dealt.
My father was left handed and he told me that when he went to school the teachers tried to get him to favor his right hand for things like writing because that was the “right way” to do it. That sounds ridiculous today doesn’t it? I imagine in the future things like The Day of Dialogue will sound just as ridiculous.
Illinois Abolishes Death Penalty
The moratorium of the last 12 years has now been transformed into an abolition of the Death Penalty in the state of Illinois.
There had been 12 executions in the state since the Death Penalty was reinstated by the Supreme Court in 1976. Governor George Ryan suspended executions in 2000 after of number of death row inmates were found to have been mistakenly convicted and, three years later, commuted the sentences of the 167 death row residence to life without parole.
Illinois becomes the 16th State to abolish the Death Penalty.
In the rest of the country there have been 9 executions so far in 2011. There have been 1243 executions since 1976; 1022 have been in the South, 147 in the Midwest, 70 in the West and 4 in the Northeast.
There had been 12 executions in the state since the Death Penalty was reinstated by the Supreme Court in 1976. Governor George Ryan suspended executions in 2000 after of number of death row inmates were found to have been mistakenly convicted and, three years later, commuted the sentences of the 167 death row residence to life without parole.
Illinois becomes the 16th State to abolish the Death Penalty.
In the rest of the country there have been 9 executions so far in 2011. There have been 1243 executions since 1976; 1022 have been in the South, 147 in the Midwest, 70 in the West and 4 in the Northeast.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
In God We Trust
The House of Representatives is considering House Concurrent Resolution 13 which states that, the Senate concurring, “Congress reaffirms ‘In God We Trust’ as the official motto of the United States and supports and encourages the public display of the national motto in all public buildings, public schools, and other government institutions.”
The resolution provides a fairly long list of “whereas” justifications, most of which are simply fact and others, perhaps, one could argue with.
You’d think we weren’t $14 trillion (yes that’s trillion with a “T”) in debt that the House has time to worry about this kind of stuff.
Considering that the courts have already decided that “In God We Trust” is not unconstitutional, I have to wonder about the point of this resolution.
I disagree with that decision.
As I’ve said before, I think this is a case where one has to consider intent, and in this case the clear intent is for “God” to refer to the Christian God and the Christian God alone. Therefore the reference is inexorably entangled with the Christian Religion and is therefore unconstitutional.
The fact that I might be right is, of course, irrelevant. The chances of every court, up to and including the Supreme Court, acknowledging that are somewhere between zero and nonexistent.
I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why “In God We Trust” is constitutional other than what amounts to a historical precedence argument. If historical precedence arguments were valid, then blacks would still be segregated and women wouldn’t be able to vote.
The resolution provides a fairly long list of “whereas” justifications, most of which are simply fact and others, perhaps, one could argue with.
You’d think we weren’t $14 trillion (yes that’s trillion with a “T”) in debt that the House has time to worry about this kind of stuff.
Considering that the courts have already decided that “In God We Trust” is not unconstitutional, I have to wonder about the point of this resolution.
I disagree with that decision.
As I’ve said before, I think this is a case where one has to consider intent, and in this case the clear intent is for “God” to refer to the Christian God and the Christian God alone. Therefore the reference is inexorably entangled with the Christian Religion and is therefore unconstitutional.
The fact that I might be right is, of course, irrelevant. The chances of every court, up to and including the Supreme Court, acknowledging that are somewhere between zero and nonexistent.
I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why “In God We Trust” is constitutional other than what amounts to a historical precedence argument. If historical precedence arguments were valid, then blacks would still be segregated and women wouldn’t be able to vote.
The Cure Homosexuality App
Exodus International, a ministry that specializes in “curing” gays, released an iPhone application that was dubbed a “useful resource.” Exactly what it was supposed to be useful for is a bit unclear but lots of folks immediately figured out it must be for “curing” homosexuality.
Actually it looked more to me like a list of events and seminars about “curing” homosexuality.
Then Apple put its foot in it by rating the APP as having “no objectionable material.”
Needless to say the whole thing set off a firestorm of protest. Actually, it set off two firestorms. The first was by those outraged by the App and the second by those outraged by what they called a double standard. The attempt to censor Exodus International’s free speech.
So what’s the deal here?
Here’s the problem. In 2009 the American Psychological Association (APA) officially issued a statement opposing what is known as Reparative Therapy, therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation because it concluded that there was insufficient evidence that it worked.
The APA also expressed concern that “the hope of sexual orientation change followed by the failure of the treatment was identified as a significant cause of distress and negative self-image.”
In other words, there is no evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Telling someone they can change inevitably leads to a failed attempt which leads to distress and a negative self-image. Both of which can be precursors to a suicide attempt.
Now, the people most at risk are younger people still struggling with their sexual orientation. The precise group aimed at by the Exodus International App.
So, the bottom line is, the App could, in extreme cases, harm someone that took its message to heart and then failed trying to follow that message.
Is this WHY people protested? I don’t know. I’m not those people. But it’s why, after initially being somewhat ambivalent about the whole thing, I finally came down on the side of maybe this App isn’t such a good idea.
Under the mounting pressure Apple has removed the App from its stores which was probably the right thing to do.
As to all those Right Wingers screaming about double standards and Freedom of Speech, allow me to suggest that, just for a change, you consider the potential impact on people that are very different from yourselves.
Actually it looked more to me like a list of events and seminars about “curing” homosexuality.
Then Apple put its foot in it by rating the APP as having “no objectionable material.”
Needless to say the whole thing set off a firestorm of protest. Actually, it set off two firestorms. The first was by those outraged by the App and the second by those outraged by what they called a double standard. The attempt to censor Exodus International’s free speech.
So what’s the deal here?
Here’s the problem. In 2009 the American Psychological Association (APA) officially issued a statement opposing what is known as Reparative Therapy, therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation because it concluded that there was insufficient evidence that it worked.
The APA also expressed concern that “the hope of sexual orientation change followed by the failure of the treatment was identified as a significant cause of distress and negative self-image.”
In other words, there is no evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Telling someone they can change inevitably leads to a failed attempt which leads to distress and a negative self-image. Both of which can be precursors to a suicide attempt.
Now, the people most at risk are younger people still struggling with their sexual orientation. The precise group aimed at by the Exodus International App.
So, the bottom line is, the App could, in extreme cases, harm someone that took its message to heart and then failed trying to follow that message.
Is this WHY people protested? I don’t know. I’m not those people. But it’s why, after initially being somewhat ambivalent about the whole thing, I finally came down on the side of maybe this App isn’t such a good idea.
Under the mounting pressure Apple has removed the App from its stores which was probably the right thing to do.
As to all those Right Wingers screaming about double standards and Freedom of Speech, allow me to suggest that, just for a change, you consider the potential impact on people that are very different from yourselves.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Filming of The Hobbit finally begins
The often delayed prequel to The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, has started filming in New Zealand. I have to admit though I’m a bit confused about the inclusion of Cate Blanchett as Galadrial, Elijah Wood as Frodo and Sylvester McCoy as Radagast the Brown as none of these characters appear in The Hobbit.
In The Hobbit Tolkien’s world is much less developed. Elrond’s Rivendell and the Kingdom of the Dwarves are the major overlaps. Even The Shire is not terribly developed. I don’t even think it’s called The Shire.
Then again, nobody ever accused Peter Jackson of staying with the original material so who the hell knows what we’ll get.
Martin Freeman gets the title role as Bilbo Baggins which sounds like a fine choice to me. I wonder if they will have all 13 dwarves or cut the list down? So far I’ve only heard about Balin and Nori and Kili. I also saw a reference to Thror and Thrain which means there will be flashbacks in the movie. Perhaps that’s where Galadrial comes in as well.
How close Jackson stays to The Hobbit should give us plenty to argue about in December of 2012 and 2013 when the movies are expected to be released. This is assuming of course that the country doesn’t descend into civil war before then and I haven’t kicked the bucket yet.
In The Hobbit Tolkien’s world is much less developed. Elrond’s Rivendell and the Kingdom of the Dwarves are the major overlaps. Even The Shire is not terribly developed. I don’t even think it’s called The Shire.
Then again, nobody ever accused Peter Jackson of staying with the original material so who the hell knows what we’ll get.
Martin Freeman gets the title role as Bilbo Baggins which sounds like a fine choice to me. I wonder if they will have all 13 dwarves or cut the list down? So far I’ve only heard about Balin and Nori and Kili. I also saw a reference to Thror and Thrain which means there will be flashbacks in the movie. Perhaps that’s where Galadrial comes in as well.
How close Jackson stays to The Hobbit should give us plenty to argue about in December of 2012 and 2013 when the movies are expected to be released. This is assuming of course that the country doesn’t descend into civil war before then and I haven’t kicked the bucket yet.
More Attacks on Libya
There are reports this morning that US, French and British aircraft destroyed tank columns headed toward rebel positions.
So I can only assume that the western governments have decided that whatever type of government the rebellion ushers in will be better than Gadhafi. I'd be curious to know how they came to that conclusion.
This strikes me as a "rush to action" with little or no justification. I'm not saying it's the wrong thing to do but I'd like to understand a little better why it was determined that it was the right thing to do.
So I can only assume that the western governments have decided that whatever type of government the rebellion ushers in will be better than Gadhafi. I'd be curious to know how they came to that conclusion.
This strikes me as a "rush to action" with little or no justification. I'm not saying it's the wrong thing to do but I'd like to understand a little better why it was determined that it was the right thing to do.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Assault on Libya
U.S. and European Naval forces have begun attacking Libyan defensive positions along the Mediterranean coast. U.S. Destroyers and a British submarine have firing cruise missiles to take out the defense installations.
The military action is supposedly to enforce the U.N. no fly zone and to prevent Gadhafi from continuing to attack the Libyan rebels.
I have two questions about all this. First, how is this not interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation? I guess quaint things like that got buried sometime during the last century.
My second question is will the U.N. compensate us for the 112 cruise missiles fired? A Tomahawk costs about $1.2 million and we fired 112 of them. That's $134 million just for the goddamned missiles and that's not to mention the cost of deploying the destroyers.
You'd think we weren't $14 trillion is debt wouldn't you?
Why does everyone have to always start shooting? WTF?
The military action is supposedly to enforce the U.N. no fly zone and to prevent Gadhafi from continuing to attack the Libyan rebels.
I have two questions about all this. First, how is this not interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation? I guess quaint things like that got buried sometime during the last century.
My second question is will the U.N. compensate us for the 112 cruise missiles fired? A Tomahawk costs about $1.2 million and we fired 112 of them. That's $134 million just for the goddamned missiles and that's not to mention the cost of deploying the destroyers.
You'd think we weren't $14 trillion is debt wouldn't you?
Why does everyone have to always start shooting? WTF?
Monday, March 14, 2011
Marriage Equality Fails in Maryland
The bill to legalize Gay Marriage in Maryland has been sent back to committee where it will most likely die a quiet death.
A black bishop, Harry Jackson by name, is saying that credit for the defeat of the bill resides with the black churches of Maryland which had warned African American legislators that there would be price to pay if they supported the legislation.
So again we see blacks standing firm against Gay Marriage.
And why is that?
It’s a question that Gay Marriage supporters really need to grapple with. The black community has consistently opposed Gay Marriage by a wide margin.
Some of that, I would guess, is driven by a conservative Christian outlook and some of it out of pure ignorance. No one has ever accused the black community of being the sharpest tools in the shed.
Back in the day when blacks were fighting for their rights, the unions forgot for a while what it was like to be on the outside looking in and now blacks appear to have forgotten what it’s like to have to fight for simple equality under the law.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the same people who are spearheading the fight against gays are the spiritual descendants of those that spearheaded the fight against integration and, if given the chance, would like nothing better than the return of Jim Crow.
You think I’m exaggerating? The Zeitgeist never stands still. Either it moves forward or it moves back. If they can restrict the rights of gays today, they can restrict your rights tomorrow. You are being used by those who will have no use for you after your usefulness is over.
Dear Bishop Harry, when them good old boys come looking for your black ass with a rope, don’t come running to me for help. I fought that battle once, and if you’re going to voluntarily give up what was won, then you’re just flat out of luck the next time around.
A black bishop, Harry Jackson by name, is saying that credit for the defeat of the bill resides with the black churches of Maryland which had warned African American legislators that there would be price to pay if they supported the legislation.
So again we see blacks standing firm against Gay Marriage.
And why is that?
It’s a question that Gay Marriage supporters really need to grapple with. The black community has consistently opposed Gay Marriage by a wide margin.
Some of that, I would guess, is driven by a conservative Christian outlook and some of it out of pure ignorance. No one has ever accused the black community of being the sharpest tools in the shed.
Back in the day when blacks were fighting for their rights, the unions forgot for a while what it was like to be on the outside looking in and now blacks appear to have forgotten what it’s like to have to fight for simple equality under the law.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the same people who are spearheading the fight against gays are the spiritual descendants of those that spearheaded the fight against integration and, if given the chance, would like nothing better than the return of Jim Crow.
You think I’m exaggerating? The Zeitgeist never stands still. Either it moves forward or it moves back. If they can restrict the rights of gays today, they can restrict your rights tomorrow. You are being used by those who will have no use for you after your usefulness is over.
Dear Bishop Harry, when them good old boys come looking for your black ass with a rope, don’t come running to me for help. I fought that battle once, and if you’re going to voluntarily give up what was won, then you’re just flat out of luck the next time around.
Japan
All I can say is ouch.
An 8.9 earthquake and a massive tidal wave has completely devastated the northeast coast of the country. The official death toll is at 2,800 but the fear is that it’s going to go higher, much higher.
Then there’s the nuclear power plant in Fukushima that is threatening a meltdown. There have already been several explosions and the U.S. has repositioned the U.S.S Ronald Reagan for fear of radioactive contamination. Supposedly an exposure of the fuel rods has already occurred although, supposedly, the radiation levels are still within acceptable levels. I having a bit of trouble understanding exactly how that could be the case when helicopter crews from the Reagan had to be decontaminated.
I sent $200 to the Red Cross which is like completely inadequate. I’ll probably send more later in the week. There’s not much else I can do. What an absolute mess.
An 8.9 earthquake and a massive tidal wave has completely devastated the northeast coast of the country. The official death toll is at 2,800 but the fear is that it’s going to go higher, much higher.
Then there’s the nuclear power plant in Fukushima that is threatening a meltdown. There have already been several explosions and the U.S. has repositioned the U.S.S Ronald Reagan for fear of radioactive contamination. Supposedly an exposure of the fuel rods has already occurred although, supposedly, the radiation levels are still within acceptable levels. I having a bit of trouble understanding exactly how that could be the case when helicopter crews from the Reagan had to be decontaminated.
I sent $200 to the Red Cross which is like completely inadequate. I’ll probably send more later in the week. There’s not much else I can do. What an absolute mess.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Welcome to the Republican Party
There are a number of jokes going around that end “Welcome to the Republican Party” and, I have to admit, they are pretty good pieces of propaganda.
All are related to the idea that someone is getting something for nothing at the expense of hard working Americans and if you’re opposed to this gross injustice, then the Republican Party is for you.
The latest one I heard had the young daughter of a Liberal couple explaining to her Republican neighbors how when she grew up she was going to make sure that the unemployed and homeless had enough to eat and a place to live. The neighbor said to her she didn’t have to wait; she could come over to her house, do some chores and the neighbor would pay her. Then she could take what she earned and use it to help the unemployed and homeless.
After thinking about it for a while, the child asked why the unemployed and homeless didn’t just come and do the chores themselves. The punch line then followed, “Welcome to the Republican Party.”
So being a Republican means giving up your job so an unemployed or homeless person can have it?
Because that’s what’s happening in the story. You will excuse me, but I suspect it will be a cold day in hell before anyone, Republican, Democrat or Independent does that.
Nor is anyone proposing that; nor is anyone proposing that the unemployed or homeless be maintained at anything approaching the economic level of even the lowest level worker. The much repeated story of people living high off the hog on welfare is a myth. Tell you what, if you think they're doing so well, how about you change places with them?
What we’re really talking about is a small percentage of income for the general good and this includes caring for those that have fallen on difficult times. Clearly there is much to discuss here about how small a percentage and how much caring is necessary. Personally I like “as little as possible” and “just the basic necessities” as answers to those questions.
But I suppose the real moral of the story could be something like why don’t those lazy bums earn their own living?
Well, the truth is that the overwhelming majority would be quite happy to earn their own living. Are there some people jobbing the system? Absolutely. My mother-in-law used to work for the welfare department and had stories that would make you grit your teeth. My favorite (or perhaps “favorite” isn’t exactly the right word) was the one about the women who arrived, in a taxi cab, to establish her daughters own welfare account on the daughters 18th birthday. There is clearly a chronic welfare society in our culture that needs to be addressed. The anecdotes are depressing, but the reality is that the dollars involved are fairly small.
The overwhelming majority of people getting financial assistance are not chronic welfare recipients. There are some of those, but there are also the temporarily unemployed and those with ongoing unemployment issues.
There are a number of reasons why an unemployed person might not be unable to get a job. The most obvious reason would be there aren’t any available. The same Republican politicians that tell you to moan about contributing to unemployment and welfare appear to be ok with corporate America outsourcing millions of manufacturing jobs overseas in order to make more money for the wealthiest segment of society.
They want you focused so much on the nickels and dimes taken from your paycheck to help the less fortunate that you overlook the $5 bills and $10 bills that never make it into your paycheck. Why don’t they make into my paycheck you ask? They don’t make it in due to the unfair share of American income diverted to the already rich in order to make them richer.
While the real income (in other words adjusted for inflation) of the bottom 80% of American wage earners has increased by 19% over the past 30 years, the real income of the top 20% has increased by 88%, the top 5% by 245% and the top 1% by a whopping 345%.
Please explain to me how this is right, fair or even rational?
In contrast, in the 30 years prior to that, the real income that marked the top of the lowest income quintile rose by 99.5%, the 2nd quintile by 95.4%, the 3rd quintile by 107.9% and the 4th quintile by 109.9%. At the tippy top of the income scale, the minimum income to be in the top 5% rose by 103.4%.
No wonder so many people remember those as the good old days of economic prosperity. It wasn’t so much that there was more prosperity, the prosperity was simply shared more evenly.
A second reason the unemployed might not be able to get a job might be the jobs are simply not where the unemployed are. If you live in Nevada or Florida, a job in Nebraska doesn’t do you a whole lot of good. If you live in Buffalo or Syracuse, a job in New York City may not do you much good either.
But the third, and most troubling reason, is that you just may not be qualified for that job.
The minimum educational requirements for well paying jobs in the U.S. has steadily risen over the past 20 or 30 years. Some of that rise is real, and some of it is illusionary; a matter of employers wanting employees to be better educated whether it’s necessary or not. Yes there are still jobs where you can make a decent salary without a college degree, but they are getting fewer and fewer.
This all goes along with the manufacturing jobs being outsourced. You could do a fine job on the assembly line with a High School diploma. Dedication and a willingness to work hard for an honest day’s pay meant more than being computer literate, knowing how to calculate sales margins or being able to do calculus.
Those days may well be gone. Even if a college degree might be unnecessary, a technical degree or specialized training might be. Retraining is often the key to helping people get back into the work force. So part of that welfare you’re complaining about goes for retraining and isn’t simply doled out as cash.
Now, in fairness, let’s address the strongest argument against welfare and unemployment compensation.
One can argue hey, wait a minute, why isn’t the contribution to the general good voluntary? What gives the government the right to decide who deserves my charity? The choice should be mine and not some politician’s.
This is a fair observation and, in a perfect world, or even a significantly less complex world, this would be the best solution. But things are just too complicated these days for private charity decisions to work well. The first problem would be that funds would tend to be readily available in prosperous areas and scarce in areas with severe economic problems. Unfortunately, as inefficient as it often is, government is probably the best suited for addressing the issue on the local, state and federal levels.
So while the jokes are clever, a little objective analysis shows them to be what they are, well designed, but very inaccurate, propaganda, intended to leave you with a totally misleading set of impressions.
All are related to the idea that someone is getting something for nothing at the expense of hard working Americans and if you’re opposed to this gross injustice, then the Republican Party is for you.
The latest one I heard had the young daughter of a Liberal couple explaining to her Republican neighbors how when she grew up she was going to make sure that the unemployed and homeless had enough to eat and a place to live. The neighbor said to her she didn’t have to wait; she could come over to her house, do some chores and the neighbor would pay her. Then she could take what she earned and use it to help the unemployed and homeless.
After thinking about it for a while, the child asked why the unemployed and homeless didn’t just come and do the chores themselves. The punch line then followed, “Welcome to the Republican Party.”
So being a Republican means giving up your job so an unemployed or homeless person can have it?
Because that’s what’s happening in the story. You will excuse me, but I suspect it will be a cold day in hell before anyone, Republican, Democrat or Independent does that.
Nor is anyone proposing that; nor is anyone proposing that the unemployed or homeless be maintained at anything approaching the economic level of even the lowest level worker. The much repeated story of people living high off the hog on welfare is a myth. Tell you what, if you think they're doing so well, how about you change places with them?
What we’re really talking about is a small percentage of income for the general good and this includes caring for those that have fallen on difficult times. Clearly there is much to discuss here about how small a percentage and how much caring is necessary. Personally I like “as little as possible” and “just the basic necessities” as answers to those questions.
But I suppose the real moral of the story could be something like why don’t those lazy bums earn their own living?
Well, the truth is that the overwhelming majority would be quite happy to earn their own living. Are there some people jobbing the system? Absolutely. My mother-in-law used to work for the welfare department and had stories that would make you grit your teeth. My favorite (or perhaps “favorite” isn’t exactly the right word) was the one about the women who arrived, in a taxi cab, to establish her daughters own welfare account on the daughters 18th birthday. There is clearly a chronic welfare society in our culture that needs to be addressed. The anecdotes are depressing, but the reality is that the dollars involved are fairly small.
The overwhelming majority of people getting financial assistance are not chronic welfare recipients. There are some of those, but there are also the temporarily unemployed and those with ongoing unemployment issues.
There are a number of reasons why an unemployed person might not be unable to get a job. The most obvious reason would be there aren’t any available. The same Republican politicians that tell you to moan about contributing to unemployment and welfare appear to be ok with corporate America outsourcing millions of manufacturing jobs overseas in order to make more money for the wealthiest segment of society.
They want you focused so much on the nickels and dimes taken from your paycheck to help the less fortunate that you overlook the $5 bills and $10 bills that never make it into your paycheck. Why don’t they make into my paycheck you ask? They don’t make it in due to the unfair share of American income diverted to the already rich in order to make them richer.
While the real income (in other words adjusted for inflation) of the bottom 80% of American wage earners has increased by 19% over the past 30 years, the real income of the top 20% has increased by 88%, the top 5% by 245% and the top 1% by a whopping 345%.
Please explain to me how this is right, fair or even rational?
In contrast, in the 30 years prior to that, the real income that marked the top of the lowest income quintile rose by 99.5%, the 2nd quintile by 95.4%, the 3rd quintile by 107.9% and the 4th quintile by 109.9%. At the tippy top of the income scale, the minimum income to be in the top 5% rose by 103.4%.
No wonder so many people remember those as the good old days of economic prosperity. It wasn’t so much that there was more prosperity, the prosperity was simply shared more evenly.
A second reason the unemployed might not be able to get a job might be the jobs are simply not where the unemployed are. If you live in Nevada or Florida, a job in Nebraska doesn’t do you a whole lot of good. If you live in Buffalo or Syracuse, a job in New York City may not do you much good either.
But the third, and most troubling reason, is that you just may not be qualified for that job.
The minimum educational requirements for well paying jobs in the U.S. has steadily risen over the past 20 or 30 years. Some of that rise is real, and some of it is illusionary; a matter of employers wanting employees to be better educated whether it’s necessary or not. Yes there are still jobs where you can make a decent salary without a college degree, but they are getting fewer and fewer.
This all goes along with the manufacturing jobs being outsourced. You could do a fine job on the assembly line with a High School diploma. Dedication and a willingness to work hard for an honest day’s pay meant more than being computer literate, knowing how to calculate sales margins or being able to do calculus.
Those days may well be gone. Even if a college degree might be unnecessary, a technical degree or specialized training might be. Retraining is often the key to helping people get back into the work force. So part of that welfare you’re complaining about goes for retraining and isn’t simply doled out as cash.
Now, in fairness, let’s address the strongest argument against welfare and unemployment compensation.
One can argue hey, wait a minute, why isn’t the contribution to the general good voluntary? What gives the government the right to decide who deserves my charity? The choice should be mine and not some politician’s.
This is a fair observation and, in a perfect world, or even a significantly less complex world, this would be the best solution. But things are just too complicated these days for private charity decisions to work well. The first problem would be that funds would tend to be readily available in prosperous areas and scarce in areas with severe economic problems. Unfortunately, as inefficient as it often is, government is probably the best suited for addressing the issue on the local, state and federal levels.
So while the jokes are clever, a little objective analysis shows them to be what they are, well designed, but very inaccurate, propaganda, intended to leave you with a totally misleading set of impressions.
Wisconsin Anti-union Bill
Well, the Republicans figured out a way around the requirement for 20 Senators; they simply pulled the key provisions eliminating collective bargaining for municipal unions out of the revenue bill and made it a separate non-revenue based measure.
I’m not going to criticize them for the end-run. It’s the same sort of trick the Democrats pulled in Congress on Health Care Reform to get around the Republican filibuster. It just goes to show how difficult it is to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
I am going to criticize them for taking away what has been a basic right in American society for most of this century, a right that has been paid for in blood by past union members, the right to collectively bargain.
For those that are condemning the municipal workers for having pensions and other benefits which are too lucrative, allow me to remind you that these things were accepted for years in lieu of pay raises. For decades this kept municipal workers behind private sector employees in salaries. I don’t remember anyone in the private sector complaining when they were making more money than municipal employees.
Now, thanks to big business outsourcing all of those lucrative manufacturing jobs, what the municipal unions “settled for” in the past has suddenly become something they don’t deserve.
New realities are new realities, and everyone has to work within the new rules going forward and the unions were clearly ready to do that. Stripping them of the primary benefit of a union, the ability to collectively bargain, however strikes me as more aimed at union busting that resolving a budget crisis.
I’d like to think the Republican Party will pay dearly for this, but they won’t. They’ll find someone to pin the blame on for something and distract the electorate again. Someone else taking nickels and dimes out of the electorate’s tax dollars while the Republicans divert $5 and $10, which never make it into the electorate’s paychecks to begin with, to the already wealthy.
Let’s face it, the American electorate is just too stupid to realize that big business, and its partner the Republican Party, have just robbed them blind again.
I’m not going to criticize them for the end-run. It’s the same sort of trick the Democrats pulled in Congress on Health Care Reform to get around the Republican filibuster. It just goes to show how difficult it is to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
I am going to criticize them for taking away what has been a basic right in American society for most of this century, a right that has been paid for in blood by past union members, the right to collectively bargain.
For those that are condemning the municipal workers for having pensions and other benefits which are too lucrative, allow me to remind you that these things were accepted for years in lieu of pay raises. For decades this kept municipal workers behind private sector employees in salaries. I don’t remember anyone in the private sector complaining when they were making more money than municipal employees.
Now, thanks to big business outsourcing all of those lucrative manufacturing jobs, what the municipal unions “settled for” in the past has suddenly become something they don’t deserve.
New realities are new realities, and everyone has to work within the new rules going forward and the unions were clearly ready to do that. Stripping them of the primary benefit of a union, the ability to collectively bargain, however strikes me as more aimed at union busting that resolving a budget crisis.
I’d like to think the Republican Party will pay dearly for this, but they won’t. They’ll find someone to pin the blame on for something and distract the electorate again. Someone else taking nickels and dimes out of the electorate’s tax dollars while the Republicans divert $5 and $10, which never make it into the electorate’s paychecks to begin with, to the already wealthy.
Let’s face it, the American electorate is just too stupid to realize that big business, and its partner the Republican Party, have just robbed them blind again.
Monday, March 07, 2011
Atheists Don’t Exist
One of the more delusional positions I’ve encountered taken by theists is that atheists don’t actually exist. There are two approaches to this position. The first is based upon some sort of “logical” argument (I place “logical” in quotes because, as usual, the theist is being anything but) and a second based upon biblical authority which I’m going to ignore for the moment.
I found a typical essay espousing this position by a gentleman using the name of Dante Tremayne. Below are excerpts, with commentary.
“I do not believe in the existence of atheists. “
You’re off to a really bad start. What you believe, or do not believe, is irrelevant. Reality has a way of persisting in spite of our “beliefs.”
“By ‘atheist’ I am referring to the ideal person who does not believe in the existence of God, not the person who labels themselves as an atheist.”
What the hell is the difference? Usually one arrives at a conclusion first and then accepts the label. Ah, but I suppose we must await further elucidation which is, I presume, yet to come.
“All people who label themselves as ‘atheist’ are not, by definition, atheists, because they all believe in the existence of God.”
I see. So should I presume that any self-label implies the opposite of the label? So are theists then non-theists, stamp collectors then non-stamp collectors and chess aficionados then non-chess aficionados.? Ah, but again, perhaps we just need to be patient and an explanation of this quixotic statement may yet be forthcoming.
“I know they believe in the existence of God by their irrational behavior. I am not referring to the inconsistency of their lives with their claims. For instance, the nonbeliever (I believe I will refer to our “atheist” friends by that term for the duration of this article) necessarily holds the belief that we are the result of time plus matter plus chance, merely evolving accidents, the product of random collisions of matter.”
Well, I have to admit that this is a rather unique description of Cosmology, Abiogenesis and what I suppose is Evolution. Let’s see, where does one start with this one. While chance plays a part, there is nothing random about Organic Chemistry or Natural Selection. Both follow well defined sets of rules and can be relatively easily modeled with mathematics. Is it possible some super intelligent deity designed and enforces those rules? Sure it’s possible, it just doesn’t seem all that likely.
“Yet they wish to believe that these accidental collisions produce truth, fact, and a coherent understanding of the universe.”
No, but the Big Bang, the formation of the stars and planets and the emergence of life and its evolution on planet Earth has left hints and evidence which can be studied and analyzed by a logical mind following the rules of scientific investigation. After several hundred years of doing this we have a vague sort of understanding of the way things might work. If you think it is totally coherent you’ve missed out on the lack of a unified theory and haven’t delved much into Quantum Mechanics. What we have is a series of as yet unconnected areas of fairly well substantiated conclusions separated by complex questions and gaps in our knowledge. It’s unclear to me why the fact that we are steadily expanding our knowledge and understanding is always a source of abject fear for the theist. Perhaps because the more we learn, the less need we have of the god hypothesis.
“The irrational behavior I am referring to is the nonbeliever’s inability to admit when they have been defeated.”
What’s this? Am I to understand that someone has actually come up with adequate evidence for the existence of god? Stop the presses! Warn the television and radio outlets! Huh, what’s that? No, nothing new has in fact been put forward beyond the same old teleological, ontological and cosmological arguments that have failed to impress skeptics for hundreds of years? Then allow me to suggest that so-called “defeat” exists only in your own mind. It's just another delusion.
“Instead, he retreats to his study to continue his search for one — just one — argument or proof that God does not exist. And he will repeat this over and over.”
Err, no, you have it backwards. The atheist has no burden of proof as he makes no positive claim. Disbelief is the null hypothesis; the default position. If you claim that a god exists, that is a positive statement and the burden of proof is upon you. If you don’t understand what I’m saying, then you don’t understand what an atheist is. Perhaps that’s why you, mistakenly, don’t believe they exist.
“If God were just some unicorn theory that had no real affect on a person’s life, as some nonbelievers claim, then why don’t they treat it as such? Why don’t they just shrug and go on?”
God, as he doesn't exist, may have no effect upon a person’s life but, unfortunately, his followers do. Personally I would love to simply “shrug and go on.” The problem is Muslims hijack aircraft and fly them into buildings and their Christian counterparts push their special brand of delusion into the public square every chance they get. As Chris Hitchens says, religion poisons everything. Left to their own devices Christians would have Christian prayers in the public schools, the Ten Commandments posted in public buildings and Creationism taught in lieu of the science of Evolution. I don’t really care if they want to wallow in their delusions and ignorance in the privacy of their own home or church but, when they infringe upon me and mine with their lunacy then I cannot “just shrug and go on;” I have to waste some of my precious existence defending my right to be free from their delusion.
“Here is how this works, and how I know I’m right. When the believer is discussing the existence of God with a nonbeliever, ask them why they don’t like God. Every one of them will present a list.”
Whoa, hold up a second there Tonto. That list relates to the believer’s CONCEPT of god and not to god as a real entity. Concepts can exist in and of themselves. I can acknowledge the “concept” of a unicorn and the “concept” of a leprechaun without accepting that these things exist. Similarly I can recognize the existence of the “concept” of a god, such as the Christian god, without having to accept his (her? Its?) existence. The point is that it is unclear to us why you would even desire such a god to exist. Luckily, he doesn’t.
“There are no atheists. If you were to find one real atheist, as G.K. Chesterton says, you will have found a madman.”
Nope. Sorry, but you’re wrong again. I’m a true atheist and I’m about as sane as anyone can be in this insane world. Actually, I wish I was insane, then perhaps the world might actually be sane and I could sleep much better at night.
To be honest the position is so ludicrous that the only way you can respond is to laugh at it. I suspect that it is rooted in the deep fear of the theist that his god may in fact not exist.
Those that espouse the biblical argument are usually very conservative fundamentalist Christians that claim the bible is inerrant and for them the stakes are even higher. The biblical argument is based upon Romans 1:20 where Paul makes the argument that god’s “eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen.”
So clearly that everyone, by definition, knows he exists. Now Paul wasn’t talking about atheists, but about pagans for he goes on to say they “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.”
But I suppose one could argue that an atheist is a special kind of pagan.
Now I say the stakes are higher because accepting that Paul is WRONG means the bible isn’t inerrant and the entire foundation of their religion collapses.
In the final analysis however both arguments rest upon the theist not understanding what an atheist believes and the long road most of us have taken to get where we are. I’ve encountered many theists that have never really thought about their beliefs. They just sort of accepted what they were taught and never saw any particular need to question things.
I’ve met very few atheists that haven’t spent a considerable amount of time thinking things through and the more religious their upbringing, the more thinking they’ve done. This is not an area that theists untrained in the realm of Apologetics should venture into. I saw many well meaning people walk into buzz saws on the now defunct General Apologetics Forum. A forum disbanded by Christian Forums because it became a deconversion pit.
So much for Christianity’s obvious truths.
I found a typical essay espousing this position by a gentleman using the name of Dante Tremayne. Below are excerpts, with commentary.
“I do not believe in the existence of atheists. “
You’re off to a really bad start. What you believe, or do not believe, is irrelevant. Reality has a way of persisting in spite of our “beliefs.”
“By ‘atheist’ I am referring to the ideal person who does not believe in the existence of God, not the person who labels themselves as an atheist.”
What the hell is the difference? Usually one arrives at a conclusion first and then accepts the label. Ah, but I suppose we must await further elucidation which is, I presume, yet to come.
“All people who label themselves as ‘atheist’ are not, by definition, atheists, because they all believe in the existence of God.”
I see. So should I presume that any self-label implies the opposite of the label? So are theists then non-theists, stamp collectors then non-stamp collectors and chess aficionados then non-chess aficionados.? Ah, but again, perhaps we just need to be patient and an explanation of this quixotic statement may yet be forthcoming.
“I know they believe in the existence of God by their irrational behavior. I am not referring to the inconsistency of their lives with their claims. For instance, the nonbeliever (I believe I will refer to our “atheist” friends by that term for the duration of this article) necessarily holds the belief that we are the result of time plus matter plus chance, merely evolving accidents, the product of random collisions of matter.”
Well, I have to admit that this is a rather unique description of Cosmology, Abiogenesis and what I suppose is Evolution. Let’s see, where does one start with this one. While chance plays a part, there is nothing random about Organic Chemistry or Natural Selection. Both follow well defined sets of rules and can be relatively easily modeled with mathematics. Is it possible some super intelligent deity designed and enforces those rules? Sure it’s possible, it just doesn’t seem all that likely.
“Yet they wish to believe that these accidental collisions produce truth, fact, and a coherent understanding of the universe.”
No, but the Big Bang, the formation of the stars and planets and the emergence of life and its evolution on planet Earth has left hints and evidence which can be studied and analyzed by a logical mind following the rules of scientific investigation. After several hundred years of doing this we have a vague sort of understanding of the way things might work. If you think it is totally coherent you’ve missed out on the lack of a unified theory and haven’t delved much into Quantum Mechanics. What we have is a series of as yet unconnected areas of fairly well substantiated conclusions separated by complex questions and gaps in our knowledge. It’s unclear to me why the fact that we are steadily expanding our knowledge and understanding is always a source of abject fear for the theist. Perhaps because the more we learn, the less need we have of the god hypothesis.
“The irrational behavior I am referring to is the nonbeliever’s inability to admit when they have been defeated.”
What’s this? Am I to understand that someone has actually come up with adequate evidence for the existence of god? Stop the presses! Warn the television and radio outlets! Huh, what’s that? No, nothing new has in fact been put forward beyond the same old teleological, ontological and cosmological arguments that have failed to impress skeptics for hundreds of years? Then allow me to suggest that so-called “defeat” exists only in your own mind. It's just another delusion.
“Instead, he retreats to his study to continue his search for one — just one — argument or proof that God does not exist. And he will repeat this over and over.”
Err, no, you have it backwards. The atheist has no burden of proof as he makes no positive claim. Disbelief is the null hypothesis; the default position. If you claim that a god exists, that is a positive statement and the burden of proof is upon you. If you don’t understand what I’m saying, then you don’t understand what an atheist is. Perhaps that’s why you, mistakenly, don’t believe they exist.
“If God were just some unicorn theory that had no real affect on a person’s life, as some nonbelievers claim, then why don’t they treat it as such? Why don’t they just shrug and go on?”
God, as he doesn't exist, may have no effect upon a person’s life but, unfortunately, his followers do. Personally I would love to simply “shrug and go on.” The problem is Muslims hijack aircraft and fly them into buildings and their Christian counterparts push their special brand of delusion into the public square every chance they get. As Chris Hitchens says, religion poisons everything. Left to their own devices Christians would have Christian prayers in the public schools, the Ten Commandments posted in public buildings and Creationism taught in lieu of the science of Evolution. I don’t really care if they want to wallow in their delusions and ignorance in the privacy of their own home or church but, when they infringe upon me and mine with their lunacy then I cannot “just shrug and go on;” I have to waste some of my precious existence defending my right to be free from their delusion.
“Here is how this works, and how I know I’m right. When the believer is discussing the existence of God with a nonbeliever, ask them why they don’t like God. Every one of them will present a list.”
Whoa, hold up a second there Tonto. That list relates to the believer’s CONCEPT of god and not to god as a real entity. Concepts can exist in and of themselves. I can acknowledge the “concept” of a unicorn and the “concept” of a leprechaun without accepting that these things exist. Similarly I can recognize the existence of the “concept” of a god, such as the Christian god, without having to accept his (her? Its?) existence. The point is that it is unclear to us why you would even desire such a god to exist. Luckily, he doesn’t.
“There are no atheists. If you were to find one real atheist, as G.K. Chesterton says, you will have found a madman.”
Nope. Sorry, but you’re wrong again. I’m a true atheist and I’m about as sane as anyone can be in this insane world. Actually, I wish I was insane, then perhaps the world might actually be sane and I could sleep much better at night.
To be honest the position is so ludicrous that the only way you can respond is to laugh at it. I suspect that it is rooted in the deep fear of the theist that his god may in fact not exist.
Those that espouse the biblical argument are usually very conservative fundamentalist Christians that claim the bible is inerrant and for them the stakes are even higher. The biblical argument is based upon Romans 1:20 where Paul makes the argument that god’s “eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen.”
So clearly that everyone, by definition, knows he exists. Now Paul wasn’t talking about atheists, but about pagans for he goes on to say they “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.”
But I suppose one could argue that an atheist is a special kind of pagan.
Now I say the stakes are higher because accepting that Paul is WRONG means the bible isn’t inerrant and the entire foundation of their religion collapses.
In the final analysis however both arguments rest upon the theist not understanding what an atheist believes and the long road most of us have taken to get where we are. I’ve encountered many theists that have never really thought about their beliefs. They just sort of accepted what they were taught and never saw any particular need to question things.
I’ve met very few atheists that haven’t spent a considerable amount of time thinking things through and the more religious their upbringing, the more thinking they’ve done. This is not an area that theists untrained in the realm of Apologetics should venture into. I saw many well meaning people walk into buzz saws on the now defunct General Apologetics Forum. A forum disbanded by Christian Forums because it became a deconversion pit.
So much for Christianity’s obvious truths.
The Question of Abortion
I have made it no secret that I have been struggling with doubt in relation to the question of abortion. I have now resolved that doubt.
Allow me to make a definitive statement, the only good number for the number of abortions per year is ZERO. Unfortunately, there are instances where an abortion may be justified or necessary.
Don’t ask me to articulate what those instances are. I freely admit that I’m not smart enough to identify them and, I’m a hell of a lot smarter than 98.3% of politicians, so they aren’t smart enough to identify them either.
So who can identify them? Only the people involved on a case by case basis. I don’t trust generalities here at all. It is no one else’s business so I cannot, under any circumstances, support any arbitrary restrictions upon abortion access regardless of how reasonable they might sound. Nor can I support measures designed to intimidate someone from making one decision or the other such as forcing pregnant women to have an ultrasound before having an abortion performed.
So what about the “abortion is murder business?”
Well, by definition abortion is not murder because murder is illicit killing and abortion is not illegal.
What about the sixth commandment which says “Thou shalt not kill?”
Well, actually the sixth commandment doesn’t say that. The King James Version has the wrong translation and this has been corrected in the New King James Version to “You shall not murder.”
The updated translation is actually correct. “Kill” applies to all killing regardless of whether it is legal, illegal, justified or unjustified. You can “kill” in self defense. You cannot “murder” in self defense because “murder,” by definition, applies only to illegal and unjustified killing. The Hebrew word equivalent to the English “kill” is “harag.” The word used in Exodus 20:13 is “ratsach,” which refers to criminal acts of killing and is properly rendered “murder” in English.
So, guess what, the bible doesn’t actually condemn “killing,” but only “criminal killing” or murder.
Please don’t tell me I’m picking nits here. This is a lot more than a nit.
The other biblical passage said to be related to abortion, and often quoted by anti-abortion folks, is Exodus 21:22-25 which states:
“If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. “
he problem with using this as a prohibition for abortion is that the woman involved did not determine that the abortion was justified or necessary. In fact, the choice has been removed from her by an act of violence. It’s not nearly the same thing.
Abortions have been practiced for thousands of years and for various reasons. It’s hard to believe that midwives in Judea 3,000 years ago weren’t armed with the same herbal remedies for an unwanted pregnancy as their Ancient Greek counterparts.
I’m not defending abortion in general. I am saying that I understand that sometimes it may be justified, and the only person that can decide if it is justified, is the woman involved. I am also saying that who she consults with before reaching a conclusion, is also her decision so I also must reject attempts to play upon her emotions as a type of intimidation.
How do you insure that she understands the implications of her decision? Unfortunately, I don’t believe you can. Like war, this is something that cannot be completely understood without experiencing it.
So, I guess I’ve sort of come full circle back to where I was to begin with. Except, perhaps, now I better understand why I’m there.
Thursday, March 03, 2011
There are Nuts Under Every Tree
Democrats in Pima County Arizona are mumbling about making a new state because they’re upset with the “extremist policies” of the state legislature.
The new state would be called Baja Arizona.
There is only one small problem with this idea (actually there are several but I’ll focus on one). The small problem is Article IV, Section 3 of the United States Constitution which reads:
“New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”
I find it hard to believe that the "extremist" legislature of Arizona would approve the seperation and neither would a Republican Congress.
West Virginia was formed out of a section of Virginia but only because Virginia, as part of the Confederacy, was in rebellion at that time.
Guys, at least READ the document you are sworn to preserve and protect.
The new state would be called Baja Arizona.
There is only one small problem with this idea (actually there are several but I’ll focus on one). The small problem is Article IV, Section 3 of the United States Constitution which reads:
“New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”
I find it hard to believe that the "extremist" legislature of Arizona would approve the seperation and neither would a Republican Congress.
West Virginia was formed out of a section of Virginia but only because Virginia, as part of the Confederacy, was in rebellion at that time.
Guys, at least READ the document you are sworn to preserve and protect.
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
The Deal with DOMA
Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage, for federal law, as between one man and one woman regardless of what the states say. In other words, two males may be married according to the state of Iowa or Massachusetts or Vermont but, as far as the federal government is concerned, they’re not married.
The distinction is vitally important for things like federal income taxes and Social Security and this is the sole exception to the rule that the states determine who is married.
There are several cases working their way through the courts challenging the constitutionality of the law. It has already been declared unconstitutional in a federal court in Massachusetts.
In the latest development, Attorney General Eric Holder has sent notification to the U.S. Congress that the Obama Administration believes that any law affecting lesbians and gay men deserves “heightened scrutiny” by the courts, that section 3 of DOMA is discriminatory and the Department of Justice (DOJ) cannot, and will not, defend it in court.
Now, this has nothing to do with not enforcing DOMA as some fundies out there appear to think it does. The administration must, and will, enforce all laws. Only the courts can overturn a law and only Congress can repeal one.
What it does mean is that (1) the DOJ will not defend DOMA in the case in the 2nd circuit nor in the current California case. It has already defended it in the 1st circuit but, should the ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional be upheld there, the administration will not appeal.
Congress can decide to assign its own special counsel or a private group can petition to defend DOMA as was done for Proposition 8 in California when both the governor and attorney general refused to defend it.
Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has indicated that congress will appoint a special counsel. So you see, the Republicans have no problem spending money on some things. Actually, given the rapid anti-gay marriage position of a good portion of the Republican under 80 IQ trailer park base, I don’t see how they could possibly do anything else. Still, it should be very entertaining to hear how congressmen that declare the federal government can’t regulate health care explain how it can regulate marriage.
But make no mistake, this is a BIG deal. Why? Because the courts tend to listen to the Justice Department and should the courts choose to use “heightened scrutiny” on cases involving homosexuals, defending legal differences between gays and straights becomes much more difficult as the burden of proof becomes greater.
Of course Maggie Gallagher, of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) which is fiercely anti-gay marriage and is currently defending Prop 8 in California, is touting the DOMA announcement as the death knell for both Obama and Gay Marriage. I doubt it. The issue is still a legal one and the American electorate probably isn’t going to equate the administration announcement as having anything to do with the upcoming legal decisions.
As to her assessment that this will help win the legal case for DOMA, I don’t see it. The courts are becoming more and more hostile to homosexual discrimination as are the legislatures. It’s only the general electorate that hasn’t caught up. And they haven’t caught up primarily because of the kind of unsubstantiated swill peddled by organizations like NOM. Judges aren’t swayed by fear mongering and that’s about all the anti-gay marriage forces have left. It’s only a matter of time before the electorate realizes there must be a good reason for all those legal decisions in favor of gay marriage.
In the gay marriage fight victory is assured. The only questions are how long will it take, and what will be the cost. I look forward to seeing Gallagher and the rest of NOM boiled in their own bullshit. We’re not quite there yet, but the days of the long march appear to be over and the time for a new offensive appears to have come.
The distinction is vitally important for things like federal income taxes and Social Security and this is the sole exception to the rule that the states determine who is married.
There are several cases working their way through the courts challenging the constitutionality of the law. It has already been declared unconstitutional in a federal court in Massachusetts.
In the latest development, Attorney General Eric Holder has sent notification to the U.S. Congress that the Obama Administration believes that any law affecting lesbians and gay men deserves “heightened scrutiny” by the courts, that section 3 of DOMA is discriminatory and the Department of Justice (DOJ) cannot, and will not, defend it in court.
Now, this has nothing to do with not enforcing DOMA as some fundies out there appear to think it does. The administration must, and will, enforce all laws. Only the courts can overturn a law and only Congress can repeal one.
What it does mean is that (1) the DOJ will not defend DOMA in the case in the 2nd circuit nor in the current California case. It has already defended it in the 1st circuit but, should the ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional be upheld there, the administration will not appeal.
Congress can decide to assign its own special counsel or a private group can petition to defend DOMA as was done for Proposition 8 in California when both the governor and attorney general refused to defend it.
Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has indicated that congress will appoint a special counsel. So you see, the Republicans have no problem spending money on some things. Actually, given the rapid anti-gay marriage position of a good portion of the Republican under 80 IQ trailer park base, I don’t see how they could possibly do anything else. Still, it should be very entertaining to hear how congressmen that declare the federal government can’t regulate health care explain how it can regulate marriage.
But make no mistake, this is a BIG deal. Why? Because the courts tend to listen to the Justice Department and should the courts choose to use “heightened scrutiny” on cases involving homosexuals, defending legal differences between gays and straights becomes much more difficult as the burden of proof becomes greater.
Of course Maggie Gallagher, of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) which is fiercely anti-gay marriage and is currently defending Prop 8 in California, is touting the DOMA announcement as the death knell for both Obama and Gay Marriage. I doubt it. The issue is still a legal one and the American electorate probably isn’t going to equate the administration announcement as having anything to do with the upcoming legal decisions.
As to her assessment that this will help win the legal case for DOMA, I don’t see it. The courts are becoming more and more hostile to homosexual discrimination as are the legislatures. It’s only the general electorate that hasn’t caught up. And they haven’t caught up primarily because of the kind of unsubstantiated swill peddled by organizations like NOM. Judges aren’t swayed by fear mongering and that’s about all the anti-gay marriage forces have left. It’s only a matter of time before the electorate realizes there must be a good reason for all those legal decisions in favor of gay marriage.
In the gay marriage fight victory is assured. The only questions are how long will it take, and what will be the cost. I look forward to seeing Gallagher and the rest of NOM boiled in their own bullshit. We’re not quite there yet, but the days of the long march appear to be over and the time for a new offensive appears to have come.
This just in...
After getting fed up with what it considered Westboro's publicity seeking accusations, Anonymous has brought down the church's web site just seconds after, in a video exchange, being told it couldn't manage it.
“The world (including Anonymous) disagrees with your hateful messages, but you have the right to voice them. This does not mean you can jump onto Anonymous for attention."
This is vigilante justice but, you know what, it feels right.
“The world (including Anonymous) disagrees with your hateful messages, but you have the right to voice them. This does not mean you can jump onto Anonymous for attention."
This is vigilante justice but, you know what, it feels right.
SCOTUS Rules for Westboro Baptist Church
The United States Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, decided that “Reverend” Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church’s picketing of soldier’s funerals carrying signs such as “God hates fags” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” was protected speech under the 1st Amendment.
Judge Samuel Alito dissented.
This is one of those rulings that makes you grind your teeth. Albert Snyder, the father of Matthew Snyder who died in Iraq, sued the church for “emotional distress” after it picketed his son’s funeral and posted a poem on its web site attacked how Matthew’s parents had raised their son.
Snyder originally won an $11 million judgment against the church, which was later reduced to $5 million, but the decision was overturned by a Federal Court in Virginia which also assessed Snyder $16,000 in legal fees which he refused to pay until the Supreme Court had ruled on the case.
The legal fees are almost a moot point because Bill O’Reilly has said that he’s going to pay them if Snyder loses. This is probably the first thing O’Reilly and I ever agreed upon.
I understand the theory that if everyone’s speech isn’t protected then no one’s speech is protected and the idea of supporting the right of people to say things you don’t like, but there are limits. As I said the last time, the issue wasn’t WHAT Phelps was saying but WHERE he was saying it.
Veteran’s Groups, forty-eight states and 42 U.S. Senators supported Snyder claiming that what the Westboro Church was doing amounted to “psychological terrorism” but it didn’t do any good.
The conclusion in the decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts was as follows:
“Westboro addressed matters of public import on public property, in a peaceful manner, in full compliance with the guidance of local officials. It did not disrupt Mathew Snyder’s funeral, and its choice to picket at that time and place did not alter the nature of its speech. Because this Nation has chosen to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that public debate is not stifled, Westboro must be shielded from tort liability for its picketing in this case.”
Judge Alito in his dissent said:
“Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case.
Petitioner Albert Snyder is not a public figure. He is simply a parent whose son, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, was killed in Iraq. Mr. Snyder wanted what is surely the right of any parent who experiences such an incalculable loss: to bury his son in peace. But respondents, members of the Westboro Baptist Church, deprived him of that elementary right…The Court now holds that the First Amendment protected respondents’ right to brutalize Mr. Snyder. I cannot agree.”
I cannot agree either. Remember the old saying, your rights end where my rights begin. The court got this one wrong.
Judge Samuel Alito dissented.
This is one of those rulings that makes you grind your teeth. Albert Snyder, the father of Matthew Snyder who died in Iraq, sued the church for “emotional distress” after it picketed his son’s funeral and posted a poem on its web site attacked how Matthew’s parents had raised their son.
Snyder originally won an $11 million judgment against the church, which was later reduced to $5 million, but the decision was overturned by a Federal Court in Virginia which also assessed Snyder $16,000 in legal fees which he refused to pay until the Supreme Court had ruled on the case.
The legal fees are almost a moot point because Bill O’Reilly has said that he’s going to pay them if Snyder loses. This is probably the first thing O’Reilly and I ever agreed upon.
I understand the theory that if everyone’s speech isn’t protected then no one’s speech is protected and the idea of supporting the right of people to say things you don’t like, but there are limits. As I said the last time, the issue wasn’t WHAT Phelps was saying but WHERE he was saying it.
Veteran’s Groups, forty-eight states and 42 U.S. Senators supported Snyder claiming that what the Westboro Church was doing amounted to “psychological terrorism” but it didn’t do any good.
The conclusion in the decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts was as follows:
“Westboro addressed matters of public import on public property, in a peaceful manner, in full compliance with the guidance of local officials. It did not disrupt Mathew Snyder’s funeral, and its choice to picket at that time and place did not alter the nature of its speech. Because this Nation has chosen to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that public debate is not stifled, Westboro must be shielded from tort liability for its picketing in this case.”
Judge Alito in his dissent said:
“Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case.
Petitioner Albert Snyder is not a public figure. He is simply a parent whose son, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, was killed in Iraq. Mr. Snyder wanted what is surely the right of any parent who experiences such an incalculable loss: to bury his son in peace. But respondents, members of the Westboro Baptist Church, deprived him of that elementary right…The Court now holds that the First Amendment protected respondents’ right to brutalize Mr. Snyder. I cannot agree.”
I cannot agree either. Remember the old saying, your rights end where my rights begin. The court got this one wrong.
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
Conservatives with their heads where the sun don’t shine
So what else is new?
The latest conservative absurdity is playing itself out in Tennessee where a state legislator from Murfreesboro has introduced legislation that would make following some portions of the Islamic Shariah law a felony.
The bill was provided by the Eagle Forum and, apparently, was drafted by an Arizona lawyer by the name of David Yerushalmi. This dodo represented “Stop the Madrassa” in NYC a while back in the witch hunt over the assignment of Arab American Debbie Almontaser as principal of a dual language Arabic-English elementary school. In that case, despite repeated assurances that it was a public school with no intention of teaching Islam, the group managed to get Almontaser replaced but did not stop the school from being opened anyway.
Of course the result, despite all the hysteria, was a perfectly benign public school that was part of a larger dual language school program in the city.
This time around, according to Yerushalmi, "The legislation simply states that Shariah that follows the law of jihad, which calls for the violent overthrow of the Tennessee and U.S. government, is the Shariah that is at issue.”
And you’re a lawyer? Here’s a news flash for you sport, it’s already illegal to advocate the violent overthrow of a state or the U.S. government. That would make your legislation redundant if that’s all it covers.
There are two things I’ve found conservatives good at, lying and coming up with really stupid ideas based upon complete misconceptions. This looks to me like a little engaging in the former in order to cover the extent of the latter.
The First Amendment Center has called the bill a "really distorted understanding of Shariah law."
Again, I have to ask, so what else is new? Conservatives are famous for making decisions and coming up with policies based upon really distorted understandings. Would you like a few examples? Let’s try Slavery, Segregation, Gay Marriage, Evolution, Health Care Reform, Fiscal Policy, War and Peace, Economics and so on and so forth.
The world would be a dramatically different place if they would take their heads out from their rear ends and look up THE FACTS before forming their opinions. Of course that would require reading and thinking, neither of which are skills conservatives are very good at.
The latest conservative absurdity is playing itself out in Tennessee where a state legislator from Murfreesboro has introduced legislation that would make following some portions of the Islamic Shariah law a felony.
The bill was provided by the Eagle Forum and, apparently, was drafted by an Arizona lawyer by the name of David Yerushalmi. This dodo represented “Stop the Madrassa” in NYC a while back in the witch hunt over the assignment of Arab American Debbie Almontaser as principal of a dual language Arabic-English elementary school. In that case, despite repeated assurances that it was a public school with no intention of teaching Islam, the group managed to get Almontaser replaced but did not stop the school from being opened anyway.
Of course the result, despite all the hysteria, was a perfectly benign public school that was part of a larger dual language school program in the city.
This time around, according to Yerushalmi, "The legislation simply states that Shariah that follows the law of jihad, which calls for the violent overthrow of the Tennessee and U.S. government, is the Shariah that is at issue.”
And you’re a lawyer? Here’s a news flash for you sport, it’s already illegal to advocate the violent overthrow of a state or the U.S. government. That would make your legislation redundant if that’s all it covers.
There are two things I’ve found conservatives good at, lying and coming up with really stupid ideas based upon complete misconceptions. This looks to me like a little engaging in the former in order to cover the extent of the latter.
The First Amendment Center has called the bill a "really distorted understanding of Shariah law."
Again, I have to ask, so what else is new? Conservatives are famous for making decisions and coming up with policies based upon really distorted understandings. Would you like a few examples? Let’s try Slavery, Segregation, Gay Marriage, Evolution, Health Care Reform, Fiscal Policy, War and Peace, Economics and so on and so forth.
The world would be a dramatically different place if they would take their heads out from their rear ends and look up THE FACTS before forming their opinions. Of course that would require reading and thinking, neither of which are skills conservatives are very good at.
Let’s talk Libya
Mommar Gadhafi has made it clear that he doesn’t intend to be the latest domino in the Arab World. The protests in Libya have quickly become violent as forces loyal to Gadhafi appear trying to quell the latest unrest.
At least one Libyan city, Zawiya, has been taken by the rebels and an assault to retake the city appears to have failed. There are reports that elements of the army have joined the gathering rebellion. At least two Libyan pilots are reported to have fled to Malta rather than bomb their own countrymen.
In the meantime the U.N. is levying sanctions and American and European Union military forces appear to be moseying into the area just in case.
I don’t know where this one is headed but it doesn’t look encouraging.
In the tiny country of Bahrain the government appears ready to negotiate with protesters. I suspect the problem is going to be finding someone that can speak with authority for the people in the street. In Saudi Arabia the government is reported to be showering gifts on the populace to head off any possible disturbances there where, at least so far, things have been quiet.
Overall a dose of democracy in the Arab World could be a good thing or it could be a disaster. I don’t think democracy is the right sort of government for everyone. I mean, look at how Americans tend to screw it up by electing people like Michelle Bachman and Rand Paul. The danger of course is either a slide into theocracy or the emergence of a new strongman after it becomes obvious that things aren’t going to get enormously better overnight.
Still, a least for the moment, we can hope that things turn out positively but I’m not all that optimistic.
At least one Libyan city, Zawiya, has been taken by the rebels and an assault to retake the city appears to have failed. There are reports that elements of the army have joined the gathering rebellion. At least two Libyan pilots are reported to have fled to Malta rather than bomb their own countrymen.
In the meantime the U.N. is levying sanctions and American and European Union military forces appear to be moseying into the area just in case.
I don’t know where this one is headed but it doesn’t look encouraging.
In the tiny country of Bahrain the government appears ready to negotiate with protesters. I suspect the problem is going to be finding someone that can speak with authority for the people in the street. In Saudi Arabia the government is reported to be showering gifts on the populace to head off any possible disturbances there where, at least so far, things have been quiet.
Overall a dose of democracy in the Arab World could be a good thing or it could be a disaster. I don’t think democracy is the right sort of government for everyone. I mean, look at how Americans tend to screw it up by electing people like Michelle Bachman and Rand Paul. The danger of course is either a slide into theocracy or the emergence of a new strongman after it becomes obvious that things aren’t going to get enormously better overnight.
Still, a least for the moment, we can hope that things turn out positively but I’m not all that optimistic.
The Eye of the Beholder
It seems Iran is upset with the logo for the 2012 London Olympics. So upset they’re threatening a boycott.
Now anyone with a sense of artistic style would be upset with the logo because, to be quite honest, it looks like stuff shoved hastily into a closet. But the Iranians aren’t concerned with condoning sloppiness, they see a far darker implication.
Now anyone with a sense of artistic style would be upset with the logo because, to be quite honest, it looks like stuff shoved hastily into a closet. But the Iranians aren’t concerned with condoning sloppiness, they see a far darker implication.The Iranians claim that the logo spells out the word “Zion” and is therefore racist.
Well, I guess if you start in the upper left that could be a “Z;” then go down to a lower case “I” with the dot displaced to its right side; then go catty corner to the upper right where we find a filled in “O;” finally it’s straight down to a sort of drunken “N” and, voila, “Zion.”
You have got to be kidding me.
If this isn’t a conspiracy by the art world to get the dumb looking thing scrapped, than I say screw them. Let them stay home if that’s what makes them happy.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
