I got sued. Number 3 Daughter, while driving my cherished Grand Cherokee, did something dumb and had a fender bender in a mall parking lot. I figured I was in trouble when the lady in the other car opted to go the hospital “just in case.”
Everything was quiet for three years and then the dreaded registered letters arrived with the news of a law suit being filed against my daughter, because she was driving the car, and your’s truly because it was my insurance policy and my car.
After cursing long and loudly I dumped the whole thing in the lap of my insurance company. This wasn’t the first time this had happened to me. I had gotten sued over a dumb left turn Number 1 Daughter had executed which had resulted in a far more serious accident. I mean, this one should be easy right? It was just a parking lot fender bender. WRONG!
About 10 months later we were sitting in an office taking depositions. The lawyer I got assigned from my insurance company was a West Point graduate named Dennis, a nice guy and a pretty good lawyer. The first case had never gotten this far and I sort of figured again that I was in big trouble when I saw that the opposing lawyer had photographs of the accident scene! I was immediately reminded of Alice’s Restaurant.
The deposition revealed that the lady whose car my daughter had chosen to bump into was what I can only describe as a medical marvel. This lady had more stuff wrong with her than religious fundamentalists have hang-ups. She knew more doctors than the capacity of Giant’s Stadium. The very day after the accident she had her foot operated on. Plus, she had several degenerative diseases.
What she was claiming was that the accident caused her to bang her head on the window and hurt her neck. Given her medical history I was flabbergasted she didn’t simply disintegrate. My lawyer and the insurance adjuster suspected that she was blaming the accident for a pre-existing condition. The fact that they were having trouble getting medical records sort of strengthened that suspicion. I just wanted the whole thing to go away.
Incredibly, sometime last December I got a letter that a trial date had been scheduled for June. That didn’t happen because of the aforementioned difficulty in obtaining medical records and the trial date was moved to September 17, 2007.
Now, I don’t know anything about court mechanics other than what you see on Law and Order is pretty much nonsense. I’ve never been on a jury because defense attorneys don’t seem to trust me for some reason and I’m usually the first guy they boot. As the fateful date approach I searched longingly for either a phone call or a letter telling me that the case had been settled and I was off the hook. Labor Day came and went so I decided I'd better call Dennis and find out what the hell was going on.
I managed to make contact on September 6th. After finding out that the trial was still on, but it wouldn’t be unusual for it to be settled the Friday before, I asked where exactly my daughter and I were supposed to be on the 17th and when. To this Dennis replied that we probably wouldn’t be needed on the 17th since it was only the first day. The first day? THE FIRST DAY!
Yup, apparently the medical marvel and her lawyer were seriously demanding the value of the insurance policy in compensation because they were claiming a permanent neck injury.
Note two things about the previous statement. The first is that we are talking about a boom-boom that both parties agree was at about 5 miles per hour and, more interestingly, we’re not talking about a specific amount, but the maximum on my insurance policy. That maximum happened to be $250,000. More about this maximum stuff later.
Clearly the problem was that my insurance company, who Dennis worked for full time, had no incentive to settle for their maximum liability. I got a call on September 11th from the office paralegal that the judge may have a conflict and the trial may be postponed.
By now things were starting to get scrunched and I’m trying to figure if I should think about re-arranging my business schedule and my daughter is trying to figure out if she would be able to accept some free lance work that might come her way during the week of the trial. Since you can’t really predict what’s going to happen, you get sort of paralyzed.
By Thursday the 13th I was starting to get really annoyed at everyone involved, the medical marvel, Dennis, the judge and even the para legal, but I couldn’t locate Dennis. Finally we touched base about 10 o’clock that night. Dennis had been unavailable because his father had to have an emergency bypass operation that day, but he had managed to gather some new information.
First, they had finally gotten all of the medical records by literally camping a private investigator at a doctor’s office. Second, as expected, the records showed some iffy stuff. Third, for the first time the insurance adjuster and the opposing attorney were talking directly and fourth, the judge was up for re-election and didn’t appear too interested in anything other than campaigning. What this all meant was that everything was pretty much still up in the air.
Friday and the weekend came and went with no news. Finally, on Monday the 17th, I got a call from Dennis that the case had been settled. Dennis said when he found out he had called every number he had for me including work, home, and my daughter’s cell. Like I said, Dennis is a nice guy.
They settled for $125,000. That’s a pretty big hunk of change but supposedly neck injuries average $200,000 to $250,000. Of course this is assuming she really had a neck injury caused by the accident.
A lot of things about this experience bother me. First of all is the length of time involved. It was three years from the accident to the notice of a law suit and then another two years to arrive at a trial date. When the accident occured my daughter was entering her senior year in High School. When it was settled she was a college graduate working free lance while searching for a permanent job.
The second is the implication that the suit was for the maximum on the policy. What would have happened if I only had $100,000 in liability? Would they have tried to get the additional $150,000 in the original claim from me? Clearly that would have been a harder sell to a jury then trying to collect from a perceived fat cat insurance company so I suspect the answer is they would have settled for the $100,000.
Then let’s talk about the $125,000. At least 33% of that goes to the lawyer after deducting for expenses. Dennis told me that the doctor they had lined up to testify was well known around the courtroom and didn’t come cheap. Even though he didn’t have to testify I sure they had to pay for consultations and so on and so forth. How much? $5,000 to $10,000 perhaps? If we assume only $5,000 in expenses to keep the arithmetic nice and even, that means $40,000 for the lawyer and $80,000 for the medical marvel. Too bad judgments from personal injury claims aren’t taxable.
Personally, I think the claim was nonsense. I base this conclusion upon the answers I heard, and the body language I saw, at the deposition. I’m not saying the lady doesn’t have neck or shoulder problems, she may even honestly believe that the accident was the cause, but in my opinion there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that they're related to the fender bender in the mall parking lot. I think Dennis and the insurance adjuster agree with me, but it just wasn’t worth the risk of letting this go to a jury because juries are too unpredictable.
If the statement “juries are too unpredictable” doesn’t bother you, it should. The only good news out of this whole affair is that Dennis’ dad came through the bypass surgery with flying colors and is well on the way to recovery.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Death Penalty Update
Two big events have occurred recently on the Death Penalty scene.
First, a U.S. District Court judge in Tennessee last week declared the method of lethal injection used in Tennessee to be unconstitutional. Second, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case from Kentucky which claims that lethal injection is Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
Despite the right wing character of the current court, there is some cause for optimism as the court has made it easier for inmates to contest lethal injection. I guess we shall see what we shall see.
To date there have been 41 executions in the United States this year, 25 of which have been in the state of Texas. There are another 12 scheduled through the end of the year including 4 in Texas. If all the executions go forward, that would bring the total for 2007 to 53, the same number as in 2006 but less than the 60 in 2005.
In the meantime, back in the execution capital we call Texas; the trial judge in the Cathy Henderson case apparently hasn’t made a decision yet about a new trial. Henderson is the baby sitter convicted of murder, and sentenced to die, in the death of 3-month old Brandon Baugh. Henderson claims that the death was an accident. She says that she was swinging the baby around in an attempt to soothe the infant, lost her balance and Brandon flew from her arms. Ok, so she’s an idiot. That doesn’t mean she deserves a lethal injection. That fact that Henderson fled after the tragedy probably didn’t help her case any either.
The coroner that had originally testified that the baby’s injuries were inconsistent with Henderson’s story now says that new scientific methods and information leads him to believe that it’s impossible to be certain one way or the other.
Sounds like enough for a new trial to me, does it sound like it to you too? Henderson has been on death row for 12 years. If it turns out that she was wrongly convicted, does she get those 12 years back?
First, a U.S. District Court judge in Tennessee last week declared the method of lethal injection used in Tennessee to be unconstitutional. Second, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case from Kentucky which claims that lethal injection is Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
Despite the right wing character of the current court, there is some cause for optimism as the court has made it easier for inmates to contest lethal injection. I guess we shall see what we shall see.
To date there have been 41 executions in the United States this year, 25 of which have been in the state of Texas. There are another 12 scheduled through the end of the year including 4 in Texas. If all the executions go forward, that would bring the total for 2007 to 53, the same number as in 2006 but less than the 60 in 2005.
In the meantime, back in the execution capital we call Texas; the trial judge in the Cathy Henderson case apparently hasn’t made a decision yet about a new trial. Henderson is the baby sitter convicted of murder, and sentenced to die, in the death of 3-month old Brandon Baugh. Henderson claims that the death was an accident. She says that she was swinging the baby around in an attempt to soothe the infant, lost her balance and Brandon flew from her arms. Ok, so she’s an idiot. That doesn’t mean she deserves a lethal injection. That fact that Henderson fled after the tragedy probably didn’t help her case any either.
The coroner that had originally testified that the baby’s injuries were inconsistent with Henderson’s story now says that new scientific methods and information leads him to believe that it’s impossible to be certain one way or the other.
Sounds like enough for a new trial to me, does it sound like it to you too? Henderson has been on death row for 12 years. If it turns out that she was wrongly convicted, does she get those 12 years back?
Monday, September 24, 2007
Where is it all going?
I’m really not sure where it’s all going.
Global Warming, Iraq and Religious Fundamentalism all frighten me. They strike me as things for which I don’t see anything even remotely resembling a viable solution.
The science surrounding Global Warming clearly appears to herald a potential disaster but, then again, so did air and water pollution back in the 60’s and early 70’s appear that way. At least the right wing has stopped trying to make it sound like there’s really nothing wrong. The first step in solving any problem is the recognition that there’s a problem to be solved.
I see no good solution in Iraq. It appears that the only thing preventing all out sectarian war and the accompanying horrors is the American presence on the ground. Unfortunately that’s a presence we can no longer sustain. I don’t think there is anything we can do to prevent the coming bloodshed.
Basically Bush and company screwed that pooch when they sent the 3rd Infantry across the border. The most we can do now is withdraw and let the chips fall where they may. If there is going to be a war, at least it will be a war that the Iraqi’s choose for themselves and not one thrust upon them by us. We’ll still get blamed for it though and I can’t say that would be unjustified.
Just allow me to suggest that once the shooting is over, and some semblance of a government emerges in Iraq, that should they indict Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice on war criminal or murder charges that we don’t bother to fight extradition. Just ship them over there with our blessing as long as they promise to let us televise the executions. A four way beheading sounds about right for those clowns.
That brings me to Religious Fundamentalism. I consider this to be a bigger potential danger than even Global Warming. Education might be a solution, but religious fundamentalists shy away from education like the plague and attack it every chance they get.
Given the existence of atomic weapons and virulent viruses, either of which could fall into the wrong hands, having people running around that think non-believers, apostates, and anyone else that disagrees with them, deserve to burn in hellfire could be a real problem. To call religious fundamentalists irrational would be a compliment. They’re so far beyond irrational it’s frightening. Still, they’re absolutely certain that they’re right and the rest of us need to be brought into line. It’s to be brought into line by persuasion for the moment, but ultimately the plan calls for coercion as soon as practical. If you’re looking for a picture, try thinking The Inquisition.
I won’t be around long enough to see how it all plays out. I think that’s a good thing. I just feel sorry for my kids that they’re going to inherit this mess.
I've lived through wars, disease and disasters. They've been claiming it was the eve of destruction for any number of reasons for as long as I can remember. In the past there always appeared to be a way out or at least some level of confidence that a solution could be found. I wish I could say that now, but I really can't. I'm very pessimistic about what things will be like 30 or 50 years from now.
As I relax on Sundays with the rest of the country watching NFL Football, I find myself wondering more and more often when will the last NFL game be played, who will play that game, who will win, and who will care?
Global Warming, Iraq and Religious Fundamentalism all frighten me. They strike me as things for which I don’t see anything even remotely resembling a viable solution.
The science surrounding Global Warming clearly appears to herald a potential disaster but, then again, so did air and water pollution back in the 60’s and early 70’s appear that way. At least the right wing has stopped trying to make it sound like there’s really nothing wrong. The first step in solving any problem is the recognition that there’s a problem to be solved.
I see no good solution in Iraq. It appears that the only thing preventing all out sectarian war and the accompanying horrors is the American presence on the ground. Unfortunately that’s a presence we can no longer sustain. I don’t think there is anything we can do to prevent the coming bloodshed.
Basically Bush and company screwed that pooch when they sent the 3rd Infantry across the border. The most we can do now is withdraw and let the chips fall where they may. If there is going to be a war, at least it will be a war that the Iraqi’s choose for themselves and not one thrust upon them by us. We’ll still get blamed for it though and I can’t say that would be unjustified.
Just allow me to suggest that once the shooting is over, and some semblance of a government emerges in Iraq, that should they indict Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice on war criminal or murder charges that we don’t bother to fight extradition. Just ship them over there with our blessing as long as they promise to let us televise the executions. A four way beheading sounds about right for those clowns.
That brings me to Religious Fundamentalism. I consider this to be a bigger potential danger than even Global Warming. Education might be a solution, but religious fundamentalists shy away from education like the plague and attack it every chance they get.
Given the existence of atomic weapons and virulent viruses, either of which could fall into the wrong hands, having people running around that think non-believers, apostates, and anyone else that disagrees with them, deserve to burn in hellfire could be a real problem. To call religious fundamentalists irrational would be a compliment. They’re so far beyond irrational it’s frightening. Still, they’re absolutely certain that they’re right and the rest of us need to be brought into line. It’s to be brought into line by persuasion for the moment, but ultimately the plan calls for coercion as soon as practical. If you’re looking for a picture, try thinking The Inquisition.
I won’t be around long enough to see how it all plays out. I think that’s a good thing. I just feel sorry for my kids that they’re going to inherit this mess.
I've lived through wars, disease and disasters. They've been claiming it was the eve of destruction for any number of reasons for as long as I can remember. In the past there always appeared to be a way out or at least some level of confidence that a solution could be found. I wish I could say that now, but I really can't. I'm very pessimistic about what things will be like 30 or 50 years from now.
As I relax on Sundays with the rest of the country watching NFL Football, I find myself wondering more and more often when will the last NFL game be played, who will play that game, who will win, and who will care?
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Religion and the Death Penalty
It’s something of a mixed bag, but in general religious organizations oppose Capital Punishment.
The majority of Christian sects, including The American Baptist Church, The Episcopal Church, The Evangelical Lutheran Church, The Orthodox Church, The Presbyterian Church, The Roman Catholic Church, The Unitarians, The United Church of Christ and The Methodist Church, have clearly stated that they oppose Capital Punishment. I have to applaud these folks for taking, based purely upon principle, a stand that could well be unpopular with their flock.
However, both The Lutheran Church: Missouri Synod and the Southern Baptist Convention support the use of Capital Punishment. The Assemblies of God and the Mormons are neutral and take no stand either in opposition to, or in favor of, the Death Penalty.
All of the sects that take a stand claim to do so based upon the bible and/or the teachings of Jesus. I’m uncertain how either The Assemblies of God or the Mormons can justify being neutral. The AoG appears to take that position due to a wide range of positions within the congregation. The Mormons simply state that it’s a matter for civil law to determine and that they are neutral. They give no explanation for not having a position on an issue that most folks would consider a moral question.
The full range of Judaism, from Orthodox to Reform, based upon pronouncements from representative assemblies, opposes the Death Penalty. While Buddhism and Hinduism have issued no central announcement, killing of any kind breaks the First Precept under Buddhism and violates the principle of ahisma, or non-violence, under Hinduism so both would probably tend to oppose Capital Punishment.
This brings us to Islam. Western Muslims try to spin this question by claiming that there are only two instances where the Death Penalty is allowed. Unfortunately those two instances, a crime against an individual or a crime against the state, are so broad the Death Penalty could be applied to just about anything. The sole saving grace is that Islamic Law extends to the victim’s family the right to limit the penalty for a murderer. Of course it also allows the victim’s family to decide that death sounds just about right. Where do you suspect most families would stand on this question?
So now I guess the question becomes why do some 65% of Americans still favor Capital Punishment? It’s not the fault of all those godless atheists because only 57% of secular folks support the Death Penalty. Don’t you people listen to your Priests and Pastors?
The majority of Christian sects, including The American Baptist Church, The Episcopal Church, The Evangelical Lutheran Church, The Orthodox Church, The Presbyterian Church, The Roman Catholic Church, The Unitarians, The United Church of Christ and The Methodist Church, have clearly stated that they oppose Capital Punishment. I have to applaud these folks for taking, based purely upon principle, a stand that could well be unpopular with their flock.
However, both The Lutheran Church: Missouri Synod and the Southern Baptist Convention support the use of Capital Punishment. The Assemblies of God and the Mormons are neutral and take no stand either in opposition to, or in favor of, the Death Penalty.
All of the sects that take a stand claim to do so based upon the bible and/or the teachings of Jesus. I’m uncertain how either The Assemblies of God or the Mormons can justify being neutral. The AoG appears to take that position due to a wide range of positions within the congregation. The Mormons simply state that it’s a matter for civil law to determine and that they are neutral. They give no explanation for not having a position on an issue that most folks would consider a moral question.
The full range of Judaism, from Orthodox to Reform, based upon pronouncements from representative assemblies, opposes the Death Penalty. While Buddhism and Hinduism have issued no central announcement, killing of any kind breaks the First Precept under Buddhism and violates the principle of ahisma, or non-violence, under Hinduism so both would probably tend to oppose Capital Punishment.
This brings us to Islam. Western Muslims try to spin this question by claiming that there are only two instances where the Death Penalty is allowed. Unfortunately those two instances, a crime against an individual or a crime against the state, are so broad the Death Penalty could be applied to just about anything. The sole saving grace is that Islamic Law extends to the victim’s family the right to limit the penalty for a murderer. Of course it also allows the victim’s family to decide that death sounds just about right. Where do you suspect most families would stand on this question?
So now I guess the question becomes why do some 65% of Americans still favor Capital Punishment? It’s not the fault of all those godless atheists because only 57% of secular folks support the Death Penalty. Don’t you people listen to your Priests and Pastors?
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Teaching the Bible in the Public Schools
I think it’s a great idea IF safeguards are taken to insure that it doesn’t become religious instruction. I read the bible in high school English class. We read it as literature. Good old Mr. Searcy (actually a youngish black man) didn’t use it as an excuse to try and turn us into model Christians though.
Actually, I think a comparative religion course, or a literary influences course which would include Shakespeare, Mark Twain and Greek Mythology, would be better than a course focusing strictly on the bible.
Why you ask? It’s because I don’t trust those organizations that put together bible study curriculums.
Let’s consider The National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools (NCBCPS) which pushes its bible curriculum very heavily and claims that some 400 school districts in 37 states are using it. The NCBCPS also claims that its curriculum is non-sectarian, follows constitutional guidelines and is appropriate for use in the public schools.
The first warning sign goes up when one visits their web site and sees a heading called “liberal attacks on bible curriculum.”
The eyebrows continue to arch when the first sentence under this heading is “Of course, liberal groups are fighting at great expense to keep the Bible from being taught in public classrooms.”
When this “liberal group” is identified as the Texas Freedom Network (TFN) which is supposedly “requesting five unnecessary changes,” to a Texas bill that would mandate a bible studies elective in high schools, my radar goes on full power. What exactly is it that TFN is requesting? Let’s take a look see shall we?
“Mandate that teachers have appropriate academic qualifications and sufficient training on legal and constitutional issues surrounding instruction about the Bible in public schools.”
Sounds like basic common sense to me if only for the protection of the teacher. This is a tricky area fraught with peril for the unwary and we all know too well that there are lots of folks out there with too much money, and strange ideas, willing to make everyone’s life miserable at the slightest provocation. So why is this safeguard unnecessary?
"Require rigorous, scholarly reviewed textbooks and other curriculum materials for all courses."
You do want the course to be accurate don’t you? Again, this strikes me as a given. This doesn’t necessarily mean carting in your own expert; it can be a simple statement from a qualified peer review panel attesting to the accuracy of the text.
Isn’t this something you would expect for all textbooks?
"Include strong and specific language that protects the religious freedom of students and their families by barring the use of Bible classes to evangelize or promote personal religious perspectives."
This is simply the law of the land. Why would anyone object to such a stipulation as unnecessary?
"Require the Texas Education Agency to regularly monitor and report on the content of public school Bible courses to ensure that they are academically and legally appropriate."
Again, isn’t this something that is done as a matter of course for all high school courses in terms of being academically appropriate? The legal wrinkle is sort of unique but, because of the complexity of the issue, sounds like more common sense.
"Continue to allow districts the option to offer – or not offer – such courses."
Some school districts may simply not feel they’re up to the challenge or the expense. Again this sounds like simple common sense rather than an attack on bible curriculum.
Note that the TFN is not trying to prevent the course from being offered, they’re just trying to insure that it doesn’t deteriorate into a sectarian pitch for one particular religion. Isn’t this non-sectarian approach precisely what the NCBCPS claims for their curriculum? In that case they should be supporting the TFN safeguards.
So why aren’t they? To answer that question you have to go to a report on the NCBCPS curriculum put together by Dr. Mark A. Chancey at the request of the TFN in 2005. Dr. Chancey teaches biblical studies in the Department of Religious Studies in Dedman College of Humanities and Sciences at Southern Methodist University in Dallas so I think it is safe to say that he is qualified to review the accuracy and appropriateness, from a non-sectarian viewpoint, of the NCBCPS curriculum.
Let’s go to the report summary.
“In my professional judgment as a biblical scholar,… this curriculum on the whole is a sectarian document, and I cannot recommend it for usage in a public school setting. It attempts to persuade students to adopt views that are held primarily within certain conservative Protestant circles but not within the scholarly community, and it presents Christian faith claims as history:
The Bible is explicitly characterized as inspired by God.
Discussions of science are based on the claims of biblical creationists.
Jesus is presented as fulfilling 'Old Testament' prophecy.
Archaeological findings are cited as support for claims of the Bible’s complete historical accuracy.”
In other words the thing was about as non-sectarian as last Sunday’s sermon. Accident? When one considers the NCBCPS’s Board of Advisors, a litany of Right Wing religious organizations and individuals, including some that challenge the concept of the separation of church and state, one has to sort of suspect that the answer might be NO.
Now granted, one should never attribute to malice or dishonesty what can be explained by simple stupidity, but when one combines the blatant sectarian slant with objections to requirements for “scholarly reviewed textbooks,” one has no choice but to arrive at the conclusion that it’s not an accident, it’s an attempt to push their religious opinion as fact in the public schools.
Where I come from this is called lying.
To make matters worse, according to Dr. Chancey:
“…the curriculum contains numerous factual errors and vastly oversimplified (some might say misleading) presentations of complex issues.”
“It would be unreasonable to expect teachers without advanced training in biblical studies to recognize all of this curriculum’s errors — but it is not unreasonable to expect a curriculum to be free of them.”
Actually it would be trivial to get rid of the errors. Simply put together a peer review panel of distinguished experts to review and comment on the text. I can think of any number of scholars who would be more than pleased to participate in such an undertaking. If the NCBCPS were really interested in non-sectarianism and accuracy, this is exactly what it would do.
Now this all happened in 2005 and, despite vigorous denials by the NCBCPS including a press release claiming that “the TFN report was erroneous and had been produced by ‘far left, anti-religion extremists’ who were promoting ‘totalitarianism,’ within a month NCBCPS was circulating a revision that addressed many of the most blatant problems identified by Dr. Chancey.
While the new edition is indeed an improvement, another review by Dr. Chancey found that many problems still remain including non-identification of any full time biblical scholar as a reviewer, the continued reliance on right wing internet sources with claims or positions frowned upon in scholarly circles including one bloke who claims to have identified the biblical Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia, and a continued political agenda which “…seems to Christianize America and Americanize the Bible” by continuing to recommend the resources of “an organization devoted to the opposition of church-state separation.”
In other words NCBCPS is still pushing their religious opinions as fact, they’ve just used the Chancey report to camouflage it a bit better.
I find this dishonest. This is the same thing that happened with creationism. When the court said you can’t teach Genesis as an alternative to evolution, Fundamentalist Christians wrapped it in pseudo-scientific jargon and called it “Creation Science.” When “Creation Science” was accurately identified as religion rather than science, the emphasis got shifted to “Intelligent Design” (although I will admit that ID is a lot more sophisticated than “Creation Science”).
There is also the habit of repeating assertions despite those assertions being repeatedly shown to be untrue. I can only assume that the hope is some people in the audience aren’t aware they’re untrue and might be fooled. Repeating the assertion that evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is one example. There are so many examples that they have their own acronym. They’re called PRATTS for Points Refuted a Thousand Times.
The Eusebius approach to evangelicalism is alive and well in the United States.
Whenever any doubt creeps into my mind about my conclusion that Christianity is a lie, which happens less and less often these days, I remember all the lies and misleading semi-truths told by the so-called Apologists, and people like the folks at NCBCPS, and those doubts evaporate like early morning mist when the sun comes up.
As Carl Sagan used to say, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. If you know the “truth,” then why are you afraid to put it on the table along with everyone else’s “truth” and see which “truth” best stands up under the light of reason and intellect?
Actually, I think a comparative religion course, or a literary influences course which would include Shakespeare, Mark Twain and Greek Mythology, would be better than a course focusing strictly on the bible.
Why you ask? It’s because I don’t trust those organizations that put together bible study curriculums.
Let’s consider The National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools (NCBCPS) which pushes its bible curriculum very heavily and claims that some 400 school districts in 37 states are using it. The NCBCPS also claims that its curriculum is non-sectarian, follows constitutional guidelines and is appropriate for use in the public schools.
The first warning sign goes up when one visits their web site and sees a heading called “liberal attacks on bible curriculum.”
The eyebrows continue to arch when the first sentence under this heading is “Of course, liberal groups are fighting at great expense to keep the Bible from being taught in public classrooms.”
When this “liberal group” is identified as the Texas Freedom Network (TFN) which is supposedly “requesting five unnecessary changes,” to a Texas bill that would mandate a bible studies elective in high schools, my radar goes on full power. What exactly is it that TFN is requesting? Let’s take a look see shall we?
“Mandate that teachers have appropriate academic qualifications and sufficient training on legal and constitutional issues surrounding instruction about the Bible in public schools.”
Sounds like basic common sense to me if only for the protection of the teacher. This is a tricky area fraught with peril for the unwary and we all know too well that there are lots of folks out there with too much money, and strange ideas, willing to make everyone’s life miserable at the slightest provocation. So why is this safeguard unnecessary?
"Require rigorous, scholarly reviewed textbooks and other curriculum materials for all courses."
You do want the course to be accurate don’t you? Again, this strikes me as a given. This doesn’t necessarily mean carting in your own expert; it can be a simple statement from a qualified peer review panel attesting to the accuracy of the text.
Isn’t this something you would expect for all textbooks?
"Include strong and specific language that protects the religious freedom of students and their families by barring the use of Bible classes to evangelize or promote personal religious perspectives."
This is simply the law of the land. Why would anyone object to such a stipulation as unnecessary?
"Require the Texas Education Agency to regularly monitor and report on the content of public school Bible courses to ensure that they are academically and legally appropriate."
Again, isn’t this something that is done as a matter of course for all high school courses in terms of being academically appropriate? The legal wrinkle is sort of unique but, because of the complexity of the issue, sounds like more common sense.
"Continue to allow districts the option to offer – or not offer – such courses."
Some school districts may simply not feel they’re up to the challenge or the expense. Again this sounds like simple common sense rather than an attack on bible curriculum.
Note that the TFN is not trying to prevent the course from being offered, they’re just trying to insure that it doesn’t deteriorate into a sectarian pitch for one particular religion. Isn’t this non-sectarian approach precisely what the NCBCPS claims for their curriculum? In that case they should be supporting the TFN safeguards.
So why aren’t they? To answer that question you have to go to a report on the NCBCPS curriculum put together by Dr. Mark A. Chancey at the request of the TFN in 2005. Dr. Chancey teaches biblical studies in the Department of Religious Studies in Dedman College of Humanities and Sciences at Southern Methodist University in Dallas so I think it is safe to say that he is qualified to review the accuracy and appropriateness, from a non-sectarian viewpoint, of the NCBCPS curriculum.
Let’s go to the report summary.
“In my professional judgment as a biblical scholar,… this curriculum on the whole is a sectarian document, and I cannot recommend it for usage in a public school setting. It attempts to persuade students to adopt views that are held primarily within certain conservative Protestant circles but not within the scholarly community, and it presents Christian faith claims as history:
The Bible is explicitly characterized as inspired by God.
Discussions of science are based on the claims of biblical creationists.
Jesus is presented as fulfilling 'Old Testament' prophecy.
Archaeological findings are cited as support for claims of the Bible’s complete historical accuracy.”
In other words the thing was about as non-sectarian as last Sunday’s sermon. Accident? When one considers the NCBCPS’s Board of Advisors, a litany of Right Wing religious organizations and individuals, including some that challenge the concept of the separation of church and state, one has to sort of suspect that the answer might be NO.
Now granted, one should never attribute to malice or dishonesty what can be explained by simple stupidity, but when one combines the blatant sectarian slant with objections to requirements for “scholarly reviewed textbooks,” one has no choice but to arrive at the conclusion that it’s not an accident, it’s an attempt to push their religious opinion as fact in the public schools.
Where I come from this is called lying.
To make matters worse, according to Dr. Chancey:
“…the curriculum contains numerous factual errors and vastly oversimplified (some might say misleading) presentations of complex issues.”
“It would be unreasonable to expect teachers without advanced training in biblical studies to recognize all of this curriculum’s errors — but it is not unreasonable to expect a curriculum to be free of them.”
Actually it would be trivial to get rid of the errors. Simply put together a peer review panel of distinguished experts to review and comment on the text. I can think of any number of scholars who would be more than pleased to participate in such an undertaking. If the NCBCPS were really interested in non-sectarianism and accuracy, this is exactly what it would do.
Now this all happened in 2005 and, despite vigorous denials by the NCBCPS including a press release claiming that “the TFN report was erroneous and had been produced by ‘far left, anti-religion extremists’ who were promoting ‘totalitarianism,’ within a month NCBCPS was circulating a revision that addressed many of the most blatant problems identified by Dr. Chancey.
While the new edition is indeed an improvement, another review by Dr. Chancey found that many problems still remain including non-identification of any full time biblical scholar as a reviewer, the continued reliance on right wing internet sources with claims or positions frowned upon in scholarly circles including one bloke who claims to have identified the biblical Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia, and a continued political agenda which “…seems to Christianize America and Americanize the Bible” by continuing to recommend the resources of “an organization devoted to the opposition of church-state separation.”
In other words NCBCPS is still pushing their religious opinions as fact, they’ve just used the Chancey report to camouflage it a bit better.
I find this dishonest. This is the same thing that happened with creationism. When the court said you can’t teach Genesis as an alternative to evolution, Fundamentalist Christians wrapped it in pseudo-scientific jargon and called it “Creation Science.” When “Creation Science” was accurately identified as religion rather than science, the emphasis got shifted to “Intelligent Design” (although I will admit that ID is a lot more sophisticated than “Creation Science”).
There is also the habit of repeating assertions despite those assertions being repeatedly shown to be untrue. I can only assume that the hope is some people in the audience aren’t aware they’re untrue and might be fooled. Repeating the assertion that evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is one example. There are so many examples that they have their own acronym. They’re called PRATTS for Points Refuted a Thousand Times.
The Eusebius approach to evangelicalism is alive and well in the United States.
Whenever any doubt creeps into my mind about my conclusion that Christianity is a lie, which happens less and less often these days, I remember all the lies and misleading semi-truths told by the so-called Apologists, and people like the folks at NCBCPS, and those doubts evaporate like early morning mist when the sun comes up.
As Carl Sagan used to say, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. If you know the “truth,” then why are you afraid to put it on the table along with everyone else’s “truth” and see which “truth” best stands up under the light of reason and intellect?
Friday, September 07, 2007
A Terrible Twist in the Madeleine Story
I haven’t mentioned anything about the disappearance of the British toddler from a Portuguese hotel room because I always feel terrible about such things and I like to avoid getting totally depressed if I can. The little girl, Madeleine McCann, was reported abducted on May 5th while her parent ate dinner at a restaurant near the hotel.
Now it appears that the Portuguese police have declared the mother, Kate McCann, an “arguida.” Under Portuguese law an arguido (arguida in this case because it’s a female) is an official suspect in an investigation. Apparently Portuguese police can now ask a wider range of questions and the suspect has additional legal protections. There are rumors that the father, Gerry McCann, is also about to be declared an official suspect.
Being an aguido does not mean that formal charges are about to follow. As a matter of fact, according to several news agencies, it’s not at all unusual for someone to request being declared an aquido in order to trigger the additional legal protections.
Supposedly the police took this step because of forensic test results from a British crime lab that claim the girl’s blood was found in a vehicle rented by the McCanns 25 days AFTER the girl disappeared.
First of all, let’s all remember that everyone is innocent until proven guilty and nothing has been proven as yet. None of the news accounts relate how the crime lab determined that it was Madeleine’s blood so I think I’ll reserve judgment. I still remember the stampede to condemn JonBenet Ramsey’s mom of murder when the lady was completely innocent. Then there is the case of Darlie Routier, who may have been railroaded by voodoo science and character assassination when she was convicted of murdering her two young sons.
In this particular case the police appear to be speculating that Madeleine’s death was an accident rather than murder but still this is a bizarre twist to a story that has been headlines in all of western civilization outside of the self-centered U.S.
The McCanns have engaged in a wide ranging media campaign across Europe in search of their daughter. This has included some high profile support from people like Pope Benedict XVI, Harry Potter author J. K. Rowling and soccer star David Beckham. Pictures of the missing girl would melt ice off of a snow witch she’s so adorable so if it turns out these two did anything to hurt her, they’ll probably re-institute burning at the stake in the U.K.
Like I said, it’s a totally unexpected twist even though, unfortunately, when something happens to a child suspicion invariably falls upon the parents. Clearly I have no way of judging guilt or innocence here, but you would have to be some kind of total moron to engage in the high profile activities the McCanns have engaged in if you’re trying to hide your involvement in the girl’s death wouldn’t you? Why do I have this really bad feeling that things are going to get very ugly very quickly on this one?
All I can do is hope that Madeleine shows up tomorrow, alive and well, and puts the whole thing to bed.
Now it appears that the Portuguese police have declared the mother, Kate McCann, an “arguida.” Under Portuguese law an arguido (arguida in this case because it’s a female) is an official suspect in an investigation. Apparently Portuguese police can now ask a wider range of questions and the suspect has additional legal protections. There are rumors that the father, Gerry McCann, is also about to be declared an official suspect.
Being an aguido does not mean that formal charges are about to follow. As a matter of fact, according to several news agencies, it’s not at all unusual for someone to request being declared an aquido in order to trigger the additional legal protections.
Supposedly the police took this step because of forensic test results from a British crime lab that claim the girl’s blood was found in a vehicle rented by the McCanns 25 days AFTER the girl disappeared.
First of all, let’s all remember that everyone is innocent until proven guilty and nothing has been proven as yet. None of the news accounts relate how the crime lab determined that it was Madeleine’s blood so I think I’ll reserve judgment. I still remember the stampede to condemn JonBenet Ramsey’s mom of murder when the lady was completely innocent. Then there is the case of Darlie Routier, who may have been railroaded by voodoo science and character assassination when she was convicted of murdering her two young sons.
In this particular case the police appear to be speculating that Madeleine’s death was an accident rather than murder but still this is a bizarre twist to a story that has been headlines in all of western civilization outside of the self-centered U.S.
The McCanns have engaged in a wide ranging media campaign across Europe in search of their daughter. This has included some high profile support from people like Pope Benedict XVI, Harry Potter author J. K. Rowling and soccer star David Beckham. Pictures of the missing girl would melt ice off of a snow witch she’s so adorable so if it turns out these two did anything to hurt her, they’ll probably re-institute burning at the stake in the U.K.
Like I said, it’s a totally unexpected twist even though, unfortunately, when something happens to a child suspicion invariably falls upon the parents. Clearly I have no way of judging guilt or innocence here, but you would have to be some kind of total moron to engage in the high profile activities the McCanns have engaged in if you’re trying to hide your involvement in the girl’s death wouldn’t you? Why do I have this really bad feeling that things are going to get very ugly very quickly on this one?
All I can do is hope that Madeleine shows up tomorrow, alive and well, and puts the whole thing to bed.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
You fixed the plane HOW?
I never expected to fly Nepal Airlines, but now I GUARANTEE you that I’m never going to fly Nepal Airlines.
Several news agencies are reporting that Nepal Airlines has claimed that it fixed an electrical glitch in one of its two Boeing 757s by sacrificing two goats to appease the Hindu Sky god Akash Bhairab.
Apparently the poor goats were sacrificed in front of the troubled aircraft at the Nepal international airport in Kathmandu in accordance with Hindu traditions.
Talk about a waste of two perfectly good goats.
I wonder if the guys in Seattle are planning on updating the 757 maintenance manual with this one?
It hasn’t been a good week for the Judeo-Christian Sky Daddy. First Elwood “Bunky” Bartlett cashes in on the Mega Bucks lottery thanks to a promise he made to the Wiccan gods and now Akash Bhairab fixes up a Boeing 757 in exchange for two measly goats.
Christianity better rustle up some miracles quick in order to keep from losing ground as Christians convert in droves to Wicca and Hinduism.
Several news agencies are reporting that Nepal Airlines has claimed that it fixed an electrical glitch in one of its two Boeing 757s by sacrificing two goats to appease the Hindu Sky god Akash Bhairab.
Apparently the poor goats were sacrificed in front of the troubled aircraft at the Nepal international airport in Kathmandu in accordance with Hindu traditions.
Talk about a waste of two perfectly good goats.
I wonder if the guys in Seattle are planning on updating the 757 maintenance manual with this one?
It hasn’t been a good week for the Judeo-Christian Sky Daddy. First Elwood “Bunky” Bartlett cashes in on the Mega Bucks lottery thanks to a promise he made to the Wiccan gods and now Akash Bhairab fixes up a Boeing 757 in exchange for two measly goats.
Christianity better rustle up some miracles quick in order to keep from losing ground as Christians convert in droves to Wicca and Hinduism.
Death Penalty Update
I haven’t done one of these in a while because, to be quite honest, they depress me. There never seems to be any progress to report instead it’s a constant litany of bad news.
However, finally, from the quagmire called the Texas legal system, comes a rational decision. Miraculously the Texas Board of Paroles and Pardons recommended, and Governor Perry accepted, a commutation of the death sentence of Kenneth Foster seven hours before Foster was scheduled to die.
Seven hours mind you. Do you think they could have cut it any closer?
Foster was sentenced to death under the Texas Law of Parties. That law permits a person involved in a crime to be held accountable for the actions committed by someone else. In Foster’s case the district attorney maintained that he should have anticipated that his co-defendant, the actual killer, would exit the car Foster was driving and murder the victim.
I guess in Texas you’re expected to be clairvoyant. The very concept that someone can be convicted of murder because of something he should have anticipated, but apparently didn’t, strikes me as totally bizarre. I guess it struck Governor Perry that way as well.
So far this year there have been 38 executions, 23 of which have been in Texas. That brings the total number of executions since the death penalty was re-instated in 1976 to 1,095, of which 402 have been in Texas.
By region of the country, 897 have been in the South, 127 have been in the Midwest, 67 in the West and 4, all of so-called volunteers, in the Northeast. This statistic alone should tell you that the death penalty is arbitrary as hell.
Speaking of depressing, Pew Research has on its web site a summary of the positions of the leading presidential candidates from both parties on various issues. Unfortunately I have to report that all of them claim to favor the death penalty. I guess that will be the case until a majority of the voters are reported as being against it huh? Politicians are such weasels.
However, finally, from the quagmire called the Texas legal system, comes a rational decision. Miraculously the Texas Board of Paroles and Pardons recommended, and Governor Perry accepted, a commutation of the death sentence of Kenneth Foster seven hours before Foster was scheduled to die.
Seven hours mind you. Do you think they could have cut it any closer?
Foster was sentenced to death under the Texas Law of Parties. That law permits a person involved in a crime to be held accountable for the actions committed by someone else. In Foster’s case the district attorney maintained that he should have anticipated that his co-defendant, the actual killer, would exit the car Foster was driving and murder the victim.
I guess in Texas you’re expected to be clairvoyant. The very concept that someone can be convicted of murder because of something he should have anticipated, but apparently didn’t, strikes me as totally bizarre. I guess it struck Governor Perry that way as well.
So far this year there have been 38 executions, 23 of which have been in Texas. That brings the total number of executions since the death penalty was re-instated in 1976 to 1,095, of which 402 have been in Texas.
By region of the country, 897 have been in the South, 127 have been in the Midwest, 67 in the West and 4, all of so-called volunteers, in the Northeast. This statistic alone should tell you that the death penalty is arbitrary as hell.
Speaking of depressing, Pew Research has on its web site a summary of the positions of the leading presidential candidates from both parties on various issues. Unfortunately I have to report that all of them claim to favor the death penalty. I guess that will be the case until a majority of the voters are reported as being against it huh? Politicians are such weasels.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Should I Respect Religion?
I have been criticized on any number of occasions for my lack of “respect” for religion. The admonition to “respect” religion has come not only from religious folks but even on occasion from other non-religious people.
So, what to make of this? Notice that I’ve place the word “respect” in quotes. That’s because I can’t answer this question without first establishing precisely what “respect” means.
A minimum definition of “respect” would be to simply allow religious folks to practice their religion and engage in its rituals without criticism or ridicule. In other words agree to “live and let live.” I could live with this arrangement and in many cases, such as with the Hassidic Jewish community, that’s precisely the case. I respect the Hassid’s desire to live life as they see fit. They don’t bother anybody, and pretty much ignore outsiders.
Christianity and Islam however, with their belief that spreading the faith is a paramount obligation, tend to be another story all together. In this country Christianity in particular invariably means a lot more when it says “respect” than “live and let live.” When Christians ask for “respect” then more often than not they mean reverence, admiration and, ultimately, agreement.
They want everyone to acknowledge their definition of right and wrong, everyone to acknowledge the supremacy of their Sky Daddy, whether they believe in their Sky Daddy or not, and for everyone to view faith and piety as virtues. They would also like their rituals to be celebrated publicly to universal ooohs and aaahs. Why? If Christianity is nonsense then its rituals are silly and its morality open to debate.
To some Christians disbelief becomes equated with disrespect. Atheists, agnostics and other secular humanist species which reject the fundamental Christian canon are viewed as disrespectful simply by existing. You’ll excuse me but I refuse to cease existing simply because it hurts your feelings.
Hey, wait a minute I hear you say. You’re lumping all kinds of Christians into a pot that really only contains the extreme right wing fruitcakes. Perhaps, but I don’t hear the so-called Christian Left doing anything about the fruitcakes.
Granted I tend to have problems with the Fundamentalist Evangelical species of Christian more than your neighborhood Episcopalian. But I realized a long time ago that’s it’s a blurry line and, to be honest with you, one that’s too treacherous to navigate so it’s safer to lump them all together.
So what about the idea of think whatever you want but at least be polite enough not to openly criticize or ridicule someone’s faith? Sounds like a reasonable idea except religion in general, and Christianity in particular, has never been terribly shy about criticizing anything and everything, from Harry Potter to nudity on television, that it thinks violates what it calls “sin.” I put “sin” in quotes because I’ve never really been able to understand the concept. I can understand hurting someone or stealing from someone as a “sin,” but I’ve been a little confused about a lot of the other things that get lumped into the same category.
My compromise is that I usually don’t initiate the conversation, but only react to some statement or event.
To me “respect” means more than simple tolerance. “Respect” carries with it a degree of admiration and deference. You don’t get my “respect” for free, you have to earn it. Religion doesn’t earn my respect, therefore it doesn’t get it.
That doesn’t mean I might not respect religious people. I have a healthy deference for nuns, priests, rabbis, some pastors and anyone that simply wants to practice their religion in peace. Anyone that wants to force his beliefs on me or anyone else however is going to have a serious problem.
So it’s really a mixed bag. I don’t believe in respecting religion simply because its religion. I’ve come to the rational conclusion that all religions, or at least all of the ones I’m familiar with, are absurd. Why should I respect something I find absurd? Nor can I justify respecting anyone’s belief in that absurdity. I might respect their sense of conviction and keep my mouth shut, but that’s about as far as I’ll go.
Nor do I think I’m obligated to remain silent about my opinion in forums where expressing it is appropriate. I don’t think I would stand outside a Sunday School blabbing my heathen opinions but when someone “witnesses to me” they’re going to get more than they bargained for in return.
What this all means is that I will continue to criticize and ridicule religion when I believe it’s appropriate and when something comes up which triggers a response. A lot of people don’t like that idea and would rather simply, for example, defend same sex marriage rather than attack the reason same sex marriage needs defending. Defense may win an occasional battle but it can’t win a war. To win a war you have to bring the war to the enemy. Bush was right about that, too bad he was too stupid to figure out who the enemy was!
So, what to make of this? Notice that I’ve place the word “respect” in quotes. That’s because I can’t answer this question without first establishing precisely what “respect” means.
A minimum definition of “respect” would be to simply allow religious folks to practice their religion and engage in its rituals without criticism or ridicule. In other words agree to “live and let live.” I could live with this arrangement and in many cases, such as with the Hassidic Jewish community, that’s precisely the case. I respect the Hassid’s desire to live life as they see fit. They don’t bother anybody, and pretty much ignore outsiders.
Christianity and Islam however, with their belief that spreading the faith is a paramount obligation, tend to be another story all together. In this country Christianity in particular invariably means a lot more when it says “respect” than “live and let live.” When Christians ask for “respect” then more often than not they mean reverence, admiration and, ultimately, agreement.
They want everyone to acknowledge their definition of right and wrong, everyone to acknowledge the supremacy of their Sky Daddy, whether they believe in their Sky Daddy or not, and for everyone to view faith and piety as virtues. They would also like their rituals to be celebrated publicly to universal ooohs and aaahs. Why? If Christianity is nonsense then its rituals are silly and its morality open to debate.
To some Christians disbelief becomes equated with disrespect. Atheists, agnostics and other secular humanist species which reject the fundamental Christian canon are viewed as disrespectful simply by existing. You’ll excuse me but I refuse to cease existing simply because it hurts your feelings.
Hey, wait a minute I hear you say. You’re lumping all kinds of Christians into a pot that really only contains the extreme right wing fruitcakes. Perhaps, but I don’t hear the so-called Christian Left doing anything about the fruitcakes.
Granted I tend to have problems with the Fundamentalist Evangelical species of Christian more than your neighborhood Episcopalian. But I realized a long time ago that’s it’s a blurry line and, to be honest with you, one that’s too treacherous to navigate so it’s safer to lump them all together.
So what about the idea of think whatever you want but at least be polite enough not to openly criticize or ridicule someone’s faith? Sounds like a reasonable idea except religion in general, and Christianity in particular, has never been terribly shy about criticizing anything and everything, from Harry Potter to nudity on television, that it thinks violates what it calls “sin.” I put “sin” in quotes because I’ve never really been able to understand the concept. I can understand hurting someone or stealing from someone as a “sin,” but I’ve been a little confused about a lot of the other things that get lumped into the same category.
My compromise is that I usually don’t initiate the conversation, but only react to some statement or event.
To me “respect” means more than simple tolerance. “Respect” carries with it a degree of admiration and deference. You don’t get my “respect” for free, you have to earn it. Religion doesn’t earn my respect, therefore it doesn’t get it.
That doesn’t mean I might not respect religious people. I have a healthy deference for nuns, priests, rabbis, some pastors and anyone that simply wants to practice their religion in peace. Anyone that wants to force his beliefs on me or anyone else however is going to have a serious problem.
So it’s really a mixed bag. I don’t believe in respecting religion simply because its religion. I’ve come to the rational conclusion that all religions, or at least all of the ones I’m familiar with, are absurd. Why should I respect something I find absurd? Nor can I justify respecting anyone’s belief in that absurdity. I might respect their sense of conviction and keep my mouth shut, but that’s about as far as I’ll go.
Nor do I think I’m obligated to remain silent about my opinion in forums where expressing it is appropriate. I don’t think I would stand outside a Sunday School blabbing my heathen opinions but when someone “witnesses to me” they’re going to get more than they bargained for in return.
What this all means is that I will continue to criticize and ridicule religion when I believe it’s appropriate and when something comes up which triggers a response. A lot of people don’t like that idea and would rather simply, for example, defend same sex marriage rather than attack the reason same sex marriage needs defending. Defense may win an occasional battle but it can’t win a war. To win a war you have to bring the war to the enemy. Bush was right about that, too bad he was too stupid to figure out who the enemy was!
Same Sex Marriage Ruling in Iowa
Iowa? Hardly a bastion of liberalism, but a Polk County district court judge has ruled in favor of six gay couples who were denied marriage licenses and struck down the Iowa laws banning gay marriage.
The immediate reaction by politicians in the state has been to declare an intention to appeal and also to begin work on an amendment to the state constitution. Be that as it may, at least for the moment, gay couples are applying for marriage licenses in Iowa.
Twenty or thirty years from now folks will be wondering what all the fuss was about just like most of today’s youngsters are wondering what all the civil rights fuss was about.
Jim Crow isn’t dead, he’s just retreated a bit. He’s laying low and pretending he’s only opposed to gays just like the bible says he should be. In the 1850’s he said the bible told him blacks were meant to be slaves. In the 1950’s he said the bible told him to segregate blacks.
When will we ever learn? Discrimination is discrimination. Feel free to believe that homosexuality is immoral. Just don’t forget that it’s only your opinion.
I think the judge was right. I hope that the Iowa Supreme court upholds his decision and the good people of Iowa ignore the rhetoric and let stand the extension of the protections of marriage to their fellow citizens.
The immediate reaction by politicians in the state has been to declare an intention to appeal and also to begin work on an amendment to the state constitution. Be that as it may, at least for the moment, gay couples are applying for marriage licenses in Iowa.
Twenty or thirty years from now folks will be wondering what all the fuss was about just like most of today’s youngsters are wondering what all the civil rights fuss was about.
Jim Crow isn’t dead, he’s just retreated a bit. He’s laying low and pretending he’s only opposed to gays just like the bible says he should be. In the 1850’s he said the bible told him blacks were meant to be slaves. In the 1950’s he said the bible told him to segregate blacks.
When will we ever learn? Discrimination is discrimination. Feel free to believe that homosexuality is immoral. Just don’t forget that it’s only your opinion.
I think the judge was right. I hope that the Iowa Supreme court upholds his decision and the good people of Iowa ignore the rhetoric and let stand the extension of the protections of marriage to their fellow citizens.
Maryland is now the Richest State
At least based upon Median Household Income it is. According to the Census Bureau Maryland ($65,144) passed New Jersey ($64,470) which fell into second place. Connecticut ($63,422) was third followed by Hawaii ($61,160) and Massachusetts ($59,963) to round out the top five.
At the bottom of the list was Mississippi ($34,473) followed by West Virginia ($35,059), Arkansas ($36,599), Oklahoma ($38,770) and Alabama ($38,783).
I guess this surprises me a little. I always thought Connecticut would top the list. I didn’t even know New Jersey was 1st last year.
The following chart shows the two year Household Income Median average distribution across the U.S.
I guess all of the South's bible thumbing and defense of "moral values" isn't convincing Sky Daddy to shower them with earthly riches is it? You suppose that he's afraid of corrupting them or is it that he doesn't really approve of their behavior? Maybe they should try praying a little more?
At the bottom of the list was Mississippi ($34,473) followed by West Virginia ($35,059), Arkansas ($36,599), Oklahoma ($38,770) and Alabama ($38,783).
I guess this surprises me a little. I always thought Connecticut would top the list. I didn’t even know New Jersey was 1st last year.
The following chart shows the two year Household Income Median average distribution across the U.S.
I guess all of the South's bible thumbing and defense of "moral values" isn't convincing Sky Daddy to shower them with earthly riches is it? You suppose that he's afraid of corrupting them or is it that he doesn't really approve of their behavior? Maybe they should try praying a little more?
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Obesity Report 2007
The Trust for America’s Health has released its latest report about obesity in America and the outlook is not good. Obesity rates went up in 31 states and didn’t go down anywhere. The state with the highest obesity rate was Mississippi at 30.6 percent. Colorado remained the thinnest state but its rate went up from 16.9 to 17.6 percent.
Again this year the South did absolutely horrible dominating the group of most obese states while the West and Northeast tended to be the least overweight.
New Jersey ranked 40th in adult obesity but was also ranked 9th in lack of physical activity. That’s probably means bad news down the road. Indiana was tied for 9th in adult obesity with Michigan and Oklahoma.
To be honest, I really can’t talk. I’ve gained 8 pounds in the last two years and I’m having a heck of a time getting rid of it gym or no gym. At least I can say I engage in physical activity, I just have to cut out the snacks I guess.
I don’t buy the trend that everyone has his or her comfortable weight so having a few extra pounds is no big deal. It’s a big deal. I recognize that and I know what I need to do to shed it, I’m just too lazy to do it.
Looks like the rest of the country falls into that category too. It’s all evolution’s fault. Our bodies are programmed to store fat when food is plentiful so we won’t starve when it becomes scarce. Natural Selection didn’t anticipate a situation where food is always plentiful.
Or do you think God set it up this way?
Again this year the South did absolutely horrible dominating the group of most obese states while the West and Northeast tended to be the least overweight.
New Jersey ranked 40th in adult obesity but was also ranked 9th in lack of physical activity. That’s probably means bad news down the road. Indiana was tied for 9th in adult obesity with Michigan and Oklahoma.
To be honest, I really can’t talk. I’ve gained 8 pounds in the last two years and I’m having a heck of a time getting rid of it gym or no gym. At least I can say I engage in physical activity, I just have to cut out the snacks I guess.
I don’t buy the trend that everyone has his or her comfortable weight so having a few extra pounds is no big deal. It’s a big deal. I recognize that and I know what I need to do to shed it, I’m just too lazy to do it.
Looks like the rest of the country falls into that category too. It’s all evolution’s fault. Our bodies are programmed to store fat when food is plentiful so we won’t starve when it becomes scarce. Natural Selection didn’t anticipate a situation where food is always plentiful.
Or do you think God set it up this way?
Monday, August 20, 2007
God’s Warriors
The three part CNN special “God’s Warriors” is scheduled to air this Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. The series will cover fundamentalist extremists of the three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Islam and Christianity in that order.
I’ve reviewed the previews on the CNN web site and the CNN reporter, Christiane Amanpour, appears to be sounding a warning, although she would probably deny it. She claims the series is about understanding and that is certainly a darn good starting point.
I’ll admit I don’t know much about Jewish or Muslim fundamentalists but I know a fair amount about the Christian variety. Amanpour says that we can’t afford to look upon these people as some sort of “exotic subspecies” out on the “loony fringe” and she’s absolutely correct.
I used to look upon Fundamentalist Christians as silly but harmless. Then I really got to understand a little about them. They’re anything but harmless. They’re dangerous as hell and downright scary. They are the single biggest threat to American Democracy that has ever existed. I’m much more concerned about them then I am about Muslim Terrorists.
Muslim Terrorists just want to kill me. Fundamentalist Christians want to enslave me by rolling back everything the enlightenment has accomplished and re-instituting a dark age of medieval superstition and mental stagnation. I consider the latter a much greater threat than the former because, if we’re not careful, it can happen in a series of seemingly harmless steps.
Consider one of the primary topics in the Christianity segment which is the BattleCry group. On the surface BattleCry is a darn good idea. It’s opposed to teenage sex, violence and drugs. Who could argue with that? Unfortunately the movement goes way beyond those simply positions. They’re not happy with merely having their members lay off sex, violence and drugs, everyone has to also sign up to God, Jesus and the Bible. Not any God, Jesus and the Bible mind you, but their very narrow interpretation of God, Jesus and the Bible.
I could even live with that, but tied up in it all is also trying to get everyone else to share that viewpoint. At the moment it’s through persuasion, but should they get enough clout, it will quickly become coercion because they, and only they, possess the truth and the rest of us should accept that truth for our own good or else. Don’t believe me? Check out The Inquisition. Saving souls was the official reason given for the torture and killing.
This follows not too long after the HBO special “Friends of God” which sounded a similar warning note. There is a lot to be concerned about here. However I’m afraid that unless Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton gets involved most of the population is going to miss the warning.
I don’t know if there’s a God but, if there is, he must be pulling his hair out over the so-called faithful. This assumes of course that he has hair and isn’t laughing too hard at the unmitigated gall of the human species.
I’ve reviewed the previews on the CNN web site and the CNN reporter, Christiane Amanpour, appears to be sounding a warning, although she would probably deny it. She claims the series is about understanding and that is certainly a darn good starting point.
I’ll admit I don’t know much about Jewish or Muslim fundamentalists but I know a fair amount about the Christian variety. Amanpour says that we can’t afford to look upon these people as some sort of “exotic subspecies” out on the “loony fringe” and she’s absolutely correct.
I used to look upon Fundamentalist Christians as silly but harmless. Then I really got to understand a little about them. They’re anything but harmless. They’re dangerous as hell and downright scary. They are the single biggest threat to American Democracy that has ever existed. I’m much more concerned about them then I am about Muslim Terrorists.
Muslim Terrorists just want to kill me. Fundamentalist Christians want to enslave me by rolling back everything the enlightenment has accomplished and re-instituting a dark age of medieval superstition and mental stagnation. I consider the latter a much greater threat than the former because, if we’re not careful, it can happen in a series of seemingly harmless steps.
Consider one of the primary topics in the Christianity segment which is the BattleCry group. On the surface BattleCry is a darn good idea. It’s opposed to teenage sex, violence and drugs. Who could argue with that? Unfortunately the movement goes way beyond those simply positions. They’re not happy with merely having their members lay off sex, violence and drugs, everyone has to also sign up to God, Jesus and the Bible. Not any God, Jesus and the Bible mind you, but their very narrow interpretation of God, Jesus and the Bible.
I could even live with that, but tied up in it all is also trying to get everyone else to share that viewpoint. At the moment it’s through persuasion, but should they get enough clout, it will quickly become coercion because they, and only they, possess the truth and the rest of us should accept that truth for our own good or else. Don’t believe me? Check out The Inquisition. Saving souls was the official reason given for the torture and killing.
This follows not too long after the HBO special “Friends of God” which sounded a similar warning note. There is a lot to be concerned about here. However I’m afraid that unless Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton gets involved most of the population is going to miss the warning.
I don’t know if there’s a God but, if there is, he must be pulling his hair out over the so-called faithful. This assumes of course that he has hair and isn’t laughing too hard at the unmitigated gall of the human species.
Monday, August 13, 2007
My Loyalty to George W. Bush
I took another one of those on-line quizzes. This one claimed to measure my loyalty to Bush the Unhinged. On a scale of 1 to 10, I scored 0! I kid you not. The actual results from the quiz were:
“Your score is 0 on a scale of 1 to 10. You hate Bush with a writhing passion. You think he is an idiot, a liar, and a warmonger who has been an utterly incompetent, miserable failure of a president. Nothing would give you greater pleasure than seeing him impeached and run out of the White House, except maybe seeing him dragged away in handcuffs.”
Yup, that’s pretty damn accurate. As far as I can see the man has absolutely no redeeming qualities and I place squarely upon his shoulders the unjustified deaths of every American soldier who has died in Iraq plus the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians.
I don’t see why the son of a bitch shouldn’t be indicted and tried for:
1. Conspiring to Wage a War of Aggression with such co-conspirators as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and Halliburton.
2. Crimes against Peace by participating in the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of a war of aggression.
3. War Crimes such as the approval of the bombing of civilian targets in attempts to kill Saddam Hussein.
4. Crimes against Humanity such as the displacement and death of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children and the looting of the wealth and resources of the Iraqi people.
That’s all four of the Nuremberg Counts. If we really believed what we preach in this country about the rule of law and equality before the law, we would bring indictments against this administration, let them have their day in court and then hang the bastards.
“Your score is 0 on a scale of 1 to 10. You hate Bush with a writhing passion. You think he is an idiot, a liar, and a warmonger who has been an utterly incompetent, miserable failure of a president. Nothing would give you greater pleasure than seeing him impeached and run out of the White House, except maybe seeing him dragged away in handcuffs.”
Yup, that’s pretty damn accurate. As far as I can see the man has absolutely no redeeming qualities and I place squarely upon his shoulders the unjustified deaths of every American soldier who has died in Iraq plus the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians.
I don’t see why the son of a bitch shouldn’t be indicted and tried for:
1. Conspiring to Wage a War of Aggression with such co-conspirators as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and Halliburton.
2. Crimes against Peace by participating in the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of a war of aggression.
3. War Crimes such as the approval of the bombing of civilian targets in attempts to kill Saddam Hussein.
4. Crimes against Humanity such as the displacement and death of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children and the looting of the wealth and resources of the Iraqi people.
That’s all four of the Nuremberg Counts. If we really believed what we preach in this country about the rule of law and equality before the law, we would bring indictments against this administration, let them have their day in court and then hang the bastards.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Jesus Dolls at Wal-Mart
Sure, why not? Remember the Jesus dolls from last year that made Toys for Tots scratch its head as to whether they should be accepted? Now Wal-Mart has announced that they will be available at Wal-Mart stores right next to G.I. Joe, Barbie and Bratz.
Along with the dolls will also be “Tales of Glory “figurine play sets depicting various biblical stories including Moses and the Ten Plagues and Jesus Walks on Water. There’s even a 13” “Spirit Warrior” Samson doll to play bodyguard to the 12” “Messenger of Faith” dolls.
The line has expanded since last year and has added Peter, Paul and Mary (complete with guitars?) to the Jesus, Esther, Moses, Noah and David dolls (If I had a Hammer, I’d Hammer in the Morning…).
Apparently Wal-Mart plans to sell the toys at 425 of its 3,250 stores. Most of these stores will be in the South and Midwest (DUH, I wonder why?).
All of the toys are made by the One2Believe Company, whose president is apparently a true believer and devout Christian determined to provide an alternative to Christian parents that feel uncomfortable with today’s toy choices.
So instead of G.I. Joe blasting Osama Bin Laden, Spiderman foiling the Gremlin or the Bratz clique swooning over the latest fashion accessories, you can have Jesus feeding the multitudes with a few loaves and fishes or Moses convincing Pharaoh to let his people go.
I assume that this is a trial and is apparently scheduled to begin at the end of August since the manufacturer is urging people to go to Wal-Mart on August 18 and ask about the toys. Yeah, if I was the manufacturer I’d be trying to convince people to do that too.
Nah, I think this guy’s motives are pure. He’s a VERY successful plush toy manufacturer with some big time contracts and probably doesn’t need the money. He’s doing this because it’s something he believes in.
What I don’t understand is why the end of August? Depending upon where you are in the country, the kiddies have either just gone back to school, or are preparing to go back to school, and with all the expanses that usually entails, shelling out money for clothes and school supplies, how many people are going to be considering buying toys? Sounds like an experiment designed for failure unless they figure it’s the second largest period of volume next to Christmas. And God forbid that Wal-Mart should allocate toy shelf space around Christmas for something they’re not absolutely positive is going to sell.
So, what’s my take on all this? Hey, I want me one of those Moses and the Ten Plagues play sets. I mean, hell, where else can you get a toy bush covered with locusts?
Seriously, I say more power to them. Sell the toys. I’m sure lots of parents will buy them for their kids and the kids will love them. Whether they will use them the way the parents want them to use them might be another story. I can just see Jesus and Ken on a double date to the mall with Barbie and one of the Bratz.
To be honest with you, something like the Esther doll looks a lot safer to me than those Bratz thingies with their focus on shallow fashion nonsense and their unrealistic physical attributes. At least Esther looks like a normal dowdy kind of young girl. I do sort of feel a little squeamish about a Mary doll though. That must be my early Catholicism seeping through.
All kidding aside, I think it’s a great idea. Why shouldn’t Christian parents have the option to buy toys that they feel are appropriate for their kids? I mean, hell, Christians have never tried to stop things they don’t approve of, such as Harry Potter books, from being available to the rest of us have they? (*cough, cough*).
I don’t see this as any worse than Pirates of the Caribbean, Star Wars Jedi or Harry Potter play sets. I mean, they’re all fictional as well aren’t they? Let the market decide. If they sell well in the 425 pilot stores then I’m sure they’ll be coming to a Wal-Mart near you. Not near me, because I don’t have any Wal-Marts near me. I think they violate three or four hundred zoning ordinances in Bergen County New Jersey so they’re not allowed.
Along with the dolls will also be “Tales of Glory “figurine play sets depicting various biblical stories including Moses and the Ten Plagues and Jesus Walks on Water. There’s even a 13” “Spirit Warrior” Samson doll to play bodyguard to the 12” “Messenger of Faith” dolls.
The line has expanded since last year and has added Peter, Paul and Mary (complete with guitars?) to the Jesus, Esther, Moses, Noah and David dolls (If I had a Hammer, I’d Hammer in the Morning…).
Apparently Wal-Mart plans to sell the toys at 425 of its 3,250 stores. Most of these stores will be in the South and Midwest (DUH, I wonder why?).
All of the toys are made by the One2Believe Company, whose president is apparently a true believer and devout Christian determined to provide an alternative to Christian parents that feel uncomfortable with today’s toy choices.
So instead of G.I. Joe blasting Osama Bin Laden, Spiderman foiling the Gremlin or the Bratz clique swooning over the latest fashion accessories, you can have Jesus feeding the multitudes with a few loaves and fishes or Moses convincing Pharaoh to let his people go.
I assume that this is a trial and is apparently scheduled to begin at the end of August since the manufacturer is urging people to go to Wal-Mart on August 18 and ask about the toys. Yeah, if I was the manufacturer I’d be trying to convince people to do that too.
Nah, I think this guy’s motives are pure. He’s a VERY successful plush toy manufacturer with some big time contracts and probably doesn’t need the money. He’s doing this because it’s something he believes in.
What I don’t understand is why the end of August? Depending upon where you are in the country, the kiddies have either just gone back to school, or are preparing to go back to school, and with all the expanses that usually entails, shelling out money for clothes and school supplies, how many people are going to be considering buying toys? Sounds like an experiment designed for failure unless they figure it’s the second largest period of volume next to Christmas. And God forbid that Wal-Mart should allocate toy shelf space around Christmas for something they’re not absolutely positive is going to sell.
So, what’s my take on all this? Hey, I want me one of those Moses and the Ten Plagues play sets. I mean, hell, where else can you get a toy bush covered with locusts?
Seriously, I say more power to them. Sell the toys. I’m sure lots of parents will buy them for their kids and the kids will love them. Whether they will use them the way the parents want them to use them might be another story. I can just see Jesus and Ken on a double date to the mall with Barbie and one of the Bratz.
To be honest with you, something like the Esther doll looks a lot safer to me than those Bratz thingies with their focus on shallow fashion nonsense and their unrealistic physical attributes. At least Esther looks like a normal dowdy kind of young girl. I do sort of feel a little squeamish about a Mary doll though. That must be my early Catholicism seeping through.
All kidding aside, I think it’s a great idea. Why shouldn’t Christian parents have the option to buy toys that they feel are appropriate for their kids? I mean, hell, Christians have never tried to stop things they don’t approve of, such as Harry Potter books, from being available to the rest of us have they? (*cough, cough*).
I don’t see this as any worse than Pirates of the Caribbean, Star Wars Jedi or Harry Potter play sets. I mean, they’re all fictional as well aren’t they? Let the market decide. If they sell well in the 425 pilot stores then I’m sure they’ll be coming to a Wal-Mart near you. Not near me, because I don’t have any Wal-Marts near me. I think they violate three or four hundred zoning ordinances in Bergen County New Jersey so they’re not allowed.
Friday, August 03, 2007
A Little Bit of This and a Little Bit of That
That bridge collapse in Minnesota was a terrible thing and clearly other places might want to look upon it as a wake-up call and take the appropriate action. The key word in that sentence is “appropriate.”
Both the print and television media appear to have gone off the deep end and are engaged in an absolute feeding frenzy over this thing. CNN yesterday had a prolonged segment on the tragedy under the banner of “Bridge Fear.” Here we go again with the whole fear thing. I don’t think the media and the government is going to be happy until we’re all afraid to do anything but sit in a darkened room and tremble.
Look, walking out of your front door in the morning is an act of courage. Doing virtually anything skyrockets the probability that you will be killed or seriously injured. That’s reality. Should you take appropriate safeguards? Absolutely, that’s simple common sense, but don’t let yourself be so influenced by fear that you stop living anyway. Remember, nobody escapes life alive.
In a related topic, predictions of what the next terrorist attack will be, supposedly made by the ex-Israeli intelligence operative that was the subject of the movie Munich, are making the rounds on the Internet.
Basically the prediction is that it will be a series of coordinated bombing attacks, either via suicide bombers, car bombs or just leaving explosives in a suitcase or box, in places where people congregate in large numbers. Possible places mentioned include amusement parks, subways, hotels or even sports stadiums.
Guess that means to be safe I should sell my Giants tickets right? Wrong. The simple fact is that if a terrorist wants to explode a bomb in a random place, there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell, barring some unlikely luck, of stopping him. Again that’s just reality. The most we can do is keep an eye out for suspicious behavior and act appropriately if someone does something to arouse our suspicions. Other than that, it’s just going to be pot luck so live with it. If the fear of terrorism prevents you from living your life, then you’ve already lost.
There will be more terrorist attacks. Trust me that the U.S. and allied intelligence agencies probably look upon conventional bombing threats as very low priority. What they’re focused on is preventing a nuclear act of terrorism, either through an atomic device, or act of sabotage on a nuclear power plant. This is the real threat. As disturbing as it may sound, the death of twenty or thirty people in a random bombing is probably looked upon as no big deal.
Ok, now for something a little lighter. I see that in a recent Pew survey that 87% of Americans believe that celebrity scandals get too much ink and air time from the media.
Yeah, I can’t argue with that one. I thought Fox News had become the Anna-Nicole and Paris network! I guess since they couldn’t find anything good to say about the Bush administration or Iraq, they figured airing nothing but distractions was the next best thing, but man was it pathetic.
More interesting perhaps is that 54% blame the media while only 32% blame the public for paying too much attention. This is an example of the feeling of disenfranchisement people have today. This feeling has the basic outlook that each of us is just a small fish in a big pond so we can’t really control what happens.
Actually, you’d be surprised what you can control. Don’t buy papers that dedicate their front pages to garbage news. Cancel your subscriptions to papers and magazines that seem to want to tell you about nothing other than what Paris did last night. Hit them where it hurts, in the pocketbook. It may take a while but stop settling and accepting and see how fast things change.
Both the print and television media appear to have gone off the deep end and are engaged in an absolute feeding frenzy over this thing. CNN yesterday had a prolonged segment on the tragedy under the banner of “Bridge Fear.” Here we go again with the whole fear thing. I don’t think the media and the government is going to be happy until we’re all afraid to do anything but sit in a darkened room and tremble.
Look, walking out of your front door in the morning is an act of courage. Doing virtually anything skyrockets the probability that you will be killed or seriously injured. That’s reality. Should you take appropriate safeguards? Absolutely, that’s simple common sense, but don’t let yourself be so influenced by fear that you stop living anyway. Remember, nobody escapes life alive.
In a related topic, predictions of what the next terrorist attack will be, supposedly made by the ex-Israeli intelligence operative that was the subject of the movie Munich, are making the rounds on the Internet.
Basically the prediction is that it will be a series of coordinated bombing attacks, either via suicide bombers, car bombs or just leaving explosives in a suitcase or box, in places where people congregate in large numbers. Possible places mentioned include amusement parks, subways, hotels or even sports stadiums.
Guess that means to be safe I should sell my Giants tickets right? Wrong. The simple fact is that if a terrorist wants to explode a bomb in a random place, there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell, barring some unlikely luck, of stopping him. Again that’s just reality. The most we can do is keep an eye out for suspicious behavior and act appropriately if someone does something to arouse our suspicions. Other than that, it’s just going to be pot luck so live with it. If the fear of terrorism prevents you from living your life, then you’ve already lost.
There will be more terrorist attacks. Trust me that the U.S. and allied intelligence agencies probably look upon conventional bombing threats as very low priority. What they’re focused on is preventing a nuclear act of terrorism, either through an atomic device, or act of sabotage on a nuclear power plant. This is the real threat. As disturbing as it may sound, the death of twenty or thirty people in a random bombing is probably looked upon as no big deal.
Ok, now for something a little lighter. I see that in a recent Pew survey that 87% of Americans believe that celebrity scandals get too much ink and air time from the media.
Yeah, I can’t argue with that one. I thought Fox News had become the Anna-Nicole and Paris network! I guess since they couldn’t find anything good to say about the Bush administration or Iraq, they figured airing nothing but distractions was the next best thing, but man was it pathetic.
More interesting perhaps is that 54% blame the media while only 32% blame the public for paying too much attention. This is an example of the feeling of disenfranchisement people have today. This feeling has the basic outlook that each of us is just a small fish in a big pond so we can’t really control what happens.
Actually, you’d be surprised what you can control. Don’t buy papers that dedicate their front pages to garbage news. Cancel your subscriptions to papers and magazines that seem to want to tell you about nothing other than what Paris did last night. Hit them where it hurts, in the pocketbook. It may take a while but stop settling and accepting and see how fast things change.
Friday, July 27, 2007
The Morning After Pill
I see that the AP is reporting that a number of Pharmacists in Washington State are suing over a new regulation which effectively requires them to sell emergency contraception, also known as the Morning After Pill or Plan B.
The lawsuit argues that the regulation violates the plaintiff’s civil rights by forcing them into choosing between "their livelihoods and their deeply held religious and moral beliefs."
This is not an easy question. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any other situation where you are required to do something that you honestly consider immoral. Even the Army makes allowance for conscientious objectors.
So what is it that makes the Morning After Pill so special that a Ma & Pa pharmacy can’t tell someone to go to the Rite Aid down the highway? I mean, even though it’s called the “Morning After” pill, you actually have about 72 hours.
On the other hand, why should one person’s opinion about what’s moral inhibit someone else from doing something that is not only perfectly legal, but for which that other person has no qualms about?
I think this is a little different from issues like abortion and stem cell research. In those instances, if you have moral issues, then no one is forcing you to participate in or facilitate those activities. It’s also different from the issue of Muslim cab drivers not wanting to take fares carrying alcohol. There we’re talking about a passive role but, with the pharmacy deal, we’re talking about a more active role. If I was convinced that alcohol was a tool of the devil would you force me to sell it in my grocery store? I think not. So why is this different?
Wal-Mart (I think) decided to stop selling guns on moral grounds after somewhere bought a gun there that they used to kill someone and we all cheered Michael Moore’s “Bowling for Columbine” which unabashedly tried to pressure retail stores into not selling guns and ammunition.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for gun control and I’m all for a woman’s right to have control over her own body, but I’m squeamish about forcing, by law or regulation, someone to do something for which they have moral reservations.
These people aren’t taking the position that God doesn’t like it and therefore no one should be able to do it. They’re taking the position that THEY don’t like it and therefore they shouldn’t be forced to do it. The fact that the reason they may not like it is that they think God doesn’t like it strikes me as irrelevant.
I think I have to break with the liberal position here. I don’t believe anyone should be forced to do something they are morally opposed to. Washington State should rethink its regulation.
The lawsuit argues that the regulation violates the plaintiff’s civil rights by forcing them into choosing between "their livelihoods and their deeply held religious and moral beliefs."
This is not an easy question. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any other situation where you are required to do something that you honestly consider immoral. Even the Army makes allowance for conscientious objectors.
So what is it that makes the Morning After Pill so special that a Ma & Pa pharmacy can’t tell someone to go to the Rite Aid down the highway? I mean, even though it’s called the “Morning After” pill, you actually have about 72 hours.
On the other hand, why should one person’s opinion about what’s moral inhibit someone else from doing something that is not only perfectly legal, but for which that other person has no qualms about?
I think this is a little different from issues like abortion and stem cell research. In those instances, if you have moral issues, then no one is forcing you to participate in or facilitate those activities. It’s also different from the issue of Muslim cab drivers not wanting to take fares carrying alcohol. There we’re talking about a passive role but, with the pharmacy deal, we’re talking about a more active role. If I was convinced that alcohol was a tool of the devil would you force me to sell it in my grocery store? I think not. So why is this different?
Wal-Mart (I think) decided to stop selling guns on moral grounds after somewhere bought a gun there that they used to kill someone and we all cheered Michael Moore’s “Bowling for Columbine” which unabashedly tried to pressure retail stores into not selling guns and ammunition.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for gun control and I’m all for a woman’s right to have control over her own body, but I’m squeamish about forcing, by law or regulation, someone to do something for which they have moral reservations.
These people aren’t taking the position that God doesn’t like it and therefore no one should be able to do it. They’re taking the position that THEY don’t like it and therefore they shouldn’t be forced to do it. The fact that the reason they may not like it is that they think God doesn’t like it strikes me as irrelevant.
I think I have to break with the liberal position here. I don’t believe anyone should be forced to do something they are morally opposed to. Washington State should rethink its regulation.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Election 2008 by the Issues
The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has a page describing the positions of a dozen of the Presidential candidates on a dozen issues. The issues range from “Poverty” to “Church and State.”
Using this as a guide I assigned a weight to each issue and then ranked each candidate on each issue (except Poverty as I really have no position or understanding of this question).
Each issue was weighted either 5, 3 or 1. Leading the pack with a high weight of 5 were Abortion, Church and State, The Iraq War and Stem Cell Research. A medium weight of 3 was assigned to The Death Penalty, Education, Faith Based Initiatives, Gay Marriage and Immigration. I assigned a low weight of one to The Environment and Health Care.
Each candidate was given a rank of either 1 (I basically agree with the candidates position), 0 (I don’t really agree but I could probably live with the candidate position), -1 (I disagree with the candidates position) or -2 (I violently disagree with the candidates position).
Basically you then multiply the rank times the weight on each issue and then add up the products to get either a positive or negative value. A high positive value indicates significant agreement with the candidate’s positions while a high negative value indicates significant disagreement with the candidate’s positions.
In an election or primary you should vote with an eye toward maximizing the value of the winning candidate. The candidates came out relative to my personal opinions ranked as follows:
Bill Richardson (25)
Christopher Dodd (20)
Barack Obama (20) (Rank #4)
Joe Biden (17)
John Edwards (14) (Rank #1)
Hillary Clinton (8) (Rank #2)
Rudolph Giuliani (-3) (Rank #3)
John McCain (-13) (Rank #5)
Fred Thompson (-26)
Mike Huckabee (-27)
Sam Brownbeck (-30)
Mitt Romney (-31) (Rank #6)
The last time I talked about the 2008 candidates I ranked 6 (also shown in the list) based upon gut feel and my gut turned out to be pretty accurate. My problem with Obama was not his stand on the issues, it was whether or not he had the necessary political experience to take on the job.
I’ve always liked Richardson and this exercise makes it obvious why. But let’s face reality for a second. Unless something totally unforeseen happens, I’m going to, most likely, be faced with choosing between Obama, Edwards and Clinton since I don’t think Richardson, Biden or Dodd have any realistic chance.
All three took hits with a 0 on “Church & State” because of reported quotes that I found very shaky. Edwards is reported to have said that “freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion.” This could have gotten him a -2 except for a number of factors, not the least of which is that he was purported to say it during an interview which included talking about the death of his son.
Clinton got the zero because of a cryptic quote to the effect that religious political officials should be able to "live out their faith in the public square."
I don’t know what the hell that means exactly but I don’t like the smell of it. Obama got his downcheck due to an inference to the effect that in some cases it would be ok to less strictly enforce the separation of church and state. He didn’t do worse because the cases he cited ("under God" in the pledge of allegiance and voluntary student prayer groups) were pretty benign.
So what separated the Big Three? Clinton got a downcheck from me on the Iraq War because she appears to be less comfortable with a timetable for redrawel than the other two and Obama got an upcheck over the other two on the Death Penalty because he seems to have a better grip on the lack of deterrent value and strikes me as the most likely to support, or at least not hinder, an abolition movement.
So I should support Obama? Maybe, if I can get over concerns about his experience and his ability to beat any of the possible Republican candidates all of which got negative scores including Guiliani. I still think Edwards has the best shot of winning so, in the best strategic voting tradition, I think I’ll stick with little Johnnie for the moment but I have to move Obama ahead of Clinton. That makes my new top three:
Rank #1 – John Edwards
Rank #2 – Barack Obama
Rank #3 – Hillary Clinton
Using this as a guide I assigned a weight to each issue and then ranked each candidate on each issue (except Poverty as I really have no position or understanding of this question).
Each issue was weighted either 5, 3 or 1. Leading the pack with a high weight of 5 were Abortion, Church and State, The Iraq War and Stem Cell Research. A medium weight of 3 was assigned to The Death Penalty, Education, Faith Based Initiatives, Gay Marriage and Immigration. I assigned a low weight of one to The Environment and Health Care.
Each candidate was given a rank of either 1 (I basically agree with the candidates position), 0 (I don’t really agree but I could probably live with the candidate position), -1 (I disagree with the candidates position) or -2 (I violently disagree with the candidates position).
Basically you then multiply the rank times the weight on each issue and then add up the products to get either a positive or negative value. A high positive value indicates significant agreement with the candidate’s positions while a high negative value indicates significant disagreement with the candidate’s positions.
In an election or primary you should vote with an eye toward maximizing the value of the winning candidate. The candidates came out relative to my personal opinions ranked as follows:
Bill Richardson (25)
Christopher Dodd (20)
Barack Obama (20) (Rank #4)
Joe Biden (17)
John Edwards (14) (Rank #1)
Hillary Clinton (8) (Rank #2)
Rudolph Giuliani (-3) (Rank #3)
John McCain (-13) (Rank #5)
Fred Thompson (-26)
Mike Huckabee (-27)
Sam Brownbeck (-30)
Mitt Romney (-31) (Rank #6)
The last time I talked about the 2008 candidates I ranked 6 (also shown in the list) based upon gut feel and my gut turned out to be pretty accurate. My problem with Obama was not his stand on the issues, it was whether or not he had the necessary political experience to take on the job.
I’ve always liked Richardson and this exercise makes it obvious why. But let’s face reality for a second. Unless something totally unforeseen happens, I’m going to, most likely, be faced with choosing between Obama, Edwards and Clinton since I don’t think Richardson, Biden or Dodd have any realistic chance.
All three took hits with a 0 on “Church & State” because of reported quotes that I found very shaky. Edwards is reported to have said that “freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion.” This could have gotten him a -2 except for a number of factors, not the least of which is that he was purported to say it during an interview which included talking about the death of his son.
Clinton got the zero because of a cryptic quote to the effect that religious political officials should be able to "live out their faith in the public square."
I don’t know what the hell that means exactly but I don’t like the smell of it. Obama got his downcheck due to an inference to the effect that in some cases it would be ok to less strictly enforce the separation of church and state. He didn’t do worse because the cases he cited ("under God" in the pledge of allegiance and voluntary student prayer groups) were pretty benign.
So what separated the Big Three? Clinton got a downcheck from me on the Iraq War because she appears to be less comfortable with a timetable for redrawel than the other two and Obama got an upcheck over the other two on the Death Penalty because he seems to have a better grip on the lack of deterrent value and strikes me as the most likely to support, or at least not hinder, an abolition movement.
So I should support Obama? Maybe, if I can get over concerns about his experience and his ability to beat any of the possible Republican candidates all of which got negative scores including Guiliani. I still think Edwards has the best shot of winning so, in the best strategic voting tradition, I think I’ll stick with little Johnnie for the moment but I have to move Obama ahead of Clinton. That makes my new top three:
Rank #1 – John Edwards
Rank #2 – Barack Obama
Rank #3 – Hillary Clinton
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
Got it Saturday and finished it by Sunday night. I have to admit it was a little confusing at first because I didn’t go back and reread the previous book and my memory on some things was a tad hazy. That might have contributed to my feeling that the first half of the book was kind of dull.
Things did pick up in the second half and despite having to rely upon a rather awkward contrivance, which could only have been used in a fantasy like HP, to close up some of the dangling loose ends, I think JK did a masterful job of concluding the seven book saga.
There will be no spoilers here. If you want to know what happens, go read the book.
I’m going to miss Harry Potter even though there are still two movies to look forward to. I’m going to miss the speculation on the internet about what happens next and I’m going to miss the building excitement as the release of the next book approaches. Harry Potter was a phenomenon and I’m glad I got to participate in it.
Maybe JK will come up with a new hero and a new story line.
Things did pick up in the second half and despite having to rely upon a rather awkward contrivance, which could only have been used in a fantasy like HP, to close up some of the dangling loose ends, I think JK did a masterful job of concluding the seven book saga.
There will be no spoilers here. If you want to know what happens, go read the book.
I’m going to miss Harry Potter even though there are still two movies to look forward to. I’m going to miss the speculation on the internet about what happens next and I’m going to miss the building excitement as the release of the next book approaches. Harry Potter was a phenomenon and I’m glad I got to participate in it.
Maybe JK will come up with a new hero and a new story line.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicles
An MRAP is an armored vehicle especially effective against mines and other roadside explosives. They have a V shaped bottom which diverts the explosive power of a mine and the passenger compartment is some three feet above the ground. The sides of the vehicles are also heavily armored.
These vehicles aren’t new. The basic technology has been around since the 1970’s and the pentagon evaluated and purchased some of the latest variations in 2000. These vehicles should have been the standard for combat patrols in areas potentially occupied by irregular forces. They’re resistant against mines, roadside bombs and other improvised explosive devices (IEDs).
So, why aren’t our troops in Iraq using them? That’s a damn good question. The first problem was that Rumsfield and Bush et al. didn’t plan for the kind of insurgent warfare that Iraq turned into. They planned for a conventional war that was over in a couple of weeks. The second problem is that even after it became obvious to the rest of us that this fiasco was going to last a while the administration didn’t place a high priority on getting the right equipment into the hands of the troops in Iraq.
Given the lack of MRAPs, first unarmored and then armored HUMVEEs, which are not nearly as effective against IEDs, were used instead. This is just one example of the “just enough force” philosophy used in the Iraq war. Excuse my French, but screw that, in war what you need is OVERWHELMING force if you want to keep down the casualties.
Finally, finally, large quantities of MRAP vehicles are being purchased and will be shipped to Iraq in order to phase out the HUMVEEs for combat patrols. This should have been done BEFORE the war was started.
The delay has cost the lives of at least 1,000 soldiers and perhaps more. Pursuing a war but failing to provide the right equipment, MRAPs, improved personal armor and tactical communications gear, despite repeated appeals from the troops in theater and military experts is to my mind a criminal offense.
Let me make this perfectly clear. There are 1,000 or more young Americans dead simply because they were sent into a war without the proper equipment. This equipment was readily available but those that planned and ran the war were either too incompetent to realize it was needed or just didn’t care.
This is a crime that can be laid right at the door of the Bush Administration. Like I’ve said before, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and Rice not only deserve to get booted out of office, but I’d like to see them in the dock on charges of criminal negligence. They might not deserve to be convicted but at least we’d have a record of the blatant stupidity of the worst administration in American history.
These vehicles aren’t new. The basic technology has been around since the 1970’s and the pentagon evaluated and purchased some of the latest variations in 2000. These vehicles should have been the standard for combat patrols in areas potentially occupied by irregular forces. They’re resistant against mines, roadside bombs and other improvised explosive devices (IEDs).
So, why aren’t our troops in Iraq using them? That’s a damn good question. The first problem was that Rumsfield and Bush et al. didn’t plan for the kind of insurgent warfare that Iraq turned into. They planned for a conventional war that was over in a couple of weeks. The second problem is that even after it became obvious to the rest of us that this fiasco was going to last a while the administration didn’t place a high priority on getting the right equipment into the hands of the troops in Iraq.Given the lack of MRAPs, first unarmored and then armored HUMVEEs, which are not nearly as effective against IEDs, were used instead. This is just one example of the “just enough force” philosophy used in the Iraq war. Excuse my French, but screw that, in war what you need is OVERWHELMING force if you want to keep down the casualties.
Finally, finally, large quantities of MRAP vehicles are being purchased and will be shipped to Iraq in order to phase out the HUMVEEs for combat patrols. This should have been done BEFORE the war was started.
The delay has cost the lives of at least 1,000 soldiers and perhaps more. Pursuing a war but failing to provide the right equipment, MRAPs, improved personal armor and tactical communications gear, despite repeated appeals from the troops in theater and military experts is to my mind a criminal offense.
Let me make this perfectly clear. There are 1,000 or more young Americans dead simply because they were sent into a war without the proper equipment. This equipment was readily available but those that planned and ran the war were either too incompetent to realize it was needed or just didn’t care.
This is a crime that can be laid right at the door of the Bush Administration. Like I’ve said before, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and Rice not only deserve to get booted out of office, but I’d like to see them in the dock on charges of criminal negligence. They might not deserve to be convicted but at least we’d have a record of the blatant stupidity of the worst administration in American history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
