Remind me not to go to Cranston, Rhode Island.
Apparently a Roman Catholic fortress, it seems that many people in that town are up in arms that a teenager, Jessica Alquist, took to the courts to have a prayer removed from the grounds of the school she attends. A federal judge has ruled that keeping the prayer would be unconstitutional, but that hasn't stopped the people of Cranston from asserting -- sometimes loudly and even violently -- that they want it to remain.
Jessica has received threats and even had to be escorted to school by the police. State Representative Peter G. Palumbo, whom I'm ashamed to say is a Democrat, has called her "an evil little thing." Seriously.
As far as I'm concerned Jessica is a hero. Secularism is one of the few areas left (homosexuality being one of the others) where some people in the US feel it's perfectly fine to discriminate against others.
Read the article about Jessica here and then read the comments. Interesting, isn't it, that the removal of an obviously unconstitutional prayer from a school, after a federal judge has agreed it is unconstitutional, has some Christians thinking their entire religion is under siege. While thankfully there are a lot of people who defend Jessica, you also get people who think atheists are out to destroy religion entirely.
I'm all for letting people believe in whatever they want to believe in, whether it's nothing at all, a supernatural god being, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. As long as they're not hurting anyone else -- or forcing their beliefs on anyone else -- it's a free country, and freedom of religion is guaranteed in our Constitution, as the judge upheld. But I find it funny that Christians think their religious beliefs should be allowed to appear on public property, paid for by the taxpayer dollars of all, when they would raise holy hell if a verse from the Koran, or a Jewish saying, or a Wiccan prayer, for instance, were shown. I believe they call that hypocrisy.
New rule for 2012: if someone wishes me a "Merry Christmas" they're going to get "and a Happy Winter Solstice to you" right back at them. The Christians co-opted that holiday from the pagans, right down to the decorated tree, the feast and the presents. If someone says "Happy Easter" to me they will get "and a Happy Vernal Equinox to you." Just because I choose not to believe in any supreme being doesn't mean my beliefs, or lack thereof, are any less valid than a Christian's.
I say kudos to Jessica, and I hope more secularists stand up for the right to believe as they choose. Now if we could just get "In God We Trust" off the darn currency!
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Friday, January 27, 2012
Newt Gingrich, Moonbat
Mitt Romney is sleeping quite a bit easier tonight, and I'm sure thanking some deity for the gift of Newt Gingrich.
You know I think Gingrich is a liar and just downright smarmy (see my previous post). But I always thought he had some intelligence. I disagreed with pretty much everything he ever said, but I thought there was at least some effective gray matter in his cabeza. But now we find out Newt is crazy. I mean, like really crazy!
Bein's that the Republican clown show has now moved down to Florida, Gingrich finds this a great opportunity to pander to the space crowd down there. It turns out that space travel -- as well as occupation of the Moon -- is a favorite subject for ol' Newtie. When he said at a campaign event that he wanted an American colony on the Moon by the end of his second term (keep dreamin', Newt), I knew Newt had gone to an entirely different place. And it's not anywhere a sane person would want to go. But look! Newt has gotten himself his own robot! Oh, sorry, that's his wife. Danger, Will Robinson! By the way, the man who voiced the robot on Lost in Space died recently. RIP, buddy.
Anyway, about the Moon, Newt... see, we've already been there. More than once. And guess what? There's nothing there! Well, there's dust, and some rocks. We brought some of that back home, but discovered rocks aren't so much fun. They're just rocks, even if they are from the Moon. And you can't breathe on the Moon, either, at least not without one of those funny and uncomfortable suits. So it turns out the Moon is a big downer. Hence the reason we haven't been back.
So why does Newt think we should colonize the Moon? Well, he has several novel ideas for it, which he actually wrote about in a book called Window of Opportunity. One idea is putting big mirrors on it so we can direct more sunlight toward Earth (as if we don't have enough of a problem with global warming). Anyway, he wants these mirrors strategically placed so the light will shine down on high crime areas. Yeah. I mean, we have streetlights now, Newt, you might have heard of 'em. Anyway, one of his other ideas is to send all the "extra" farmers there (gee, and here I thought we were facing a future shortage of farmers... who knew?) There are other wacky Newt ideas for the Moon, but you get the idea.
Now, here we are, in 2012, facing $14 trillion in debt, an unemployment rate that's still almost 9%, millions of homes underwater or facing foreclosure, the possibility of having to cut Social Security and Medicare (you know, the programs that many middle-class and poor people rely on as a safety net), and Newt wants to colonize the Moon. Seriously. How did Mitt's oppo people miss this one? They could have put this guy away months ago!
Rachel Maddow had a great episode on her show about this very subject. When you get a minute, take a look at the video below, because Rachel is always entertaining, but this one is really a hoot:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/46157256#46157256
It is too late for Jon Huntsman to pop back into the race? I mean, I wouldn't vote for him, but at least us Americans wouldn't look like such idiots to the rest of the world if we had a halfway decent candidate on the other side. Seriously, it may be funny now, but next time I go overseas I just may have to disguise myself as a Canadian.
You know I think Gingrich is a liar and just downright smarmy (see my previous post). But I always thought he had some intelligence. I disagreed with pretty much everything he ever said, but I thought there was at least some effective gray matter in his cabeza. But now we find out Newt is crazy. I mean, like really crazy!
Bein's that the Republican clown show has now moved down to Florida, Gingrich finds this a great opportunity to pander to the space crowd down there. It turns out that space travel -- as well as occupation of the Moon -- is a favorite subject for ol' Newtie. When he said at a campaign event that he wanted an American colony on the Moon by the end of his second term (keep dreamin', Newt), I knew Newt had gone to an entirely different place. And it's not anywhere a sane person would want to go. But look! Newt has gotten himself his own robot! Oh, sorry, that's his wife. Danger, Will Robinson! By the way, the man who voiced the robot on Lost in Space died recently. RIP, buddy.
Anyway, about the Moon, Newt... see, we've already been there. More than once. And guess what? There's nothing there! Well, there's dust, and some rocks. We brought some of that back home, but discovered rocks aren't so much fun. They're just rocks, even if they are from the Moon. And you can't breathe on the Moon, either, at least not without one of those funny and uncomfortable suits. So it turns out the Moon is a big downer. Hence the reason we haven't been back.
So why does Newt think we should colonize the Moon? Well, he has several novel ideas for it, which he actually wrote about in a book called Window of Opportunity. One idea is putting big mirrors on it so we can direct more sunlight toward Earth (as if we don't have enough of a problem with global warming). Anyway, he wants these mirrors strategically placed so the light will shine down on high crime areas. Yeah. I mean, we have streetlights now, Newt, you might have heard of 'em. Anyway, one of his other ideas is to send all the "extra" farmers there (gee, and here I thought we were facing a future shortage of farmers... who knew?) There are other wacky Newt ideas for the Moon, but you get the idea.
Now, here we are, in 2012, facing $14 trillion in debt, an unemployment rate that's still almost 9%, millions of homes underwater or facing foreclosure, the possibility of having to cut Social Security and Medicare (you know, the programs that many middle-class and poor people rely on as a safety net), and Newt wants to colonize the Moon. Seriously. How did Mitt's oppo people miss this one? They could have put this guy away months ago!
Rachel Maddow had a great episode on her show about this very subject. When you get a minute, take a look at the video below, because Rachel is always entertaining, but this one is really a hoot:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/46157256#46157256
It is too late for Jon Huntsman to pop back into the race? I mean, I wouldn't vote for him, but at least us Americans wouldn't look like such idiots to the rest of the world if we had a halfway decent candidate on the other side. Seriously, it may be funny now, but next time I go overseas I just may have to disguise myself as a Canadian.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Newt Gingrich - How Low Can He Go?
Just having to think about Newt Gingrich long enough to write this post makes my skin crawl, but I'll try to get through it, because I have to make a few points.
Listen, I am no fan of Mitt Romney's. And if you read my previous post you'll know I am certainly no fan of Rick Santorum's, either. Ron Paul is a certified kook. Having said that, though, I think any of those guys would be less dangerous to this country than Newt Gingrich, because at least Santorum and Paul's more whackadoodle ideas would never pass Congress anyway.
What are Republicans thinking even considering this man to be the leader of our country? I don't even know where to begin... he was House Speaker until he was run out of town for ethics violations and fined $300,000. He has lied through his teeth about what he did with Freddie Mac and as a lobbyist (oh, I'm sorry -- historian). Not to mention his three marriages and multiple mistresses. And by the way, he owes John King of CNN an apology for tearing into him for asking Newt if he would like to respond to his ex-wife's interview on ABC. King just gave him an opportunity to respond to the interview -- and remember Gingrich was Speaker when Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky was discovered, and it was Gingrich who wanted Clinton impeached for it. His hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Speaking of his mistresses - does anyone really want Callista Gingrich representing this country as First Lady? The First Lady should be someone kids can look up to, someone who is respected and respectable. This does not describe Callista Gingrich.
But there is no more obvious case to be made that Newt is willing to lie about anything to become President than what he has done about the subject of global warming. While he was Speaker Newt supported Al Gore's climate change initiatives. He worked with Nancy Pelosi (including doing an ad with her) on the subject, as well as John Kerry. In the past he has put party affiliation aside to be a rather staunch supporter of green issues. In 2007 he and co-author Terry Maple even wrote a book called A Contract With The Earth about conservation issues.
Times have changed, though. The Republicans have vilified Nancy Pelosi. They want to deny climate change exists, and particularly they want to deny that human activity is at all to blame. So what does Newt do? He does a 180 and gives the righties what they want - a climate change denier.
When Gingrich and Maple decided to write a follow-up to their book, they asked atmospheric scientist Katharine Hayhoe to do a chapter on global warming, which she did. She submitted it and was told it was accepted. Then Newt decided to run for President. What happened to the chapter she had written for the book? Well, unbeknownst to her, it would not be appearing in the book after all, but she didn't find that out via a nicely worded letter, or anything of the sort. She found that out when the video below from a Gingrich event was released. In it, a right-wing woman who is also a climate change denier approaches Gingrich and asks about the proposed chapter in his upcoming book. He assures her it won't be in the book, and then says it was never asked for.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9fiWtbK8Cw
Here is an article from thinkprogress.org that spells it all out:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/18/406148/chatting-with-the-climate-scientist-newt-gingrich-dissed/?mobile=nc
Newt Gingrich, you are a lying, slimy bastard. I'd tell you what I really think but I'm too much of a lady. You may become the Republican nominee -- if the Republicans in this country don't care about integrity or honesty -- but thank goodness you have no realistic shot of beating Obama. Our country should be represented by a President and First Lady whom Americans, as well as others around the world, can say deserve the honor of those offices. Newt, you are nothing more than an embarrassment.
Listen, I am no fan of Mitt Romney's. And if you read my previous post you'll know I am certainly no fan of Rick Santorum's, either. Ron Paul is a certified kook. Having said that, though, I think any of those guys would be less dangerous to this country than Newt Gingrich, because at least Santorum and Paul's more whackadoodle ideas would never pass Congress anyway.
What are Republicans thinking even considering this man to be the leader of our country? I don't even know where to begin... he was House Speaker until he was run out of town for ethics violations and fined $300,000. He has lied through his teeth about what he did with Freddie Mac and as a lobbyist (oh, I'm sorry -- historian). Not to mention his three marriages and multiple mistresses. And by the way, he owes John King of CNN an apology for tearing into him for asking Newt if he would like to respond to his ex-wife's interview on ABC. King just gave him an opportunity to respond to the interview -- and remember Gingrich was Speaker when Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky was discovered, and it was Gingrich who wanted Clinton impeached for it. His hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Speaking of his mistresses - does anyone really want Callista Gingrich representing this country as First Lady? The First Lady should be someone kids can look up to, someone who is respected and respectable. This does not describe Callista Gingrich.
But there is no more obvious case to be made that Newt is willing to lie about anything to become President than what he has done about the subject of global warming. While he was Speaker Newt supported Al Gore's climate change initiatives. He worked with Nancy Pelosi (including doing an ad with her) on the subject, as well as John Kerry. In the past he has put party affiliation aside to be a rather staunch supporter of green issues. In 2007 he and co-author Terry Maple even wrote a book called A Contract With The Earth about conservation issues.
Times have changed, though. The Republicans have vilified Nancy Pelosi. They want to deny climate change exists, and particularly they want to deny that human activity is at all to blame. So what does Newt do? He does a 180 and gives the righties what they want - a climate change denier.
When Gingrich and Maple decided to write a follow-up to their book, they asked atmospheric scientist Katharine Hayhoe to do a chapter on global warming, which she did. She submitted it and was told it was accepted. Then Newt decided to run for President. What happened to the chapter she had written for the book? Well, unbeknownst to her, it would not be appearing in the book after all, but she didn't find that out via a nicely worded letter, or anything of the sort. She found that out when the video below from a Gingrich event was released. In it, a right-wing woman who is also a climate change denier approaches Gingrich and asks about the proposed chapter in his upcoming book. He assures her it won't be in the book, and then says it was never asked for.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9fiWtbK8Cw
Here is an article from thinkprogress.org that spells it all out:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/18/406148/chatting-with-the-climate-scientist-newt-gingrich-dissed/?mobile=nc
Newt Gingrich, you are a lying, slimy bastard. I'd tell you what I really think but I'm too much of a lady. You may become the Republican nominee -- if the Republicans in this country don't care about integrity or honesty -- but thank goodness you have no realistic shot of beating Obama. Our country should be represented by a President and First Lady whom Americans, as well as others around the world, can say deserve the honor of those offices. Newt, you are nothing more than an embarrassment.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Rick Santorum and the Unconstitutionality of Ultra-Religious Candidates
Although it's still early in the nomination process for the Republicans, the surge that former Senator Rick Santorum is getting is worrisome to me. Here are some of his stances that are quite disturbing: he is against gays serving opening in the military... against gay marriage... against gays adopting... against abortion in all circumstances. He made the following racist comments about welfare: "I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money. I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.” Then he lied and said he didn't say the word "black." Now, Rick, I believe lying is one of your Big 10 No-No's, isn't it? You naughty boy.
Oh, and by the way, he says what the country needs is a "Jesus candidate."
Here's where he and other candidates who beat the drum about religion run afoul of the Constitution, so since he doesn't seem to know it very well I will take it upon myself to give him a Social Studies lesson.
The Constitution mentions religion only twice - once to give freedom of it: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...", and the second time to assert that "no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." If, as many Christians believe, the United States is a "Christian nation" (and apparently that means they're just letting the rest of us live here out of the goodness of their little Christian hearts), then I'd like them to explain to me why the Constitution doesn't contain any of these words, not even once: Jesus, Christ, Christian, God, or Christianity. Here is a searchable version online; go to it if you don't believe me.
Hey, Rick, you know what? If you want to ignore all the scientific evidence to the contrary and believe that a supernatural being created the universe, be my guest. But if you want to live in a theocracy you'd better pack your Louis Vuittons and get the hell outta my country, because we don't live in one. Here is the definition of a theocracy: "a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities." Compare that with the definition of a democracy: "government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." I think it's pretty clear which one describes the political system devised by the writers and signers of the Constitution. If you don't like that, then it's time for you and the other religious conservatives who want to rule via the Bible to go find a new place to live.
Oh, and by the way, he says what the country needs is a "Jesus candidate."
Here's where he and other candidates who beat the drum about religion run afoul of the Constitution, so since he doesn't seem to know it very well I will take it upon myself to give him a Social Studies lesson.
The Constitution mentions religion only twice - once to give freedom of it: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...", and the second time to assert that "no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." If, as many Christians believe, the United States is a "Christian nation" (and apparently that means they're just letting the rest of us live here out of the goodness of their little Christian hearts), then I'd like them to explain to me why the Constitution doesn't contain any of these words, not even once: Jesus, Christ, Christian, God, or Christianity. Here is a searchable version online; go to it if you don't believe me.
Hey, Rick, you know what? If you want to ignore all the scientific evidence to the contrary and believe that a supernatural being created the universe, be my guest. But if you want to live in a theocracy you'd better pack your Louis Vuittons and get the hell outta my country, because we don't live in one. Here is the definition of a theocracy: "a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities." Compare that with the definition of a democracy: "government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." I think it's pretty clear which one describes the political system devised by the writers and signers of the Constitution. If you don't like that, then it's time for you and the other religious conservatives who want to rule via the Bible to go find a new place to live.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)