Politics Theology Rum

The Political Idiocy of Independents

2010-01-20T09:29:00.000-05:00

In regards to Massachusetts, throughout the coverage of the campaigning there, I kept hearing something. It's not necessarily a "blue" state; it doesn't have a massive Democrat population. It has a massive Independent population. I kept hearing stuff like, it's a referendum on Obama, it's this, it's that. It's that Independents wanted to change they didn't get, and so are mixing it up.

And through all of that, I couldn't help but think to myself. Most independents are stupid. Not unintelligent or anything like that; no, politically stupid. There are some like myself and like Sen. Bernie Sanders; while we are not part of any political party, we know what we want. Both he and I follow a political philosophy; we're both democratic socialists. But I think many independents, like most of those in Massachusetts (or at least it seems like most), are not politically knowledged. I remember on TV some person said, basically, they actually do keep up on the issues and actually do pay attention to the politics.

DO you? If that's the case, then why vote for someone like Brown? He is NOT change. He is just another freaking Republican. The change here, hopefully, is the Obama Administration and the rest of the Democrats shape up. Now if Massachusetts voted for him, for that reason; as a message. A kick in the Democrat's nuts, to get them going, then I apologize. But I doubt that, I have to say. I'm going to quote something from the comments of Huffington Post. It was on an interview with Keith Olbermann and Arianna Huffington.

One person responded with:

"Keith Olbermann's act is exactly what folks are tired of and why the Kennedy seat (yes, the Kennedy seat) went to the Republicans.

Independent's want change - just not the change the progressive left believes we need. Don’t believe me? Ask the folks in New Jersey, Virginia and …. Now Massachusetts"

Then another replied to him, saying:

"I thought that's what independents said they wanted in 2008? They got what they wanted (BO has KEPT the vast majority of his campaign promises) and now you lazy people want something else.

Indies are the problem with electoral politics in this country because they whipsaw eveyone else who stands for something but needs the indie vote.

How is bailing out big banks and big insurance and cutting deals with big pharma a progressive left agenda? How is sending 50,000 more troops to Afghanistan (WITHOUT paying for it) something an indie (much less a teabagger) can support?

Stop flip flopping. Make up your mind what you want and commit to it for more than 12 months."

And he has a point. Someone else said on TV, that when things are bad, people blame who ever is in office at the time, and vote for the other guy. That is what makes you people idiots. This stuff was Bush's fault, the bank's fault, the real estate market's fault, etc. and shall forever remain their fault. You CANNOT blame Obama, and still be rational. No, what you can criticize is a lack of progress, of course. But are you people stupid? We have went into almost another Great Depression, or something close enough. You think a magic wand is waved and it's all fixed? It takes time! I know you're losing jobs and stuff, I know that. But do you honestly thing by sticking more Republicans in office, it'll help? NO! They'll just do the same bullshit that they've been doing for the last, whatever, years. Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. It's all they know how to do!

And when the Republican fucks up? Back to the Democrats! I think this line really says it best: "Stop flip flopping. Make up your mind what you want and commit to it for more than 12 months."

You guys wanted progressiveness. You voted for Obama. Was he as progressive as ANY of us wanted? No. But Republicans? They will never be so. Okay, figure this. Conservatives don't want to expand government, they don't want to reform, they don't want to to this, they don't want to do that. So how does anything change? It doesn't. Nothing will ever change under Republicans, except maybe public alienation. Wire-tapping, anyone? The PATRIOT Act, hm?

These independents; they really don't freaking get it, I think. We are fucked. When the Republicans are put into a corner, what do they do? Ethnic cleanse the party of moderates, because they're not "conservative enough." WOW, such change, alright. So eventually, you'll get a party of nothing but hardcore conservatives. Yeah, wow, alright. Remember, that's what you elected, Massachusetts. As for the Democrats, they're too fractured. They have everything from socialist and strong liberal, to conservative. Of course the party is something of a fail; they can't agree on anything, just about, even though they try. But at least they DO try. These are our two fucking parties, and they both suck hard. Both choices are awful, independents. You can have a party of nothing but haters and who refuse to change anything (or make it more conservative) and when ever the other guys are in office, absolutely refuse to cooperate and will stall and obstruct and bitch at every possible moment. Then you got a party who can try to change something, but breaks down into infighting, who's balls haven't dropped yet, and when they have a majority, sucks at using it.

When shit doesn't go your way as soon as you want it like a spoiled child, stop switching to the other person, and stick with who you have for a while, god damn it. Because you are acting like spoiled children; I know your pissed, but America is in a sinkhole, and it'll take a while to crawl out off. You cannot expect it to happen in a matter of months; hell, to truly recover, don't be surprised if it takes several years, or even a few presidencies. That's just the kind of mess we're in right now. And honestly, as long as we continue to have only two parties, this same kind of shit will not change.

Massachusetts and Democrats

2010-01-19T21:45:00.002-05:00

Wow, it has been way too long. I'll only go on one issue this time, and a big one.

The former seat of Massachusetts, previously held by the (sadly) late Senator Ted Kennedy, has gone red. Scott Brown (R) has won in the special elect against Martha Coakley (D).

To start off, I think Jon Stewart really hit the nail on the head.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Mass Backwards

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

Democrats. I am an Independent. But, I side with the Democrats, for the most part. Just want to make that clear. Democrats...

Democrats, what the fuck is wrong with you? And I mean every word of that. The Republicans with a far smaller majority, could pass things like a beast. Now, this is partly because of this almost hive-mentality they have. There was talk of a Republican "purity test" but let's be honest; they've always been doing that. Just, not so, what am I thinking of...Not so evidently? They were always looking for those who strayed away from their core, and when someone did, they'd be struck down with criticism of "not being conservative enough" and the like. Democrats, of course, are not so unified; and that's fine, diversity is good.

What's not good, is when the Democrats can't even freaking bring even diversity together to get something passed. For Christ sakes, put some people's balls into the fire! Health care reform has been obstructed to a breaking point, watered down until it's almost nothing but water, and even then, you have people in your own party who aren't satisfied enough to vote; do something about it! Instead of just sitting on your hands and nodding, instead of fellating Joe Lieberman for his vote, threaten to take away his precious seat in the security council! At least, I think that's what it was. Tell Mary Landrieu to get bent! You spent all this time courting them, but what happened? You lost the progressives, you lost the strong liberals, you lost much of the independents. All because of a handful of people.

You have a freaking majority, and you STILL can't pass something? Democrats, you make me want to smash my head against the wall until my skull cracks. No wonder America is fucked. One party gets in power, and rapes us. Then the other gets in power, and sticks crayons up its nose, while playing Duck, Duck, Goose; except the Goose is someone they'll never catch.

Democrats. This loss of Kennedy's seat; it's YOUR fault. There's a lot of blame already going around in the party, but here, I'll break it down. it's ALL y'all fault. All of you clusterfucked this whole thing up. You should have paid some god damn attention, but you didn't. And when she dive-bombed into a mountain, you didn't notice until it was too late to pull up. I don't know what the hell you were doing, but the fact you didn't even notice, you're all to freaking blame.

I'm not happy to have a Republican like him win any seat. But maybe this kick to the nuts will make you shape up. But I really doubt it.

Kindergarten Protest, Kudos Abound (and Biblical Colbert), Health 'n Tax, Oklahoma Abortions

2009-10-13T13:15:00.001-04:00

I think I'll start by mentioning something that came up while I was watching MSNBC. The issue at hand was that protesters have shown up at a school that a little while ago had children singing about President Obama. This is a kindergarten and elementary school in New Jersey (which will come up again later). I'm not sure who they were, but two people were brought up to talk about it. I know one of them said it was inappropriate to be protesting around this school, that security has been beefed up- not sure if the other person agreed or not. But anyway, one person mentioned a prominent head in the union of NFL players and his objection to Rush Limbaugh. The other person countered that in regard to that, it's dealing with adults, not children.
But you know, the children probably don't have any idea what is going on. Even during their singing, all they probably knew was Obama was the President. This was going off on the whole "indoctrination" angle again. Instead, let's think of this in terms of the parents who are sending their children to this school. I'm sure at least a few of them may be fearing for their children. As the one person said, these are people completely out of touch with reality. I know if I was a parent, I'd be worried.
These are the protesters who believe Obama was born in Kenya, and Congress is trying to kill old people. These are the people who call Obama fascist; who screamed all they could, and disrupted any civil debate, or in some cases, even inciting and causing violence at town hall meetings; who brought freaking guns to rallies. For the love of Christ, these are children. And some of these psychotics may be hanging around their school, protesting nothing but bullshit, because of how irrational and disconnected from reality they are. At least with Rush Limbaugh, he's a fucking racist, and an utter disgrace of a heartless quasi-human species.

Anyhow, speaking about New Jersey, a survey showed that 21% of the people asked said Yes/Not Sure, if Obama was the Anti-Christ. And here's the .pdf to prove it. Now I'm sure that this is not a national majority. I think that most of these people who said Yes to it, or even Not Sure, I think many of them may well be Evangelical and Pentecostal, who make much a large portion, if not the majority, of the Christian Right. You want to talk about indoctrination? Try reading this. Or if you want another look at the inner workings of these people and their groups, you can try reading this. These people are, to summarize, bred in an "Us vs. Them" atmosphere, and that everything they are against is evil, corrupted by witchcraft, or by evil spirits, or Satan himself, whatever. So when they think Obama is the Antichrist, it really isn't very surprising to me, because they are raised from birth to believe as much.

Continuing the religious discussion, the infamous Conservapedia is going to rewrite the Bible. Why? Because it has too much liberal bias. Oh I wish I was making this up. Oh, and they are planning on using more modern language, such as: bais, censor, conservative, home school, moral majority, socialism, welfare, and work ethic. Now, there is some silver lining. All of us can help improve their project, by making Stephen Colbert become biblical. Remember, he's not asking to be God, but if he becomes God, he understands. Mr. Stephen T. Colbert, I give a tip of my hat, and a toast, to you and your writers. Do keep up the outstanding work on your show!

And I do the same to Mr. Jon Stewart and his writers, for their work on The Daily Show, who just last night (October 12th, 2009) tore into CNN like a hungry wolf. To think journalism has sunk so far, it truly is a pity. Kudos to The Daily Show for making reports such as this.

Also deserving of kudos? Rep. (FL-D) Alan Grayson, who made remarks that the Republican health plan is don't get sick, and if you do, then die quickly, because they simply don't care. The Republicans tried to go after him, but he stood his ground and refused to apologize. Good for you, sir. Now, he did make the mistake of referencing the Holocaust, which was a mistake and he did say was a bad choice of wording. Also, lastly kudos to Rep. (NY-D) Anthony Weiner to standing against Betsy McCaughey, who of course is the infamous mother of the Deathers.

Speaking of Betsy McCaughey, and the rest of the health care opposition, I would like to link to this clip of the Rachel Maddow Show (air date: October 6th, 2009). Oh, it is so good to see her flail about! It's as entertaining as seeing her debate Jon Stewart! For that interview: Part 1 and Part 2. I also wrote about it earlier. Of course, being socialist, I'm all for a public option, especially a single-payer plan.
But along with health care, I believe taxes must be reformed. I unfortunately cannot be sure if such will ever occur within Obama's presidency. The taxes in this country, I will agree, are outrageous. However, unlike the GOP, simply cutting tax prices does little but make things worse, I think. Our tax system needs a complete overhaul. Frankly, I think we should have a single, progressive tax, that gets paid into every month. And yes, I believe it must be progressive. That is, it increases based on income, instead of being a flat rate tax, which is constant regardless of income. What gets me is people scream that a progressive tax is stealing their hard-earned income, and giving it to the undeserving. However, we are not a country of universal state property. Your taxes will not give someone in the low-income bracket new appliances, or furniture, or a new TV. Instead, it will, or rather it should, go into programs to help those who are poor to help pay for necessary services. Why do we need a charity to help the poor heat their homes when it should be a given through governmental financial help? The fact there are some every year who die in their own homes, because they cannot afford to heat it, is ridiculous, and an issue we should not even have to be concerned about! It's the same with health care; it should be an issue we shouldn't even have to worry about, in the context of people being unable to afford health care, because it should be a given! Those who are against this, and yes, I know this is presumptuous of me, I think they do not care about the quality of life in America, or don't care enough. Perhaps they care, but they care more about going against the Democrats, or liberals, or some other matter. I think they care more about their quality of life over that of the whole. Or they care more about special interest groups, under the employment of large corporations, who pamper these policy-makers to make them their whores. We should, nay, we must, be more socialist as a nation. Now that's to say we cannot also be capitalis, no no. Economically and market-wise, we should be capitalist, but with regulations to prevent another repression, depression, clusterfuck, whatever you want to call it. But regarding social matters, regarding public programs and services, those must be socialist in nature. Palin called it "spreading the wealth" but when, according to a study reported in the New York Times, "the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans," when, "per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980," then I think "spreading the wealth" is absolutely necessary!

Lastly, a new law in Oklahoma will require doctors to take very intrusive details about women who get abortions. Again, I'll link to Rachel Maddow, with apologies to how much I link to stuff. This is absolutely disgusting that something like this would be considered. It is obviously an invasion of privacy, and for the sake of Oklahoma and the rest of America (due to precedent), this law gets overturned, and quickly.

Expect to see another post come soon. That's all I have to say for now.

Missing Post...?

2009-10-12T10:31:00.007-04:00

Okay, for some reason, I seem to have a post missing. I cannot say if I just forgot to hit the Publish Post button, or if it did not go through, or what not, but sadly, I don't have the transcript of it anymore (I write posts in WordPad first, then publish them).

I will be putting up one topic I wanted to mention in my next post then, that a survey showed 21% of New Jersey people asked, said Yes/Not Sure if Obama was the Anti-Christ.

tvy7fe583h - please ignore this.

Bachmann Returns, South Carolina, Glenn Beck is an Asshole

2009-10-05T10:19:00.007-04:00

Michelle Bachmann opened her mouth earlier. Of course, that always means a stream of delusional crazy is about to proceed. In this case about school based health clinics, which I believe are, instead of, say, a simple nurse's office, these clinics can provide wider, more comprehensive care. Or as Michelle Bachmann put it, "sex clinics" (sounds kinky!).

"And written in this bill is a provision whereby Planned Parenthood could become a proprietor for school-based clinics in every school across United States. These have been more accurately called school sex clinics...

...And as a matter of fact, the bill goes on to say what's going to go on -- comprehensive primary health services, physicals, treatment of minor, acute, and chronic medical conditions, referrals to follow-up for specialty care -- is that abortion? Does that mean that someone's 13 year-old daughter could walk into a sex clinic, have a pregnancy test done, be taken away to the local Planned Parenthood abortion clinic, have their abortion, be back and go home on the school bus that night? Mom and dad are never the wiser."

Oh by the gods, what can I say here? She's a bloody idiot! I mean, the reason I honestly cannot think of a good response, is because it's so utterly ridiculous. This what the bill says:

(i) "SBHC services will be provides in accordance with Federal, State, and local laws governing-- (I) obtaining parental or guardian consent; and (II) patient privacy and student records, including section 264 of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and section 444 of the General Education Provision Act;

Now part of what she was referring Part 2, insinuating that, under patient privacy laws, the patents would not know what goes on with their child. Notice Part 1. "obtaining parental or guardian consent". In other words, laws regarding consent of an parent or guardian still apply. Now while that varies from state to state, granted, most (well, probably all) say that before a specific age, parental consent is needed for an abortion. That's it, done. That's my argument, because what she said is so radical, it's indefensible. Minnesota, do yourself a favor and impeach this woman!

Speaking of disgrace, just what is going on with South Carolina? First there was Governor Mark Sanford with his disappearance and affair with an Argentinian woman. Then it was Representative Joe Wilson with his "You lie!" outburst directed at the President, in the House, while President Obama was giving a speech. Now it's Senator (R-SC) Jim DeMint, who is facing serious allegations. In Honduras, there was a military coup which usurped their president. Washington was not happy about it, and refused to accept them, choosing to pressure them into reestablishing their president. DeMint, who supports this coup (I am indifferent to this, as I do not know enough to make an opinion), decided he was going to go down there to Honduras (against government orders) and support them, and tell them to resist pressure by America. This could possibly be considered as treason.

I have to admit, this is really surprising. I honestly can't say I know what to make of it. Does he believe in this coup that strongly? Does he think he can simply undermine the Presidential administration, and they can't do anything about it? If that's the case, is it just him, or is there a more widespread sentiment among the GOP? Will they defend this? It's going to be interesting to see what happens.

Well, I caught on Countdown a performance by Glenn Beck. The way he pulls things out of his ass is amazing. So, I, descending into the depths of madness, watched Glenn Becks petty skit (Part 1, and, Part 2).

First, he claims Obama has had just one meeting with advisers about a memo from Gen. Stanley McChrystal. Well, I don't know about advisers, but perhaps Mr. Beck meant a quote from Gen. McChrystal himself which he claimed Obama only met with him once (well, twice now- after Beck's skit aired, he was met with again to discuss an Afghan strategy). But you know, just who was it who fucked up Afghanistan so badly in the first place? Oh. Right. It was Bush. Note, McChrystal did not say Obama met with his advisers once, just he himself once. That does not mean that Obama does not get updated ever, who knows, maybe he gets a weekly memo from McChrystal.

Then he goes on about how much CO2 Air Force One put out, and how it had to be used twice (first when the First Lady went, and then when President Obama went). Funny, considering this is coming from a man who doesn't believe in global warming. So why should it even matter? Cause obviously, he's right and the hordes of scientists who study this are clearly wrong, O' thou of ignorant faith! And of course, putting "troops off to the side," in spite that one of those meetings with McChrystal was on Air Force One. And for Christ sakes, he was there for less than a day. Oh, also, Chicago was supported by Bush.

He next goes on, and the main point of the whole thing being about Valerie Jarrett, her mother, who was one of the founders of the Erikson Institute, appointed Bill Ayers' father as chairman of said institute. Oh my fucking god! The connections, the conspiracy! So what is the Erikson Institute in this stretched, irrational, and irrelevant theory of conspiracy that the voices in Beck's head informs him of?

Erikson Institute is the nation’s premier graduate school in child development. Since 1966, we’ve prepared professionals to understand and meet the changing needs of young children and their families. We focus exclusively on children from birth to age eight—the most important formative years.

Our vision is that every adult who works with young children or on their behalf will be knowledgeable, aware, skilled, and alive to the possibilities of each child’s life. We offer master’s degrees, a doctoral program, graduate certificate programs, and a wide array of professional development opportunities for those seeking to improve their practice and sharpen their skills.

It was established to provide training to those who work with children, as a part of the Head Start program. Real sinister; a true Legion of Doom. He then goes on to some talk about their connections (I'm honestly not sure if it's sarcastic or not), moving along like a lost puppy. "I can't make this work in my head-" well damn, I wonder why?

Oh, and then there's the "one degree of separation" argument. Alright, Mr. Beck, we'll play this game. You lived in a state, that was part of the same country, as Timothy McVeigh. Coincidence? That's just "one degree of separation!" You live in a different country, but on the same planet as Hitler, Stalin, AND Mao! You must obviously have some connection to them, it's just "one degree of separation!" I'm as skilled as a debater as Glenn Beck!

Anthony "Van" Jones. His past was with Communism and Marxism. But of course, people like Beck can't get over the past and look into, say, what they're doing in the present, ignoring any credentials, any awards or honorary titles. The fact that Mr. Jones went from political ideologies of groups like STORM, and in turn decided to work within the government should say something. But of course, to Beck and the likes, it's all one big socialist conspiracy.

Then Beck puts up some more pictures. The first one, I'm not sure who it is. But the second is Mumia Abu-Jamal, who apparently was sentenced to death row, for killing a police officer. Of course, naturally, Beck fails to mention the controversy surrounding the case, in favor of "this guy [points to picture of Van Jones] wants this guy [points to picture of Abu-Jamal], the cop-killer, out of jail." How objective of you. /sarcasm

He then claims they asked the White House to explain how Van Jones became a special advisor. I can only imagine they did so while frothing at the mouth. He goes on then with the grand conspiracy (boy, I am getting sick of saying that word), that your tax dollars are going to artists (though I fail to see how, since that money goes to the National Endowment for the Arts and not artists themselves) to create "propaganda art." Well, Yosi Sergant was demoted. In response to some questions, NEA Chairman Rocco Landesman said in a letter:

"I am unaware of the use of any taxpayer dollars for the...conference call or related activity... This isolated incident, undertaken without agency approval and prior to my tenure, should in no way tarnish [the NEA]"

Beck then plays with a little poster which only served to demonstrate his voidness of any intellect. Glenn Beck, you ramble like a train derailed inside your head and took the tracks with it, you cry like a school girl on prom night, and you act like you're playing with a one-year-old at no one but a camera. Are you retarded?

Continuing on his little tantrum, he presents that video of school children singing about Obama. Oh yes, it's "indoctrination," because just that one case, just from that one day, it'll radically change them for all years to come. And maybe I'm wrong, do correct me if I am, but I somehow don't think the Obama administration is responsible for teaching the children that. So therefore, it's not really indoctrination by the Obama administration, is it? Or are there secret memos we don't know about? Then he switches back to the propaganda art, of course, all of this having to have been based on assumption (this was prior to the demotion of Yosi Sergant, naturally), and no actual facts or evidence, aside from a tape recording.

Glenn then asks, "Guess who had that happen?" This is in regards to the "NEA scandal" and insinuates Ms. Jarrett, because the "audio don't lie." Nope, but you do, sir. Buffy Wicks, the speaker on the tape, says she is a the Office of Public Engagement. She explained that their "office does a lot of outreach to communities all across the country." This is one of the offices under Valerie Jarrett. Now, here's something to think about. When a store employee (say, a manager) embezzles money, do you blame the CEO? Once again, Beck goes on nothing but speculation.
Then here comes more of the great conspiracy of Valerie Jarrett! *gasp* Blagojevich! She was considered for the seat he allegedly tried to sell! AND SHE TURNED IT DOWN! Why? Let's ask Glenn!

"But she said no, no, because she would rather serve the public interest, she would rather have this little, unknown position in the White House, but don't kid yourself about what's happening here."

That you are not only a liar and a hypocrite, but also a pompous asshole?

"She gave up her membership in the world's most exclusive club, to be in this administration, in this little circle of power! So let's ask the reasonable question, why would she do that?"

Well, let's see. She wasn't interested, it's hardly the world's "most exclusive club," she wasn't interested, she felt her current position was satisfactory for her, she wasn't interested, and lastly, she might have simply not been interested. But that is never the case, is it Beck?

Now, I have looked up information in regards to Grove Parc, and I will grant, it seems like the situation is pretty bad. However, I do not know enough about it to give a strong standing on it. And then we get into the whole Olympics in Chicago thing again. Though, I would like to remind you at this time, this is the man who said Vancouver lost a billion dollars with their Olympic games...except Vancouver won't have them till next year. He insinuates that she'll benefit from the Olympics being in Chicago. I would like to quote from the White House's own blog:

"UPON ENTERING GOVERNMENT, VALERIE JARRETT DIVESTED ALL HER REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT HOLDINGS EXCEPT FOR A SINGLE INVESTMENT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OLYMPIC BID. Valerie Jarrett divested all her investment real estate holdings upon entering government except for a single real estate holding that she was unable to sell. This single real estate investment has been determined by White House Counsel and the independent Office of Government Ethics to present no conflict of interest in performing her duties as a White House advisor. It has nothing to do with the Olympic bid."

He then shares with us a poll from the Chicago Tribune asking: "Do you favor or or oppose Chicago hosting the 2016 Olympic games?" He brings it up as a club against Obama bring the games there, because he mentioned groups of people who do not want the Olympics there and how they're being ignored. Just one problem.

47 Favor, 45 Against, and 8 Undecided.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm pretty sure 47 is higher than 45. That IS how a poll works, isn't it?

Of course, the has to bring up the groups that the Right are fighting against. It's called beating a dead horse. Then for his finale, he somehow brings up tobacco and the warning it may be cancerous. I have no idea what he was trying to say there.

My conclusion? Glenn Beck. you are: a liar, a hypocrite, a pompous asshole, a conspiracy theorist, a coward, and lastly, a fucking idiot.

Sadly, the Olympics will not be coming to Chicago. And the Right is overjoyed. Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, other forms of the Right's media publicly in celebration. To those people, I say this:

You are disgusting. You are the most pathetic. Tis a shame we did not win, yet I still congratulate, like our President, Brazil. I hope they do their best with the Olympics, and I'm sure they will. But you people, how deplorable. You tout patriotism like how you tout God. But elated to see Obama fail... Perhaps, just the saddest of all, out of everything in this mess, the saddest of all is how you don't even realize... just how anti-American you really are.

Yet you won't feel any shame. Of this I am sure. You are undeserving even of pity.

Big Post: Values Voters, Santorum, Corporations as People

2009-09-30T21:13:00.007-04:00

Unfortunately, I took so long to update this time. Man, I'll seriously try not to wait so long again! Anyway, time to get on with it; unfortunately, I won't be saying as much as I would like to, simply to keep things shorter.

About two weeks ago, there was a very interesting topic on The Colbert Report. Corporations seen as "people." The Word - Let Freedom Ka-Ching, and an interview with Jeffrey Toobin regarding Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Frankly, it shouldn't be any surprise I am highly critical of this. The ramifications of it are simply too great. And besides, I fail to see why corporations even deserve the same freedoms as people.

Obama's ability to speak in front of crowds is well known, and he is good at it. The GOP, however, are between a rock and a hard place, lacking that same charismatic ability as Obama, yet feeling the need for someone who can rebuttal the President. Their first few tries didn't go, so who did they choose next? Former Senator Rick Santorum. I've heard the name before, but didn't know anything about him. There was a controversy regarding a comment from him about homosexuals back in 2003, which I don't remember. Of course, hearing him reference "man on dog" got me curious for the transcript of this. Well I got more that I thought I would. Here's the transcript I shall be using.
When asked about comments that he blames the Catholic church sex scandal on liberalism, he responded in part with:

"Again, it goes back to this moral relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles. And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get."

Apparently, he has almost no understanding of right to privacy. Or law in general. Firstly, and while I could be wrong, I don't think those boys consented to being molested. Even so, in matters such as this, the laws tend to override consentuality. Accepting different lifestyles does not mean accept everyone regardless of circumstance. But also, the idea behind the right to privacy is that the government or law enforcers cannot simply break into your house, watch everything you do, etc. without obtaining permission first. But if reasonable cause is accepted, they can get warrants for such. For example, if there a police department has reason to suspect that a house has a meth lab, they can attempt to get a warrant to search the house. However, they must present a case for a warrant to a judge. This is not an issue of moral relativism, this is an issue of sexual child abuse, and your own god-forsaken stupidity, Mr. Santorum.

"...what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it."

Once again, to consider this a "basic homosexual relationship" is to ignore it for what it really is, a child sex abuse case. While, there is a growing acceptance of homosexual relationships, to say that child-molesting is accepted in part with it just demonstrates how little you really know. Of course, though, being the kind-hearted and accepting man he is, he admits that he doesn't have a problem with homosexuality, just homosexual acts. Kind of like how some people don't have a problem with blacks, they have a problem with them not being white? /sarcasm

"We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose."

Because of fucking bigots who can't get past their hate for homosexuals. There's your purpose.

"And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery."

So I guess he doesn't want anyone to have sex, ever? Unless it's rape. He then mentions he believes the right to privacy is not a part of the Constitution. While technically true, perhaps he should read the 9th Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In other words, rights outside of those listed by the Constitution exist, and should not be violated simply because they are not stated within the Constitution.

"And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family."

This comment is in regards to extending out broader rights. Now, some things can, indeed, affect the family; your family but not everyone's. I should also point out that polygamy is, I believe, technically illegal. Also, I didn't realize having anal sex with your wife is "antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family." Traditional part excluded (thinking about it, I don't think I ever mentioned why I hate the concept of a "traditional" family). I guess missionary is the one and only way, then? Do tell me how it destroys families, though. Anal sex - the family killer!

"Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children."

So we should have heterosexual marriage, for procreation? In spite of the fact that there is no longer any need to expand our population like back in older days and, in fact, we as a world may be facing overpopulation? Now, the infamous man-on-dog comment is:

"In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be."

Which prompted a response from the reporter:

"I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out."

This next one is back to Santorum.

"And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society."

Once again, this is about right of privacy. And once again, it is apparent he has no idea what right of privacy is. He's looking at it in such a way that, he's technically right, but he's wrong in the context. Yes, there is a limitation on the "wants and passions" of individuals. There are a few people I would love to take a baseball bat to their head. But I won't because that is assault, it is illegal. And that's fine, the reason we accept it as illegal is because it brings harm against someone else, and possibly serious medical condition. But the context he is using, is essentially "anything I disagree with should be illegal." Or rather, anything that we, the Christian Right, don't agree with. If I want to give my wife anal, and she lets me, I should be able to do so without having to worry about prosecution. His understand of this whole issue is so narrow, that I'm shocked that he ever got elected to be a Senator. But furthermore, how does he honestly intend to have such laws enforced? Well, since he apparently doesn't believe in the right to privacy, I suppose wiretapping, monitoring, even secret policing forces would not be beyond him. Or, more likely, not bother to enforce it at all, and only creating what is essentially one big inconvenience, and a waste of tax money.

A piece from the Rachel Maddow Show pointed out quite an interesting look into the GOP's anti-czarism. Also, Obama is the Antichrist. You can find a .pdf of the full poll results here.

Also from the Rachel Maddow Show (do excuse me linking to it a lot, I rather enjoy it so watch it frequently) takes a look at the states with the worst health, and what their Representatives are doing to fuck them over. The fact that they are all Southern states, which are always heavily conservative, is no surprise to be quite honest. It's also no surprise that they are fighting what their states desperately need- better health care. While both Democrats and Republicans tend to favor their own favoritisms and financial backers rather than the populous, I think the GOP does it far more; or at least far more openly. This is partly due to, I believe, the takeover by the Christian Right. They have a very clear agenda, and are trying to attain it. They will not stop until they are disbanded, or until they reach their goals. They are uncompromisingly set on their ideologies, even if that means sacrificing thousands of people. Here's another segment in regards to South Carolina that's worth a look.

Next up is a biggie. The Values Voters Summit. This is freaking huge to the Christian Right. And freaking Bizarro World to the rest of us. The Values Voters Summit is pivotal to the Republican base and to the Christian Right (which I guess is pretty much the same thing for the most part). This year, they had Rep. Michelle Bachmann, Mike Huckabee, Bill O'Reilly, Gov. Rick Perry, Carrie Prejean (y'know, the disgraced former Miss California), Mitt Romney, Phyllis Schlafly (the old bat who founded The Eagle Forum), and others. Eight people currently serving in Congress, a few presidential hopefuls, two current governors, and a few other people who served in our government, among other guests: people from high-profile conservative groups (even a few presidents of those groups), "scholars", and other people whom I'm not familiar with. You can see just how huge of an event it is. However, you just have to see what is being preached in this thing. And these are taken directly from the website; a true copy-and-paste- a few, I think, are deserving of their descriptions, again, taken straight from the website.

"TRUE TOLERANCE: COUNTERING THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS"

"OBAMACARE: RATIONING YOUR LIFE AWAY"

"MARRIAGE: WHY IT'S WORTH DEFENDING AND HOW REDEFINING IT THREATENS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY"

"GLOBAL WARMING HYSTERIA: THE NEW FACE OF THE "PRO-DEATH" AGENDA"

"SPEECHLESS - SILENCING THE CHRISTIANS"
Americans are at a greater risk of losing their basic freedoms today than ever before in the history of this nation. Political correctness and the voice of the liberal minority are undermining the morals and values of main-stream America. Christians are being silenced all across America: in the political debate, the public square, the schools, the workplace, and even in the sanctuary of their own churches. Through video, renowned author and commentator, Janet Parshall, takes you on a journey across the country to meet citizens who have been arrested for speaking out at a public rally, students who are being forced to attend classes that require them to recite verses from the Koran and to stage their own Jihad and activists pushing social tolerance to such an extreme that the Bible itself is being labeled "hate speech."

"THE NEW MASCULINITY"
Feminism has wreaked havoc on marriage, women, children and men. It is time to redress the disorder it has wrought and that must start with getting the principles and ideals for a new "masculinism" right. Such a "masculinism" will have its dovetailing counterpart in a new "feminism" for they mutually define each other and, in nature, are meant to be complementary. This panel will begin this exploration.

"THUGOCRACY - FIGHTING THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY"

"DEFUNDING PLANNED PARENTHOOD"

Or, how about claiming, I am not joking, I swear to all that is good, all pornography is homosexual pornography. (starts at 2:42 mark, said at 4:39).

What? WHAT!? WHAAAT!? To borrow a phrase from Penn & Teller: BULLSHIT!

Edit: I meant to link to this. Just a little something that sums up the Values Voters Summit.

Oh, and here's a little something, again, from Rachel Maddow.

And lastly, wow, I know, finally right? Lastly, a little something came to my attention. I'm sorry, I'll just link to it. It's short, if you want to read, I promise. Here is the article.

That's all I have to say for now. Until tomorrow, when I may be starting work on the next post.

Glenn Beck's 9-12 Project

2009-09-15T19:52:00.003-04:00

1. America is good.
2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.

Honesty
Reverence
Hope
Thrift
Humility
Charity
Sincerity
Moderation
Hard Work
Courage
Personal Responsibility
Gratitude

Are you familiar with this? It's the Nine Principles and Twelve Values of Glenn Beck's 9-12 Project.

"The 9-12 Project is designed to bring us all back to the place we were on September 12, 2001. The day after America was attacked we were not obsessed with Red States, Blue States or political parties. We were united as Americans, standing together to protect the values and principles of the greatest nation ever created."

If I recall, and I was young, so please do excuse me, wasn't it fear and shock that "brought us together" because we were uncertain of what would happen next? Weren't we united by rage against our enemies? And how exactly were we protecting "the values and principles" of anything? Also, greatest nation ever created? Isn't that rather arrogant?

Of course, I am highly critical of this 9-12 Project, not just because it was founded by Glenn Beck, who I despise, but also because of how ridiculous it is.

1. America is Good

America is an idea. Well, while it is a place, the values, principles, everything about it is an idea, just like any other country. Whether an idea is good or not is a matter of opinion. To claim America is good, that's fine, but to what extent? Some claim that, it's patriotic to follow the President (well, a REPUBLICAN President; Bush, anyone?), for example. What makes America "good?" Because of our freedom? Well, other nations have freedoms similar to ours. Sure, there's going to be discrepancies, but still. that's only to be expected. What is it that America has, that other nations do not? And if you say "the greatest-" stop right there. The concept of "best" is mere opinion. For example, some say we have the greatest health care system in the world. If that's true, then why is it other nations do not adopt it? Why is it that there's such fierce argument that it needs to be reformed?

America is something, I'll grant that. And that something changes person to person. But "good" is a merely an opinion, and I, for one, will not accept the idea that America is good as a principle to live by. Because that leads to nationalistic complacency, perhaps even to the extent of blind devotion. I believe in the idea of wanting America to be better, but to do so, we must be both critical, and open, of America, and our government. Nationalism and complacency leads down a dangerous path.

2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.

It shouldn't be any surprise that this here is what I am most critical of out of the whole damn thing. Mr. Beck, you truly do not understand one of the greatest pillars of America. Freedom of religion.

America, it is not a Christian nation, as much as many Republicans wish to believe. It is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Wiccan, Agnostic, Atheist, and any other belief within it. Your God is not my god. Your God is not the center of my life. Your God is not America's, as much as you may deny it.

The Pledge of Allegiance, "under God" was officially added in 1954, not when it was first wrote.

"In God We Trust" was added onto our currency in 1864, again, not at the concept of our national currency.

Take your God, and keep your God. The fact that a belief in God is slated as one of your principles sickens me.

3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.

Glenn Beck. On Fox News. Need I say more? Hypocrisy. Of course, just about anything is better than publicly admitting on the radio that he hates some of the families of 9-11 victims.

4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.

Sacred. An interesting choice of wording. Not only did you essentially make it religious, what a surprise, but what is "the family" exactly? From him, I expect the usual man+woman+marriage argument. But once again, the definition of what a family is, is merely an idea, and as I stated earlier, ideas are opinionated. And, "ultimate authority," another interesting choice in wording. When it comes to personal, private matters, such as raising your children, I wholeheartedly agree. But what exactly does this "ultimate authority" hold? What is "ultimate authority"?

5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.

In a surprise, one I actually agree with.

6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.

I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, of course. I completely agree, that is one of the greatest concepts of America. But there is no guarantee of equal results. No guarantee of equal results? What exactly does that mean? That no two people are the same? That things change in life, so the same pursuit may not satisfy you as much later? Or, and I hope this is not it, that the rights of some must be sacrificed for others?

7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.

This is, an interesting one. While I basically agree with the concept it is trying to convey, I feel almost certain that this is a double-entendre, it's latter meaning being anti-Socialist. Knowing how Republicans and Fox News have represented socialism, I'm sure of it. But also, I think it's against taxation, especially a progressive tax based on annual income.

8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.

Again, I agree with this. But it's so ripe with hypocrisy.

9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.

And lastly of the principles, I agree. But it is far easier said than done.

Overall?

Believe in God. The government can't control us. I have my rights. And America is good/great/the best/what the fuck ever.

Not much about actually unifying the masses, is there? Unless the masses suddenly become conservative like the Republicans. This is more about the right's way of life over unity of all Americans. Of course, this is Glenn Beck.

When did socialism become okay in this country? Hm, I don't know, was it when Social Security was founded? How about welfare? Medicare? Our modern police and fire departments? And quoting Nancy Pelosi? I thought she was one of those god-forsaken socialist liberal elites? Terrorists on the run? Surely you mean in the Middle East, and not America; last time I checked, we haven't been attacked since 9-11. And of course, you don't want your children indoctrinated; unless it's anti-tax, pro-gun, and pro-American, like in Reagan's speech to the children, right Mr. Beck?

Oh, family is sacred, under God. I called it. Oh, but here's a kicker; opinions cannot be un-American, but can be anti-American!

"Anti-American rhetoric would be anything that's destructive to the Constitution and as the Founders understood it."

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it we who are trying to understand the Founders? And "destructive to the Constitution," what is that exactly? Well sir, I think you are being anti-American then, since I believe you are supporting a violation of the First. I also suppose supporting, say, gun control laws is also anti-American. Funny how wide of a range such a vague statement can be used for.

Oh yes, Mr. Beck, this is definitely worth my time. Right, it's not about the parties, it's about the principles. Much of which is very strongly support by Republicans. Not about the parties at all.

Anyhow, Mr. Beck, I'll be happy to fight. For -my- principles, against arrogant fools like you.

And remember; they don't surround us. We surround them. Or as Stephen Colbert so rightly puts it:

"Who are them? Them's the ones we're surrounding. And we? We're the voices in Glenn's head telling him to get us to take back what's rightfully ours."

Trust me, it's worth the watch (here's the link):

This is also a more recent clip from last night's The Daily Show (here's the link):

As for this 12 Values, while I cannot necessarily argue against them, I can note the hypocrisy of them. The only thing Mr. Beck might remotely have on his show is courage, and even then I think not. It's more like he is so padded by hateful ignorance and praise of the like-minded, that he has no courage because it isn't needed for him.

That's all I have to say for now.

R.I.P Norman Borlaug, Tea Parties, and Calhoun

2009-09-14T21:18:00.007-04:00

I start off with sad news. Now usually, I'd place something so short towards the bottom, but because of the great deal of respect this man deserves, I feel to mention his passing first is quite appropriate.

Norman Borlaug, 95, died Saturday night (September 12, 2009). This is a great man, who is credited with saving, possibly as many as a billion lives, thanks to his research into more resilient crops and agriculture, and his help worldwide. May his great work continue to help, and save another billion from the threat of famine.

Now, for the main course of this post. The Tea Partiers. I will say it now; I find the whole thing, or rather I should say the demonstrations at the birth of this movement, downright idiotic. It was a mere rip off the Boston Tea Party without a second thought.

Consider this. One of the things that they are supposedly against are taxes, but also the bailouts. So they decide to throw tea into the water, just like the Boston Tea Party. Why do I think this was stupid? Because they were banking on emotion rather than message. They lack everything the event in Boston had, aside from, admittedly, passion.

I'll break it down. Firstly, being against taxes and bailouts, this new Tea Party did what? Dump out perfectly good tea, which is nowhere near the level of mass consumption as coffee nowadays. So wouldn't dumping coffee have had a stronger message? But furthermore, where did they get that tea? It was bought. Think about that for a moment. It was bought, probably from somewhere in the US, such as, say, a distributor, for example. That money goes into a company, or to be more general, the market. That money is then subjected to taxation; hell, it may have well been taxed upon purchase. The money spent on taxation goes back into the government, but not only that, that which is in the market may well be fed back into the government. Did you catch that? The very thing they are against.

Not only that, but one of the reasons the Boston Tea Party was so important of an event, was because what was at stake. Those people who took part were literally risking their lives; if they were caught, they would certainly have been thrown into prison, if not executed. These new tea partiers aren't risking anything except money and time, and their group seems to lack any centralization. Essentially, it's more like an actual party than a rally, and the message by the people is all over the place, from taxation to Obama is Hitler (I would like to invoke Godwin's Law). For the record, I do agree there must be tax reform (I, personally, am in favor of a single progressive tax), and I did not agree with the bailout of the bank and loan industry. Although I did favor the bailout of the auto-industry; being from the Rust Belt, and seeing how heavy of an industry it was in my home state, Michigan, I feel that letting the industry simply die was essentially sacrificing several states, especially Michigan which is in a terrible economic crisis in itself, well before the national economic crisis.

If they want a strong message, I believe an appropriate one would have been to burn money. Yes, burn actual money. Currency is technically federal property, and by disposing of it, it cannot be pass along to the government. It is also technically illegal, as its vandalizing and damage federal property.

Even so, it was far from "spontaneous," same as those town house meetings. All these demonstrations were planned. Those people in the town house meetings were scouted or encouraged. Nothing about anything the GOP has been doing recently has been spontaneous.

I recently said to someone, I know that I shouldn't judge a majority based on that of a minority. But, I question this radicalism that the GOP and the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News have created. I question that, perhaps they are starting to become the majority. Or that they are actually expressing views of the Republican base's heart and leaders; its just they have enough madness to say what the rest are thinking, if you will.
7:10
Unfortunately, I cannot seem to find just the interview. A man named Mike Lux was on the Rachel Maddow show, and said that he believes this is a revival of a specific form of conservatism which he called Calhoun Conservatism, after John C. Calhoun. This is the interview, and also the article in the Huffington Post. I found it rather interesting.

That's all I have to say for now.

Obama's Indoctrination, Reagan, and Baby-killers (Plus Extra Stuff)

2009-09-09T21:12:00.003-04:00

Yesterday, the terrifying happened, on Tuesday, September 8th, 2009. Children were turned...into Communists! Except they weren't. If you don't know yet, Obama gave a speech yesterday directed at children in school, about topics such as responsibility and hard work. I will admit, there is something I find ironic. Apparently, someone asked Obama who he would dine with, and his response was:

"Gandhi, he's somebody I find a lot of inspiration in. He inspired Dr. King."

Why do I find it ironic? Because Gandhi was quite the racist, hating Africans. But I digress.

The follows of the right made a huge issue of Obama's speech, over some suggestions submitted by, I think it was, the U.S. Department of Education. That he was going to indocrinate the children. You know who else does that? Churches. Anyhow, this upset continued, even after the U.S. Department of Education changed their suggestions. Jim Greer, head of the Florida Republican Party, who I believe started this whole mess, claimed that, oh here is the magic word, it was a socialist agenda. So what did he do?

He changed his mind. After causing a total outrageous mess that was founded on complete bullshit and lavished with the fearful warnings of what he might do to your children, he said, according to this article:

"After reading the text, seeing the Department of Education has told teachers they are not to lead students in the direction that they would have a week ago, my kids will be watching the president's speech as I hope all kids will. I don't advocate children not watching this president's speech with this text. Now who knows what last week's speech might have looked like, but tomorrow my kids will be listening to the president."

Not only did you completely fuck up, sir, but you want to know what "last week's speech" might've looked like? Like this week's speech. You, sir, created a massive fiery incident, out of nothing, spread right-wing fear all over, without even reading it, and when you did, you changed your mind in what, at best, is a half-assed apology (and frankly, I do not see it as an apology), and still attempt to save your ass, because of what it "could've been." But wasn't. Though he still believes that the White House rewrote the speech, which he claims at 00:34 of this video.

Let's take a look at that video. Later one, he speaks that the White House, he believes, had another agenda that what Obama said on Tuesday. Conspiracy theorist, much? Now, some say, it wasn't the speech, but rather, the lesson plan that was suggested. Key word: suggested. Not enforced. Even so, what? Yes, a single day of school, that these children will probably completely forget aside from being there, will suddenly turn them into raving socialists?

Well, here is the "Menu of Classroom Activities" straight from the U.S. Board of Education website itself (both are .pdf format). Menu of Classroom Activities, PreK - 6, 7 - 12

What is the President tell me? What is he asking me to do!? HEIL OBAMA! LINKS ZWEI, DREI, VIER! ALLE ZUM AMERIKA REICH! HEIL FÜHRER OBAMA! Der Kuchen ist eine Lüge! Okay, so that last phrase is "the cake is a lie" to those of you who have played Portal.

After reading both plans, I have to say; they are so socialist! /sarcasm. Sure, some things could be considered a little iffy, I suppose, but to make a point of it being indoctrinating, that's quite the stretch. I'll quote Mr. Greer from that video.

"...we have to remember the lesson plans that came out five days ago, which was and ran by* the White House, trying to get round parents, and it was going to ask teachers to lead students in a direction that would deal with, "how would we help the President with his new ideas," "what has Barack Obama done in the last nine months that you admire," this was an issue that never dealt with the President talking to schoolchildren, that was never the issue..."

Well first of all, nothing on the lesson plan says that. No where does it ask to help the President with new ideas, nor what has he done that you admire, in either one. Secondly, I quote this, again, from Greer:

"I think this is going to be an attempt to talk about his philosophy in governing, his new ideas, on a different level to the young people in hopes of getting them to embrace his vision of America."

That sounds a lot like criticizing his speech to me, and not about the lesson plan. And no, the issue was, you wanted something with which you could rail against Obama. And you did, causing a firestorm of unnecessary controversy, which honestly, to the rest of us, looked just downright idiotic. Thank you for reaffirming my bitter distaste of the Republican Party. And you were a perfect example. And it's because of idiots like you that it makes bipartisanship next to impossible, because, oh dear god, the President is doing something! It's the end of America! It was never about Obama's speech, or the lesson plan, or parental control (which he says later on in the video, at 3:46).

"President Obama has a vision for America which is government in our lives, every aspect."

And the truth comes out. It's all about Obama, and the right's propaganda. This comment by Mr. Greer is a complete falsity in every sense. Thanks that we, who are actual socialists, must fight back the stereotype that you continue to enforce. Thanks for, once again, dragging on the fearful emotions of the Red Scare; you, sir, sicken me.

You know, however, in November of 1988, President Reagan had children invited into the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, and like Obama, he gave them a speech, which was also aired nationwide.

"Today, to a degree never before seen in human history, one nation, the United States, has become the model to be followed and imitated by the rest of the world. But America's world leadership goes well beyond the tide toward democracy. We also find that more countries than ever before are following America's revolutionary economic message of free enterprise, low taxes, and open world trade. These days, whenever I see foreign leaders, they tell me about their plans for reducing taxes, and other economic reforms that they are using, copying what we have done here in our country.

I wonder if they realize that this vision of economic freedom, the freedom to work, to create and produce, to own and use property without the interference of the state, was central to the American Revolution, when the American colonists rebelled against a whole web of economic restrictions, taxes and barriers to free trade. The message at the Boston Tea Party -- have you studied yet in history about the Boston Tea Party, where because of a tax they went down and dumped the tea in the Harbor. Well, that was America's original tax revolt, and it was the fruits of our labor -- it belonged to us and not to the state. And that truth is fundamental to both liberty and prosperity."

Reaganomics, anyone?

"And again, I would say that the most important thing you can do is to ground yourself in the ideas and values of the American Revolution. And that is a vision that goes beyond economics and politics. It's also a moral vision, grounded in the reverence and faith of those who believed that with God's help they could create a free and democratic nation. They designed a system of limited government that, in John Adams' words, was suited to a religious people such as ours."

First of all, John Adams was quite religious; secondly, numerous Founding Fathers were Deists; they believed God was the Maker and First Mover, but then left life and everything to run on its own, so that he is essentially just an observer. And lastly, he, the President of the United States, is supporting religious morals, and while to the right that may be fine, is that not pushing onto the children the idea of religious faith and morality? And, I would like to point out, these are not responses to questions, these are in the speech itself.

Well, Republicans, are you going to own up to this? Or is it because he's your precious Reagan, that you'll simply ignore that, he came much closer to indoctrination that Obama has?

Now, I would have liked to mention the plan offered by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), in which there is mention of fining families without healthcare coverage. However, I as of yet do not know enough, however, I am mentioning this as something to look at, and keep your eyes on. From what I have read so far, I do not support him.

Palin, once again, brough up death panels. I've said it earlier, and honestly, I don't have much to say now. But here is the article for you from which I first read of it.

A federal judge allowed the hunting of gray wolves in the Northern Rockies. To be honest, I see wolves as an animal special to me. It hurts to have to hear that hunting, how ever small, how ever controlled, has resumed, and it saddens me deeply. I am thankful that hunting has yet to be suggested, as far as I know, in the Great Lakes area.

Lastly, I shall end on a note of religion. The Wild Hunt had a piece titled, The Never-Ending War Against Satan. In it, they linked to this article, and quoted a particular section, which I shall quote as well.

A month ago I was with my wife and two other ladies in the car, including one who was formerly a witch but now a full on born-again Christian. In fact I have personally cast out many demonic spirits out of her. She told us that one of her friend’s (who also was a witch) father was a high priest in the coven. When she was a small girl, he told her that he had a surprise for her birthday. He blind folded her and told her to cut the cake. After cutting, her blind fold was removed and she was horrified to see that she had cut through the neck of a baby.

At first read, this seems shocking, unless you immediately (and I hope you do) realize how much bullshit this story is. To those who eat meat, have you ever tried cutting through bone? To those who have not, go find a somewhat thick piece of hard wood, and try cutting through it with a knife. Bone is harder. Yet this is the kind of complete fabrications that those who oppose pagans use to support themselves. I hope they do not gain the power or influence to oppress, because I fear they shall surely use it.

That's all I have to say for now.

Part 2: Cheney on Torture, Bachmann's Cult, and Obama with Muslums

2009-09-03T23:53:00.006-04:00

Okay, this is Part 2. To make it easy, use this link to shoot down to Part 1.

A week ago, an article come out on MSNBC, about McCain having a woman thrown out during a town hall meeting. While I can understand that if she was being rowdy, what about all those Republicans at those other rallies, when Democrats are talking? Why can't we get in a riot team or something and have them all thrown out? After all, it's basically the same thing. Oh right, but then that'd be a violation of Freedom of Speech, I'm sure many conservative pundits over at Fox News and such would say. After all, a Democrat did it, but if it's a Republican, then of course it's okay; it's for America!

I say that, because let's face it, that's what would happen.

Well, I'd like to give a brief look on Cheney. Now, the Bush Administration went as far as to grant special legalization on "enhanced interrogation techniques" that otherwise, well, might've been considered torture, or otherwise would have at least been ethically questionable (well, not that they aren't). But Cheney said, he is okay with cases that went beyond that. Or in other words, he is fine with breaking the law and torture. He also believes that this whole CIA investigation is political, rather than judicial. You can find it here, at the 2:50 mark, and also in this article. At the 5:00 mark, you can hear:

"I just think it's an outrageous precedent to set, to have this kind of, I think, intensely partisan, politicized look back at the prior administration..."

Right, because there are only allegations of illegal activity during what is perhaps the most secretive Administrations, at least certainly since Nixon, political abuse of power, illegal torture, etc. It was a clusterfuck of a presidency, was in itself "intensely partisan" and politicized. But we should just forget all about that, right?

Well at around the 2:13 mark, Cheney says he is offended.

"... we had a track record of eight years of defending the nation against any further mass casuality attacks from Al-Qaeda. The approach of the Obama Administration should be to come to the people involved in that policy and say "how did you do it, what were the keys to keeping us safe over that period of time?" Instead, they're out there now threatening to disbar the lawyers who gave us the legal opinions, threatening contrary to what the President originally said, they're going to go out and investigate the CIA personnel who carried out those investigations, I just, I think it's an outrageous political act that will do great damage, long term to our capacity to be able to have people take on difficult jobs, make difficult decisions, without having to worry about the next administration is going to say about them."

You, sir, are offended by that? Offended? Well first of all, isn't it your job to defend us? You are the freaking Executive Branch. Also, you want the Obama Administration to follow your footsteps, which is the very thing that is being investigated, that if what you did was legal? If anything, NOT investigating this is an outrageous political act, and I'm happy to hear that the Obama Administration is starting to turn around on the issue. If anything, there should be even more pressure on them for this investigation. But also, worrying about what the next administration will say about someone? Isn't that pretty much every single Presidental campaign we've had? Yes, it is. What Cheney is saying, it's nothing new to the American political system. Such things have been happening since our first Presidents. So you are offended that they are investigating possible illegal activities and by the American political system?

Right after, this exchange happens, at 6:07 Chris Wallace asks Cheney:

"If the prosecutor asks to speak to you, will you speak to him?"

Cheney responds with:

"It'll depend on the circumstances, and what I think their activities are really involved in..."

Depend on the circumstances? What circumstances are those, exactly? Well now, surely, Cheney must have a reason for all of this, for so much cloak and dagger. Well, you find out at 8:21. "So even these cases where they went beyond the specific legal authorization, you're OK with it?" Chris Wallace asked Cheney.

"I am."

That's right. Cheney is okay with illegal "enhanced interrogation techniques."

Almost done. Next is, oh please save me, Michelle Bachmann, perhaps the most insane Representative in the House. This article reports on a speech she gave, where at some point, she said:

"What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn’t pass."

I seriously have no idea how to respond to this. She wants a conservative cult? Going to serve some Kool-Aid? Well, look further down the article, and the will link to another story that mentions this telephone'd town hall meeting.

In response to a caller from Minnesota who wanted to know if there was a plan afoot in Washington to require all medical doctors to perform abortions, Bachmann didn’t exactly shoot the suggestion down.

"Unless we explicitly restrict these items, I think we can fully expect that these radical pro-abortion individuals could very likely make those decisions,” she told the caller. "All of us who have labored tirelessly in the pro-life cause for years and years and years, we know what these people are capable of. That’s why they have to be tied down by restrictions explicitly in law."

So, I'm pro-choice myself, but DO tell me, what is it exactly we are capable of?

"That’s really where this battle will be won — on our knees in prayer and fasting," she told the listeners. "Remember: faith without works is dead. So we’re asking you to do all of it: pray, fast, believe, trust the Lord, but also act."

Well hopefully, your idea of acting is to sit there and fast and pray; I fully support that. Because while you all are busy doing that, maybe we can get actual change done. If she's busy in church praying, then maybe she'll shut the hell up with the crazy for a little while. Or maybe this is the cult she wants, eh?

Speaking on the side of theology, and my last bit for tonight, I came across this article on MSNBC: Obama hosts dinner for Islamic holy month. That holy month being Ramadan, and praised contributions of Islamic culture. This is good, and I am happy to see such. We are America, one of our founding philosophies being free religion, and yet within our country, there are those who see other religions as lesser, or even dangerous. And we have reached a time some are calling a "post-Christian America" where the influence of Christianity is waning, in favor of atheism and other religions, or non-religion-associated spirituality.

Well, that was a long one, and I'm sure something will come up that I forgot. But, for now, that's all.

After a very much long-winded post(s), -whew-, that's all I have to say for now!

Part 1: Serious Among the Idiotic, Kenya, Scaring Women, and Dystopian America

2009-09-03T21:54:00.009-04:00

Oh boy, this is going to be long one. In fact, I'll break it up into two parts.

In an article in the New York Times, "Conservatives See Need for Serious Health Debate" it is mentioned that:

"Far from embracing the attacks, many leading conservative health care policy experts said in recent interviews that the dynamic was precluding a more robust real-world debate while making it nearly impossible for them to inject their studied, free-market solutions into the discussions.

And they said the focus on what they consider misleading or secondary issues was getting in the way of real questions about the plan they believed worthy of consideration."

Now although I don't agree with their solutions, or their findings, and the likes, this is still good. One of my worst ire with the GOP is these, absurd, I dare say asinine, arguments. Death panels, widespread political oppression, human euthanization, evil socialist America, fabricated ideas of traditionalism. If they want serious discussion, then that's great, that is what we need. Unfortunately, I think the majority of the GOP will stick to what they have already established.

Of course, I am no fan of conservatives; they are on the opposite side of the political spectrum as I, and it is only natural that I often do not agree with them. But that does not mean I hate conservatives. What I do hate, nay, despise, is the GOP. That's right, I despise it. It's not because it bills itself as conservative, not at all. It's because of the things it does, the things it fosters. Sure, the Democrats can, and have, said stupid things. To say they haven't is unrealistic and downright false. But the GOP takes it to almost mind-imploding levels. If you need any proof of this, just look at the Birthers and the Deathers. Now sure, you could, I suppose, contend the Democrats have PETA and Greenpeace, but that simply isn't the case. While those groups would, maybe, associate more towards Democrats than Republicans, the fact of the matter is they are not American "movements" but are rather actual organizations, and worldwide, mind you. They are not strictly American. I don't think you'll find the sheer amount of unintelligent, incompetent, or simply downright ludicrous, movements among the Democrats as that of the Birthers and the Deathers.

Sure, you could argue that the GOP doesn't necessarily endorse or associate themselves with either the Birthers, or the Deathers. Well, the validity of that is questionable at best. Even if that was the case (and I believe it's not), they are still repeat the same rhetoric as these movements, or at the very least enforcing it, though not necessarily using the same dialect. I mean, you have Republican politicians in Congress, Congress!, questioning if Obama was born in the US! This farcical argument of his birthplace has been disproven again and again, with evidence that is irrefutable to all but the most idiotic of people.

Their most recent attempt used a forgery certificate, which stated Obama was born in Kenya.

However, I do have to give some credit to the Deathers; at least they have to slug through a huge congressional bill. Not that it changes the fact that they are so full of absolute shit. From Betsy McCaughey and the endangerment of seniors (though I did enjoy her sound defeat on The Daily Show), to Palin's "death panels," to Rush Limbaugh's claim that the bill will have mandated circumcision. Or how about that there is a conspiracy to give health care only to Democrats, not anyone registered as a Republican - from the Republican National Committee itself. I even mentioned it earlier. But now that the elderly, veterans, and Republicans have been scared shitless (or at least attempts were made), a new target is needed. Who is that, you may ask?

Women. And breast cancer.

The Independent Women's Forum released an ad on their website (which you can watch here on Youtube). Well, first of all she goes onto the government-run health care plan, "paid for by taxpayers at huge costs." Well, the funny thing about that is, it's optional. You know what that means? IT. IS. NOT. MANDATORY. Meaning if you want a private insurer, then you can have one. Jesus Christ, how hard is that to understand? Next she says, quote:

"Independent experts say tens of millions of Americans could lose their current health insurance and wind up on this public plan."

Well, at least they'll HAVE some form of insurance, unlike the estimated forty-five, forty-six million plus, who do not, as of right now. So hey, at least when those tens of millions lose their coverage for a public plan, at least they're not alone as those without will now actually HAVE coverage! Oh, right, and also the fact that that is total bullshit as nobody is going to lose their private plans and be forced onto the public plan. Well, I suppose that's not entirely true. I should say, if the private plans don't bother to get better and compete, then collapse. But you know what? That's is one of the pillars of our capitalist society; corporate competition. If people start leaving them in favor of the public plan, well, it's probably because they suck at their services. If Target suddenly started losing droves of people to Wal-Mart, then clearly Wal-Mart is doing something the people like. Same thing here. If they want to compete with the public option, then maybe they should stop being such huge assholes and shape up as a reliable service.

Then, she talks about England's health care system, and how their survival rate for breast cancer is lower than the US. Well, that'd be worrisome- if we were going to have England's health care. Which we are not. Same goes to Canada.

And, last bit of discussion on this ad. Y'know, I came across something rather interesting about the statistics used by opponents of this health care bill. A research firm known as the Lewin Group is often used by the opposition.

"To Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House Republican whip, it is "the nonpartisan Lewin Group." To Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee, it is an "independent research firm." To Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the second-ranking Republican on the pivotal Finance Committee, it is "well known as one of the most nonpartisan groups in the country."

Well, Lewin Group, as it turns out, is, guess what? Owned by a health insurance company. In my personal opinion, I believe that they have every interest to release bad results in favor of blocking a public option. While I cannot say where the IWF got their statistics for their ad, you should still take all statistics, yes, even the ones I mention, with a grain of salt.

To rewind a bit, I just learned of a little gem; that Glenn Beck accused one Mr. John Holdren, the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, that he was in favor of forced abortions and wanting to inject sterilants into our drinking water. Of course, I call bullshit. Let's see; Glenn Beck has population control, McCaughey has extermination of the elderly, Palin has death panels, well fuck, when is some one going to suggest Soylent Green!?

Continued on Part 2.

Push 'n Scare, Betsy McCaughey, and Children of the Corn-esqe?

2009-08-29T18:44:00.011-04:00

Well, I suppose I shall start off by mentioning an interview that, when I first found out, I was excited about; I speak of the interview of Betsy McCaughey and Jon Stewart. Yes, THAT Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show.

Part 1 of the interview.

And Part 2.

In my personal opinion, I think she bombed. Hard. She got pwned! But that's just my opinion. Furthermore, she resigned from the board of directors of the Cantel Medical Corp. On the same day as her interview. I cannot say why, nor do I pretend to know. I'll leave that up to others to guess at.

It's no surprise that the GOP has been accused of fear-mongering. And I personally believe they are, to extreme levels.

A questionnaire accompanying the appeal says the government could check voting registration records, "prompting fears that GOP voters might be discriminated against for medical treatment in a Democrat-imposed health care rationing system."
It asks, "Does this possibility concern you?"
Katie Wright, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, said the question was "inartfully worded."
But she said people should worry because government officials would have access to personal financial and medical data.
"The RNC doesn't try to scare people," said Wright. "We're just trying to get the facts out on health care. And that's what we do every day."

That was in this MSNBC article. Quite hypocritical when their "facts" are things such as Democrat conspiracy, death panels, and that we'll turn into a socialist society (their definition of socialism equating to Communism), among others. But she has one thing right; they do it every day, I'm sure. Another is that the Democrats want a partisan bill; well, yeah, considering the GOP isn't having any of this bipartisan bullshit. /sarcasm

But Enzi's judgment was especially noteworthy because he is one of only three Republicans who have been willing to consider a bipartisan bill in the Senate.

Oh, and speaking of Grassley? Well, how about the fact he's willing to veto any piece of legislation, unless it has enough GOP backing?

http://washingtonindependent.com/55705/health-care-battle-tarnishes-grassley-bipartisan-reputation

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/08/grassley-says-he-would-sabotage-a-health-care-bill-whose-provisions-he-favors-in-order-to-advance-partisan-agenda.php

Bipartisanship at its finest! This is why I support the Democrats just circumventing GOP opposition and going for passing the bill without them. Bipartisanship is impossible. It's not going to happen, nor will it ever happen. One of the problems of what is essentially a two-party system. Furthermore, in regards to the criticisms of Sen. Michael Enzi, the idea of cutting medical costs without raising the deficit.

It is impossible. There is absolutely no way to have any kind of reform and still not raise the deficit. That equates to having reform without spending anything at all. This isn't some fictitious place, this is reality. What he's asking for cannot happen, there is simply no feasible way. Money will be spent. That's what these people don't seem to get; yes, the deficit will grow- at first. But hopefully, in time, money will be saved and the deficit will go down with those savings. It's like buying a new house or car; you pay a down-payment, that's what the reform is, and then you pay in increments. Hopefully, you make enough money, save enough money, to pay off those increments and eventually, the whole thing will be payed off.

There are still some who believe we pagans are some sort of great evil. Casting dark magic, sacrificing animals, and seducing children like the Sirens to sailors. Now, yes, magic is part of paganism (and no, not the Harry Potter kind). And some pagan religions do sacrifice animals (hell, there's even animal sacrifice in the freaking Holy Bible, yes, THAT Holy Bible), but so did many many religions of elder times; and even some today continue the practice. But children? Well, maybe if you're one of those who believe in people such as Linda Harvey. To pull a quote both from this interview and the article about it from The Wild Hunt (a very nice pagan blog):

A narrow definition of witchcraft would be a series of rituals, spells and actions that attempt, whether they realize it or not, to contact the demonic realm to try to get the evil spirits to cooperate with them with whatever they want to do … [witchcraft and the occult] has penetrated virtually all areas of entertainment and the media … Unfortunately, all these children have to do to get information is get on the Internet. Several Web sites have a youth section where kids can go and find covens in their cities and suburbs. Yes, these youth are going right from these books and media to these fora. All it takes is for them to have a little more interest and then going a little further with their interest and looking it up.

That's right, we spawn the Children of the Corn. Be wary, you children may kill off all the adults and hail to He Who Walks Behind the Rows! *cue eerie voice* Of course, that's not really the case at all. Sure, there are websites, of course. And hell, maybe even some covens might have websites. But what this is, it's just ridiculous. And it's obvious how insane it is. But to these people, such truths fall on deaf ears; there is no changing their mind, nor can they see any hypocrisy or wrong in themselves. But to those who still hold the rationale to comprehend, do not believe such falsities as what they say. And hopefully, they will dissipate as America becomes continually post-Christian, and there can be honest dialog, even mutual respect, among pagans and Christians and others, at least in the U.S.

And that's all I have to say for now.

Missionaries in the Census, Religion and Dysfunction

2009-08-16T23:24:00.007-04:00

I came across an article on MSNBC that caught my attention: "Utah told it can’t count missionaries in census" -I quote on part in particular.

The Census Bureau does count military and federal employees serving overseas, and Rob Bishop, R-Utah, says it should include Mormons on proselytizing missions.

"The bottom line should still be fairness and accuracy," Bishop said. "If we are currently counting some people abroad and not others, there is just no logic to that whatsoever."

Now, the article said later that there is simply no reliable way to count those overseas. But that's not the point I want to make. They count military and federal persons overseas, because they work for the government (and they're much more easily counted). They are out there under the whim of the government and/or military. Missionaries are not. Missionaries are sent out by a religious institution. I do not think they should be counted, because they work for a religious institution, are sent out by them. While I understand the purpose of a census, they are still living overseas for a religious cause, even if it is temporary. And, I don't think those living outside the U.S. should be counted, except for military, federal, or businesses. I say this, because they are not living in the U.S. yet their numbers could influence the House.

Speaking of census, let's look at a matter of theological census. Some days ago, Newsweek released this article on their website: "(Un)Wired For God"

I did not enjoy it. Now, and maybe this is just me, I think it tried to hint at the death of religion. Or rather, "civilized" nations are the death of religion. It mentioned the overall decline of Christianity and the significant rise in atheism, referring specifically to a Pew study. I've read that particular survey, but unfortunately, am having trouble finding it again. Instead, I would like to reference a 2008 ARIS report, which was actually a larger survey. In this .pdf, upon page 5, I would like to make a specific point. While None/No Religion is up dramatically, it is halved by atheists, but also agnostics. I would not consider agnostics, as the article said, as "non-believers." I say this, because you can still spiritual as an agnostic. Yes, they may not have a religion, but isn't spirituality what really matters? Or, at least it should be, in my opinion.

Now, I mentioned the "death of religion." I got the feeling that this article was trying to hint at it. That civilized nations, religion is declining. That, well, let me quote the article: "I'll leave to braver souls the question of whether religiosity leads to social dysfunction, as the new breed of public atheists contends." -I suppose that makes me one of those braver souls. My answer? No.

Religion, in itself, does not cause dysfunction. The problem, I think, is organization. Now that does not mean establishing houses of worship and such, no, but rather when you start having what is essentially a government of your religion (e.g. the Vatican), that is when you start having problems that can lead to dysfunction. But that isn't the issue itself; it's human. When a small, select group of people gain enormous power, especially in an organization like the Vatican, where the Pople is considered infallible, it is not surprising when they abuse that power to push self-interest, because they have no counterbalance within itself. That is what causes dysfunction, not the religion itself, but rather, the followers.

As to the report the article is based on, it is this .pdf. I would like to make mention of pages 13 and 14 (or 410 and 411 if you want to use that).

Graph 1: This is the overall measuring of all the factors presented in the other graphs, a few of which I will go through.

Graphs 2 & 3: Homicide and incarceration. Now of course, to some extent, they would go hand-in-hand. But, is this the cause of religion? To that, I would claim nay. There are a myriad of reasons; economic decline, forcing more people to live in poverty, homicide could be act of, say, gang violence which are found more frequently in poorer neighborhoods. It could be an act of some form of, say, psychological desperation. It could be based on prejudice. Another factor, and I'm sure some will hate for me to say; the availability of guns could be a factor. Although I am a bit more wary on that, as even in areas without guns, such as England, violence with other forms of weaponry skyrocketed. I am just saying it could be a factor, though illegalizing firearms isn't exactly a deterrent either.

Graph 4: Suicides. Again, various factors are at play here. Such as, once again, economic or psychological reasons, among others.

Graph 6: Life expectancy? I didn't realize your choice of faith affects how long you live. So who lives longer, Christians? Wiccans? Buddhists? With life expectancy, sanitation, healthcare, medical conditions, diet, etc. can all affect how long you live. Your religion, unless it forbids things such as drugs, surgery, and so on, do not.

Graphs 7-10: To be brief with it, most of these are probably a result of unprotected sex. America tops all of these, and while you could argue religion is a factor, I think it's closer to the religious organizations. This is because they push for abstinence, which I believe simply does not work, and never has. However, some of these groups and people who go around teaching abstinence, do not even discuss safe sex, because it is still against their ideology. So again, it is not, I think, religion in itself, but rather those behind it.

Graph 11: Fertility rate? I cannot even comment, except for; "what the hell does fertility have to do with religion?"

I could go on, but, I think the point has been made. I find this study to be, frankly, a load of bullshit. It uses aspects that has far greater factors than religion, and attempts to pass them off as a direct correlation, when that is not necessarily the case. Some have absolutely no connection to one's faith (or should not, anyhow).

Furthermore, I would like to see how this study compares other countries. What about 3rd world countries? What about nations previously under rule of dictators, or still are?

One last thing: if you know what an "atheist regime" is, I would like to know. I have only recently heard this term used, and cannot find an actual definition of it.

And that's all I have to say for now.

Follow Up: "Palin, the GOP, and Healthcare"

2009-08-10T19:43:00.000-04:00

There are a few more points that I realize I did not address.

Firstly is the criticism that health care reform would "drive up the deficit." Well, to that I say, and? Just about everything involving reform or new programs costs money- at first. Think of it as buying a new car, or house, boat, anything large and expensive. First you put in a down payment. Well, the initial costs to implement this reform is like that; it's not the full payment up front, but rather, there is a starting cost. Then, every month after that down payment, you pay in installments. That is funding and taxation. Yes, it will cost a lot, and will add to the deficit at first, but the idea is saving a great deal later on.

Speaking on taxes, of course one of the GOP's central pillars of criticism is, "it'll raise taxes!" They use it like the boy who cried wolf. And that's essentially what it is. Taxation is good, if it is good representation. That is the problem. Representation. Taxes overall are not bad, and very much necessary for any civilization's economy, if it wants to survive.

The other point, is Medicaid. Yes, the lower-income families do get the support of Medicaid, but the problem here is that Medicaid is broken. From what I understand, it's overly difficult, and even then, what about those families who cannot afford insurance, yet are above the requirements of Medicaid?

Now I'm sure some would love to use that to support the idea that socialism is bad. Well, let me ask you then: why are socialist countries so successful with it? Take a look at France's health care system; it's beautiful, and it works. No, it's not that socialism is bad, or that it doesn't work. I think the problem is that, it is a socialist program written by capitalist politicians, in a heavily capitalist society. It's a matter of conflict between to very different political and economic philosophies, with one trying to survive within the other. It's prey living in a den of predators.

Yet hopefully, reform will be founded on learning what went wrong with previous programs.

Palin, the GOP, and Health Care

2009-08-10T10:06:00.001-04:00

Recently, Palin expressed (or rather, echoed) her views on health care reform through Facebook. When I read what she had said, I was infuriated.

"And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."

I was shocked at this, although, I shouldn't have been. The idea of "death panels" like out of some 70s, 80s B-rated science fiction movie has been spread across the Republican base. People such as Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh spread this idea. They feed it. I find myself questioning if they really believe what they say, or if they say these things only to be against the Democrats and liberals. Possibly both, depending on the situation?

"People at a certain age with certain diseases will be deemed not worth the investment, and they will just as Obama said, they’d give them some pain pills, and let them loop out till they die and they don’t even know what’s happened. It will be rationed. You’re not going to be able to choose your doctor. Probably after a while, will not be able to hold on to your private insurance or your current insurance, which is all by design, but they are going to be able to regulate, call you a risk based on do you smoke, do you not smoke. How far do you drive to work? Do wear polyester, it’s more flammable. They could get ridiculous, but that’s who these people are, and that’s the kind of control they want.” - Rush Limbaugh

So tell me, Mr. Limbaugh, how is this any different from actual health insurance companies that we have right now? It's called "preexisting condition." Do you have a history of medical claims? Are you terminally ill? Do you smoke? Do you have any form of defects?

And when you do? You are denied coverage, or your coverage comes at higher rates. Why? Because you are being rationed, "by design," by the insurance companies. He just inadvertently described what really happens to low and middle class citizens who seek health coverage. Or, health coverage is just too expensive to afford. Millions of people are uninsured because they either cannot afford it, or are denied coverage, often because of a preexisting condition. So tell me, Mr. Limbaugh, how is "able to regulate, call you a risk based on do you smoke, do you not smoke. How far do you drive to work? Do wear polyester, it’s more flammable" any different from "able to regulate, call you a risk based on do you smoke, do you drink alcohol regularly. How many medical claims have you made in the last ten years? Do you have cancer, it’s a greater liability."

Oh, now some say those who are uninsured are mostly illegal immigrants. So let's take a look. It's estimated that there are roughly 11 million illegal immigrants are here in the U.S. in 2008 (even a year later, let's go to an extreme fititious number and say 20 million, just for the sake of argument) - Decline Seen in Numbers of People Here Illegally

Now, an estimated 46 million from 2005 are uninsured. 3 years before the 2008 study of illegal immigrants. - The Number Of Uninsured Americans Is At An All-Time High

Even using the fictional 20 million that I used, that's still a 26 million discrepancy. Using numbers from 2005; which, the trend was, that number was increasing, by the way. Stated in the second link: "The number of people without health insurance was 46.6 million in 2005, compared to 45.3 million in 2004, and 41.2 million in 2001"

Now, going back to Palin. Death panels? Seriously? Of course, that is bullshit. Although, really, not much point in point it out, as the opposition who believe in it will just shout something that equates to conspiracy (note that I said believe in this euthanasia claim; not those who are against it for other reasons, yet do not believe in the euthanasia scare). Of course, this comes from Palin, who's Wasilla church had a guest speaker, Thomas Muthee, who is not only a huge supporter of the "Third Wave of the Holy Spirit," (I won't link that, but rather, I will later make a post about it), but also who, I'm sure, helped feed into this incident. Actual people getting killed.

But what angered me the most, it wasn't the death panels, no. I saw that as just stupid. It was that it was "downright evil." Evil? Evil!? You know what, Palin, the one here being evil is the GOP. It is you. It is Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, etc. Because you, them, are willing to sacrifice millions of people. You are against reform; that means they continue to live without coverage, living in the hopes that, god forbid, they don't get sick or injured, because they will not be able to afford it without being forced to live below their means (and many of them already do live below their means). That is what is evil! When you have Limbaugh saying he wants the President to fail:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012209/content/01125117.guest.html

When you have Glenn Beck joking about assassinating Nancy Pelosi:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/06/glenn-beck-jokes-about-pu_n_253448.html

Not only could one define that as being evil, not only that, but I consider those- and I think this is even more important- traitorous. It is one thing to speak your mind, of course. But with Limbaugh, does he honestly not understand the aftermath of such? Would he really rather see our country crash and burn, because of his hope that Obama and his policies will fail, than rather wait out a Democratic-controlled exectutive branch until the next election? Does he even comprehend what kind of damage that would do?

Or Beck joking, nay, insinuating, about political assassination? You can get arrested for making such comments if you aren't so famous! I saw a clip from the Rachel Maddow Show, and she makes a good point. Even though they may not realize it, such remarks, such "jokes," feed into their represented ideas. There are those who listen and follow these people like sunflowers turning to the shining sun. Such comments can, and I dearly hope won't, incite actual violence. Real violence. With situations such as this, I fear it is only a matter of time before one turns into a riot.

As for the Rachel Maddow clip: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/32337676#32337676

And that's all I have to say for now.

First Blog, First Post

2009-08-10T09:38:00.000-04:00

At first, I honestly didn't much like the idea of a blog. But, with so much to say, and my tendency for wall of texts, well, I decided it would just make it easier. I would usually discuss matters such as politics (or, more often than not, rant).

With so much to say on my mind that comes up from reading the news, to talk it out with friends, I'm sure is a burden to have to listen to me.

That said, I am bias, in favor of liberalism. Of course I am, since I am a liberal myself. To say I wasn't would be a completely lie. But, I also know I sometimes use "conservatives" interchangeably with "Republican," although I know that is wrong. I'll try to keep from doing that.

With all that said, guess I better get started!