Earth's Shadow: The Age of Reason

2012-01-18T06:13:00.000-08:00

2012-01-18T05:14:00.001-08:00

2011-10-30T13:29:00.000-07:00

The Best Economic System in the States: North Dakota

2011-08-05T16:23:00.000-07:00

Why did North Dakota slip almost unscathed through the Great Republican Recession that started near the end of the Bush Administration? Here is proof positive that some socialism is a good thing for a stable economic system. This is not to dwell on the best insurance system in America, Social security and Medicare. Government CAN do things right, despite what the Right-Wing, Wall Street owned, propaganda network says.

Proof that Republicans Bring Down the Economy, and President Obama is Enabling Them.

2011-08-05T04:10:00.000-07:00

This is something the Democrats seem to ignore, and the base of the Republican party has never heard or seen, because Faux News will not mention it.

While our infrastructure is crumbling, the wealthy pay far less tax percentage than the cecclining middle class worker and the working poor. Warren Buffet said that he should not be paying less tax then his secretary. He is one of the very few who have the personal integrity and sense of justice to fund organizations who want to raise his taxes. Also, he agrees that we have a revenue problem, not a debt problem (without the wars, of course).

Here's an article by Thom Hartmann, a man whom I trust. He correctly predicted the Bush Great Recession (by comparing Bush's policies to Hoover's and the state of the economy just before the Republican Great Depression and the similar state just before the Bush Great Recession. He also is on record predicting a second dip, for which the Republicans are pushing, and President Oballess, in his weakness, is facilitating. Hartmann is one of the more logical people I’ve had the good luck to come across. Below is a chart from his article-link showing the revenue to GDP ratio since WWII.

Note that the ratio declined steadily until the Ford Administration when the neo-con oligarchs were gaining power, and two of them, Rumsfeld and Cheney, had President Ford's ear. Note the steep incline immediately after Reagan took office and began slashing regulations and the tax rate on the Wealthy, and set about busting unions big-time. Incidentally, Reagan saw the incline, and raised taxes, but not enough.

This should say it all. Democrats are better for the economy and the average worker. The Republicans' propaganda network, however, has convinced roughly half the American public that they are fiscally responsible and the Democrats only tax and spend (The Republicans actually BORROW and spend). Unfortunately, President Oballess, in his weakness, is facilitating the Republicans' purposeful destruction of our economy. Why are they doing this?

It was Grover Norquist who said he wanted to shrink government to such a size that he can drown it in a bathtub. So, who do you think would govern America without government? The wealthy and the few. We will have an oligarchic plutocracy, where only the well off and the wealthy can vote.. Corporations will rule, and of course, the worker will have to do with ever lowering wages so the corporations can make greater profits. We will be taken back to the days of Dickens' England when they had no minimum wage law, nor child labor laws, but did have a maximum wage law that prevented workers for making over a certain amount.

That, in a nutshell, is the Republican plan.

American Values?

2010-08-14T06:19:00.000-07:00

I am astonished and dismayed. That the majority of Americans apparently wish to deny Muslim AMERICANS the right to build a community center on their own property two blocks from the site where radical Muslims brought down the World Trade Center buildings, is a dark testament to the lack of civics education in the United States. It is also a dark testament to the effectiveness of right-wing hate-propaganda. Even C-Span is calling it the "Ground Zero Mosque." It is neither at "ground zero" nor is it a mosque. It is a community center open to everyone, and it includes a prayer center.

The very first lesson in civics should be an education in the Bill of Rights, beginning with the First Amendment, and providing a definition of what constitutes a "Right." When the Establishment Clause is addressed, students should be assigned the reading of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. It also should be noted that this Statute is the document from which the First Amendment's Establishment Clause was crafted. From this assignment, the student should develop a basic understanding of the need for a "Wall of Separation" between Church and State.

Rights are not something that can be up for vote. We cannot vote slavery back into existence any more than we can vote to deny a religion the right to build a center of worship on their own property, or anywhere a Christian church would be allowed.

For those who would deny the mosque to be built, ask yourself if you would allow a Christian church to be built withing two blocks of the bombed Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

I strongly favor the building of the community center on site within two blocks of "ground zero," This building will be a monument to the American value of Religious Freedom, and shine as an example of American values the world over.

Of course, I have little doubt that once it is built, some good right-wing Christian will attempt to destroy it, along with many innocent Muslim AMERICANS who had the misfortune to occupy the building at the time. After all, isn't that what Jesus would do, answer hate with hate, killing with killing?

Deuteronomy 21:18-23 states that anyone who has a stubborn and rebellious son should have the village stone him to death. Shall we abide by that law? I once wrote a letter to the editor of the Richmond Times Dispatch asking that same question. The day of its publication, I received a phone call from a reader who thought stoning stubborn children was the right thing to do.

Of course, I often hear the argument that Christians "have a new covenant" such that we don't have to go by the "Old Testament" laws. But, this is the very definition of situation ethics. If Christians were to abide by "Old Testament" laws, they would be exactly like radical Islam.

Moderate, educated Muslims have put away their hatred and disavowed draconian religious laws. American Christians should show the world that we have put away ours as well. Let the community center/mosque be a symbol of our benevolence. Let us lead by example. Let us act from intelligence and understanding, not the emotions of hatred and vengeance.

Hey! Here's a New, Great Idea for Arizona

2010-08-06T04:32:00.000-07:00

Republicans everywhere! You will love this idea. I mean, hell, you already love China's cheap labor caused by a lack of regulations and oversight, which equates to little or no worker protections, little or no environmental protection, and especially the lack of consumer protections against products that are a danger to health. And, what's a few more suicides and soaring rates of sickness and injuries among workers when you can buy things cheap at Wal-Mart?

So, get with it Arizona. Build yourselves community prisons and lock up those brown people, and working-poor blacks and whites. SIGH HEIL JAN BREWER!

Rachel Maddow exposes "FAUX NEWS"

2010-07-24T07:00:00.000-07:00

Link for a very good expose of Faux News'

Liberals Still Don't Get It: The Culture War is Real!

2010-07-16T07:29:00.000-07:00

Why do so many conservatives, including Fox "News" (see Monsanto and Fox: Partners in Censorship) openly lie and fabricate stories, especially about Obama and Liberals (Obama is not a Liberal, he's a centrist and a corporatist)? I believe it dates back to Pat Buchanan's speech at the 1992 GOP convention.

"There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself."

Many conservatives, especially in high places, took this as a declaration of a real war, much like the Cold War. It gave them license to act as in a war where disinformation/propaganda plays a key part, not only for the enemy, but for our own people as well.

I understood this was exactly the idea at play when W. Bush merged the media with Psyops early in the war-of-choice in Iraq. I recognize it as well when Fox "News", and celebrity-conservatives, deliberately misinform.

A large part of this problem is that most main-stream media simply repeat the falsehoods, or label facts vs. falsehoods simply a "difference of opinion." I caught NPR doing that during an interview with a conservative and a liberal, concerning the Swift-boating of John Kerry. The Liberal presented facts, but the Conservative simply repeated statements that had already been proved to be misleading. The interviewer soft-peddled the debate as a "difference of opinion."

Because of the blatant falsehoods put out by the Right, I have become convinced of their view of the culture war as a real, cold war. What blows my mind, is that many conservatives with whom I debate politics, even when these falsehoods are pointed out, and evidence presented, simply ignore them and go on believing the them anyway. I consider this intellectual dishonesty from the Right, just as I would consider it intellectual dishonesty from the Left. It just doesn't happen nearly as often from the Left--they haven't figured out yet they're in a real, cold war.

Having said all that, I know periodically someone on the left will lie (Obama did it during the health-care debate, where he implied in a speech that he wanted the Public Option. I found out recently that he made a secret deal with insurance industry weeks earlier that the public option was off the table).

The difference for me is, once I learn of a statement's falsity, I reject and suspect the person making the false statement. I now have no love for Obama. Unfortunately, I have far less love for Conservative anti-worker policies that lead to the destruction of the middle class and to a boom-and-bust economy. Again, I will be a lesser-odor voter.

It seems to me that the most important thing for conservatives is loyalty to the party (right or wrong). For real Liberals/Progressives --me at least--its about pro-worker/education policies and honesty (though I despair I'll ever see real honesty in politics).

I suppose the real dilemma for me now, is, do I fight the culture war as dirty as do the conservatives, pushing lies and deceit, or continue to attempt to counter the propaganda with facts--that they ignore? I'll opt for facts. At least I'll have a clear conscience, even if I lose the war.

POPE PROMISES TO PROTECT CHILDREN (HAH!)

2010-04-18T09:27:00.000-07:00

Sooo, the leader of the Church of Pedophilia, otherwise known as the Catholic Church, says to his doddering masses, just as the fox saith with a grin unto the hens, "Trrrust us. Ve vill take good care of your young ones."

What was that promise some years back? A priest will be disciplined if he dares to sample more than one? Or was it two? I really don't recall exactly how many free samples a priest gets. However, I suspect the Pope himself has had more than his share.

When will the diffident masses wake up and listen with an objective ear to Richard Dawkins? Everyone needs to read "The God Delusion." It will awaken those who still have a molecule of objective thought.

Examiner.com's Dishonesty

2009-09-23T04:13:00.000-07:00

I am forever amazed at the level of dishonesty the "family values" folks will go to prove they are victims of the ACLU's "war on Christianity and all things American."

Obviously, censoring opposing opinions, civil debate, and factual content is a primary means of convincing their base, low-information readers that they are besieged by the legions of Hell, and the attack is spearheaded by Satan's dreaded shock-troops, the ACLU.

The purpose of their defensive action against this imaginary, horrible horde is not for intellectual enhancement, but for shock value, oriented to the uninformed emotions of their base readership. This is the purpose of all fringe-right fundamentalist commentators, and this is the very reason current American politics reflects the rancorous dark days of 1932 Germany.

Case in point: Robert Moon posted a victimhood rant concerning the ACLU's responding to complaints from two students about public school officials proselytizing to students in Santa Rosa County, Florida. The school district settled out of court in the first case, admitting to their proselytizing, but went to court and won a second case. The injunction from the first case still stands.

Robert Moon's comment, the part on which I commented, is as follows:

Two Florida school officials were recently arrested and criminally charged for praying. Rightly appalled citizens protested and sixty members of Congress vocally stepped in to defend the outrageous assault on religious civil liberties.
Then, at the end of the day on Friday, U.S. District Judge Margaret C. "Casey" Rodgers cleared Frank Lay, principal of Pace High School in Santa Rosa County, and his athletic director, Robert Freeman, of all charges. She cleared them because there was no evidence that they had intentionally violated the federal government's brazenly illegal ruling that trampled their constitutional rights.

My comments below, were deleted from Examiner.com's site:

The court's "brazenly illegal ruling that trampled their constitutional rights?" Deceitful!

The original case found that, "the Pace High Teacher Handbook required school personnel to 'embrace every opportunity to inculcate, by precept and example, the practice of every Christian virtue.' Consistent with this mandate, district officials often led or directed students in prayer at extracurricular and athletic events, arranged for prayer during graduation ceremonies, proselytized students during and outside of class, and sponsored religious baccalaureate services. One teacher displayed a waist-high white cross in her classroom." (see http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/40769res20090819.html)

For court proceedings, see links at bottom of page http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/40763res20090819.html

For understanding the intent of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, see Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and his Letter to the Danbury Baptists.

What the ACLU seeks to prevent is one faith gaining political favor over other faiths, and thereby forcing, by law, all others to bend to their particular beliefs.

The ultimate result of one religion gaining such power would doubtless result in replays of the Philadelphia religious riots of 1844 when "the" Bible was mandated reading in public schools in Philadelphia (the city of brotherly love).

Spurred on by an already seething anti-Catholic hatred whipped up to a large extent by protestant ministers, and further kindled by the rumor that the "popery" intended to replace Protestant Bibles in the schools with Catholic Bibles, riots broke out and left many churches burned and people killed.

See, http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9501E0D81031E033A25750C0A9609C94659ED7CF.

We must keep religion and politics separated, for freedom's sake.

Again, read Jefferson's "Virginia Statute to Religious Liberty."

So much for open minds and intellectual content at Examiner.com, of Norfolk, VA.

Peter King Shows His Anti-American Colors

2009-08-25T15:26:00.000-07:00

Peter king, who may challenge Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand in 2010, is attacking the Obama Administration's decision to investigate CIA interrogations under the Bush Administration.

We now know that the Bush Administration had approved the "reverse engineering" of the Defense Department's Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape (SERE) program. The program was designed to teach individuals how to resist Soviet and Chinese Communist torture techniques. These techniques included water boarding, and beatings, and were used on American troops during the Korean war. These techniques are against international law! We have become our enemies.

Yet Peter King is apparently in favor of using Communist Chinese torture. And, note that most of the people against whom these tactics are used are suspected terrorists. I have to wonder, would he be in favor of torturing suspects in criminal investigations in the United States?

Those of you who agree with King, would it be okay with you, if you were a suspect--though innocent--in a criminal case, if the police tortured you?

King, and Cheney, and W Bush et al are apparently in favor of the very thing a great many Americans fought and died in WWII and the Korean war to preserve, i.e., our moral standing and our honor. King and Cheney are brothers in evil with the communist Chinese, Pol Pot and the inquisitors of the Spanish Inquisition. King and Cheney don't give a damn about our honor, nor the American troops who will, in the future, fall into enemy hands.

King's only interest, like that of Cheney, is to gain power and destroy the opposition. Cheney has already lost his evil power. Let us hope King will never gain it.

Senator Mark Warner's Stand Against Low Cost Medical Care

2009-06-20T11:36:00.000-07:00

The most efficient low-cost health care system in the United States is Medicare. Medicare operates on an overhead of less than 5%, where private insurance companies have an overhead of around 30%.

The general public is being strangled to death by corporations concerned not with your health, but with the bottom line, and denying you that needed operation adds more to their bottom line.

The corporate defenders in Washington say a government run program like Medicare will put a bureaucrat between you and your doctor. Wrong! Right now, you who still have private insurance, have a corporation between you and your doctor deciding if they will pay for that needed operation, and their first response is often NO! That is where they make the most money, by denying claims, and by dropping members who suddenly have major health care needs.

Senator Mark Warner is opposed to the low cost public option and Single Payer, thus favoring continued high cost for-profit private corporations, who have already stated health insurance premiums will continue to increase in the coming year, insuring only that tens of thousands of more Americans will loose their coverage. According to the National Coalition on Health Care, 62% of all bankruptcies filed in 2007 were linked to medical issues, and 80% of those had health insurance.

For those of you who claim to be Christians, please refer to Mathew 25:34-46, which is an admonition that tells us what will happen to us, depending on what we do for the "least of these." You call this a Christian nation? Currently we have a corporatocracy--a For Profit nation. How much money did Jesus demand from those he healed?

"Oh," said Jesus, "You don't have a corporate health policy? Sorry, I can't heal you . . . err, I mean, I won't heal you unless you can cough up some serious cash, of course. Oh, you have insurance, but it will still financially destroy your family? Ha ha, that's your tough luck, isn't it?"

Polls showing the percent of respondents in favor of single payer or a strong public option:

Grove Insight Option Research: 59%

2009 New York times/CBS News Poll: 59%

Ballot initiative question in Massachusetts: 73%

Quinnipaiac Poll in PA, FL, OH: 65%

Annals of Internal Medicine, Physician Support: 59%

AP –Yahoo Poll: 65%

New Hampshire Medical Society, Physicians: 81%

CNN/Opinion Research Poll: 64%

2007 New York Times/CBS News Poll: Universal by Gov. 64%, Universal care over tax cuts – 76%

2007 Minnesota Medicine Magazine, Physicians: Single Payer, 64%; Public Option, 86%

2005 Harris Poll: Universal Care 75%

2004 Kaiser Family Foundation: Against Consumer-driven Health plans (Public Option and Single Payer option not given in poll, thus, not included in overall average at bottom of page): All political parties, 73%; All ideologies, 72%

-----------------------------------------

Interesting that most of those who claim that ours is a Christian nation, are on the side of the corporations who believe the public health, including the health of children, should be a for-profit business.

The Rightwing Creation Deception (updated)

2009-05-26T06:48:00.000-07:00

Again, creationists are trying to use the power of the state to force their religious views on all others. It is a battle that, alas, never ceases. It is simply mind boggling to me that the very people who profess to be Christian paragons of Family Values, strive mightily to deceive the courts into allowing evolving forms of creationism to be taught alongside real science in our schools. "No sir! It is not religion," they claim.

Take for example Texas School Board's chairman Dr. Don McLeroy, who pushed in 2003 to have the board introduce a "more skeptical version of evolution" into the science textbooks. McLeroy stated, according to a report in the New York Times, that "he does not believe in Darwin's theory and thinks that Earth's appearance is a recent geologic event, thousands of years old, not 4.5 billion as evolutionary scientists contend.” Fortunately, the school board, that time, didn’t buy it, and didn't allow him to use them to inculcate children across the state with his views.

Enter Stephen C. Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute, the Christian fundamentalist strategic command center for the rightwing's war on evolutionary science. Meyer denies the institute is advocating the biblical version of creation, yet the organization which he heads, in a document entitled, "The Wedge: Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture," clearly states, "The Center seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies." and laments that "discoveries of modern science" have debunked "traditional concepts of both God and man . . . thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marks, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry and environment"

In other words, the thrust of the Discovery Institute, from the get-go, was to fight science (evidenced-based reason) with established Christian belief.

The statement, "traditional concepts of both God and man," cannot be denied to be based on the Genesis creation story of the Bible. Therefore, Meyer is lying when he says the group is not advocating Biblical version of creation. This is, indeed, the very reason for the existence of the organization. Apparently, deceit is a family value for the members and supporters of this organization.

Testifying before the Texas board, Meyer was either showing his ignorance of science, or he knew the science, and lied, when he stated that evolution has trouble explaining the Cambrian Explosion. It does not. The Cambrian Explosion can easily be explained by pointing out that, before the Explosion, the bodies of animals had no hard parts. Soft body parts do not normally fossilize. It was the evolution of the chitinous exoskeletons of invertebrates—a sea-change adaptation in survival strategy—that caused the Cambrian Explosion. In fact, the fossil record has now been pushed back to 2.3 and 3.5 billion years before the present.

Again, either Meyer did not know that, and he was showing his ignorance of science, or he knows the science, and is lying. Either way, he does not deserve to be trusted in matters of evolutionary science.

But, hordes of creationists continue to attack. Legislators in six states, Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan—Michigan(?) joining anti-science, pro-ignorance, Southern states?—Missouri and South Carolina (where’s Kansas?), have considered legislation to force Meyer's religious views on unsuspecting science students.

The fact that state legislators are even considering such legislation is a strong testament to the abysmal state of science education in the United States! Had the legislators obtained a well rounded education themselves, they would recognize the deception, and the proposals would never come up in the first place.

How many times will creationism mutate and evolve into more complex, deceptive forms under the stress of real science? There will probably be no end, but we can hope for, and strive for, better schools devoid of religious interference. Insecurity is the mother of fear. To accept the science is to destroy the comfort of easy theological answers, and lay bare the possibility that what one was taught as a child to believe—taught by loving parents who, at that time, were like infallible gods—was not entirely correct.

Pondering the hard questions is difficult and mentally taxing. A Bible believer recoils from considering the contradiction of the widely held view that the God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament, and that He is omnibenevolent, loving all humankind, and that he is unchanging. Having pondered these questions, I now hold that the popular concept of the Anselmian God--that he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, is not possible, nor are the Biblical versions true, and I have no fear.

US detainee abuse 'unprecedented'

2009-05-15T13:40:00.000-07:00

AlJazeera.net reports on the depth of the torture committed by the United States, including the possible complicity of Nancy Pelosi.

We, in the United States, understand that it is probable that no one but a few low ranking individuals, will ever pay for the crimes of the Cheney/Bush Administration. We can only hope that, by showing the world what we have done, and letting all know that we no longer torture, a modicum of respect will return.

However, by allowing the perpetrators (Cheney first and foremost) to go free, we will never regain the level of respect, nor the moral high ground, we had, and the next Republican neo-con administration will know that there is no restraint on their power, as the Democrats have demonstrated that they are toothless clowns who don't have the guts to enforce their own subpoenas.

Florida School Attempts to Inculcate Third-Graders with Fundamentalism

2009-04-19T08:24:00.000-07:00

St. John’s County School got an education from U.S. District Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger of northern Florida. The judge saw a blatant and overt attempt inculcate the children with a particular fundamentalist religious view and to marginalize and punish any student objecting.

Fundamentalists seem to be the most insecure people in the world. They aren't happy pompously believing themselves to be God's anointed, but must force others, by the power of government, to believe as they. They are quick to use our government to induce our children to believe as they, but if the government refuses to comply, they consider themslves victims of government anti-Christian oppression.

It is a fundamental fact that they do not understand the Separation Clause of the First Amendment, and probably never will. In their willfully abysmal ignorance, they claim there is no separation of church and state in the constitution.

However, those who take pride in possessing a high degree of intellectual honesty, have read (or will read) the Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty, and the Letter to the Danbury Baptists, both authored by Thomas Jefferson. The Virginia Statute is the document from which the Separation Clause of the First Amendment was crafted.

Tired of Reaganomics Yet?

2009-03-29T05:23:00.000-07:00

Do you wonder why, in the 1950's up until the 80's, one person's labor could provide for a family, and still save some money, and take a vacation? Now, it takes both parents working, and often it is still a struggle to survive, and the net savings of the nation, which was 8.8 % in the first year of the Reagan Administration, fell to 5.8% by the last year of his term, and 0.8 by 2005 (also see the drop during the Reagan years.)

From the Concordcoalition:
The net national savings rate for the year 2008 will be negative for the first time since 1934.

From the Washington Post.
More than a third of private-sector workers belonged to unions in the early 1950s; today, less than 8 percent do. As unions declined in the past three decades, wages have lagged behind rising productivity.

Note also, that the bold economic policy of the Reagan Presidency was to get government out of the way by deregulation, and let corporate America have free reign in a "global free-market," where U.S. workers compete with China's workers who currently make about 160 per month. By the way, income for China's workers is rising dramatically. Why? They still have many trade barriers against many U.S. products. We have little.

So, are you tired of Reaganomics yet, where corporations get the lion's share of the no-tax carrot and the tax burden is increasingly on the backs of the middle class who are making less in today’s dollars?

How far will it go? Is it the intention of the right wing to take this nation back to the days of Dickens when one had to beg the boss for an extra pence to help pay a health expense? Will we have old ladies and children begging in the streets? I believe that is where we are headed if Labor dies.

I have high hopes for Obama's attempt to turn all this around and take us back to the days of high wages and good healthcare, but I fear that multinational corporations, who owe no loyalty to this nation, are in the driver's seat, as they own too many politicians. The rise of the neo-cons, corporate power, deregulation, and the current economic disaster are all interrelated.

If the conservative democrats continue to vote with the corporate-blessed republican party, even republican voters will wakeup one day to realize they have no savings, no healthcare, and their lives are wholly controlled by the Corporation. They are already, they just don't see it, believing that theirs is the party of god, and all evil is derived from the liberals, whose policies gave us sustained economic growth and a strong middle class for over 40 years (until the 80's).

But, at least them damn gays can't get married and we still have our guns!

Pope Benedict XVI: Doing What He Can to Spread Disease in Africa

2009-03-28T06:44:00.000-07:00

(From CNN) -- Visiting Cameroon, the pontiff reiterated the Vatican's policy on condom use.

Pope Benedict has always made it clear he intends to uphold the traditional Catholic teaching on artificial contraception -- a "clear moral prohibition"

Few People have done more to bring disease, misery and suffering to children and adults than the Pope! Yet he can't claim all the glory for this. Much guilt is shared by the millions around the world who support the Vatican and its primative beliefs.

Happy 200th Birthday Charles Darwin!

2009-02-12T14:58:00.000-08:00

A Pew Forum Religious Landscape Survey, conducted in 2007, found that only 48% of Americans agree that "evolution is the best explanation for the origins of human life on earth."

A 2006 Pew survey found that 68% of Americans favor teaching Creationism along with evolution in public schools.

These figures tell us a lot about the poor state of science education, and the power of myth. In the very first place, it shows that most Americans, including many highly educated Americans, haven't a clue as to the nature of a valid scientific theory. Most see it as no more than a guess--something on the order of an hypothesis.

Perhaps we should present creationism in schools--for one day--the first day of class only. Have science teachers show on the board, the logic of the scientific method, and how it applies to evolution.

Juxtapose that with creationism, and show how it fails logic and the scientific method by starting with the conclusion, then throwing out any evidence to the contrary. Such an honest display of reason vs. belief may swing some perceptive kids to the scientific method, but, of course, it also could make some ignorant parents irate, and get some teachers fired. Political/Religious correctness, you know. Too many politicians and educators still walk on their mental knuckles.

The Rightwing Creation Deception

2009-01-24T08:42:00.000-08:00

Again, creationists are trying to use the power of the state to force their religious views on all others. It is a battle that, alas, never ceases. It is simply mind boggling to me that the very people who profess to be Christian paragons of Family Values, strive mightily to deceive the courts into allowing evolving forms of creationism to be taught alongside real science in our schools. "No sir! It is not religion," they claim.

Take for example Texas School Board's chairman Dr. Don McLeroy, who pushed in 2003 to have the board introduce a "more skeptical version of evolution" into the science textbooks. McLeroy stated, according to a report in the New York Times, that "he does not believe in Darwin's theory and thinks that Earth's appearance is a recent geologic event, thousands of years old, not 4.5 billion as evolutionary scientists contend.” Fortunately, the school board, that time, didn’t buy it, and didn't allow him to use them to inculcate children across the state with his views.

Enter Stephen C. Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute, the Christian fundamentalist strategic command center for the rightwing's war on evolutionary science. Meyer denies the institute is advocating the biblical version of creation, yet, the organization which he heads, in a document entitled, "The Wedge: Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture," clearly states, "The Center seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies." and laments that "discoveries of modern science" have debunked "traditional concepts of both God and man . . . thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marks, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry and environment"

In other words, the thrust of the Discovery Institute, from the get-go, was to fight science (evidenced-based reason) with established Christian belief.

The statement, "traditional concepts of both God and man," cannot be denied to be based on the Genesis creation story of the Bible. Therefore, Meyer is lying when he says the group is not advocating Biblical version of creation. This is, indeed, the very reason for the existence of the organization. Apparently, deceit is a family value for the members and supporters of this organization.

Testifying before the Texas board, Meyer was either showing his ignorance of science, or he knew the science, and lied, when he stated that evolution has trouble explaining the Cambrian Explosion. It does not. The Cambrian Explosion can easily be explained by pointing out that, before the Explosion, the bodies of animals had no hard parts. Soft body parts do not normally fossilize. It was the evolution of the chitinous exoskeletons of invertebrates—a sea-change adaptation in survival strategy—that caused the Cambrian Explosion. In fact, the fossil record has now been pushed back to 2.3 and 3.5 billion years before the present.

Again, either Meyer did not know that, and he was showing his ignorance of science, or he knows the science, and is lying. Either way, he does not deserve to be trusted in matters of evolutionary science.

But, hordes of creationists continue to attack. Legislators in six states, Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan—Michigan(?) joining anti-science, pro-ignorance, Southern states?—Missouri and South Carolina (where’s Kansas?), have considered legislation to force Meyer's religious views on unsuspecting science students.

The fact that state legislators are even considering such legislation is a strong testament to the abysmal state of science education in the United States! Had the legislators obtained a well rounded education themselves, they would recognize the deception, and the proposals would never come up in the first place.

How many times will creationism mutate and evolve into more complex, deceptive forms under the stress of real science? There will probably be no end, but we can hope for, and strive for, better schools devoid of religious interference.

Insecurity is the mother of fear. To accept the science is to destroy the comfort of easy theological answers, and lay bare the possibility that what one was taught as a child to believe—taught by loving parents who, at that time, were like infallible gods—was not entirely correct.

Pondering the hard questions is difficult and mentally taxing. A Bible believer recoils from considering the contradiction of the widely held view that the God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament, and that He is omnibenevolent, loving all humankind, and that he is unchanging. Having pondered these questions, I now hold that the popular concept of the Anselmian God--that he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, is not possible, nor are the Biblical versions true, and I have no fear.

Score One More for Reason and Science

2009-01-23T18:10:00.000-08:00

The referenced article by Gary Scharrer of the SA News, San Antonio, "Evolution teaching provision fails first test," is yet another example of religious-right conservatives using the power of government to push their theological beliefs on school students, regardless of what their parents want.

Instead of teaching what the article calls, "the strengths and weaknesses," of the scientific evolutionary theory (no example of “weaknesses” is given), the teachers are now to teach the valid scientific theory of evolution and the scientific method. In other words, the new standard of teaching is fully in the realm of science, devoid of religious belief.

According to the article, the proposed science curriculum standards would “encourage students to apply critical thinking, scientific reasoning and problem solving ‘to analyze and evaluate scientific explanations using empirical evidence, logical reasoning and experimental and observational testing.’”

Horrors! Teaching students to think critically—to evaluate propositions according to reason and imperial evidence! We need to stamp out this liberal attack on ignorance! Call your Republican politicians today and tell them to ban this Satanic scientific method. Stop them from teaching our kids to think for themselves and use logical reason in questioning scientific theory and inculcated beliefs. Why, before you know it, students will even stop believing in talking snakes!

If the teaching of science is to be subject, not to the scientific method, but to popular belief, then along with replacing evolution with creationism, shouldn’t we also replace astronomy with astrology? That, too, is popular. Perhaps we could even reintroduce beads and rattles in science class, and have pop inquisitions?

Folks, it is now the 21st century. Lets get our heads out of the sands of the 12th century.

The Establishment Clause First Amendment

2009-01-23T04:50:00.000-08:00

What is it about conservatives that bars them from understanding Thomas Jefferson's intent concerning the Separation Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States? Conservatives seem to be normal, functioning quite well in matters not related to their religion. Yet, when it comes to theology, logic seems to fail them.

How many times have I heard the argument that "the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion?" The argument says that the "Wall of Separation" appears nowhere in the First Amendment, nor anywhere in the Constitution. Therefore, they seem to conclude, their beliefs must become the law of the land. Everyone must bow to their narrow interpretation of their religious text, and they have no hesitation in using the force of government to achieve their ends. These are the same folks who go into high earth orbit at the suggestion that government should meddle in their personal lives.

To best understand Jefferson's intention in the Separation Clause, one only needs to read two brief documents: Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, and Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Special attention should be paid to the latter, for it makes his point in no uncertain terms. Indeed, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was the raw material from which our Separation Clause was crafted.

Surely conservatives can understand that if they can use the force of government authority to promote their particular beliefs, then, when the nature of government changes, they, themselves, might feel the yoke of some other theology on their own shoulders.

This is the reason government must remain neutral in matters of theology. And, to remain neutral, government must not promote any particular religion. That isn't to say government should promote disbelief. It simply says that government must have no say in matters of personal religious beliefs. How hard can that be?

But, I understand. Conservatives/fundamentalists/evangelicals, when they speak of freedom of religion, they really don't mean religion in general. They mean their particular flavor of Christianity. Were the government to pass out Qur'ans to Muslims in public schools, the Christians’ scream would echo across the continent and through the halls of government. Yet, they don’t see any harm in passing out Bibles to school children of any faith.

The path to harmony, then, is to have our public schools remain secular. A Christian student can read her Bible in her own time in school, a Muslim student may read her Qur'an, and an agnostic or atheist student may read a science book, or Thomas Jefferson's letters.

Read the above referenced documents, and leave matters of theology to the parents and the students, not to the government.

New Format Coming

2009-01-14T11:45:00.000-08:00

This blog will now switch its main focus from mainly politics to mainly religious intolerance and deception. Obviously, religious intolerance and deception often involves politics. The Religious Right is known for its staunch rejection of government interference in organized Christian religious activities, but many these same people have no problem with government interference in individual religious beliefs, other than Christian, and, indeed, often attempt to use the force of government to impose their beliefs on all others.

Too, there seems to be a direct correlation between religious fervor, nationalism, guns, war, and intolerance in general. Whereas fundamentalist Islam is wholly intolerant of all others, fundamentalist Christianity is often its mirror image.

Therefore, speaking as an agnostic, it is my opinion that the greatest problem the world faces today is not religion per se, but fundamentalism specifically. This blog will now focus on this continuing serious problem, but with no illusions of making even a dent, but aspiring only to expose some of the deceit, especially where politicians use religion to gain votes.

Goodby and Good Riddence to the Worst President in U.S. History

2009-01-04T13:16:00.000-08:00

I join millions of educated and informed Americans who know that George W. Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Like most tin-horn dictator aspirants, he was uneducated, uninformed, and willfully ignorant. He surrounded himself with sycophants loyal not to the Constitution, but to him. Those who were not "yes-men" were fired.

However, to be kind, he was really only a sock-puppet for Dick Cheney, who, no doubt, was the source of the evil this regime inflicted on the world.

Bush's professors at Yale must be embarrassed that a man with the mentality less than that of an amoeba was taught by them, and allowed to graduate. Those who voted for him must be embarrased that they were duped into doing so (or, if not embarrased, possess the same level of intelligence as he).

Obama couldn't be more opposite. Hopefully, he will not be assassinated by some mentally equal Bush supporter, and allowed to reverse much of the damage Cheney and Bush have done to this country.

Let's Do Some Serious Thinking About "Socialism."

2008-11-08T06:40:00.000-08:00

Far too many of us Americans have been instilled with the idea that certain high-profile politicians are "socialists." Little thought actually goes into this kind of thinking, but a lot of unfounded accusations, misinformation, and outright lies stoke the flames of hatred.

Please note:

A "socialist" is one who advocates government ownership of the means of production and distribution. A socialist also advocates egalitarianism. This is close to communism, where all private ownership has been eliminated. This is not allowed in our Constitution!

Barack Obama does not advocate government ownership of the means of production and distribution, despite anyone says. He does favor social programs. This is a different thing, and if you think about it, most Americans favor some social programs.

So, Obama wants health care for all Americans, and he wants to lift the poor out of poverty through education. Does this make him a "socialist?" What did Jesus say about caring for those less fortunate than us?

Matthew 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Now, you still say don't want any socialism? Read the following, and think about it:

Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican
By John Gray Cincinnati, Ohio

Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn’t think he should loose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. The house didn’t have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republican’s would still be sitting in the dark)

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.

He turns on a radio talk show, the host’s keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn’t tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day) Joe agrees, “We don’t need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I’m a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have”.

By John Gray Cincinnati, Ohio - jgray7@cinci.rr.com

The above e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it - Published July - 2004

I don't want the government building my car. I don't want my government making my clothes. I don't want the government owning and controlling our means of communications (don't want them data-mining my private conversations, either—which the Cheney Administration has done). I don't want the government telling me what religion to believe should I choose to believe one.

For the government to build my car, make my clothes, own and control my communications, data mine my conversations, and tell me what religions to believe or disbelieve, would be socialism/communism! Obama advocates none of this!

But, I do want the government to provide for the commons (roads, fire protection, police protection, food safety, product safety, air quality, education—all things all people need [not want])!

Read the Preamble to our Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.(Italics mine)

Our nation is founded upon the principle, among others, that government should promote the general welfare of the people. Obama is not advocating a total give-away to the poor, but he is advocating helping them through education.

I Am Wrong, So Far

2008-11-08T06:32:00.000-08:00

I am happy to say that my prediction that Obama would be assassinated before the election was obviously wrong.

However, I still believe his life is in jeopardy. I have no doubt that there are a lot of far right nut jobs out there cleaning their guns and dreaming of being the one to start a race war in the U.S. It's still a long way to the White House.

The End of the American Experiment in Democracy

2008-10-14T20:39:00.000-07:00

A military deployment has occurred right here in the U.S.!

A military deployment in the United States is against the law.

Possi Comitatus is a law that forbids American troops to be deployed in the United States. This has recently been upheld by the Supreme Court. Bush is ignoring the law--again. The cowardly Democratic leadership continues to cower in the corner, and will do nothing to stop him.

This deployment is an element to my prediction for which I have been looking. Look for more reports like this in the next two weeks. There will likely be reports, as well, of Blackwater domestic deployments in the U.S.

I have predicted that if the Neo-Cons believe they will not be able to steal this presidential election, they will order Obama's assassination. If Obama is assassinated before the election, there will certainly be massive civil unrest, with much violence spreading across the nation. This will give Cheney/Bush the excuse they want to impose martial law. The election will be suspended (as the Democratic nominee will be dead), and the Neo-Cons (Neo-Nazis) will remain in power.

The United States will become a fascist dictatorship.

Defamation of Religions: An Attempt to Silence the World

2008-08-07T15:39:00.000-07:00

I want to go on record as a liberal who sees the abysmal absurdity in the recent United Nations Human Rights Council’s adoption of Resolution 7/19, Combating defamation of religions, submitted by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).

I agree with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty’s brief on Defamation of Religions, July 2008, which does an excellent job of analyzing the Resolution in relation to U.S. law:

Defamation laws are meant to protect individuals from public slander or libel that would negatively affect their livelihood, and is closely aligned with individual and personal, rather than group, rights. The traditional defense in a defamation lawsuit is the truth, as defamation laws are meant to inhibit someone from using mistruths to harm another.

“Defamation of religions” measures, however, are used to protect a set of beliefs, ideas, and philosophies. Yet religions make conflicting truth claims and indeed the diversity of truth claims is something that religious freedom as a concept is designed to protect. Thus, the traditional defense of truth in a defamation suit is subject in a “defamation of religions” case to what ideas, worldviews, or religious beliefs the judging authority believes to be true. The nature of the inquiry is factual.
However, ‘defamation of religions,’ as opposed to the defamation of persons, forcibly requires the state to determine which ideas are acceptable, as opposed to which facts are true. A fundamental rule of law problem presents itself in the notion of "defamation of religion,” as belief cannot be empirically proven true. “Defamation of religions” measures are thus distinct from traditional defamation laws because they do not protect persons, good faith speech, or dissent.

A number people have, indeed, spoken out against Islam in general, and some have even resorted to hate speech from the pulpit. Many, such as Rev. Rod Parsley are calling Islam, as well as other religions, false religions. In truth, few people can match the hate speech spewed from the mouths of some preachers.

Even Islam has its hate-fostering clerics and extremists. Which brings up an interesting question: will Saudi Arabia, a member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, ban some Wahhabist hate-books and silence radical clerics? Don’t bet the farm!

The OIC is actually shooting themselves in their theological foot. I predict, if this attempt to silence citizens of other countries continues, Islam will be the recipient of a tsunami of ridicule. In fact, I fully expect to participate.

While much of the world wrings their hands and shouts that the Western World doesn’t understand the sentiments of Islam, no one seems to be trying to understand the deep individualistic nature of the people of secular states, nor their sense of free expression, nor their proclivity for publishing satire against all who try to silence them.

Wake up, Islam. Clean up your own house before you attempt to clean up ours.

McBush's Time Horizon

2008-07-31T19:46:00.000-07:00

So, Bush and McSame now talk of a "time horizon." I haven't seen the real meaning of it on the blogs. Perhaps I just missed it. But, don't you get it? A "horizon" is a place to which you can never arrive. No matter how fast you go, and no matter how much energy you expend, to get to the horizon, it always remains the same distance away. These Neo-cons are telling you their intentions, and no one is noticing.

Thus, McBush's "time horizon," is an illusionary time. You never get there. You stay in Iraq, insuring that ExxonMobile and Chevron get their oil profits—the fat-cats get fatter—paid for by the blood and lives of our sons and daughters, but there is no end to it. The "horizon" can never be reached.

Remember the original name for the attack on Iraq? "Operation Iraq Liberation (OIL)?" The Neo-cons actually broadcast what they are really about, but no one seems to care, especially the mainstream media, and the coward Democratic "Leadership."

A PREDICTION: Obama likely to be assassinated, and the assassination will be facilitated, or instigated, by the White House

2008-07-21T14:19:00.000-07:00

In the past few years, there have been a number of actions taken by the Cheney/Bush Crime Family that, when connected, form frightening possibilities that bode ill for the nation before the 2008 Presidential election (if there is one).

These actions are:

1. The attempt to suspend Habeas Corpus, (since rejected by the Supreme Court),

2. The 2006 repeal of Possi Comitatus (reversed by the Supreme Court in 2008),

3. The creation of InfraGard,

4. The politization of the Justice Department,

5. The politization of the Department of Homeland Security,

6. The Secret Service endangerment of Obama's life in Dallas, (These guys are supposed to protect Obama, but I believe they will execute, or at least, facilitate, his murder).

7. The politicization of the Secret Service

8. The creation of a private military (Blackwater, et al), loyal only to profits, not the Constitution!

9. The first true, and illegal, deployment of a combat unit within the United States. (Bush is again ignoring law, and the Democratic leadership continues to cower in the corner).

It is difficult for me to think, that after all the effort in placing Neo-Nazi loyalists in powerful positions throughout our government, that the Cheney/Bush Crime Family (and, by extension, corporate America) would give it all up, and allow Barack Obama to reverse all their "gains," and return America back to a society based on the Constitution. Understanding to what lengths the Administration would go to achieve their ends, I have established the following probabilities. I believe one of the three scenarios, will happen:

1. The politicized "Justice" Department will announce an investigation into possible illegal acts by Obama. These charges will be trumped up, or overblown, to be sure, but the ensuing corporate-media feeding frenzy of speculation will damage Obama's campaign. That, along with electioneering by the Republicans, will result in McCain gaining the White House, and the Cheney/Bush Crime Family era will continue, as will the destruction of the middle-class, and the needless deaths of thousands more of our sons and daughters. (This has a strong possibility of occurring, as does the third possibility).

2. The above "investigation" will conclude in Obama being arrested (to believe this is possible, one must understand the power of the Justice Department, especially when it is used as a political tool of the Executive). Civil unrest will result, but will be put down by martial law. McCain will be appointed President over Obama's vice president. (This scenario is the least likely.)

3. (This scenario is the one I once thought was least likely, but now, I fear it is most likely to happen) In late October, just before the November elections, Obama will be assassinated. Mass civil disobedience and violence will sweep the land. This is exactly what the Cheney/Bush Crime Family wants. Using the excuse, "national security," Bush will declare martial law, the elections, and the Constitution, will be suspended. The Cheney/Bush Crime family will remain in power, will arrest any and all congressional members who attempt legal moves against him. The United States will become a full blown fascist dictatorship.

I don't expect to be taken seriously by anyone, but the stage is set, the rehearsals are over, and the drama is about to start. I hope I am wrong.

WHAT THE CHENEY/BUSH IRAQ OIL WAR IS COSTING

2008-05-26T15:58:00.000-07:00

Click on this: Iraq War Cost

It would be cheaper if we just gave every Iraqi $100,000, and withdrew from the country.

The Two Faces of Dan Henninger

2008-05-13T05:27:00.000-07:00

Quotes are from a May 11. 2008 report in Media Matters.org

On CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, May 9th, On Lou Dobbs Tonight, Wall Street Journal deputy editorial page editor Dan Henninger said of Cindy McCain's refusal to release her tax returns: "I think it's a fairly marginal issue." But in a July 2004 editorial, the Journal asserted that it was 'past time' for Sen. John Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, to release her tax returns, stating, "Their assets should be disclosed to the voters so that they can assess whether there are any potential conflicts of interest."

Lou Dobbs said:

Whose business is it anyway? She would be if he's elected, first lady, whose business is it? And to hear all this nonsense, at least to me?

Henninger was right the first time. If a person is asking voters to allow him to run the nation, he should be willing to disclose all of his families assets so we will know just how honest he or she is. We already know McCain's campaign is run by lobbyists, while he voices opposition to the power of lobbyists in Washington. McCain, too, is two faced like the current GOP "leadership."

WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP DOESN'T UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE NEO-CONS

2008-04-27T11:34:00.000-07:00

''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'' --A highly placed Bush adviser (as reported by Ron Suskind)

Now, think about the following quote:

"'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'"--George Orwell, 1984

All Americans would do well to read 1984, and think of the Cheney/Bush administration as they read it.

Answer to Rush's undeniable truths (or) Hobbes' Undeniable Truths

2008-04-19T13:25:00.000-07:00

1. The “American culture” - rugged individualism and self-reliance - which made America great, was, and is, a trait possessed by most immigrants from all other countries.

2. The majority of the rich in this country who are now on the Forbes 400 list inherited their wealth; they did not earn it. In fact, These folks are those who fall into a category best described by Jim Hightower’s remark about George Bush, “"He was born on third base and thought he hit a triple."

3. No nation, except the United States, has ever cut taxes during wartime.

4. Evidence refutes Reaganomics. In fact, our current economic disaster proves it.

5. There is no such thing as a Neo-conservative. They are, in fact, New-fascists (marriage of government and corporate America, extreme nationalism, authoritarian rule, preemptive war, paid political propaganda, politicizing all government departments, including the Department of Justice, the FBI and the CIA, to operate as political arms of the Neo-Fascist Cheney White House.

6. The Earth's eco-system is being damaged by pollutants produced by humans.

7. Character matters; good leadership descends from those who possess personal integrity. Bad leadership descends from those of little or no personal integrity and little or no sensitivity, such as de facto president Cheney and his sock puppet, GW Bush.

8. The most beautiful thing about a tree is that it provides oxygen for us to breath.

9. Reaganomics began the economic disaster we now face in 2008.

10. (Researching economic growth—but suspect the growth was within upper income, not those low on the economic scale.)

11. Abstinence prevents sexually transmitted disease and pregnancy -every time it's tried (duh). Tautology! All husbands are men. Here’s a truism: Most teens will not practice abstinence. So they need sex education (both in consequences and safety).

12. Condoms work as well after the school year as during the school year.

13. Poverty is the root cause of crime.

14. There's a simple way to solve the crime problem: education!

15. If you commit a crime, you are guilty (duh). If birds had feathers, they could fly.

16. Rush should not be allowed on juries where the accused was a junkie.

17. The way to improve our schools is not more money, but the introduction of ethics, as well as the three "R's": reading, 'riting, 'rithmatic, and Civics.

18. Rush is arrogant, but it all in the childhood inculcation.

19. Rush’s first 35 Undeniable Truths are mostly false.

20. There is no evidence for the existence of a god.

21. There is truth spoken when critics say the problem with America is too much fundamentalism, without which we could all truly be free, and we would probably be at least 400 years more advanced in science.

22. Morality is not defined by individual choice, but freedom is.

23. The only way Neo-cons win national elections is by deceit, and character assassination. These are the American fascists. Dr. Goebbles would have been proud.

24. Feminism was established as to combat poorly educated chauvinists like Rush.

25. Follow the money. When somebody says, "It's not the money," to arrogant people with little or no personal integrity like Rush, it's always the money.

26. Liberals attempt through judicial action what the conservatives cheated them out of at the republican-owned, secretly programmed voting machines. Unfortunately, the Justice Department is now a political arm of the Fascist Cheney White House.

27. Using federal dollars as a measure, our cities have not been neglected, but poisoned with conservative resistance to public education, far less funding of poor inner-city schools, public indifference, poorly paid teachers, and resistance to high standards of qualification for teachers.

28. Progress, in society as a whole, is striving for economic justice or fairness, as well as economic growth.

29. Liberals measure compassion by how many people are given a chance for a better life. Conservatives measure compassion by how many people they can refuse to assist when they need it the most (take Katrina, for example). Conservatives tout the Bible, but ignore Jesus’ admonition to help the poor.

30. True justice is realized when it is administered with logic, compassion, and understanding.

31. The so-called culture war is a contrivance of the religious right who tend to be xenophobic, homophobic, and have a deep fear of new ideas.

32. “The Los Angeles riots were not caused by the Rodney King verdict. The Los Angeles riots were caused by rioters.”—Rush. Actually, Rush has a problem with the concept of cause and effect. No one riots from no reason (no cause). If Rush had been the recipient of white society’s disdain for a century, he would have been as angry . . . no, wait! He would have taken another hit of OxyContin, and tripped out.

33. You could afford your house without your government - if it weren't for corporate America’s unchecked greed.

34. “Words mean things.”—Rush. No duh! And birds do have feathers.

35. “Too many Americans can't laugh at themselves anymore.”—Rush. Yeah, we’re too busy laughing at Rush.

36. If an omniscient god existed, it would be incapable of changing its mind. (So far, I haven’t heard from anyone who even understands this statement.)

37. There is no evidence that the Biblical flood ever happened. It was another religious fiction plagiarized from a story in the Sumerian Gilgamesh Epics.

38. The religious right is prone to be lead by their theological noses.

39. “When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a bible.”—Sinclair Lewis, It Can't Happen Here, 1935. This prophesy has come true.

40. Our country attacked Iraq in order to insure the flow of oil to the West, and for no other reason.

41. Evolution happened (get over it).

Join in my personal survey

2008-04-19T09:38:00.000-07:00

1. Do you consider yourself a religious person (Belief in one or more creator gods)?
If “no,” skip to # 4.

2. Do you consider yourself a Christian?
3. Do you favor an amendment to the Constitution declaring the Unites States a Christian nation (Christianity being the official religion)?

If “yes” to 3, would you favor:
a. denying citizenship to Muslims who are otherwise qualified?
b. denying citizenship to agnostics born in the United States?
c. denying citizenship to atheist born in the United States?
d. denying citizenship to people of other religions though otherwise qualified?
e. All of the above?
f. Having a special “religion tax” solely (souly?) for the support of Christian organizations such as schools and churches?
f. None of the above (deny citizenship to no one currently qualified to be a citizen)?

4. What would you do if you could have the power of God for 5 minutes (barring making yourself God for any period beyond 5 minutes)?

ANOTHER THING BEING IGNORED IN IRAQ

2008-04-12T11:21:00.000-07:00

The constitution made law in Iraq in 2005 made the country a theocracy. No law can be passed without approval of Muslim leaders.

Article (2):1st — Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:

(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.

and,

Article (90):1st — The Supreme Federal Court is an independent judicial body, financially and administratively, its work and its duties will be defined by law.2nd — The Supreme Federal Court will be made up of a number of judges and experts in
Sharia (Islamic Law) and law, whose number and manner of selection will be defined by a law that should be passed by two-thirds of the parliament members.

This is the sort of thing, besides oil, for which our sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, are killing and being killed in Iraq.

KBR: Your tax dollars at work in Iraq

2008-03-22T09:43:00.000-07:00

Making little splash in the news is the fact that 12 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq by electrocution.

Buck passing:

"The circuit breaker was, in fact, bypassed," said Patrick Cavanaugh, an attorney hired by Harris and Maseth's father, Douglas Maseth.
KBR's contract, the memo said, "only required KBR to fix the building (plumbing and electricity) as things broke. KBR did an initial survey of the building upon assuming
responsibility and noted several safety issues concerning the improper grounding
of electrical devices.
"The contract did not cover fixing potential hazards so those issues were never addressed," the memo said.

My goodness! Yes, KBR was paid millions to "provide maintenance on the building," but decided to do nothing about the past electrocutions, thus ensuring more to come. Grounding a water pump would take, what, 30 minutes and a dollar's worth of wiring? Why bother? Our sons and daughters are there to die anyway, and Exxon and Chevron will get the oil. Right, KBR?

A Time for Reflection

2008-03-18T04:41:00.000-07:00

It is a time for reflection.

Remember when Bush, in September 2001, said, "We're going to find those evildoers, those barbaric people who attacked our country, and we're going to hold them accountable. . . We're going to hold the people who house them accountable. The people who think they can provide them safe havens will be held accountable. The people who feed them will be held accountable.”

By March, 2002, only six months after that statement, Bush says: “I don't know where [Bin Laden] is. . . I just don't spend that much time on him.”

Osama still resides in a safe haven in Pakistan, but we’ve got to stay in Iraq to deny al Qaeda a safe haven. Makes sense, huh? McCain will continue this policy, even “if it takes 100 years.”

Remember the surge and how the Administration boasts that it’s working? Of course, there is less violence (if you take our government at its, err, word). But the purpose of the surge, to give the Iraqi parliament “breathing space” to enact legislation that would bring the warring factions together in peace, is a failure because no progress has been made. Instead of creating such legislation, the parliament voted itself a month long vacation—while our soldiers were risking their lives.

Remember the Iraqi Constitution? That great document of freedom for which we are giving our lives? It states, in part:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:

A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

This makes Iraq a theocracy! Of course, it makes no difference to our government, as long as Exxon gets the oil.

We’re now approaching 4000 of our sons, daughters, husbands and wives killed in Iraq, many thousands more have grievous life altering wounds, and at least 81,000 Iraq citizens killed, and Osama is doing quite well, thank you.

So, we’ve got to fight them over there in Iraq or they will follow us home? Same thing was said years ago to keep us in Viet Nam. Well, sure enough, Viet Nam sent that flotilla of 100 san pan warships up the Potomac River to bombard Washington. Good thing our Air Force sunk them before they could launch those terrible rice rockets. Remember that?

Now, to get to the real reason for the war/occupation, Exxon Mobil (now having the greatest profits in the history of the world and still being subsidized by our tax dollars) and Chevron have now been given the “green light” to make deals to extract Iraqi oil. Surprise! And, McCain would ensure that, with the blood of our love ones, Exxon and Chevron will get their oil and greater profits. Like the price of gas? You'll love McCain!

Why can’t the Democrats do anything about getting us out of Iraq's civil war? Two reasons: 1. the Republicans are vetoing and filibustering every attempt to pass legislation to redeploy our troops. 2. Cowardice; They could cut the funding, leaving just enough for the redeployment on a time line, but they are too afraid of the avalanche of name-calling from the right.

Remember when our founders signed the Declaration of Independence? They added a line at the bottom: “And, for the support of this declaration, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Where is the sacred honor in Washington now?

The Democrats, if given the presidency and the congress, will probably end the madness in Iraq, But if, instead, you like Bush, endless war, huge debts to Red China, corporate greed with government complicity, you will be positively ecstatic about McCain.

The Renaissance of My Life

2008-01-26T06:38:00.000-08:00

In 1961, Bible class was an elective at my high school, and I, desirous to be counted among the faithful, faithfully elected to attend. In those early days, there was no doubt in my mind that God was in His heaven, that Adam and Eve begat human-kind, that a talking snake enticed Eve to disobey God, and that two representatives of every kind of animal on earth held first class tickets for a cruise aboard the Ark.

There were no alternatives to these beliefs because there were no other religions offered, and biological evolution was never mentioned in general science or biology.

It was poetic irony, then, that the first small crack in my theological armor came as a result of Bible study. Late one night as I was reading, somewhat randomly, through the Revised Standard Version, I came across Revelations 13:8 which stated:

"And all the inhabitants of the earth shall worship it (the beast with seven heads and ten horns upon which were ten crowns), every one whose name was not written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the lamb that was slaughtered."

Now, I was a kid who had been taught all of his young life that we had a choice whether to follow the ways of righteousness and be rewarded in blissful paradise, or to wallow in worldly decadence and reap an eternity of torment and agony. Yet, try as I might to rationalize otherwise, the only interpretation of this verse I could think of was that of predestination. The only people, the verse seemed to say, who will be saved at the end of time were those whose names were written in the "Book of Life" before the beginning of time!

Why would God, I asked myself, condemn hundreds of millions (billions?) of souls before they were born?

The next day, I probed my Bible teacher for a different interpretation. After momentarily staring at me with a blank expression on her face, she replied, "We aren't supposed to know everything."

I accepted the dodge, wondering why God would have something written down for us to read, but not to understand. A subsequent check of the King James version found that, although the wording was different, predestination was still painfully clear.

For some time thereafter, I pondered and prayed, reread the chapter, and pondered more. The problem refused to go away.

Not long after high school graduation, some friends asked me to enter a debate they were having with a professed atheist. To my knowledge, I had never before met a real atheist. So, never one to miss an opportunity to proselytize my beliefs, I donned my godly armor of faith and ventured into the fray. I met every salvo of his reasoned logic with my own volleys of pious faith and scripture. In the end, it was a total rout—mine.

Thoroughly shaken, I laid out a verbal smoke-screen of dark prophecy for the future of this unbeliever, and withdrew from the battle. The fissure in my godly armor had been battered into a network of pernicious cracks.

Hastily applying a sturdy brain-splint of seasoned prayer, I retreated for weeks into mental convalescence. It had been my first contact with the enemy, and he had come to the battle with an awesome weapon that was entirely new to me: well reasoned, evidence based arguments. His knowledge of the Bible was greater than mine, his knowledge of other religions was light-years beyond mine, and his knowledge of biological evolution shot my ego so full of holes I could feel my ignorance oozing out.

A prayer rug thick enough to endure my supplications had never been made. At the time, I was not aware that the damage to my holy armor had come not only from the blows of the enemy, but from the growth of my own mind. I didn’t have long to wait for the coup de grâce. It came swiftly, and from a wholly different quarter.

An acquaintance of mine, having noted my air of piety, invited me to dinner and conversation at his home. That night, seated in his living room, he and two others began a concerted effort to convert me to Mormonism.

Among other arguments, they asserted that the Mormon church was the "true" church because it had a 12 member governing body (like the twelve apostles), and if I wanted a seat on that shuttle-bus to heaven, I would have to be baptized by a Mormon preacher into the Mormon faith.

I marveled at their confidence, and argued from the viewpoint of my beliefs. Then, near the end of the night—and I remember it well—came this exchange:

"How can you be so sure you’re right?" I asked.
"We know in our hearts we are right," they replied virtually in unison.
"Yes," I said. "I’m sure you do. But, so do the Jews, the Hindu, the Buddhists, the Moslems, the Catholics, and people of all other faiths. They all know in their hearts they’re right."

As I returned home that night and went to bed, the last exchange kept moving through my mind. When I awoke the next morning, the insight came in a flash. The comment I made as a response to their heart-felt belief that they were right, applied to my beliefs as well.

The logic was all too clear: Every person believes he has the theological truth, and he believes it just as fervently as the next person.

I suddenly grasped the indisputable fact that one's religious beliefs have more to do with cultural proximity than with truth. A person is most likely to believe that which he is taught by his parents, which is usually the beliefs of the particular culture into which he is born.

Then came the inevitable question: "Could there be a good and compassionate god who condemns billions of very devout people to eternal agony for having the misfortune to have been taught the ‘wrong' set of religious beliefs?" Then came the introspection: "Could it be that what I had been taught from childhood, is wrong? If all religions cannot be right, then could it be that they are all wrong? Could it be that evolution is right?"

That morning my theological shell shattered. I decided I would place myself outside all beliefs, and view them with an objective eye. I would return to school and immerse myself in religious studies, philosophy, and paleoanthropological science. I would acquire the knowledge needed for sound reasoning, and I vowed to follow the arguments to their logical conclusion.

During the ensuing years, I applied a strong dose of reason to each attempt to fashion for myself a new theology. I studied the results of objective research in biological evolution and contemplated the arguments pro and con. I studied geology and delved lightly into astronomy. I found that scientific disciplines corroborated each other in a logical harmony wholly unknown to the purveyors of faith and myth.

As I questioned and studied, I discovered a universe far more mysterious, beautiful and fascinating than I could have ever dreamed—and there are more wonders to discover, and still more we will never know. Yet, in all of this, my greatest discovery was that we humans are a part of the universe, not a separate, special creation. The universe is our mother, and we belong here however brief the moment.

2007-08-20T10:41:00.000-07:00

On Illegal immigration: A suggestion for an equitable resolution

Most of us, by now, understand that the root cause of illegal immigration is a combination of rampant poverty in Mexico, relative wealth in the U.S., and corporate America’s need for cheap labor in order to compete in a global free market economy.. Corporations fill political campaign coffers, so the politicians trumpet border security and crackdowns, but do little or nothing in the long run, not even enforcing anti-immigration laws they make.

Too, faced with extreme poverty, Mexican men will do almost anything to improve the lives of themselves and their family. Can we blame them for that?

A favorite argument of pro business types is that illegals do the jobs Americans will not do. A more genuine argument would be: illegals do the jobs Americans won’t do for the same low pay.

The problem seems intractable. I hear good arguments on both sides, but I believe undocumented workers must return to their own countries. How should this be accomplished? There is something very repugnant, to me, about the spectacle of our police rounding up millions of men, women and children, and possibly herding them into camps to be processed. But, how else could it be done, and what would happen to suddenly labor-strapped corporations in the mean time?

Because we need ideas gleaned from civil debate, here is my suggestion: cut off the incentive for employers to hire illegals by forcing them to pay all workers a livable wage by U.S. standards. This would make those jobs more desirable for our own citizens.

At the same time, officials in each community would investigate their local businesses for proof that every employee is legally a citizen and legally employed. Undocumented, or falsely documented workers would not be arrested, but given a few weeks in which to return to their country of origin, or face forced deportation. Work with them, not against them, and allow them to return through legal channels.

After the deadline, employers who still employ undocumented workers would face stiff fines. As those jobs open up for Americans, local enforcement of welfare to work programs would significantly decrease the welfare rolls.

The consequence of this tact would be a rise in prices, but we should be able to gain in tax relief by virtue of the higher income of our working poor contributing more tax dollars, and by significantly reduced welfare rolls. As for cheap imported goods, we should scrap all free trade policies, and return to the old tariff system, which should apply double to U.S. corporations (such as Dick Cheney's Halliburton, who take their offices offshore to avoid paying U.S. taxes. Such corporations would be charged the double as a means of forcing them back into the U.S.

Americans who care, must be willing to accept higher prices for the greater social good. What we do for the least of us is the measure of our society’s greatness.

Answer to Rush’s 35 Undeniable Truths

2007-08-18T06:39:00.000-07:00

THIS POST WAS COMPLETELY REVISED ON 4/18/08

1. The “American culture” - rugged individualism and self-reliance - which made America great, was, and is, a trait possessed by most immigrants from all other countries.

2. The majority of the rich in this country who are now on the Forbes 400 list inherited their wealth; they did not earn it. In fact, These folks are those who fall into a category best described by Jim Hightower’s remark about George Bush, “"He was born on third base and thought he hit a triple."

3. No nation, except the United States, has ever cut taxes during wartime.

4. Evidence refutes Reaganomics. In fact, our current economic disaster proves it.

5. There is no such thing as a Neo-conservative. They are, in fact, New-fascists (marriage of government and corporate America, extreme nationalism, authoritarian rule, preemptive war, paid political propaganda, politizing all government departments, including the Department of Justice, the FBI and the CIA, to operate as political arms of the Neo-Fascist Cheney White House.

6. The Earth's eco-system is being damaged by pollutants produced by humans.

7. Character matters; good leadership descends from those who possess personal integrity. Bad leadership descends from those of little or no personal integrity and little or no sensitivity, such as de facto president Cheney and his sock puppet, GW Bush.

8. The most beautiful thing about a tree is that it provides oxygen for us to breath.

9. Reaganomics began the economic disaster we now face in 2008.

10.(researching economic growth—but suspect the growth was within upper income, not those low on the economic scale.)

11. Abstinence prevents sexually transmitted disease and pregnancy -every time it's tried (duh). Tautology! All husbands are men. Here’s a truism: Most teens will not practice abstinence. So they need sex education (both in consequences and safety).

12. Condoms work as well after the school year as during the school year.

13. Poverty is the root cause of crime.

14. There's a simple way to solve the crime problem: education!

15. If you commit a crime, you are guilty. Duh, If birds had feathers, they could fly.

16. Rush should not be allowed on juries where the accused was a junkie.

17. The way to improve our schools is not more money, but the introduction of ethics, as well as the three "R's": reading, 'riting, 'rithmatic, and Civics.

18. Rush is arrogant.

19. Rush’s first 35 Undeniable Truths are mostly false.

20. There is no evidence for the existence of a god.

21.There is truth spoken when critics say the problem with America is too much fundamentalist Christianity, without which we could all truly be free and we would be at least 400 years more advanced in science.

22.Morality is not defined by individual choice, but freedom is.

23.The only way Neo-cons win national elections is by deceit.

THE REST TO COME AS SOON AS I GET A ROUNDTOIT.

REASON

2007-08-06T13:50:00.001-07:00

Welcome to Reason.

The purpose of this blog is to debate if and/or where Reason applies to politics and to religion. Where is the reason behind believing in a particular religion? I want to explore ideas such as: what is the basic criteria for being a Conservative, a Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu, a liberal, a communist, an atheist or an agnostic? What is the Reason for such belief systems, and where do they conflict. What constitutes a "just" war? What is the true reason our military is at war in Iraq? Surely, America isn't at war. Its military, and the White House, is.

A word about me: Above all, I believe personal integrity and intellectual honesty should be the corner stones of one’s life. Such isn’t easy to maintain, as the objective truth (not religious or political truth, which is subjective truth) is what one should accept as objective reality.

Having been a Christian in my earlier life, I experienced a personal renaissance (the evikution of which I will post soon) which impelled me to return to school and study world religions, philosophy and science. Desiring, as many young people do, to find some truth to the "Why" of my existence, I vowed to be unequivocally, intellectually honest, and, thus, to follow the arguments to their logical conclusion.

Because of my decision to strictly adhere to intellectual honesty, and to acknowledge the logic of arguments, I now base my philosophy in science. I strongly object to attacks on science by ignorant citizens and organizations using an equally ignorant government to try to push their ideology on the rest of society. My axiom: The unexamined belief is not worth believing (an obvious derivative of Socrates, who said, "the unexamined life is not worth living").

Feel free to post your opinions about any of the afore stated subjects, or raise an issue of your own. I will usually not answer right away as I am away quite often. However. I will respond as soon as possible.