OK, I've been holding back on this one, but I can't stand it any longer. Mitt Romney is an idiot. I naturally suspected it right away when I learned he was an admitted Mormon. Then came his "null set" answer to whether he would have supported the Iraq war if he knew then what he knew now. But after his speech addressing his religion and the role it would play, or not play, in his presidency, there can no longer be any doubt. Clearly the man who claimed the Iraq question was a null set had no comprehension of the meaning of those big words he had been told to say. We have another smiling, dressed up empty suit approaching the White House, and we can't take 4 more years of that.
Consider this claim from his speech:
"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."
That isn't just wrong, it borders on deranged. One might as well say freedom requires jails, or perhaps slavery. It requires a complete redefinition of the words "freedom" and "religion" to make any sense at all. After all, all those theocracies like Iran have so much more freedom than relatively atheistic nations like Sweden. It fits right in with the rest of 1984's slogans: War is Peace; Freedom is Religion; Ignorance is Strength. The more absurd the lie, the more persuasive I guess.
That someone who could utter such nonsense could be in serious running for the highest office in the land is more frightening than 100 terrorists. That otherwise intelligent people could treat it as anything other than the fantasy it is, is equally so. Are we as a nation so afraid to call bullshit on anything wearing a religious cloak that this sort of nonsense is considered acceptable in what should be the most serious of arenas? Apparently so. The rest of Romney's speech was the usual claptrap: religions all share a moral compass (which of course is why some of the pious think the others deserve death for their views), freedom of religion only applies to the religious, and of course how the founders envisioned this as a Christian nation.
In practically any other civilized nation, this man would be laughed off the stage and be finished as a serious candidate. America better wake up, before it elects another clown and becomes an even bigger laughing stock to the educated world.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Thursday, December 13, 2007
A Christmas Story: My Little Airport Evangelist
I was sitting in an airport at the end of a gruesome business trip, and was in a very foul mood. Several of us were scattered across the chairs on the aisle, down which this little blonde girl was skipping. She looked to be about 5, and she was stopping by each person and asking them if they knew about God, and chatting about it before moving on to the next potential convert. Her mother was watching from a short distance, beaming ever so proudly.
Not being in the mood for this in the slightest, and ever annoyed at people who let their lovely children bother those of us who clearly chose not to have our own, I concocted a plot Mom would like none too much.
When the little girl got to me, and asked me if I knew about God, I smiled and said "Yes, I do. Do you know about Santa Claus?" She smiled and nodded her pretty little head. "Good" I said. "They kind of go together don't they?". More nods. "Santa and God, Santa and God, just remember that."
About this time it dawns on Mom that her baby was speaking to an evil evil man, and swooped in, took the little girl by the arm, and whisked her away with a glare and a soft admonition to her about not bothering the man. A gent near enough to hear chuckled, another huffed at me.
"The man" had a mighty laugh, and returned to his nap, secure in the knowledge that the seeds of doubt had been planted, and that one Christmas some 15 years hence, a young girl home from college was going to announce over Christmas dinner, to her stunned Christian family's amazement, that she is an atheist, and she doesn't believe in God or Santa or anything like that any more. And Mom will think of the man in the airport.
Hey, I can dream, can't I?
Not being in the mood for this in the slightest, and ever annoyed at people who let their lovely children bother those of us who clearly chose not to have our own, I concocted a plot Mom would like none too much.
When the little girl got to me, and asked me if I knew about God, I smiled and said "Yes, I do. Do you know about Santa Claus?" She smiled and nodded her pretty little head. "Good" I said. "They kind of go together don't they?". More nods. "Santa and God, Santa and God, just remember that."
About this time it dawns on Mom that her baby was speaking to an evil evil man, and swooped in, took the little girl by the arm, and whisked her away with a glare and a soft admonition to her about not bothering the man. A gent near enough to hear chuckled, another huffed at me.
"The man" had a mighty laugh, and returned to his nap, secure in the knowledge that the seeds of doubt had been planted, and that one Christmas some 15 years hence, a young girl home from college was going to announce over Christmas dinner, to her stunned Christian family's amazement, that she is an atheist, and she doesn't believe in God or Santa or anything like that any more. And Mom will think of the man in the airport.
Hey, I can dream, can't I?
Monday, December 10, 2007
Rabid Anti-Gayness = Gayness?
It's a theory that just won't go away, what with all these wide-stanced politicians screaming "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" by day and screaming "Oh Adam! Oh Steve!" by night. Is homophobia, especially the rabid fire-and-brimstone variety, just repressed homosexuality leaking out? The evidence in the political arena is starting to get voluminous enough to matter.
And consider this beauty of a post on the American River Christian Club website (hat tip Pharyngula):
"EVERYWHERE I LOOK, ON TV IN SCHOOL EVERYWHERE BUT IN CHURCH ALL I SEE IS GAY THIS, GAY RIGHTS THAT OPEN DISPLAYS OF THIER LIFESTYLE BEING PUSHED DOWN OUR THROATS, I KNOW THAT JESUS LOVES THE SINNER BUT HATES THE SIN, IT JUST APEARS THAT, THAT SIN IS BEING THRUST UPON US IS THERE NOTHING THAT CAN BE DONE, IS THIS WHAT WE HAVE TO LOOK FORWARD TO, SODOMITES RUNNING AROUND, OPENLY PROMOTING THIER LIFESTYLE, GAY MARRIAGE, GAY PASTORS, GAY CHURCHES, ITS LIKE GETTING OUT OF CONTROL, AND ITS VERY SAD TO SEE THIS DAY COME TO LIGHT, AND THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT.
THATS THE SADDEST THING EVER"
The lifestyle being pushed down our throats? Sin being thrust upon us and there is nothing we can do? Sodomites running around? This guy isn't complaining, he's fantasizing. As one of the most heterosexual guys around, I have never, not once, concerned myself with the fact that some guys are attracted to other guys, and I've always wondered about those that do so to such an obsessive degree. I know, it's a sin according to the Bible. So what? So are various ways of cutting one's hair, working on the sabbath, eating shellfish, and a whole host of other offenses, depending on which parts of the book one arbitrarily decides to interpret literally. Yet no one is going stark raving bonkers over people doing any of those things. Why homosexuality then?
Let's examine some comments left me here by Little David, who I consider a good example of this obsessive attitude towards homosexuality. In an article responding to some commentary of mine on Intelligent Design, he responded with:
"The Science Avenger evidently believes in evolution. Well, then let us examine just how much he is willing to bow to 'science' and 'evolution' and how willing he is to sacrifice the bullshit 'liberal' viewpoint.
What does the Science Avenger think about homosexuality?"
Nice transition eh? And what is it with conservatives and their scare quote tourettes syndrome? None of the words he put quotes around needed them. It's just a dishonest rhetorical trick to cast doubt on a concept without having to do the hard work of doing so with evidence. He also treats us to this gem:
"What Is Wrong With Huckabee
Alternatively I could have titled this post 'I'd Vote For A Flaming Faggot Before I Would Vote For Huckabee' except the title would have been too lengthy."
Cute huh? I count no less than 8 articles on his site citing homosexuality in one fashion or another. His justification for his attitudes? Well, he was kind enough to leave them on another thread of mine, one about a different topic of course, atheism in this case. This is where it gets good, because nothing brings out the stupid (and the MSU) like homophobes trying to rationalize their views:
"Homosexuality is not as prevalent in other species as it is in the human species. There are occasional examples of homosexuality even amongst birds for example. However these examples are fairly rare. Many of the instances I have read about only describe a platonic relationship (best friends?) without any sexual activity."
This ladies and germs, is what we in the reality-based community call MSU, Making Shit Up, a favorite pastime of too-many conservatives these days. Homosexuality is prevalent throughout the animal kingdom, as any biologist, or farmer could tell you (google "freemartin"). There is even a species of bedbug that procreates via homosexual stabbing rape. Examples are plentiful, and no one has any excuse for missing them when the facts are easily ascertained.
But homophobes aren't interested in facts, they are interested in maintaining their view, and they'll keep moving the goalposts to do so. They used to claim that there was no homosexuality among animals at all, until the weight of evidence against that position made it untenable. So they moved the goalposts to "it's not as prevalent", as if any of that matters.
And indeed, why does it? There are many traits of human beings that are not as prevalent in other species, such as tool use, culture, bipedalism, and drinking beer. Why is less-prevalence relevant to homosexuality and nothing else? They can't ever answer this question without mentioning more traits that bring even more inconsistencies into the picture, like danger:
"Homosexuality is a threat to society through the homosexual community suffering from Sexually Transmitted Diseases (and I am not just talking about Aids) at higher rates then heterosexuals do."
Just when I thought the Chicken Little award was a shoe-in for those that claim terrorism represents the greatest threat our nation has ever faced, we get this wingding of a claim that homosexuality is a threat to society.
How? Homosexuality has been around as long as humanity has, and here we are. STDs are not a threat to wipe out humanity, and given that 99% of their spread can be controlled by individual decisions (ie wearing a condom, being celibate, or being monogamous), that is not likely to change. It is also worth noting that homosexuality has little to do with the plights of the areas of the world hardest hit by STDs (ie AIDS in Africa). So once again we find the homophobic argument completely at odds with the facts. But then, given the disdain and ignorance with which homophobes address scientific issues, can we really be surprised by comments like that, or this:
"Homosexuality goes against evolution because those who practice it faithfully can not reproduce and this is the purpose of sexuality in our species."
It is sad that in what was once the greatest nation on earth, technologically and scientifically advanced beyond all others, we could have such deep-rooted scientific ignorance. Evolution, as beginner biology students learn, is purposeless. It has no goal, no agenda, no conscious intent. Species simply mutate and are selected and change over time. No trait of a species can be "against evolution", because there is nothing to be against.
Further, even if we assign a meaning to "against evolution" that makes sense, say "threatening he perpetuation of the species", the logic of this argument still does not follow. Consider worker bees and ants. They are born sterile females. Yet they perform a crucial function towards the perpetuation of their species. There is some speculation that homosexuality among humans might have played a beneficial function by giving society a few workers who did not produce children.
Let's get down to brass tacks on that topic. Many, if not most, of the serious problems human beings face right now are caused by the huge population of humans we have. It is beyond question that humanity would be very well served right now by having a lot of people that don't procreate, which means that the good Christian who has 14 children is FAR more of a threat to humanity than is a homosexual.
Finally, note the implicit claim above that having sex for no purpose other than the pleasure of it goes against nature. That's the bottom line with these people. As one famous person put it "A promiscuous person is someone who is having more sex than you are". Homosexuals have a lot of sex, as do we single liberated people, and in the end, that's what really gets the goat of homophobes. Of course, I don't suspect they restrict their sex lives to having children. They no doubt have healthy sex lives with whoever they choose to have sex with, whether childbearing is part of the equation or not. That is as it should be. Now if they can only stop being such hypocrites and let everyone else do the same, despite the fact that some of us see no need to restrain our sex lives as they do, we can put all this nonsense behind us and get on with solving real human problems. I know, I'm not betting on it either.
So my political strategy, and I encourage everyone else to implement it, is to raise the issue of repressed homosexuals ranting about homosexuality. Make the legends of Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, and all the other homohypocrites live forever, and throw them into the faces of everyone who insults our intelligence with bullshit arguments like the above. As to whether or not individual objectors to homosexuality are themselves repressed homosexuals, it is worth considering and suggesting, at least until they give us arguments with even the slightest respect for science and logic. Their individual peccadillo's are not our problem.
And consider this beauty of a post on the American River Christian Club website (hat tip Pharyngula):
"EVERYWHERE I LOOK, ON TV IN SCHOOL EVERYWHERE BUT IN CHURCH ALL I SEE IS GAY THIS, GAY RIGHTS THAT OPEN DISPLAYS OF THIER LIFESTYLE BEING PUSHED DOWN OUR THROATS, I KNOW THAT JESUS LOVES THE SINNER BUT HATES THE SIN, IT JUST APEARS THAT, THAT SIN IS BEING THRUST UPON US IS THERE NOTHING THAT CAN BE DONE, IS THIS WHAT WE HAVE TO LOOK FORWARD TO, SODOMITES RUNNING AROUND, OPENLY PROMOTING THIER LIFESTYLE, GAY MARRIAGE, GAY PASTORS, GAY CHURCHES, ITS LIKE GETTING OUT OF CONTROL, AND ITS VERY SAD TO SEE THIS DAY COME TO LIGHT, AND THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT.
THATS THE SADDEST THING EVER"
The lifestyle being pushed down our throats? Sin being thrust upon us and there is nothing we can do? Sodomites running around? This guy isn't complaining, he's fantasizing. As one of the most heterosexual guys around, I have never, not once, concerned myself with the fact that some guys are attracted to other guys, and I've always wondered about those that do so to such an obsessive degree. I know, it's a sin according to the Bible. So what? So are various ways of cutting one's hair, working on the sabbath, eating shellfish, and a whole host of other offenses, depending on which parts of the book one arbitrarily decides to interpret literally. Yet no one is going stark raving bonkers over people doing any of those things. Why homosexuality then?
Let's examine some comments left me here by Little David, who I consider a good example of this obsessive attitude towards homosexuality. In an article responding to some commentary of mine on Intelligent Design, he responded with:
"The Science Avenger evidently believes in evolution. Well, then let us examine just how much he is willing to bow to 'science' and 'evolution' and how willing he is to sacrifice the bullshit 'liberal' viewpoint.
What does the Science Avenger think about homosexuality?"
Nice transition eh? And what is it with conservatives and their scare quote tourettes syndrome? None of the words he put quotes around needed them. It's just a dishonest rhetorical trick to cast doubt on a concept without having to do the hard work of doing so with evidence. He also treats us to this gem:
"What Is Wrong With Huckabee
Alternatively I could have titled this post 'I'd Vote For A Flaming Faggot Before I Would Vote For Huckabee' except the title would have been too lengthy."
Cute huh? I count no less than 8 articles on his site citing homosexuality in one fashion or another. His justification for his attitudes? Well, he was kind enough to leave them on another thread of mine, one about a different topic of course, atheism in this case. This is where it gets good, because nothing brings out the stupid (and the MSU) like homophobes trying to rationalize their views:
"Homosexuality is not as prevalent in other species as it is in the human species. There are occasional examples of homosexuality even amongst birds for example. However these examples are fairly rare. Many of the instances I have read about only describe a platonic relationship (best friends?) without any sexual activity."
This ladies and germs, is what we in the reality-based community call MSU, Making Shit Up, a favorite pastime of too-many conservatives these days. Homosexuality is prevalent throughout the animal kingdom, as any biologist, or farmer could tell you (google "freemartin"). There is even a species of bedbug that procreates via homosexual stabbing rape. Examples are plentiful, and no one has any excuse for missing them when the facts are easily ascertained.
But homophobes aren't interested in facts, they are interested in maintaining their view, and they'll keep moving the goalposts to do so. They used to claim that there was no homosexuality among animals at all, until the weight of evidence against that position made it untenable. So they moved the goalposts to "it's not as prevalent", as if any of that matters.
And indeed, why does it? There are many traits of human beings that are not as prevalent in other species, such as tool use, culture, bipedalism, and drinking beer. Why is less-prevalence relevant to homosexuality and nothing else? They can't ever answer this question without mentioning more traits that bring even more inconsistencies into the picture, like danger:
"Homosexuality is a threat to society through the homosexual community suffering from Sexually Transmitted Diseases (and I am not just talking about Aids) at higher rates then heterosexuals do."
Just when I thought the Chicken Little award was a shoe-in for those that claim terrorism represents the greatest threat our nation has ever faced, we get this wingding of a claim that homosexuality is a threat to society.
How? Homosexuality has been around as long as humanity has, and here we are. STDs are not a threat to wipe out humanity, and given that 99% of their spread can be controlled by individual decisions (ie wearing a condom, being celibate, or being monogamous), that is not likely to change. It is also worth noting that homosexuality has little to do with the plights of the areas of the world hardest hit by STDs (ie AIDS in Africa). So once again we find the homophobic argument completely at odds with the facts. But then, given the disdain and ignorance with which homophobes address scientific issues, can we really be surprised by comments like that, or this:
"Homosexuality goes against evolution because those who practice it faithfully can not reproduce and this is the purpose of sexuality in our species."
It is sad that in what was once the greatest nation on earth, technologically and scientifically advanced beyond all others, we could have such deep-rooted scientific ignorance. Evolution, as beginner biology students learn, is purposeless. It has no goal, no agenda, no conscious intent. Species simply mutate and are selected and change over time. No trait of a species can be "against evolution", because there is nothing to be against.
Further, even if we assign a meaning to "against evolution" that makes sense, say "threatening he perpetuation of the species", the logic of this argument still does not follow. Consider worker bees and ants. They are born sterile females. Yet they perform a crucial function towards the perpetuation of their species. There is some speculation that homosexuality among humans might have played a beneficial function by giving society a few workers who did not produce children.
Let's get down to brass tacks on that topic. Many, if not most, of the serious problems human beings face right now are caused by the huge population of humans we have. It is beyond question that humanity would be very well served right now by having a lot of people that don't procreate, which means that the good Christian who has 14 children is FAR more of a threat to humanity than is a homosexual.
Finally, note the implicit claim above that having sex for no purpose other than the pleasure of it goes against nature. That's the bottom line with these people. As one famous person put it "A promiscuous person is someone who is having more sex than you are". Homosexuals have a lot of sex, as do we single liberated people, and in the end, that's what really gets the goat of homophobes. Of course, I don't suspect they restrict their sex lives to having children. They no doubt have healthy sex lives with whoever they choose to have sex with, whether childbearing is part of the equation or not. That is as it should be. Now if they can only stop being such hypocrites and let everyone else do the same, despite the fact that some of us see no need to restrain our sex lives as they do, we can put all this nonsense behind us and get on with solving real human problems. I know, I'm not betting on it either.
So my political strategy, and I encourage everyone else to implement it, is to raise the issue of repressed homosexuals ranting about homosexuality. Make the legends of Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, and all the other homohypocrites live forever, and throw them into the faces of everyone who insults our intelligence with bullshit arguments like the above. As to whether or not individual objectors to homosexuality are themselves repressed homosexuals, it is worth considering and suggesting, at least until they give us arguments with even the slightest respect for science and logic. Their individual peccadillo's are not our problem.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
The 22nd Amendment and Hillary Clinton
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."
That, less the sections concerning the sitting president at the time of ratification, is the 22nd amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It's most obvious effect is to prevent America from becoming a dictatorship, with one stagnant administration permanently entrenched in power. While it may violate the purity of democratic principles, I believe it is one of the many justifiable limits on those principles. I also believe it should apply to spouses.
It may not fit the letter of the law, but I believe it fits the spirit of it. To understand that, one must first consider the environment in which the 22nd amendment was created. It was 1947 when it was proposed, and 1951 when it was ratified. Much has changed in society in the last 50 years, and circumstances have arisen that those who passed Amd. 22 no doubt never envisioned. A woman president was one. This was 15 years prior to Gene Roddenberry being told he could not have a female first officer on his mythical star ship because it simply was not believable to Americans of that era. For surprisingly many, it still isn't. So it should not seem outlandish to assume those who proposed Amend. 22 never envisioned the spouse of a former president herself becoming president, or that said former president would once again occupy the White House, merely sleeping on the other side of the bed.
Married couples are legally one entity in many respects, and there are many good reasons for that, not the least being that their decisions are often made in a joint fashion which blurs the individual desires. How could this not be the case with presidential decisions? Who doubts the influence of Eleanor Roosevelt, Nancy Reagan, and yes, Hillary Clinton, on the decisions made by their husbands. In the cases of Hillary Clinton and Nancy Reagan, they were able to pursue high-profile campaigns (Nancy against drugs, Hillary for national health care) they would never have had the opportunity to pursue were they not first lady, and campaigns that no doubt required the approval of the president. In a sense, they all were president, at least in part. That's not a criticism, if anything it is complimentary of driven intelligent women that took advantage of the opportunity they were given. Nonetheless, it runs against the spirit of the 22nd amendment to allow both of those people back into the White House on the grounds that this time the spouses will simply reverse their roles in enforcing their dual decisions.
If you find that unpersuasive, consider certain social trends, and you can easily envision a scenario that will seem even more against the spirit of the 22nd Amendment, and for no real reason aside from sheer chauvinism. When legal recognition of homosexual marriage becomes the norm in America, and trust me, it will, that opens up the possibility that a man and his HUSBAND could pull a Bill-n-Hill and occupy the White House for 16 years. Imagine, if you can, Bill Clinton married to George Bush, with Bill as president and George as First Man from 1992 to 2000, and then them flip flopping (I know its tough, but bear with me here) and George being president and Bill being First Man from 2000-2008. There would be protests galore against that, as there should be.
The only reason any of us can entertain the notion that Hillary wasn't really president-in-part before is because there is still a chauvinistic part of us that can buy the idea of a woman being totally intellectually subservient to her husband. Thanks Christianity, that was always one of your worst features. But the idea of a man being married to another man who is president and having no input at all in policy decisions? It's preposterous on its face. Now if we can just get over our chauvinism, we can see how preposterous it is to think of President Hillary and First Man Bill Clinton as being what was envisioned by the ratifiers of the 22nd amendment.
For that reason, I do not think Hillary Clinton should be allowed to become President of the United States. It doesn't matter whether she would make a good one or a lousy one. Billary had their 8 years, the 22nd amendment says someone else gets a shot now. And trust me, I can't be the only person out there thinking this. If Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee, the Republicans would be fools to not pursue this line of argument, and it will cost votes a polarizing figure like Hillary can ill afford to lose. So not only is a Hillary Clinton nomination arguably unconstitutional, it is also a likely loser, and we could end up with Minister in Chief Huckabee as a result.
And if any of you are thinking we could apply this argument to the adult children of presidents, well, I agree, we could. Maybe we should consider that as well.
That, less the sections concerning the sitting president at the time of ratification, is the 22nd amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It's most obvious effect is to prevent America from becoming a dictatorship, with one stagnant administration permanently entrenched in power. While it may violate the purity of democratic principles, I believe it is one of the many justifiable limits on those principles. I also believe it should apply to spouses.
It may not fit the letter of the law, but I believe it fits the spirit of it. To understand that, one must first consider the environment in which the 22nd amendment was created. It was 1947 when it was proposed, and 1951 when it was ratified. Much has changed in society in the last 50 years, and circumstances have arisen that those who passed Amd. 22 no doubt never envisioned. A woman president was one. This was 15 years prior to Gene Roddenberry being told he could not have a female first officer on his mythical star ship because it simply was not believable to Americans of that era. For surprisingly many, it still isn't. So it should not seem outlandish to assume those who proposed Amend. 22 never envisioned the spouse of a former president herself becoming president, or that said former president would once again occupy the White House, merely sleeping on the other side of the bed.
Married couples are legally one entity in many respects, and there are many good reasons for that, not the least being that their decisions are often made in a joint fashion which blurs the individual desires. How could this not be the case with presidential decisions? Who doubts the influence of Eleanor Roosevelt, Nancy Reagan, and yes, Hillary Clinton, on the decisions made by their husbands. In the cases of Hillary Clinton and Nancy Reagan, they were able to pursue high-profile campaigns (Nancy against drugs, Hillary for national health care) they would never have had the opportunity to pursue were they not first lady, and campaigns that no doubt required the approval of the president. In a sense, they all were president, at least in part. That's not a criticism, if anything it is complimentary of driven intelligent women that took advantage of the opportunity they were given. Nonetheless, it runs against the spirit of the 22nd amendment to allow both of those people back into the White House on the grounds that this time the spouses will simply reverse their roles in enforcing their dual decisions.
If you find that unpersuasive, consider certain social trends, and you can easily envision a scenario that will seem even more against the spirit of the 22nd Amendment, and for no real reason aside from sheer chauvinism. When legal recognition of homosexual marriage becomes the norm in America, and trust me, it will, that opens up the possibility that a man and his HUSBAND could pull a Bill-n-Hill and occupy the White House for 16 years. Imagine, if you can, Bill Clinton married to George Bush, with Bill as president and George as First Man from 1992 to 2000, and then them flip flopping (I know its tough, but bear with me here) and George being president and Bill being First Man from 2000-2008. There would be protests galore against that, as there should be.
The only reason any of us can entertain the notion that Hillary wasn't really president-in-part before is because there is still a chauvinistic part of us that can buy the idea of a woman being totally intellectually subservient to her husband. Thanks Christianity, that was always one of your worst features. But the idea of a man being married to another man who is president and having no input at all in policy decisions? It's preposterous on its face. Now if we can just get over our chauvinism, we can see how preposterous it is to think of President Hillary and First Man Bill Clinton as being what was envisioned by the ratifiers of the 22nd amendment.
For that reason, I do not think Hillary Clinton should be allowed to become President of the United States. It doesn't matter whether she would make a good one or a lousy one. Billary had their 8 years, the 22nd amendment says someone else gets a shot now. And trust me, I can't be the only person out there thinking this. If Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee, the Republicans would be fools to not pursue this line of argument, and it will cost votes a polarizing figure like Hillary can ill afford to lose. So not only is a Hillary Clinton nomination arguably unconstitutional, it is also a likely loser, and we could end up with Minister in Chief Huckabee as a result.
And if any of you are thinking we could apply this argument to the adult children of presidents, well, I agree, we could. Maybe we should consider that as well.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Huckabee's Political ID: Goddidit!
At a talk at Liberty University, Mike Huckabee attributed his meteoric rise among Republican presidential candidates to, you guessed it, the Christian gods. This isn't too surprising really, given that Huckabee is a former minister. However, it puts those who subscribe to that theory in a fine logical pickle (not that that bothers them much), because it begs the question of what their opinion is going to be if Huckabee loses. Are they going to recant and claim what success he got wasn't attributable to the gods after all? Will they perversely claim that Huckabee doing well but losing was all part of God's plan?
I am always bemused by athletes who claim, after the fact of course, they looked into the eyes of their teammates at a critical juncture in a game they were losing and "saw we couldn't lose". Funny we never hear about the times that look doesn't come through. People who attribute events to the gods exhibit the same pattern. It was God's will that my daughter survived the hurricane. What about those that died? God wanted them dead? God wants Huckabee to win? Does that mean he wants Romney to lose? Is God saying "The Baptists are right and the Mormons are wrong"?
Unworthy as the concept of gods is, it is made to look even less worthy when portrayed in such a fashion. Mike Huckabee is having success in the Republican polls right now for all the reasons former Republican Pat Buchanen said someone would who was a real social conservative Evangelical. Huckabee is the answer to the Republican desires for a return to the roots that won them the last two elections. Huckabee is a smooth politician with a common man's charm and the backing of the religious right. One need not conjure up gods to explain that one.
I am always bemused by athletes who claim, after the fact of course, they looked into the eyes of their teammates at a critical juncture in a game they were losing and "saw we couldn't lose". Funny we never hear about the times that look doesn't come through. People who attribute events to the gods exhibit the same pattern. It was God's will that my daughter survived the hurricane. What about those that died? God wanted them dead? God wants Huckabee to win? Does that mean he wants Romney to lose? Is God saying "The Baptists are right and the Mormons are wrong"?
Unworthy as the concept of gods is, it is made to look even less worthy when portrayed in such a fashion. Mike Huckabee is having success in the Republican polls right now for all the reasons former Republican Pat Buchanen said someone would who was a real social conservative Evangelical. Huckabee is the answer to the Republican desires for a return to the roots that won them the last two elections. Huckabee is a smooth politician with a common man's charm and the backing of the religious right. One need not conjure up gods to explain that one.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Bill Maher Nails it: Terrorism is Weak
I continue to be amazed at the enormous amount of time our presidential debates spend on the "War on Terrorism", and the assertions among some politicians that the terrorist threat is the greatest our nation has ever faced. It's a little long in the tooth as these things go, but Bill Maher has an excellent rebuttal to that claim beginning about half way through this clip. The entire show is really worth a view, with priceless moments like one of his guests imagining asking the presidential candidates if they would do what needed to be done to stop a terrorist attack it it meant having sex with a man. But Maher's summary is a priceless, mercilous attack on the idea that these groups pose any kind of great threat to America:
"We are the most powerful nation on earth, with the largest economy, and the best military, and we're made to act the fool by a few thousand cave dwellers who still put out their video on VHS...we have become the most insecure paranoid superpower ever."
I want to attack the claim at the basic level much more than he did. It seems people need a refresher on what makes someone a terrorist, because many seem to have forgotten that terrorists are, by definition, weak.
A terrorist is, roughly, someone who attempts to influence political change by enticing fear in the population. Fair examination of this tactic should make it clear that it is a strategy for people who are weak. Powerful actors do not have to influence political change. They create it through military force. Those without that power must resort to terrorism to effect unilateral change. It is not a coincidence that the side in our war with Al Qaeda that has the least military might is also the side that favors terrorist tactics.
So sure, Al Qaeda and other groups east of Egypt want to enforce their way of life on the entire world, including the United States, and yes, their fervor is comparable to that of the Nazis and Soviets who had the very same goal. But motive and opportunity are not enough: one must also have the means, and neither Al Qaeda, nor Iran, has anything remotely resembling the means that was possessed by the Nazis and the Soviets. It is high time our politicians get called on this fact when they start that "greatest threat this Nation has ever faced" bullshit. It isn't a patch on the ass of the Cuban missile crisis, WWI, WWII, the cold war, the civil war, and that nasty nasty winter at Valley Forge. Sure 9/11 was a scare and an embarrasment and one hell of a big bucket of cold water on our complacency. But a little perspective please.
Maher hit the nail on the head when he said "As a species we are failing at survival trick #1: prioritize the threats" with this all-terror-all-the-time rhetoric. Terrorism is not the greatest threat this nation has ever faced, and it might not even be the greatest threat this nation faces right now. It's time the politicians got that message and started talking about issues besides terrorism and who's got what freaky flavor of piety, because the next president is going to need to understand a lot more than that. A lot more.
"We are the most powerful nation on earth, with the largest economy, and the best military, and we're made to act the fool by a few thousand cave dwellers who still put out their video on VHS...we have become the most insecure paranoid superpower ever."
I want to attack the claim at the basic level much more than he did. It seems people need a refresher on what makes someone a terrorist, because many seem to have forgotten that terrorists are, by definition, weak.
A terrorist is, roughly, someone who attempts to influence political change by enticing fear in the population. Fair examination of this tactic should make it clear that it is a strategy for people who are weak. Powerful actors do not have to influence political change. They create it through military force. Those without that power must resort to terrorism to effect unilateral change. It is not a coincidence that the side in our war with Al Qaeda that has the least military might is also the side that favors terrorist tactics.
So sure, Al Qaeda and other groups east of Egypt want to enforce their way of life on the entire world, including the United States, and yes, their fervor is comparable to that of the Nazis and Soviets who had the very same goal. But motive and opportunity are not enough: one must also have the means, and neither Al Qaeda, nor Iran, has anything remotely resembling the means that was possessed by the Nazis and the Soviets. It is high time our politicians get called on this fact when they start that "greatest threat this Nation has ever faced" bullshit. It isn't a patch on the ass of the Cuban missile crisis, WWI, WWII, the cold war, the civil war, and that nasty nasty winter at Valley Forge. Sure 9/11 was a scare and an embarrasment and one hell of a big bucket of cold water on our complacency. But a little perspective please.
Maher hit the nail on the head when he said "As a species we are failing at survival trick #1: prioritize the threats" with this all-terror-all-the-time rhetoric. Terrorism is not the greatest threat this nation has ever faced, and it might not even be the greatest threat this nation faces right now. It's time the politicians got that message and started talking about issues besides terrorism and who's got what freaky flavor of piety, because the next president is going to need to understand a lot more than that. A lot more.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Why Romney's Mormonism Matters
Mitt Romney finally addressed the issue of his Mormonism, and in light of current political tastes, his speech was a good one. But it really doesn't address why it matters that a man who is a Mormon is running for President.
We have freedom of religion in this country, and it is a right I whole heartedly support. But this addresses people's opinions of deities, and that is all it is supposed to protect. Believe in one god, thousands, or none, the government, and the people in civic affairs, should treat all the same. However, religious freedom does not give one free reign to say and do anything, as long as one claims it is part of one's religion. It doesn't matter if one's religion requires ingesting peyote, since doing so is illegal for secular reasons, one cannot do so in the name of religious freedom. Likewise for refusing medical treatment to children. It is insane that there is any tolerance for parents refusing proven medical treatments to children due to religious objections. Likewise, religious freedom does not give one free reign to believe any bizarro thing and be exempt from appropriate character judgements. If you believe a space shop is following a comet, you deserve derision, whether you call it a religion or not.
And here is the problem with Mormonism. This religion goes beyond believing in things unseen and unproven (ie Jesus' supposed resurrection), and leaps to believing things that are demonstrably false. For example, the pre-Columbian populations of the America's were demonstrably not descended from lost tribes of Israel. There is also the issue of polygamy, and apparently the Mormon church was officially racist within the last century. And don't even get me started on the magic glasses and the secret underwear.
But the point is this: A candidate that believes all animal species were created ex nihilo 6,000 years ago shows a grotesque ignorance of history, or astonishing stupidity, to be kind. This matters in a leader, whether he calls his delusion a religion or not. Likewise for believing the "Native American" population is descended from lost tribes of Israel. It matters that a leader be in touch with the realities of the world. If the last 7 years demonstrates anything, it demonstrates that. It's not good enough to have all the right opinions and be surrounded by smart people. Our next leader needs to be an intelligent, educated, reality-based man, and the beliefs of Mormonism, moreso even than Fundamentalist Christianity, runs counter to that goal. If that seems too bitter a pill to swallow, consider if Romney was a believer of Voodoo, or was a Scientologist, or a Raelian? Would you still maintain his religious views were irrelevant? If your opinion changes, then de facto what you believe in is freedom of religion, but only for large politically powerful religions, and tough noogies for everyone else. Sorry, that isn't what America was founded on.
Believe in the gods of your choice, and participate in the religious culture in which you are comfortable. I don't hold anyone who attends a Catholic service to everything the Vatican says. But when you start believing idiotic things about factual subjects, such as the Pope's supposed infallibility, I care, and so should everyone else considering giving you the position of Leader of the Free World. Romney needs to make it clear that he repudiates the idiocy of Mormonism, else he look to support it by his silence.
We have freedom of religion in this country, and it is a right I whole heartedly support. But this addresses people's opinions of deities, and that is all it is supposed to protect. Believe in one god, thousands, or none, the government, and the people in civic affairs, should treat all the same. However, religious freedom does not give one free reign to say and do anything, as long as one claims it is part of one's religion. It doesn't matter if one's religion requires ingesting peyote, since doing so is illegal for secular reasons, one cannot do so in the name of religious freedom. Likewise for refusing medical treatment to children. It is insane that there is any tolerance for parents refusing proven medical treatments to children due to religious objections. Likewise, religious freedom does not give one free reign to believe any bizarro thing and be exempt from appropriate character judgements. If you believe a space shop is following a comet, you deserve derision, whether you call it a religion or not.
And here is the problem with Mormonism. This religion goes beyond believing in things unseen and unproven (ie Jesus' supposed resurrection), and leaps to believing things that are demonstrably false. For example, the pre-Columbian populations of the America's were demonstrably not descended from lost tribes of Israel. There is also the issue of polygamy, and apparently the Mormon church was officially racist within the last century. And don't even get me started on the magic glasses and the secret underwear.
But the point is this: A candidate that believes all animal species were created ex nihilo 6,000 years ago shows a grotesque ignorance of history, or astonishing stupidity, to be kind. This matters in a leader, whether he calls his delusion a religion or not. Likewise for believing the "Native American" population is descended from lost tribes of Israel. It matters that a leader be in touch with the realities of the world. If the last 7 years demonstrates anything, it demonstrates that. It's not good enough to have all the right opinions and be surrounded by smart people. Our next leader needs to be an intelligent, educated, reality-based man, and the beliefs of Mormonism, moreso even than Fundamentalist Christianity, runs counter to that goal. If that seems too bitter a pill to swallow, consider if Romney was a believer of Voodoo, or was a Scientologist, or a Raelian? Would you still maintain his religious views were irrelevant? If your opinion changes, then de facto what you believe in is freedom of religion, but only for large politically powerful religions, and tough noogies for everyone else. Sorry, that isn't what America was founded on.
Believe in the gods of your choice, and participate in the religious culture in which you are comfortable. I don't hold anyone who attends a Catholic service to everything the Vatican says. But when you start believing idiotic things about factual subjects, such as the Pope's supposed infallibility, I care, and so should everyone else considering giving you the position of Leader of the Free World. Romney needs to make it clear that he repudiates the idiocy of Mormonism, else he look to support it by his silence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
