Escapee from the Meme Machine

This blog's days are numbered

2006-06-14T07:35:00.000-04:00

Because I've moved!! Visit my new digs here: My new blog

It's still very light on content - I'm still moving in. And, I'm not totally back. Just tinkering around until something inspires me again.

Burnout

2006-06-06T15:38:00.000-04:00

Taking a break for a while. While I still love all you delicious immoral godless heathens out there, there's comes a point where "overwhelmed" becomes an overused word.

Need to take a break.

It's spring. The flowers are blooming, the sun is out. My bf looks hot shirtless and in shorts.

Life's too short.

Going out to enjoy it.

See ya in your comment sections. ;)

When There Is NO Plan B

2006-06-05T12:23:00.000-04:00

via Political Animal

"WHEN THERE IS NO PLAN B....The Washington Post ran a provocative item today from a 42-year-old happily-married mother of two, identified only as "Dana L.," who became pregnant unexpectedly. She had tried to prevent the pregnancy by taking Plan B emergency contraception, but her doctor refused to write her a prescription.

Ultimately, Dana had an abortion she didn't want. With some justification, she's blaming the "conservative politics of the Bush administration."

My anger propelled me to get to the bottom of the story. It turns out that in December 2003, an FDA advisory committee, whose suggestions the agency usually follows, recommended that the drug be made available over the counter, or without a prescription. Nonetheless, in May 2004, the FDA top brass overruled the advisory panel and gave the thumbs-down to over-the-counter sales of Plan B, requesting more data on how girls younger than 16 could use it safely without a doctor's supervision.

Apparently, one of the concerns is that ready availability of Plan B could lead teenage girls to have premarital sex. Yet this concern -- valid or not -- wound up penalizing an over-the-hill married woman for having sex with her husband. Talk about the law of unintended consequences.

According to Political Animal - it's worse than that.

"About two years ago, an FDA advisory panel voted 23 to 4 to approve over-the-counter access to Plan B emergency contraception. One FDA panel member called it the "safest drug that we have seen brought before us." The scientific evidence was overwhelming that access to Plan B would curtail abortion and unwanted pregnancies. This was a no-brainer -- right up until the administration blocked the medication anyway, under pressure from its far-right base.

Ever since, the Bush gang has struggled to come up with a coherent explanation for the decision. Initially, then-Commissioner Lester Crawford cited FDA concerns about selling the drug to younger teens as a reason to keep Plan B off shelves. Then we learned Crawford was lying and the FDA had no such concerns.

A month later, the FDA released an internal memo showing that one high-ranking FDA official was sincerely worried about adolescents forming "sex-based cults centered around the use of Plan B." Seriously. (mod: oy. veh.)

The evidence, which may not be relevant to the Bush administration, shows no link between access to Plan B and risky sexual behavior, worse yet "sex-based cults." How Bush-appointed "scientists" come up with such nonsense is a mystery.

If the administration said, "We're morally opposed to emergency contraception," we could at least have a reasonable debate. If the administration said, "We could go for this, but the Dobson crowd would kill us," we would at least be facing political realities.

Instead, the Bush gang insists on a bizarre approach, in which they claim to base decisions like these on science, but ignore their own experts, hide embarrassing facts, and then lie about it. In the case of Plan B, the result is more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions.

For reasons that are unclear, the GOP's religious right base seems to think this is a great idea. Maybe more of them should have a chat with "Dana L."

(end)

Oh . . . Canada . . .

2006-06-05T08:13:00.000-04:00

Toronto terror plot foiled -- Canada
A taste:

TORONTO, Ontario (CNN) -- Canadian police said on Saturday they had halted a "real and serious" terror threat in and around Toronto.

Twelve men and five youths said to have been inspired by al Qaeda were arrested in the operation involving hundreds of officers, authorities said.

The group was "planning to commit a series of terrorist attacks against solely Canadian targets in southern Ontario," Royal Canadian Mounted Police Assistant Commissioner Mike McDonell said at a news conference.

"This group took steps to acquire three tons of ammonium nitrate and other components necessary to create explosive devices," he said.

"To put this in context, the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City that killed 168 people took one ton of ammonium nitrate."

The detained suspects are all males, Canadian residents "from a variety of backgrounds" and followers of a "violent ideology inspired by al Qaeda," said Luc Portelance, assistant director of operations for Canadian Security Intelligence Service. (Full list of adult suspects)

The adults ranged in age from 19 to 43, and all lived in Ontario, according to Canadian police. No information was released on the youths.

The charges they face include participating in terrorist group activity such as training and recruitment; the provision of property for terrorist purposes; and the "commission of indictable offenses, including firearms and explosives in association with a terrorist group."

The targets were all in Toronto, CNN's Jeanne Meserve reported at least one source as telling her. Authorities did not release information on targets except to say they did not include the Toronto Transit Commission.

"This group posed a real and serious threat," McDonell said. "It had the capacity and intent to carry out these attacks."

So, these men are all Canadians brought up in the west. They aren't poor. They aren't uneducated. They aren't oppressed. Exactly what could have prompted them to formulate a plan to blow up innocent fellow Canadians? Exactly where did they learn to hate those in a country that bends over backwards to avoid slighting anyone - a country they were born in? Exactly what makes Canada - of all places in the world - a enemy candidate for terrorist attacks?

HMMMMMMMMMMM.

But, to be fair, there are those speaking out against it. "Any threat to Canada poses a threat to Muslims in Canada as well," he said. "Thus, we are relieved that the alleged plans to attack targets in Canada were thwarted."

Southern Ontario is a second home to me. It is extremely close to my actual home. If these moron wanna-be terrorists want to make it personal, they're doing a good job.

Oh an btw - NYC and Dc weren't the only cities possibly getting their funds to fight terrorism cut Buffalo may lose 50% of it's budget. Southern Ontario is a 5 minute bridge ride away from Buffalo. Feeling safe?

Lookie what the boys at GiFS found for me

2006-05-30T14:34:00.000-04:00

Linkie

And last, but most definitely not least, Ron discovered that our own Lya Kahlo was quoted by none other than the prestigious Columbia Journalism Review for her post O’Reilly: “This is the U-Whited Whites of White-merica”:

It is Bill O’Reilly’s recent immigration-related press criticism that has Lya Kahlo at God Is For Suckers up in arms. O’Reilly’s offending words (uttered May 16th in the “Memo” portion of his Fox News show, “The O’Reilly Factor”):

[The New York Times] and many far-left thinkers believe the white power structure that controls America is bad, so a drastic change is needed. According to the lefty zealots, the white Christians who hold power must be swept out by a new multicultural tide, a rainbow coalition, if you will. This can only happen if demographics change in America. An open-border policy and the legalization of millions of Hispanic illegal aliens would deeply affect the political landscape in America. That’s what the New York Times and many others on the left want. They might get it. And that’s the “Memo.”

Here is Kahlo’s reaction (well, the politer part of it): “… I can’t even pretend to be surprised that O’Reilly would say these things. It’s been a few days since his name was in the papers. And, since it looks like his political masters are going to lose big time in the next round of elections, he’s got to start lying early if he hopes to help dupe the stupid into voting for them again.”

It irks me a bit that they only quoted that paragraph because that wasn’t really the point of the post. I was trying to point out that the current climate of intolerance and hate-mongering that the Bush Admin and it’s worshippers have given us is making it ok to be a public bigot. I have no desire to make windows into men’s souls; I’m not trying to say that people can’t be bigots if they want. It matter little to me if someone is that intellectually lazy. But it is not “okay” to make this part of public discourse. I am not trying to advocate censorship moreso than we already have in this country. If this country is supposed to be by and of it’s people, than all must have their say. But not if it is designed solely to slander, lie about or defame a group you disagree with.

Those like O’Reilly, Coulter, and that pill-poppin’ hypocrite Limbaugh, et al, do little else. They offer nothing of substance, no truth, no humanity and no sense. Which I guess is why why appeal to Bush supporters. He doesn’t either.

But I do get a kick out of the "(well, the politer part of it)" bit. Yep, I'm just as bad as the rest of them. But I have the benefit of not having anyone pay attention to me. ;)

An Open Memo to Bill Frist

2006-05-25T12:03:00.000-04:00

From Huff Po

A taste:

"I basically say, Mr. Vice President, right now marriage is under attack in this country," Mr. Frist said. "And we've seen activist judges overturning state by state law, where state legislatures have passed laws defining marriage between a man and a woman, and that's being overturned by a handful of activist judges around the country.

And that is why we need an amendment to come to the floor of the United States Senate to define marriage as that union between one man and one woman."

-- Insight On the News, 5/23/06

Memo
TO: Bill Frist
FROM: Ellis Weiner
Re: Marriage

You're right, of course. Marriage is under attack. But what isn't? There's a War on Christmas. There's a War on Easter, or at least the enemy has made threatening gestures toward Easter eggs. There are invasions, incursions, and insurgent uprisings against Tu B'Shvat, Penguin Awareness Day, National Podiatry Week, National Hot Breakfast Month, and Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole Day (March 26; Hawaii). Everything good and decent in this country is under constant, unrelenting, murderous attack, all the time. You can't go to a TGIF beer blast without stopping shrapnel and taking casualties.

So I'm all for your plan to want to define marriage as being "between one man and one woman." But there's a dirty little question hiding in the heart of this thing, and neither you nor any of our other brave, selfless, patriotic defenders of what's right have seen fit to confront it. And since no one else seems to have the guts to talk about it openly, to your face, I'll presume to do so right now:

PRECISELY WHICH MAN AND WHICH WOMAN GET TO BE MARRIED?

Because, obviously, I "get it," okay? Somehow, one Representative Man and Woman, a man best qualified to stand for all men, and his female counterpart, are chosen to enact, for all Americans, the sacred ritual of marriage.

(see link above for whole article)

Let's play Spot the Logical Fallacy!

2006-05-25T10:37:00.000-04:00

As many of my readers know, I am also a blogger for the God Is For Suckers Blog. That site gets a lot more traffic, which means it also gets a lot more theist spam. And sometimes, it's too deliciously stuff with logical fallacies and ignorance to ignore.

Edited only for paragraph breaks because apparently Gawd doesn't like proper grammar.

Because we have not personally experienced something doesn’t mean it isn’t real. Because you have not seen good or evil spirit, angels or demons, doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Because you can’t see something doesn't mean it doesn’t exist, whether far away planets we see more of with stronger telescopes, or the microscopic that can only be seen with powerful electron microscopes. Because we have not seen heaven or hell, also doesn’t mean they don’t exist and are not real.

Do you really believe man is nothing more than a sophisticated accident, though we still don’t fully understand it because it is so complex and that we just die like a dog and rot like a log and there is nothing more? If there is no life after this life, then there is no reason to live at all and life is useless and meaningless and there is no reason not to just end it all now if I will never know the difference after I die.

You go ahead and believe that because you won’t wish to consider that their just might be a God who created and gave life that we will one day be accountable to. It makes far more sense than the insanity of evolution. Do you call that fiction, science? Real science totally disproves the possibility of evolution. Science is something you can prove and recreate.
The second law (real science) of thermodynamics is the law of entrophy. Energy, the subject of the first law of thermodynamics and entrophy, the second law, and their relationship are fundamental to an understanding not just of physics, but to life. The fact is all things are winding down, going from more orderly to less orderly. Look at man and sicknesses. Today millions of children in America have diseases that were not heard of in children 50 years ago.

Look at anything, the sun, the stars, your health until you die, all things are winding downward not getting better. With all our increasing knowledge and medicine we are not getting healthier there is sure no evolutionary process upward that has ever been seen or proven. Oh, there are evolutionary processes, within species, but the idea of one becoming another, that you came from some primordal soup. Ha. That is greater faith and religion than believing in a God who can create it.

Believing that all things are just accidental and of nature is the insanity I see, not logic. Logic says a creation demands a creator. We have things because men make them, build them, create them. You don’t get something from nothing, life from non-life, complex things from simple things accidentally. An explosion creates chaos, nor order.

You can believe that belief in a God is crazy, but logic says that there is more to life than accident and hapenstance. But look at it this way. IF, you are wrong and there is a hell and eternal punishment for the wicked and you live life your way, you loose, forever. IF, one believes in God and morals and lives a good and right life and there happens to be no eternal life, no loss, for after death you wouldn’t know the difference. But if one who lives that way because they believe in a God who will judge is right, they gain everything.

So, you see, faith is the only possibility with something to gain and nothing to loose. Unbelief has nothing to gain and everything to loose. Play our odds if your a gambler, after all it would be 50-50, or is it? If a house was on fire and you could save someone, but did nothing to do so, does that make you responsible for the lost lives you could have saved, or at least tried to save? Is it any different with faith in a God?

Will you delete this because it isn’t more athiestic, hateful babble.

Actually, Asshat, it got deleted because it broke the rules. But don't let that stop your psychotic persecution complex.

Let's play Spot the Logical Fallacy! (I am not going to respond to everything as a lot of this is just repetition - ironically proving that this is nothing more than this weirdo's indoctrination.)

Quote #1: "Because we have not personally experienced something doesn’t mean it isn’t real."

*bzzt* What is appeal to ignorance?

In part, this is true. However, absurdities are (or rather should be) easy to detect. You haven't seen the refrigerator stuffed of baseball sized diamonds in my backyard, either, so by your logic, you don't know and can't tell me it doesn't exist. Even though you have not been to my backyard, even you know it's not there.

Angels, Demons, Heaven, Hell - these are archetypes and mythologies. As Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, and Brigadoon.

Quote #2: "Do you really believe man is nothing more than a sophisticated accident,"

No.

*Bzzt* What is argumentum ad ignorantiam?

Cont: "though we still don’t fully understand it because it is so complex and that we just die like a dog and rot like a log and there is nothing more?"

Yes.

Cont: "If there is no life after this life, then there is no reason to live at all and life is useless and meaningless and there is no reason not to just end it all now if I will never know the difference after I die."

I'm sorry you're so depressed. But thank you for highlighting the self-obsessed nature of faith. For you, life is meaningless if there's no eternal beach party in Heaven with JC and the Holy Bunch. It's pathetic and tragic that you can't find joy in THIS life HERE AND NOW, because there isn't a big reward FOR YOU at the end. Selfish. Completely and totally selfish.

Quote #3: "You go ahead and believe that because you won’t wish to consider that their just might be a God who created and gave life that we will one day be accountable to. "

*bzzt* What is a Strawman?

We don't believe that we're an accident - even a sophisticated one. Learn a little about evolution before telling us we're accidents. Most of us don't believe in an afterlife, but again, we don't believe in Flying Purple People Eaters either. Absurdities don't deserve that much respect.

Quote #3: "It makes far more sense than the insanity of evolution. Do you call that fiction, science? Real science totally disproves the possibility of evolution. Science is something you can prove and recreate.

The second law (real science) of thermodynamics is the law of entrophy. Energy, the subject of the first law of thermodynamics and entrophy, the second law, and their relationship are fundamental to an understanding not just of physics, but to life."

*bzzt* What is argumentum ad ignorantiam AGAIN?

And it would be great if you bothered to learn about either before wasting our time with these tired old lies.

First: Talk Origins That website will help you be less of an ignorant dumbass.
Second: The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability This will shred your assertion that evolution violates this law. Nice try, Creationist.

This link: An Index to Creationist Claims Will debunk all the other inane and painfully stupid creationist claims you no doubt spout as well.

Quote #4: The fact is all things are winding down, going from more orderly to less orderly. Look at man and sicknesses. Today millions of children in America have diseases that were not heard of in children 50 years ago.

Look at anything, the sun, the stars, your health until you die, all things are winding downward not getting better."

Okay, instead of dealing with the claim in this sentence: Class, can anyone guess where this is going?

That's right, the woefully stupid "one species turning into another" crap.

Quote #5: "With all our increasing knowledge and medicine we are not getting healthier there is sure no evolutionary process upward that has ever been seen or proven. Oh, there are evolutionary processes, within species, but the idea of one becoming another, that you came from some primordal soup. Ha. That is greater faith and religion than believing in a God who can create it."

*BZZT* What is composition fallacy?

It sure would, if that's what the Theory of Evolution said. You're grave ignorance is showing again. No surprises there.

Nowhere does the theory state on species magically transforms into another. Humans and Chimps (like Bush - I kid!) came from the same ancestor, that's undeniable - well, it's undeniable for honest and informed people. But no one is suggesting that monkeys magically transform into humans.

But thank you for showing us that humans do turn in to shit slinging monkeys.

Quote #6: "Believing that all things are just accidental and of nature is the insanity I see, not logic."

*bzzt* What is a Strawman AGAIN? We don't believe that.

Quote #7: "Logic says a creation demands a creator. We have things because men make them, build them, create them. "

*bzzzt* What is confusion of correlation and causation?

The Blind Watchmaker Goodness. Do you people EVER read anything about evolution (that's not written by other Cretinists) before writing long, ill informed posts about nonsense? Are you ever honest enough to give it even a quick spin before coming to show us how clueless you are? Ever?

Quote #8: "You can believe that belief in a God is crazy, but logic says that there is more to life than accident and hapenstance."

*bzzt* What is begging the question?

Right, an how exactly does that automatically point to god? Even if evolution is a horrible fallacy, that does not automatically make god the only other option.

Quote #8: "But look at it this way. IF, you are wrong and there is a hell and eternal punishment for the wicked and you live life your way, you loose, forever. IF, one believes in God and morals and lives a good and right life and there happens to be no eternal life, no loss, for after death you wouldn’t know the difference. But if one who lives that way because they believe in a God who will judge is right, they gain everything."

*bzzt* What is Pascal's Wager

What if when you get to your eternal beach party, you meet not whatever god you believe in now, but a different one. If you're a Christer, and you meet not Jesus, but Allah, we'll see you in hell.

See, this argument only works if your god is the one the exists. Since humans have worshiped thousands upon thousands of gods throughout history - and, more notably have failed to produce a single shred of evidence for any of them - you stand a much higher chance of being wrong then we do.

Quote #9: "So, you see, faith is the only possibility with something to gain and nothing to loose. Unbelief has nothing to gain and everything to loose."

*bzzt* What is argument from adverse consequences?

Cont: "Play our odds if your a gambler, after all it would be 50-50, or is it?"

The odds are VERY FAR from 50/50. See Pascal's Wager answer.

Quote #10: "If a house was on fire and you could save someone, but did nothing to do so, does that make you responsible for the lost lives you could have saved, or at least tried to save? Is it any different with faith in a God?'

*Bzzt* What is non sequitur?

It is Very different. First, if there was a house fire and I did nothing, not even calling the fire department, that would make me (at best) immoral and (at worse) guilty of manslaughter - or murder if I also started the fire.

But this has nothing to do with faith in god. I can see a house fire. I can hear people screaming for help. Therefore, I am compelled to respond.

You have not one single shred of evidence that god exists. Or heaven, or hell, or demons or angels. You choose to believe them, or you were indoctrinated to believe them. And you do so only to get your ass into heaven. Yours is a selfish faith.

This is in NO WAY related to a house fire. Bad analogy.

Lastly, read this: Sam Harris Responds to A Christian for a little more insight.

So, fellow heathens? What's the score?

More Political tests

2006-05-24T12:29:00.000-04:00

Shamelessly stolen from Frank's Blog *sheepish grin*

Politopia

me:
"SW- You would feel most at home in the Southwest region. You advocate a large degree of personal freedom and a large degree of government control over the economy. Your neighbors include such folks as Jesse Jackson, Ralph Nader, Hillary Clinton, and Zack de la Rocha of Rage Against the Machine, and may refer to themselves as "liberals," "left-wing liberals," "civil libertarians," "democratic socialists," "egalitarians," or "anarcho-socialists."

Political Compass

me:
Economic Left/Right: -8.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.69

that puts me in the bottom left corner.

Pat's Power comes from Magical Power Shakes . . . oh, and Jesus too.

2006-05-24T07:34:00.000-04:00

Pat Robertson's magical protein shake

Every now and then, a ClayNation reader e-mail causes me to question my entire worldview. Such was recently the case. We received many responses regarding my quest to leg press 400 pounds and "show up former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright." None was more shocking than this one from Ken Pederson of Seattle:

"400 pounds is nothing! Rev. Pat Robertson, 76, can leg press 2,000 pounds. I saw him on TV the other day and the capillaries in his eyes looked just fine!"

If you do not click on the link Ken provided to Robertson's Web site right now, you are truly lazy and missing the most remarkable feat of physical strength since Video SPiN featured Lasha Pataraya pulling two trucks with his ear.

Here's the text from his Web site:

"Did you know that Pat Robertson can leg press 2,000 pounds? How does he do it? Where does Pat find the time and energy to host a daily, national TV show, head a world-wide ministry, develop visionary scholars, while traveling the globe as a statesman?

One of Pat's secrets to keeping his energy high and his vitality soaring is his age-defying protein shake. Pat developed a delicious, refreshing shake, filled with energy-producing nutrients. Discover what kinds of natural ingredients make up Pat's protein shake by registering for your FREE booklet today!"

Three things:

1. I am going to drink this protein shake of his and try to leg press a Mazda Miata with three clowns sitting inside.

2. There is no way on earth Robertson leg presses 2,000 pounds. That would mean a 76-year-old man broke the all-time Florida State University leg press record by 665 pounds over Dan Kendra. 665 pounds. Further, when he set the record, they had to modify the leg press machine to fit 1,335 pounds of weight. Plus, Kendra's capillaries in his eyes burst. Burst. Where in the world did Robertson even find a machine that could hold 2,000 pounds at one time? And how does he still have vision?

3. It's rare the ClayNation Guarantee makes an appearance, but here, it is justified. There is no way Robertson leg presses 2,000 pounds. Period. If he can, I will box a round against Andrew Golota without wearing a jockstrap. After about 20 minutes on Robertson's Web site, I managed to find a way to send an e-mail without having to give my credit card information. Here was the text:

"I would like to interview Pat Robertson about his leg-press workout and protein shake. If possible, I would like to accompany Pat on his workout where I could help him stack on the 44 different 45-pound plates he would need to attach to leg press 2,000 pounds. By my calculations, his leg press of 2,000 pounds requires 22 forty-fives and one ten-pounder on each side.

The article goes on. You get the idea. If you click the linkie Clay provided you go to the CBN website. YOU too can leg lift a ton with Pat Robertson's magical shake recipe. I HAD to have that power!

But then, TRAGEDY: You have to register to get this AMAZING recipe.

So I registered. Don't any of you ever tell me that I don't jump into the fray for you

Here's the recipe:

PAT’S AGE-DEFYING SHAKE

Breakfast is the most important meal of the day. It is vitally important that your body have adequate supplies of protein and necessary minerals to get you started in a healthy, vibrant mode. Nothing is worse than to race your insulin production by the ingestion of doughnuts, sweet rolls, pancakes drenched in syrup, white toast with jelly, and coffee. This is the typical American breakfast that accounts for the fact that many people are drooping by 10:00 or 11:00 in the morning, and they have, in the process, a number of ailments, not the least of which is adult onset diabetes because of a diet that is filled with sweets, simple carbohydrates derived from white flour and sugar, and caffeine. The shake I use is delicious, refreshing, and filled with energy-producing nutrients.

Here’s how to make it:

Disclaimer: Consult with your physician before starting this or any new health regimen or supplement program, especially if you have allergies to any of the listed or related products, or are under the care of a physician or other medical professional, or have any other health problems. No specific health benefit is implied or promised from this recipe.

6 - 8 ounces of orange juice (water, other fruit juices, low-fat or skim milk can be substituted)
*5 tablespoons soy protein isolate
*5 tablespoons whey protein isolate
2 tablespoons natural apple cider vinegar
1 tablespoon flaxseed oil
1 tablespoon safflower oil

In a standard blender, combine the above ingredients. Blend until the shake is smooth
and the ice cubes are crushed.

Optional ingredients you can try:
2 tablespoons non-fat plain yogurt or 1 banana (gives more body to the drink)
1 teaspoon Creatine, (5 grams) Creatine is intended to be used by those individuals who
are engaged in strenuous physical activity and training. Individuals under the age of 18
years, should not use Creatine. (if you add Creatine, remember you need to drink at least 8 oz. of water in addition to your shake).

*The amount of protein per serving is dependent upon the product purchased.You should aim for 32 grams of protein in the shake.

Adjust the quantity of tablespoons according to the label on the product purchased.

Pat’s Age-Defying Shake
2 tablespoons (or more) soy lecithin
1 teaspoon MSM powder
1 teaspoon glutamine powder
5 - 6 frozen strawberries
(other fruits can be substituted)
Non-caloric sweetener to taste
4 - 5 ice cubes
(optional, use for a colder shake)

Now us evil godless heathens can have legs of steel too! We'll be unstoppable with Pat Robertson's Magical Power Shake!!

What goes around comes around (by Sean, at GifS)

2006-05-24T07:32:00.000-04:00

Well, not necessarily -- unless you believe in such superstitious, karmic nonsense. But sometimes it's good to see a complete shithead get his/her comeuppance in the most appropriate way.

Bush Brothers No Longer Back Harris

May 12, 2006 — Little in U.S. politics is quite as uncomfortable as the cold shoulder.

That's what the Bush brothers — the president and Florida governor — are giving their onetime champion Rep. Katherine Harris, R-Fla.

Harris really wants to run for Senate this year. She's pledged to spend $10 million of her own inheritance on the race. Few think she can win, though, so for months behind the scenes the Bushes have been trying unsuccessfully to chase Harris out of the race and recruit someone stronger.

Now, their rejection is quite public.

"I just don't believe she can win," Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said this week. Harris was elected in 2002 to her first term in Congress, representing the 13th District of Florida.

One reason for her unpopularity — the Florida recount. Almost six years ago, Harris put her popularity on the line to help the Bush brothers as Florida's secretary of state. After all, despite being the top election official in the state, she also had co-chaired the Bush for President Florida operation in 2000.

She certified the vote for Bush on the timeline the Bush campaign wanted. In fact, she wanted to ignore a judge's order to delay her certification of the election at least a day, but was talked out of ignoring that order by her lawyers.

Behind the scenes, Harris did her own machinations. She sent underling Kerey Carpenter to cozy up to a vote-counting judge, Charles Burton of Palm Beach County, and encourage him to seek advice from Harris' office, without telling him that once the county canvassing board did so Harris' opinion would be binding.

She retained ChoicePoint to remove felons from the voting rolls, ignoring complaints for years that the firm had continuously removed legitimate voters, ones who often had ethnic names.

More...

See what happens when you are myopically sighted? Sell your soul by getting in bed with the power du jour... Wake up a few years later to find out they've kicked you out of bed and said "good riddance."

You can just see her drunkenly throwing her wine glass against her living room wall and screaming: "You fuckers! After I ass-raped The Constitution with a strap-on for you??!!"

Oh, Katy. We hardly knew ya (thank gawd).

Hey, They're Not All Bigots

2006-05-23T12:16:00.000-04:00

Clergy Group Aims to Block Gay Marriage Amendment (you might have to register)

WASHINGTON, May 22 — An interfaith coalition of clergy members and lay leaders announced a petition drive on Monday aimed at blocking a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

The Senate Judiciary Committee passed the bill on a vote along party lines last week, and the full Senate is expected to vote on it the week of June 5.

About 35 representatives of the coalition, Clergy for Fairness, said at a news conference that more than 1,600 clergy members had signed an online petition against the amendment. The group's Web site has postcards that lay people can print out and send to members of Congress.

By the end of this week, the site should have an electronic postcard as well, said Joe Conn, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, an organizer of the lobbying effort but not in the coalition.

Among those represented by the coalition are clergy members and groups affiliated with mainline Protestant churches; the Interfaith Alliance; Jewish groups including the Anti-Defamation League, the Union for Reform Judaism and the National Council of Jewish Women; Sikh groups; and the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.

Four weeks ago, 50 prominent conservative Christian and Jewish leaders, including evangelicals and Roman Catholic cardinals and archbishops, signed a petition backing the amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage.

Those leaders also promised to distribute postcards to their congregants to urge support of the amendment. The Knights of Columbus alone is distributing 10 million postcards to Catholic churches.

Few experts expect the marriage bill to pass this year. But state campaigns to ban same-sex marriage drew large numbers of people to the polls in 2004, and conservatives hope to mobilize voters by raising the issue again. (mod note: because war, a tanking economy, sky high gas prices, wiretapping, rampant political corruption, millions of people without health insurance and the protection of American Democracy mean nothing to some theists as long as them damn gays are demanding to be recongnized as equal citizens. Jesus hates them, so they're not allowed.)

Moderate and liberal religious groups have recently made an effort to raise their profile on many issues, including those involving personal morality that many Americans had considered the domain of conservative Christians.

The clergy members at the news conference on Monday said that although the groups opposing the amendment were not of one mind on homosexuality or same-sex marriage, passage of the amendment would give deference to a single point of view and would make the Constitution an instrument of discrimination against a class of citizens.

"When one group is singled out for discrimination, it's not long before other groups will be singled out, too," said Rabbi Craig Axler of Congregation Beth Or in Maple Glen, Pa. "It's the first time we see the Constitution in danger of enshrining discrimination against one party, one class, and to remain silent as a Jew is unconscionable."

See, they're not all bad.

Yep, still a liberal

2006-05-22T08:01:00.000-04:00

Your Political Profile:

Overall: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal

Social Issues: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal

Personal Responsibility: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal

Fiscal Issues: 0% Conservative, 100% Liberal

Ethics: 0% Conservative, 100% Liberal

Defense and Crime: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

How Liberal Or Conservative Are You?

Found via Atheist Jew

Hey AJ - looks like we're still liberals, despite our mean pseudo-racism! ;)

It's A Miracle!

2006-05-18T12:11:00.000-04:00

For the first time since I became politically aware, I agree with George Will.

Who Isn't A 'Values Voter'?

snippet:

"An aggressively annoying new phrase in America's political lexicon is "values voters." It is used proudly by social conservatives, and carelessly by the media to denote such conservatives.

This phrase diminishes our understanding of politics. It also is arrogant on the part of social conservatives and insulting to everyone else because it implies that only social conservatives vote to advance their values and everyone else votes to . . . well, it is unclear what they supposedly think they are doing with their ballots.

On Sunday a Los Angeles Times article on the possibility of a presidential run by Florida Gov. Jeb Bush reported: "The Family Research Council, an influential evangelical activist group, has invited Gov. Bush to appear at a fall conference of 'values voters.' " On Monday the Wall Street Journal quoted a pastor who is president of a Texas-based organization, Vision America, that mobilizes conservative pastors: "Values voters see their vote as a sacred trust." The phrase "values voters," which has become ubiquitous, subtracts from social comity by suggesting that one group has cornered the market on moral seriousness.

Last Saturday, when John McCain delivered the commencement address at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, he was said to be reaching out to values voters. Hillary Clinton, speaking recently at the annual U.S. Chamber of Commerce convention, scolded "kids," by which she evidently meant young adults, for thinking "work is a four-letter word." She was said to be courting values voters. If so, those voters must value slapdash rhetorical nonsense as well as work.

It is odd that some conservatives are eager to promote the semantic vanity of the phrase "values voters." And it is odder still that the media are cooperating with those conservatives."

Republicans get an "F" in Sportsmanship

2006-05-18T12:05:00.000-04:00

here's another black mark for the GOP scorecard

Former Bush campaign official sentenced to prison

CONCORD, New Hampshire (Reuters) - A senior official in U.S. President George W. Bush's re-election campaign was sentenced to 10 months in prison on Wednesday for his role in suppressing votes in a key U.S. Senate race, a scandal that Democrats charge may involve the White House.

James Tobin, 45, one of three Republican campaign operatives convicted in a phone-jamming scheme designed to keep New Hampshire Democrats from voting in a 2002 election, was convicted in December of two telephone harassment charges.

Prosecutors had asked for a two-year sentence.

U.S. District Judge Steven McAuliffe described the crime as "extremely serious" and a threat to the U.S. political tradition of free and fair elections.

"People in your position need to know they cannot do these things and if they do the consequences are very, very serious," he said in handing down a sentence harsher than the six months home detention and community service sought by Tobin's lawyer.

Democrats want an investigation into 22 telephone calls made by Tobin and New Hampshire Republican Party officials to the White House on November 5 and 6, 2002, and say they believe national Republican officials may be involved in the scheme.

"I don't consider this sentencing to be the end of the matter. I consider this to be one more step in the process of uncovering exactly who knew about this," said Kathleen Sullivan, the New Hampshire Democratic Party chair.

"There are still unanswered questions," she said.

Story continues. Visit the link.

This begs the question - if republicans/neocons were so sure they'd win and were so confident in their platform and trusted their base - why would they need to cheat?

Anyone still think the '00 and '04 elections were pristine?

And look at this flat out asshole republican:

Have A Heart

This is this asshole's idea of a good campaign platform:

Da Vinci Code: the Non-Xian's "Passion"

2006-05-18T10:56:00.000-04:00

Look at this alarmist, hypocritical, arrogant nonsense I got in my inbox today. (Because it came to me third hand, we're still trying to track down where the originator got it from. Hopefully links to come. For now, suffice it say it comes from something called St. Michael's Sheild. Let it be added here that St. Michael is the warring archangel. Because, it can't be Christian if it doesn't involve WAR).

These fucking hypocrites didn't give a rat's ass when Jewish Groups raised objections to Psycho-Gibson's snuff movie, so why on earth should anyone now care about their objections to DVC? At least DVC isn't pretending to be based in fact like Gibson did with his snuff film.

LOST INNOCENCE: MOVIE SHOWS THAT DARK HAS ARRIVED WITH A SPIRIT OF ANTI-CHRIST

Where have you gone, Barney Fife? Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you.

We know where Opie is -- this week, he is at Cannes, in the way of director Ron Howard -- and we know what he just did: that fellow who was the picture of innocence on The Andy Griffith Show and Happy Days has come to resemble a nation that was likewise innocent and has likewise turned a dark corner. He directed The DaVinci Code. He needs our prayers, as do the actors involved. It's all coming down, and you can feel it. We are starting to see more clearly what is what and who is who. At no other time in the nation's history would a movie based on such a harmful and blasphemous book garner this kind of attention. Movies like The Last Temptation of Christ were equally horrid but were shoved off into a genre of the avant garde.

But this is Opie and this is Sony Pictures and bashing Christianity and particularly -- viciously -- Catholicism has become such a norm that we can rightly be concerned about the rise of what many have foreseen for years.

There is the spirit of darkness. The stage is being set for a personage of evil. It is also being set for a purification that is going to tear down the artifice we have arrogantly constructed.

To openly besmirch Jesus -- to cast Him as the father of a child by Mary Magdalene -- and to openly promote the rise of the goddess (with which this evil book apparently concludes as almost an invocation) is the height of arrogance and strong testimony to the rampant atheism or at least antagonism toward Christians that led an actor in the movie, Ian McKellen, to brazenly state Wednesday that instead of a disclaimer on the movie noting that it is fiction, such a disclaimer should be placed on the Bible.

These are people taken seriously by the media and granted the type of respect that was formerly withheld from such ilk and afforded instead to movies like It's a Wonderful Life and The Bells of St. Mary's.

Where have you gone, Jimmy Stewart?

While a nun wearing a brown habit knelt at the red carpet at Cannes this week, praying, in protest, the glitterati of Hollywood looked down upon the crumpled woman and Howard said only that if the movie is likely to upset you, don't go see it.

For those who long have seen the rise of anti-christianity as a prelude to persecution, it is a time of concatenation. Perhaps the word is "precipitation." Evil is precipitating from dark clouds and will lead to a raucous future.

It is hardly only this movie. It is books like Potter and theme parks based on a sorcerer's hat and upcoming films like Sacred Evil, along with the standard cartoons defaming the Pope and the biased media coverage of the Church. There is the whiff of persecution and the whiff of an evil personage who may take the stage in the not-too-distant future.

Yet as the darkness materializes, so do images of Jesus -- more than ever, in a way that has been gradual but that is gaining momentum. Steadily, Christ is manifesting. He is increasing His Presence. Nature is groaning in anticipation of a manifestation -- however you want to interpret it. A revelation of the invisible is becoming visible. And it is occurring in nature. From Mexico comes the report of believers hiking by the hundreds into the mountains of southern Chiapas to view a rock that some say bears an image of Jesus. ?A 57-year-old Tzotzil Indian, Gregorio Gomez, discovered the image after a voice told him in a dream last month that he would find it,? said the news. It is one of dozens of such recent stories.

Ron, take note of that. Be careful. We will pray for you. We will pray for the country that has traveled so far since Opie. But caution, Ron. The Lord is real. He is good. The DaVinci Code is evil.

Opus Dei says it is just a passing episode. Let's hope so. The Vatican reportedly is in a "raging" debate on what to do about it. One Vatican Cardinal -- in charge of cultural affairs -- called the film a "shocking and worrisome" development. A survey indicates that it can have a profoundly negative effect on faith and in our view we face similar future challenges. That was Britain. In the U.S., another survey claimed it only affected five percent of people who have read the novel -- of which there are 45 million.

(Mod: HERE's the best part):

We tossed the book halfway through because of the aura it exuded (after glancing at that last page). We don't believe you are dark, Ron, but we do believe you are deceived and pray you will see your way out of it.

As for your advice about not seeing the movie, no worry there; we never had any such intention.

[see also: Response from Opus Dei, Survey stunner: DaVinci movie 'greatly' undermines Catholic faith, China Catholics boycott DaVinci Code, Howard says don't see it if it upsets you and DaVinci actor: Bible should have disclaimer]
[resources: Spiritual Warfare Prayers]
[Michael Brown seminar on spiritual protection, June 3]

I decided to leave it unaltered (save for emphasis, which is all mine) because the sheer asshatery can only be appreciate en masse. Any sane adult can see the lying, the propaganda and the bullshit without me pointing it out.

So, let's review - the movie is threatening the survival of Christianity, oh wait no, just Catholicism - but god is fighting back through rock formations and dreams? You didn't read the book, but you ust know it's evil? Being a father is a bad thing now? Why are you people so terrifed of sex? Only penises can be worshiped?

And you'll pray for Ron and the country? Yeah - fuck hunger, poverty, sickness, war and hatred - pleas save us from this movie, Jesus!

And long live Gandalf. The fabulous and delicious Mr. McKellen is a "gaytheist" - I love that he was cast in this movie.

The more they bitch, whine and LIE the more I want to see it. I'm SO going to see this movie.

The War on Darkies, and Brownies, and Gays and Atheists and

2006-05-18T10:55:00.000-04:00

Fox News Presents! The War on Darkies

Last week, Fox News Channel's John Gibson urged white people to make more babies in order to counter the growing Latino population in America. Watch Stephen Colbert present Gibson's ridiculousness here.

Next up... Tony Snow, former Fox pundit and current White House press secretary, blurted out "squeezing the tar baby" in his first official press conference.

And most recently, Media Matters took note of O'Reilly's Talking Point Memo segment in which he lashed out at "far left thinkers" for opposing the "white power structure that controls America".

O'Reilly thinks it's a bad thing that idiots like you and me want a society and government that's multicultural. Gibson thinks it's a matter of national urgency that, in decades to come, white people will be a minority in America. Now, name any white power group, be it Stormfront, the KKK, the Aryan Nation, or the Neo-Nazis and tell me if the collective talking points aren't oh so eerily similar.

It's one thing for O'Reilly and Gibson to roll out their annual "War on Christmas" comedy spoofs. It's one thing for the network to be the unabashed mouthpiece for the Republican government and the Bush administration. But it's another thing entirely for FNC's pundits to literally encourage white power.

But at least they're out in the open with dwindling ratings and almost zero credibility as a legitimate news source. And it'll only get worse once they roll out the seizure-inducing graphics package heralding:

FOX NEWS PRESENTS! The War On Darkies! Gibson offering tips on how to generate the "whitest sperm". O'Reilly belting out Talking Point Memos about how to tell if your neighbor is a mud person -- or simply covered in mud. Sean Hannity shouting "packow! packow!" whilst blasting fire hoses at minorities from his really cool helicopter. Geraldo will leave the network, of course. Maybe he'll jump over to PAX -- the only network to not have employed him so far.

Yes, it's all so funny, isn't it? Actually it's not. Unless I'm very wrong, hate speech and white power is going mainstream. Again. And I, for one, welcome Fox News to be the leader on this one. I don't think they should be fined or pulled off the air. I think they ought to be allowed to prance around in pointy hoods and arm bands and shown for who they really are. Then as their ratings continue to drop and their advertisers abandon them, we can be satisfied that justice has been served in America.

From the O'Reilly link above:

During the May 16 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly claimed that The New York Times and "many far-left thinkers believe the white power structure that controls America is bad, so a drastic change is needed." O'Reilly continued: "According to the lefty zealots, the white Christians who hold power must be swept out by a new multicultural tide, a rainbow coalition, if you will." O'Reilly's comments came during a discussion of opposition by the Times and others to deploying the National Guard to help secure the border.

As Media Matters for America has noted, O'Reilly has previously claimed to have exposed the "hidden agenda" behind the immigration movement, which he said was "the browning of America." O'Reilly also asserted, during the same April 12 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, that "there is a movement in this country to wipe out 'white privilege.' " Additionally, on the May 1 edition of The Radio Factor, O'Reilly alleged that the "organizers" of the May 1 nationwide pro-immigrant protests have a "hardcore militant agenda of 'You stole our land, you bad gringos,' " and that the organizers seek to "take it back by massive, massive migration into the Southwest.' "

From the May 16 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: Now in 1986, President Reagan thought he could solve the [immigration] problem by granting about 3 million illegal aliens amnesty. The New York Times was in heaven, editorializing back then, quote, "The new law won't work miracles but it will induce most employers to pay attention, to turn off the magnets, to slow the tide." Of course, just the opposite happened. But the Times hasn't learned a thing. That's because the newspaper and many far-left thinkers believe the white power structure that controls America is bad, so a drastic change is needed.

According to the lefty zealots, the white Christians who hold power must be swept out by a new multicultural tide, a rainbow coalition, if you will. This can only happen if demographics change in America.

An open-border policy and the legalization of millions of Hispanic illegal aliens would deeply affect the political landscape in America. That's what The New York Times and many others on the left want. They might get it. And that's the "Memo."

I can't tell from this whether O'Reilly is just a batshit crazy bigot, or is he is just a propagandist and attention whore like MAnn Coulter.

Either way, I can't even pretend to be surprised that O'Reilly would say these things. It's been a few days since his name was in the papers. And, since it looks like his political masters are going to lose big time in the next round of elections, he's got to start lying early if he hopes to help dupe the stupid into voting for them again.

Moreover, I can't pretend to be surprised that bigotry is becoming mainstream again. Or that Fox News is at the forefront of it. As soon those planes hit the two towers, PC went the way of the Dodo. It's now okay to discriminate against gays, to the point where discriminatory legislation is enacted. It's now okay to bash Arabs (when confusing them with Muslims) as a race of terrorist. So, why wouldn't it follow that it's now okay to openly be a white supremacist?

This is what the marriage of religion and politics gets you - intolerance, bigotry, propaganda and oppressed dressed up in righteous clothing.

An update on the New Pandemic!!!!

2006-05-17T07:30:00.000-04:00

Read about the New Panemic HERE

From Salon

May 11, 2006 | There was a story in the Washington Post on Sunday about a problem apparently facing a lot of men on college campuses: They're having a hard time getting hard. This isn't the first time I've heard reports of this in recent years, mostly from young women who assume, as I have assumed, that it's one of the costs of living in a world with antidepressants. Those sexual side effects are no joke. Then, of course, there is the rise in campus binge drinking, which has, since time began, sometimes resulted in a condition popularly known as "beer dick."

It's a really valid and compelling issue. The fact that young guys are having a rough time with erectile dysfunction is well worth investigating and I was happy to see a long reported piece about it in the Post. But imagine my surprise at learning that antidepressants, alcohol and stress aren't the real story here. (They get mentioned several paragraphs into the piece, along with explanations like anxiety, recreational drug use and overconsumption of Red Bull, so as not to rob the piece of its backlash-y punch.) No, according to the Washington Post, the factor that's making boys go limp is ... (drum roll) ... women who want to have sex with them! That's right, folks. Apparently nothing can make a dude lose a stiffie like the feeling that a girl is horny. You following? No, me neither. But here's how the story, by Laura Sessions Stepp, lays it out.

First, she writes about Adam Skrodzki, a senior at the University of Maryland who, along with his fellow on-the-record interviewees, gets a big medal for bravery in the service of ethical journalism for allowing his name to be used in this piece. Anyway, Adam "bench-presses a respectable 280 pounds. He fights fires in Howard County as a volunteer and plans to join the Secret Service in the fall. In short, he's a man's man." And therefore, we are supposed to infer, he's used to getting man's-man-quality boners. (Guys who, say, play first viola in the university orchestra and volunteer at the local ASPCA wouldn't be interesting in a story about hard-ons because they probably don't get them anyway.)

In any case, Adam continued to think of himself as a "man's man" until last fall when he "hooked up with a sophomore -- at her urging." Cue "Psycho" music: Eeek! Eeek! Eeek! See, the sophomore wanted him, he wasn't into her, so she offered to be his "friend with benefits," which is cool because that means sex with no emotional responsibility and he really didn't see anything wrong with that. But then, the first time they tried to do it, he couldn't get it up.

Now, I read Adam's story and I think: Hey, maybe Adam is just a really great guy! The kind of guy who actually wants to have sex with someone he really likes and is attracted to. Clearly he wasn't so interested in this sophomore, and so his body didn't respond to her. I don't see this as a disaster so much as a positive indicator of a healthy attitude about sex. I get that men and women often enjoy sex with people they despise or are indifferent to, but wouldn't the world be a generally more cheerful place if our bodies nudged us toward those we found physically and emotionally alluring to begin with?

But the Washington Post sees it differently. It turns out that Adam is "far from alone." In fact, Stepp continues, "for a sizable number of young men, the fact that they can get sex whenever they want may have created a situation where, in fact, they're unable to have sex." That's right. "According to surveys, young women are now as likely as young men to have sex and by countless reports are also as likely to initiate sex, taking away from males the age-old, erotic power of the chase." Countless reports! Sizable numbers! Call the police! Vague and unquantifiable numbers of women want biggish amounts of sex!

Perhaps (and I realize this is pie-in-the-sky thinking here) the leveling of the sexual marketplace Stepp writes about, in which women and men enjoy and pursue sex with comparable vigor, could be good for both sexes. First, it could deflate some of the frequently unearned but long-held stereotypes about guys who'll have sex with anything that moves, who consider each conquest a notch on their bedpost, who are more turned on by the pursuit than by the physical pleasure of union. Perhaps, if sex with women is something that they didn't have to finagle and tease and chase their way into, if it was just a fun activity that two people who liked each other chose to engage in and that often felt really great, everyone would have a better time.

Bzzzzz! Apparently that answer was incorrect. According to Stepp, we're not looking at the maturation and increasing sophistication of the socio-sexual dynamic here. We're looking at the loss of manhood in its purest form. Guys who can't get woodies for any old girl on the block are a poignant representation of the crumbling power of the erect phallus, which is, after all, as Stepp writes, "in the minds of many males, the sign of authority and dominance, perhaps the last such symbol in a society slogging its way toward gender equality." Wow. Stepp isn't doing the men she's writing about any favors in treating their condition not as a treatable health problem related to stress or their recreational habits, but as an actual loss of their masculinity, the ultimate cost of gender equality.

The Post does go on to chronicle a whole batch of other reasons for why the tools might not work. In addition to the antidepressants and drug use and heavy drinking and anxiety and caffeine consumption, there's also the fact that once it happens once (due to nervousness or a bad mood or beer dick or whatever) the anxiety about it happening again can naturally become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

One of Stepp's subjects, George Washington University sophomore Peter Schneider, had an arousal problem with a girlfriend he'd been sleeping with for several weeks. Turns out, he'd been "smoking cigarettes and marijuana, popping Adderall in order to work through the night to finish his econ papers. He was drinking a lot and not getting any regular exercise." Hey, Scooby, I think we may have gotten to the bottom of that particular mystery! Another kid, G.W. senior James Daley, was with a girl who gave him a hard time the first time he couldn't perform. Understandably, he then experienced a couple of repeat non-performances. Now, he tells Stepp, he's worried that he's just headed downhill, that he's used up all his manly mojo.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that massive consumption of alcohol, cigarettes, drugs and caffeine takes a toll on a human body. And this is a generation of kids that has been pushed to achieve -- through hyper-scheduled play dates and after-school activities and college-prep courses -- to the point where "performance anxiety" is a whole new ballgame. And I'm perfectly willing to believe that a sexual economy where female desire is allowed to match male desire could lead to a changed playing field on which the boys were less motivated by the sense that sex is the equivalent of a touchdown, scored by pushing your way through the opposing team's defense.

But why, when there are all these perfectly reasonable explanations -- explanations that, not for nothing, could turn out to be productive if we reacted to them by educating boys about the effects of recreational substance use, or developing and prescribing pills with fewer sexual side effects, or encouraging guys to get used to a sex life in which they're on equal footing with their partners -- do we have to immediately start in on the ghoulish, desire-sapping, sexless succubus of women's liberation?

Stepp writes, "One can argue that a young woman speaking her mind is a sign of equality" -- um, yes, one can argue that. But human sexuality prof Sawyer, the father of four daughters, says that, "for some guys, it has come at a price. It's turned into ED in men you normally wouldn't think would have ED." Are we straight on that? Women speak their minds; men don't want to have sex with them anymore.

It all falls into the John Tierney school of thought that says that all these overachieving college girls are going to end up single. All the libidinous ones are going to go sexless as well. Why don't we just buckle up our chastity belts and give those boys something to focus on unlocking already? Because lord knows, our eager, aroused bodies are totally harshing their hard-ons!

We Win the Banana!

2006-05-17T07:28:00.000-04:00

Remember this gem of creationist stupidity form Ray Comfort and Mike Seaver . . . uh, Kirk Cameron?

Well, It's dead

Hellbound Alleee : I'm just saying that, that there are very few plants, and we argue - with some environmentalists a lot who don't believe in bioengineered food, because all, because most of the food that we eat of course is farmed, and is done through horticulture, and we've engineered these - these fruits and vegetables to be more tasty to us. So actually, the banana seems to be not, not made by God at this point, it's more like um... what, what came first, the banana or the hand ? [laugh] You know ? Man took the banana and made it better for man...

Ray Comfort : Okay, you've got that one. You can have the banana.

Francois Tremblay : WE WIN ! WE WIN ! WE'VE WON THE BANANA !

Linkie

Threats? Intimidation? Bigotry? Must be the Religious "Right"

2006-05-17T07:27:00.000-04:00

Hate Mongers turning on GOP

WASHINGTON, May 13 — Some of President Bush's most influential conservative Christian allies are becoming openly critical of the White House and Republicans in Congress, warning that they will withhold their support in the midterm elections unless Congress does more to oppose same-sex marriage, obscenity and abortion.

"There is a growing feeling among conservatives that the only way to cure the problem is for Republicans to lose the Congressional elections this fall," said Richard Viguerie, a conservative direct-mail pioneer.

Mr. Viguerie also cited dissatisfaction with government spending, the war in Iraq and the immigration-policy debate, which Mr. Bush is scheduled to address in a televised speech on Monday night.

"I can't tell you how much anger there is at the Republican leadership," Mr. Viguerie said. "I have never seen anything like it." (mod note: It we're angry at them, and their own base is angry at them, what happens come November?)

In the last several weeks, Dr. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family and one of the most influential Christian conservatives, has publicly accused Republican leaders of betraying the social conservatives who helped elect them in 2004. He has also warned in private meetings with about a dozen of the top Republicans in Washington that he may turn critic this fall unless the party delivers on conservative goals.

Bush hasn't done enough damage to this country for Jimmy "Thumb Screws" Dobson.

And at a meeting in Northern Virginia this weekend of the Council for National Policy, an alliance of the most prominent Christian conservatives, several participants said sentiment toward the White House and Republicans in Congress had deteriorated sharply since the 2004 elections.

WhoohoO!

When the group met in the summer of 2004, it resembled a pep rally for Mr. Bush and his allies on Capitol Hill, and one session focused on how to use state initiatives seeking to ban same-sex marriage to help turn out the vote. This year, some participants are complaining that as soon as Mr. Bush was re-elected he stopped expressing his support for a constitutional amendment banning such unions.

Christian conservative leaders have often threatened in the months before an election to withhold their support for Republicans in an effort to press for their legislative goals. In the 1990's, Dr. Dobson in particular became known for his jeremiads against the Republican party, most notably in the months before the 1998 midterm elections.

But the complaints this year are especially significant because they underscore how the broad decline in public approval for Mr. Bush and Congressional Republicans is beginning to cut into their core supporters. The threatened defections come just two years after many Christian conservatives — most notably Dr. Dobson — abandoned much of their previous reservations and poured energy into electing Republicans in 2004.

{snip}

Republican officials, who were granted anonymity to speak publicly because of the sensitivity of the situation, acknowledged the difficult political climate but said they planned to rally conservatives by underscoring the contrast with Democrats and emphasizing the recent confirmations of two conservatives to the Supreme Court.

That's right folks! This is all they've got to go on. They've FAILED in all respects so the best thing they can come up with to celebrate and to showcase for their knuckle-dragging constituents is the two new Nazis sitting on the bench. How the pseudo-mighty have sunk even lower.

Midterm Congressional elections tend to be won by whichever side can motivate more true believers to vote. Dr. Dobson and other conservatives are renewing their complaints about the Republicans at a time when several recent polls have shown sharp declines in approval among Republicans and conservatives. And compared with other constituencies, evangelical Protestants have historically been suspicious of the worldly business of politics and thus more prone to stay home unless they feel clear moral issues are at stake.

"When a president is in a reasonably strong position, these kind of leaders don't have a lot of leverage," said Charlie Cook, a nonpartisan political analyst. "But when the president is weak, they tend to have a lot of leverage."

Dr. Dobson, whose daily radio broadcast has millions of listeners, has already signaled his willingness to criticize Republican leaders. In a recent interview with Fox News on the eve of a visit to the White House, he accused Republicans of "just ignoring those that put them in office."

Dr. Dobson cited the House's actions on two measures that passed over the objections of social conservatives: a hate-crime bill that extended protections to gay people, and increased support for embryonic stem cell research.

{snip}

According to people who were at the meetings or were briefed on them, Dr. Dobson has made the same point more politely in a series of private conversations over the last two weeks in meetings with several top Republicans, including (newly indicted) Karl Rove, the president's top political adviser; Senator (Doctor by Remote Diagnosis) Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader; Representative J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois, the House speaker; and Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the majority leader.

People are getting concerned that they have not seen some of these issues move forward that were central to the 2004 election," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, who attended the meetings.

Richard D. Land, a top official of the Southern Baptist Convention who has been one of Mr. Bush's most loyal allies, said in an interview last week that many conservatives were upset that Mr. Bush had not talked more about a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

Yeah, who gives a fuck about the millions of uninsured in this country. Who gives a fuck about all the Republicans being indicted. Who gives a fuck about global warming, illegal war, bird flu, the sinking dollar, or terrorism. We MUST stop them fags from thinking they should be allowed full citizenship! Xians MUST deny other human beings their basic rights as citizens of the US is they are to maintain moral superiority.

Goodness, if there is a god, he's embarrassed these asshats speak for him.

"A lot of people are disappointed that he hasn't put as much effort into the marriage amendment as he did for the prescription drug benefit or Social Security reform," Dr. Land said.

Psst, "Dr." Land - that failed too.

Republicans say they are taking steps to revive their support among Christian conservatives. On Thursday night, (newly indicted) Mr. Rove made the case for the party at a private meeting of the Council for National Policy, participants said.

Further case making by Rove will be done from his cell at Attica.

In addition to reminding conservatives of the confirmations of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. (Zeig Heil!) to the Supreme Court, party strategists say the White House and Senate Republicans are escalating their fights against the Democrats over conservative nominees to lower federal courts, and the Senate is set to revive the same-sex marriage debate next month with a vote on the proposed amendment.

It's pretty sad that smoke screen issues is all they have left to them. It's even more sad dumbass conservative xians will fall for it.

But it is unclear how much Congressional Republicans will be able to do for social conservatives before the next election.

Is "social conservative" a new euphemism for "bigot"?

But let's take a closer look at how serious these repubs who whore themselves for Jesus actually care about this oh-so-pressing non-issues:

No one expects the same-sex marriage amendment to pass this year. Republican leaders have not scheduled votes on a measure to outlaw transporting minors across state lines for abortions, and the proposal faces long odds in the Senate. A measure to increase obscenity fines for broadcasters is opposed by media industry trade groups, pitting Christian conservatives against the business wing of the party, and Congressional leaders have not committed to bring it to a vote.

Not at all, apparently. How can anyone not see this for what it is? Whoring themselves for votes. OF COURSE nothing was done about it, Thumbscrews. They don't actually care what you bigots want done; they want your votes. That's it.

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and another frequent participant in the Council for National Policy, argued that Christian conservatives were hurting their own cause.

"If the Republicans do poorly in 2006," Mr. Norquist said, "the establishment will explain that it was because Bush was too conservative, specifically on social and cultural issues."

Dr. Dobson declined to comment. (mod: duh. Someone has to tell him what to say, first) His spokesman, Paul Hetrick, said that Dr. Dobson was "on a fact-finding trip to see where Republicans are regarding the issues that concern values voters most, especially the Marriage Protection Act," and that it was too soon to tell the results.

Translation: He's got a date with Pablo, his pool-boy.

So, thats the extent of the Repub platform. We'll have to endure another summer of endless, and brainless bigotry from hate-mongering pretend Xian republican politicians. Then, come November if we haven't all died from bird flu, killed in bizzare natural disasters, or blown up by a true believer, we'll get to see if Americans really are that fucking dumb, or if there's even a shred of hope to hang on to.

A sign of Bush's Personal Apocalypse

2006-05-17T07:26:00.000-04:00

When the maker of a two hour long snuff movie thinks you have gone too far, you have.

Gibson inspired by 'fear-mongering' Bush
(mod note: this is obviously not what is written in the actual article)

Uber-conservative Holocaust-minimizing homophobes like - oh, and Film star and director - Mel Gibson has launched a scathing attack on US President George W Bush, comparing his leadership to the barbaric rulers of the Mayan civilisation in his new snuff film Apocalypto, in which he'll play the role he plays in every movie - the christ-like figure, tortured.

The epic, due for release later this year, captures the decline of the Maya kingdom and the slaughter of thousands of inhabitants as human sacrifices in a bid to save the nation from collapsing. (see? another snuff film)

Gibson reveals he used present day American politics as an inspiration, claiming the government callously plays on the nation's insecurities to maintain power. (mod note: oh happy noodles on a chopstick, I agree with Gibson)

He tells British film magazine Hotdog, "The fear-mongering we depict in the film reminds me of President Bush and his guys".

As opposed to YOUR kind of mongering, you whackadoo?

Crisis Pregnancy Centers: More Tools in the Forced Breeding Agenda's Arsenal

2006-05-12T09:44:00.000-04:00

And, of course, more evidence of flat out dishonesty by Christians in the Forced Breeding Agenda.

Crisis Pregnancy Centers: More Tools in the Anti-Choice Arsenal

According to Planned Parenthood of Indiana, a 17-year-old girl mistakenly walked into a so-called "crisis pregnancy center" (CPC) thinking it was a Planned Parenthood clinic, which was located next door. The "clinic" took down the girl's confidential personal information and told her to come back for her appointment, which would be in their "other" office, the real Planned Parenthood office.

When she showed up for her nonexistent appointment, she was met by the police, who had been erroneously tipped that a minor was being forced to undergo an abortion. The CPC staff continued their harassment by staking out the girl's house, phoning her father at work, and even telling her classmates about her pregnancy, urging them to harass her.

According to the Feminist Women's Health Center, anti-abortion groups have set up crisis pregnancy centers throughout the United States. They are often located near high schools or legitimate reproductive health clinics, following a format suggested by the Pearson Foundation in its manual How to Start and Operate Your Own ProLife Outreach Crisis Pregnancy Center. Nearly all of these centers are operated by churches or religious organizations.

Going by such names as Crisis Pregnancy Center, Pregnancy Aid, Birth Right, Open Door or Pregnancy Counseling Center, these "clinics" are listed in the yellow pages under abortion alternatives, clinics, medical services, or family planning although they do not provide abortions. Most offer free pregnancy tests, pregnancy "counseling" and/or ultrasounds to lure desperate or confused women

According to the Feminist Women's Health Center, most CPCs will insist the woman come to their facility to obtain information and take a pregnancy test when contacted by phone. Women have reported being forced to watch grossly deceptive antiabortion videos and being bombarded with anti-choice propaganda while waiting up to an hour for their results. Some women have been denied the results of their pregnancy test when they say they want an abortion or that they need the test result to apply for medical assistance.

Crisis pregnancy centers can be not only psychologically damaging but physically dangerous. Blue Carreker, vice president of public affairs and marketing for Upper Hudson Planned Parenthood, told the Institute for Humanist Studies that CPCs are staffed solely by volunteers yet take confidential patient information. Not being accountable to a professional medical organization, they can then use this information to wreak havoc with a patient's life.

Even more troubling is that CPCs purport to provide sensitive medical information and care. They refuse or fail to provide contraceptive information, telling unmarried women that abstinence is the only way to avoid pregnancy. They provide blatantly false information that abortion leads to great psychological and physical harm.

More and more CPCs are performing ultrasounds without the aid of a medical professional, which could lead to misinterpretation of vital patient data. Patients who believe that they have received sound medical care may not go elsewhere for prenatal care.

Many crisis pregnancy centers are funded by U.S. tax dollars. Because of the Bush Administration's emphasis on abstinence-only educational programs, there is growing legislative support to direct taxpayer money towards CPCs and away from clinics that provide actual reproductive services to low-income women. Money is also raised in several states through the sale of "Choose Life" license plates. According to Planned Parenthood, there are currently six CPCs in the U.S. for every legitimate clinic that provides abortions.

Carreker believes that CPCs have every right to exist but argues against their deceptive practices and abuse of confidential patient information. Although Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) recently introduced the Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women's Services (SDAWS) Act, which would apply truth-in-advertising standards to CPCs, Carreker believes that passage of SDAWS is a low priority in the legislature. One hopes that disseminating the truth regarding deceptive and harmful crisis pregnancy centers will alert women to their existence so that they can avoid misguided interference in their reproductive health care and decisions.

Once again for the slow group - the Forced Breeding Agenda aka "Pro-life" is nothing more than religious asshats LYING, MISLEADING and ENDANGERING women who seek help. So much for the religious being moral. It's nothing more than "fuck you, slut, you deserve to give birth as punishment because non-existant humans are more important than your slutty ass. But Jesus loves you. Unless you have that abortion."

For secularists who are pro-life, I ask you, does this make you happy? Are these the sorts of people you're proud to have on your side?

The Very Definition of Miserable Failure: George W. Bush

2006-05-11T09:34:00.000-04:00

Another For the GOP Scorecard

2006-05-11T08:22:00.000-04:00

ANN COULTER VOTER FRAUD

BRAD BLOG Publishes Exclusive Documents: Incident Report, Letter to Coulter from Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections
GOP Propagandist May Also Be Guilty of Tax Code Fraud for Taking $25,000 'Homestead Exemption' if She Doesn't Actually Live in Palm Beach

Republican extremist/hate-monger, Ann Coulter may be on the verge of being tossed from the Voter Rolls in Palm Beach County, Florida.

The BRAD BLOG has also obtained exclusive official documents from the chain of events which has helped bring the GOP darling to a new place in her career: She has fallen completely silent.

Coulter, who appears to have committed a third-degree felony by knowingly giving an incorrect address on her voter registration form in Palm Beach, Florida, and then knowingly voting at the incorrect polling place last March, could face up to $5,000 in fines and five years in prison if convicted.

In April, The BRAD BLOG posted Coulter's fraudulent Voter Registration form in full. Today, we have more official and exclusive documents from the incident.

In light of Coulter's apparent voter fraud felony, the Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections, Dr. Arthur Anderson, had sent her a letter last March (posted in full below), giving her 30 days to explain her actions, before possibly referring the matter to the state attorney for prosecution. So far, Coulter has failed to reply at all. Officials now say she may be removed from the voter rolls.

The Palm Beach Posts's Jose Lambiet originally broke this story back in March, and today adds a few new details in an update:

The elections office tried to contact her again last week with another missive. No response. Now, the voting-eligibility watchdogs are losing patience.

"We may start the administrative procedure to remove Ms. Coulter from the voter rolls this week," said Charmaine Kelly, deputy elections chief. "There will be a public hearing to cancel her registration. If that happens, she won't be able to vote until she re-registers. It's a rather rare procedure."

The incident was first reported to county officials by Precinct Advisor James Whited (incident report posted in full below) who had informed Coulter that her true home address, at 242 Seabreeze Ave., did not match the one on her voter registration. Coulter, had inexplicably used her Real Estate agent's address on the voter registration form which includes a signature next to an oath which says, in part, "All information on this form is true" and acknowledges the third-degree felony penalties for lying.

Whited explains in the report that he advised Coulter of the problem:

Ms. Coulter then said, "What was the problem?" It was explained that she needed to fill out a change of address form in order to vote in Precinct 1198. She countered with, "Where would I vote with the address that I have?" I advised her that it would be at St. Edward's Church. She said ''thank you" and hurriedly went out the door and down the driveway. I followed her to the edge of the driveway trying to get her to return but to no avail. I had no idea where she was going when she left the precinct.

Coulter would shortly thereafter cast her ballot at St. Edward's Church where she would have completed the final act of her knowing voter fraud. According to Michelle Pilecki at Huffington Post, Coulter has since been attacking those who question her about the incident on her speaking tour. Comment at that linked story, posted by a student who attended one of Coulter's events reported:

Ann Coulter spoke on my campus tonight, and I asked her "I was just wondering if you would like to respond to allegations that you knowingly voted in the wrong precinct in Palm Beach."

She responded that "No, I don't live in Palm Beach. Maybe you shouldn't read retarded news!"

But "retarded news" site, The BRAD BLOG linked to several documents which indicate, in no uncertain terms, that Coulter purchased a $1.8 million dollar crib in Palm Beach in March of 2005. If that is not her residence, Coulter would still be guilty of an apparent voter fraud felony, since she did register to vote in Palm Beach...even if at the wrong address.

As well, Coulter has received a $25,000 homestead tax exemption, which, according to Palm Beach law, would only be available to use as a tax deduction on the property if she "lives there permanently".

For the first time, to our knowledge, The BRAD BLOG now publishes the complete incident report on the matter, as filed by Whited, along with the original certified letter sent to Coulter by Anderson -- which has subsequently been ignored. We post both, along with the "Statement of Legal Residence" form which Anderson requested, on March 27th, be returned by Coulter within thirty days, below...

(Awesome graphic above courtesy of Towelroad.com)

Image One

Image Two

(Hat tip to Daniel Borchers of Citizens for Principled Conservatism and to several BRAD BLOG readers for their various tips and information provided and used while researching for this article.)

GOP Scorecard

2006-05-10T09:40:00.001-04:00

Found this on Huff Po

For all those out there who believe that being a Liberal is equal to being an evil sinning criminal.

Republican legal problems:

Alaska
Senate President Ben Stevens (son of US Senate Pro Tem President Ted Stevens)
Probed for accepting consulting fees from oil services firm Veco. Subject to a recall petition.

California
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
Ethics Probe for accepting salary from two men's fitness magazines while governor, possible kickback from American Media publisher to Schwarzenegger charity and silence money to a woman who had an extramarital affair with Schwarzenegger. This Probe may go criminal.

Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham
Probed for bribery regarding financial ties with and favors for defense firm MZM. Pleaded guilty to tax evasion, conspiracy, Nov. 28, 2005.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher
Tied to Abramoff scandal on loan papers. Recipient of contributions from Abramoff

Connecticut
Gov. John Rowland
Convicted, imprisoned 2004

Delaware
Attorney General Jane Brady
Accused of helping MBNA Bank of Wilmington skirt campaign finance laws.
DC

Jack Abramoff, GOP lobbyist
Indicted, wire fraud, conspiracy

Adam Kidan, DC Dial-a-Mattress franchise owner in DC and Abramoff associate since College Republican days when Abramoff was chairman
Indicted, wire fraud, conspiracy. To plead guilty in return for his testimony against Abramoff

Michael Scanlon, former chief of staff to Tom DeLay
Being probed for involvement in Indian casino scandal with Abramoff, Kidan, and DeLay. Indicted Nov. 18, 2005 for conspiracy to defraud Indian tribes. Pleaded guilty Nov. 21.

Steve Rosen, American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)
Indicted for criminal conspiracy involving classified national security information

Keith Weismann, AIPAC
Indicted for criminal conspiracy involving classified national security informationI

Larry Franklin, Colonel, USAF Reserves, Dept. of Defense
Indicted for criminal conspiracy involving classified national security information

Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President's Chief of Staff
Probed for illegal disclosure of CIA classified information. Indicted on 5 counts: Obstruction of justice, making false statements and perjury

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove
Probed for illegal disclosure of CIA classified information. New Grand Jury investigating Rove

David H. Safavian, Head of Procurement Policy, Office of Management and Budget, former Chief of Staff, General Service Administration
Arrested by FBI for making false statements about helping Jack Abramoff acquire two Federal properties in DC and Maryland.

Ex-Corporation for Public Broadcasting Chairman and current Broadcasting Board of Governors member Kenneth Tomlinson
Under investigation for violating the Public Broadcasting Act

Patricia Harrison, President Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Probed for violating Public Broadcasting Act

Vice President Dick Cheney
Investigated for criminal conspiracy in divulging the identity of covert CIA agent

President George W. Bush
Probed in Abramoff scandal for accepting bags of illegal campaign cash from Seminole casino interests in Florida

J. Steven Griles, former Interior Deputy Secretary
Probed for links to Abramoff

Florida
Rep. Katherine Harris, US Senate candidate
Probed for campaign donations from MZM, Inc. (related to Duke Cunningham )

Georgia
Ralph Reed, candidate for Lt. Gov.
Probed for involvement in Abramoff, Kidan, DeLay Indian casino money laundering.

Guam
Gov. Felix Camacho
Probed for ties to Abramoff and demoting Acting US Attorney for Guam Frederick Black
Hawaii

Dalton Tanonaka, former Lt. gubernatorial and congressional candidate
Under FEC investigation for disguising and failing to report campaign loans. Also Investigated for possible illegal foreign funding from Hong Kong and Japan.

State Rep. and House Minority Leader Galen Fox
Convicted on federal charges of fondling a woman on a Honolulu to Los Angeles commercial flight

Illinois
Dennis Hastert
Probed
Republican National Treasurer Bob Kjellander
Under Federal Probe for steering investment contracts to Illinois Teachers Retirement Fund.

Former House Leader State Rep. Lee Daniels (Elmhurst)
Under Federal investigation for misuse of state employees for political activity and state contract kickbacks

Indiana
Gov. Mitch Daniels
Under investigation for soliciting campaign donations in return for INDOT (Indiana Dept. of Transportation contracts)

Thomas Sharp, INDOT Commissioner
Under investigation for soliciting campaign donations in return for INDOT (Indiana Dept. of Transportation contracts)

Jim Kittle, GOP state chairman
Under investigation for soliciting campaign donations in return for INDOT (Indiana Dept. of Transportation contracts)

Kansas
Adam Taff
2004 congressional candidate (KS-3), indicted for campaign violations amnd wire fraud.

Kentucky
Gov. Ernie Fletcher
Criminal pobe in a state employees' merit system scandal. Received contributions from. DeLay's ARMPAC, linked to Abramoff.

Transportation Commissioner Dan Druen
Merit system scandal, witness tampering. Indicted.

Deputy Personnel Secretary Bob Wilson
Merit system scandal. Indicted

Darrell Brock, Chairman of Kentucky GOP
Merit system scandal. Indicted.

Gov. Personnel Adviser Basil Turbyfill
Merit system scandal. Indicted

Transportation Secretary ill Nighbert
Merit system scandal. Indicted

Dick Murgatroyd, Gov. Deputy Chief of Staff
Merit system scandal. Indicted

Jim Adams, Deputy Transportation Secretary
Merit system scandal. Indicted.

Cory Meadows, Executive Director, Transportation Dept.
Merit system scandal. Indicted.

Environmental Protection Commissioner Lloyd Cress
Probed in merit system scandal

Dave Disponett
Indicted for violation of Kentucky civil service law

Maryland
Joseph Steffen, aide to Gov. Bob Ehrlich
Resigned for starting a rumor campaign against Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley.

Massachusetts
Lawrence Novak, Vice Chair, state GOP
Arrested by FBI for drug money laundering

Michigan
Attorney General Mike Cox
Failed to pursue felony pollution charges against Graceland Fruit after a major Department of Environmental Quality investigation.

Rep. Candice Miller
Investigated by House Erthics Committee for accepting campaign contributions in return for her yes vote on the 2004 Medicare bill.

Minnesota
Rep. Roy Blunt, House Majority Leader
Investigated for trading illegal PAC money with DeLay through Blunt's Rely on Your Beliefs Fund. Received Indian casino money from tribes represented by Abramoff.

Montana
Sen. Conrad Burns
Probed for links to Abramoff

New Hampshire
Sen. John Sununu
Probed for receipt of money from DeLay tainted PAC

Rep. Jeb Bradley
Probed for receipt of money from DeLay tainted PAC

James Tobin, Northeast political director National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee
Indicted, conspiracy, GOTV phone line jamming, Sununu 2002 campaign. Convicted Dec. 15, on 2 telephone harassment charges.

Chuck McGee, former Exec. Dir. New Hampshire Republican Party
Pleaded guilty, conspiracy, GOTV phone line jamming, Sununu 2002 campaign

Allen Raymond, GOP Marketplace President
Pleaded guilty to conspiracy, GOTV phone line jamming, Sununu 2002 campaign

New Jersey
GOP State Chairman Tom Wilson
Probed for his firm receiving $2.7 million from the Burlington County Bridge Commission

New York
Westchester County District Attorney Jeanine Pirro and US Senate candidate
Probed for campaign donations from mobsters. Her husband served a year in prison for tax evasion.

North Carolina
Rep. Charles Taylor
Probed for ownership of shady Russian bank - whose other major investor is a former KGB general. Recipient of contributions from Abramoff

Hayes Martin, Taylor Campaign Treasurer
Indicted, fraud and money laundering

Ohio
Gov. Bob Taft, Misuse of state funds/ethics violations
Convicted, four first degree misdemeanors, pleaded no contest (admission of guilt). $4000 fine and public apology, two Federal Grand Juries, one state Grand Jury still investigating Taft.

Thomas Noe, Bush-Cheney 04 campaign chair, NW Ohio; Turnpike Commissioner; University Regent
Misuse of state funds for rare coin fund. Indicted by Federal grand jury, arrested in Florida.

Bernadette Noe, Thomas Noe's wife; chair Lucas County GOP; chair Lucas Co. Board of Elections
Misuse of state funds

Brian Hicks, Taft chief of staff, member Ohio University Board of Trustees
convicted

Cherie Carroll, Taft Chief of Staff Executive Secretary
convicted

Rep. Bob Ney
Being Probed for involvement with Abramoff, Kidan, and DeLay, Indian casino money laundering. Recipient of contributions from Abramoff and Kidan. Indictment may be imminent.

Rep. Jean Schmidt
Probe of financial ties to Games, Inc., and proposal to put Ohio State Lottery on the Internet. Received contributions from. DeLay's ARMPAC, linked to Abramoff

Douglas Moormann, Gov. Taft's Executive Assistant for Business and Industry
Under criminal investigation for accepting loan from Noe.

Walden O'Dell, Chairman & CEO of Diebold, Bush-Cheney major campaign contributor who promised to "deliver" Ohio to Bush in 2004
Resigned for "personal reasons" Dec. 13, 2005 after initiation of a class action lawsuit against Diebold for securities fraud.

State Rep. Dan Doyle
Misused campaign funds. Convicted.

Pennsylvania
Rep. Don Sherwood
Investigated by DC police for assaulting and choking a 29-year old Maryland woman

Rhode Island
Former House candidate (2002) Mike Battles
Firm, Custer Battles, disbarred from Iraq contracts after allegations of over charging and money laundering

Providence Mayor Vince Cianci
Imprisoned in 2002 for 5 years.

South Carolina
Rep. Bill Janklow
Guilty, second degree manslaughter, imprisoned. Recipient of contributions from Abramoff

Tennessee
Sen. Bill Frist
Under Securities and Exchange Commission investigation for insider trading on his Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) stock

Texas
Rep. Tom DeLay, House Majority Leader
Probed for campaign finance fraud, ties to Abramoff/Kidan, Saipan sweat shops. Grand Jury, Travis County prosecutor, and House Ethics Committee probing DeLay. Indicted by Travis County District Attorney for 1 count of criminal conspiracy and 2 counts of money laundering. arrested and booked at Harris County jail October 20, 2005. Recipient of contributions from Abramoff. Conspiracy to commit money laundering and money laundering charges still stand after Texas Judge dropped the one count of criminal conspiracy on December 5, 2005.

Jim Ellis, Director Americans for a Republican Majority (ARMPAC) PAC tied to DeLay and Abramoff
Indicted

John Colyandro, Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC), DeLay associate
Indicted

Warren RoBold, Lobbyist and DeLay associate
Indicted

House Speaker Tom Craddick
Probed for campaign violations involving TRMPAC and DeLay

Sam Walls, candidate for Texas House
Photos of him wearing women's clothes surfaced in the 2004 runoff campaign

State Rep. Todd Baxter
Investigated for receiving ARMPAC and TRMPAC money from Republican National Committee. To resign from office on Nov. 1, 2005

Rep. Kevin Brady
Recipient of $10,000 from ARMPAC in 2003. Arrested for DWI in South Dakota.

Rep. Pete Sessions
Probed for receiving money from casino Indian tribes represented by Abramoff

Vermont
Rep. Virgil Goode
Probed for contributions from MZM, Inc. (related to Duke Cunningham probe)

Washington
Spokane Mayor Jim West
Under Federal and state investigation for abusing his office to obtain sexual favors and soliciting sex over the Internet from underage males. Recalled Dec. 6, 2005 by a 2-1 margin.

GOP Scorecard

I'm confused - isn't this GOD'S own party? >:)

The New Pandemic!!!

2006-05-10T08:13:00.000-04:00

Erectile Dysfunction. No, I'm not kidding.

This is what the Washington Post has been reduced too. Found via Tennesee Guerilla Womenby MzNicky

Every now and then you come across a news report that’s just so heartbreaking, so unremittingly lamentable, that you have to stop reading for a moment, close your eyes, and take a deep, shuddering breath before you can continue.

I saw just such a story in the Washington Post yesterday. After double-checking the source to make sure it wasn’t really from the Onion, I forced myself to read all about the crushing "epidemic" currently sweeping the nation’s college campuses: Erectile Dysfunction (ED).

That’s right. It seems there’s a pandemic of limp-dicked frat rats.

I know that by now you are rending your garments and wailing, "Why, oh why? What could possibly be at the, er, root of this catastrophe?" And yet, you knew the answer, didn't you?, before you even knew there was a question. No, it’s not the binge drinking, the pot, ecstasy, or meth; it's not the antidepressants or the smoking, or even the sitting for hours on end stuffing the face with Chee-tos® while surfing for porn or pounding the X-Box instead of bench-pressing and hoops-shooting—although the WaPo writer dutifully mentions in passing these possible explanations for this plague of undergraduate impotence. No! It is, of course, the damned oversexed college-aged women who, through their misguided ideas about sexual entitlement, are creating this oppressive sucking vortex of tragically unspent seed!

“Young women are now as likely as young men ... to initiate sex, taking away from males the age-old, erotic power of the chase,” we are told. Further, notes the writer, quoting one of the several medical experts required to give a news story its putative credibility, “One can argue that a young woman speaking her mind is a sign of equality. ‘That's a good thing,’ says Sawyer, father of four daughters. ‘But for some guys, it has come at a price. It's turned into ED in men you normally wouldn't think would have ED.’” There. Happy now, you emasculating little loudmouthed bitches?

By the way, note that we no longer refer to chronic penile flaccidity as “impotence.” As the writer earnestly explains, “No physician or therapist would think of using the word impotence because its literal meaning -- lack of power -- is precisely the possibility their clients fear the most.” Nevermind that “ED” isn’t even a medical condition.
As Lindsay Beyerstein at Majikthise points out:

[B]ig pharma has invested heavily in convincing doctors and consumers that ED is a serious health problem that needs to be treated. A lot of what they say is absolutely true and important. Chronic performance problems can be a warning sign of heart disease, diabetes, and other serious problems. ... [Viagra® manufacturer] Pfizer’s one-two punch is to argue that either ED is itself a disease, or that it’s a sign of a disease. Albeit, it's frequently a disease defined exclusively by the patient's subjective dissatisfaction, but the bottom line is that aggressive medical management is indicated!

But let’s set aside the cynical notion that a media outlet would pimp a pharmaceutical company’s attempts to create a new market by lending credence to a nonexistent clinical condition, which of course we know never happens, and get back to the tragedy at hand. Interwoven into the sad tales of each of the luckless young dudes the writer managed to dig up and portray in this story to give it the requisite “human face” is the same subtextual insinuation: It’s all women’s fault.(mod: sounds like religion, huh)

Adam, for example, “hooked up with a sophomore -- at her urging. The girl really wanted to make a go of it with him. ... she had offered to be his 'friend with benefits,' and he had agreed. In his mind, that decision was a no-brainer. But on this night, their first in bed, his body was telling him something else. She used every trick she knew, with no success. Adam panicked. 'I've had no problem with this before,' he thought. ‘What if this gets out? What if she tells her girlfriends? My reputation will be ruined.’"

Oh NO! And to think—anxiety over potential reputation-ruining is what girls, not guys, should be worried about! Right? Whatever is happening to the youth of America!

Another would-be stud was “20 years old, good-looking ... He said he could never get to the relationship because when he went out with a woman, she wanted to have sex almost immediately. He never got comfortable enough to tell them he had a problem, so he stopped dating." Another perfectly good specimen shot down in his prime by hordes of voracious female sex fiends. And that’s just not right, dammit! Because "'When the tools work, there's nothing like it,' says Devin Jones, a sophomore at Maryland, who read several how-to books about sex before going all the way with his first girlfriend. ‘When she got an orgasm, I felt like the man,’ he says in an interview, pounding his fists on his chest.” That’s right. He actually pounded his chest with his fists. Because his tool worked, like it’s supposed to.

Still another tale of woe concerns a George Washington University manly man who is “tall and good-looking with dark hair and gray-green eyes, [a] member of a fraternity so bad and so much fun that university officials refuse to sanction it.” (Wow! Beat that, you non-Animal House losers! Sorry; bad choice of words No offense, Big Guy.) In furtherance of his erstwhile fuckability, we are told that “he works at a bank and has a job lined up after school -- a fact that the ambitious women at GW love.” (Of course they do! That’s what “ambitious women” do—seek out future six-figure-earners and then rob them of their manly essences!) “He has charmed probably two dozen girls away from bars and into his bed over four years at school, all consenting partners, he says.” (Police records were apparently unavailable.) A litany of disappointing “hookup” failures follows, during which the studly dude's revolving door of receptacles all expressed such frustration and impatience that, "Not surprisingly, system shutdown ensued.”

And so on, and so on, one heart-rending example of this "epidemic" after another. Of course, this being a story in a a majorly respectable content-providing newspaper, there’s “balance,” because the writer includes some equal-opportunity blaming via a chick quote: "'I know lots of girls for whom nothing is off limits,' says Helen Czapary, a junior at the University of Maryland. ‘The pressure on the guys is a huge deal.’” Ha ha! And you thought by “balance,” I meant there’d be something along the lines of what these succubus coeds might have to say about the situation! As if whatever pathetic opinions college sluts might offer to excuse their effeminizing behavior is even relevant! Look, nothing less than the survival of humanity is at stake here, because “...sexual performance is still, in the minds of many males, the sign of authority and dominance, perhaps the last such symbol in a society slogging its way toward gender equality.”

Oh. My. God. Will someone please wake me, not to mention the Washington Post, when that long, slow walk is finally done? I’ll be over there in the corner, curled up in a comatose fetal ball. Oh, sorry. Make that fetal “hollow sphere.” Wouldn’t want to create any more euphemistic pressure on the erectilely dysfunctional; sounds like they’ve already got their hands full.

The article ends with a guy who admits he let a girl believe she was the problem. She told him should couldn't please him, and he let her believe it - lest his ever precious reputation be harmed. But, he feels a little guilty about it now. (imagine how the chick feels. I hope she reads this.)

So, to sum up - if you can't get it up, don't be honest with your partner - lie, let her think it's her fault. Blame it on the women you've managed to get into your bed. Do whatever you have to do. Your reputation is of more importance than the dumb whore you're with. Don't bother with trying to actually be a better lover, just bitch and moan about her knowing you are awful in bed. I mean, HOW DARE she want satifaction to, the slut.

Does anyone else find it just a little repulsive that this dingbat choses "Cupid's Broken Arrow" for the title of a piece about promiscuity and one night stands?

Oy.

Virginity Pledge, Smirginity Pledge!

2006-05-09T09:02:00.000-04:00

Found here: Pandagon

Like Tbogg says, lying about sex is as American as baseball and apple pie. A quick perusal of the culture of virginity fetishism will tell you that it’s a system where there’s a great deal of incentive to lie and not really much incentive to tell the truth. After all, if you pledge to stay a virgin, you get a lot of attention and some nice jewelry and if that pledge is a lie, it’s not like anyone is going to finding out you’re fucking on the sly. But on top of that, a recent study shows that the main issue with virginity pledges is they are easily made but also easily broken.

So easily broken that according to A recent study:
"Recanting virginity pledges: The analysis also found that 52 percent of adolescent virginity pledgers in the 1995 survey disavowed the virginity pledge at the next survey a year later. Additionally, 73 percent of virginity pledgers from the first survey who subsequently reported sexual intercourse denied in the second survey that they had ever pledged."

Again, no big surprise. Virginity pledges are a front-loaded incentive campaign without any back end enforcement. Generally speaking, if you bait someone with a bunch of goodies, you have to be able to hold them accountable for their promise when they try to weasel out of it later. Like, you know, the way credit card companies work. But there’s no real incentive to stick to the pledge once taken.Luckily, your average wingnut isn’t weighed down with common sense or willingness to look at the facts. Janice Crouse of Concerned Women of America has looked at the facts and decided they’re wrong because she have even better “facts”.

Here's some "facts" from Concerned Women of America (read: Stepford Wives of the GOP):

This new finding by Harvard is misleading and deceptive.

Ironically, this statement that the study is misleading and deceptive is in itself a misleading and deceptive statement. The study isn’t deceptive nor is it misleading. It’s just inconvienent, which is another ball game altogether.

Here's some more "facts":
Those who have committed to saving sex for marriage are to be congratulated and encouraged, said Dr. Janice Crouse, CWAs Senior Fellow of the Beverly LaHaye Institute.

Even if you assume, which I most definitely do not, that there’s a good reason to wait to have sex until you get sucked into a legal contract that’s hard to get out of, this still isn’t a logical statement that Crouse is making. Her desire to congratulate the minority of people who wait until marriage to have sex doesn’t magic the rest of us back to virginity anymore than my desire to congratulate people who never picked up smoking to begin with magics the nicotine out of cigarettes.

Time for more "facts":
This study is in direct contradiction with the trends we have been seeing in recent years both teen pregnancies and teen abortions are down, and evidence indicates these trends are related to increased abstinence among teens.

Except Abstinence wasn’t a factor in the change in the pregnancy and abortion rate, actually. Apparently, the growth in injectable hormonal birth control had a lot more to do with it, which makes sense because it’s probably the best way to prevent pregnancy without having devices around that could be seen by a parent.

But, that doesn't stop th Stepford Wives from lying.
Lie #1:
"Those who make virginity pledges have shown greater resolve to save sex for marriage. At the same time, those who have not made a conscious decision to abstain from sex are more likely to engage in premarital sexual activity."

In other words, girls who don’t want to wait for marriage are less resolved to wait for marriage than those who want to wait for marriage. Or, since we are discussing lying here–girls who don’t care what you think about their sex life are less likely to tell you what you want to hear than girls who are afraid you’ll think they’re sluts.

Crouse must have been a great mom if her idea of proof you’re not lying is that the lie she heard sounded better than the truth.

Lie #2:
"Abstinence education is the only effective tool for teaching young men and women the dangers of promiscuous behavior."

Actually, darlin', it's the only effective way to ensure you get pregnant teens.

Ah, no wonder they don’t care that the kids taking virginity pledges are lying or will lie about it later. They have no qualms about lying themselves. The most effective programs for spreading information on the dangers of promiscious behavior have got to be the ones that dramatically slowed down the HIV transmission rate in the 80s and 90s–you know, the ones where a combination of warnings about sleeping with people you don’t know well and education about condom usage were employed? That’s not abstinence-only and it worked.*

Lie #3:
"Pre-marital sex, especially with multiple partners, greatly increases the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and unintended pregnancies."

This statement is self-evidently false. The wedding ring doesn’t actually decrease your fertility and therefore has no effect whatsoever on your possibility of getting pregnant if you don’t use contraception.

cont:
"Not to mention the emotional impact of sexual intimacy."

Not to mention my fabulous recipe for queso. CWA mentions this but has nothing to say about it, I notice. Typical conservative weasel words–an attempt to imply that you can’t love someone if you ever touch a cock, but without coming out and saying it because straightforward language increases the chance that people will realize how stupid your beliefs really are.

Lie #4:
"The Harvard report is wrong."

Evidence to contradict the Harvard report should look something like this: “We have studies showing that kids stick to the virginity pledges because we secretly followed them with a camera to demonstrate that they do.” Or some other way to demonstrate that they have counterevidence that kids are telling the truth in the face of actual evidence that kids are lying.

So, evidence number #1 that Harvard’s report is wrong:
"I know numerous couples who have saved sex for their wedding night."

A few couples have told Crouse they waited and that means that a study showing most people don’t isn’t true. Because a few couples Crouse knows=most people in America.

Evidence #2 that the Harvard report is wrong:
"Research is clear that it is the best recipe for marital happiness and well-being."

This works in the same way that when I say, “Research shows that pink unicorns cheer people up,” means that everyone has a pet pink unicorn.

Evidence #3 that the Harvard report is wrong:
"Abstinence-until-marriage is a beautiful promise that should be encouraged and promoted."

Again, I disagree with her assertion that abstaining from sex is so great, but even if you agree, her point makes no sense. “Eating 5 servings of vegetables a day is good for you and should be promoted,” isn’t evidence that people actually eat 5 servings a day. Saying that it would be nice if it rained today won’t make it rain today.

Abstinence works and condoms work to slow down disease transmission, but both methods only work if they are used properly. Comprehensive sex education is like giving kids a seat belt and telling them to drive safe, whereas abstinence-only is like telling them to drive safe and then praying really hard they don’t get into a crash. The problem is that inconvienent studies show that prayer doesn’t work very well either.

*Which reminds me of something else that bugs the ever-living shit out of me about abstinence-only education. It’s the dictionary definition of heteronormative. Telling people to wait until marriage is a prettified way of telling gays and lesbians they can never have sex at all.

My favorite comment on the article:

"My girlfriend astutely pointed out that, psychologically, virginity pledges made by tweens are just as likely to backfire as to accomplish anything. After all, being a teenager is all about rebellion and carving out an identity for yourself that isn’t an extension of your parents’ will. What better way to do so than to break that stupid virginity pledge you made to your dad when you were twelve and didn’t have any idea what you were saying? "

Here's the thing, fundies and their Stepford Wives - PEOPLE WILL HAVE SEX WHETHER YOU WANT THEM TOO OR NOT. Now, I know this is painful for your pure and moral ears to hear, but the truth must be faced. People are going to get it on. Teenagers are going to get it on. So which is perferrable to you - A) a pledge given too early for the child to know what they are pledging too, and in the presence of a parent that they do not wish to disappoint that is discarded - or better yet, loopholes are found (like oral or anal sex instead of vaginal - well it's maintains virginity, doesn't it? Crafty kids you got there) - the instant Daddy isn't around. Or, B) comprehensive logical education that teaches kids about the dangers along side the ways to prevent them so that they are armed with the information of how to protect themselves, instead of paying meaningless lipservice to unrealistic and childish ideals?

I know what you're going to pick. You don't like education, (sex, scientific or anything else non-biblical) and that's OK. Just please teach your kids to use computers so that they don't mess up my 2 a.m. order at McDonald's, K?

Sometimes, I REALLY like being wrong

2006-05-08T13:27:00.000-04:00

I ended up playing hooky on Friday. Not because I wanted to slack off and have a day of dirty naughtiness with my hunka hunka burning lover. Alas, it was far less enjoyable than that.

I get up at 5 am on the weekdays to get my rear end to work by 6. Given the type of work that I do, it's pointless to make myself all pretty-like because I'll be covered in sawdust, paint and wood stain within a half hour of arriving at work. The only thing I care about in the morning is coffee, my cell phone and my wallet and attached keys.

At some point Thursday evening I lost my wallet/keys. I was heartbroken and FREAKING OUT. I realized this at 5:30 am - far to early to do anything about it. Not only could I not get into my car, I had no driver's liscence now. And even if I could, there was no way to get into my apartment. Not only was all my cash and credit cards gone, but now I had no picture id to go to the bank and get money out. Worst of all, I lost the pics of my loved ones.

While I was scrambling to cancel my credit cards and notify the bank about possible fradulent charges, I was bitching to the bf about how much people suck. When I was 13, I found a purse lying in near the door of an apartment store. I immediately took it to the customer service desk. A few minutes later, a nervous wreck of a woman came shaking over to the desk asking about the purse. It was returned to her and inbetween her thank yous and thank gods, she said she was shocked that I didn't open it and take something. Which, I thought was a little insulting since I hadn't even glanced inside. And now, here I was needing the same type of help from the universe and I get screwed.

I had these scenarios playing out in my head of someone going on a spending spree with my money, putting me deep into debt, defacing my loved ones' pictures. I was fuming.

'Round comes 3:30pm and the never-ending parade of school buses that brings. I was outside allowing a local locksmith to unlock my car so I could at least get what I needed out, when a group of neighborhood kids come strolling by.

They stop near me, and I'm expecting some taunting about locking my keys in the car or something, when one of them says, "Are you {insert my real name here}?" I say yes, and this kid goes running for his house. Not knowing what the hell was going on, I ignored it. A few minutes pass and here comes the kid jogging up to me holding my wallet/keys.

I nearly fainted.

Inside remained all my credit cards, all my cash and all my personal stuff, untouched. Of course, I'd already cancelled the bank and credit cards, but the point is they were there. AND THE CASH!!!

Now, I do a lot of volunteer work, but that doesn't stop me from being a misanthrope. People (can) suck. Read the newspaper - murder, mayhem, theft, rape, war - it's enough to make one a misanthrope.

But on occasion, you can see a small light of hope that we're not all headed down the proverbial crapper.

Sometimes, I really like being proven wrong.

A little Stress Reliver for Hump Day

2006-05-03T12:20:00.000-04:00

Fun with King George

Enjoy!

Human being - Sanity - Compassion = Theist

2006-05-02T12:44:00.000-04:00

This little gem comes by way of The Secular Outpost

Hostility Towards Atheists

Ilya Somin is a law professor at George Mason University who recently wrote several blog entries on prejudice against atheists, especially in the law:

Hostility to Atheists
More Hostility to Atheists
Still More Hostility to Atheists
Hostility to Atheists in the 1991 General Social Survey
Murders of Atheists Because of Their Beliefs about Religion

Somin later massaged these posts into a more formal article, "The Final Prejudice," that was published in The Legal Times, but that article is not available online.

Thanks to Eddie Tabash for making me aware of Somin's Legal Times article.

Update: I just read all of the comments on the "Still More..." link. It is amazing, if not depressing, to read such brazen anti-atheist bigotry from some of the respondents.

So, xians, what's that about you being oppressed for your (infantile) beliefs again?

What World Leader Are You?

2006-05-02T07:22:00.000-04:00

If you can't tell, I love these stupid little tests.

What Famous Leader Are You?
personality tests by similarminds.com

(thanks Atheist Jew)

The Rapture Crapture (Part 2)

2006-04-28T13:06:00.000-04:00

The Rapture Crapture (Part 2): Make War for Christ's Sake!

1-2-3-4 -- what are we waiting for? The Rapture Index which uses dozens of categories of disaster to predict the exact date of the Rapture reaches its self-imposed ceiling of 225! All over God's Chosen Nation, the elect (so-called because they win elections), feel lighter in their loafers in anticipation of zipping up to heaven.

Rumors fly of multiple fatalities attributed to drivers and pilots being snatched away by the Lord from their 18-wheelers and crop-dusters even as they toil. (Curiously they're all happening south of the Mason-Dixon line). And what would clinch it? What would force the mighty Lamb to return? Simple. Start a glorious blood-and-fireballs WAR! Screams-of-the-damned, billions-dead-as-the-nukes-fly WAR! Christ LOVES war! Didn't He promise way back when to give us the WAR of ALL WARS (Matt. 24.5-31)?

In Part 1 of the Rapture-Crapture, I said Part 2 would get into why the Loyal Opposition has to pay more attention to this apocalyptic twaddle if we seriously want to defeat the pseudo-Christian Taliban, most especially Talibangelists like Falwell, Robertson, Perkins, Dobson, le Haye, et al. (Actually I have nothing against al.)

But many Part 1 comments evinced interest in the origins of the Rapture -- for example that it has little or nothing to do with scripture having been invented out of whole cloth -- much as Mormonism was -- by an early 19th-century nut-job. I thought one more post about how it 'works' might be useful.

Know your enemy (so long as you also love him).

What makes the holy rams and ewes of the Southern Baptist and fundamentalist Evangelical flocks go all weak at the knees is that the End Time is unfolding in the very same lands they read about in the Bible! Long before 9/11, it had been pointed out by the Talibangelists, with rare historical accuracy, that Iraq was Babylon, the original evil empire. In turn this made Saddam the re-born Nebuchadnezzar, scourge of God's Chosen People. (Jews in the Bible; Americans in the pseudo-Christian 'literally interpreted' Bible). Saddam even tried to rebuild Babylon on its ancient ruins -- one of the most precious archeological sites in the world. Happily it's now occupied by the Marine Corps who dug 500-foot trenches through, built a helipad on, and graveled 300,000 square metres of, the Cradle of Civilization. Take that evil empire!

The Talibangelists aren't too fond of archeology anyway; there's always the danger it might prove something's older than October 24th 4004 BC (the exact date of creation according to creationists). It was a Monday if you recall. God did the whole job in one Judeo-Christian work-week at which point He kicked back and said "Thank Me it's Friday!" But I digress.

If like me, you still haven't figured exactly why Bush blithely earned the opprobrium of history and the world by his brutal blitzkrieg on the Iraqi people (oil? avenging Poppy? keeping Wolfowitz happy?) try this: as far as his base is concerned he biffed the Babylonians. The base didn't need a better reason and they still don't. And now it's time to smash the Medes and Persians (aka Iran).

If these neo-biblical events make the holy rams and ewes go all weak at the knees, imagine what the fate of Israel does to them. Israel is central to the Rapture-Crapture: the final battle between the returned Christ and Anti-Christ will be fought at Har-Megiddo (hence Ar-mageddon) near Haifa. The Christian Taliban, who within living memory blamed the Jews for every ill afflicting America, are now more Israeli than the Israelis. These newly minted ex-anti-Semites have almost single-handedly revived the moribund Israeli tourist industry: they all head straight for Megiddo to gloat over the oceans of infidel and secular humanist blood that will be shed there.

Earlier this month Texan Talibangelist John Hagee announced a new PAC, Christians United for Israel, to help out AIPAC. A lot of questions have arisen about whether CUI would oppose certain Israeli government plans, for example withdrawal from the West Bank. While that's a serious issue, the secret and far more important agenda here, which the Talibangelists keep to themselves, is the Crapture. You see, when Israel finally occupies Greater Israel -- something many Israelis believe would be rather an obstacle to peace -- the Rapture will be at hand.

Here's what happens next in the Talibangelist scenario: Antichrist shows up in Israel and 2/3rds of Israel perishes. This must happen or Christ won't show. When He does the final Steelcage Smackdown unfolds at Megiddo; Christ wins, whereupon the final third of Israel converts (and if they don't, they're damned along with the rest of us). Sound like godly gobbledygook? Yup, but as always scores of millions of American voters are deadly serious about it. They preach on it all the time. Guess who's listening.

Bottom-line is no matter how bad all this gets when translated into real-world policy, IT'S ALL GOOD. The last thing the Talibangelists want is peace in the Middle East. So chances are there'll be a war against the Medes and Persians, however ill-advised that might be. No measured and informed arguments based on history, hard intelligence estimates, constitutionality, long term US interests etc. are going to make a scrap of difference. What are such trivial matters compared to the inerrant word of God? And if it should lead to World War 3 (or 4 -- whichever we're up to by now), fine! The worse things are the better they get.

There's much more to the Rapture-Crapture scenario that reveals how listening to the Talibangelists has undermined sane foreign policy and vital American interests. (For example Antichrist will come from the European Union which the Talibangelists refer to as 'The Beast of Revelation'; understandably the Euros aren't too happy about this characterization). But this will do for now.

Many who hope to take back a House or two in November and the White one in '08 routinely dismiss the Rapture-Crapture factor as a side-issue, possibly because anything to do with religion makes them uncomfortable. I believe it's central to the policies of those currently disgracing the executive branch. In Part 3 I'll look at how the godly gobbledygook can be met and defeated and the Talibangelists kicked in their ample fundaments. In the meantime here's a tidbit from my latest book, the Messiah of Morris Avenue, in which its anti-hero, Reverend Sabbath, the ur-Talibangelist tells us what to expect on that Great Day...

From the STUPIDIEST IDEA ever file

2006-04-27T14:18:00.000-04:00

Senators to push for $100 gas rebate checks

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Every American taxpayer would get a $100 rebate check to offset the pain of higher pump prices for gasoline, under an amendment Senate Republicans hope to bring to a vote Thursday.

However, the GOP energy package may face tough sledding because it also includes a controversial proposal to open part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil exploration, which most Democrats and some moderate Republicans oppose.

Democrats are also expected to offer their own competing proposal, as members of both parties jockey for political position on the gas price issue.

The energy package, sponsored by Sens. Charles Grassley of Iowa, Ted Stevens of Alaska, Pete Domenici of New Mexico and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, [ed note: isn't this reason enough to defeat it?] will be offered as an amendment to an emergency spending measure now before the Senate funding the Iraq war and hurricane relief, according to a senior GOP leadership aide.

Under Senate rules, either the GOP amendment or the Democratic alternative would probably need 60 votes to pass, which is considered unlikely. However, the amendments would give senators a change to cast votes on measures designed to help constituents being hit by high gas prices.

As outlined by the senior GOP leadership aide, the energy package would give taxpayers a $100 rebate, repeal tax incentives for oil companies and allow the Federal Trade Commission to prosecute retailers unlawfully inflating the price of gasoline.

The measure would also give the Transportation Department authority to issue fuel efficiency standards for passenger vehicles, expand tax incentives for the use of hybrid vehicles and push for more research into alternative fuels and expansion of existing oil refineries.

The GOP senators are also calling on the Bush administration to suspend deposits into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for six months to increase the nation's oil supply. President Bush announced Tuesday that he would halt new deposits into the reserve until after the summer driving season.

On the other side of the aisle, Democrats on Wednesday called for a new energy bill and federal legislation to punish price gougers.

"There's no reason why we can't put forth a real energy policy that addresses the needs of this nation," said Rep. Bart Stupak, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, "from gouging to market manipulation to biofuels. We can do it."

And leaders of the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday asked the Internal Revenue Service to let them examine the tax returns of the nation's 15 largest oil and gas companies, as part of a "comprehensive review" of oil industry profits.

"I want to make sure the oil companies aren't taking a speed pass by the tax man," said Grassley, the committee's chairman, in a written statement. (Full story)

So, who foots the bill for cutting over 200 MILLION checks? And, exactly how far to these assholes think $100 stretches? Come to think of it, isn't this just another way to give $$ to their Oil Company Lord and Masters? Or just a new way to excuse relaxing enviro regulations AND yet again trying to drill in wildlife sanctuaries (assuming, of course, that they aren't already doing so?) Are these people complete fucking morons?

It's HUSH money. It's BLOOD money.

By all means, give me $100. I'll donate it to the DNC. Assholes.

Conspiracy Theory (part two)

2006-04-27T11:29:00.000-04:00

Part 1

Via Huff Po

8/08/05: Republican Bill Gives Billions In Tax Breaks For Oil Companies…

But independent energy analysts cautioned that with crude oil prices hitting new highs, consumers should not expect the new law to push down gas prices or reduce U.S. reliance on Middle East oil soon, if ever. Bush acknowledged that it will "take years of focused effort to alleviate those problems."

The new 1,724-page energy law, four years in the making, will provide $14.5 billion in tax breaks. The recipients will include producers of oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear power, as well as smaller incentives for consumers who use cleaner-burning fuels produced in this country. Analysts say it is unlikely most Americans will see a noticeable improvement in their energy costs in the short term. But supporters said the new law is designed to provide a long-term lift to the fuels of the future, including cleaner-burning coal and a new generation of gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles.

"It's not a bill for today or necessarily tomorrow -- it's for the future," said Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.). He was a chief sponsor of the bill and took part in the signing ceremony.

The price of crude oil hit a new high of more than $63 a barrel Monday.

And now . . .

Exxon Rakes In $8.7B Profit In First Quarter...

Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest oil company, said Thursday that higher oil prices drove first-quarter profit up 7 percent from the prior year.

Net income rose to $8.4 billion, or $1.37 per share, in the January-March period from $7.86 billion, or $1.22 per share, a year ago. Excluding a gain on the sale of an interest in China's Sinopec, the company's year-ago profit was $7.4 billion, or $1.15 per share.

4/27/06: Click Here To See Gas Prices…

How do you know an Xian apologist is lying? Their lips are moving.

2006-04-27T08:02:00.000-04:00

or, their fingers are typing.

The delicious lovelies over at GifS uncovered a hoax by Tribalogue. Tribalogue is a group of True Beliere(tm) xian apologists who decided to show us exactly how filled with the love of Christ they are, by lying about Lofton's Debunking Christianity blog. They include the likes of psycho-misogynist Paul Manata and Evan may - king of the mind-numbingly bad circular argument. Here's the lie: flippant-dismissals.

Here's the proof that it's a lie:Triablogue Lies About “Debunking Christianity”

I will respond on our Blog, and I only skimmed through these comments [ed note: see comments on GifS's post], but let me say a few things. In my earlier book I was a Existential Deista and I wrote as one. In the progression of my thought I became an atheist, and my new book reflects that belief, so there will be descrepancies between them.

Triablogue is just doing what they do to atheists. When they cannot answer our arguments they try to discredit us. And they are trying to make a point about the gulibility of we atheists. Don’t buy into it.

Also, if Frank Walton is the originator of DC then he’s doing himself and his faith a great deal of harm. Does anyone actually think Christians would be supportive of this site?

Also, Triablogue just wrote a post where they do the same things to themselves, calling their own site a hoax.

Would you please post these comments as a separate post for those who may be wondering? Thanks you. And thanks for visiting us at http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/

Wait, wait, let me guess Tribalogue - it was all just a joke, right?

Seriously, this was rather funny. That anyone would give that much humor and wit credit to the likes of Frank Walton is comedy gold.

Stories of Discrimination

2006-04-26T12:47:00.000-04:00

Found this via Repentence is Futile

Just in case anyone needed more prof that religion does not improve people.

Here are a few examples of discrimination against atheists in the United States and Canada over the last few years. These are from an article in Free Inquiry magazine by Margaret Downey. Something to tell any Xian who tries to remind you what a loving religion Christianity is.

Gray, Tennessee: Carletta Sims joined a financial firm in June 2001. Shortly afterward, two Baptist coworkers took offense upon learning that Sims was an atheist. Management granted the coworkers’ request to be assigned workspaces further from Sims. When Sims complained about a picture of Jesus left on her computer, management discharged her. Sims filed suit, seeking $250,000; U.S. District Judge Thomas Hull ruled that “religious discrimination (or preferential treatment of Christians) can be inferred.” In January 2004, the major bank that had since acquired the firm settled with Sims for an undisclosed amount.

Ada, Oklahoma: A Baptist student told a local newspaper she wouldn’t take professor William Zellner’s classes because he was an atheist, triggering a flurry of abuse. Zellner received harassing notes and telephone calls, some threatening. His car was vandalized, for a time on a daily basis. A local church sold “I am praying for Dr. Zellner” buttons. His children experienced shunning and beatings from religious children.

Minneapolis, Minnesota: First-grader Michael Bristor, an atheist, was denied an honor roll certificate when he refused to participate in an unconstitutional “prayer time” at a public school. For three years, administrators ignored the family’s complaints until a lawsuit was filed.

Caro, Michigan: In December 2001, Anonka—an open atheist who maintains a museum of Christian religious atrocities—appeared before the Tuscola County Board of Commissioners to challenge a nativity scene placed on public land. Commissioners responded angrily, saying she had no right to be present and proceeding to ridicule her. Anonka and her family suffered repeated harassment including annoyance calls, threatening calls and letters, and vandalism. In February 2004, the county settled in U.S. District Court, agreeing to pay an undisclosed sum and to issue a “public expression of regret.”

Pocopson, Pennsylvania: My own atheism came to prominence when I became involved in a legal challenge to a Ten Commandments plaque on the wall of the Chester County, Pennsylvania, courthouse. Neighbors organized a shunning campaign, some area merchants refused to do business with me, and I received hundreds of threatening letters and phone calls. (The depth of public animus against me became a subject of local news and magazine coverage.) I was forced to close my interior decorating business because of death threats that compelled me to stop visiting the homes of persons unknown to me.

Calgary, Alberta: An eleven-year-old boy (name withheld) experienced daily physical attacks and threats against his life by schoolmates—notably the sons of three local pastors—after protesting intercom readings of the Lord’s Prayer in a public school. He was repeatedly body-checked into hallway walls and attacked in the rest rooms. One pastor’s son stalked him with a butcher knife in an empty portable classroom. Despite the seriousness of this incident, no action was taken. The boy’s parents transferred him to another school for his own safety.

10 Reasons Republicans Are To Blame For High Gas Prices

2006-04-26T09:43:00.000-04:00

April 25, 2006
By: Phil Singer, DSCC

http://www.dscc.org/news/roundup/20060425_gas/

If you’re looking for ten reasons that Republicans are to blame for high gas prices, keep on reading…

When George Bush took office in January 2001, the average price of a gallon of gas was $1.46. Today, the price is $2.91, a 100 percent increase over the course of the Bush presidency. [AAA Fuel Gauge Report, 4/25/06]

Under Bush’s watch, U.S. dependence on foreign oil has increased by nearly one billion barrels. [ EIA, U.S. Imports by Country of Origin and Annual Energy Outlook 2006]

Senate Republicans killed a Democratic proposal to make gas price gouging a federal crime. Without making price gouging a federal crime, the federal government can only prosecute oil companies if they can prove collusion to control markets, a standard that is nearly impossible to meet. [S. 2020, Vote #334, 11/17/05; Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 11/18/05]

The Bush Federal Trade Commission has looked the other way when it comes to price gouging. Even during Hurricane Katrina, when price gouging was rather evident, the FTC investigation "found no evidence of collusion among oil companies in the 2005 gas price surge.” [ San Francisco Chronicle, 4/25/06]

The GOP Congress has ignored oil and gas monopolies: Since 2001, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee in charge of overseeing mergers, led by Mike DeWine,has held just one hearing - two years ago - to examine high gas prices.[ USA TODAY, 4/25/06; Judiciary Committee Hearing Schedule, accessed 4/25/06]

The GOP Congress has turned a blind eye to holding executives from the nation’s richest oil companies accountable. In November, when executives from the nation’s richest oil companies testified before the Senate Energy and Commerce Committees, Republican leaders refused to force them to testify under oath. [Cantwell Release, 11/8/05; CNNMoney, 11/9/05; Fox News, 11/17/05, CNN 11/17/05]

Republican lawmakers who crafted the 2005 energy bill showered billions in tax breaks on oil and gas companies that that they later testified under oath they do not need. [Bloomberg, 7/29/05; Video Clip of March 2006 Oil and Gas Hearing, available here]

In December, Senate Republicans – with Cheney casting the tiebreaking vote – adopted a budget package that included $20 million in cuts to Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements Program. [Vote 363, 12/21/05; House Budget Committee, Democratic Caucus Analysis, 12/22/05]

Oil and gas companies are constantly lining the pockets of Washington Republicans and GOP candidates. In the 2004 election cycle alone, the oil and gas industry contributed more than $20 million to Republican candidates and incumbents. In the 2006 cycle, this number has already topped $6 million. [Center for Responsive Politics, accessed 4/24/06]

The White House’s failure to properly plan for the war in Iraq has caused a disruption in the pre-war supply of 900,000 barrels of oil a day from Iraq, the largest single supply disruption that is leading to spikes in the price of oil. [CERA, 4/24/06]

Conspiracy Theory

2006-04-26T09:25:00.000-04:00

I found this via A Rational Being. USA National Gas Temperature Map Anything look odd to you? The bluer the state, the higher the gas prices . . . . hmmmmmmmmm . . . .

It goes nicely with this from Daily Kos

If you want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and therefore improve our national security situation, you can't do it if you're a republican because you are too wedded to the oil companies.

We have two oilmen in the white house. the logical follow-up from that is $3 a gallon gasoline. there is no accident. It is a cause and effect. A cause and effect.

How dare the president of the united states make a speech today in april many, many, many months after the american people have had to undergo the cost of home heating oil? A woman told me she almost fainted when she received her home heating bill over this winter. And when so many people making the minimum wage, which hasn't been raised in eight years, which has a very low purchasing power, have to go out and buy gasoline at these prices?

Where have you been, mr. president? The middle class squeeze is on, competition in our country is effected by the price of energy and of oil and all of a sudden you take a trip outside of washington, see the fact that the public is outraged about this, come home and make a speech. Let's see that matched in your budget, let's see that matched in your policy.

You're separating yourself from your patron, big oil, cut yourself off from that anvil holding your party down and this country down. Instead of coming to washington and throwing your republican colleagues under the wheels of the train, which they mightily deserve for being a rubber stamp for your obscene, corrupt policy of ripping off the american people.

;)

My theme song . . .

2006-04-26T09:13:00.000-04:00

Is oddly appropriate.

Your Theme Song is Back in Black by AC/DC

"Back in black, I hit the sack,
I've been too long, I'm glad to be back"

Things sometimes get really crazy for you, and sometimes you have to get away from all the chaos.
But each time you stage your comeback, it's even better than the last!

What's Your Theme Song?

For an evil heathen, anyway. >:)

Speaking of Failing Wars . . .

2006-04-25T10:46:00.000-04:00

Recently in my area, the County Executive and gigantic pile of mob-connected human feces, Joel Giambra, made waves for saying that "certain" drugs should be legalized to cut down on crime. Now, he hasn't (to my knowledge) elaborated on exactly which ones should be legalized, but I imagine everyone over the age of 10 will be able to guess.

The DA immediately went on t.v. to say that crime wouldn't be reduced and pot is dangerous and blah blah blah, (I really like Frank Clark, but sometimes he's so shrill). despite the evidence that in some European countries crime had decreased with legalization. NYS Senator Dale Volker says that evidence proves otherwise - while both neglected to provide the evidence. Here's what I found: Crime Rates in the US Versus Other Nations

Then, This caught my attention.

Potheads and Sudafed

Once in a while even John Tierney gets it right (see full column below). The war on drugs - brought to you by the "Republican narcs" - is destroying the lives of good people.

Did you hear about the teenager who got life for smoking a joint - in America? In the spirit of keeping the stereotype of the bigot southerner alive, Judge Keith Dean (in Texas, unsurprisingly) a black teenager is given life in prison for violating his parole for smoking a joint, while a well-connected man pleaded guilty to murder – for shooting an unarmed prostitute in the back – got 10 years of probation.

And wasn't it remarkable that the FDA chose to release their politically motivated judgement on medical marijuana on 4/20, the national pot smoking holiday? The Drug War Rant has a good post about the FDA's rejection of science and embracement of reefer madness and another one on 'why the FDA is irrelevant.'

Meanwhile, here in Tennessee the government is in the habit of seizing the bank accounts and the homes of citizens long before they've had their day in court. The seizures are based solely on police reports which allege that marijuana was found. The state seems to specialize in seizing the homes of cancer patients allegedly caught with medical marijuana. Who needs a state income tax when you are free to steal the property of your most vulnerable citizens?

But what's this about Chong selling bongs to Cheney's Secret Service guards?

Potheads and Sudafed
by JOHN TIERNEY

Police officers in the 1960's were fond of bumper stickers reading: "The next time you get mugged, call a hippie." Doctors today could use a variation: "The next time you're in pain, call a narc."

Washington's latest prescription for patients in pain is the statement issued last week by the Food and Drug Administration on the supposed evils of medical marijuana. The F.D.A. is being lambasted, rightly, by scientists for ignoring some evidence that marijuana can help severely ill patients. But it's the kind of statement given by a hostage trying to please his captors, who in this case are a coalition of Republican narcs on Capitol Hill, in the White House and at the Drug Enforcement Administration.

They've been engaged in a long-running war to get the F.D.A. to abandon some of its quaint principles, like the notion that it's not fair to deny a useful drug to patients just because a few criminals might abuse it. The agency has also dared to suggest that there should be a division of labor when it comes to drugs: scientists and doctors should figure out which ones work for patients, and narcotics agents should catch people who break drug laws.

The drug cops want everyone to share their mission. They think that doctors and pharmacists should catch patients who abuse painkillers - and that if the doctors or pharmacists aren't good enough detectives, they should go to jail.

This month, pharmacists across the country are being forced to lock up another menace to society: cold medicine. Allergy and cold remedies containing pseudoephedrine, a chemical that can illegally be used to make meth, must now be locked behind the counter under a provision in the new Patriot Act.

Don't ask what meth has to do with the war on terror. Not even the most ardent drug warriors have been able to establish an Osama-Sudafed link.

The F.D.A. opposed these restrictions for pharmacies because they'll drive up health care costs and effectively prevent medicine from reaching huge numbers of people (Americans suffer a billion colds per year). These costs are undeniable, but it's unclear that there are any net benefits.

In states that previously enacted their own restrictions, the police report that meth users simply switched from making their own to buying imported drugs that were stronger and more expensive, so meth users commit more crimes to pay for their habit.

The Sudafed law gives you a preview of what's in store if Representative Frank Wolf, a Virginia Republican, succeeds in giving the D.E.A. a role in deciding which new drugs get approved. So far, despite a temporary success last year, he hasn't been able to impose this policy, but the F.D.A.'s biggest fear is that Congress will let the drug police veto new medications. In that case, who would ever develop a better painkiller? The benefits to patients would never outweigh the potential inconvenience to the police.

Officially, the D.E.A. says it wants patients to get the best medicine. But look at what it's done to scientists trying to study medical marijuana. They've gotten approval for their experiments from the F.D.A., but they can't get the high-quality marijuana they need because the D.E.A. won't allow it to be grown. The F.D.A. actually wants to know if the drug works, but the D.E.A. is following the just-say-know-nothing strategy: as long as researchers can't study marijuana, they can't come up with evidence that it's effective.

And as long as there's no conclusive evidence that medical marijuana works, the D.E.A. and its allies on Capitol Hill can go on blindly fighting it. Representative Mark Souder, the Indiana Republican who's the most rabid drug warrior in Congress, has been pressuring the F.D.A. to crack down on medical marijuana. Last week the agency finally relented: in return for not having to start busting anyone, it issued a statement stressing the potential dangers and lack of extensive clinical trials establishing medical marijuana's effectiveness.

The statement was denounced as a victory of politics over science, but it's hard to see what political good it does the Republican Party.

Locking up crack and meth dealers is popular, but voters take a different view of cancer patients who swear by marijuana. Medical marijuana has been approved in referendums in four states that went red in 2004: Nevada, Montana, Colorado and Alaska. For G.O.P. voters fed up with their party's current big-government philosophy, the latest medical treatment from Washington's narcs is one more reason to stay home this November.

Whatever your opinions are on this matter one simple fact cannot be denied - the war on drugs, rather like the war in Iraq - is a colossal failure. "Insanity", said Rudyard Kipling, "is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results". Clearly, it’s time to try something else.

Hooray for Science!

2006-04-24T12:54:00.000-04:00

The secret of being in rude health is intercourse

IT DOES not take a degree in medicine to work out that sex is good for you. Anything that is free, feels fabulous and leaves you glowing is plainly a good idea.But scientists are now beginning to understand that the perceived feel-good effects of sexual intercourse are merely the tip of the iceberg. Sex, they are discovering, can offer protection from depression, colds, heart disease and even cancer.

The latest addition to the body of evidence came last month when Professor Stuart Brody of the University of Paisley published a study showing sex can lower blood pressure.

"We're not just talking about the immediate effects of having had nice sex. The beneficial effects could last at least a week," says Professor Brody.

One theory is that intercourse stimulates a variety of nerves, most notably the "vagas" nerve, which is directly involved in soothing and calming. But you have to go the whole heterosexual hog. According to Professor Brody, studies show "penile-vaginal intercourse is the only sexual behaviour consistently associated with better psychological and physiological health".

Such sex has been linked, in women, to a heightened emotional awareness, possibly because the "love hormone" oxytocin is released. One study even found that semen is a mood-enhancing ingredient.

Doctors speculate that this is because semen contains several other mood-altering hormones — including testosterone, oestrogen, prolactin and several different prostaglandins — which can pass into the woman's bloodstream. This explanation, says Dr David Hicks, sexology specialist and consultant in GU medicine at the Royal Hallamshire Hospital in Sheffield, "is certainly feasible". Condom-free sex has its drawbacks, of course: contracting a sexually transmitted disease or becoming pregnant unintentionally.

If you are dogged by the sniffles at this time of year, regular love-ins could work wonders for your immunity — condoms and all. Psychologists have found that people who have sex once or twice a week have levels of immunoglobulin A (IgA) that are up to a third higher than their more restrained peers. IgA is an antibody that boosts the immune system and is the first line of defence against colds and flu.

The health benefits for middle-aged men are also particularly persuasive. Recent studies suggest that men who have orgasms twice a week are half as likely to die early as men who orgasm less than once a month.

The more frequently men ejaculate, the less likely they are to develop prostate cancer, and if middle-aged men have sex twice a week or more they also have a lower risk of heart attack. Much has been made of the slimming and toning effects of a sexual work-out. In fact, sex probably burns off about the same number of calories per minute as a brisk walk. "You get all the benefits of exercise," confirms Dr Hicks. "This includes the release of endorphins, raised heart rate, moving the muscles and joints."

You might also look younger. "Regular sex makes you feel younger as you are more relaxed, satisfied and less stressed," says Dr Kevan Wylie, consultant andrologist at the Royal Hallamshire Hospital.

"Sex has huge mental benefits," adds Dr Hicks. "It's the outward proof that you are wanted, desired and valued." And if you feel sexy, you tend to look it, too.

Sex is not, sadly, a cure-all. "There is a danger in thinking that we can fix anything by leaping into bed," says Dr Petra Boynton, a psychologist at University College in London specialising in sex and relationships. "The fact is you are likely to have a much better sex life if you are healthy and happy, rather than the other way round." Still, it can't hurt to try.

So, what's religion got to offer again? Oh right, sexual repression.
Therefore god wants us to be sick. The Bastard! ;)

The Rapture Is Crapture (Part 1)

2006-04-24T12:46:00.002-04:00

Because I'm a femi-nazi, evil commie pinko leftist, I LOVE the Huffington Post (HuffPo, from here on out). Here's a little opinino piece that made me giggle.

The Rapture Is Crapture (Part 1)
by Tony Hendra

Sorry, Jerry, sorry Pat. No James, Tony, Tom - and especially not you George - you're not going to be snatched up bodily to Heaven, nekkid as the day you were born, your shriveled grey Republican asses extracted by the Lord from your 1000-dollar suits, leaving them in a puddle on the drivers seat of your SUV or the pulpit of your mega-church.

You're not the elect, the just or even, we suspect, the saved, who because of your incomparable virtue will be whisked out of harms way by the aforementioned Lord when he comes to wreak genocidal revenge on billions of us unelect, unjust and unsaved. You're the latest in a millennia-long line of money-grubbing power-hungry hypocrites and hucksters who offer the lonely, threatened, frustrated, and as always, those with a limited supply of marbles, a lovely lie. Not only are they saved but those they hate, fear, envy and blame are damned! Not only will they be snatched up to heaven way ahead of schedule, but - A Special Final Days offer! - they DON'T HAVE TO DIE! That's the beauty part of the Rapture, a new American twist on an old, old Euro-scam: no massive heart attack, no terminal cancer, no being crushed by a truck on I-95. You're snatched up to heaven just the way you are.

(Though judging by my current book tour through the Bible Belt the Lord's going to get a hernia snatching up some of those Baptist babes).

The Rapture is an all-American, jumbo-colossal, Southern-style end-times racket. (Super-save me Jesus!) It makes all previous religious opiates look like Sominex.

The world's been ending ever since the Book of Revelation was penned, supposedly by the apostle John but more likely by some 1st century acid-casualty who'd eaten too much moldy bread. The Rapture however is new - dreamed up by one John Nelson Darby, an Irish lawyer turned Anglican priest, in the 1830s. His loopy biblical interpretations divide all history into seven ages or dispensations and declare - surprise surprise! - that Jesus' precepts are inoperative until he returns. This will be heralded by...the Rapture.

Darby was defrocked by the Anglican Church and most of his pals regarded him as deranged. But his ravings spread like kudzu in the fertile soil of 19th century American evangelical fundamentalism. A century and a half later the Rapture is taken as literal truth according to reliable estimates - eg Kevin Phillips - by a third of the nation, who, needless to say, will be the only Rapturees.

For two thousand years this kind of drivel stayed on the spittle-flecked straw-in-the-hair lunatic fringe but now in 21st century America, it's front and center, driving the domestic and foreign policy, the social and moral agenda, the spending power, and worst of all, the military, of the most powerful nation on earth. Just to get some idea of how it's affecting not just policy but the whole standing of the nation in the world, here's a few paltry matters seen in Rapturous light:

Since Christ is right around the corner global warming and Kyoto don't matter because the planet only has few years to go anyway. So belch out that pollution - Christ don't give a shit. Ditto drilling offshore in Virginia and Alaska, logging ancient forests, trepanning whole mountains to get at the coal. Gotta keep those SUVs and Macmansions running. Gotta have some place to be Raptured from.

A $7-trillion deficit and bankrupting the nation with debt doesn't matter either, because we'll never have to pay it down. Katrina doesn't matter because it's a biblically prophesied sign Christ is at hand. What's the point in saving lives that'll end soon anyway? Ditto eradicating AIDS. Anyway it's punishment for your vile abominations.

9/11 doesn't matter in fact it's desirable because it proves Christ is right around the corner. Ditto pitching a few nukes into the raging firestorm of the Mid-East because it will actually bring him back quicker!

As the hero of my new book (who happens to be the true Christ returned) puts it: "That's not Christianity, that's insanity."

The media-academic-publishing crowd in which I tend to move dismiss crap like the Rapture in offhand faith-bashing agnostic terms that may make them feel like pious heirs of the Enlightenment, but alienate their natural political allies, Christian moderates, or moderates of other beliefs who are as appalled by fundamentalist terror-squads as they are. People the Loyal Opposition desperately needs.

Almost as counterproductive are those who, being largely ignorant of the religious issues involved, get squeamish about coming down too hard on 'people of faith' even if they're transparently liars, killers and thieves. (Couple days ago in Huffpost Stephen Gyllenhaal in an otherwise admirable piece about the utter immorality of nukes did just this apropos Bush - being-a-man-of-faith-he-can't-be-all-bad kinda thing). Worst of all is the Fundamentalism Lite gang: add a little Baptist catnip to your left-of-center agenda and the right-of-center will desert the ship of state like rats. Forget that. You can get rid of the pandering poltroon in the Oval Office, but this behemoth is gonna sail right on.

Can it be sunk? Yeah, possibly. But I'm saving how for Part 2: When Judgment comes will The Left Be Left Behind?

Good Readin'

2006-04-21T12:52:00.000-04:00

Some yummy tidbits for weekend snacking.

Anybody See My Morals? via Thoughts from a Sandwich.

Sex cues ruin men's decisiveness via A Rational Being (SEE!)

Global Sex Study - Gender "Equality" Means Happier Lovers also via A Rational Being

Sex and Guns Via Pharyngula "about what it would be like if Republicans were consistent in their attitudes towards sex and guns".

Old People Got No Reason an older post via Peeing in the Meme Pool about This story

The Oil Industry Is Running Away With Our Future via HuffPo

What if I’m wrong about Christianity? Via Debunking Xianity

Women Get Raped Because They're Stupid, Not Because Men Rape Them via Brutal Women. I love this blog.

Hate Crimes Are Not Special via Atheist Mommy Diary.

Raunch Culture via Pop and Politics (This is from Leanne Shear, the author of The Perfect Manhattan Read it.

Worst. President. Ever.

2006-04-20T11:15:00.000-04:00

The Worst President in History? (very long, very worth it)

George W. Bush's presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace. Barring a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, after which the public might rally around the White House once again, there seems to be little the administration can do to avoid being ranked on the lowest tier of U.S. presidents. And that may be the best-case scenario. Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history.

[ snip ]

Now, though, George W. Bush is in serious contention for the title of worst ever. In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a "failure." Among those who called Bush a success, many gave the president high marks only for his ability to mobilize public support and get Congress to go along with what one historian called the administration's "pursuit of disastrous policies." In fact, roughly one in ten of those who called Bush a success was being facetious, rating him only as the best president since Bill Clinton -- a category in which Bush is the only contestant.

[ snip ]

* * * *

How does any president's reputation sink so low? The reasons are best understood as the reverse of those that produce presidential greatness. In almost every survey of historians dating back to the 1940s, three presidents have emerged as supreme successes: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt. These were the men who guided the nation through what historians consider its greatest crises: the founding era after the ratification of the Constitution, the Civil War, and the Great Depression and Second World War. Presented with arduous, at times seemingly impossible circumstances, they rallied the nation, governed brilliantly and left the republic more secure than when they entered office.

Calamitous presidents, faced with enormous difficulties -- Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Hoover and now Bush -- have divided the nation, governed erratically and left the nation worse off. In each case, different factors contributed to the failure: disastrous domestic policies, foreign-policy blunders and military setbacks, executive misconduct, crises of credibility and public trust. Bush, however, is one of the rarities in presidential history: He has not only stumbled badly in every one of these key areas, he has also displayed a weakness common among the greatest presidential failures -- an unswerving adherence to a simplistic ideology that abjures deviation from dogma as heresy, thus preventing any pragmatic adjustment to changing realities. Repeatedly, Bush has undone himself, a failing revealed in each major area of presidential performance.

* * * *

THE CREDIBILITY GAP

No previous president appears to have squandered the public's trust more than Bush has. In the 1840s, President James Polk gained a reputation for deviousness over his alleged manufacturing of the war with Mexico and his supposedly covert pro-slavery views. Abraham Lincoln, then an Illinois congressman, virtually labeled Polk a liar when he called him, from the floor of the House, "a bewildered, confounded and miserably perplexed man" and denounced the war as "from beginning to end, the sheerest deception." But the swift American victory in the war, Polk's decision to stick by his pledge to serve only one term and his sudden death shortly after leaving office spared him the ignominy over slavery that befell his successors in the 1850s. With more than two years to go in Bush's second term and no swift victory in sight, Bush's reputation will probably have no such reprieve.

The problems besetting Bush are of a more modern kind than Polk's, suited to the television age -- a crisis both in confidence and credibility. In 1965, Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam travails gave birth to the phrase "credibility gap," meaning the distance between a president's professions and the public's perceptions of reality. It took more than two years for Johnson's disapproval rating in the Gallup Poll to reach fifty-two percent in March 1968 -- a figure Bush long ago surpassed, but that was sufficient to persuade the proud LBJ not to seek re-election. Yet recently, just short of three years after Bush buoyantly declared "mission accomplished" in Iraq, his disapproval ratings have been running considerably higher than Johnson's, at about sixty percent. More than half the country now considers Bush dishonest and untrustworthy, and a decisive plurality consider him less trustworthy than his predecessor, Bill Clinton -- a figure still attacked by conservative zealots as "Slick Willie."

Previous modern presidents, including Truman, Reagan and Clinton, managed to reverse plummeting ratings and regain the public's trust by shifting attention away from political and policy setbacks, and by overhauling the White House's inner circles. But Bush's publicly expressed view that he has made no major mistakes, coupled with what even the conservative commentator William F. Buckley Jr. calls his "high-flown pronouncements" about failed policies, seems to foreclose the first option. Upping the ante in the Middle East and bombing Iranian nuclear sites, a strategy reportedly favored by some in the White House, could distract the public and gain Bush immediate political capital in advance of the 2006 midterm elections -- but in the long term might severely worsen the already dire situation in Iraq, especially among Shiite Muslims linked to the Iranians. And given Bush's ardent attachment to loyal aides, no matter how discredited, a major personnel shake-up is improbable, short of indictments. Replacing Andrew Card with Joshua Bolten as chief of staff -- a move announced by the president in March in a tone that sounded more like defiance than contrition -- represents a rededication to current policies and personnel, not a serious change. (Card, an old Bush family retainer, was widely considered more moderate than most of the men around the president and had little involvement in policy-making.) The power of Vice President Dick Cheney, meanwhile, remains uncurbed. Were Cheney to announce he is stepping down due to health problems, normally a polite pretext for a political removal, one can be reasonably certain it would be because Cheney actually did have grave health problems.

* * * *

BUSH AT WAR

Until the twentieth century, American presidents managed foreign wars well -- including those presidents who prosecuted unpopular wars. James Madison had no support from Federalist New England at the outset of the War of 1812, and the discontent grew amid mounting military setbacks in 1813. But Federalist political overreaching, combined with a reversal of America's military fortunes and the negotiation of a peace with Britain, made Madison something of a hero again and ushered in a brief so-called Era of Good Feelings in which his Jeffersonian Republican Party coalition ruled virtually unopposed. The Mexican War under Polk was even more unpopular, but its quick and victorious conclusion redounded to Polk's favor -- much as the rapid American victory in the Spanish-American War helped William McKinley overcome anti-imperialist dissent.

The twentieth century was crueler to wartime presidents. After winning re-election in 1916 with the slogan "He Kept Us Out of War," Woodrow Wilson oversaw American entry into the First World War. Yet while the doughboys returned home triumphant, Wilson's idealistic and politically disastrous campaign for American entry into the League of Nations presaged a resurgence of the opposition Republican Party along with a redoubling of American isolationism that lasted until Pearl Harbor.

Bush has more in common with post-1945 Democratic presidents Truman and Johnson, who both became bogged down in overseas military conflicts with no end, let alone victory, in sight. But Bush has become bogged down in a singularly crippling way. On September 10th, 2001, he held among the lowest ratings of any modern president for that point in a first term. (Only Gerald Ford, his popularity reeling after his pardon of Nixon, had comparable numbers.) The attacks the following day transformed Bush's presidency, giving him an extraordinary opportunity to achieve greatness. Some of the early signs were encouraging. Bush's simple, unflinching eloquence and his quick toppling of the Taliban government in Afghanistan rallied the nation. Yet even then, Bush wasted his chance by quickly choosing partisanship over leadership.

No other president -- Lincoln in the Civil War, FDR in World War II, John F. Kennedy at critical moments of the Cold War -- faced with such a monumental set of military and political circumstances failed to embrace the opposing political party to help wage a truly national struggle. But Bush shut out and even demonized the Democrats. Top military advisers and even members of the president's own Cabinet who expressed any reservations or criticisms of his policies -- including retired Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill -- suffered either dismissal, smear attacks from the president's supporters or investigations into their alleged breaches of national security. The wise men who counseled Bush's father, including James Baker and Brent Scowcroft, found their entreaties brusquely ignored by his son. When asked if he ever sought advice from the elder Bush, the president responded, "There is a higher Father that I appeal to."

All the while, Bush and the most powerful figures in the administration, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, were planting the seeds for the crises to come by diverting the struggle against Al Qaeda toward an all-out effort to topple their pre-existing target, Saddam Hussein. In a deliberate political decision, the administration stampeded the Congress and a traumatized citizenry into the Iraq invasion on the basis of what has now been demonstrated to be tendentious and perhaps fabricated evidence of an imminent Iraqi threat to American security, one that the White House suggested included nuclear weapons. Instead of emphasizing any political, diplomatic or humanitarian aspects of a war on Iraq -- an appeal that would have sounded too "sensitive," as Cheney once sneered -- the administration built a "Bush Doctrine" of unprovoked, preventive warfare, based on speculative threats and embracing principles previously abjured by every previous generation of U.S. foreign policy-makers, even at the height of the Cold War. The president did so with premises founded, in the case of Iraq, on wishful thinking. He did so while proclaiming an expansive Wilsonian rhetoric of making the world safe for democracy -- yet discarding the multilateralism and systems of international law (including the Geneva Conventions) that emanated from Wilson's idealism. He did so while dismissing intelligence that an American invasion could spark a long and bloody civil war among Iraq's fierce religious and ethnic rivals, reports that have since proved true. And he did so after repeated warnings by military officials such as Gen. Eric Shinseki that pacifying postwar Iraq would require hundreds of thousands of American troops -- accurate estimates that Paul Wolfowitz and other Bush policy gurus ridiculed as "wildly off the mark."

When William F. Buckley, the man whom many credit as the founder of the modern conservative movement, writes categorically, as he did in February, that "one can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed," then something terrible has happened. Even as a brash young iconoclast, Buckley always took the long view. The Bush White House seems incapable of doing so, except insofar as a tiny trusted circle around the president constantly reassures him that he is a messianic liberator and profound freedom fighter, on a par with FDR and Lincoln, and that history will vindicate his every act and utterance.

* * * *

BUSH AT HOME

Bush came to office in 2001 pledging to govern as a "compassionate conservative," more moderate on domestic policy than the dominant right wing of his party. The pledge proved hollow, as Bush tacked immediately to the hard right. Previous presidents and their parties have suffered when their actions have belied their campaign promises. Lyndon Johnson is the most conspicuous recent example, having declared in his 1964 run against the hawkish Republican Barry Goldwater that "we are not about to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves." But no president has surpassed Bush in departing so thoroughly from his original campaign persona.

The heart of Bush's domestic policy has turned out to be nothing more than a series of massively regressive tax cuts -- a return, with a vengeance, to the discredited Reagan-era supply-side faith that Bush's father once ridiculed as "voodoo economics." Bush crowed in triumph in February 2004, "We cut taxes, which basically meant people had more money in their pocket." The claim is bogus for the majority of Americans, as are claims that tax cuts have led to impressive new private investment and job growth. While wiping out the solid Clinton-era federal surplus and raising federal deficits to staggering record levels, Bush's tax policies have necessitated hikes in federal fees, state and local taxes, and co-payment charges to needy veterans and families who rely on Medicaid, along with cuts in loan programs to small businesses and college students, and in a wide range of state services. The lion's share of benefits from the tax cuts has gone to the very richest Americans, while new business investment has increased at a historically sluggish rate since the peak of the last business cycle five years ago. Private-sector job growth since 2001 has been anemic compared to the Bush administration's original forecasts and is chiefly attributable not to the tax cuts but to increased federal spending, especially on defense. Real wages for middle-income Americans have been dropping since the end of 2003: Last year, on average, nominal wages grew by only 2.4 percent, a meager gain that was completely erased by an average inflation rate of 3.4 percent.

The monster deficits, caused by increased federal spending combined with the reduction of revenue resulting from the tax cuts, have also placed Bush's administration in a historic class of its own with respect to government borrowing. According to the Treasury Department, the forty-two presidents who held office between 1789 and 2000 borrowed a combined total of $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions. But between 2001 and 2005 alone, the Bush White House borrowed $1.05 trillion, more than all of the previous presidencies combined. Having inherited the largest federal surplus in American history in 2001, he has turned it into the largest deficit ever -- with an even higher deficit, $423 billion, forecast for fiscal year 2006. Yet Bush -- sounding much like Herbert Hoover in 1930 predicting that "prosperity is just around the corner" -- insists that he will cut federal deficits in half by 2009, and that the best way to guarantee this would be to make permanent his tax cuts, which helped cause the deficit in the first place!

The rest of what remains of Bush's skimpy domestic agenda is either failed or failing -- a record unmatched since the presidency of Herbert Hoover. The No Child Left Behind educational-reform act has proved so unwieldy, draconian and poorly funded that several states -- including Utah, one of Bush's last remaining political strongholds -- have fought to opt out of it entirely. White House proposals for immigration reform and a guest-worker program have succeeded mainly in dividing pro-business Republicans (who want more low-wage immigrant workers) from paleo-conservatives fearful that hordes of Spanish-speaking newcomers will destroy American culture. The paleos' call for tougher anti-immigrant laws -- a return to the punitive spirit of exclusion that led to the notorious Immigration Act of 1924 that shut the door to immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe -- has in turn deeply alienated Hispanic voters from the Republican Party, badly undermining the GOP's hopes of using them to build a permanent national electoral majority. The recent pro-immigrant demonstrations, which drew millions of marchers nationwide, indicate how costly the Republican divide may prove.

The one noncorporate constituency to which Bush has consistently deferred is the Christian right, both in his selections for the federal bench and in his implications that he bases his policies on premillennialist, prophetic Christian doctrine. Previous presidents have regularly invoked the Almighty. McKinley is supposed to have fallen to his knees, seeking divine guidance about whether to take control of the Philippines in 1898, although the story may be apocryphal. But no president before Bush has allowed the press to disclose, through a close friend, his startling belief that he was ordained by God to lead the country. The White House's sectarian positions -- over stem-cell research, the teaching of pseudoscientific "intelligent design," global population control, the Terri Schiavo spectacle and more -- have led some to conclude that Bush has promoted the transformation of the GOP into what former Republican strategist Kevin Phillips calls "the first religious party in U.S. history."

Bush's faith-based conception of his mission, which stands above and beyond reasoned inquiry, jibes well with his administration's pro-business dogma on global warming and other urgent environmental issues. While forcing federally funded agencies to remove from their Web sites scientific information about reproductive health and the effectiveness of condoms in combating HIV/AIDS, and while peremptorily overruling staff scientists at the Food and Drug Administration on making emergency contraception available over the counter, Bush officials have censored and suppressed research findings they don't like by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Agriculture. Far from being the conservative he said he was, Bush has blazed a radical new path as the first American president in history who is outwardly hostile to science -- dedicated, as a distinguished, bipartisan panel of educators and scientists (including forty-nine Nobel laureates) has declared, to "the distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends."

The Bush White House's indifference to domestic problems and science alike culminated in the catastrophic responses to Hurricane Katrina. Scientists had long warned that global warming was intensifying hurricanes, but Bush ignored them -- much as he and his administration sloughed off warnings from the director of the National Hurricane Center before Katrina hit. Reorganized under the Department of Homeland Security, the once efficient Federal Emergency Management Agency turned out, under Bush, to have become a nest of cronyism and incompetence. During the months immediately after the storm, Bush traveled to New Orleans eight times to promise massive rebuilding aid from the federal government. On March 30th, however, Bush's Gulf Coast recovery coordinator admitted that it could take as long as twenty-five years for the city to recover.

Karl Rove has sometimes likened Bush to the imposing, no-nonsense President Andrew Jackson. Yet Jackson took measures to prevent those he called "the rich and powerful" from bending "the acts of government to their selfish purposes." Jackson also gained eternal renown by saving New Orleans from British invasion against terrible odds. Generations of Americans sang of Jackson's famous victory. In 1959, Johnny Horton's version of "The Battle of New Orleans" won the Grammy for best country & western performance. If anyone sings about George W. Bush and New Orleans, it will be a blues number.

* * * *

PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT

Virtually every presidential administration dating back to George Washington's has faced charges of misconduct and threats of impeachment against the president or his civil officers. The alleged offenses have usually involved matters of personal misbehavior and corruption, notably the payoff scandals that plagued Cabinet officials who served presidents Harding and Ulysses S. Grant. But the charges have also included alleged usurpation of power by the president and serious criminal conduct that threatens constitutional government and the rule of law -- most notoriously, the charges that led to the impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, and to Richard Nixon's resignation.

Historians remain divided over the actual grievousness of many of these allegations and crimes. Scholars reasonably describe the graft and corruption around the Grant administration, for example, as gargantuan, including a kickback scandal that led to the resignation of Grant's secretary of war under the shadow of impeachment. Yet the scandals produced no indictments of Cabinet secretaries and only one of a White House aide, who was acquitted. By contrast, the most scandal-ridden administration in the modern era, apart from Nixon's, was Ronald Reagan's, now widely remembered through a haze of nostalgia as a paragon of virtue. A total of twenty-nine Reagan officials, including White House national security adviser Robert McFarlane and deputy chief of staff Michael Deaver, were convicted on charges stemming from the Iran-Contra affair, illegal lobbying and a looting scandal inside the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Three Cabinet officers -- HUD Secretary Samuel Pierce, Attorney General Edwin Meese and Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger -- left their posts under clouds of scandal. In contrast, not a single official in the Clinton administration was even indicted over his or her White House duties, despite repeated high-profile investigations and a successful, highly partisan impeachment drive.

The full report, of course, has yet to come on the Bush administration. Because Bush, unlike Reagan or Clinton, enjoys a fiercely partisan and loyal majority in Congress, his administration has been spared scrutiny. Yet that mighty advantage has not prevented the indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges stemming from an alleged major security breach in the Valerie Plame matter. (The last White House official of comparable standing to be indicted while still in office was Grant's personal secretary, in 1875.) It has not headed off the unprecedented scandal involving Larry Franklin, a high-ranking Defense Department official, who has pleaded guilty to divulging classified information to a foreign power while working at the Pentagon -- a crime against national security. It has not forestalled the arrest and indictment of Bush's top federal procurement official, David Safavian, and the continuing investigations into Safavian's intrigues with the disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, recently sentenced to nearly six years in prison -- investigations in which some prominent Republicans, including former Christian Coalition executive director Ralph Reed (and current GOP aspirant for lieutenant governor of Georgia) have already been implicated, and could well produce the largest congressional corruption scandal in American history. It has not dispelled the cloud of possible indictment that hangs over others of Bush's closest advisers.

History may ultimately hold Bush in the greatest contempt for expanding the powers of the presidency beyond the limits laid down by the U.S. Constitution. There has always been a tension over the constitutional roles of the three branches of the federal government. The Framers intended as much, as part of the system of checks and balances they expected would minimize tyranny. When Andrew Jackson took drastic measures against the nation's banking system, the Whig Senate censured him for conduct "dangerous to the liberties of the people." During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln's emergency decisions to suspend habeas corpus while Congress was out of session in 1861 and 1862 has led some Americans, to this day, to regard him as a despot. Richard Nixon's conduct of the war in Southeast Asia and his covert domestic-surveillance programs prompted Congress to pass new statutes regulating executive power.

By contrast, the Bush administration -- in seeking to restore what Cheney, a Nixon administration veteran, has called "the legitimate authority of the presidency" -- threatens to overturn the Framers' healthy tension in favor of presidential absolutism. Armed with legal findings by his attorney general (and personal lawyer) Alberto Gonzales, the Bush White House has declared that the president's powers as commander in chief in wartime are limitless. No previous wartime president has come close to making so grandiose a claim. More specifically, this administration has asserted that the president is perfectly free to violate federal laws on such matters as domestic surveillance and the torture of detainees. When Congress has passed legislation to limit those assertions, Bush has resorted to issuing constitutionally dubious "signing statements," which declare, by fiat, how he will interpret and execute the law in question, even when that interpretation flagrantly violates the will of Congress. Earlier presidents, including Jackson, raised hackles by offering their own view of the Constitution in order to justify vetoing congressional acts. Bush doesn't bother with that: He signs the legislation (eliminating any risk that Congress will overturn a veto), and then governs how he pleases -- using the signing statements as if they were line-item vetoes. In those instances when Bush's violations of federal law have come to light, as over domestic surveillance, the White House has devised a novel solution: Stonewall any investigation into the violations and bid a compliant Congress simply to rewrite the laws.

No historian can responsibly predict the future with absolute certainty. There are too many imponderables still to come in the two and a half years left in Bush's presidency to know exactly how it will look in 2009, let alone in 2059. There have been presidents -- Harry Truman was one -- who have left office in seeming disgrace, only to rebound in the estimates of later scholars. But so far the facts are not shaping up propitiously for George W. Bush. He still does his best to deny it. Having waved away the lessons of history in the making of his decisions, the present-minded Bush doesn't seem to be concerned about his place in history. "History. We won't know," he told the journalist Bob Woodward in 2003. "We'll all be dead."

Another president once explained that the judgments of history cannot be defied or dismissed, even by a president. "Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history," said Abraham Lincoln. "We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation."

SEAN WILENTZ

The consequences of REFUSING to change

2006-04-20T11:01:00.000-04:00

This comes on the heels of my local paper printing letter after letter from indignant Roman Catholics about how their religion is just fine, and needs no changes.

Priest confesses to killing pregnant lover

TOLUCA, Mexico (AP) -- A Mexican priest has confessed to strangling his pregnant lover after Easter Mass and cutting her body into pieces, a state attorney general said Wednesday.

Cesar Torres, 42, confessed to slaying Veronica Andrade Salinas, 22, at Sacred Heart of Jesus Parish in the city of Nezahualcoyotl on Mexico City's eastern outskirts, Mexico state Attorney General Abel Villicana told a news conference.

Villicana read from a statement signed by Torres in which the priest described how he had been having an affair with Salinas and that she came to his parish residence to say she was pregnant and ask for money shortly after he had participated in Easter Mass.
The consequences of REFUSING to change

The two fought and Torres strangled his former lover to death. He then dragged the body to a nearby bathroom and, according to the statement authorities say he signed, used a kitchen knife to cut off her head and hack her body to pieces. He packed the pieces into plastic bags.

According to the confession, Torres loaded the bags into a pickup truck and dumped them near a municipal cemetery in Chimalhuacan, which like Nezahualcoyotl is in Mexico state.

Authorities in recent weeks recovered the bodies of five other women who had been slain and dumped in Chimalhuacan. Some of those victims had been mutilated -- sparking speculation a serial killer could be working in the area.

But Villicana said the testimonies of Salinas' family members led to his arrest Wednesday morning and evidence recovered around the parish helped prompt his confession.

He said Torres was scheduled to appear before a judge in coming days to be formally charged with murder.

The victim was expecting a girl at the time of her slaying.

She left behind two other girls, ages 1 and 6 months.

Despite all the calls from sane Catholics asking for the church to just reconsider the rules about priests (i.e. no marriage, no female priests, etc) - Ratsy and the mob say everything's A-OK. Because clearly, this is perferable to change. It's slightly hilarious that they refuse to change despite the pews and pulpits being increasingly hard to fill. In my area, RC Church after RC Church is closed or consolidated with another.

You guys just keep staying that dead end course. You'll push yourselves into irrelevance and oblivion.

An Atheist's Case for Israel

2006-04-17T12:17:00.000-04:00

via The Atheist Jew

Given that I came extremely close to converting to Judaism and I made several very close friends in the process (and because I've spent some time in Israel) it holds a spot in my heart. I hear plenty of knee-jerk "Isreal is evel" garbage on the net coming from people who make it painfully clear they read only the stories about Rachel Corrie and have made up their minds.

For the more sane out there and those interested in learning the never-told other side of the story:

THE ATHEIST JEW: My Case For Israel, As An Atheist#links

Why I LOVE Buffalo, NY part two

2006-04-17T08:33:00.000-04:00

This appeared in the Viewpoint section of Saturday's newspaper - you know, the day before Easter.

In this country, we have an evangelical Christian president, we have mega churches, we have God on the money, we have God in the pledge and we have a two-month buildup to Christmas. Exactly how is religion "under attack" in America? Simply being asked to live by the spirit of freedom and equality that this country is supposed to embody is not an "attack." Given that upwards of 80 percent of Americans are Christians, it's absurd to claim persecution.

For all the Christians who believe they are under attack in a country where they are the staggering majority, I have a little experiment for you. Go outside with a sign that says, "Straight, Christian and Proud" today, and tomorrow go outside with a sign that says, "Gay, Atheist and Proud" and we'll see who's really persecuted.

I get the feeling that the author reads atheist blogs. I’m sure I’ve seen the “experiment” discussed before. :)

This one's for Steve

2006-04-16T08:36:00.000-04:00

Happy Easter! *hehe*

psss George Bush is a HUGE liar, pass it on

2006-04-12T12:36:00.000-04:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888_pf.html

Lacking Biolabs, Trailers Carried Case for WarAdministration Pushed Notion of Banned Iraqi Weapons Despite Evidence to Contrary

By Joby WarrickWashington Post Staff WriterWednesday, April 12, 2006;

On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."

The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.

A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.

The three-page field report and a 122-page final report three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories.

The authors of the reports were nine U.S. and British civilian experts -- scientists and engineers with extensive experience in all the technical fields involved in making bioweapons -- who were dispatched to Baghdad by the Defense Intelligence Agency for an analysis of the trailers. Their actions and findings were described to a Washington Post reporter in interviews with six government officials and weapons experts who participated in the mission or had direct knowledge of it.

None would consent to being identified by name because of fear that their jobs would be jeopardized. Their accounts were verified by other current and former government officials knowledgeable about the mission. The contents of the final report, "Final Technical Engineering Exploitation Report on Iraqi Suspected Biological Weapons-Associated Trailers," remain classified. But interviews reveal that the technical team was unequivocal in its conclusion that the trailers were not intended to manufacture biological weapons. Those interviewed took care not to discuss the classified portions of their work.

"There was no connection to anything biological," said one expert who studied the trailers. Another recalled an epithet that came to be associated with the trailers: "the biggest sand toilets in the world."

Primary Piece of Evidence

The story of the technical team and its reports adds a new dimension to the debate over the U.S. government's handling of intelligence related to banned Iraqi weapons programs. The trailers -- along with aluminum tubes acquired by Iraq for what was claimed to be a nuclear weapons program -- were primary pieces of evidence offered by the Bush administration before the war to support its contention that Iraq was making weapons of mass destruction.

Intelligence officials and the White House have repeatedly denied allegations that intelligence was hyped or manipulated in the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. But officials familiar with the technical team's reports are questioning anew whether intelligence agencies played down or dismissed postwar evidence that contradicted the administration's public views about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Last year, a presidential commission on intelligence failures criticized U.S. spy agencies for discounting evidence that contradicted the official line about banned weapons in Iraq, both before and after the invasion.

Spokesmen for the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency declined to comment on the specific findings of the technical report because it remains classified. A spokesman for the DIA asserted that the team's findings were neither ignored nor suppressed, but were incorporated in the work of the Iraqi Survey Group, which led the official search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The survey group's final report in September 2004 -- 15 months after the technical report was written -- said the trailers were "impractical" for biological weapons production and were "almost certainly intended" for manufacturing hydrogen for weather balloons.

"Whether the information was offered to others in the political realm I cannot say," said the DIA official, who spoke on the condition that he not be identified.

Intelligence analysts involved in high-level discussions about the trailers noted that the technical team was among several groups that analyzed the suspected mobile labs throughout the spring and summer of 2003. Two teams of military experts who viewed the trailers soon after their discovery concluded that the facilities were weapons labs, a finding that strongly influenced views of intelligence officials in Washington, the analysts said. "It was hotly debated, and there were experts making arguments on both sides," said one former senior official who spoke on the condition that he not be identified.

The technical team's findings had no apparent impact on the intelligence agencies' public statements on the trailers. A day after the team's report was transmitted to Washington -- May 28, 2003 -- the CIA publicly released its first formal assessment of the trailers, reflecting the views of its Washington analysts. That white paper, which also bore the DIA seal, contended that U.S. officials were "confident" that the trailers were used for "mobile biological weapons production."

Throughout the summer and fall of 2003, the trailers became simply "mobile biological laboratories" in speeches and press statements by administration officials. In late June, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell declared that the "confidence level is increasing" that the trailers were intended for biowarfare. In September, Vice President Cheney pronounced the trailers to be "mobile biological facilities," and said they could have been used to produce anthrax or smallpox.

By autumn, leaders of the Iraqi Survey Group were publicly expressing doubts about the trailers in news reports. David Kay, the group's first leader, told Congress on Oct. 2 that he had found no banned weapons in Iraq and was unable to verify the claim that the disputed trailers were weapons labs. Still, as late as February 2004, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet continued to assert that the mobile-labs theory remained plausible. Although there was "no consensus" among intelligence officials, the trailers "could be made to work" as weapons labs, he said in a speech Feb. 5.

Tenet, now a faculty member at Georgetown's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, declined to comment for this story.

Kay, in an interview, said senior CIA officials had advised him upon accepting the survey group's leadership in June 2003 that some experts in the DIA were "backsliding" on whether the trailers were weapons labs. But Kay said he was not apprised of the technical team's findings until late 2003, near the end of his time as the group's leader.

"If I had known that we had such a team in Iraq," Kay said, "I would certainly have given their findings more weight."

A Defector's Tales

Even before the trailers were seized in spring 2003, the mobile labs had achieved mythic stature. As early as the mid-1990s, weapons inspectors from the United Nations chased phantom mobile labs that were said to be mounted on trucks or rail cars, churning out tons of anthrax by night and moving to new locations each day. No such labs were found, but many officials believed the stories, thanks in large part to elaborate tales told by Iraqi defectors.
The CIA's star informant, an Iraqi with the code name Curveball, was a self-proclaimed chemical engineer who defected to Germany in 1999 and requested asylum. For four years, the Baghdad native passed secrets about alleged Iraqi banned weapons to the CIA indirectly, through Germany's intelligence service. Curveball provided descriptions of mobile labs and said he had supervised work in one of them. He even described a catastrophic 1998 accident in one lab that left 12 Iraqis dead.

Curveball's detailed descriptions -- which were officially discredited in 2004 -- helped CIA artists create color diagrams of the labs, which Powell later used to argue the case for military intervention in Iraq before the U.N. Security Council.

"We have firsthand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails," Powell said in the Feb. 5, 2003, speech. Thanks to those descriptions, he said, "We know what the fermenters look like. We know what the tanks, pumps, compressors and other parts look like."
The trailers discovered in the Iraqi desert resembled the drawings well enough, at least from a distance. One of them, a flatbed trailer covered by tarps, was found in April by Kurdish fighters near the northern city of Irbil. The second was captured by U.S. forces near Mosul. Both were painted military green and outfitted with a suspicious array of gear: large metal tanks, motors, compressors, pipes and valves.

Photos of the trailers were quickly circulated, and many weapons experts were convinced that the long-sought mobile labs had been found.

Yet reaction from Iraqi sources was troublingly inconsistent. Curveball, shown photos of the trailers, confirmed they were mobile labs and even pointed out key features. But other Iraqi informants in internal reports disputed Curveball's story and claimed the trailers had a benign purpose: producing hydrogen for weather balloons.

Back at the Pentagon, DIA officials attempted a quick resolution of the dispute. The task fell to the "Jefferson Project," a DIA-led initiative made up of government and civilian technical experts who specialize in analyzing and countering biological threats. Project leaders put together a team of volunteers, eight Americans and a Briton, each with at least a decade of experience in one of the essential technical skills needed for bioweapons production. All were nongovernment employees working for defense contractors or the Energy Department's national labs.

The technical team was assembled in Kuwait and then flown to Baghdad to begin their work early on May 25, 2003. By that date, the two trailers had been moved to a military base on the grounds of one of deposed president Saddam Hussein's Baghdad palaces. When members of the technical team arrived, they found the trailers parked in an open lot, covered with camouflage netting.

The technical team went to work under a blistering sun in 110-degree temperatures. Using tools from home, they peered into vats, turned valves, tapped gauges and measured pipes. They reconstructed a flow-path through feed tanks and reactor vessels, past cooling chambers and drain valves, and into discharge tanks and exhaust pipes. They took hundreds of photographs.
By the end of their first day, team members still had differing views about what the trailers were. But they agreed about what the trailers were not.

"Within the first four hours," said one team member, who like the others spoke on the condition he not be named, "it was clear to everyone that these were not biological labs."

News of the team's early impressions leaped across the Atlantic well ahead of the technical report. Over the next two days, a stream of anxious e-mails and phone calls from Washington pressed for details and clarifications.

The reason for the nervousness was soon obvious: In Washington, a CIA analyst had written a draft white paper on the trailers, an official assessment that would also reflect the views of the DIA. The white paper described the trailers as "the strongest evidence to date that Iraq was hiding a biological warfare program." It also explicitly rejected an explanation by Iraqi officials, described in a New York Times article a few days earlier, that the trailers might be mobile units for producing hydrogen.

But the technical team's preliminary report, written in a tent in Baghdad and approved by each team member, reached a conclusion opposite from that of the white paper.

Key Components Lacking

Team members and other sources intimately familiar with the mission declined to discuss technical details of the team's findings because the report remains classified. But they cited the Iraqi Survey Group's nonclassified, final report to Congress in September 2004 as reflecting the same conclusions.

That report said the trailers were "impractical for biological agent production," lacking 11 components that would be crucial for making bioweapons. Instead, the trailers were "almost certainly designed and built for the generation of hydrogen," the survey group reported.
The group's report and members of the technical team also dismissed the notion that the trailers could be easily modified to produce weapons.

"It would be easier to start all over with just a bucket," said Rod Barton, an Australian biological weapons expert and former member of the survey group.

The technical team's preliminary report was transmitted in the early hours of May 27, just before its members began boarding planes to return home. Within 24 hours, the CIA published its white paper, "Iraqi Mobile Biological Warfare Agent Production Plants," on its Web site.
After team members returned to Washington, they began work on a final report. At several points, members were questioned about revising their conclusions, according to sources knowledgeable about the conversations. The questioners generally wanted to know the same thing: Could the report's conclusions be softened, to leave open a possibility that the trailers might have been intended for weapons?

In the end, the final report -- 19 pages plus a 103-page appendix -- remained unequivocal in declaring the trailers unsuitable for weapons production.

"It was very assertive," said one weapons expert familiar with the report's contents.
Then, their mission completed, the team members returned to their jobs and watched as their work appeared to vanish.

"I went home and fully expected that our findings would be publicly stated," one member recalled. "It never happened. And I just had to live with it."

"Why Is There So Much Hate Inside Us?"

2006-04-12T12:10:00.000-04:00

This comes by way of Pharyngula

Since almost all we see of theists is the hate-mongering type, or the drooling idiot type it's easy to forget that there are perfectly nice people out there who do believe in gods. Here's a little reminder of that from what I consider to be a surprising source.

Why Is There So Much Hate Inside Us?
Abdullah Al-Mutairi • Al-Watan

In the shop next to my house, there is a home delivery service which is run by an Indian. He is a good man, hardworking and devoted to his job. I talk to him whenever he delivers something to my house and he talks to me about the time he spent working in Abu Dhabi and of his dream to live in London.

Last week I asked him to deliver a newspaper to my house. When he delivered it to me, he asked me whether I wrote in it. I told him that I did and he asked me to write about why young Saudis hate foreign workers, particularly Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. He asked, “Why do they throw rocks at us when they see us in the street?” He said that in India they were taught to love others because that is the teaching of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). I was moved by his words and promised him that I would write on the subject.

I took his question to my students and started a discussion in class. The students agreed that they had harassed foreigners, particularly South Asians, in the street. One said that seeing a worker in the street was a perfect chance for them to beat him up and then run away. Some admitted searching for foreign workers to beat up, throw eggs at and generally abuse. I asked my students why they behaved in this way, what was the reason. Some said it was just fun, nothing more or less. Some said it was because those people were weak and unable to fight back. Some said that their favorite pastime was to catch cats, kill them and skin them. I was shocked and disturbed by all this violence and wondered what was causing it.

The classroom discussion ended but my questions would not go away. Is this violence only committed by children or can we see it at other levels in other forms? How do older people deal with foreign workers? Do the workers feel that we respect them? Sadly, the rude and sarcastic way we often refer to them sprang to my mind. Can such relationships be called humane? Are they based on equality? Are they in keeping with the tenets of Islam?

Do we adult Saudis who sponsor and employ foreigners fulfill the conditions of their contracts — which both we and they have signed? How many housemaids never get a day off?

I remember a worker in the school where I work who was on the job every day and who had not been paid for six months. I remember another unpaid worker who asked humbly and politely for his dues and received nothing but curses and insults. It seems to me that our children’s violent behavior has its origins and roots in the behavior and attitudes of adults. My Indian friend’s question should have thus been directed toward all ages and not just at the young.

Are these things related to education? Can we blame this shameful behavior on a lack of education? The answer came all too quickly to my head. I remembered one of my colleagues, a teacher who belongs to a certain tribe. He believes that a student lacking a tribal name is a man with no roots and hence of no importance. Then I remembered a preacher who visited the school after 9/11 and warned the students against dealing with non-Muslims. I also remember a sheikh in a mosque who would not allow a foreigner to pray next to him — simply because the man was not Saudi.

It is not difficult to come up with examples of our relations with people in our country who belong to different religions and cultures. And I will not discuss our own relations with other Saudis. Many of us will not allow our daughters to marry someone just because he is from a certain place or because, for some reason, we look down on him. Behind all these examples are beliefs and thoughts toward “others” which glorify us and our egos and degrade them and theirs. Such a situation is fertile ground for the idea of hate and infertile ground for the idea of love.

Those brought up to love people will not throw rocks at them and curse them. Those brought up to love people will not degrade those who are different from them? Where is love in our lives? Has it given way to hate? What answer can I give my Indian friend? Is he going to understand that it will take a long time to change this culture of hate? I do not think that it will be easy since so many of us do not want to and so many believe they are unique and the best in the world. I remember when I was in England last summer, arriving at the front door of the house where I was staying. I saw a little girl standing outside the house next to mine. I wondered if she would curse me or throw stones at me or whether she would just look away in disgust. Instead, she carried on watering the flowers in the small garden; then she looked up and waved at me, with a big smile on her face. Could that have happened here?

There's a war on who now?

2006-04-12T08:44:00.000-04:00

Xian Sue for "Right" To Harass Gays

2006-04-10T13:17:00.000-04:00

Proving once again that Xian "love" is just Orwellian double-speak for "raging bigotry":

Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies
Many codes intended to protect gays from harassment are illegal, conservatives argue.
By Stephanie Simon, Times Staff Writer
April 10, 2006

ATLANTA — Ruth Malhotra went to court last month for the right to be intolerant.

Malhotra says her Christian faith compels her to speak out against homosexuality. But the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she's a senior, bans speech that puts down others because of their sexual orientation.

Malhotra sees that as an unacceptable infringement on her right to religious expression. So she's demanding that Georgia Tech revoke its tolerance policy.

With her lawsuit, the 22-year-old student joins a growing campaign to force public schools, state colleges and private workplaces to eliminate policies protecting gays and lesbians from harassment. The religious right aims to overturn a broad range of common tolerance programs: diversity training that promotes acceptance of gays and lesbians, speech codes that ban harsh words against homosexuality, anti-discrimination policies that require college clubs to open their membership to all.

The Rev. Rick Scarborough, a leading evangelical, frames the movement as the civil rights struggle of the 21st century. "Christians," he said, "are going to have to take a stand for the right to be Christian."

In that spirit, the Christian Legal Society, an association of judges and lawyers, has formed a national group to challenge tolerance policies in federal court. Several nonprofit law firms — backed by major ministries such as Focus on the Family and Campus Crusade for Christ — already take on such cases for free.

The legal argument is straightforward: Policies intended to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination end up discriminating against conservative Christians. Evangelicals have been suspended for wearing anti-gay T-shirts to high school, fired for denouncing Gay Pride Month at work, reprimanded for refusing to attend diversity training. When they protest tolerance codes, they're labeled intolerant.

A recent survey by the Anti-Defamation League found that 64% of American adults — including 80% of evangelical Christians — agreed with the statement "Religion is under attack in this country."

"The message is, you're free to worship as you like, but don't you dare talk about it outside the four walls of your church," said Stephen Crampton, chief counsel for the American Family Assn. Center for Law and Policy, which represents Christians who feel harassed.

Critics dismiss such talk as a right-wing fundraising ploy. "They're trying to develop a persecution complex," said Jeremy Gunn, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.

Others fear the banner of religious liberty could be used to justify all manner of harassment.

"What if a person felt their religious view was that African Americans shouldn't mingle with Caucasians, or that women shouldn't work?" asked Jon Davidson, legal director of the gay rights group Lambda Legal.

Christian activist Gregory S. Baylor responds to such criticism angrily. He says he supports policies that protect people from discrimination based on race and gender. But he draws a distinction that infuriates gay rights activists when he argues that sexual orientation is different — a lifestyle choice, not an inborn trait.

By equating homosexuality with race, Baylor said, tolerance policies put conservative evangelicals in the same category as racists. He predicts the government will one day revoke the tax-exempt status of churches that preach homosexuality is sinful or that refuse to hire gays and lesbians.

"Think how marginalized racists are," said Baylor, who directs the Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious Freedom. "If we don't address this now, it will only get worse."

(this is only some of the first page - read on).

Deconversion, Part 3

2006-04-05T12:46:00.000-04:00

Part 3: Atheism

When I left Judaism I sank into deep depression for a while. I felt like a failure. I felt rejected by god. From betrayal to misogyny to atheistic books my path out of religion wore on me. Brokenhearted and feeling very alone, life sucked for a while. During that time the theist assertion that life is nothing without god felt like it was incredibly true. I was reading more and more atheistic literature, but since at this point it was too early to give a name to the new thoughts in my head, and to soon after spending so much time in religion to get over the loss of it, I was detached from it.

Then, more death. My best friend from childhood was one of those guards for armored vans that pick up and drop off money from banks. In August 2004 two men in full body armor robbed them as they came out of the store. My friend, who'd just turned 29 and whose son had just turned 1, was shot three times. The thieves never spoke - they never demanded the money from him. They just killed him and took it.

I hadn't talked to him in years. I hadn't seen him in even more years. This was about seven months into my abandonment of religion. He was one of those friends (that I hope everyone has) that even when you were feeling like the entire world was against you, you knew this person was in your corner. If we had met again, we would have picked up right where we left off. He was the most innocuous and gentle person I'd ever known. He was a neo-pagan (when I knew him) and would never have hurt even a fly. Cliche, but true.

I mourned him. I went to the memorial service. Because of his death, a few long lost friends were reunited for a little while. But his son will never know the wonderful man his father was. His wife, who suffers from Huntington Disease will ultimately make the child an orphan.

The religious and atheist sides of myself were warring it out. The religious side was saying 'how could the loving lord do this to this family? They were good people, they didn't hurt anyone, they didn't deserve this. How could a loving god make this part of his plan? I don't understand. I should pray on it."

Then, a truly revolutionary thought occured to me. If there was no god, there is no "divine plan". God wasn't rejecting me. God didn't make it part of his plan to make me fail with religion. God wasn't out to punish this innocent family. God didn't allow the two worthless fucks who killed him to get away scot free. God isn't there at all.

That thought rocked my world. Here I was, after all those years of study, realizing what Isaac and Simon were trying to tell me. It wasn't that they followed god because it made them happy whether it was true or not. It was that they made themselves happy via religion. They didn't care whether or not there was a god.

I FINALLY got it. The question isn't "Is there a god?" The question is "Does it matter?"

Religion is a man made thing. It attempts to describe god, give attributes to god, and assign desires to god that are human-based. People wrote the words, people repeat the words, people believe the words - all without a shred of evidence. Because it makes them happy. Ultimately, religion is an attempt to be happy and stay happy in the face of reality. All the other bullshit that comes with it, is the fault of humans, not the myths they create. It creates a sense of community.

What I found out is that atheism does that infinitely better. Instead of creating divides between people - catholic xian v baptist xian, shiite v sunni, reform v orthodox, muslim v hindu, xian v muslim, black v white, gay v straight etc etc etc - it gives us all equal footing. Atheists are united by one thing - a lack of belief in gods. That's it. Therefore, it doesn't matter if you're a transvestite hooker from Queens, or a big game hunting republican from Texas- we're all just atheists.

Religion also creates a sense of superiority. I.e. Baptists don't like Catholics because they "worship Mary", Catholics don't like non-catholics because they strayed from the one true church(tm). Muslims don't like other religions because they aren't Islam. Etc etc (note: Judaism is the only one of the big three that says that non-Jews -providing that they are righteous people - will still go to heaven. Odd that its theological children (Xianity and Islam) do not.)

Even the variances in atheism - strong v weak - never cause us to take up weapons and destroy each other. I've never seen a strong atheist tell a weak atheist that their less of an atheist because they don't agree. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, of course, as there are assholes in every bunch. But, it still never causes death and destruction. Northern Ireland, Israel/Palestine and now Iraq can all attest that the same is not true with religion is part of the mix.

It was then that I caught the scent of The Selfish Gene (by Dawkins) and The Meme Machine (by Blackmore). Those of you who've read them (and if you haven't, do so immediately!) know exactly what happened then. "Religion is a mind virus".

(It should be noted here that at this point I was dating a guy who claimed to be an atheist - and in fact directed me to some more research material that further aided my search - but who turned out to be a hardcore xian. Apparently lying about "devotion to god" is forgivable - esp if it gets them some ass.)

There isn't anything in the bible that praises intelligence and now I know why. But in this modern, highly interactive age, there is no excuse for remaining ignorant of facts. Learn. Read. Explore. Whether or not god is out there doesn't matter. What matters is how you live this life, how you treat other human beings. It's clear religion is counter to both of these things. It focuses on the next life and how to get yourself into it. It does not improve life or those who believe it. It teaches them that even though they're gods special people, they're also still dirty, evil sinners. But instead of blaming religion, they blame themselves. It's a con job. A total mind-fucking con job. Voltaire said: "The first priest was the first scoundrel who met the first fool." There is no better definition of religion.

Theists have repeated the old lie that atheists are just full of hate, or depression and they just hate god a million times. I was a god-hater for a little while. Having been betrayed, lied to, told the because I'm female I'm second rate, having seen the divisive damage religion does - I did hate it for a little while. I know now, though, that at that point I wasn't an atheist yet. Maltheist, definiately. Not an atheist.

It was that realization (and a lot more reading and researching) that forced me to reconsider and become, truly, an atheist.

My desire (and follow through) to do more volunteer work sky rocketed after I figured this out. My compassion for all humanity skyrocketed after this. I no longer see walls that can't be broken down. There is only . . . possibilities. The saying it true - without god, all things are possible. There isn't a divine plan beating me down, there are no divisions between people that aren't man-made, there is nothing to religion but recycled myths and old superstitions. Do I hate religion? Yes. Because it does nothing but damage and hinders human growth. Do I hate theists? No. I forgive them; they know not what they do. We are opposition to their indoctrination. So of course they hate us, of course they don't trust us. (and I think, they fear we're right.)

So, every time a theist tells me that I just don't know, or that I haven't given it a shot they should know I flip them off. I looked deeper and longer than the average theist does. When they tell me they feel sorry for me, I do feel sorry for them. They're adults who haven't escaped. And when they tell me they'll pray for me, I say thanks for not doing anything.

So in conclusion:

I have no regrets. I lost the fantasy that is God, but, I still have that white teddy bear, pictures and keepsakes from my dearly departed and the confidence that comes from "been there, done that". These things are real. These things exist. God does not. And that is a wonderful thing.

Fini

Deconversion, Part two

2006-04-05T12:45:00.000-04:00

Part two: Judaism

Simon Barat was my first love (eve called it!). Given that it was college and I did what college kids do - BAR HOPING - and he was a bouncer, I'd spoken to Simon a few times before I really met him. According to him, he'd hit on me on those occasions we'd crossed paths but because he was "so much older" than I was, I'd ignored him. He was eight years older than I was (26 at that point), in case you're wondering. He wasn't an old man, or something.

A little bit of what he called his "Jew cred":

Simon was born in Bethlehem (c'mon, how perfect is THAT?) and raised on a series of Kibbutzim in Israel. His parents were devoutly religious, but somehow managed to maintain open minds. Stemming, I think, from the fact that his mother was a Muslim Arab who'd escaped an arranged marriage, converted to Judaism and married a Yeshiva Student. That's the stuff Lifetime movies are made of.

I think this attributed to his oddness. He was devout, but not the sort of devout that other devout Jews would consider devout. (got that? >:) ) He was observed the Kashrut (kosher) laws, he observed Shabbat (Sabbath), he was part of a Minyan . But, he ran with the Reconstructionist crowd here - which is about as liberal and progressive as it's possible to get. So he also had tattoos, wore whatever clothes he wanted (blended fabrics - oy veh!) and was NOT AL ALL observant of the Negiah laws.

I was starting to doubt the existence of god when I met Simon. He believed, but even he admitted that he didn't care if it were true or not - doing the rituals, praying etc made him happy and he could see no wrong in that. Neither could (can) I. He didn't talk about it in public, he never preached to anyone. It was just something private that gave him joy. If only everyone treated their religious beliefs in the same way.

I'll spare you the sentimental and sappy details. Suffice it to say this: though I've always been anti-marriage, when he asked me I couldn't refuse.

Then, in Nov '99 Simon was taking a ride on his motorcycle and because it was raining took it easy around a sharp corner. The drunken truck driver coming the other way, did not. He was dead long before the ambulance got there.*

And true to form, I ran toward religion, instead of away. Except this time, it was his religion.

Through Simon I had met his Rabbi - Rebekah, and her husband Isaac (another Rabbi). They would be my teachers over the next three(plus some) years. I won't deny that Judaism spoke to me in a way that Xianity never did. Being parent and original, it felt more authentic. But it could never be denied that it is, above all else, a tribalistic religion. It's clearly designed to set one group of people apart from the rest with exclusive rituals and customs.

It needs to be said that the bickering schism between the sect of Judaism is worse than that between Xian ones. I've heard stories of converts who moved to Israel only to find out that their conversion was not considered valid there and therefore they could not stay (basically). Even here, a convert to one sect is not considered Jewish by another. And, more annoying still, some sects consider all conversions invalid and the converted to be an imposter.

This is not what pushed me away this time, however. This time it was the blatant and rampant misogyny. Now, I've had this argument with Jewish believers before. There's a plethora of excuses or cute little justifications for the misogyny present in the religion - and there's also flat out denial (which usually comes in the form of the "Yeshiva Defense" which means all you'll get is "you just don't understand" instead of any real reasoning). I'll give a few examples:

- Every morning observant men recite the Aleinu (Adoration) in which men thank god "for not having made me a woman". Now, the most common excuse for that one I've gotten is that what it really means is that men are thanking god for making them as he saw fit - which is what the female version of this prayer says. However to quote: "This women's prayer encourages women to accept their fate, the same destiny which the men rejoice in having avoided." (The Problem with the Aleinu-Adoration)

- The set of laws known as Niddah - euphemistically called the "Family Purity" laws. Which contain, for example, the cleansing rituals women perform after doing something dirty - like having babies. A woman is "unclean" for 33 days after giving birth - if she had a boy. It's 66 days for a baby girl. There are also rules about what a menstruating woman can and cannot do (namely, sleep with her husband). In the more strict sects, a menstruating woman can't sleep in the same bed, and can't pass anything directly to her husband.

- Lastly, there's the plight of the Agunah- which is "a woman who wishes to obtain a divorce from her husband, but whose husband is either unable or unwilling to grant her a halachic bill of divorce, or Get". Agunah means "chained woman". So, let's say you're a woman married to a complete fucktard - abusive, neglectful etc - or he's in a coma, or certifiably insane, and you want a divorce. If you're an observant woman, this fucktard (or in a coma, or certifiably insane) husband has to agree to the divorce. If he refuses to (or can't) grant one, or if he's run off and there's no way to contact him, you are chained to him FOREVER. Which means if you want to stay with your observant community, you can never get remarried. Also, you can forget about having a boyfriend. AND - if you do have a child after being declared an Agunah - that child is a mamzer (a bastard) and can't marry a Jew. Or, you can leave your family, friends and life behind (in disgrace, natch) and do whatever you like. Because, while secular public law will grant you the divorce, the Jewish community will not. It's their way, or the highway.

There has been centuries of debate trying to find a loophole in the "law" (or the Torah, to us) that will alleviate this. But, since simply changing the law is a big no-no, they can't just decree that women married to fucktards can divorce them. Their not allowed to change god's word. At least, that's the excuse they give for not fixing this particularly cruel law. They do change things when they need to, they just refer to it as a Rabbinical decree that creates "a fence around the law".

There's also the Mechitza which sometimes means having women up in the balcony, forbidden to talk during the service, and sometimes with an obstructed view, the separation even at a wedding celebration, the modesty rules - I could go on forever.

Now, it must be noted here that these things are practiced only by the Orthodox (and sometimes Conservative) sects of Judaism. And even there, it varies. There's an old saying that goes: "If there are two Jews in a room, there are three opinions." Nowhere is the better illustrated then by the degree of varying adherence to Halacha (Jewish Law) from sect to sect and even congregation to congregation.

So, since I said I was studying under a Reconstructionist Rabbi, why did this bother me so much? Like I said, only some conversions are considered valid by Israel. And that's where the Rabbis' Stone were going, and I wanted to go too. But they, being born Jewish, were covered under the Right of Return law. I, being a convert, had to convert with an Orthodox Rabbi to be considered "kosher" (*cue rim shot*)

Since I had spent several months there as a guest of the Rabbis' Stone, that's where I wanted to be. So, if I couldn't reconcile myself with converting to a sect that I knew to be hardcore misogynistic, I couldn't go. Imagine what I failure I felt like. I had tried before to find god, and failed. Here I was trying again, and failing. God must not want me, god must have something against me, god must have a plan that includes for me to go to hell. (note: the concept of hell as the 'fire and brimstone pit of torture forever' is an xian thing. For the Jews, there's Gehana - also a pit of despair and torture, but it's only for a limited amount of time to "cleanse" the soul for earthly sins before getting it on in heaven.) I was sinking in to depression fast - partly because of this, and partly because the reality and finality of Simon's death was only just sinking in - three years later.

Sensing my hesitation and increasing desperation, Isaac gave me a book from his own collection. It was The Blind Watchmaker, Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design - by Richard Dawkins. This was something unexpected. The priest I'd studied Xianity under had bookshelves full of books, but they were all in support of his beliefs. But here, in this Rabbi's office, was an entire section of books about atheism, about the problems with biblical history, he even had Mein Kampf.

Even though I had left college, I had kept up my study of philosophy, feminism and some sciences. They had been pulling me away from religion since my introduction to them. This one though, was the proverbial final nail in the coffin. Isaac said he surrounded himself with books that countered religion and even his Jewish heritage and identity to remind himself that there is always opposition. He said "an enemy is someone you know nothing about. If I can learn about others, perhaps they can cease to be enemies." He would later tell me that he himself doubted the existence of god, but, like Simon, didn't care if it were true or not. It made him happy.

He said he could see it did not make me happy. So, instead of trying to stretch myself to fit the mold, why not explore different avenues. Ever day I thank him for that.

I left religious study for good shortly thereafter. Though it would be several years before I could say the word "atheist" out loud.

I still hang out with the Stones. I babysit their kids on occasion. They still invite me to Sabbath dinner and I still go. I have gone into far more detail about Judaism than I did with Xianity because even now the loss of it grieves me. It holds a special place in my heart still - largely because of these people. Instead of casting me aside and never speaking to me again - like the oh-so-loving-and-forgiving Bible Fellowship - the Stones keep me in their circle. They're excellent people. Some of the few I can honestly say no devolved by religion.

This is why I scoff at theists who tell me to "really give religion a try" or "really study the bible/torah/koran with an open mind". As if I haven't already done so. Because, were they to "really" study it with "an open mind", I have serious doubts they'd remain believers.

* you may think I treated his death lightly in this post. Perhaps. In my defense it's been nearly seven years and I have long accepted that life sometimes really sucks. We have no control over it, so I will not spend my life mourning that fact.

part three: Atheism (coming soon)

Happy Weekend, Heathens!

2006-03-31T12:58:00.000-05:00

I'm cutting out of work early today, so since I won't be seeing (well, reading) ya'll until Monday comes, be good and eat well. Get lots of sleep, go easy on the drugs, booze and whoring and don't forget to turn your clocks ahead tomorrow.

Some sexy bits of meats for sweet dreams this weekend:

This last one is a pic of Buffalo's best heavy metal band: Gutpile(www.myspace.com/gutpilemusic)

(okay so one of them is my baby brother (and no I won't tell you which one), but that doesn't mean I will deny all my friends have mad crushes on him. And the other four are just flat out sexy bitches.

2006-03-31T09:21:00.000-05:00

Gaining Acceptance for Atheism

The early part of the article rehashes the "America Hates Atheists" study we all know about. And, a truly outrageous finding by Andrew Sullivan - courts routinely discriminate against atheists parents in custody hearings.

"That time and place, it turns out, is 2005 Michigan, where a modern Shelley might be denied custody based partly on his 'not regularly attend[ing] church and present[ing] no evidence demonstrating any willingness or capacity to attend to religion with [his children],' or having a 'lack of religious observation.' It's 1992 South Dakota, where Shelley might have been given custody but only on condition that he 'will agree to present a plan to the Court of how [he] is going to commence providing some sort of spiritual opportunity for the [children] to learn about God while in [his] custody.' It's 2005 Arkansas, 2002 Georgia, 2005 Louisiana, 2004 Minnesota, 2005 Mississippi, 1992 New York, 2005 North Carolina, 1996 Pennsylvania, 2004 South Carolina, 1997 Tennessee, 2000 Texas, and, going back to the 1970s and 1980s, Alabama, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Montana, and Nebraska. In 2000, the Mississippi Supreme Court ordered a mother to take her child to church each week, reasoning that 'it is certainly to the best interests of [the child] to receive regular and systematic spiritual training'; in 1996, the Arkansas Supreme Court did the same, partly on the grounds that weekly church attendance, rather than just the once-every-two-weeks attendance that the child would have had if he went only with the other parent, provides superior 'moral instruction.'"

Of course, this is an outrageous attack on religious liberty. Imagine if Christian parents were denied custody because of their faith. O'Reilly would have weeks of programming. But atheists? Naah. When Christianists declare that they are fighting for religious freedom, bring this issue up. It will determine whether they are in good faith, so to speak, or not.

But, even despite this outrages, there is still hope:

Personally, I have a great deal of hope that this is going to start to change in the near future. Indeed, this is one area where the blogosphere could actually prove quite powerful. Ten years ago, I'm not sure there was anywhere that your average Christian American was exposed to openly atheistic viewpoints. These days, I'm constantly amazed how many prominent bloggers profess their atheism on a daily basis. On the list, with the help of The Raving Atheist: Daily Kos, Washington Monthly, The Volokh Conspiracy (Jim Lindgren), Pharyngula, Daily Pundit, onegoodmove, Matthew Yglesias, Vodkapundit, and of course many others, including me. Notably, many of these have substantial conservative readership.

Of course, the average American still may not tune in to these atheist blogs, but a lot of people do. A lot more than used to face proud, open, secularism a few years ago. And since most of the hostility toward atheists, in my view, is based in the fact that so few people feel they know any, this could well start to have a dramatic effect. The informal nature of blogs, revealing much of a blogger's character and personality, has the potential to be quite powerful in this regard.

It took a long time in America for the tide to turn such that public acceptance of homosexuals could begin to grow. Yet, over the last 10 years, the change has been phenomenal. Ellen DeGeneres, leading to Will and Grace, leading to Lawrence v. Texas, leading to Goodridge -- it could really be described as a revolution. And, of course, that line of progress continues.
Johan Norberg links today to this Pew Poll showing that the U.S. is becoming more socially liberal in a number of areas.

Five years ago, I know I never thought a case would reach the Supreme Court challenging "under god" in our Pledge of Allegiance. Never mind the idea that it would actually win on appeal, and then be dismissed on a technicality. Certainly, that case didn't lead to an upsurge in popular support for atheists. Nevertheless, Newdow's coup before the Supreme Court could well be seen someday as an early turning point.

And it may well be the blogosphere that is responsible for the next step.

Xian Parenting Tip #157: Get Thy Children to a Cult, uh, I mean College!

2006-03-31T09:19:00.000-05:00

A College That's Strictly Different

This is a lovely little article found via Pharyngula that illustrates student life at Pensacola Christian College- an unaccredited "college".

The campus looks just like the glossy brochure: clean, green, and beautiful. The students are well dressed and well groomed, not a pair of jeans or scrappy goatee in sight. Inside the Commons building, two students engage in a spirited game of Ping-Pong. When one of them misses an easy shot, he cries, "Praise the Lord!"

Pensacola Christian College prides itself on being different, not just from secular colleges, but from fellow Christian ones, too. Some of those differences, like the way students dress, are obvious to any visitor. Others are not. Since its founding, more than 30 years ago, Pensacola has blossomed from a tiny Bible college into a thriving institution of nearly 5,000 students. Along the way it has become known as among the most conservative — and most secretive — colleges in the country.

(snip)

Lisa Morris was walking to class with her boyfriend last October when something happened. At first Ms. Morris, sophomore music major, is reluctant to divulge the details. Eventually, however, the truth comes out: He patted her behind.

Someone who witnessed the incident reported Ms. Morris and her boyfriend. At Pensacola any physical contact between members of the opposite sex is forbidden. (Members of the same sex may touch, although the college condemns homosexuality.) The forbidden contact includes shaking hands and definitely includes patting behinds. Both students were expelled.
Of Pensacola's many rules, those dealing with male-female relationships are the most talked about. There are restrictions on when and where men and women may speak to each other. Some elevators and stairwells may be used only by women; others may be used only by men. Socializing on particular benches is forbidden. If a man and a woman are walking to class, they may chat; if they stop en route, though, they may be in trouble. Generally men and women caught interacting in any "unchaperoned area" — which is most of the campus — could be subject to severe penalties.

Those rules extend beyond the campus. A man and a woman cannot go to an off-campus restaurant together without a chaperon (usually a faculty member). Even running into members of the opposite sex off campus can lead to punishment. One student told of how a group of men and a group of women from the college happened to meet at a McDonald's last spring. Both groups were returning from the beach (they had gone to separate beaches; men and women are not allowed to be at the beach together). The administration found out, and all 15 students were expelled.

Even couples who are not talking or touching can be reprimanded. Sabrina Poirier, a student at Pensacola who withdrew in 1997, was disciplined for what is known on the campus as "optical intercourse" — staring too intently into the eyes of a member of the opposite sex. This is also referred to as "making eye babies." While the rule does not appear in written form, most students interviewed for this article were familiar with the concept.

(snip)

There are plenty of other ways to run afoul of the rules. Last spring Timothy Dow was caught playing the video game Halo 2. Such games are banned by the college. Movies are also forbidden, including those rated G. Music is restricted to classical or approved Christian ("contemporary Christian" artists are deemed too worldly). Students are allowed to watch television news at 6 o'clock, but that's it. The TVs are controlled by college employees, who flip a switch to black out the commercials, lest students see anything inappropriate.

In the library, books and magazines are censored. One student says she saw a pair of black-marker boxer shorts on a photograph of Michelangelo's David. Any books that students wish to read that are not in the library must first be approved by administrators. Those containing references to "magic," for instance, are normally rejected. The rule book specifically prohibits "fleshly magazines and books."

The most tragic outcome of this? These poor kids think they're getting an education - however, attending a "college" that is not accredited means credits can't be transferred. But, they still think they'll be employable after "college".

Mr. Ghobrial, the student from Egypt who doesn't mind the rules, wants to attend dental school. His first choice, West Virginia University, has already said it would not consider his application, because Pensacola is not accredited. "I'm hoping they change their minds," he says.

So, what's that about religion NOT being just indoctrination and control again?

Deconversion, or How I learned to stop worrying and love reason

2006-03-28T10:29:00.000-05:00

In dealing with theists, an atheist will inevitably be asked why they don't believe in Jesus/Allah/TheGreatPumpkin. Each time I've been asked this question my answer has been different, though I couldn't put a finger on why it was always different. Everything I've said to answer the question has been true, each situation or event has led me to atheism. However, I've never really felt my answers told the whole picture. It was as if I've only ever given half answers, only a piece of the picture. The concern there being that a theist would read it and think it was a silly (or worse yet insignificant) situation or event that made me lose faith. Then, they would conclude that my search for god was never a serious one and that if only I'd give it a true shot would I ever find whatever god they're peddaling.

This is untrue. While I was searching I meant it. Fully intending to convert imagine the disappointment when, after years of study, it became crystal clear that neither religion was for me. And Islam - fuhgetaboutit - Judaism and Christianity are misogynistic enough!

Recently, I had a dream that sparked a memory I'd long forgotten about. The dream is inconsequential - just me and the bf driving around with three white teddy bears in the back seat of the car that somehow turned into three little girls in white dresses. But it was one of the white teddy bears that sparked the memory. And once this little pebble started falling, it unleashed an avalanche - all the pieces suddenly fell into place. I know how and why I became and atheist. And finally, I can answer this question. (but it's a long answer, so it will be in parts. These long posts are for my own benefit, which is not to suggest anyone out there cares. ;) )

A note before I begin: This is only what happened to me. I am not claiming anything about any brand of any religion. So spare me the "this isn't how WE do it" stuff.

Part One: Christianity

That teddy bear is one that my father bought me when I was ten and in the hospital. It was Easter time and I was having my appendix out. But, it had ruptured and had been leaking poison into my body for no one knew how long (the doctors estimated it had been a month - to which I know you medical types are saying "impossible!"- but I was in the hospital a month before hand with a bad staff infection in my left leg, and they knew then that my appendix would have to come out). The doctors had told my parents - well within my earshot - to have "arrangements" ready because they fully expected me to "not make it".

Something very similar would happen again five years later. It was my sophomore year of high school, Easter break again, and I was back in the hospital being given blood transfusion after blood transfusion because I'd come dangerously close to bleeding to death. (which, as morbid as it may sound would have been a nice way to go. I just got extremely sleepy, there was no pain.) And again, my parents were told that it would be "prudent" to be ready for "anything". The doctor had told my parents that a girl of my age should have a hemoglobin level of 12 (percent?) and mine was 2.6. When I survived, he would later say that my heart being so young was what saved me. Had I been a decade older, I'd be dead.

These events and my subsequent survival - despite the doctors giving me little chance of surviving - are what convinced me to start investigating religion more closely. Since those around me seemed convinced that these happy turn of events were divine intervention, I felt compelled to become more devoted. (Up until this point we were light weight xians. I had been an altar girl (of sorts, we were Methodists, not Catholics) when I was young, I was in the choir and all that, but we stopped going when the Pastor died in the early 90's. After that the only thing concerning religion my mother had ever said to me was asking me if I wanted to be confirmed into the church when I was eighteen. (To which I said no, because I had just started investigating other brands of Christianity.)

In the hospital that second time, I found a copy of the Bible in the night stand (damn Gideons! ;) ). I read it. Not the whole thing - just the gospels - as I was instructed to do by a nurse attending me. It was like a revelation - it was all there. He healed the sick, raised the dead, fed the poor, saved sinners. He loved me and I loved Him. I wanted that feeling of being protected to last. So I started to read more and more - anything that supported and reenforced my hope that god was out there and that he cared.

A few years later, I was off to college and knee deep in Christianity. There I joined a Bible Fellowship on campus and eventually through my Catholic roommate met a priest who gave conversion classes (in case I wanted to join Catholicism). It was at this point that I learned of the schism between Catholicism and the Protestant/Evangelical versions of Christianity. Catholicism, being parent and original, claimed authenticity where as the others claimed superiority. The more I studied the more disillusioned I became. The more bickering between the two brands of the same religion I witnessed, the less I wanted to be in either.

Both were claiming to be exclusively right. Both were claiming that the other was a path to nowhere. Both were claiming that god backed them up.

And yet, they weren't teaching things that were that different. There were minor, petty differences but nothing that necessitated the ranting and raving. I started to feel like a commodity to them, or a prize to be won. It was as if either side could only claim to be the One True Christian Faith(tm) if they won me as a convert. I felt played.

It took me a year to make the decision, but just before my 19th birthday I left both groups. To this day I credit several courses I took in college with helping me make this decision - the Bible as Literature course, the French Civilization and Culture class, and or the (spectacular fem-nazi) Women's lit classes, philosophy classes, and anthropology classes.

As if the bickering over nothing wasn't bad enough, these classes illustrated several things that had been bothering me. Bible as Lit, and Women's Lit illustrated the nature and extent of "females as second class citizens" - that my bible study glossed over ("oh, our church doesn't do that") or made cute excuses for ("God made Eve from Adam's rib so that she would be by his side, but under his arm to be protected"), but never explained. French Civ and Culture introduced me to the unlucky Cathars. Anthropology introduced me to evolution. The philosophy courses were the intro to, the philosophy of science, and the Philosophy of religion.

Philosophy of religion dealt the death blow to my studying Christianity. The course was not critical of religion, but rather attempted to reinforce it. The prof attempted to use philosophy as a substitute for empirical evidence. I remember the exact class where I finally decided to get out. The prof had been talking about free will and how god gave us free will so that we would not be fawning followers" like the angels are. ( I know, I know. Bear with me a moment.)

I asked "what about 'god has a plan'." He said "God won't let you stray off the right path because he loves you." (No, I'm not kidding. And please note this was a SUNY (State University of New York) college, not a religious one.) I said: "but you just said we had free will to chose. If we have the free will to chose, then he can't have already decided we weren't "allowed" to stray off his path. If we can't stray off the path, we don't have free will."

He stared at me, then repeated a slightly modified version of what he had just said. It was something like "god doesn't want you to stray" or some such nonsense. It was that straw that broke the camel's back. It wasn't as if I hadn't had this conversation with the priest or the bible fellowship before. But in that moment, I was looking for more divine intervention. I was looking for a sign that I shouldn't doubt. And this is what I got.

I studied from the age of 15 to nearly 19 - all that time served only to prove to me that Christianity was not where I belonged.

This is ultimately why I rail against xianity more than others. Yes, I'm American so I am confronted with Xianity more so than all other religions. Yes, that also means that it's xians (read: the religious wrong) trying to destroy this country, so they are ripe for ridicule. But beyond all of that I feel betrayed. My search for god was reduced to a tug of war between the two.

Now some may say this is my own fault for trying on both - perhaps I should have tried one at a time. Perhaps. But, that would not have spared me from being questioned by the opposing side. Neither would have stopped the "oh you're not a True Christian (tm), then" jabs, or prostelyzing attempts by the opposing side.

In an attempt to gain the whole picture, and to be as thorough as possible, I tried on both. I don't regret it.

Then, feeling upset that I'd lost touch with god, is when I met Simon Barat (an anglicized version of his real name). A self-labeled "freelance" bouncer originally from Israel, who'd come here after spending time in the military.

And he led the way into part two: Judaism.

(coming soon)

A Self-Pity Party for American Xians

2006-03-28T07:32:00.000-05:00

A 'war' on Christians? No. By Tom Krattenmaker

This past holiday season brought us the "War on Christmas."

Now, if we are to believe the promotions for an event starting today in the nation's capital, something bigger and darker is afoot in America: "The War on Christians."

Such is the title of a conference that boasts a lineup of some of the biggest stars of the so-called Christian right - Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, onetime presidential candidate Gary Bauer and Eagle Forum leader Phyllis Schlafly.

The chief organizer is Rick Scarborough, leader of Vision America, a group that describes its purpose as reversing America's moral decline by getting more Bible-believing Christians to participate in the political process.

"Christians are under a constant, relentless attack - from Hollywood, the news media, activist organizations, and the cultural elite," warned a Web page promoting the "War on Christians and the Values Voter" event, in language typical of the prevailing zeitgeist.

Isn't this more than a bit overblown? And in a time when the country is caught up in a real war with religious overtones, shouldn't the word "war" be tossed around a little less recklessly?

'A kernel of truth'

Certainly, liberals and secularists must concede a kernel of truth to the religious conservatives' charges. To the eyes of conservative Christians, much appears to have changed for the worse in American society in recent decades.

There are stricter limits on explicitly Christian expression in schools and other public settings. There is growing public acceptance of homosexuality and out-of-wedlock births, while television and movies seem awash with sex, nudity and profanity.

And if the claims of Christian persecution sound shrill, so do those of secular Americans who sometimes equate the political activity of religious conservatives with a crusade to replace our Constitution-based government with a hard-edged theocracy.

Still, the rhetoric of persecution from Scarborough and his fellows rings false. A war on Christians?

It sounds more like an exaggerated scare tactic aimed at grabbing attention, rallying the troops and sowing deeper division between the opposing sides in the ongoing debate over the proper role of religion in the public square.

Worse, it trivializes the true persecution of Christians in the early history of the church and the real abuse unleashed on Christians today in some corners of the world.

Christians in America are hardly being thrown to the lions. In many ways, the political and social values of conservative Christians are carrying the day. We are in the second term of the most faith-friendly, explicitly Christian presidency in many a decade.

Not only has President Bush talked a good game with evangelicals, but his administration has backed it with dollars for faith-based initiatives and abstinence-education programs.
Hollywood is producing more Christian-friendly movies while Christian news media, Christian music, Christian novels and other forms of Christian pop culture continue making their strong mark on society.

Nevertheless, the rhetoric of persecution and oppression seems irresistible to many. Nowhere was the theme of Christian oppression more vividly on display, and combatively expressed, than at Justice Sunday III, held Jan. 8 at a predominantly African-American congregation in north Philadelphia on the eve of the Senate hearings on Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.
Joining host minister Herbert Lusk at the altar of Greater Exodus Baptist Church were four of the leading figures of the Christian right - Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Liberty University Chancellor Jerry Falwell and Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.

(snip)

"We are facing, like we never have before, this hostility against the people of God," roared Lusk, a former running back for the Philadelphia Eagles and the leader of a church whose community outreach work has received more than $1 million in federal funding from President Bush's faith-based initiatives program.

"Don't fool with the church, because the church has buried many a critic, and all the critics that we have not buried, we're making funeral arrangements for them!"

(snipped rest)

There's the good xian love we all know so well!

It never fails to surprise me that xians in American cry oppression and persecution when they - above all others - are first in line to oppress and persecute others (gays, women, other religions, those evil atheists, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc).

While they're whipping themselves into a frenzy of imagined (YES, IMAGINED) persecution, I'm laughing my ass off at them. Whenever Goliath pretends to be David, it's pathetic and tragically funny. It's hard to take them seriously when the fake president panders to them constantly in many ways, not the least of which is the MILLIONS of tax payer dollars funneled into crappy faith-based programs, when a report showing that THEY are the most tolerant of torture has just been released, and when for two months at the end of every year the entire country has to put up with their shallow mass-consumerism dressed up like a holiday.
Once again theists, you're embarrassing yourselves.

To the sane: read the whole article. It points out that there are REAL wars going on.

100th POST! The atheist and the moderate Muslim

2006-03-27T12:17:00.000-05:00

The atheist and the moderate Muslim (via Atheist Revolution)

Those angry protesters were really, really going at it. They rallied and yelled and said the artwork "sew[ed] evil into people," made a mockery of their god, and that, "there should be freedom of speech but there should never be freedom for desecration."

Said indignant Stephen Green, national director of Christian Voice, "If this show portrayed Mohammed or Vishnu as homosexual, ridiculous and ineffectual, it would never have seen the light of day."

Oh, I'm sorry. Did you think I was talking about something else?

No one died during this particular protest, mind you, but apart from that there's not much difference between Christian Brits recently protesting Jerry Springer: The Opera and Muslims protesting those Danish cartoons.

Both groups were offended. They were upset. Their feelings were bruised. As sullenly explained by Pakistani regional chief minister Akram Durrani, "Nobody has the right to insult Islam and hurt the feelings of Muslims."

Hurt feelings? Are you fragging kidding me!?

It used to be mommy would get you a cookie when your feelings got hurt if nobody wanted to play with you because you wore the wrong clothes or had stupid hair. It is sort of cute and appropriate when you're a toddler. It's not so cute when grown men call for shows to be shut down or for the hands of artists to be chopped off, because they've been offended!

If you're Oprah Winfrey and your feelings have been wounded by an author whose tall tale you couldn't see through, surrounded as you are by the haze of the cult of self-help, you take that author to the public woodshed and spank him for an hour. James Frey has been a bad, bad man for hurting Oprah's feelings.

But at least he's not a filmmaker, who, like Ang Lee, has made a movie "morally offensive" to Catholics. Or a British insurance company whose employee incentive program, consisting of bottles of wine, resulted in a Muslim employee ending up with "hurt feelings." And let us not forget the music teacher in Colorado who showed students clips of the opera Faust. It "glorifies Satan," an outraged and offended parent said.

Well, of course it does, dear.

When a misunderstanding had it that Britney Spears was to appear in a guest spot on Will & Grace as a right-wing Christian, The American Family Association said the role, "mocks the crucifixion of Christ." Would you like a cup of warm milk and a lie-down?

It's comforting to know there are people out there who try to shield other sensitive souls from being offended. Like the Suffolk schoolteacher who asked that the crosses be removed from the cafeteria hot-cross buns so as to not upset pupils who are Jehovah's Witnesses. Or, bless their hearts, our very own CHFI radio, which will not run an ad that uses the word vagina, because it might make their listeners "uncomfortable" or make children ask questions, something that must be discouraged at all costs.

So, to sum up: pastries, cartoons, vaginas, opera, literary licence, free wine, cowboys romping and Britney Spears. I have to say that, apart from Britney, there's nothing there I find even slightly offensive.

Hot-cross buns are yummy. Editorial cartoons are a quick and smart way of making a point in a world increasingly attention-span-challenged. Without vaginas none of us would be here. Opera is, granted, an acquired taste, but once you get it... . Literary licence is not against the law and can lead to evocatively interesting prose. Who doesn't like free wine? Good-looking guys who are into each other? Pretty.

Even Britney is kind of amusing in her idiocy. Point being, if you don't like bread and female genitalia and fat singing ladies and gay love and wine and authors who lie, don't look. Don't listen. Don't read. Don't go to the opera. Turn away. Shrug your shoulders and go enjoy whatever it is that calms your fragile psyche.

Just spare us the nonsense about the hurt feelings and the offence taken. What are you? Five?

Think very hard about whether your personal sense of hurt and feelings of being entitled to an existence never rocked by doubt or discomfort is worth the risk of works like The Life of Brian, The Satanic Verses and The Last Temptation of Christ being made.

Consider carefully the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh.

Here's a radical thought: Instead of getting upset by ideas, check out the old guy who is right now freezing to death under the overpass. Or consider the thawing of the polar cap. Or check out those videos of people getting their heads sawed off. There is plenty of real stuff to pour all that outrage into.

I work hard, as an atheist, at not being angered by the increasing inclusion of this, that or whatever god in areas of life that should be secular. I succeed because I tell myself it's none of my business what people believe, although every time they pray on Survivor or I hear another one-hit wonder thanking God for His direct hand in securing a People's Choice Award, I do feel the need to say a dirty word. Just to counteract.

I happen to think religion is destructive, oppressive and overburdened by silly hats. I also think the only reason Christianity has more adherents and respectability than, say, the Raelians or the Scientologists, is that the Christians came along first.

Don't let that keep you from looking heavenwards. Do what you will in the comfort of your own home or place of worship and rest assured that when I visit I will behave politely, cover up whatever vile parts of my body offend your particular god, and refrain from eating ham sandwiches while you pray.

If being offended is such a necessity to your enjoyment of life or your sense of self, think about the censorship you implicitly advocate. Consider that you may not be the one who gets to decide what is offensive and should be banned.

Maybe it will be me.

I guarantee you wouldn't like it.

Bulldozing Churches for Mini-malls

2006-03-24T15:34:00.000-05:00

Any Houses of Worship Could Be Destroyed Under “Jobs & Taxes” Justification

Quote:
Arlington, Va.-Since the U.S. Supreme Court decided the Kelo v. City of New London eminent domain case last summer, City officials have new power to file condemnation actions against churches to make way for private commercial development. Throughout the nation, more and more religious leaders are finding the government and its wrecking ball at their doorsteps. Tax-hungry governments teaming up with land-hungry developers are capitalizing on the fact that churches (and all not-for-profits) are tax-exempt, using Kelo to justify taking religious buildings on the grounds that the land can generate more tax revenue or amplify job growth as businesses or homes for the wealthy.

Bob Edgar, General Secretary of the National Council of Churches, said, “After the Kelo decision, local governments apparently are free to take private property on the theory that generating higher tax revenue is a valid ‘public use’ of property. This certainly is a substantial threat not only to churches and nonprofit organizations, but to every homeowner whose property could be taken and put to a higher commercial use. This is bad public policy which cannot be permitted to stand.

Some examples include:

* Sand Springs, Okla., is attempting to seize and demolish the Centennial Baptist Church-home to a large black congregation-by eminent domain. The City plans to hand the land over to a private developer to attract major retailers and other stores. “The Lord didn’t send me here to build a mini-mall,” the Rev. Roosevelt Gildon told the New York Times. “I guess saving souls isn’t as important as raking in money for politicians to spend,” said Gildon on National Review Online.

* In March 2006, Long Beach, Calif., began condemnation proceedings against the Filipino Baptist Fellowship, a vibrant congregation in the heart of Southern California, to make way for condominiums. The City recently designated the building as “blighted” under California’s vague blight statutes, giving redevelopment officials the power to take the church by eminent domain. “Every day, the young kids pray that this church would not fall,” said congregation member Jovine Agustine in the Baptist Press. Pastor Roem Agustine added, “We’re just resting on the promise of the Lord that he will not leave us nor forsake us.”

* Boynton Beach, Fla., which has already cleared out long-time small businesses and homeowners in the name of redevelopment, voted in October 2005 to take two churches by eminent domain so a private developer can build apartments, stores and parking
facilities. The Jesus House of Worship, which caters specifically to needy families during the holidays, and Triumph the Church & Kingdom of God were included in the City’s redevelopment area, leaving them subject to condemnation at the City’s whim.

* Scituate, Mass., has wavered since 2004 on whether to take 25 acres belonging to St. Frances X Cabrini Catholic Church for private development. The Church continues to own its land under the threat of eminent domain.

* Restoration, a non-denominational church in Visalia, Calif., made a deal with the Main Street Theater to purchase its downtown building for a new worship center in 2004. While in escrow, the City condemned the property by eminent domain, prohibiting the Church from acquiring the property. The reasons cited were that the City preferred a private arts center to a place of worship.

* In 2003, Biloxi, Miss., condemned the parking lot of the Living Waters Ministries, a church on Caillavet Street, to make way for a proposed casino that was never built.

* Alabaster, Ala., voted to condemn a church in August 2003 for the benefit of Colonial Properties Trust, which planned to build a 400-acre retail development anchored by Wal-Mart.

* After years of meeting in a rental basement and saving up money, St. Luke’s Pentecostal Church in North Hempstead, N.Y., purchased a permanent home, but it was taken from the church by the North Hempstead Community Development Agency for
private retail development. Six years later, the lot is still empty.

“This is a clear-cut violation the Fifth Amendment’s public use clause,” said IJ Senior Attorney Scott Bullock, who argued Kelo before the Supreme Court. “When the government can take somebody’s land based on promises of taxes and jobs, churches
are especially at risk because they don’t pay taxes.”

THEN MAYBE THEY SHOULD PAY TAXES.

In all honesty, there's very little funny in this eniment domain bullshit. There was a case recently in my own area of an elderly woman who'd lived in her home for more then 50 years who was being told to get out to make way for a new road, or some
such nonsense. Though, we haven't heard of her since. Hopefully, she's suing.

But, knowing that it affects even churchs - in this *chuckle guffaw* "Xian" Nation, does make me laugh. It seems even the xian god isn't safe from being unseated by the one true god - MONEY.

Though the press release makes a good point - this is affecting minority churches more:

"Steven Anderson, coordinator of the Castle Coalition, warned, “We’re seeing more and more minority churches disproportionately affected by eminent domain abuse.”

The Institute for Justice and Castle Coalition are working with organizations such as the NAACP and the National Council of Churches to protect people’s fundamental right to keep what they already rightfully own."

Anyone care to venture a guess as to why this would be?

Source: http://www.castlecoalition.org/media/releases/3_21_06pr.html & and the AN.

Xian Partenting Tip #237: Spank 'em with PVC pipe

2006-03-24T12:41:00.000-05:00

Dead child's mom sought discipline tips

Lynn Paddock ordered books by a minister and his wife that recommended using pipe to spank kids

A few years ago, Lynn Paddock sought Christian advice on how to discipline her growing brood of adopted children.

Paddock -- a Johnston County mother accused of murdering Sean, her 4-year-old adopted son, and beating two other adopted children -- surfed the Internet, said her attorney, Michael Reece. She found literature by an evangelical minister and his wife who recommended using plumbing supply lines to spank misbehaving children.

Paddock ordered Michael and Debi Pearl's books and started spanking her adopted children as suggested. After Sean, the youngest of Paddock's six adopted children, died last month, his older sister and brother told investigators about Paddock's spankings.

Sean's 9-year-old brother was beaten so badly he limped, a prosecutor said. Bruises marred Sean's backside, too, doctors found.

Sean died after being wrapped so tightly in blankets he suffocated. That, too, was a form of punishment, Johnston County Sheriff Steve Bizzell said.

The Pearls' advice from their Web site: A swift whack with the plastic tubing would sting but not bruise. Give 10 licks at a time, more if the child resists. Be careful about using it in front of others -- even at church; nosy neighbors might call social workers. Save hands for nurturing, not disciplining. Heed the warning, taken from Proverbs in the Old Testament, that sparing the rod will spoil the child.

Paddock and other moms in her rural Baptist church chatted about the Pearls' strategies for rearing obedient children, Reece said.

"I think she was trying to do the right thing by her children," he said. (Note: clearly BEATING THEM TO DEATH is not trying to do right, ASSHOLE)

Paddock, 45, faces a possible lifetime behind bars or execution if convicted of causing Sean's death.

Paddock seems to have carefully followed the Pearls' teachings. Investigators found 2-foot lengths of plumbing supply line in several rooms of her remote farmhouse.

The Pearls offer shopping advice on their Web site, www.nogreaterjoy.org: "You can buy them for under $1.00 at Home Depot or any hardware store. They come cheaper by the dozen and can be widely distributed in every room and vehicle. Just the high profile of their accessibility will keep the kids in line."

The Pearls' first book, "To Train Up a Child," has sold more than 400,000 copies since it was published in 1994, according to Mel Cohen, general manager of the Pearls' business, No Greater Joy Ministries. After the book came out, so many readers wrote in with questions that the Pearls started a newsletter. Every two months, Cohen said, the Pleasantville, Tenn.-based ministry mails more than 60,000 newsletters to parents around the world.

The Pearls declined to be interviewed. "They feel the material speaks for itself," Cohen said.
Christian evangelicals who, like the Pearls, teach the importance of corporal punishment have loyal followers. The results are tangible, said Dot Ehlers, executive director of a Smithfield nonprofit who teaches parenting skills to mothers and fathers referred to them by the Johnston County Department of Social Services. She said about a quarter of the 60 parents she instructs each week say their faith defends and encourages corporal punishment.
The Pearls' techniques helped Sandy Hicks, a mother in Texas who said she was desperate to restore peace in her home.

"Some people would rather spend an hour reasoning with a defiant 5-year-old instead of requiring the kid to behave and giving him a swat if he doesn't," said Hicks, who said she has used a peach-tree switch to spank her four children. "Some people are just queasy about swatting their kids."

The Pearls' teachings helped mobilize another group of Christian parents to speak out against such corporal punishment. The Web site Stoptherod.net rails against the Pearls' first book; the Web site's founders, Susan and Steve Lawrence of Virginia, say the book "reads like a child abuse manual." The Web site encourages parents to post critical reviews of the book on Amazon.com.

Some of the Pearls' defenders say you can't blame them for parents who take their advice to an unhealthy extreme.

Gena Suarez, publisher of a magazine for home-schooling parents that publishes advertisements for the Pearls' books, said their teachings are often inappropriately used to defend child abuse.
"[The Pearls] are talking about something that would fit in a purse," Suarez said. "The only way you can kill a child with that is by shoving it down his throat."

The Pearls acknowledge that discipline turns to abuse when the "child is broken in spirit, cowed and subdued ..."

The minister advises one mother on his Web site: "I always give myself one swat before I swat the child to remind myself how much force to exert. It stings the skin without bruising or damaging tissue. It's a real attention-getter."

(News researchers Susan Ebbs, Becky Ogburn and Lamara Williams-Hackett contributed to this report.)

Sing it with me now:
Jesus Loves Us to Beat the Children
Over the hills and everywhere
Jesus Loves Us to Beat the Children
Since Jesus Christ is born!

or how about:
Jesus Loves me this I know
Mommy's PVC pipe tells me so

You know xians are all hysterical over gay adoptions. But, um, how many stories about gay adoptive parents beating kids to death (or cutting off their arms, or starving them, or forcing them to drink lethal amounts of water or laundry detergent, or caging them) do we hear? Oh right, NONE. Clearly, it's NOT gays that should be denied adoptions.

(Note to theists: I don't give a damn if you're offended. Everyday you offend me.)

Brutal Women

2006-03-23T11:39:00.000-05:00

I came across this link via Pharyngula. Brutal Women I am already in love with this blog. Esp because of this post:

Dear S. Dakota: More Fuck Yous

The President of the Oglala Sioux Tribe on the Pine Ridge Reservation, Cecilia Fire Thunder, was incensed (at the SD abortion ban). A former nurse and healthcare giver she was very angry that a state body made up mostly of white males, would make such a stupid law against women.

“To me, it is now a question of sovereignty,” she said to me last week. “I will personally establish a Planned Parenthood clinic on my own land which is within the boundaries of the Pine Ridge Reservation where the State of South Dakota has absolutely no jurisdiction.”

&

Support the SD Oglala Sioux Planned Parenthood

Lower than Muslims AND Gays

2006-03-22T12:20:00.000-05:00

Tell me again why I'm supposed to love my country which so clearly does not love me? ;)

It's good to know how much we're loved (via Pharyngula)

How to spot a baby conservative

2006-03-20T13:03:00.000-05:00

(via Democratic Underground & The Toronto Star)

How to spot a baby conservative

Mar. 19, 2006 KURT KLEINERSPECIAL TO THE STAR

Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative. At least, he did if he was one of 95 kids from the Berkeley area that social scientists have been tracking for the last 20 years. The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals.

The study from the Journal of Research Into Personality isn't going to make the UC Berkeley professor who published it any friends on the right. Similar conclusions a few years ago from another academic saw him excoriated on right-wing blogs, and even led to a Congressional investigation into his research funding.But the new results are worth a look. In the 1960s Jack Block and his wife and fellow professor Jeanne Block (now deceased) began tracking more than 100 nursery school kids as part of a general study of personality.

The kids' personalities were rated at the time by teachers and assistants who had known them for months. There's no reason to think political bias skewed the ratings — the investigators were not looking at political orientation back then. Even if they had been, it's unlikely that 3- and 4-year-olds would have had much idea about their political leanings.

A few decades later, Block followed up with more surveys, looking again at personality, and this time at politics, too. The whiny kids tended to grow up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity.

The confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests. The girls were still outgoing, but the young men tended to turn a little introspective.

Block admits in his paper that liberal Berkeley is not representative of the whole country. But within his sample, he says, the results hold. He reasons that insecure kids look for the reassurance provided by tradition and authority, and find it in conservative politics. The more confident kids are eager to explore alternatives to the way things are, and find liberal politics more congenial.

In a society that values self-confidence and out-goingness, it's a mostly flattering picture for liberals. It also runs contrary to the American stereotype of wimpy liberals and strong conservatives.

Of course, if you're studying the psychology of politics, you shouldn't be surprised to get a political reaction. Similar work by John T. Jost of Stanford and colleagues in 2003 drew a political backlash. The researchers reviewed 44 years worth of studies into the psychology of conservatism, and concluded that people who are dogmatic, fearful, intolerant of ambiguity and uncertainty, and who crave order and structure are more likely to gravitate to conservatism. Critics branded it the "conservatives are crazy" study and accused the authors of a political bias.

Where Have All the Red States Gone?

2006-03-20T10:17:00.000-05:00

Jesusland circa election time 2004:

America March 2006:

Radical Russ explains:

Revel in the newest incarnation of the Bush Approval Map! This map displays the state-by-state job approval polls of Pretzeldunce Chimpy McFlightsuit. His Net Approval is his job approval minus his job disapproval ratings, with positive numbers representing states where more people approve than disapprove, and negative numbers representing the opposite.

I've color-coded the states according to their relative "Bush Love" in red to their relative "Bush Hate" in blue, with those states more toward the center shaded in purple. (I've made a change in the color scheme from the previous versions; I decided that the brighter reds and blues better visually demonstrated the figures. Plus the color shades change in 1% increments for more... uh... subtlety.)

The map begins at the 2004 Election, and every five seconds a new month appears.

(thx to Radical Russ & Tenn. Guerilla Women)

Religion as an Addiction

2006-03-20T09:38:00.000-05:00

When Religion is an Addiction
(via Pharnygula)

I remember hearing popular psychological speaker and writer John Bradshaw say that the “high” one gets from being righteous was similar to the high of cocaine. As both a former monk and addict, he knew the feelings personally.

As the religious right pushes its anti-gay, anti-women’s reproductive rights, anti-science, pro-profit agenda nationally and in state capitals across the nation and wins, that high is a sweet fix for the addicted. It gives them a comforting feeling of relief that they’re really right, okay, worthwhile, and acceptable.

Like all fixes, though, it doesn’t last. So, the addict is driven to seek another and another – another issue, another evil, another paranoiac threat to defeat. It can’t ever end. Like the need for heavier doses, the causes have to become bigger and more evil in the addict’s mind to provide the fix.

This mind-altering fix of righteousness covers their paranoid shame-based feelings about the internal and external dangers stalking them. The victim-role language of their dealers, right-wing religious leaders, feeds it. Like alcoholism and drug addiction, the fix numbs the religious addict against any feelings about how their addiction affects others.

Religion doesn’t have to be this way; it can be healing. But what we see in the dominant religious/political right-wing fundamentalism that’s driving the debate on most conservative issues (political, social, economic, international) is anything but healthy. It’s what addiction specialists call a process addiction, like sex or romance addiction, or workaholism. In an addictive society, such addictions are encouraged.

Like substance addictions, it takes over, dominates life, pushes other issues to the background, tells them how and what to feel to prevent them from facing their real feelings about themselves and life, creates a mythology about the world, protects its “stash,” and supports their denial that they have a problem. Addiction specialist Anne Wilson Schaef would say, like all addictions, religious addiction is progressive and fatal.

If you’re outside the addiction, you’ve probably wondered about what’s going on, what’s the dynamic that’s driving the right-wing religious agenda that looks so hateful and destructive. Why is it so hard to crack? Why won’t evidence or logic work?

If you’re an enabler or the addict yourself, the above must sound over the top. You’d prefer to deny or soften the reality of the addiction.

Yet, if we’re going to think clearly about the right-wing juggernaut’s use of religion, and not function as its enablers, we must realize that we’re dealing with an addict. Right-wing political-religious fundamentalism can destroy us too if we’re like the dependent spouse who protects, defends, and covers-up for the family drunk.

So, what can we do to protect ourselves, maintain our sanity, promote a healthy alternative, and confront religious addiction? What’s the closest thing to an intervention when we’re dealing with the advanced, destructive form of religious addiction that’s become culturally dominant?

It takes massive inner strength and a good self-concept. There’s no place for codependency and the need to be liked or affirmed by the person with the addiction. ALANON knows that. It requires clarity of purpose, freedom from the need to fix the addict, and doing what maintains one’s own health and safety.

Addicts reinforce each other. Fundamentalist religious organizations and media are their supportive co-users. So the person who deals with someone’s addiction cannot do it alone. They must have support from others outside the addiction.

You can’t argue with an addict. Arguing religion to one so addicted plays into the addictive game. Arguing about the Bible or tradition is like arguing with the alcoholic about whether whiskey or tequila is better for them. It’s useless and affirms the addiction.

You can’t buy into the addict’s view of reality. Addicts cover their addiction with a mythology about the world and with language that mystifies. This means we must never use their language.

Never say, even to reject it or with “so-called” before it: “partial-birth abortion,” “gay rights,” “intelligent design,” “gay marriage,” etc. Speak clearly in terms of what you believe it really is. Say “a seldom used late-term procedure,” “equal rights for all,” “creationist ideology,” “marriage equality.”

Don’t let the addict get you off topic. Addicts love to confuse the issues, get you talking about things that don’t challenge their problem. When you do, you further the addiction.

Never argue about whether sexual orientation is a choice. It doesn’t matter.

Never argue about sex. Our country is too sick to deal with its sexual problems.

It’s okay to affirm that you don’t care or these aren’t the issues. You don’t need to justify your beliefs to a drunk or druggie.

Get your message on target and repeat it. Get support for your message from others so that they’re on the same page. Make it short, simple, to the point, and consistent.

Don’t nag addicts. Don’t speak belligerently or as if you have to defend yourself. Just say: The government and other people have no right to tell someone whom to love.

Don’t accept that the addiction needs equal time. Stop debating as if there are two sides. Get over any guilt about a free country requiring you to make space for addictive arguments. You don’t have to act as if here are “two sides” to the debate. Addicts and their dealers already have the power of the addiction and addictive communities behind their messages.

Model what it is to be a healthy human being without the addiction. Addicts must see people living outside the addiction, happy, confident, proud, and free from the effects of the disease. In spite of the fact that we’re a nation that supports both substance and process addictions so people don’t threaten the institutions and values that pursue profits over humanity, live as if that has no ultimate control over you.

Don’t believe that you, your friends, children, relationships, hopes, and dreams, are any less valuable or legitimate because they aren’t sanctioned by a government, politicians, or religious leaders that are in a coping, rather than healing, mode of life.

Dealing with addictions takes an emotional toll on everyone. Yet, recognizing religious addiction as an addiction demystifies its dynamics and maintains our sanity.

© The Fairness Project, February 2, 2005.

Report: The State of Men in MANmerica

2006-03-13T12:27:00.000-05:00

Men are reining in those uppity U.S. girls

After decades of oppression, men are making a comeback. Spurred on by President Bush and his new Supreme Court, they're reclaiming their God-given right to control women.

And about time, too. Women have had it their way too damn long, and now it's time for payback.

It all began in 1973 when women were given the right to choose an abortion in the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. What a catastrophe! The rest of it fell like dominoes. First, women didn't have to be pregnant if they didn't want to, then they wanted those other rights, like equal pay (which never really did take off, but the very idea was a thorn in the side).

Who knew what reproductive freedom would wrought? Or wring? Or whatever that word is?

So it became clear Roe v. Wade had to go if women were to be put back in their place. After all, if you can rape a woman and she has to stay pregnant, well, by golly, you've got the goods, don'tcha see?

And that's about to happen! South Dakota has banned all abortions except when the pregnancy or birth is about to kill the woman.

This is the big one, boys. This is the one that's gonna get you back in the saddle - and not that sissy Brokeback saddle, either.

The law is being challenged, of course - which was the point - and will go to the Supreme Court. With Bush's anti-abortion Justices Sam Alito and John Roberts on the bench now, that women-loving Roe v. Wade ruling is probably gonna be toast!

The men in charge aren't entirely without compassion. South Dakota Sen. Bill Napoli says he'd consider letting a girl have an abortion if she was brutally raped, a virgin, religious and planned on saving herself for her husband. Women should feel so darn good about having a guy like that to make their decisions!

(Note to women: If you think you might ever end up in this predicament, start going to church now, for cryin' out loud! You want to be seen as religious if you get knocked up by a rapist.)

And - ooh ooh, listen to this one. This one is so cool, guys! Matt Dubay of Michigan is working hard on your behalf to be able to just have sex without taking any responsibility if a baby comes along. That's right! Poor Matt. Right now, his ex-best girl is collecting $500 a month from him to support a daughter he never even wanted. He just wanted the sex!

So Matt is going to court. He says if a woman can choose to keep a baby or give it up, then a man can choose to support it - or not. You go, Matt!

Also - you won't believe how amazing THIS is - if a woman has sex, then the feeling down at the Bush administration is that she deserves cancer! That might sound harsh even to you fellas who want to get back in the saddle, but here's the reasoning.

Researchers have developed a vaccine that prevents cervical cancer. You'd think we'd be dancing in the streets over this one - an actual cancer vaccine that could save thousands of women's lives annually. It works by safeguarding women against a sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.

Here's the rub. Women should get the shot before they're sexually active. That means it should be part of standard childhood immunizations.

And that won't do. Bush says removing the threat of cervical cancer would make women promiscuous. Abstinence only, girls! If you get cancer from sex, you're just a slut anyway.

Now, I realize not all men are with the program here. There are millions of men who actually feel confident that women's freedom doesn't erode their own strength and sexuality and humanity.

To those men, I say this: We like you the best. You've got a much better chance of getting la "¦ uh, some intimacy "¦ than the troglodytes in your midst.

There are 1,044 days 'til Inauguration 2009.

There is also this lovely tid bit: The GOP's Abortion Anxiety

(both links thx to Tennessee Guerilla Women)

Okay, Lemme explain

2006-03-09T13:34:00.000-05:00

You Are 70% Evil

You are very evil. And you're too evil to care.
Those who love you probably also fear you. A lot.

How Evil Are You?

What can I say? I was a crazy teenager.

(thx to Bacon Eating Jew)

Theist + Religious Study = Atheist

2006-03-06T12:59:00.000-05:00

The Book of Bart

Where does faith reside? In the soul? The mind, the marrow of the bones?

In the long hours of the night, the voices of the evangelical preachers on the AM dial seem to know. Believe, they say. Then daylight comes and the listeners' questions fade.

Bart Ehrman is a sermon, a parable, but of what? He's a best-selling author, a New Testament expert and perhaps a cautionary tale: the fundamentalist scholar who peered so hard into the origins of Christianity that he lost his faith altogether.

Once he was a seminarian and graduate of the Moody Bible Institute, a pillar of conservative Christianity. Its doctrine states that the Bible "is a divine revelation, the original autographs of which were verbally inspired by the Holy Spirit."

But after three decades of research into that divine revelation, Ehrman became an agnostic. What he found in the ancient papyri of the scriptorium was not the greatest story ever told, but the crumbling dust of his own faith.

"Sometimes Christian apologists say there are only three options to who Jesus was: a liar, a lunatic or the Lord," he tells a packed auditorium here at the University of North Carolina, where he chairs the department of religious studies. "But there could be a fourth option -- legend."

Ehrman's latest book, "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why," has become one of the unlikeliest bestsellers of the year. A slender book of textual criticism, currently at No. 16 on the New York Times bestseller list, it casts doubt on any number of New Testament episodes that most Christians take as, well, gospel.

Example: A crowd readies itself to stone an adulterous woman to death. Jesus leans down, doodles in the dust. Says, let the one without sin cast the first stone. The crowd melts away. It's one of the most famous stories in the Bible.

And it's most likely fiction, says Ehrman, seconding other scholars who say scribes added the episode to the biblical canon centuries after the life of Christ.

This is just the beginning of the very long article. Worth a read.

It illustrates exactly what I've thought since my own "tour of study" - once you look close enough, it's not possible to buy it any more.

Perhaps that's why there's nothing in the bible in praise of intelligence.

Guess the Country

2006-03-03T12:24:00.000-05:00

Guess in which country it is common practice to force incarcerated women to give birth with their legs shackled and with no anesthesia?

Why in the good old "pro-life" US of A! (thx to Tenn. Guerilla Women blog)

Ms. Nelson was serving time for identity fraud and writing bad checks when she gave birth at age 30. She weighed a little more than 100 pounds, and her baby, it turned out, weighed nine and a half pounds.

The experience of giving birth without anesthesia while largely immobilized has left her with lasting back pain and damage to her sciatic nerve, according to her lawsuit against prison officials and a private company, Correctional Medical Services.

"It is unbelievable that in this day and age a child is born to a woman in shackles," Mr. Erato said. "It sounds like something from slavery 200 years ago."

"This is the perfect example of rule-following at the expense of common sense," said William F. Schulz, the executive director of Amnesty International U.S.A. "It's almost as stupid as shackling someone in a coma."

A new favorite blog to add to the list

2006-03-02T13:11:00.000-05:00

In America it's getting rough. Theists running wild trying to negate everything our fore fathers worked to build, the worst president in all of history, a stupid war needlessly killing our soliders, the entire world wouldn't cry one tear if we disappeared tomorrow, the fact that people are still talking about Britney Spears and her white trash hubby. Ugh. How depressing it can all get.

Then, you stumble across a webpage that warms the heart.

Tennessee Guerilla Women

For a raging progressive feminist like myself, that there are women even in the buckles of the bible belt willing to fight theocrat asshats makes me almost believe in miracles.

Pascal's Wager: An Embarrassment to Theism

2006-03-02T09:53:00.000-05:00

For those who don't know, Pascal's Wager is the childish "argument" that it is better to believe in god (as opposed to being an atheist) because if you believe and there's no god, you've lost nothing. But, if there is a god and you don't believe, when you die you'll spend eternity being tortured in hell.

Let us lay aside the obviously primitive nature of this statement - because it's simply to easy to attack (neanderthals could see through it, for goodness sakes). Instead, let me point out - as other atheists have done ad nauseam - that there is one very simple retort to this.

If there is a god, but when you meet him discover that it is not the god you followed during life, we'll see you in hell.

Aside from this glaring error of such a silly "argument" I would like to add:

-If the only reason you believe is to get the big reward at the end, it is a shallow and selfish faith you follow.

- Let's say for the sake of debate the god does exist. If he does, and he both plans our lives for us, and being omnipotent knows all, then he planned for us to be atheists and who are we to go against you're almighty fairy tale? See An Exercise In Logic

-I do more work for my community and fellow man than any theist I know. (And being that this is a densely xian area - I know plenty.) As there is no god to pray too and no after life to make excuses for, it is incumbent on every individual to help their fellow man. I volunteer in two shelters (presently), I donate blood every other month and my hair (to Locks of Love) every other year. I knit/quilt blankets for Project Linus. I donate money to a few charities. I don't lie, cheat or steal. I try not to gossip, or bear grudges. If god does exist, and my life is not good enough for him solely because I didn't spend money on empty headed churches, or praise him every day, then he is a selfish, childish deity unworthy of worship. And since according to you he planned for me to think so, then he's a sadist as well.

Like all active atheists, I know you have nothing to justify your faith. It's emotional, illogical etc - and that's fine. You don't need to justify it. If it makes you feel good (and you're not hurting anyone) do it. But, spare me the pathetic and flaccid attempts at emotional blackmail. You're embarrassing yourselves.

Stranger in a Strange Land

2006-02-27T08:34:00.000-05:00

(or, why I've been gone so long)

I lost someone I love very much recently. It was very unexpected. It did however lead me to a discovery that was most amazing.

My family is xian. Lite-weight to be sure, but xians just the same. So, I went to a mass of xian burial for this person. (Luckily, it wasn't in a church). The pastor was female (because Methodists are cool like that) and was there the whole three days. At the wake there were so many people packed into the funeral home that all were shoulder to shoulder- unable to move. After the funeral, people lingered around the coffin despite the 10 degree weather.

Despite this being the absolute worst few weeks of my life, something surprising and fantastic happened at the funeral. Sitting there with my brothers and cousins, listening to the pastor I realized something. You know those sales pitch vacations? You know, the come to Florida to this gorgeous hotel for a free (or really cheap) weekend vacation - but you have to come to this six hour long sales pitch about time shares?

That's exactly what religion is. Half the service was about gawd and jebus - random Psalms, and verses. You have to sit through the mind-numbing and childish gawd sales pitch in order to get to why you came there- to hear about the loved one passed away.

After she was done babbling on and on, the mayor got up and did the eulogy. It was what we wanted to hear. Funny stories about the one passed, and laughter instead of sobs, if only for a moment.

Then, the pastor got back up to close and asked everyone to recite the Lord's Prayer. (You know the one drilled into your head like a bad ad jingle?) And absolutely no one in my row recited it. I was sitting with my brothers and cousins, and not ONE of them spoke the prayer. I thought perhaps they just didn't know it.

At the luncheon that followed we all sat together and I mentioned that no one said it. And something fantastic happened. Nearly all of them (10 in total) piped up with "We know it, but who believes that stuff?"

The one who passed would have been very proud to know they left behind a family of free thinkers, and who maintain it, even in the face of unexpected death and crushing grief.

(sidebar: this finally gave me the opportunity to talk with my new bf about the fact that I'm an atheist. He took it better than I expected, though it was clearly not something he agrees with. But that's cool. He doesn't have to agree with me, as long as he doesn't try to change my mind as I make no attempts to change his.)

A Dilemma

2006-02-06T11:24:00.000-05:00

A while back (I can't remember how long) I broke up with a guy I'll call Mike* because after a year together, it was revealed to me that he was a theist. Now, let me explain. I didn't break up with him for being a theist. I broke up with hime because he lied to me for that entire year claiming to be an atheist. It turned out he just said he was an atheist because he thought I wouldn't date him unless he were. Apparently, lying about his faith was okay as long as he was getting a piece.

He wasn't an uninvolved theist - he goes to church several times a week, he is a Eucharist minister, he used to be in the choir. And lied to me about it the whole time.

I don't truck with liars. When I found out, we had a nice big fight about it and I haven't talked to him since. No real loss considering every word out of his mouth is a lie. And to continue on his path to righeousness, after we broke up he spread a bunch of lies about me to our mutual friends - just to cause as much damage as possible. Good to see religion is improving him. /sarcasm.

Cut to November of last year when I met my current boyfriend Jim**. I was into Jim the first time I saw him. He is direct and honest, though a little shy and oh-so-good-looking. Jim is also a theist.

Here is my dilemma.

I dumped Mike for lying to me about being a theist. But I have yet to tell Jim that I am an atheist. Why? Because right after I met him, his grandmother - who raised him and to whom he was very very close - had a stroke and died suddenly. Just before Thanksgiving and her 80th birthday. Obviously he was crushed. Even now, he is still greiving. When he talks about her, my heart breaks for him.

He's not overtly religious - but rather a twice a year xian (easter and xmas), though no church. But, he has mentioned his grandmother being in a "better place" and how there must be a life after this one. He loved her very much and still misses her.

I don't think my atheism would be a deal-breaker for Jim. Under normal circumstances, I doubt he'd care at all. But, how in the world am I supposed to tell him about the atheist aspect of myself without it looking like I'm just pissing on his grief? How can I tell him I don't believe in an afterlife when someone he loved very dearly has just died?

But, on the other hand, I feel like a fraud not telling him. I haven't claimed to be a theist (unlike mike) - I've simply said that I don't celebrate xmas and that I don't believe in hell. Come to think of it, he may have already guessed.

If anyone is out there - what would you do?

*- names have not been changed to protect the crappy ex's identity.
**- names of fabulous new boyfriends haven't been changed either.

Step Right UP! Test Your Strength!

2006-02-02T12:38:00.000-05:00

Found this via Brian Flemming's Blog - "The God Who Wasn't There" guy.

The next time a theist tells you this country was founded on Xianity's principles direct them here: What Do You Know About The Separation of State and Church?

< brag mode >I got 20 out of 21. < /brag mode >

I Almost Want to Shout "AMEN"

2006-01-31T12:32:00.000-05:00

From Pharyngula comes this stirring and delicious article that makes this confirmed cynic want to shout with glee.

Someone gets it! There are still functioning brains out there!

Idiot America

I am Betty Page

2006-01-27T12:10:00.000-05:00

You are Bettie Page

Girl next door with a wild streak
You're a famous beauty - with unique look
And the people like you are cultish about it

What Famous Pinup Are You?

Thanks to my new favorite webapge- Dlisted

Hit Counter = 10,000!

2006-01-26T12:04:00.000-05:00

10,000 hits on this site. My goodness. Who knew that many people came here to read my complaining. ;)

Thanks!

The Ooze

2006-01-23T15:43:00.000-05:00

Once again the glorious StatCounter comes in real handy. My "waste of time?" post was picked up by an xian board called TheOoze (a rather odd name for a religious site, don't you think? If someone from there reads this, can you tell me why that name?) Given the spirit of the original experiment I gave it a look.

And I came across this : A RANT ON CHRISTIAN EXODUS INSPIRED BY GQ MAGAZINE (Aside from repeating the "US is a Christian Nation" fallacy, a backhanded insult towards people with tattoos, and the normal "we're nothing w/o Christ" stuff, this is an awesome article.)

I damn near cried with joy. Where are the xians like THESE in the public sphere? If ever there were allies among them for us, these are it.

A taste:

What have we become? As a believer I am embarrassed to read this kind of stuff. We whine because the Ten Commandments aren’t prominently displayed in some courthouse, cry about the lack of prayer in schools, and beat our chests about abortion while our "Christian" clicks are riddled with the exact problems that the world faces everyday.

Divorce rates in churches are on par with the national average. Infidelity, while not scientific, seems to be rampant. Psychological issues run the gamut, and yet we are some how more moral and God fearing because we call ourselves Christians. While we are at it we should institute an IQ test to determine who the real Christians are. Then everybody who exceeds 90 points can automatically become an agnostic. Can’t we get a little smarter? Why does Bubba have to represent me, a Christian, to the rest of society?

Maybe a little less righteous indignation and a whole lot more Bible study will help. This is a trap people. You have lost your first love. Christ did not call us to go out and make Christian nations. He could have done that when He walked among us. He called us to go out and reach individuals, as individuals, where they were at!

Instead of targeting abortion doctors, how about creating real awareness and support for teens who are in trouble. When my 16 year old girlfriend told me she was pregnant, and I, the 17 year old sought someone I could talk to, did I think about contacting a local church? No, and I probably still wouldn’t due to the scarlet letter approach we have taken inside the church.

Instead of preaching rampant homophobia, how about creating medical centers for AIDS patients. What if we reached out to this group of people in love rather then some mis-directed reference to the Old Testament. If we really want to follow all the rules in Leviticus we better throw away all references to the Messiah beginning in Matthew and ending in Revelation. Oh and by the way, stop eating pork, and don’t ever go back to the Red Lobster. Shell fish is impure and not to be consumed by God’s chosen people.

Creating a nation of Christians was already done folks. It is called the United States of America. And all the Christians who were there in 1776 throughout the ages till now are responsible for the moral decline. We the Christians, are the people, and last I checked at least 80% of this nation considers themselves Christians. So who are we throwing stones at? Is the 20% so powerful that we cannot overcome them? Are we that helpless? Maybe acting out your faith is the Christian kryptonite."

Now, I didn't investigate the whole site, and I didn't engage them in the forums (while meaning no disrespect to the members of that forum, I simply don't have the energy for that anymore),
so it's entirely possible my joy is premature. But, so far, so good.

The One Holdover

2006-01-20T12:33:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, when I got home to my apartment I found that a window in the living room had fallen out of the casement, knocked over a shelf full of stuff and shattered across the floor. As this is January in Buffalo, it was snowing with 50 mph winds so everything, and I do mean everything, was scattered all over the apartment soaking wet and freezing cold. (luckily my bunny was hiding behind the stove- warm and safe).

I called the super and he came up to put in a temporary replacement while I cleaned up my trashed living room. At some point during our polite small talk he said to me. "You’re surprisingly calm. I’d be flipping out right now. What’s your secret?"

I gave some flip answer, but once he was gone, thought about it. Why wasn’t I flipping out? After working all I came home laden with heavy groceries, exhausted and looking to veg out on the couch watching Red Dwarf dvds until Lost came on. And instead, I spent three hours throwing away a bunch of my ruined possessions and hoping that the temporary window would hold against the wind. Why wasn’t I flipping out?

In all honesty, I have only a theory.

As I've said 8 million times - I've studied religion. Seven years total from the inside and now from the outside. Half of that time was with a priest and a bible fellowship that met on my campus. The second half (several years later) was with a Rabbi for my intent to convert. (Obviously that didn't happen.)

I can honestly say I don't think I took anything away from my study of Christianity, other than a study friendship with the priest who helped me and a better understanding of the religion. There is nothing to show for this time of study in my daily life. (this is not meant to be an insult, it’s just the truth)

However, from Judaism I took something that puts me at peace and keeps me sane.
Sabbath. (Shabbat for my kosher friends ;) )

It's a sublime concept. For a period of 24 hours, you relax - REALLY relax. It's sounds crazy in this fast-paced, gadget-laden world - but I have found I can't do without it. The Jews are really onto something here.

The actual religious ritual and customs that surround this weekly holiday vary according to the level of observance, natch.

For starters, there are 39 forbidden things on Shabbat, all of which ultimately prohibit any kind of work:

Sowing, Plowing, Reaping, Binding sheaves, Threshing, Winnowing, Selecting, Grinding, Sifting, Kneading, Baking, Shearing wool, Washing wool, Beating wool, Dyeing wool, Spinning, Weaving, Making two loops, Weaving two threads, Separating two threads, Tying, Untying, Sewing two stitches, Tearing, Trapping, Slaughtering, Flaying, Salting meat, Curing hide, Scraping hide, Cutting hide up, Writing two letters, Erasing two letters, Building, Tearing a building down, Extinguishing a fire, Kindling a fire, Hitting with a hammer, Taking an object from the private domain to the public, or transporting an object in the public domain.

To quote Judaism 101:
All of these tasks are prohibited, as well as any task that operates by the same principle or has the same purpose. In addition, the rabbis have prohibited handling any implement that is intended to perform one of the above purposes (for example, a hammer, a pencil or a match) unless the tool is needed for a permitted purpose (using a hammer to crack nuts when nothing else is available) or needs to be moved to do something permitted (moving a pencil that is sitting on a prayer book), or in certain other limited circumstances. Objects that may not be handled on Shabbat are referred to as "muktzeh," which means, "that which is set aside," because you set it aside (and don't use it unnecessarily) on Shabbat.

The rabbis have also prohibited travel, buying and selling, and other weekday tasks that would interfere with the spirit of Shabbat. The use of electricity is prohibited because it serves the same function as fire or some of the other prohibitions, or because it is technically considered to be "fire."

The issue of the use of an automobile on Shabbat, so often argued by non-observant Jews, is not really an issue at all for observant Jews. The automobile is powered by an internal combustion engine, which operates by burning gasoline and oil, a clear violation of the Torah prohibition against kindling a fire. In addition, the movement of the car would constitute transporting an object in the public domain, another violation of a Torah prohibition, and in all likelihood the car would be used to travel a distance greater than that permitted by rabbinical prohibitions. For all these reasons, and many more, the use of an automobile on Shabbat is clearly not permitted.
As with almost all of the commandments, all of these Shabbat restrictions can be violated if necessary to save a life.

(sources:
http://www.rrz.uni-hamburg.de/rz3a035/shabbath.html
http://www.aish.com/shabbathowto
Judaism 101)

All of this is the religious Sabbath. Why is a self-prescribed "hardcore atheist" doing this?

Modern life is a flurry of distractions, obligations and stresses. There rarely seems to be any peace - there's always something that needs to be handled fixed or accomplished. This wears on me.

But, for 24 hours every weekend there is peace. There's no t.v. babbling away in the background, there's no computer to distract me. There's nowhere to go, there's nothing pressing to do. There is only peace and quiet and me.

This gives me time to enjoy the things that are usually so easily set aside in favor of getting our responsibilities taken care of. The errands are taken care of during the week so I can spend my weekends working on hobbies, spending time with family, friends and my man, and doing the volunteer work I love to do. This means that for a little while, there's peace and quiet, no distractions, and I can get to the things on my "To do before I'm 30" list. So that, during the rest of the week there is always something to look forward to, and a nice sense of calm at the fact that my entire life isn't running errands and doing "chores".

Most people tell me that they couldn't do this. That they couldn't step away from the computer/ipod/cellphone/etc for 24 hours. And I say those are exactly the people who should give it a try.

Waste of Time Fallout

2006-01-19T12:18:00.001-05:00

So to speak.

I am very surprised at the amount of responses I've gotten to the Waste of Time post - here I thought I was writing an article for the GifS crowd and now even Anthropology.net mentioned this article. And Malaspina University College Liberal Studies Forum .Goodness. (and I have to give special mention to Prosthesis for the funniest mention of all). Had I known it would garner this much attention I would have kept better records of the outcomes. Oh well - live and learn.

However, this post has also resulted in an avalanche of e-mails - mostly positive, some not. So, in an attempt to in response the most common questions (and accusations) posed to me there are a few things I’d like to clarify:

1. My intent was not to attempt at deconverting theists. I have no desire to make windows into theist "souls" - I’m not trying to deconvert anyone. I simply wanted to see how they treat civil and respectful atheist guests to their sites since theists seem to have a hard time lasting on atheist forums. (this was covered in the post)

2. As the post clearly states, I made no claims as to the infallibility of the experiment. So no, I am not trying to manufacture propaganda against theists, or trying to suggest that atheist forums are superior.

3. And, for my science-minded critics, of course I don't claim it was a scientific experiment. It was just my own research. Do you own and we'll confer.

4. Yes, I have "looked for god", "asked god to come" to me, and "prayed for signs" that a deity exists. Clearly, nothing happened or I would not be an atheist.

5. I don’t even remotely care if some now think I’m evil or a satanist or an infant barbequer - all these things are ridiculous and already covered.

6. Yes, I do think it’s hilarious that even after these errors are pointed out to theists, they continue to make them. Do you have any idea how many of the negative (and some of the positive ones from theists) included Pascal’s Wager, or stories about someone’s sister’s boyfriend’s grandmother’s neighbor who was cured of cancer once they prayed.

7. No, I don’t hate anyone. I don’t care what someone believes insofar as they do not harm anyone else, or attempt at forcing me to live their way. So I don’t care if someone is a racist (or any other kind of bigot), a theist, an atheist, or whatever. As stated, I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind. It’s just a (perhaps naive) attempt at toning down some of the vitriol between atheists and theists.

8. As stated in the post I chose Xianity because I’m American and that’s the big religion here. Plus, I’ve never come across a member of another religion who actively tried to convert me.
And, the atheist forums I frequent rarely see any other kind of theist. It was not a backhanded attempt at demonizing xians. They are simply who I have the most contact with.

9. No, the use of "xian" or "xianity" is not an insult. See here: Second paragraph

10. No, there are not pictures of me anywhere. I am not an "out" atheist, irl.

Anything else? E-mail me.

A Waste of Time? You Decide.

2006-01-09T11:18:00.000-05:00

For the past few months (ending at the end of December) I've been conducting a little experiment. I went to multiple xtian boards trying to see if discussion between the two camps produces anything of value. In this case, by 'value' I mean an understanding can be reached, ideas exchanged and preconceived notions validated or annihilated.

I started this because I've noticed that on atheist forums theists can get run off fairly quickly. This is mostly due to their own behavior, but they claim victim status. I have seen countless accusations from theists that atheists just hate god/religion/believers. Also, countless pleas for us to "consider the evidence" or to "take an honest look at faith."

So, I gave them a chance.
Why did I stop at two months? Well, answering the same questions over and over again can wear on one's nerves.

35 forums later all I have to say is: Oy. (now, 35 boards is by no means a fair crossection of xtian boards out there. However, I am only one person with a job, a boyfriend and a life so shut-up ;) ).

Disclaimer: This is clearly an informal experiment, and I make no claims to its
infallibility. This is just what happened to me. I encourage other atheists - with knowledge of the common fallacies and apologetics used, and plenty of patience - to try it themselves. Maybe bridges can be built.

A few notes:
-As I've said before I chose Xtian boards because I'm American and that is the prevalent religion here.
-Initially, it was my intention to post links to all the boards I visited - however, this was before I knew the outcome of this experiment. At that time I was expecting to find many good discussions out there in cyberland. After two months, I'd had very few. Now those of you that know me know that I can get fairly abrasive so you may be thinking that I was mean so they were mean to me. Not so. I made it a point to be as friendly, respectful and patient as I think guests should be. So, in hopes of sparing my fellow atheists from being subjected to this I will only post those forums which were good or not so bad. The Progressive Christians at Beliefnet.com, & Xnforums.com (a few flatout whackadoo posters, but the board has a rocking Moderator).

What I found:

The 11 most common misconceptions about atheists:

1. Atheists hate god/are jealous of theists
2. Atheists are arrogant and don't want anything "superior" to them
3. Atheists have never experience religion
4. Atheists have never read/don't understand the bible
5. Atheists just don't want to receive the truth
6. Atheists are bitter/angry
7. Atheists just don't want to admit they sin
8. All atheists support abortion/evolution/liberal politics/communism/fascism/etc
9. Atheists are gay
10. Atheists want to destroy/limit religion
11. Atheists think they know everything

The 5 most common excuses for having no evidence of the existence of god:

1. god doesn't need to prove himself to his creations
2. the bible says {insert nonsense here}
3. the evidence is all around us - (meaning existence is proof of god)
4. Faith is all we need
5. Pascal's Wager

The 14 most commonly used fallacies:

1. No True Scotsman fallacy - "That person/group isn't a True Christian(tm) person/group."
2. Appeal to ignorance as evidence for something - "We have no evidence that God doesn't exist, therefore, he must exist."
3. Argument from omniscience - "All people believe in something." or "All people have faith in something."
4. Appeal to faith - "if you have no faith, you cannot learn" or "You must have faith to understand."
5. Appeal to tradition - "People have believed in gods for thousands of years."
6. Argument from authority - "Professor so-and-so believes in creation-science." or "A lot of prominent scientists believe in god."
7. Argument from adverse consequences (also known as the Pat Robertson special) - "Disasters occur because God punishes non-believers/sinners"
8. Appeal to fear or threat - "If you don't believe in God, you'll burn in hell"
9. Begging the question (or assuming the answer) - "We must encourage our youth to worship God to instill moral behavior"
10. Circular reasoning - "God exists because the Bible says so; the Bible exists because God influenced it"
11. Confirmation bias - "I prayed for X to happen and it did, therefore God exists." (nevermind the countless unanswered prayers)
12. Proving non-existence - "Prove God doesn't exist"
13. Special pleading - Question: How can God create so much suffering in the world?
Answer: You have to understand that God moves in mysterious ways
and we have no privilege to this knowledge.
14. Straw man: creating a false scenario and then attacking it. - "Atheists just want to be promiscuous/steal/do drugs/etc without consequences so they reject god."

The 4 most commonly used bits of known hoaxes/forgeries:

1. The Lady Hope story (Darwin converted on his deathbed)
2. Josephus (see next link)
3. Anything used to "prove" Jesus really existed (this Link is a fabulous resource for debunking "proof" of Jesus's existence)
4. Various stories that the poster failed to provide backup for - Bit of the true cross being validated, bits of Noah's ark found on a mountaintop, aparititions of the Virgin Mary, multiple faith healing stories, prayers being answered

Some notable outcomes:
1. Seven forums banned me outright after I said I am an atheist
2. One moderator accused me of trying to corrupt the young
3. I was asked "If you don't believe in god, why care about anything" a total of 17 times.
4. On the flip side, I was welcomed (after outing myself as a non-believer) at the other 28 forums
6. Moderate and Progressive/Liberal Xtians are just as worried about the separation of Church and State as we are
7. Most Xtians I had contact with do not support Bush or the war

Conclusion:
The entire experience can be summed up fairly easily. Generally speaking, they know next to nothing about atheists, they are extremely emotionally attached to their deities, and they are just people looking for truth as we are. The animosity that sparks between atheists and theists seems to stem from the two camps speaking two different languages - atheists speak in terms of empirical evidence and logic; theists speak in terms of faith, emotion, and the unknown. An atheist expects proof before acceptance, a theists sees acceptance as proof.

Do I see it as a waste of time? On some of the boards (*cough*HolyCultureRadio*cough*) it was a waste of time. On boards frequented by a large teenage population or a way-out-there new-agey element, it was a waste of time. But this is not the case overall -surprisingly some of the more useful conversations happened on some fairly conservative forums.

Lastly, I think there are some allies to be made out there in the fight against an impending American Theocracy (okay, that's a little dramatic), women's rights and anti-war activism. There are plenty of good, decent xtians out there. However, we are never going to understand each other. We speak different languages.

People are ENTIRELY too Sensitive

2006-01-06T12:58:00.000-05:00

What happened to the world? When did we all become a bunch of cry baby softies with paper thin skin?

How did simply disagreeing with someone - sans insults - become "disrespectful".

An open letter to Men

2005-12-28T13:12:00.000-05:00

I have to apologize. I've been hating on you all for awhile now. After having a few of the bad apples from your bunch, a girl can get frustrated and reject the lot of you. Sometimes, when one (or more) of you hurt us bad enough or disappoint us frequently enough, we can start believeing you're ALL like that.

Well, I freely admit when I'm wrong. And, I was wrong. I've met one of yours that is wonderful. He's perfect* (for now anyway *wink wink*).

So, I apologize for letting a few bad apples spoil the bunch. Turns out there *are* good men out there. A girl just has to put up with a few frogs first.

Ain't love grand?

Love and fuzzy bunnies,
Lya

*- perfect defined by me means: Good in bed and likes to get high. (jk)