Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Could Pat Robertson get any more out of touch with reality?

No Comments »
No Gravatar

Yes­ter­day Pat Robert­son made another one of his trade­mark idi­otic state­ments. In response to Maine pro­vid­ing homo­sex­ual cou­ples the right to marry, Mr. Robert­son went on CBN and opened his mouth to let this shit drib­ble out:

Here is a tran­script, snagged from Think Progress:

HOST: Mean­while, the New Hamp­shire leg­is­la­ture has also voted in favor of gay mar­riage, but Pat, the gov­er­nor there still isn’t sure if he will approve that bill.

ROBERTSON: Lee, we haven’t taken this to its ulti­mate con­clu­sion. You got polygamy out there. How can we rule that polygamy is ille­gal when you say that homo­sex­ual mar­riage is legal. What is it about polygamy that’s dif­fer­ent? Well, polygamy was out­lawed because it was con­sid­ered immoral accord­ing to bib­li­cal stan­dards. But if we take bib­li­cal stan­dards away in homo­sex­u­al­ity, what about the other? And what about bes­tial­ity and ulti­mately what about child molesta­tion and pedophilia? How can we crim­i­nal­ize these things and at the same time have con­sti­tu­tional amend­ments allow­ing same-sex mar­riage among homo­sex­u­als. You mark my words, this is just the begin­ning in a long down­ward slide in rela­tion to all the things that we con­sider to be abhorrent.

He starts off with what is actu­ally a very good point. If polygamy was made ille­gal for reli­gious rea­sons, then it most cer­tainly should not be ille­gal. Of course my posi­tion is the reverse of his, so I see it as “so why is polygamy still ille­gal?” He then steps off the logic bus and boards the crazy train by claim­ing the next steps would then be bes­tial­ity and pedophilia. There’s this lit­tle detail he’s ignor­ing of course, and that is informed adult con­sent. Homo­sex­ual mar­riages are between two con­sent­ing adults. Polygamy would also be a num­ber of mar­riages between con­sent­ing adults. Bes­tial­ity, pedophilia, and all the other things the Chris­t­ian cra­zies claim nec­es­sar­ily fol­low gay mar­riage clearly don’t.

Can some­one please tell me why peo­ple keep lis­ten­ing to this igno­rant idiot?

Video cour­tesy Media Mat­ters.
Tran­script and inspi­ra­tion to write cour­tesy Think Progress.


On “religious freedom” in the workplace…

No Comments »
No Gravatar

With the Obama admin­is­tra­tion look­ing like they will be rolling back Bush era poli­cies allow­ing doc­tors to refuse to per­form cer­tain pro­ce­dures and/or refuse to pre­scribe or sell cer­tain med­ica­tions (let’s say RU-486 for exam­ple) the Internet’s polit­i­cal debate hotspots have erupted as expected. Over at the Some­thing Awful forums I saw a great post that com­pletely explains my posi­tion on this issue:

It’s a sad reflec­tion on the influ­ence of the reli­gious right that this is even a note­wor­thy issue. If you work at Burger King, and one day you decide that you don’t like the Dou­ble Whop­per and won’t serve it to peo­ple any­more (say, for rea­sons of their health), you get fired. If you’re an net­work admin­is­tra­tor and one day decide that TCP/IP is the devil’s pro­to­col and you won’t use it, you get fired. The list goes on. Giv­ing peo­ple the legal med­ica­tion they need is the job of the phar­ma­cist and doc­tor. Their job is not “Make value judg­ments about my patients and then pre­scribe what med­ica­tions I per­son­ally believe are good”. We have a cen­tral reg­u­la­tory body that deter­mines what med­i­cines and pro­ce­dures are legal to give out and per­form. Doc­tors and phar­ma­cists are expected to adhere to these. A phar­ma­cist who decided that he would no longer give can­cer patients their drugs or a doc­tor who decided he will sub­sti­tute phrenol­ogy for a gen­eral exam would find them­selves out of jobs in short order. The only rea­son this is an issue is because for some rea­son “It’s my reli­gion!” is taken as a valid excuse for not doing your job.

If you are a phar­ma­cist, it is your job to dis­pense med­ica­tions as pre­scribed. Your per­sonal morals have absolutely no legit­i­mate influ­ence on this. If you do not like this fact, find another job. What the right wing wants here would be equiv­a­lent to a paci­fist join­ing the Marines and then com­plain­ing that they were being sent to war.

If you’re still con­vinced that this “reli­gious free­dom” is the right option, pre­tend you live in a small town with one local doc­tor. Now pre­tend that doc­tor is a Jehova’s Wit­ness. Now think about what hap­pens if you or a loved one needs a trans­fu­sion. Your local doc­tor would then be fully able to refuse to give you/your loved one a trans­fu­sion because it goes against their religion.

If you don’t like the job require­ments, find another job. Don’t whine that you chose a job that con­flicts with your beliefs. Put up or shut up, either way your morals don’t have any effect on me.


Billy Corgan has the right idea, but in the wrong direction.

No Comments »
No Gravatar

Accord­ing to CNET, Billy Cor­gan (of Smash­ing Pump­kins fame) went in front of Con­gress to argue against the exemp­tion that allows ter­res­trial radio broad­cast­ers to only pay song­writ­ers and pub­lish­ers, but not artists, for the right to play their music. Satel­lite and inter­net broad­cast­ers by com­par­i­son must pay all three.

I’m 100% in favor of mak­ing things even between the three radio medi­ums, as it’s absurd that ter­res­trial broad­cast radio is treated as some­thing spe­cial, but I think it should go in the other direc­tion. Rather than rais­ing the rates paid by ter­res­trial broad­cast­ers to equal those paid by satel­lite and inter­net broad­cast, I believe the lat­ter two should have their rates low­ered to match ter­res­trial. Some sta­tions are simul­cast on all three (Clear Chan­nel has a part­ner­ship with XM satel­lite radio and is also push­ing their inter­net stream­ing heav­ily now with their “iheartra­dio” iPhone app) with three dif­fer­ent rates apply­ing. Wouldn’t it make more sense over­all to just have one sim­ple charge based on num­ber of lis­ten­ers? This charge should be much less than it is now, as the radio is sec­ond only to word of mouth for how peo­ple find new bands.

Radio is a dying medium as it is thanks to satel­lite (which isn’t doing too hot right now either), stream­ing, and MP3 play­ers. We don’t need to make it worse.


Blasphemy Day International 2009

No Comments »
No Gravatar

PZ over at Pharyn­gula linked to this Face­book group, so I had to share. Blas­phemy Day Inter­na­tional 2009.


What I Want For Christmas

No Comments »
No Gravatar

I’m not the first to post this today, but it’s cer­tainly worth the read. The fol­low­ing is from Robert Ingersoll’s “What I Want For Christmas.”

If I had the power to pro­duce exactly what I want for next Christ­mas, I would have all the kings and emper­ors resign and allow the peo­ple to gov­ern themselves.

I would have all the nobil­ity crop their titles and give their lands back to the people.

I would have the Pope throw away his tiara, take off his sacred vest­ments, and admit that he is not act­ing for God, is not infal­li­ble, and is just an ordi­nary Italian.

I would have all the car­di­nals, arch­bish­ops, bish­ops, priests and cler­gy­men admit that they know noth­ing about the­ol­ogy, noth­ing about hell or heaven, noth­ing about the des­tiny of the human race, noth­ing about dev­ils or ghosts, gods or angels. I would have them tell all their “flocks” to think for them­selves, to be manly men and wom­anly women, and to do all in their power to increase the sum of human happiness.

I would have all the pro­fes­sors in col­leges, all the teach­ers in schools of every kind, includ­ing those in Sun­day schools, agree that they would teach only what they know and not palm off guesses as demon­strated truths.

I would like to see all the politi­cians changed to statesmen:

  • Men who long to make their coun­try great and free
  • Men who care more for pub­lic good than pri­vate gain
  • Men who long to be of use

I would like to see all the edi­tors of papers and mag­a­zines agree to print the truth and noth­ing but the truth, to avoid all slan­der and mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tion, and to let the pri­vate affairs of the peo­ple alone.

I would like to see drunk­en­ness and pro­hi­bi­tion both abolished.

I would like to see cor­po­ral pun­ish­ment done away with in every home, in every school, in every asy­lum, refor­ma­tory, and prison. Cru­elty hard­ens and degrades, kind­ness reforms and ennobles.

I would like to see mil­lion­aires unite and form a trust for the pub­lic good.

I would like to see a fair divi­sion of prof­its between cap­i­tal and labor, so that the toiler could save enough to min­gle a lit­tle June with the Decem­ber of his life.

I would like to see an inter­na­tional court estab­lished in which to set­tle dis­putes between nations, so that armies could be dis­banded and the great navies allowed to rust and rot in per­fect peace.

I would like to see the whole world free — free from injus­tice, and free from superstition.

This will do for next Christ­mas. The fol­low­ing Christ­mas, I may want more.

I think many of us could agree that if some­how these requests could be granted the world would be a vastly bet­ter place.

Via Unrea­son­able Faith and Cynical-C


Happy 75th, legal booze!

No Comments »
No Gravatar

Today is the 75th anniver­sary of the repeal of Pro­hi­bi­tion.  As a fan of alco­hol in all its forms, I fig­ured I’d write up a bit of his­tory and my thoughts on the lessons of Prohibition.

The roots of Pro­hi­bi­tion can be traced to the mid-1800s when cer­tain Chris­t­ian groups, par­tic­u­larly Methodists and later Bap­tists.  Many states passed dry laws lead­ing up to Decem­ber 1917 when the eigh­teenth amend­ment was pro­posed.  The amend­ment took over a year before it was rat­i­fied in Jan­u­ary of 1919 when Utah approved it.  Rhode Island and Con­necti­cut were the only two states to not rat­ify the amend­ment, and in fact both put out state­ments reject­ing it.

Of course many Amer­i­cans did not like the gov­ern­ment telling them what they could drink, so the new ille­gal sta­tus didn’t really do much except cre­ate a black mar­ket.  Now what comes with a black mar­ket?  That’s right, crime.  If it weren’t for Pro­hi­bi­tion, do you really think gang­sters like Al Capone could have made as much money as they made and had the power that they had?

We all know by now that the gov­ern­ment is slow to real­ize its mis­takes, and even slower when those mis­takes are still being backed by pow­er­ful polit­i­cal groups.  Due to the incred­i­ble influ­ence of the reli­gious groups who sup­ported pro­hi­bi­tion it took four­teen years before the twenty-first amend­ment was pro­posed in Feb­ru­ary of 1933.  Once again, Utah was the state that made it offi­cial by cross­ing the 2/3 require­ment on this day 75 years ago.  South Car­olina rejected the amend­ment and North Carolina’s vot­ers decided against hav­ing a con­ven­tion to con­sider it.

I believe these lessons need to be applied to many other recreational-use drugs such as mar­i­juana.  The mod­ern alco­hol dis­tri­b­u­tion sys­tem shows how to effi­ciently oper­ate and reg­u­late such drugs, and sales num­bers show how many of us are respon­si­bly using it.  I don’t see any rea­son the same can’t apply to the world’s favorite smok­able plant.

Some argue that legal­iz­ing mar­i­juana for recre­ational use will put every­one in dan­ger with peo­ple work­ing and/or dri­ving stoned.  Again I say just look at alco­hol.  The vast major­ity of the pop­u­la­tion con­sumes it safely and those who don’t are dealt with strictly.  When vapor­ized it has very lit­tle effect on res­pi­ra­tory health (unlike tobacco), not to men­tion it can be eaten, and it is impos­si­ble to over­dose with­out a direct IV injec­tion of THC (unlike alcohol).

It just seems hyp­o­crit­i­cal and point­less to make a safer and more enjoy­able drug ille­gal, fuel­ing a black mar­ket, when we could be reg­u­lat­ing qual­ity and fund­ing projects with taxed while also allow­ing our cit­i­zens to alter their state of mind as they choose.


Pharyngula: What word is missing in this story?

No Comments »
No Gravatar

Pharyn­gula: What word is miss­ing in this story?.

A very inter­est­ing point by PZ Mey­ers, why is it that white Amer­i­can con­ser­v­a­tives are exempt from the label “terrorist”?

Hell, I’m a white Amer­i­can and I’ve been told I’m sup­port­ing “the ter­ror­ists” because I’m against the PATRIOT act.  I guess being nutty on the con­ser­v­a­tive side of the spec­trum earns one spe­cial treat­ment once again.

On that note, I had a con­ver­sa­tion with a few cowork­ers today about how even if (when, I hope) Barack Obama wins the elec­tion there’s a non-trivial chance one of these right-wing nut­balls will take a shot at him.  It’s a sad state this country’s in.  I hope for the best and pre­pare for the worst.  Such an occur­ance would not end well.


Focus on the Family prove their idiocy once again

No Comments »
No Gravatar

Those fun­da­men­tal­ist idiots are at it again, this time try­ing to rile up the red states with an exag­ger­ated let­ter writ­ten from the per­spec­tive of an evan­gel­i­cal in 2012 under an Obama admin­is­tra­tion (PDF).

I hes­i­tate to start on this post because it’s already 11 PM and I have to work tomor­row, but I’ve been think­ing about this since Hemant Mehta posted about it yes­ter­day and I just feel I have to get some­thing out.

I’m just going to start from the top, quot­ing the parts I feel like dis­cussing and fol­low­ing them up with my thoughts.

The most far-reaching trans­for­ma­tion of Amer­i­can soci­ety came from the Supreme Court’s stun­ning affir­ma­tion, in early 2010, that homo­sex­ual “mar­riage” was a “con­sti­tu­tion­al”  right that had to be respected by all 50 states because laws bar­ring same-sex “mar­riage” vio­lated the Equal Pro­tec­tion clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Oh no, you mean Equal Pro­tec­tion means Equal for every­one?  *shock*

Sud­denly, homo­sex­ual “mar­riage” was the law of the land in all 50 states, and no state leg­is­la­ture, no state Supreme Court, no state Con­sti­tu­tional amend­ment, not even Con­gress, had any power to change it.

Well yea, I think that’s the point of the Fed­eral gov­ern­ment, it over­rides the indi­vid­ual states.  As for Con­gress, last time I checked they’ve changed the Con­sti­tu­tion twenty seven times.  It just takes a lot more polit­i­cal will and power than the fundie nut­bags can come up with so they ignore real­ity and lie because it sounds bet­ter to them.

This was a bla­tant exam­ple of cre­at­ing law by the court, for homo­sex­ual “mar­riage” was men­tioned nowhere in the Con­sti­tu­tion, nor would any of the authors have imag­ined that same-sex “mar­riage” could be derived from their words.

Mar­riage as a whole is not men­tioned in the Con­sti­tu­tion.  Would you rather have the Fed­eral Gov­ern­ment have no recog­ni­tion of mar­riage at all?  (Side Note, per­son­ally I’d much pre­fer to either split the reli­gious cer­e­mony of mar­riage from couple’s ben­e­fits as the gov­ern­ment sees them or even throw out any spe­cial treat­ment for cou­ples of any kind.  Why should some­one get a tax break just because they signed a paper and pos­si­bly bought a ring?)

Boy Scouts: “The land of the free”? The Boy Scouts no longer exist as an orga­ni­za­tion. They chose to dis­band rather than be forced to obey the Supreme Court deci­sion that they would have to hire homo­sex­ual scout­mas­ters and allow them to sleep in tents with young boys.

How is this a bad thing?  The Boy Scouts were once a decent orga­ni­za­tion that has since been taken over by the reli­gious right and unfor­tu­nately due to its past man­ages to con­tinue using pub­lic spaces at lit­tle to no cost and receive tax dol­lars even though it is heav­ily dis­crim­i­na­tory.  Pri­vate orga­ni­za­tion my ass.

As for the part about homo­sex­ual scout­mas­ters sleep­ing in tents with young boys, over­all this is just going back to one of the long-lasting claims of the anti-gay crowd, that gay men are all pedophiles.  Even with that said I could see how one could be uncom­fort­able with that sit­u­a­tion for the same rea­son you wouldn’t have a male lead­ing a Girl Scout troop and shar­ing a tent with them on some out­ing.  The idea that the BSA would be legally required to do that is absurd, but of course absur­dity doesn’t bother the reli­gious when they’re try­ing to make a point.

Gah fuck, I’m get­ting so annoyed just read­ing that let­ter that I can’t fin­ish right now.  I’ll come back to this post after I calm down.


$words[rand()] is using WP-Gravatar

SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline