Respect my Polish roots, yo!!!

(via Crommunist)

Apparently, Poland has an anti-clerical party, the Palikot Movement. Part of this movement is now Poland's first transsexual and gay MPs! According to the BBC report, the party "campaigned for the legalisation of abortion, gay marriage and marijuana." Kudos to Poland for this progressive push to the left.

OK, let's stop dancing around the issue!

   Presidential Republican primary candidate Herman Cain was on Piers Morgan and the topic of homosexuality came up. Much of the discussion in the below video focused around the idea of whether or not homosexuality is a choice.



   While I do like how Piers Morgan tried to make Cain look foolish for believing (or at least claiming that he believes) that homosexuality is a choice, I don't think that is where the discussion should be focused. (Also, I wish someone would inform Cain on recorded TV that the science does show that homosexuality is not a choice...so that we can see him decide to not change his opinion anyway. See the video below the line break for some of the science.) I think people should grant him the idea that it is a choice (because, again, he'll likely deny the science anyway) and then pound on him for his "biblical beliefs" pointing out that this is a secular nation and that we have a First Amendment that essentially says that while Cain has the right to disagree with that choice, he does not have the right to enforce his disagreement (by which I mean banning gay marriage) as a point of law.

   The whole "Is it a choice?" debate is just a smoke screen/decoy from the real issue. The real issue, as should be obvious, is that homosexuality is a violation of his religious indoctrination. (Likewise, I'm not interested in debates about whether or not those denominations are interpreting the Bible correctly. I don't care! The only fact that matters is that they are being taught those interpretations.) Frankly, these people know that discriminating against a group for religious reasons is not legal. So they come up with excuses like "It's unnatural," "It's a choice," "Homosexuals are more likely to be child molesters," etc. to give the impression that they have a secular argument against it, though, in reality, they do not. (That last one has fallen out of favor as it has become too obvious that it's a fabrication.) For example, if you get them to admit that it is not a choice, they'll likely come up with some new justification. Much like the mythical beast Hydra, when you cut off one head, it just finds a way to grow another back. So, you need to attack it at its immortal head (or, rather, it's base/root). In this case, go after the religious roots. (And ask him for the evidence that his religious beliefs were handed down by God...or whatever he believes.)

---

There is a difference...

    There is a difference between teaching what someone said and teaching that someone was correct in what they said. Newt Gingrich doesn't seem to know this difference (or he might just not care). Watch the video, then read my further comments.



    The first example Newt gives is that the Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." He then asks if children should learn what the founding fathers meant. And my answer to that is "Of course!" But does that mean teaching them that the founding fathers were correct in that statement? No! And, actually, the founding fathers were wrong with that statement. Rights are not unalienable; this should be quite clear with the fact that the U.S. Constitution has a Bill of Rights. Why would you need a bill of rights if rights are unalienable?

    The second example Newt gives is perhaps even more absurd then the first. Again, it's a case of failing to distinguish teaching that person X had religious beliefs, which is acceptable to teach, versus person X was correct in their religious beliefs, which is not acceptable to teach.

    And then the clown show came to town. The questioner originally pointed out that Newt had said he was against the State impossing religion. But what does Newt do? He demonstrates that he wants State impossing religion. Well, he wants children to be able to "approach God in any way [they] want to." For those who are unfamiliar with this, this is how many politicians attempt to weasel out of claims that they are impossing a religion, because they are not specifying which one. Even though when they say "god" they really mean "God" (as in the Christian diety), they can then say that they were actually using that former blanket term. Though, implying that children should even be "approaching" any god should be enough. What if you don't believe in their imaginary friend?

    Continuing the clown show, Newt states that there is "an enormous difference between a culture which believes it is purly secular and a culture that believes it is somehow empowered by our creator." He has a point. There is an enormous difference between the likes of Norway or Japan (cultures that are nearly "purly" secular) and Pakistahn, Iran, Saudia Arabia (cultures that they are empowered by their creator)! Oh, was I not supposed to point that out???

    Otherwise, Cenk says just about everything else needed to be said on this.

Atheists dismissing Rick Perry/Christianity

About a week ago, Rick Perry had a discussion with a boy evolution and the age of the earth. A couple of atheists have chipped in on posts in The Washington Post.

Richard Dawkins first addressed Rick Perry and the Republican party.

There is nothing unusual about Governor Rick Perry. Uneducated fools can be found in every country and every period of history, and they are not unknown in high office. What is unusual about today’s Republican party (I disavow the ridiculous ‘GOP’ nickname, because the party of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt has lately forfeited all claim to be considered ‘grand’) is this: In any other party and in any other country, an individual may occasionally rise to the top in spite of being an uneducated ignoramus. In today’s Republican Party ‘in spite of’ is not the phrase we need. Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job.

Of course, he also had things to say about evolution:

Darwin’s idea is arguably the most powerful ever to occur to a human mind. The power of a scientific theory may be measured as a ratio: the number of facts that it explains divided by the number of assumptions it needs to postulate in order to do the explaining. A theory that assumes most of what it is trying to explain is a bad theory. That is why the creationist or ‘intelligent design’ theory is such a rotten theory.
...
...
The simplicity of Darwin’s idea, then, is a virtue for three reasons. First, and most important, it is the signature of its immense power as a theory, when compared with the mass of disparate facts that it explains - everything about life including our own existence. Second, it makes it easy for children to understand (in addition to the obvious virtue of being true!), which means that it could be taught in the early years of school. And finally, it makes it extremely beautiful, one of the most beautiful ideas anyone ever had as well as arguably the most powerful. To die in ignorance of its elegance, and power to explain our own existence, is a tragic loss, comparable to dying without ever having experienced great music, great literature, or a beautiful sunset.

Paula Kirby also addressed the issue. She strayed away from Rick Perry and focused more on evolution and it's impact to Christianity.

Evolution is a simple fact. We can choose to remain ignorant of it, we can stick our fingers in our ears and refuse to think about it, we can even rail against it and shout and scream that it is not allowed to be true. But facts are facts, and will not go away just because we don't like them. We don't get to vote for our preferred method of having come into existence as a species, any more than we can choose to have been delivered by stork rather than conceived and born in the usual way.

The primary role of the school is pretty straightforward: it is to educate. It is to give young people the opportunity to learn as much as possible about the world, on the basis of the very best knowledge we have. Education is about overcoming ignorance - so the idea of allowing ignorance to set the school curriculum and to perpetuate itself by continuing to teach generation after generation information that for the last 150 years we have known to be false, is a shameful betrayal: a betrayal of young people, who put their trust in us and who deserve better; and a betrayal of the very concept of education itself.
...
...
...Evolution means that the creation accounts in the first two chapters of Genesis are wrong. That's not how humans came into being, nor the cattle, nor the creeping things, nor the beasts of the earth, nor the fowl of the air. Evolution could not have produced a single mother and father of all future humans, so there was no Adam and no Eve. No Adam and Eve: no fall. No fall: no need for redemption. No need for redemption: no need for a redeemer. No need for a redeemer: no need for the crucifixion or the resurrection, and no need to believe in that redeemer in order to gain eternal life. And not the slightest reason to believe in eternal life in the first place.

She also point out that, "...Many Christians happily accept evolution: they see Genesis 1 as merely a metaphor, and declare that if God chose to create us using evolution..." So, while evolution doesn't instantly get rid of Christianity, it creates a weakened form. The following is such an example:

...when Christians realize God created the world to be free to grow and change, they do not fear evolution as “rampant secularism” but celebrate it as evidence of the astonishing power of an infinite God.

I'd really like to hear what she has to say about Jesus. I feel I can speculate a few things, though: I suspect that she finds Jesus to still be the "Son of God," but that he was sent to serve as a moral teacher and an example for us humans. I also suspect she does not believe in a torturous hell (I had an encounter on YouTube yesterday where the theist was claiming hell fire is part of a purification process, and that people don't stay in hell forever), though likely still believes in a heaven. I also suspect that she would have been raised in a family or culture that takes a more literal view of the Bible. This is good news for the next generation as long as atheist stay vocal. If she teaches her children that Jesus was just a good moral teacher sent by God, then pressure from atheists can get them to look at those teachings. They will find that those teachings are nothing special. They may still go about believing in a god, but at least they wouldn't be "the end is nigh!" type of Christians. It would be progress.

Trophygate

I'm days behind on this (as always), but something just screamed "Foul!" about this story. This picture to the right is the new Cy-Hawk Trophy, which is the trophy fought for in the annual University of Iowa vs. Iowa State University football game. The CEO of Iowa Corn, the organization sponsoring the trophy, had the following to say (emphasis mine):

“This is literally a work of art representing the people and characteristics that are uniquely Iowan.” said Craig Floss, CEO for Iowa Corn. “Just as the trophy reads, we are honest, hard working, family and community orientated people. Iowa’s corn farmers are proud to bring this work of art to the new Iowa Corn Cy-Hawk Series football game and we look forward to sharing it with the people of Iowa.”

That whole bit about family just shouts influence from anti-gay individuals. I get the feeling that there was a political agenda behind this. Though it could just be that I have become paranoid after last year's elections where three Iowa Supreme Court justices were voted out over the gay marriage debate. The good news is that people complained about the trophy having nothing to do with football and the trophy will be replaced!

Good education wins in 9th Circuit

(via pharyngula)

The Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a high school history teacher who was critical of creationist arguments in his class. The concern in this case was that the teacher may have been violating the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. Here are some of the teachers remarks:

“Aristotle … argued, you know, there sort of has to be a God. Of course that’s nonsense,” Corbett said according to a transcript of his lecture. “I mean, that’s what you call deductive reasoning, you know. And you hear it all the time with people who say, ‘Well, if all this stuff that makes up the universe is here, something must have created it.’ Faulty logic. Very faulty logic.”

He continued: “The other possibility is, it’s always been there.… Your call as to which one of those notions is scientific and which one is magic.”

“All I’m saying is that, you know, the people who want to make the argument that God did it, there is as much evidence that God did it as there is that there is a giant spaghetti monster living behind the moon who did it,” the transcript says.

Corbett told his students that “real” scientists try to disprove the theory of evolution. “Contrast that with creationists,” he told his students. “They never try to disprove creationism. They’re all running around trying to prove it. That’s deduction. It’s not science. Scientifically, it’s nonsense.”

That sounds reasonable to me, as this is a critique of the problems with creationist arguments and not a flat out rejection of creationism. In other words, if this teacher would have just said that creationism is nonsense without providing the reasons why it is nonsense, then it would be an issue.

Judge Raymond Fisher, who wrote for the court, said the following:

“But teachers must also be given leeway to challenge students to foster critical thinking skills and develop their analytical abilities,” he said. “This balance is hard to achieve, and we must be careful not to curb intellectual freedom by imposing dogmatic restrictions.”

Being critical of creationist logic should help foster those critical thinking skills, and that is why I support this teacher's actions.

Unfortunately, the coverage on TYT, a favorite liberal biased show of mine, was disappointing.



If you can't criticize bad ideas in the educational system, then we will keep falling further behind the rest of the modern world in education.

What the fuck, Stewart?

The Daily Show - Culture War Update - The Dividening of America - American Atheists vs. Ground Zero Cross
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

It is rare, but every now and then, Jon Stewart disappoints me. The surprise was when he said, "By the way, atheists, why do you give a shit?" It's one thing to hear that from the religious, because they usually say it to discourage atheists from speaking out against their mythology, but hearing it from people who are not only non-religious but likely atheists as well is quite frustrating. Imagine a extreme scenario, just to make a clear point--what if there was a group of people living in, say, 1930's Germany who found comfort in a cross that remained from a building that burned down, killing a bunch of Jews inside. The comfort, of course, was from the feeling that their god was giving them a sign assuring them that they need to purify their culture. Need I explain how they would go about doing that? Might that be something worth caring about for someone like Stewart?

I know who WON'T be running for President amongst the Republicans

Chris Christie is done. He has no hope for a 2012 Presidential bid. Not that it appeared he was actually going to run, but I cannot know what goes on in his head. Even if he had been considering it, it is not going to happen now. He nominated a Muslim *gasp* to the New Jersey Superior Court. And then he had the nerve to defend his nomination by criticizing the people who bring up Sharia as being crazy (not necessarily clinically crazy, but crazy on this particular issue).

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

It was a bit funny considering how the Republicans pray on the crazy and ignorant (there was a point where he said something about ignorance was behind the objections). Christie does it himself, pushing the idea that tax breaks drives job creation. [Cringes at the fact I have not yet posted as to why this does not work.] Though, I have been reminded that New Jersey has a fairly large Muslim population. Coincidence that he would be nominating and defending a Muslim judge?

(It should go without saying that I have nothing against this nomination. I'm not too concerned about the qualifications of this judge. No more than I would have with any judge nominated by a Republican.)

Almost forgot about Rick Perry! :S

Oh, I had wanted to share this video before today. It basically goes over Rick Perry's incompetence as Texas governor.



Apparently, a number of people did actually show up for his prayer rally. Let's see if it does any good. Like, maybe the stock market will magically go back up next week. And, more importantly, will he throw his hat into the presidential election ring? I thought he would announce it at his rally, but apparently he has not done so yet.

It's broken because they want it broken

In an earlier post, I discussed right-wing pundits complaining about liberals throwing money at problems and how what they really mean when they say that is they have no desire to fix the problem.

Another such area is public education. I often hear from the right-wing how our public education system is "broken." So, what is their solution? Voucher programs! These do at least 3 things that conservatives like:

1. Saves the wealthy money. Many wealthy people already send their children to private schools. Voucher programs will put money back into their pockets.
2. Promotes private business. As the vouchers would be used to send children to private schools, those schools would stand to increase their profits off of such a program. This is good for anyone invested in the school.
3. Promotes Christianity. To weasel out of any 1^st Amendment violations, it is a parent's choice for which private school to send their children to. However, there currently are a lot of private religious schools. There may not really be a viable choice between a religious and non-religious schools. (And many conservatives probably want it to stay that way.)
   Note to conservatives: Realize that if you are going to allow vouchers to be used in Christian schools, they can also be used in Islamic schools. I know how many of you freak out over Islam. Or are you trying to push your holy war agenda even further?

The scary part that people need to be aware is that conservatives are intentionally trying to undermine the public education system to push their agenda. There approach is really only a three-step process:

1. Pin/focus the blame on some factor outside of political control.
2. Defund public education while focus is shifted.
3. Repeat.

For step one, they are putting the blame on teachers. Other factors, as Lawrence O'Donnell discusses in the video below, includes home learning environment, the student's personal expectations, the student's parents expectations, class size, class environment, etc, etc, etc. O'Donnell blames it on an anti-union agenda, which could certainly be part of it, but I certainly think it is also part of their pro-voucher agenda.

I grant that there are some poor teachers out there. But has it occurred to people that we may have a large number of poor teachers (assuming that we do for the sake of argument) because those who could be good teachers that would like to teach don't because they can get a better paying job elsewhere? And that this also leaves open teaching jobs to people who would not do well in private industry? Some probably have, but unfortunately, teachers have been demonized as greedy and their low pay has been justified by the crappy argument that they only work 9 months out of the year...as if they don't have mortgages, utility bills, etc. to worry about those other 3 months and as if they don't deserve to be paid well for bearing the responsibility of educating the next generation!

Step 2 should be obvious to anyone with half a brain. Many schools are now rated on how their students do on standardized tests. If the students do poorly, funding for the school is cut. How is cutting funding supposed to help these schools do better? Well, go back to Step 1, and the problem (supposedly) is teachers...or even the school's administration. That's what the schools are supposed to fix...because there is no way that class size, etc, etc, etc. has anything to do with it!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Please don't fall for the conservative tricks. The public education is only flawed because people with political agendas have made it flawed!

The fertility fears of the religious right

First, I must correct Ana. The USA is right at the replacement rate, and may actually be slightly under at 2.06. The population has grown largely due to immigration (which also includes all those South Korean, African, etc. babies people like to adopt, by the way). I added the above video to mainly focus on Steve King, particularly the part about a "dying civilization." At the end of the video, Sam suggests that this "part of a Sharia law...campaign." That is much of what it is. Part of it is likely also part of a pro-white campaign as well. The fertility rate of white people in this country is below the replacement rate. To better understand what King is saying, I present the following video:



This is the type of fear mongering that the right likes to spread. I think ideas like this are even worse in Europe, but we are starting to see more of it here in the USA as well. The video does a good job of mixing fact with fiction. It is true that the replacement rate is around 2.11. However, we start seeing fiction shortly after when the video says that a rate of 1.3 is "impossible to reverse," but then immediately goes on to say "because it would take 80-100 years to correct itself." Well, if it can correct itself, then it's not impossible to reverse, is it? "Impossible," then, is a buzz-word that attempts to exaggerate the seriousness of such a birthrate and feed fear. After that, we are told, "There is no economic model that can sustain a culture during that time." Well, they I suggest we get some economists on that and figure out a solution!

The video then goes over the birth rates across Europe. Some of those countries actually have higher birth rates. Spain is closer to 1.5, for example. However, I suspect they are looking at the non-Muslim population, since Spain has a high Muslim population. Because the next things they do is show how many Muslims are emigrating into Europe and look how they are breeding like rabbits!

Now, I grant I do have concerns myself. I do worry about the numbers of people who hold ridiculous religious beliefs possibly being on the rise, but I don't care about the religion. Fundamental Islam is just as much of a threat to humanity as fundamental Christianity. So, unlike these people on the religious right, the way to tackle this problem that I propose is to be critical of religious beliefs. In fact, let's be critical of any belief that is not founded on evidence. [Cringes at the fact I have not written a post on skepticism.] I have heard it said that the next generation of immigrants usually integrate into their society quite well. So, even if you have immigrants who are radical Muslims, their children could end up being quite different from their parents if the culture is not composed of radical Muslims. And that is why I think encouraging skeptical and critical thinking is the best solution. I don't give a crap if they are not white. People are people. Or I should say humans are humans. That, and skin color is skin deep.

I am also disappointed with the fertility rates of Muslims, like those on the right, but not because they are Muslims. Rather, I'm not happy that they are not helping to keep the world population down!

Also, where is the concern for eastern Asia? China - 1.54 fertility rate. (By the way, their economy has been doing OK thus far.) Japan - 1.21!!! If that doesn't send a strong message that this is all about fear mongering to stir up white Christians, I don't know what will.

At any rate, this is the sort of fear that drives the comments of those like Steve King. And it's the sort of fear that drove people like Anders Behring Breivik. The part that scares me is that this man does not appear to be the fundamentalist* Christian he was reported to be. He was sympathetic with Christian culture and knew some Bible verses, but he admittedly did not practice much. But what if he had actually been a fundamental Christian?
* It may be that he could be considered a fundamentalist Christian based on Norway's standards, as they are not a very religious nation. He would not have been a fundamentalist by American standards.

"Liberals always want to throw money at a problem to fix it!"

The quote in the Title is near the end of the video. It was said by Margaret Hoover. The implication here is that it is bad to throw money at a problem, and this almost makes me wonder what kind of world these people live in. Seriously, in what world does fixing problems come without some type of cost? The reality is there is always some cost to fixing problems. Every problem, at minimum, takes time to fix, and, as the cliche goes, time is money. When I fix a problem at work, it takes time, time which I get paid for and time that I use up when I could have been doing something else...perhaps designing, for example. (Though, as an engineer, much of my job involves fixing problems. Fixing problems comes with the territory.) Even when I donate my time to an organization, there is some monetary consequence. (Yes, I'm considering volunteering as fixing problems for the sake of this argument. Consider it fixing societal problems.) When I donated my time on the United Way Day of Caring, my place of employment still payed me for the day, as they are a sponsor for the event. They incurred a cost even while I was gone volunteering and not doing the type of work I was hired for. Even when I volunteer on my own time, that is time I could be doing things to save myself money or maybe working a second job or even putting extra hours at my current job, which I can then use as a case for getting a bigger raise. In short, fixing problems costs money, so this implication that you don't need to throw money at a problem to fix it is absurd.

What could be seen as the more baffling part of this whole story is that this is in regards to this recommendation that birth control be freely available to the public in which there is the claim that the cost of preventing unwanted pregnancies will be much smaller than the cost of carrying out an unwanted pregnancy. In the end, money is saved, yet, these conservatives still complain.

This should lead people to the conclusion that there is something else going on here. I find that something else to actually be quite simple: They (the conservatives) don't want to have to pay anything at all, ever...which really boils down to selfishness. (Frankly, a lot of conservative ideas boil down to selfishness.) In other words, they are looking out for #1. For this case, O'Reilly and Hoover are likely thinking along the lines of "I'm a responsible person and never had to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. Why should I pay for someone else's irresponsibility?" When they complain about liberals throwing money at a problem, it is not because they live in some strange reality where fixing problems is cost free, as I suggested in the first paragraph, but rather because they had no interest in fixing the problem in the first place. When they disregard the fact that preventative measures can actually save money in the long term, it is because, once again, that they have no interest in the problem. Any cost in fixing a problem that is of no concern to them is too high of a cost.
Also note that earlier in the video, O'Reilly claimed that "Many women who get pregnant are blasted out of their minds when they have sex..." This is setting up the idea that unwanted pregnancies are always a result of irresponsible behavior, thus reducing sympothy for the pregnant woman. Amanda Marcotte at pandagon.net has a fitting response.

O'Reilly is framing unwanted pregnancy as a woman's just punishment for being a dirty, drunken slut. He doesn't, however, explain why he thinks it's such a great idea to have women he considers irresponsible, slutty drunks put in charge of raising the next generation. This is typical anti-choice thinking---putting punishing "dirty girls" above all other concerns, including the well-being of children.

...

O'Reilly clearly doesn't understand how the birth control pill works. His statement only makes sense if you assume that the pill works by a woman taking it right before or during sex to prevent conception, which is why being drunk might make you forget it. But in reality, that's not how the pill works at all, as roughly everyone in the world over 10 years old that isn't Bill O'Reilly understands. You just take it during the day and it covers you for having sex roughly whenever, as long as you're up on your pills. If you haven't been taking your pills and you take one right before sex, it doesn't offer any protection.

There is another issue at large in this discussion. Many conservatives are also moderate or fundamentalist Christians, the type of Christians that demonize the use of birth control. Even if freely available birth control makes sense (and it does), they will fight it as it goes against their religious dogma.

Oops! I forgot the most important highlight!

Yesterday I posted some of the highlights from BlagHag's bloggathon. I forgot to post a link to perhaps the most important post - the one on Obama speaking about "balance. Go to the post to see the transcript. This, however, was disappointing:I think we’ve struck the right balance so far, but this is something that we continue to be in dialogue with faith-based organizations about to try to make sure that their hiring practices are as open and as inclusive as possible.I'm getting quite sick and tired of Obama's "balance." I really wish he'd focus instead on doing the right thing! If religions organizations are receiving tax payer money and then being allowed to discriminate against people, that is wrong, plain and simple. (He even said at the beginning it was straightforward.) There is no "balance" to strike on this issue. When Obama said, "If, on the other hand, it is closer to your core functions as a synagogue or a mosque or a church, then there may be more leeway for you to hire somebody who is a believer of that particular religious faith," then that organization shouldn't be getting tax payer money. Plain and simple. (It's bad enough that they can discriminate while being tax exempt.)

It keeps becoming more and more obvious that Obama is concerned about balance to get the independent vote for reelection. Without a primary challenge, he doesn't need to please Democrats for that vote. Likewise, he needs not worry about Democrats for the general election. Many will vote for him to prevent a Republican from getting the office, and even if they do not vote for him, they won't vote against him. (Though, honestly, if Romney ends up being the Republican candidate, I'm not sure he'd be much worse than Obama. I still probably wouldn't vote for Romney, though.) I remember Obama telling us, if he were elected, that it wouldn't be politics as usual. So much for that.

When someone stresses "I read it," you know something's up!

Al Franken should make Minnesotans (at least the sane ones) proud. He did his homework. Apparently some guy (Tom Minnery) from Focus on the Family was a witness for a recent Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) hearing and was claiming that children are better off in a married family where the parents are heterosexual and Minnery cited a Department of Health and Human Services study to back his claim. In the video below, I knew right away something good was going to happen when Franken said, "I...checked the study out," with a long pause after the statement. Franken points out that the cited study is for a nuclear family where there is at least one child living with two married parents who are either biological or adoptive parents. In other words, the parents could be homosexual; thus, Minnery's claim was not actually supported by the study he cited. Now, families where the parents are married homosexuals are likely going to make up a very small percentage of all those families in the study, but this is then lack of evidence and anyone trying to claim families with homosexual parents are dysfunctional will need evidence, as they are making the positive claim. (On that note, I think it is fair to say the default position is that homosexual parents are no different than heterosexual parents when it comes to the effectiveness of parenting, which is why those against homosexual marriage have the burden of proof.)




(I know that this news is three days old now, but it is just so important as a lesson. Whether or not Minnery was intentionally being deceptive or if he legitimately misinterpreted the study is one thing. The more important thing is that he and people like him are counting on their audience being ignorant. They don't want people reading that study, whether or not they think they accurately represented it. They want you to take them at their word. This is what makes what Franken did particularly important. He didn't take them at their word; he did his own fact checking. That is a very important "skill" to have and comes in handy in defending off false claims.)

Gay marriage legalized in NY!!!

So, this all happened late Friday night, but I didn't find the time to blog about it yesterday, and I'm still not finding a lot of time today, so I will make this brief...

This is definitely very good news. Bigotry was handed a defeat in New York state, and it is always an occasion for celebration when bigotry loses. Otherwise, other people have covered this, so I will just link you to their articles. The Friendly Atheist made note of the religious exemptions, while Mike the Infidel notes that he thinks this exemption is a good thing; the bigotry of religion is recorded into law. 50-or-so years from now, when gay marriage is legal country-wide, the religious groups will have a tough time claiming they were not all that against gay marriage.

Here are some of the bigoted comments from church leaders:

The leading opponent, Democratic Sen. Ruben Diaz, was given only a few minutes to state his case during the Senate debate.

"God, not Albany, settled the issue of marriage a long time ago," said Diaz, a Bronx minister. "I'm sorry you are trying to take away my right to speak," he said. "Why are you ashamed of what I have to say?"


The Catholic Bishops of New York said the law alters "radically and forever humanity's historic understanding of marriage."

"We always treat our homosexual brothers and sisters with respect, dignity and love," the bishops stated Friday, "We worry that both marriage and the family will be undermined by this tragic presumption of government in passing this legislation that attempts to redefine these cornerstones of civilization."


"State legislators should not decide society-shaping issues," said the Rev. Jason McGuire of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms. He said his organization would work in next year's elections to defeat lawmakers who voted for the measure.

Keep it classy, thee of much faith!

My disappointments with the Weiner situation.

WARNING: The following blog post contains language not appropriate for children who have been handled with kid gloves as well as adults with the naivety of such children.


I was disappointed last night when I heard that Anthony Weiner resigned, but, upon further reflection, if that is what he felt he needed to do, then so be it. What really pisses me off is the pressure he received from his colleges. I talked to my father this morning, and he wanted Weiner to resign as he thinks we should hold Democrats to a higher standard. When it first came out that Weiner had indeed sent out those photos, I thought he should resign. Then I reconsidered...

The first thing I considered is that this is his private life and it should be just that: private! Nothing illegal was done in this situation. When Republicans engage in such behavior, I call them out primarily because they campaign on "family values." This makes what they do hypocritical toward their voters. Weiner may be a hypocrite toward his own wife and family, but not to his voters.

He did, however, lie at first. I had to consider this. So I tried to put myself in his shoes as much as I could. I suspect that must be embarrassing as hell (figure of speach) to admit that you cheated on your wife. It would then reason that it could be challenging to admit said event. From there it would then reason that one might fail at that challenge, and that failure result in lying about it. So I get it. I can forgive Anthony Weiner for lying to the public.

Recently today, I had another light turn on. As I said, my father said he holds Democrats to a higher standard. This got me thinking today, "What standard? Whose standard?" (Or maybe the better question is, "Why is this part of your standard?") The answer to that came from the conversation I had with my father. I mentioned that humans are very sexual animals, but mostly we talked about bonobos, which are homo sapien's second closest living relative, right after the chimpanzee. (I don't even care if you don't believe in evolution if you instead believe that the creator/god/designer/whatever used a "common template." If that really is the case, then examining chimp and bonobo behavior is important to understanding humans.) I pointed out that bonobos engage in peculiar sexual behavior in that they have sex to resolve disputes as well as make-up sex. Sound familiar to any other species we know? Now, chimpanzees don't display these types of behaviors, but just like bonobos, they are promiscuous. Might humans display similar behaviors? I think the obvious answer is "YES!" Hell, the attention sex scandals get should be evidence enough that humans are very sex-focused. Furthermore, I think this idea that two people are supposed to spend their lives as being each others only sexual partner is not realistic for all humans.

Note the emphasis, because I can imagine some people are wondering if I'm trying to give myself a free pass on cheating on my wife. I'm not. I think people who know me well realize that is not part of my personality...which has likely been heavily influenced by these societal ideas of marriage. However, I'm not going to judge people who cannot live up to such a lifestyle as I realize that it is probably not in the human nature to do so. I put more blame on society for having such an expectation, and part of the problem here is...wait for it...religion! Now, this opens another can of worms that I don't want to deal with here, but the problem is that religion tends to control sex in order to control people. I will try to get a post up in the near future to explain how this works. For now, just look at Christian religions. You'll hopefully notice that the more fundamentalist denominations also have more restrictions on sex, while the more liberal denominations have fewer restrictions.

There are basically two points from this:

1. Marriage may not have been right for Anthony Weiner, but did he get married to fit with societal norms? ...Norms which I don't think should exist. (Not to mention that he is a Jew who married a Muslim...maybe not a good recipe for a happy marriage...it would likely be challenging at the least...but I'm just speculating here.)
2. Why is this even a standard we should be expecting politicians to live up to? (Unless they campaign on that standard.) This standard is a conservative/religious standard! Should I hold a Democrat up to a higher standard on this conservative value than a Republican? One word: No! ...Correction! Make that two words: FUCK NO!!! I WILL NOT play by THEIR rule book!

The second thing I considered is what I consider important. And, adding to the first consideration, what someone does in their private life is not one of them! With the way the Democrats have been nearly bending over backwards to avoid confrontation with Republicans, a Democrat who stands up for what he believes in is a huge plus! Weiner is such a Democrat. (Yes, yes, you could argue that he didn't stand up for his marriage, but then I've essentially addressed this already!) That's not to say I agreed with him on everything! His views toward Israel are a good example of where my views differ greatly with his.

Speaking of spineless Democrats, this brings me to my third consideration, which really is more of a reaction...whatever. The more I heard about Democrats asking Weiner to resign, the more I wanted him to stay. I can hardly stand this shit anymore! The Republicans keep blackmailing the Democrat politically, and they keep giving in!

The New Republic put out a good article today covering some of this.

Obama also opined that Weiner should resign because he can’t serve the public effectively—that was the same day he presided over a fundraiser in a half-empty Miami auditorium, while Republicans were successfully blackmailing the Democrats and the country over their vote for the debt ceiling. Obama is worried about Weiner being able to serve “when people are worrying about jobs, and their mortgages, and paying the bills,” but he has not raised a finger to defend Elizabeth Warren, his presumed appointee to head the still-born Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Obama’s statement was yet another example of what the late Spiro Agnew called “pusillanimous pussyfooting.” Weiner’s resignation means little, except to him and his family, but the willingness of leading Democrats to cave in the face of the campaign against him will embolden the Breitbarts and Eric Cantors of the world to up the ante.

I could not have said it better myself, but this information about Obama out fundraising while not defending Elizabeth Warren and criticizing Weiner really makes me sick. The sad part is I am probably becoming conspiratorial about why Obama is not defending her, who I think is the obvious choice for the CFPB. Selecting her probably angered a number of lobbyists, to which he, or at least his staff, listens to. Now, Obama cannot revoke his nomination of Warren, as that would just be too obvious. But he doesn't necessarily have to defend her, though it does seem silly to nominate her and then not defend her. It is a shame I'll be practically forced to vote for him next election as the lesser of two evils. But I digress.

The last thing I want to post is a video that covers some of the same point that the TNR article did--Democrats caving in only further encourages the Republicans!

Michelle Bachmann is dangerous scary!

Michelle Bachmann has been scaring me for a few years now. Originally I was hoping she was from some radical district out of Minnesota and wouldn't stand a chance on a national stage. Unfortunately, my hopes are turning out to be just that as they are not manifesting themselves in reality. It didn't take long for me to figure out that she was an Evangelical Christian wingnut, but she does a descent job of hiding it. The Daily Beast has a great article discussing how she hid her views during Monday's debate.

On Monday, Bachmann didn't talk a lot about her religion. She didn't have to—she knows how to signal it in ways that go right over secular heads. In criticizing Obama's Libya policy, for example, she said, "We are the head and not the tail." The phrase comes from Deuteronomy 28:13: "The Lord will make you the head and not the tail." As Rachel Tabachnick has reported, it's often used in theocratic circles to explain why Christians have an obligation to rule.

Note to my father - This here is a reason why it is good to know what is in the Bible. Christians talk to each other in code, so to speak, and it is good to be able to decipher such code.

Yikes! It gets worse when they reveal that she worked as a research assistant on a book that "argues that the United States was founded as a Christian theocracy." Oh, and the author of that book, John Eidsmoe, supposedly has a history of addressing white supremacist groups. And he is apparently one of the guys Bachmann gets her distorted versions of history from.

Reading Eidsmoe, though, some of Bachmann's most widely ridiculed statements begin to make sense. Earlier this year, for example, she was mocked for saying that the Founding Fathers "worked tirelessly" to end slavery. But in books by Eidsmoe and others who approach history from what they call a Christian worldview, this is a truism. Despite his defense of the Confederacy, Eidsmoe also argues that even those founders who owned slaves opposed the institution and wanted it to disappear, and that it was only Christian for them to protect their slaves until it did. "It might be very difficult for a freed slave to make a living in that economy; under such circumstances setting slaves free was both inhumane and irresponsible."

I've heard she also gets history from David Barton, who is known to make obvious factual errors in the things he says.

I really don't even want to touch on her homosexual bigotry. That is a topic that angers me too much. Just go ahead and read it for yourself!

On the plus side of everything, I keep hearing about how even Republicans are not happy with their choices of candidates thus far, so maybe Bachmann doesn't represent the base of the party...at least not yet.

High schooler standing tall against creationism

Below is a clip from Friday's "Hardball" with a really cool kid from Louisiana named Zach Kopplin. The host talked about how a pastor had claimed that "textbooks are biased toward evolution." Kopplin went in with a group to explain that evolution is science and creationism is not. (In effect, the science textbooks are biased toward science! As they should be!) He also pointed out that "You don't need a law to teach critical thiking; that's what science is. You need a law to teach creationism, which isn't science." I would just add that we also need to take the pressure off of teachers from teaching creationism. That has a negative impact on critical thinking, which is why the law in Louisiana needs to be repealed.

One thing I would point out to young Zack that there are many other States besides Louisiana that have poor high school biology classes. Frankly, I do not remember learning about evolution in high school. (I know I learned about it when I was home schooled, though. Thanks, Mom and Dad!)  PZ Myers, a microbiology professor from the University of Minnesota - Morris, has stated that he sometimes wishes high schoolers were not taught biology so that he wouldn't have to spend time "unteaching" the incorrect things his college students learned there. Though, I think PZ would have to admit, there are those who would then go without any biology education if they do not go on to learn it in college, and that could cause an increase to science illiteracy.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy