Atheist Groups Continue to Protest Too Much

"At this season of THE WINTER SOLSTICE may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

That's the text of a sign created by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, erected near a nativity display in the Legislative Building in Olympia, Washington. The sign was ripped down by an unknown person or persons and later found in a ditch by someone who turned the sign over to radio station KMPS-FM. Freedom From Religion founder Annie Laurie Gaylor pointed out the irony of a vandal breaking one of the famous Ten Commandments, "Thou shalt not steal", in swiping her sign. Atheists always have a pithy line at the ready.

I've said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again. I'm pretty close to atheist...I guess I'll just say I don't know what's out there but I doubt it's an all-knowing being that created us all and waits to sit in judgement on high. And I certainly agree with the sentiments expressed in the FFRF's sign, not the least of which is the idea that religion can harden hearts---see, for example, the recent passing of Prop 8 in California---and enslave minds.

But the efforts of the FFRF and other atheist groups that have been erecting billboards coinciding with Christmas (amongst them Washington, DC's American Humanist Association) continue to rub me the wrong way. My biggest problem is, they can't seem to own up to their own ad campaigns.

The AHA's Fred Edwords claimed that their organization had budget money left over in December and that's when they decided to use it, and it had nothing to do with Christmas. However, their ad depicts a shrugging black guy in dreads wearing an out sized Santa Claus suit, under the slogan "Why believe in a God? Just be good for goodness' sake." Nothing to do with Christmas, huh, Fred?

Dan Barker, a co-founded of the Olympia group, had this to say: "When people ask us, 'Why are you hateful? Why are you putting up something critical of people's holidays? -- we respond that we kind of feel that the Christian message is the hate message. On that Nativity scene, there is this threat of internal violence if we don't submit to that master. Hate speech goes both ways."

Dan has some pretty curious ideas about the nativity. Having been raised Catholic, I'm pretty sure that's not what the nativity is about. It's about a light being born in a dark time. It's about hope. From Dan's position, that hope is based on a lie. That's his opinion, which is his right to have and express. But it doesn't change the meaning of the Christian nativity into some ominous threat of submission and violence.

But Dan evades the question. Exactly why does he feel the need to put up something critical of people's holidays? Why not create an ad campaign that literally has nothing to do with Christmas? Every time these atheist groups attack one of the most important Christian holidays, it just makes them look petty and cruel. If their object is to attract all of the unpleasant and superior atheists, they might do okay. They just shouldn't expect me to sign up with them anytime soon.

Is a Great Shopping Deal Worth More Than a Human Life?

I'm disturbed beyond belief to even be writing this blog entry. Having enjoyed a wonderful Thanksgiving with my family, I go online to catch up on what's been happening and read one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard.

At a Long Island Wal-Mart this morning at 5 a.m., the huge crowd gathered for the company's early-bird deals swarmed into the store when the doors were unlocked, trampling a 34-year-old temporary Wal-Mart employee to death.

Nassau County police Lt. Michael Fleming said that security officers who had been monitoring the crowd---which began forming as early as 9 p.m. Thanksgiving night---were concerned about its size and the organization of the queue. He also said that criminal charges have not been ruled out, but bringing them might be almost impossible due both to the difficulty of identifying individuals on the store security video, and to the fact that many of those in front were pushed by others from behind.

"I don't know what it's worth to Wal-Mart or to any of these stores that run these sales events," Fleming said, "but it has become common knowledge that large crowds do gather on the Friday after Thanksgiving in response to these sales and in an effort to do their holiday shopping at the cheapest prices. I think it is incumbent upon the commercial establishments to recognize that this has the potential to occur at any store."

Listen, I'm not big Wal-Mart fan, but I'm not going to hold Wal-Mart morally responsible. Individuals in a crowd have to take it upon themselves not to become a mob. I know that none of those responsible for this as-yet unidentified man's death are reading this blog, so I'm going to send out a mental curse on all of them. On Christmas morning when they're unwrapping their new cell phones and digital video cams and big-screen TV's, may they all be haunted by the vision of that man's blood on their hands.

We'll Idolize Celebrities, But Only On Our Terms

If you've ever made the mistake of tuning into Showbiz Tonight, or clicking to see highlights online, then you've been subjected to A.J. Hammer and his "panel" of apparent showbiz experts analyzing the day's celebrity "news".

Their most recent topic was Brangelina...oh, look what I did, I did showbiz speak. What I meant was, their topic was Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie revealing "too much" about their child rearing tribulations.

On Oprah, when asked how fatherhood's changed him, Brad said, "I'm impervious to poop, snot, urine, I'm ah---vomit" and served up other "precious" gems. TMI or cute? Panel decision: cute! But Angelina's discussion of her breastfeeding trials with a British journalist, including a very innocent reference to the "football hold"? TMI! The panel then goes on to disparage Brad and Angelina for not having a team of people to whisk away the vomit, poop, etc. God forbid Brad and Angelina actually deal with these things for themselves! And how dare Angelina breastfeed? Surely she can afford formula, and a nursemaid to give serve it up?

The celebrity machine has put Brad, Angelina, and countless others up on an absurdly high pedestal, simply because they chose to be actors/singers/what have you. Once up there, being only human, some celebrities are going to embrace celebrityhood, for good or ill. Some, like Angelina and Brad, whose every word and gesture is hungrily consumed, may rightly assume that their fans want to actually hear what they think and do. Conveniently, the celebrity machine that built them up is right there to tear them down for it.

What really got me in this discussion was the all-too-typical and puritanical aversion to discussions of breastfeeding, which human beings have been doing for countless millenia! According to these leeches, Brad Pitt miming eating a puked-up piece of hot dog is actually preferable to Angelina saying "football hold".

When I waste five precious minutes of my life watching this junk, I'm always struck by how pathetic these entertainment "reporters" are. They get up at the crack of dawn, get themselves trussed up in suits and glamorous gowns to stand in front of a camera to blab about Britney's junk and Paris' BFF's and Angelina's boobs and Lindsey's girlfriends. If I spent a few hours trying, I bet I couldn't think of a lower profession. Their mothers must be so proud.

I'm Confused: Isn't Business About Survival of the Fittest?

As the Federal government continues to consider various bailouts, many segments of the American economy are looking for a piece. In the words of Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY), "Somebody heard that we're giving out free money in Washington. They're showing up from all over the place. "

Up for heated debate is whether Washington should bail out Detroit's Big 3 automakers: Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors, the latter of which is in the greatest danger of running out of money during the next few months, if not sooner. The ramifications of the American automaking industry failing, almost everyone seems to agree, are enormous: plants and American auto parts makers closing and the attendant unemployment and loss of health coverage, a shortage of parts for vehicles already sold, increased foreign imports, higher prices, lack of great consumer incentives, the list goes on and on.

It almost seems unconscionable not to bail out the Big Three, and yet many experts and politicians, including Mitt Romney, the former Republican Presidential candidate (the one with the economic cred), actually support the alternative, allowing them to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, or even fail.

I won't pretend to understand the complexities of the situation. I don't truly understand money, I've never made a lot of money, I'm sure I never will. I wish human beings had never invented money. But there is one thing about the auto bailout that's got me really confused. Isn't business actually supposed to be about the survival of the fittest? Figure out what consumers want---or in some cases, more importantly, what they need---and give it to them, or else fail?

Executives for the Big Three claim they have better cars in the pipeline, such as hybrids, that will help break our ties to foreign oil, and I'm sure they do. But the question is, where was this pipeline when we needed it, when the Big Three were feeding the American fascination with, and addiction to, enormous gas-guzzling SUVs and trucks? The idea that we need to break our "oil addiction" isn't a new one. In 1974 President Richard Nixon said that our country
"should not be dependent on any other country for the energy we need to provide our jobs, to heat our homes, and to keep our transportation moving." Now, American automakers aren't the only bad guys here, but what significant moves have they really made in the intervening 34 years?

Some argue that weaning ourselves off of foreign oil is not only impossible, but actually not desirable (see http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/05/the-seven-myths-of-energy-independence.html or http://www.counterpunch.org/bryce11212006.html). Alright, let's say that's true. That still doesn't leave American automakers off the hook. Forward-thinking engineers have developed incredibly fuel efficient cars. Here's an article on one, created by WV: http://gas2.org/2008/03/12/the-worlds-most-fuel-efficient-car-285-mpg-not-a-hybrid/.
Here's another, created by two engineers in their spare time: http://video.aol.com/video-detail/230-mpg-car/4197588660.

Note again that these two cars use fuel, not electric or hybrid energy. They have been designed to be more fuel efficient, lighter, and more streamlined. What is the Big Three excuse for not having delved into this sort of experimental car-making before it was too late for them to do so?

The obvious answer is that they have been operating with an outmoded business model, a business model that simply cannot cut it in the 21st century. And now, as they face extinction, they ask the Federal government for an enormous bailout, to the tune of $25 billion dollars (of taxpayer money). They believe they can turn their businesses around.

Those who would allow the Big Three to fail believe that their absence would leave a vacuum that would be filled by forward-thinking companies with an innovative, modern business model. And maybe it would. But this leaves the question: who, in business or government, truly has the expertise to make the call? Who is willing to take that risk, a risk we might all pay for dearly?

Update:
Lawmakers called Big Three execs to the carpet for flying expensive private jets to Washington for bailout talks instead of taking more economical commercial flights. "There is a delicious irony in seeing private luxury jets flying into Washington, D.C., and people coming off of them with tin cups in their hand, saying that they're going to be trimming down and streamlining their businesses," Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) told them. "It's almost like seeing a guy show up at the soup kitchen in high hat and tuxedo. It kind of makes you a little bit suspicious."

What did the execs have to say about this? They tried to shame lawmakers into thinking they were dwelling on petty matters. "Making a big to-do about this when issues vital to the jobs of millions of Americans are being discussed in Washington is diverting attention away from a critical debate that will determine the future health of the auto industry and the American economy," said GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson in a statement.

Plainly Wilkinson, and the Big Three executives, fail to see the hypocrisy of promising more responsible business practices when they can't even economize on flights to DC. Is the difference in cost between a private flight and a commercial one significant compared to the incredible shortfall the Big Three are facing overall? No, of course not. But economizing here would have a been a simple, and easily accomplished, symbol of their good intentions. So far, the signs are not good.

Obama Already Going Back On A Promise

Full disclosure---if you know me, you know this already---I voted for Barack Obama. I thought he was the best man for the job. That's because he is. But I am not going to spend the next four to eight years wearing blinders, either. When I see him doing something I don't like, I will call him on it.

On the campaign trail, Senator Obama said, "I am running to tell the lobbyists in Washington that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded my campaign. They won't work in my White House." And rgarding their negative influence on politics: "That's what happens when lobbyists set the agenda and that's why they won't drown out your voices anymore when I am president of the United States of America."

Well...the New York Times has published a list of former lobbyists, or those who have close ties to lobbyists, who are working for Obama, either on his transition team, or who have accepted White House positions. What's the Obama camp's excuse? No previous administration has had stricter rules and regulations on who they hire (if you've seen their job application, which is available for perusal on the Obama website, change.gov, that's easy to believe). And of course, these folks aren't currently lobbyists, though some were lobbying as recently as this year.

Sorry, but that's not good enough. On the campaign trail, very recently, Barack Obama mocked John McCain's claims that he would show lobbyists the door. Obama said that, “after nearly three decades in Washington, John McCain can’t see or won’t acknowledge what’s obvious to all of us here today: that lobbyists aren’t just part of the system in Washington, they’re part of the problem.”

Hard to believe that Barack Obama has suddenly decided that lobbyists can instead be part of the solution. Maybe it's a simple matter of realizing that lobbyists are incredibly knowledgeable within the scope of their own special interests, and he can't pass on tapping into that knowledge. I am concerned, though, that he is playing with fire. Let's hope it's not the American people who get burned.

Catholic Guilt Gets Political For Greenville Priest

Father Jay Scott Newman, a Catholic priest in Greenville, South Carolina, has a controversial take on Barack Obama's Presidential victory: he asks his parishioners to repent for voting for Obama before they receive Holy Communion.

For any non-Catholics reading, the rite of Communion is the most important part of the Catholic Mass. In eating the host (a small piece of unleavened bread), Catholics believe through faith that they are consuming the body of Christ. By the letter of the law, one should undergo the Sacrament of Confession (admitting your sins to the priest, and having them absolved) before receiving the Host. It seems Father Newman counts voting for Barack Obama as a sin that must be addressed before undergoing the holy rite.

Of course, Father Newman's stated basis for this position is Barack Obama's pro-choice philosophy; since the Catholic church's position is that abortion is murder, voting for Obama---at least according to Father Newman--is therefore a sin. No word on whether Newman's diocese backs him up on that.

Here's the thing, though. We have a separation of church and state, and though that only means that the state does not endorse any particular religion, and not that churches can't have political opinions, I have a real problem with clergy addressing politics during their religious ceremonies. Church---at least Catholic church--is the place to which you go to worship your God and commune with Christ. It is meant to be an ideal place, a spiritual refuge from a troubled secular world. The political choices of his parishioners---the choices they make when dealing with the state and the messy and often unpleasant problems the state has to deal with--shouldn't be assailed by Father Newman when they come to him for solace.

Father Newman's position on abortion, and therefore Obama, is black-and-white...since he lives entirely within the realm of religion and faith, it can be. Barack Obama's position---and the position of some in Father Newman's flock, who have to live in the real world---must by necessity be far more complex. And to endure the times in which we live, many choices which were once labelled "sins" might be more appropriately called "necessary evils".

If the Gay Movement's Flag Is the Rainbow, Prop 8's Must Be Yellow

Time just published an article called "What Happens If You're On the Gay 'Enemies List' "---and yeah, great, add flames to the fire that there's a "gay agenda"---about a strategy some Proposition 8 opponents have been undertaking.

On AntiGayBlacklist.com, gay marriage supporters have been publicizing the names of contributors to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign, names of their businesses, etc., so that those who voted no on Prop 8 can decide whether to stop, or avoid, patronizing them. Is this nice? No. But neither is banning gay marriage.

According to Time, the Yes on 8 website was also publishing names of their donors until recently, when they took the lists down. Hey, they're proud until gays start naming the same names, then they're being attacked. No fair!

What does the Yes on 8 campaign manager, Frank Schubert, say about these gay blacklists? "It's really awful," he said. "No matter what you think of Proposition 8, we ought to respect people's right to participate in the political process. It strikes me as quite ironic that a group of people who demand tolerance and who claim to be for civil rights are so willing to be intolerant and trample on other people's civil rights."

Oh, Frank...so, it's okay for you to trample on the civil rights of gays, because it's part of the political process! Oh, those damn gays...why don't they just lay there and be trampled like we want them to? They're so uncooperative. Why, oh why, are they being so mean to us? I mean, all we want is to permanently deny them the ability to enter into a committed marriage with another consenting adult...is that so bad?

I hate to break it to Frank and the rest of the Prop 8'ers. You're going to have a really, really hard time passing a law to ban gay people having freedom of speech. So if you're going to contribute money to a campaign to deny them marriage, you're going to have to listen to them call out your name. And anyway, what are you ashamed of? If you believe what you believe, shout it from the rooftops. Don't be a coward twice over.

Athiest Groups Continue to Act Un-Christian

A couple of days ago I blogged about an atheist, or perhaps more appropriately, anti-deist group, the American Humanist Association, who are running billboards on Washington DC buses this "Holiday" promoting the theory that decency and god-worship needn't be joined at the hip. I still agree. Some white supremacists think hating minorities is their God-given right. The Nazis claimed to be Christian, for the most part. And I've known plenty of non-believers who were as decent as anyone I've ever known.

But in light of another anti-deist ad campaign---Colorado's Metro State Atheists---as an all-but-in-name atheist, I continue to question their methods and their stated explanations, if not their actual motivations.

The AHA asked, "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake." Well, if that's what you think, then why are you saying anything that could, even potentially, make Christians feel bad about their treasured holiday? By contrast, MSA is erecting billboards that depict billowy white clouds in a blue sky---the pop-culture vision of heaven---and this script: "Don't believe in God? You are not alone."

This leaves Christmas out of it, which is a step up. But as always these groups have a spokesperson, and when asked, they'll speak. MSA's Joel Guttormson said (italics mine), "And we're putting them up in November and December because of the holidays, when church and state issues tend to come up a lot. To let non-believers, free-thinkers and atheists know that they are not alone, especially in a country like ours that is predominantly Christian."

I guess a lot of people don't think before they speak, but a spokesperson ought to. Guttormson doesn't deny that they chose the Christmas season for their billboards, in fact he admits it, but then tries to invent a rationale that to my mind doesn't exist. What "church and state issues" constantly crop up at Christmas? TV networks fall under the FCC, and you can see both A Charlie Brown Christmas with its entirely Christian message, and Santa Claus Is Coming To Town's secular angle. What "church and state issues" are they talking about?

But also to let non-believers known that they are not alone. I'm sorry, but they know that. Every atheist has met another atheist or non-believer. They know they're not alone. And who's ostracizing them anyway?

Of the billboards, Christan radio host Bob Enyart said, "The Bible says that faith is the evidence of things not seen. Evidence. If we ignore the evidence for gravity or the Creator, that's really dangerous. Income tax doesn't not exist because somebody doesn't believe in it. And the same is true with our Creator." This probably had the atheist group chortling with laughter. Faith---the quality through which you believe in the existence of that being whose existance can't be proved---is the evidence that he exists? But it's Enyart's belief, as much as it is the atheist's belief that he is dead wrong.

In the end, I want to know this: what do the Metro State Atheists, American Humanist Association, and their fellow atheist organizations want? Just to let non-believers know they're there, as a resource? Try a website. Lots of atheists are online, since they believe in science, not faith. Do they want to start some sort of anti-faith that leaves God out of it, but sets down some guidelines for living a good, moral life? Let's see it! Instead, they make billboards. They court controversy. They want to engage in a debate with Christians about the existence of God.

You can't win this debate. People believe in God. Maybe they won't always, but they do now, and they have believed in God, or gods, for millenia. Lack of proof doesn't deter. These atheists "know" there's no God, just as much as Christians "know" there is. But the MSA and AHA know they won't win. They want to pick a fight. They want attention, they want to say, "Over here, look at me...do I have your attention? I don't believe in God, and furthermore...there is no God!" It's scandalous. It's shocking. It's publicity.

If I was going to start at atheist group, you know, a good, moral one that is not Christian, I'd want it to be...well, not like Christianity, right? One of the beefs these atheist groups have with Christianity, I guarantee, is its hypocrisy: preach love, wage wars; preach love, discriminate against gays; preach poverty, rake in the bucks (the list could go on and on).

So, just to be subversive and funny, I'd teach my atheist flock to do something Christians frequently don't: follow the teachings of Jesus the Nazarene. In Matthew chapter 6, verse 5-6, he said: "And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret..."

If the AHA and MSA know deep down that they're right, and that Christians are wrong (crazy, superstitious, blind, stupid?)...why all the public display? Why, exactly, do they feel the need?

On Palin Press Conference, CNN Makes Much of Very Little

CNN.com posted a very cloak-and-daggery story today about the Republican Governor's Association press conference helmed by Governor Sarah Palin. Originally Gov. Palin was to handle the press conference alone, then it had been "decided"---says a typically unnamed source---that the other governors attending the meeting would stand behind her silently. The reason this change was made? It's a "long story", quothe the anonymous source, and though Palin was scheduled to take questions for about 20 minutes, Gov. Rick Perry cut it off after four questions. Why? "We were running behind schedule," a GOP official insisted (italics mine).

Boy, these unnamed GOP sources sure have a lot to say about Sarah Palin, don't they? Who are these folks who have so little qualms about casting aspersions on the losing VP candidate? Making vague implications of behind-the-scenes awkwardness and diva-like behavior? Do you think maybe this sort of internal strife had some impact on the success of the McCain campaign?

Not that I'm ready to totally let Sarah Palin off the hook. The theme of the press conference was that the Presidential race is over, that the RGA is looking to the future, and they don't subscribe to "extreme partisan" behavior. That's hard to jive with Palin persisting on the William Ayers topic with Larry King amongst others, just this week, which is in its turn hard to jive with Palin saying she'd be honored to work with Obama. But---and this is a shocker---I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe her qualms about Ayers really do persist, and are, in her view at least, germane. And maybe despite them, she really is willing to work with Barack Obama and support his Presidency.

Let's hope the media can resist the salacious spell of these unnamed "sources" in the GOP who seem so willing to undermine her.

Update:

It looks like some of Sarah Palin's own fellow Republican governors are jumping on the "anonymously dish about Sarah" bandwagon. According to "some" of the GOP governors, who spoke to CNN on condition of anonymity, it was awkward: "I'm sure you could see it on some of our faces". Another one of the govs said that it, "unfortunately sent a message that she was the de facto leader of the party".

Let me tell you who's not going to be the leader of the Republican party, de facto or otherwise...any of these wimps who dish about each other anonymously to CNN. I mean, only so many GOP governors appeared at this press conference. How anonymous do you think can you be? If any of these people consider themselves to be a leader, where were their voices when it was proposed that Palin do all the talking? If you're going to lead, lead. Or keep your anonymous mouth shut.

Who Needs Christ at Christmas?

The American Humanist Association has invested $40,000 dollars to spread an anti-deist message using billboards on Washington, D.C. buses, to be sung to the tune of Santa Claus is coming to town, to wit:

"Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake."

Hey, I'm all for this. I was raised Catholic but, like many, strayed during college, and came to doubt religion and ultimately belief in the Judeo-Christian God, or any god. Some twenty years further on, my anti-god convictions are a little more blurry. I mean, who am I to say? Pretending to have that kind of knowledge is a little...well, godlike, right? And considering the complexities of life, nature, the universe, what have you, is it possible that everything is actually just random?

Complex and esoteric religious debates aside, the second part of the American Humanist Association's sentiment---just be good for goodness' sake---is incredibly valid. So being good will get you the ultimate reward in heaven? Maybe, if there is one. But why not be good simply because you ought to? Shouldn't knowing that you are doing what is right and moral be its own reward? Shouldn't that be enough to satisfy you in this life?

There is, however, another side to this issue. Why does the American Humanist Association (or any anti-deist or anti-religious group) feel the need to assert itself to the tune of $40,000 when it comes to one of the most treasured Christian celebrations, Christmas?

Fred Edwords, the AHA spokesman, said, "Our reason for doing it during the holidays is there are an awful lot of agnostics, atheists and other types of non-theists who feel a little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional religion."

I don't know, Fred. Christmas has occurred every year in my house, where my spouse is Catholic and my daughter is being raised to be open-minded, and I don't feel even the tiniest bit alone. The Christmas season has two sides, religious and secular, and the line between them is pretty thoroughly blurred. I'm not sure who, really, is being left out. And let's say atheists and agnostics are being left out of Christmas? You don't believe in Christ anyway, right? So why do you want to be a member of a club that won't have you? And need I point out that an ad campaign that makes Christians feel bad about their faith is a little contrary to your stated mission of being good for goodness' sake?

The American Humanist Association should note the way we approach Christmas here in the early 21st century through our agreed mode of mass communication, the media. Christmas is already significantly less Christian than it used to be.

Ad writers are not allowed to call it Christmas, instead it's "holiday". Have a great "holiday". This apparently encompasses everything from Thanksgiving all the way to Christmas and maybe New Year's, and it has a decidedly un-Christian (and awfully un-warm) feel to it. As a mostly atheist, I can't stand the sound of it, but more than that, I think it's the most obnoxious form of political correctness ever. Christians celebrate Christmas, not "holiday". Jews celebrate Hanukkah, not "holiday". If you know someone's Christian, say "Merry Christmas". If you know someone's Jewish, say "Happy Hannukah". If you don't know what someone is, "Enjoy your holidays" at least makes sense...there is no holiday called "Holiday".

So, not that they asked for it, but here's my final bit of advice for the American Humanist Association. If you don't like being left out at Christmas---and again, since you're actively anti-Christian, you actually should be left out of Christmas---form your own anti-church and create your own all-inclusive, non-denominational winter holiday. Maybe you can steal one from the godless media, and call it Festivus: A Holiday for the Rest of Us.

Aspiring Gay Spouse? Dead Orthodox Jew? The Mormons Know Best!

“...I will go and do what the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.”

---The Book of Mormon


Well, I haven't read the commandments in a while, but I'm pretty sure that none of them is, "Get all up in everyone's business!"

The involvement of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in California's Proposition 8 has been well publicized, and from their own viewpoint, understandable. They believe that God is the creator of everything, and that He believes marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore they oppose legalizing gay marriage.

From a moral standpoint, this is absurd. Everyone doesn't subscribe to the Mormon church's teachings, and therefore shouldn't be subject to them. And on a legal level, the Constitution provides for a separation of church and state, so none of the teachings of any church, Mormon or otherwise, should be allowed to influence the law. You run a church, and you don't want gay people to marry? Don't marry them. The state, on the other hand, has every right, and religious persecution shouldn't be allowed to hinder that.

But wait! The Mormons don't just have a vested interest in keeping gays single. They also undertake the fascinating work of baptizing dead Jews by proxy---including those who died in the Holocaust! Holocaust survivors have asked the Mormon church to discontinue this practice on very reasonable grounds, amongst them: that baptizing Holocaust victims could encourage Holocaust deniers; that it dishonors these Jews because they were killed specifically because of their religion; and because in the future these Jews might be identified as Mormon victims of the Holocaust.

What's the Mormon church's position on being asked to cease and desist? They decline, thank you. "We don't think any faith group has the right to ask another to change its doctrines," Mormon Elder Lance B. Wickman said. "If our work for the dead is properly understood ... it should not be a source of friction to anyone. It's merely a freewill offering."

Elder Wickman, George Orwell would be proud. Holocaust survivors shouldn't ask you to stop turning dead Jews into Mormons because it goes against your religion! Even in the long annals of entirely self-serving rationalizations made by organized religion, that is an all-time classic.

Admission to the Dawn of the Obama Administration For Sale at $20,000 a Pop

Tickets to a Presidential inauguration are highly prized, and perhaps none more so than tickets to the inauguration of Barack Obama. Tickets are available for free for anyone who is granted one by a member or staffperson of the Senate or House of Representatives.

But this time, something truly dismaying is happening. Tickets to the inauguration have made it into the hands of legitimate, totally legal ticket brokers, some of whom have reported that they are selling them for five figures, in some cases as much as $20,000.

Talk about elitist.

I'm just one little voice, but I've already written to the Obama administration via their new website, change.gov, to implore the President-Elect to assign some staffers to prevent this travesty, which smacks of everything cynical, bombastic, and usurious that Barack Obama has vowed to root out of the Federal government. Since the tickets are property of the Federal government, the brokers in question should be obliged to return them all, and the President-Elect's office should assure us that every single one will go to an individual who will actually attend, and for free.

Please join me in asking the President-Elect to put a stop to selling admission to the literal dawn of the Obama administration for more than what 60% of Americans earn in an entire year. You can reach the Obama administration at change.gov.

Space Station Gets Potty, Cold OJ: What Do World's Poor Get?

Really important newsflash today. The international space station is getting a remodel, including an additional half-bath, and for the first time, a refrigerator for keeping drinks and food cold (up until now the fridges have been exclusively for scientific use, and all beverages have been warm or hot). "It seems kind of trivial," one astronaut said, "but six months of lukewarm orange juice can kind of bum you out."

Yeah, you know what? It does seem kind of trivial. As much as 40% of the world's population lives without adequate sewage at all, and how many citizens of sub-Saharan Africa do you suppose have even seen a glass of orange juice in person, at any temperature?

Sorry, but I've never understood the American investment in the space program. Whatever benefits it may bring, most of them are invisible to the average person. And we have much bigger problems down here where that money could be better applied. But wait a minute, how much does it cost anyway? Is it really all that much?

Space authority Keith Cowing has pointed out our space spending compared to other costs: “Right now, all of America’s human space flight programs cost around $7 billion a year. That’s pennies per person per day. In 2006, according to the USDA, Americans spent more than $154 billion on alcohol. We spend around $10 billion a month in Iraq. And so on.”

Okay, so relatively, not much, which is fine if the United States is all alone on this planet, but we're not. And if the world's spending, resources, pollution, warfare, poverty, energy consumption, and everything else weren't interconnected, but they are. Those $7 billion dollars a year would do a lot more good somewhere else. Hell, they'd do a lot more good almost anywhere else.

Hey, Guess What? Terrorists Get CNN.com Too!

The whole world has been watching the United States closely since 9/11, and very, very closely since the beginning of the Iraq war. And now, with Barack Obama the President-Elect, we're going to be constantly under the microscope. I've said it before, but it bears repeating. The time for pettiness and division is over. Hence my dismay when I found the following (word-for-word) reader responses to a CNN.com article about Rahm Emanuel's appointment as Obama's Chief of Staff:

"Amy-If you are a so called lawyer….I should have figured another crook in America……Lawywers are the lowest of the low….Stealing from anyone they can find……go figure…..I would not even admit I am lawyer….You are the joke of America and of all professions.Go find someone to steal from!!! No wonder you are on the Obama team."

"Hey Susanne, Why don't you give your dead beat relatives 20% of your income and see what happens to it. Last time I checked Liberals were also required to pay taxes as well…oh that's right you conservative small business owners like to skim off the top and do everything in cash so it can't be tracked. Just ask anyone that own's a bar or resturant 10% of the top in the back pocket and oh we are barely breaking even…go tell your sob story to your shrink!!!!!"

"Shut up republicans and take your proper place in the political food chain! The people have made their choice and you lost GET OVER IT!!"

"To all repubs and conservatives: you guys all have a brain,just get out of the market close up your businesses and layoff your employees ,and put the proceeds in tax free funds.I am sure all your financial planners are advising you to do this.On another note be grateful that no repub is in charge of this mess now.BUT PLEASE SHUTUP AND GIVE THIS GUY A CHANCE TO GOVERN!!you guys will most likely be in power 4-6years from now anyway.So please step aside and give him a chance to prove you wrong"

"Hey, right wingers, the election is over, you got slaughtered, get over it. you voted and we voted, we won this time.Lokk at what you put us thru for the past eight years, have you no shame. you just wanted to do it again, but it did not work.Now, you need to stop trying to tell PRESIDENT OBAMA, who to select for his cabinet and how to run the country. He will do it his way, just like Bush did it his. But I already know, that President Obama is a "TEAM PLAYER", which is something you don't know anything about., becasue you have never had a teamClebrate your new president, He will do us all proudIn the name of Jesus (I'm saying that), Amen
wow"

"Susan, just make it clear, Obama said he will take money from the rich to give to the poor. He did not say his money nor his party's money, nor his relative's money. So, who is rich or who works hold your pocket tight . For the poor or lazy slobs, dream on."

"I find it extremely funny that all you a##holes want to work together now that a Democrat has won office. But for the last 8 years you been bagging on Bush every chance you had!!! Now the will of the people has spoken for President, for anti gay marriage ammendments, and for affirmative action initiatives. And the only people I see not following the will fo the people are the left winged democrats out protesting in the streets because the didnt like the vote. I am republican and i wish obama the best, i hope he can do something positive for this country but come gay love crowd get over it, THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN!!"

"Rahm represents all that is evil and vile in politics. He is a thug. A bully. And a partisan hack. That Obama would pick him for anything shows Obama's true agenda.Just wait and see, Rahm is out for Rahm."

Here's the only one I could find that I agreed with:

"If the views of many who contribute to these blogs are anything to go by, God help us. We will never be united, regardless of who the President is."

The whole world is watching, people. And our enemies, whoever and wherever they may be, only need a laptop to log on and see this kind of crap being spewed. Weakness is what they want to see. And every time some self-righteous hatemonger from either side comes up with a "brilliant" post like these, weakness is exactly what they're getting.

Stop the Presses! Palin Actually Got Something Right!

Since John McCain lost his bid for the White House, there have been lots of interesting, and let's admit it, entertaining stories coming from "sources" inside his campaign regarding Sarah Palin's ignorance and propensity for appearing in towels in front of high-powered political associates. Naturally she objects to these stories, and in her folksy, mavericky way, thinks these unnamed persons are "jerks".

You know what? For the first time since I heard your name, Governor, I'm with ya.

Are these stories believable? Do they have a ring of truth? Oh my, yes. They extend very naturally from every "In what respect, Charlie?" and "hockey mom" and "Joe Six-Pack" she ever uttered. Maybe they're even true. But what's the point? I can only think of one: to undermine Sarah Palin's future on the national political stage.

If this is the agenda of these cowardly tattlers, it probably won't work. Sarah Palin energized a large segment of the GOP, and many claim she is brilliant, focused, and canny. She had fans that lasted to the end, regardless of the many boneheaded things she did say. I don't totally get that, but I guess for some people the attachment to a candidate is like an obsession for a certain kind of music. I mean, we all know Bon Jovi sucks, but some people still love them.

The real issue for the GOP is their need to rebuild. Presumably they want the White House back in 2012. They shouldn't waste another day pointing fingers and mudslinging. After eight years of Bush and the stinging rebuke of the Obama landslide, America made a statement: meanness, insults, politics-as-usual? That's so 20th century...and so was the man leading the Republican ticket. The GOP needs to start looking right now to its young, charismatic, 21st century leaders...their Bobby Jindals, their Paul Ryans, their Tim Pawlenty's, and maybe even...their Sarah Palins?

The GOP's John Boehner Not Ready To Play Nice

So, the election is barely two days old, and it looks like at least one notable member of the GOP didn't catch the unsubtle message sent by voters that we want a new direction in Washington, a President who will buckle down and get to work on the myriad complex problems created by the outgoing administration.

Almost any Presidential staff pick has the potential for controversy, and Barack Obama's will be more scrutinized than most. So it's not a surprise that his pick of Representative Rahm Emanuel raised a few eyebrows. What are Washington insiders saying about him?

"Rahm knows the Hill, and he knows the White House. He is a brilliant strategic thinker and someone who knows how to get things done."

"Rahm understands politics is the art of compromise. He's got a deeply held set of views, but he also understands to get things done you have to compromise."

Knows the Hill, knows the White House, brilliant, strategic, thinker, knows how to get things done, understands to get things done you have to compromise? Sounds like the perfect guy, doesn't he? I mean, we want Obama to get things done, compromise...surely everyone can get behind that, right? And anyway, even if you're not crazy about the pick, surely this is the time to start working on that bipartisanship Washington is always paying lip service to?

Uh, well...maybe not. None less than House Minority leader John Boehner had this to say in a statement: "This is an ironic choice for a president-elect who has promised to change Washington, make politics more civil and govern from the center."

Maybe. But you know what's not ironic, or surprising at all? That some members of the GOP are so very eager to play us vs. them just a few days after the most historic election in American history, an election in which disparate segments of the American population, many of which have never been on the same page before, came together with a common goal: to elect a President we can actually believe in. For some members of the GOP, partisan politics seems to be their be-all and end-all.

Boehner does have some more forward-thinking colleagues. Republican Lindsey Graham called Rep. Emanuel a "wise choice".

"Rahm knows Capitol Hill and has great political skills. He can be a tough partisan but also understands the need to work together. He is well-suited for the position of White House chief of staff," Graham said.

Lindsey Graham won re-election this year, so he'll serve through Obama's first term. At least there's one member of the Republican party with his priorities straight. John Boehner was re-elected this year too. Here's hoping he spends the next two years working with Obama, not against him, or maybe his constituents will send him packing in favor of someone who can put ego aside and do the right thing---for a change---by the American people.

Anti-Socialism On Our Favorite Social Network

I found an interesting new facebook group. It's called "Our country will now become Socialist...Thanks Barack. And America". It was created by a Matt Stephens. Here's the description (sic):

" Well...It might as well be written that OUR country will become a Socialist Nation while Barack Obama is in office. If you are unsure what Socialism is, let me inform you...Socialism is basically taking YOUR hard-earned money and giving it to a person that is lazy, has no job, is a bum, and could care less about themself. So my argument is this....Do you want to spend your money how you choose? Or would you rather have the Government take it and distribute it among the "none hard-workers" of America? "

It would be too easy to take potshots at the bad grammar and misspellings, so I'll just stop there and stick to the central premise, the definition of Socialism: "basically taking YOUR hard-earned money and giving it to a person that is lazy, has no job, is a bum, and could care less about themself."

How many ignorant things can a person put into a single sentence?

First, here's the real definition of Socialism, from Merriam-Webster:

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

I guess Matt believes that under Barack Obama, the United States as a whole, or its government, is going to take over the production of every industry, and the distribution of everything that those industries produce. Apparently under Barack Obama, everyone is also going to willingly relinquish all of their private property to a collective whole.

Uh, Matt? Even if this was Barack Obama's agenda (which it ain't), it's never gonna happen. They're going to have to pry your iPhone, your laptop, and your wii out of your cold dead hands.

Let me take the last part of Matt's description next:

" So my argument is this....Do you want to spend your money how you choose? Or would you rather have the Government take it and distribute it among the "none hard-workers" of America? "

Matt, I hate to break it to you, but...the Unites States already works using this hateful system you describe, and it has since 1913. It's called the Federal income tax. Under this system, a portion of your money goes to the government, and they do with it as they see fit. And---horrors---some beneficiaries of this are the "none hard-workers of America" you're so riled up about. If you don't like that, you could always refuse to pay the Federal income tax, and fight it out with the IRS. Good luck with that.

Let's finish up with those "none hard-workers". I assume you mean "non-" hard-workers (sorry, I said I wasn't going to pick on the misspellings...so sue me).

Let me make some inferences. You:

1) Are concerned that you will pay higher taxes under Barack Obama.
2) Consider yourself to be a really hard-working person, and don't think the fruits of your labor should benefit those who make much less.
3) Think that those whose taxes won't be increased under Obama don't work as hard as you do.

Okay, Matt. Let me ask you a question. Do you want to have any of the following jobs? :

Construction worker (median income, $38,760)?
Miner ($44,976)?
Chambermaid ($16,956)?
Baker ($20,868)?
Bus driver ($22,776)?
Salesperson ($27,120)?
Nurse ($32,232)?
Auto Mechanic ($37,416)?
Firefighter ($41,448)?
Teacher ($63,192)?
Airline pilot ($70,608)?

No? Well, if we don't have a graduated income tax---that's where wealthier people are taxed more than the less-wealthy, so that the government can provide essential services---folks in their income brackets could quickly end up broke, out of a job, and homeless. This will make it tough on you when you want a house, electricity, a clean hotel room, bread, public transportation, help at a store, a flu shot, your car fixed, a fire put out, your kid taught, or a business flight.

And guess what, Matt? I can guarantee you that a lot of people who make far, far less than $250,000 a year work much harder than some who do. Try being a social worker in Manhattan, or a police officer in Los Angeles, or a U.S. soldier fighting in Iraq.

Here's another way to look at the "plight" of those whose taxes will increase under Barack Obama. You're earning more than 98% of the U.S. population. You've probably had the benefits of an excellent college and possibly post-graduate or doctoral education---which, I don't doubt, you earned through hard work and dedication. You might own a home and have kids. Your kids probably have everything they could reasonably expect to have. You live in a country with incredible freedoms.

Unfortunately, right now your country is struggling. It's waging two astronomically expensive wars. It's dealing with its worst economic troubles since the 1930's. For the first time in 150 years, the country's future is a little uncertain.

But America has always persevered, and no doubt it will again. And through your sacrifice---a sacrifice which, because you're earning much more money than so many others, will not significantly affect your day-to-day life or rob you of any of life's niceties---you may be contributing to America's resurgence. You may be helping America in one of its darker times.

I'd like to thank you for your help, Matt. I wish I knew more about you. Let's see, let me look back at your facebook group and...

Oh. Uh...

Well, it seems that Matt, is, um...Matt is...in high school.

Well...

Maybe Matt hasn't had his economics class yet this semester.

Our New Second-Class Citizens

Across America this November 4th, millions of Americans went to the polls and made a historic choice: to confer second-class status on a new group of Americans. With an African-American man elected to our highest office and a woman having made the first viable run at the Vice-Presidency, it may be a bit premature to say that racism and sexism are dead, but that we've made enormous strides is undeniable.

So we need a new second-class citizen, and in 4 states Americans have spoken: gays and lesbians apparently fit the bill. Voters in Arizona, California, and Florida voted to ban gay marriage. And Arkansas banned gay couples from adopting children. This follows the 2004 decision by ten other states---Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah---to ban marriage between consenting adults of the same sex.

What are the arguments for banning gay marriage? "Marriage is between a man and a woman" is the usual, sometimes expressed colloquially as "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve". Gay marriage "undermines the family" and "erodes the definition of marriage between straight people".

Well, I live in a rational state---Massachusetts. Gay marriage is legal here, and guess what? My family hasn't been "undermined". My marriage hasn't "eroded".

Whatever your opinions of homosexuality are, it's real. It exists. It's not going anywhere. Gay people are not going to vanish. They are your neighbors, your co-workers, your friends, and your family (whether you know it or not). They're also human beings, whether you like it or not. And you have no right to label them less than human.

But I can't stop anyone from being homophobic. It's called a phobia for a reason, because it's just as irrational, and unexplainable, as arachnaphobia or agoraphobia or triskaidekaphobia. That's the irrational fear of the number 13, by the way (apologies to the triskaidekaphobes out there).

I have bad news for you, though. Eventually the Supreme Court of the Unites States will declare bans on gay marriage unconstitutional, and every state will legalize gay marriage. And here's the reason, the first ten words of the First Amendment to the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

This is the separation of church and state, a separation which so far is paid just so much lip service by all of us. It means that no church's religious beliefs are endorsed officially by our government. And since bans on gay marriage stem from religious positions---some would argue by religious persecution---they will ultimately be defeated. And this is just and right, because American cannot continue to claim to be the greatest nation on earth as long as any of its citizens---black, white, male, female, gay, or straight---are conferred second-class status.

A Message For Every American

For most Americans, the shock hasn't worn off this morning. Senator Barack Obama has defeated Senator John McCain and will be the next President of the United States of America.
For Senator Obama's supporters, this will be easy to embrace. For Senator McCain's, maybe not so much.

I wouldn't expect any of them to "get over it" any time soon. What I would hope to see them do, starting today, is to start working through it. This election was long, and it was bitter, and it was tough. But the United States cannot reclaim its past glories as a divided country. If you supported and/or voted for John McCain, Barack Obama will be your next President. Will you work with him, or work against him?

If you were a John McCain supporter, I encourage you to take the words of his classy, eloquent, and extremely heartfelt concession speech to heart. I've excerpted some of it below (italics mine). Please read it carefully. We need you. We all need each other.

"Thank you. Thank you, my friends. Thank you for coming here on this beautiful Arizona evening.

"My friends, we have -- we have come to the end of a long journey. The American people have spoken, and they have spoken clearly.

"A little while ago, I had the honor of calling Sen. Barack Obama to congratulate him.
To congratulate him on being elected the next president of the country that we both love.
In a contest as long and difficult as this campaign has been, his success alone commands my respect for his ability and perseverance. But that he managed to do so by inspiring the hopes of so many millions of Americans who had once wrongly believed that they had little at stake or little influence in the election of an American president is something I deeply admire and commend him for achieving.

"This is an historic election, and I recognize the special significance it has for African-Americans and for the special pride that must be theirs tonight. I've always believed that America offers opportunities to all who have the industry and will to seize it. Sen. Obama believes that, too.

"But we both recognize that, though we have come a long way from the old injustices that once stained our nation's reputation and denied some Americans the full blessings of American citizenship, the memory of them still had the power to wound. A century ago, President Theodore Roosevelt's invitation of Booker T. Washington to dine at the White House was taken as an outrage in many quarters. America today is a world away from the cruel and frightful bigotry of that time. There is no better evidence of this than the election of an African-American to the presidency of the United States. Let there be no reason now for any American to fail to cherish their citizenship in this, the greatest nation on Earth.

"Sen. Obama has achieved a great thing for himself and for his country. I applaud him for it, and offer him my sincere sympathy that his beloved grandmother did not live to see this day. Though our faith assures us she is at rest in the presence of her creator and so very proud of the good man she helped raise.

"Sen. Obama and I have had and argued our differences, and he has prevailed. No doubt many of those differences remain. These are difficult times for our country. And I pledge to him tonight to do all in my power to help him lead us through the many challenges we face.

"I urge all Americans who supported me to join me in not just congratulating him, but offering our next president our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together to find the necessary compromises to bridge our differences and help restore our prosperity, defend our security in a dangerous world, and leave our children and grandchildren a stronger, better country than we inherited. Whatever our differences, we are fellow Americans. And please believe me when I say no association has ever meant more to me than that . . .

"I would not -- I would not be an American worthy of the name should I regret a fate that has allowed me the extraordinary privilege of serving this country for a half a century.
Today, I was a candidate for the highest office in the country I love so much. And tonight, I remain her servant. That is blessing enough for anyone, and I thank the people of Arizona for it.
Tonight -- tonight, more than any night, I hold in my heart nothing but love for this country and for all its citizens, whether they supported me or Sen. Obama -- whether they supported me or Sen. Obama.

"I wish Godspeed to the man who was my former opponent and will be my president. And I call on all Americans, as I have often in this campaign, to not despair of our present difficulties, but to believe, always, in the promise and greatness of America, because nothing is inevitable here.
Americans never quit. We never surrender. We never hide from history. We make history.

"Thank you, and God bless you, and God bless America. Thank you all very much."

The Day Is One!

We did it.

America finally started growing up tonight. We left our adolescence behind.

This is an historic result, obviously. More than 150 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, we've elected a black President. What African-Americans can feel right now, I can only try to imagine.

But calling this an African-American victory would be shortsighted. We all did this. We looked past race. We have bigger fish to fry. And tomorrow, we have to start frying them.

We need to leave the most divisive, vitriolic Presidential campaign in American history behind us. We need to unite, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Independents, everyone, behind our President. We need to have faith in our system, we need that faith now more than ever.

The world will see us with new eyes now. We could have played it safe, we could have fallen prey to our fears. We took a risk. We took a leap, a leap of faith.

We are the change we'd been waiting for.

Day One

Hello, "my friends". Props to my college schoolmate and new facebook friend Alex for inspiring me to start blogging on this historic day of November 4th, 2008. You can thank me or curse me later, Alex.

I have a long day of CNN watching in front of me, and their coverage of polling problems raises an interesting question: if we're the greatest democracy in the history of the world, why can't we get it together for our national elections? Is it too much to ask that we have a uniform ratio of polling booths to registered voters in every state? How about a standardized ballot form, and the same type of voting machine everywhere? The outgoing Presidential administration has waged an astronomically expensive war in Iraq since March of 2003, ostensibly to spread democracy (at least the third rationale, after exacting revenge for Saddam's nonexistant involvement in 9/11, and to uncover his nonexistant WMD's). But how are we supposed to spread democracy overseas when our own democracy's election process hasn't been perfected? How is a Presidential election in Baghdad supposed to go off without a hitch, when we can't even pull it off properly in Florida and Ohio?

Surely this is something we can all agree on. And as American citizens, we can make our voice heard. Come on, as a nation we managed more than 97 million votes for the last American Idol finale, surely we can make our voices heard on this too?

Below are links that you can use to contact your representative in the House of Representatives, and your Senator. You don't have to know his/her name, the site will help you. Encourage your Senator and Representative to sponsor a bill that will standardize Federal elections. If we're the greatest democracy in the history of the world, why don't we start acting like it?

Here are those links:

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

http://www.senate.gov/

Thanks for spending a few minutes with me. Don't worry, it won't be this serious every time you stop by. I'll blab about entertainment and pop culture sometimes too. I'm good at that, ask anybody.