Wednesday, June 30, 2004

Religion is More Harmful to Children than Porn

The religious republicans are at it again.

Today, the Supreme Court, once again, stopped the religious republicans from enforcing COPA, the so-called Child Online Protection Act, intended to "protect" children from internet porn.

Just how much harm is done to a young boy looking at naked women? Most young boys have a strong desire to get a peek at a Playboy magazine and most succeed. Have they been irreparably damaged?

If the religious republicans succeed in enforcing this nonsense, then rational people everywhere should hire a good lawyer, like Mike Newdow for example, to sue web sites that promote religion on the grounds that it causes serious psychological damage to children.

What could possibly be more damaging to a child than telling him over and over from the time he's an infant that there exists an invisible person who is unwilling to prove he exists watching him every second of every day and reading his thoughts and if he doesn't believe in the invisible person he will be tortured for eternity? Yet we tell that same child that monsters don't exist so it's silly to be scared of monsters.

Monday, June 28, 2004

America Was Safer With Saddam Hussein in Power!

America's powerful military is unable to control the religious insurgent wackos in Iraq. How did Saddam keep them under control?

Saddam Hussein didn't have the same limitations placed on the American military - he could torture and kill innocent people to force them to spill the beans on the locations and operations of the religious nuts. Then, he could tame the religious nuts.

So, apparently, only a ruthless dictator can tame the religious wacko terrorists in Iraq.

Does anybody know where we can find a ruthless dictator type to get the religious terrorists in Iraq under control?

Hmmmmm.... Perhaps we should apologize to Saddam Hussein and ask him to take control in Iraq and tame the religious terrorists since we seem unable to do so.

Perhaps we should recognize and admit the world was safer when Saddam Hussein was keeping the religious terrorists under control in Iraq.

No matter how you look at it, what we did in Iraq under the Bush regime was the worst possible thing to do. It made America and the world LESS SAFE, and it destroyed America's image and credibility in the world. Osama Bin-Laden is the one who attacked America on 9/11 and he is still running free. Afghanistan is still a mess and seems to be getting worse every day. How much better it would have been to put 135,000 troops in Afghanistan looking for Bin-Laden and stabilizing that country before sending them to Iraq. Even people who believe attacking Iraq was a good idea must admit that we should have cleaned up Afghanistan first.

I am ashamed that Bush is president of my country. I'm ashamed that I voted for him in 2000.

Wednesday, June 23, 2004

Opposite Forces in Human Nature Often Collide

It's funny how opposite forces in human nature so often find themselves juxtaposed.

Some examples:
  1. The Bush regime is promoting democracy in Russia, the middle east and around the world while at the same time destroying democracy and individual liberties here in America.

  2. The two biggest movies of 2004 are opposite - Fahrenheit 911 and The Passion of the Lunatic with Delusions of Grandeur. One is anti-Bush and the other is pro-religion anti-intellectual.

  3. At the same time the world's preeminent example of communism, the Soviet Union, was falling apart, Bill and Hillary were trying to install full-fledged socialized medicine in America.

  4. At the same time America is in a war with religious extremists, George W. Bush is trying to tear down the wall between church and state and turn America into a christian country.

  5. In the same year America was landing men on the moon through phoenomenal technological achievement, hippies and drug addicts were converging on Woodstock for a rock concert and young people all over America were generally protesting against the "establishment". The rock concert is remembered more fondly than landing on the moon.

  6. The movie and music distributors and producers in Hollywood are some of the biggest promoters of socialism, advocating "redistribution" of wealth to a plethora of their favorite causes via involuntary taxation while at the same time, they fight ruthlessly when the product of their own labor is redistributed on file-sharing networks.

(I'll add to this list as I think of examples. Please email me with pithy examples.)

Tuesday, June 22, 2004

Low Level Soldiers Are Not To Blame in Prisoner Abuse

If Bush had any sense of decency, he would pardon the low-level grunts convicted of prisoner abuse. Left on their own without any supervision, how many so called "christians" would have guarded muslims after 9/11 and not abused them?

It's disgraceful the way the Bush regime is allowing low-level soldiers to be the scapegoats in the prisoner abuse scandal.

It's highly unlikely they were acting on their own but even if they were, they are not to blame. If a 2nd grade teacher leaves her classroom unattended for several hours, what is the likelyhood the classroom will be peaceful and orderly when the teacher returns? Should the 2nd graders be severly punished if they get a little wild after several hours unattended? Obviously the teacher is to blame, not the kids.

These young soldiers being prosecuted were guarding wacko terrorists who attacked our country. If they were acting on orders, then the commanding officers are to blame. If they were not acting on orders, then the commanding officers are still to blame for being ignorant of what was transpiring. The commanding officers are to blame for not making it perfectly clear to the soldiers that America does not torture prisoners. Are the commanding officers really so stupid they couldn't predict this would happen, or really so incompetent they didn't know it was happening?

If the commanding officers ordered this prisoner abuse, then the low-level soldiers are not to blame in the least. The whole point of boot camp is to teach soldiers to follow orders without thinking or questioning. Without such training, soldiers would never follow orders to run straight into enemy gunfire facing probable death. An army can't function if each soldier thinks about and analyzes the efficacy and strict lawfulness of each order. If a soldier ever questions an order, that soldier is in big trouble. This is the culture and mindset required to have an effective military. The only time a soldier can resonably be expected to question an order is when the order is so blatantly illegal and wrong as to make it impossible for an ethical soldier to carry out, such as an order to go out and kill innocent civilians. Clearly, the prisoner abuse wasn't at that level.

The young soldiers make very little money and don't have much of a career path. Their lives will be ruined by a conviction. These low-level grunts will have their lives ruined because the Bush regime needs scapegoats. If Bush had any sense of decency, he would issue a pardon to the low-level grunts and a clear policy statement that any abuse of prisoners in the future is not to be tolerated.

Our American Constitution outlaws cruel and unusual punishment. If we would just stick to our Constitution, we would be a moral and ethical society and we could hold our head high.

The prison torture and the Bush regime's assault on the wall separating church and state demonstrate clearly how little regard the Bush regime has for our American Constitution and American ideals in general. It's shameful. America, the shining city on a hill, has lost a lot of its luster under the Bush regime.

Thursday, June 17, 2004

Could Someone Please Ask Colin Powell to Save Our Country?

I loved Ronald Reagan and I voted for Bush in 2000 yet I now consider getting Bush out more important than fighting terrorism.

I think there are a lot of people like me, both Democrat and Republican, both religious and atheist, who do not like to see the Bush regime tearing down the wall between Church and State.

If Ronald Reagan were alive today, he would say, "George W. Bush, LEAVE THIS WALL ALONE!"

Unfortunately, John Kerry is the least exciting presidential candidate in a long time.

The only good choice right now, someone who could unite Democrats and Republicans and someone who could enter the race at this late stage and win is Colin Powell.

Could we all join together and ask Colin Powell to enter the race for president and save our country?

Tuesday, June 15, 2004

Enough Standing to Pay Child Support, Not Enough to Protect Child

The Supreme Court dismissed the Pledge of Allegiance case today on grounds that Mike Newdow doesn't have standing to raise the case.

Apparently, an unmarried father can have enough standing to be ordered to pay child support yet, at the same time, not enough standing to sue to protect his child.

What if Mike Newdow was suing some gangster-rap drug dealers who sold crack to his daughter? Further completing the analogy, what if his daughter WANTS to smoke crack? And what if the mother of the girl is a drug addict who wants her daughter to have access to drugs?

Would the religious right and the vociferous religious nuts on Fox News be so quick to deny Mike Newdow standing to sue?

I don't think so.

Children under 18 don't get to decide what is in their best interest. The fact the little girl wants to say "under god" in the pledge is irrelevant.

The fact the girl's mother desires government-sponsored religion is also irrelevant. Seventy percent of America is christian but that doesn't give them the right to impose their belief on children in a public school. Why doesn't the girl's mother place the girl in a private christian school if she wants the girl to be exposed to religion at school?

Atheists are not asking religious people to give up their religion, just to keep it out of our government. Keeping religion out of our government doesn't hurt christians but mixing religion with government has the potential to hurt everyone - even christians.

Right now, America is 70% christian and the christians are trying to tear down the wall between church and state. But if the tides should shift and large portions of the population should start converting to Islam, those same christians would be the most vocal advocates for a stronger wall between church and state.

Church and state should be separate because religion is NOT based on reason and therefore, in a religious government, disagreements cannot be resolved rationally. In a religious government, disagreements are resolved by one side having more clout, whether that clout is charisma or military might.

There is no reason in religion. Religion is irrational. Religious governments are irrational. Religious government is ruled by whoever has the most power. Religious government leads to mob rule. Religious government leads to tyranny.

Wednesday, June 09, 2004

Bush Insults Memory of Reagan

President Reagan was one of the greatest American Presidents of all time. He was elected president during a difficult and challenging period in American history. America was in chaos and decay when Ronald Reagan was elected - horrible economy, low citizen morale, air traffic controllers on strike, hostages in Iran, a botched attempt at rescuing the hostages, a military full of shame and incompetence, and one of the most unpopular presidents of all time - Jimmy Carter. Ronald Reagan fixed everything and saved our country.

But even more importantly, Ronald Reagan respected individual rights. This is why George W. Bush has nothing in common with Ronald Reagan. This is why George W. Bush should stay away from the funeral ceremonies. George W. Bush is the philosophical OPPOSITE of Ronald Reagan. It's disturbing to even hear George W. Bush utter President Reagan's name. He defiles Ronald Reagan everytime he mentions the great communicator.

Ronald Reagan said, "government's job is not to fix the problems, government IS the problem"! Ronald Reagan believed government's role is to protect individual rights, not to legislate religious morality. That's why he supported a strong military and not "faith-based initiatives". That's why he expressed his personal opinion on abortion, giving lip service to the anti-abortion cause yet never actually doing anything to overturn Roe-vs-Wade. Ronald Reagan would NEVER have presumed to impose his religious beliefs on American citizens at the urging of a "higher father", as George W. Bush is doing today.

Ronald Reagan believed in the American Constitution and individual rights and would have a heart attack if he saw what George W. Bush is trying to do to our country:
  • Tax dollars going to "faith based initiatives".
  • Religious schools promoted at the expense of public education through devious tactics like "no child left behind" which is funded just enough to give the impression of fostering education but not funded enough to actually work. End result and true motivation - school vouchers to support religious schools at the expense of public education.
  • Americans snatched up and placed in jail indefinitely without charges or access to a lawyer.
  • Stem-cell and genetic research outlawed based on vague, undefined religious ideology.
  • Pre-emptive VOLUNTARY wars based on lies and deception draining military resources away from the true problem areas.
  • Shutting down newspapers in a country we occupied voluntarily.
  • Torturing prisoners in a country we occupied voluntarily.
  • Ridiculing our courts and judges with dirty smear-tactic labels like "judicial activists" when they do their job of protecting and upholding our Constitution.
  • Recruiting church congregations to actively participate in re-electing the current Republican regime.
  • Passing special laws so that churches can violate the conditions of their tax-exempt status 3 times without fear of penalty.
George W. Bush, PLEASE stay away from the funeral for Ronald Reagan and don't EVER presume to mention the name of Ronald Reagan again!

Given the current state of chaos and incompetence in our government, I sure wish we had someone like Ronald Reagan to come and save us again.

Sunday, June 06, 2004

WIC Crisis Identical to Health Care Crisis

There is a federal program called WIC that pays for food for women with children. According to a New York Times article today, 47 percent of all babies born in America each year are participating in the program which cost $4.6 Billion this year.

Stores are popping up that only accept WIC vouchers, not cash and those stores are charging prices higher than regular retail stores. In some cases, the WIC-only stores are charging prices DOUBLE the prices in a WalMart.

Of course, the women with the WIC vouchers don't care about the prices because they don't foot the bill. The WIC retailers are paid by our tax dollars from the federal government.

Federal officials are alarmed because the higher prices mean the $4.6 Billion paid by our tax dollars won't go as far as it should.

Duh! Any moron could have predicted this would happen but apparently our congressmen were caught off guard.

This is exactly the same principle that caused our health care crisis.

Here is a portion of the New York Times article:
June 6, 2004

Selling to Poor, Stores Bill U.S. for Top Prices


WASHINGTON, June 5 - Federal and state officials are expressing alarm about the proliferation of food stores that cater to low-income people but charge more than other grocery stores, thus driving up the cost of a major federal nutrition program.

The program, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, or W.I.C., helps feed 7.7 million people each month by providing vouchers for infant formula, juice, eggs, milk, cheese, cereal and dried beans. Now a growing number of stores are selling only to W.I.C. families, accepting only the government vouchers, not cash, for payment.

About 47 percent of all babies born in the United States each year participate in the program.

"The rise in W.I.C.-only stores is a fairly recent phenomenon," said Eric M. Bost, under secretary of the Agriculture Department, which runs the program. Analysis of food costs in California and Texas shows that "W.I.C.-only stores in these states have higher prices, on average, than other authorized retailers," Mr. Bost said.

The stores have found a niche in the market that Congress did not anticipate. Proprietors said the stores had become popular because they offer convenient locations and superior service.


The W.I.C. families are not particularly sensitive to shelf prices because their vouchers buy a specific food package, regardless of the amount charged to state agencies, which administer the program with federal money.


Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

Thursday, June 03, 2004

It's the Religion Stupid!

The reason to vote against Bush isn't the war on terrorism. It isn't the economy. It's the religion!

George Bush wants to turn America into a religious theocracy!

He has exactly the same goal as the terrorists - to replace our government by a religious theocracy. It's just his choice of religion that's different.

John Kerry may not be much but anybody is better than Bush. And I'm saying that as a gun-toting, free-enterprise fanatic who thinks Ronald Reagan was one of America's greatest presidents and who, unfortunately, voted for Bush in 2000. We MUST get Bush out or else we will lose everything that made America worth fighting and dying for.

If you want to return to the dark ages and live in a fundamentalist theocracy, vote for Bush. If you want to live in a free country where you have the right to pursue your own happiness, do NOT vote for Bush. It's as simple as that.

Here's some scary news from the New York Times:
June 3, 2004

Bush Campaign Seeks Help From Thousands of Congregations


The Bush campaign is seeking to enlist thousands of religious congregations around the country in distributing campaign information and registering voters, according to an e-mail message sent to many members of the clergy and others in Pennsylvania.

Liberal groups charged that the effort invited violations of the separation of church and state and jeopardized the tax-exempt status of churches that cooperated. Some socially conservative church leaders also said they would advise pastors against participating in such a partisan effort.

But Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for the Bush administration, said "people of faith have as much right to participate in the political process as any other community" and that the e-mail message was about "building the most sophisticated grass-roots presidential campaign in the country's history."


Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company