Moral Contradictions

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Just the facts, ma'am

I came across a page with divorce statistics broken down by state. While a little old, one can logically perceive similar results since 1994 and 1998.

The first thing I noticed was the first 16 states are all "red" states. The "South Atlantic" region and the two "South Central" regions comprised 358,949 of the 596,622 divorces, or 60.1%.

As a corollary, the state that is "gay marriage central" has the lowest divorce rate. The next 6 states are "blue states" while the bottom 16 are "red".

Just some observations... and a call that "saving marriage" should look at the forces against it from within, not from Massachusetts.

Sunday, June 26, 2005

The Question of Faith

Vacation Bible School started tonight at church and I attended the adult class. Dr Marsh's theme is the relevancy of the Old Testament. Tonight he gave an overview of it and laid groundwork for the next 4 nights.

He brought a Hebrew Bible with him and showed everyone the right-to-left and the characters that none of us understood. He explained the slew of translations and revisions and how an English word doesn't always match up with the Hebrew version. The lack of vowels and punctuation were noted as well.

He then touched on the folks who like to throw words such as "infallible" and "inerrant" around and how they believe that if you question one word of the Bible, you compromise the entire thing. Dr. Marsh noted that many of these folks who say "we believe every word of the entire Bible" are actually quite selective... for instance, none of those folks has more than one spouse. Almost all probably eat ham.

At the end, the pastor's wife off-handedly made a comment that "if we knew everything about the Bible, what is the purpose of faith?".

I'd like to inject my own personal beliefs. The more I study the Bible, the less I feel like I know. I am overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of God and his grace... I'm deeply humbled. I just don't understand those who feel like they know all the answers.

"God is infallible, not your interpretation of the Bible".

Saturday, June 25, 2005

Let's stop conjuring an "enemy within" and focus on the true enemy

E.J. Dionne Jr of the Washington Post wrote an excellent article about the Air Force Academy religious scandal titled "Keeping Faith With Religious Freedom".

Let's be clear: The academy's brass are not in trouble because they allowed evangelical Christian cadets to speak of their faith to other cadets. That is their right. The issue is whether officers higher in the chain of command used their positions of authority to promote their faith. That is coercion, and it is neither right nor just. It is also about whether evangelical Christian students were allowed to create an atmosphere in which students who did not share their faith were, to be charitable, marginalized. (One father of a cadet said his son was called "a filthy Jew.'') Since Jews, Hindus, Muslims and atheists -- not to mention Christians who are not evangelicals -- all proudly serve in the armed forces of the United States, there are few institutions in which the imperative for religious liberty is more important.

Thus did Obey offer an amendment to the military appropriations bill calling on the secretary of the Air Force to "develop a plan to ensure that the Air Force Academy maintains a climate free from coercive intimidation and inappropriate proselytizing."

Obey's all-American assertion of religious liberty was, for Rep. John Hostettler (R-Ind.), part of "the long war on Christianity in America [that] continues today on the floor of the House of Representatives. It continues unabated with aid and comfort to those who would eradicate any vestige of our Christian heritage being supplied by the usual suspects, the Democrats. . . . Like a moth to a flame, Democrats can't help themselves when it comes to denigrating and demonizing Christians."

Obey rose to his feet and demanded that Hostettler's last words be stricken from the record, which they eventually were. "If Jesus is watching what's happening on the floor of the House of Representatives, with people behaving in such a blasphemous fashion," Obey said this week, "well, I am reminded of that passage, 'Jesus wept.' " Obey said that when he first came to Congress, "there would have been universal condemnation of Hostettler by both parties." In this case, Obey said he was approached afterward by a single sympathetic Republican. Obey was comforted that Jewish House members "appreciated that a Christian would speak out."


Many people asked me what I would do with my history degree... I now know what I need to do: Throw the history of the early religious people in American in these people's face. Why do you think people came to this country in the 17th and 18th century? Because they didn't want others telling them how to worship. What is going on now? Telling others how to worship.

To me it's simple. Maybe because I comprehend and love history, or maybe it would seem logical. However, the current generation of Christians who are labeled as "fundamentalists" and don't believe in being tolerant would do well to study early religion in America. There's nothing wrong with believing you're right and others are wrong - there is something wrong with persecuting them for it.

Doesn't really seem in line with what Jesus would do, now does it?

Friday, June 24, 2005

I live in sin

My wife visited with a friend recently and caught up on all the news concerning mutual friends. The friend asked her to pray for someone because she thought she was "living in sin" because she suspects she's a lesbian.

Folks, I'm not a lesbian (unless you count a lesbian trapped in a man's body), but I live in sin. I hate to break it to you, but so do you.

Your sin isn't greater than mine, and vice-versa. If you buy Christianity, you must believe that we're all sinners. I'm from the school that sin is sin, because sin separates us from God, whether that be telling a little white lie to murdering someone. So please don't tell me that so-and-so is "living in sin" and ask me to pray for them without asking for prayer for yourself.

So pray for me. I am a sinner and I live in sin.

Thursday, June 23, 2005

Mark Warner impressed me

Politically I identify as an independent... one can call me a "centrist" or a "moderate". I'm of the personality that I can't deal with the crap that goes on with politics - just give me the straight poop.

Mark Warner's interview with Salon.com was very thought-provoking. He came to speak to my class with Dr. Holsworth at VCU in last spring and he's very engaging and genuine. This quote expressed my misgiving with the post-9/11 response by the Bush Administration:

There are a lot of things I disagree with the president on. But I think the president's biggest mistake, and I think he's made it twice, once right after 9/11, and once after the Iraq war started, is that he never called on this country for any level of shared sacrifice.

He never called on us to greatness. He never called on us to say, "We are at war, our nation is under assault, and here's what we're going to do." It could be energy independence. It could be "We're going to be the best educated workforce." It could be "We're going to rebuild this infrastructure." It could have been anything. People all across this country were yearning to be called upon. Instead, we were told, "We're going to give a tax cut. We're not going to worry about the nation's finances." And the only people who have been asked to sacrifice are our men and women in the Armed Forces, and they're disproportionately our Guard and Reserve, who make up about 52 percent of our people on the ground in Iraq.

And I think, again, Americans know that. They know that in their gut. Whether it's finances or whether it's, "If we're going to be in this war for some time to come, we're going to have make some level of sacrifice to maintain not only our own national security but our global position in the world." And I think Americans are ready to step up. A little bit of truth telling goes a long way.


I would have bought President Bush's arguments for going into Iraq had he not given 27 of them. I would have supported the Patriot Act if I had not read of police and prosecuter seminars where folks taught how to use the Act for non-terrorism crimes. I don't identify with a party and I'm suspicious of all politicians because I want the truth to be told. Unfortunately, politics and honesty mix like a rabid cat with a shotgun at a Hollywood celebrity party.

Figure that one out... :)

Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Wait, there's more to Christianity than just abortion?

From Yahoo, "Christians take on might of US religious right".

"We are here because we can no longer stand by and watch people speak hatred, division, war and greed in the name of our faith," said Patrick Mrotek, founder of the Christian Alliance for Progress...

..."The religious right has been extremely successful in taking control of the language of our faith and using it to promote an extreme and divisive political agenda," said the Reverend Timothy Simpson, director of religious affairs at the Christian Alliance for Progress.

"We think that most Americans, especially people of faith, are ready to hear from Christians who are tolerant, and who understand the many ways that our faiths impact our views of public life," he said.


Amen. I'm glad I'm not the only one who is a Christian yet is turned off (or sometimes flat-out rejected) by hard-line Christians.

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

Nasty rhetoric, Americans lose

Rep. Tom DeLay defended Rep. John Hostettler's comments yesterday ("like moths to a flame, Democrats can't help themselves when it comes to denigrating and demonizing Christians."). DeLay added that "Hostettler may have said it unartfully, [but] Democrats are constantly attacking people of faith."

Republicans attacked Durbin for his Gitmo/Nazi statements and Democrats have now criticized Hostettler and DeLay. Each side is quick to defend and attack, loathe to apologize. The rhetoric is rising, bipartisanship is gone, and Americans lose because the truth is lost.

Both sides have made sweeping generalizations (Republicans are white Christians, Democrats demonize Christians). I've noticed one difference coming from the GOP. A Democrat criticizes a policy and are attacked for something else. Durbin said that if one read about the torture happening at Gitmo without context, they would think it was about Russians or Nazis. He was widely accused of supporting terrorism and not our troops and all that. Nancy Pelosi called the war in Iraq as a "grotesque mistake" and was accused of spreading inflammatory statements and that she should support the troops instead. I also have to mention Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis, for shutting down a committee hearing because he didn't like what he was hearing.

The truth is gone... the GOP just has to say "you're not supporting the troops" and the die is cast. Dear Republicans, you can criticize the war and still support the troops. Dear both sides, just because you hear something you don't like, you don't need to criticize.

The Associated Press has a better sum-up.

Monday, June 20, 2005

Rep. John Hostettler - 2nd grade @ House Elementary

From DKos: Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN) made a statement this afternoon on the House floor regarding religion in the military that "The long war on Christianity today continues on the floor of the House of Representatives... don't get me wrong, the Democrats know they shouldn't be doing this. Democrats can't help denegrating and demonizing Christians".

Specifically he was referring to the fundy takeover at the Air Force Academy and the bias against non-Christians.

Rep. David Obey (D-WI) took exception to the comment, apparently made in an inflammatory manner, and asked that disciplinary action be taken. Hostettler retracted those words. Yet... he still said them.

Excuse me, Mr Representative, there is more than enough name-calling coming from your side of the aisle. There are plenty of Democrats who identify themselves as Christians. Stop shrouding your narrow and strict hardline interpretation of the Bible as the only way to be a Christian. Stop pretending to speak for all Christians. Stop perpetuating childishness on the House floor and start respecting other people's rights to worship as they wish, not just your way.

Stop perverting Christianity in front of the national spotlight by allowing the infusion of politics to garner attention. Stop taking away from the millions of Christians of both parties who focus on helping and loving others like Jesus did instead of taking over the government.

Jews of Jesus' time looked to Him to overthrow the Roman government, yet He still changed the world by moving below the government straight to the people.

So Rep. Hostettler... just stop it.

Update: This is the same Rep. Hostettler who prefers advancing God's Kingdom and wasting taxpayer's money by circumventing Supreme Court rulings to keep a Ten Commandments display up at the Gibson County, IN courthouse.

Sunday, June 19, 2005

"Fag-hating" Fred Phelps, gay?

Once again, Alan Colmes of Fox News asked Fred Phelps of godhatesfags.com if he was a repressed homosexual.

While a "yes" was not spoken, apparently the word "no" did not suffice. Mark this as the second time he's ducked the question. Surprise surprise.

Thursday, June 16, 2005

Texas politics and school vouchers

Mainstream Baptist linked to an article that follows rural and moderate Texas Republicans bucking large corporate interests in favor of their conscience and constituents. From the article:

...Rep. Carter Casteel (R-New Braunfels) stands before her colleagues to offer an amendment that could endanger her political career. “So, I’ve made a decision,” she tells them. “It may send me home.”

The Texas Legislature is usually not a place for acts of political bravery, especially of late. Three years ago, a corporate-backed GOP campaign stacked the House with legislators selected, whenever possible, to be radical ideologues pliant to special interests. Republican representatives were defined by their fear of crossing a vengeful leadership ready to marshal lobby money against them if they didn’t cooperate. In 2003, Speaker Tom Craddick (R-Midland) used his new majority to ram through a list of action items coveted by major campaign contributors. But on the evening of May 23, in the 79th Legislature, there in the House chamber, Republican moderates like Casteel did the unthinkable, they followed their conscience and their constituents instead of their speaker... (Read more...)

Another definition of what this blog is about...

... or "Why I got on Shaun Kenney's case especially after he lied to me". Take your pick.

Alan Stewart Carl of The Yellow Line commented so eloquently in a post over at Charging RINO that sums up why I continue this blog:

I know many of these social conservative Christians want to reform politics. But in the history of mankind, religion has never reformed politics. Politics merely corrupts religion. A lot of people are so worried about the encroachment of theocracy, while I'm much more concerned with the debasement of Christianity. Christianity is not about gaining power over others but politics is. I could go on and on but I won't preach. These socially conservative Christians probably truly believe they are doing God's work, but they are only leading their flock down a badly chosen path.

It is their right, of course. And it will also be their loss.


I've said here before that Jesus changed the world under a paganistic Roman government and a local theocracy. The only interaction he had with the government was against it, and they killed him for not toeing their line. He fundamentally altered history simply by moving amongst the people and reaching out to the sick, the poor, and the down-and-out.

Why do I get so bent out of shape over the "Christian Right"? Because I believe that so many Christians who identify themselves with that group have thrown all of their eggs into that one basket. By going to church on Sunday and voting for Bush on Tuesday and sending money to Right-to-Life on Friday, they feel that they've done their Christian duty.

We have a higher calling. By stealing the focus of Christianity away from helping and loving others to taking over political offices, Christianity is the greatest threat to itself. Spending 11 years and $25 million dollars to create a Creationist museum and spending millions of dollars and man-hours to fight filibusters doesn't seem to fulfill Jesus' call for our lives.

Why can't we just move amongst the people, serving them, loving them, feeding them, and try to change lives one by one? Oh nevermind, we'll legislate morality and just tell people how to live. Because that strategy worked with Prohibition.

Sometimes you don't need words



I guarantee there are multiple ways people would interpret these two pictures of President Bush juxtaposed together. I personally believe these are funnier than the written "Bush-isms".

GOP: Recipe for losing power

Essentially every side is claiming a victory after Tuesday's primary, no matter if they won or lost the election. The anti-taxers have received the most attention since they claimed this primary to be a referendum on the 2004 tax-hike. The Virginia Conservative Action PAC was formed to unseat the 17 Republican "mavericks" yet could only field 6 candidates. VCAP was the largest contributer to campaigns besides the Democratic National Committee. Given that one high profile target, Preston Bryant of Lynchburg, won his seat 3 to 1 and $136,274 was spent on losing campaigns (34% success rate discounting the Attorney General's race), I'd say they largely failed. There's always silver-linings and many have taken the long view that this is merely another step towards a greater goal, yet the politics of mud-slinging and division in the GOP have been squelched for now.

I grew up Republican and started this blog as I became disillusioned with the direction the party is going. I believe in some Republican principles and some Democratic principles, yet the GOP is the party I'm more familiar with. However, I call myself a "moderate" or independent because I'll vote against a fanatical conservative candidate every time they run. I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle of the propaganda served by both sides. I believe the current "grass-roots" hard-right GOP'ers are the biggest threat to the party.

Del. Bobby Orrock expressed my reservations with Shaun Kenney's campaign and similar races best in today's Free Lance-Star:

To me, that's potentially the single greatest danger from that group, in that it brings a narrowing of the focus of the party and establishes certain litmus test measures that no matter whether you agree 90 percent of the time, if you're not 100 percent then you don't fit. I see a viable Republican Party as one that is broader than that.


I've been saying this all along. This group is very similar to the folks who took over the Southern Baptist Convention. It's "you're either all for us or against us". I don't buy that one bit. I've also observed that as the party continually focuses on its "base" and continues calling out "RINOs" (Republicans In Name Only), they serve to weaken the party by disinviting long-time Republicans who disagree with their hardcore and "anti-everything" message.

Orrock eloquently observes that:

"What I think could be more telling would be in November where there are no-tax incumbents facing Democrat challengers," Orrock said. "I fear that we may lose a few seats where this primary has given the Democrats the moderate message, to essentially unseat some of the most conservative/no-tax Republicans. If that happens, it would be tremendously ironic given that VCAP was formed to go after open seats and increase the Republican majority."


The longer the GOP allows itself to be held hostage by the far-right wingers, the more they'll watch power slip through their fingers as folks like me get fed up with the constant litmus tests, non-compromises, and dirty politics. Already the national party has been met with strong disapproval for its knee-jerk reaction with Terri Schiavo. President Bush's strong election "mandate" has now quickly reversed itself to all-time low approval ratings.

For folks like Shaun Kenney, Grover Norquist, James Dobson, etc: the more you condemn and the more you judge, the less credible you become. Ideological purity and party loyalty isn't above finding solutions and compromises for large-scale and immediate problems.

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

VCAP score-card

Blogger's being a freak... the table I'm referencing is here. Please excuse the inconvenience, but check it out as there are some good numbers.

It's a list their candidates (in order from their site) with how they fared, what their total VCAP contribution was, how much they got last minute (after June 1), and the percentage of their total donations that came from VCAP.

The Virginia Conservative Action PAC has an endorsed candidates webpage. They formed in response to the tax-increase supported by Republicans in 2004. Their goal is to support the "conservative voice" against "moderate and liberal politicians [who] often posture as conservatives".

They've given a ton of money to their favorites. Before June 1, the PAC shelled out over $386,354 overall... $329,658 went to these endorsed candidates, or 85%. Between June 1 and the primary they spent $105,288 in last minute cash infusions.

Bob McDonnell is the only state-wide candidate to receive money. I guess the reasoning for stiffing Kilgore and Bolling is either because they had enough money or they were sure they'd win.

VCAP constituted the majority of Shaun Kenney's donations and accordingly received the most, yet still lost. Chris Craddock is being claimed as the only real victory for conservatives and VCAP made up nearly a third of his donations.

Discounting McDonnell, $46,093 of their donations went to winning campaigns out of $133,745 spent, a percentage of 34.5%.

I've had internet issues all day and haven't been able to really analyize the numbers... I'll let them speak for themselves and add insights as I go along. Additionally a couple of races don't quite have 100% reporting and I'll double-check them over the next couple of days.

Yet, at first glance... 34.5% doesn't seem like a passing grade, now does it? Maybe straying from the issues and going for the homophobe agenda by distorting facts wasn't the best plan?

Far-right Republicans win state-wide, yet not in the 54th

Sorry this is late... been house-hunting all day.

Looks like a hardcore conservative GOP statewide ticket with McDonnell, Bolling, and Kilgore respectively winning the Attorney General, Lt. Governor, and Governor nominations.

However, Shaun Kenney lost to Bobby Orrock in the 54th district. Apparently that victory party at the HoJo in Massaponax needs a new name. As much as I would have enjoyed plotting Kenney's moral contradictions as his arrival in Richmond destroyed his fantasy world, I have to say that I'm pleased with the result.

Will this be the last of Kenney? Probably not, especially as he maintained his chairmanship of the Spotsylvania GOP... however, it's a small victory for centrists and common-sense moderates tired of the "Grand Old Party" being perverted into "God's Official Party".

I'm monitoring to see how other Republican incumbents survived the VCAP/conservative challenge... Check out the rest of the election results.

Update: I couldn't stomach the website of VCAP (Virginia Conserative Action PAC) and never spent much time there... apparently they were banking on Kenney. Many speculated he was their best chance to produce a winner, yet he ranks just below the Governor and Lt. Governor candidates and above the Attorney General. Interesting...

2nd Update: The Free Lance-Star has an editoral that withholds endorsement yet blasts Kenney's mud-slinging. Shaun, since Mr. Orrock had taken stands that you had valid issues with, why did you go for the low-blow? Doesn't seem to be very nice, now does it?

Sunday, June 12, 2005

Scary Quote Part 2

I came across a page that has a thorough collection of scary quotes from folks who identify themselves as Republicans and/or Christians.

Here's one to convince you to click and read. I'll try to post other quotes from here on a semi-regular basis.

"The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant–baptism and holy communion–must be denied citizenship." - Gary North (Institute for Christian Economics)


Yeah, that about sums up the intentions of our Founding Fathers... God Bless America!

Do you see why I began this blog... sigh...

Saturday, June 11, 2005

Mr. Madison's quote?

Many people believe that James Madison had this to say about religion in our government:

Religion is the basis and foundation of government. We have staked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.


This writer included it in his letter to the editor. However, that quote is false. Any serious student of history will recognize that this statement is totally out of line with other writings and speeches by President Madison. In short, Madison never said that. Ever. It's a lie that many people believe.

It is troubling when quotes are taken out of context to support one's beliefs. It is even more troubling when words are placed into the mouths of historical figures and used to propagate lies.

For more study on James Madison's writings, click here.

Friday, June 10, 2005

Congratulations!

You're now reading a blog that doesn't allow anonymous posting!

I can take the heat, especially since I dish it out... it's only when the heat's full of mud and disrespectful that I draw the line.

Don't like it? Start your own blog.

Welcome to democracy.

If it's not the White Christian Party, then what is it?



Seen in Texas... ganked from Daily Kos.

I'm not a huge fan of Howard Dean... truthfully I'm not a big fan of any politician, but I digress.

His recent statement that the GOP is "pretty much a white Christian party" has recieved criticism from everywhere. Why, I ask?

Is it because the truth hurts? AMERICAblog shows that

Of 3,643 Republicans serving in the state legislatures, only 44 are minorities, or 1.2 percent. In the Congress, with 274 of the 535 elected senators and representatives Republican, only five are minorities - three Cuban Americans from Florida, a Mexican American from Texas and a Native American senator originally elected as a Democrat.


The Native American senator is gone and replaced by an African-American Democrat. Plus, the Republicans have no blacks representing them in Congress. After doing the fuzzy math, I come up with 99.26% of Republicans on the Hill as being white and 98.8% of all Republicans elected to state legislatures as white.

This blog has certainly made the case that the Christian Right has set up shop at, well... the right. The Republicans. Add the two together and you have a "White Christian party".

Chief Deputy Whip Rep. Eric I. Cantor (R-Va) urged Congressional Democrats to "to tell Howard Dean to apologize for his hateful and misguided statements".

What's so hateful about the truth? Granted, Dean works on the edge and his statements were overboard, unconstructive, and "misguided", but not hateful. We can argue all day long about stereotyping and how unproductive it is... but usually you need evidence to debunk the stereotype, and I find none.

If the Republicans are so concerned about "hateful" statements, I'm sure we can dig up quite a few emanating from that side of the aisle.

Where's my hole in the sand?

I wish I didn't have to write this blog. I wish politicians told the honest truth and were consistent. I wish they wouldn't play upon the masses overall ignorance to pass something and then move on and do the same thing. However, let me present Example A: Kansas Republican Senator Sam Brownback. (Sorry, I'm a little late on this one).

After Republicans railed for weeks for an "up-or-down" vote for President Bush's judicial nominees, apparently for Senator Brownback, Julie Finley doesn't deserve one. The president nominated her as ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and Brownback has filibustered her.

Brownback is considered a 2008 presidential candidate (who isn't these days?). Why is she unqualified to serve in this post that I wouldn't have heard of if this didn't happen? She's pro-choice.

What does one's stance of abortion have to do with this position? Are all nominees going to be subjected to this litmus test? Pat Robertson wants only Judeo-Christians in government, Sam Brownback wants only anti-abortion nominees... what happened to this whole equality thing?

I reject the notion that someone has to pass a litmus test to work in government in the same way I reject a litmus test for being a Christian (you're not 100% pro-life, you're not saved!).

Does abortion politics have to invade everything about our government? Cuz really, there are bigger fish to fry and contradicting yourself and your party does not lend onesself to credibility or solutions.

Apparently principles only work if they suit your agenda. Senator Brownback, you've been convicted of a moral contradiction.

Update: He lifted the hold after talking over his "concerns" with Julie Finley.

Tuesday, June 07, 2005

40 years of legalized birth control

Sometimes I just want to throw my hands up and stick my head in the sand. It's so much easier than writing this blog, because then you don't have to acknowledge folks out there who use the government to tell others how to live.

Wisconsin Republicans want to rid all college campuses of emergency contraception. Another bill allows pharmacists to deny fulfillment of prescriptions of contraceptives. Democrats countered with a proposal to protect women's access to birth control. I'll deal with the second bill below...

Folks, this is the reason I started this blog. Aren't these the same Republicans that cry for small government, yet want Big Brother to make personal decisions for us? Am I the only one who questions this un-holy alliance?

Let's extend the logic a little bit farther: If couples should resort to "natural methods" in making decisions regarding when they have children, shouldn't it be illegal for couples to pursue fertility treatments? Are those natural?

Additionally, why are we talking about restricting women's decisions regarding sex while our society endures endless commercials for drugs to give men erections harder than Calculus 3?

I know some good people who don't use birth control and some good people who do. Both sides have very good reasons behind their decision.

Did you catch that? Their decision.

Monday, June 06, 2005

Proof that Kansas is truly batty

Kansas is beautiful. I've traveled all over it hunting for storms. However, I'm not sure my wife and I would want to live there. Why?

She may not be allowed to vote.

Okay, that's a little too strong since there is a Constitutional Amendment allowing women's suffrage. Yet, State Senator Kay O'Connor gained national attention in 2001 for saying this:

"I think the 19th Amendment, while it's not an evil in and of itself, is a symptom of something I don't approve of," she said at the time. "The 19th Amendment is around because men weren't doing their jobs, and I think that's sad. I believe the man should be the head of the family. The woman should be the heart of the family."


Basically, she linked the decline of "family values" or "moral values" in this nation to allowing women to vote.

Better yet, she wants to be the Kansas' Secretary of State, a position which involves overseeing state-wide elections.

I wonder... if women shouldn't be allowed to vote, should they be allowed to hold office?

By my logic, the logic widely known as "common sense", I think I know the answer: She needs to immediately step down, and either work on being the "heart" of her family or go into therapy.

Thank you Kansas for giving me another reason to shake my head at that state of my nation.

Sunday, June 05, 2005

Shaun Kenney can lie and delete, but he cannot hide

The folks over at the FredTalk forums have tagged a Shaun Kenney sign with a "FUG" sticker (FredTalk User Group). I guess if you post over 8,000 times, insult others, come off as a hypocrite, delete your posts, force moderators to never allow wholesale deletion again, run for office, spin your opponent's record, lie, and try to win an election claiming moral superiority, this is a "sign" of what you'll get:



I can't wait to see more.

Saturday, June 04, 2005

I hope I'm not the only one that sees this...

...but I'm getting tired of Friday evening press releases by the government of controversial subjects. For instance, last night they announced that at Gitmo, a Quran was splashed with urine, among other things. It was also allowed to get wet, it was defaced, and one detainee was told that the Quran belonged in the toilet.

This on the heels of the Defense Department's refusal to announce recruiting numbers until next Friday after business hours.

Why release these stories so late in the week? To skirt public scrutiny. It's an old Beltway trick. If you're forced to admit something that looks bad, do it at the end of the week and avoid the heavy criticism. Less people pay attention on weekends. Less people watch news. Less people read newspapers. Less bloggers are at their computers.

My parents raised me to own up to my mistakes and accept the consequences of my actions. The White House's smearing of Newsweek and then less than 2 weeks later validating their story is wrong. Blaming Newsweek for single-handedly causing deaths in Afghanistan while over 1,600 American soliders and 12,000 Iraqi citizens are dead is wrong.

Smearing and then later telling the truth when its convienent is getting old.

Thursday, June 02, 2005

Recommended Read: Frederick Clarkson

Frederick Clarkson has written a column titled "Readin' & Writin' 'bout Theocracy". He long predicted the growth of the fruit that is now just starting to bear. Activities by the Southern Baptist Church, random churches in North Carolina, and moral contradictions by the Family Research Council are just the beginning.

He calls it Christian Reconstructionism. Some people deny its existence... I ask, how can you not see it happening? Look around you and read the newspaper... or read this blog.