So, Glenn Beck is Not a Fearmonger? Ooooookaaaaaaay.

A commenter on my blog insists that Glenn Beck is not a fearmonger. So, here are some quotes from Glenn Beck. While I'm sure he sometimes says very positive, nice things (about himself, Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, and Jesus) being a fearmonger does not mean that you only gin up fear. It means that you do gin up fear.

And some of these are not fear mongering, they are just evidence of his messianic complex. He really seems to think he is God's prophet (or he thinks his viewers believe that).

You have three people in the White House that are in love with eugenics or whatever it is you would call it today. ... Please dear God, read history. Please dear God read the truth of what these people have said in their own words, and ask yourself this one question: Do you trust these people enough to give them control over who lives and who dies? Because that's what health care is when you have no other choice but to go to the state.

—Glenn Beck, comparing health care reform to Nazi eugenics

When you see the effects of what they're doing to the economy, remember these words: We will survive. No -- we'll do better than survive, we will thrive. As long as these people are not in control. They are taking you to a place to be slaughtered!

—Glenn Beck, on FOX News, Nov. 3, 2009

Every night I get down on my knees and pray that Dennis Kucinich will burst into flames.

—Glenn Beck, in 2003

I think there is a handful of people who hate America. Unfortunately for them, a lot of them are losing their homes in a forest fire today.

—Glenn Beck, on why people who lost their homes in forest fires in California had it coming, The Glenn Beck Program, Oct. 22, 2007

This president I think has exposed himself over and over again as a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture....I'm not saying he doesn't like white people, I'm saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist.

—Glenn Beck, on President Obama, sparking an advertiser exodus from his FOX News show, July 28, 2009

You got to have an enemy to fight. And when you have an enemy to fight, then you can unite the entire world behind you, and you seize power. That was Hitler's plan. His enemy: the Jew. Al Gore's enemy, the U.N.'s enemy: global warming. Then you get the scientists — eugenics. You get the scientists — global warming. Then you have to discredit the scientists who say, 'That's not right.' And you must silence all dissenting voices. That's what Hitler did.

—Glenn Beck, linking Al Gore's campaign against global warming to Hitler's campaign against the Jews, The Glenn Beck Program, April 30, 2007

Barack Obama ... chose to use his name Barack for a reason -- to identify, not with America -- you don't take the name Barack to identify with America. You take the name Barack to identify with what? Your heritage? The heritage, maybe, of your father in Kenya, who is a radical? Is -- really? Searching for something to give him any kind of meaning, just as he was searching later in life for religion.

—Glenn Beck, The Glenn Beck Program, Feb. 4, 2010

Al Gore's not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization...And you must silence all dissenting voices. That's what Hitler did. That's what Al Gore, the U.N., and everybody on the global warming bandwagon [are doing].

—Glenn Beck on his radio show, May 1, 2007

I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. ... No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong?

—Glenn Beck, responding to the question 'What would people do for $50 million?', The Glenn Beck Program, May 17, 2005

Some may believe we're on the road to the Hitler youth.

—Glenn Beck, on teaching kids about climate change, Fox News's Glenn Beck show, Feb. 5, 2009

I am not saying that Barack Obama is a fascist. If I'm not mistaken, in the early days of Adolf Hitler, they were very happy to line up for help there as well. I mean, the companies were like, 'Hey, wait a minute. We can get, you know, we can get out of trouble here. They can help, et cetera, et cetera.'

—Glenn Beck, comparing government bailouts of auto companies to actions of German companies during the rise of Hitler, Fox News' Glenn Beck Show, April 1, 2009

This is fascism. This is what happens when you merge special interests, corporations, and the government. This is what happens. And if people like you don't take a stand...at some point, you know what poem keeps going through my mind is 'First they came for the Jews.' People, all of us are like, well, this news doesn't really affect me. Well, I'm not a bondholder. Well, I'm not in the banking industry. Well, I'm not a big CEO. Well, I'm not on Wall Street. Well, I'm not a car dealer. I'm not an autoworker. Gang, at some point they're going to come for you.

—Glenn Beck, on closures of auto dealerships under the bankruptcy deals of GM and Chrysler, The Glenn Beck Program, June 10, 2009

I have been nervous about this interview with you because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies. ... And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.

—Glenn Beck, interviewing Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim U.S. congressman, Glen Beck's show on CNN's Headline News, Nov. 14, 2006

I fear a Reichstag moment. God forbid, another 9/11. Something that will turn this machine on, and power will be seized and voices will be silenced.

—Glenn Beck, comparing actions by Washington elitists to the 1933 burning of Germany's parliament building in Berlin, which the Nazis blamed on communists and Hitler used as an excuse to suspend constitutional liberties and consolidate power, Newsmax interview, Sept. 29, 2009

So here you have Barack Obama going in and spending the money on embryonic stem cell research. ... Eugenics. In case you don't know what Eugenics led us to: the Final Solution. A master race! A perfect person. ... The stuff that we are facing is absolutely frightening.

—Glenn Beck on his radio show, March 9, 2009

God is giving a plan I think to me that is not really a plan. ... The problem is that I think the plan that the Lord would have us follow is hard for people to understand. ... Because of my track record with you who have been here for a long time. Because of my track record with you, I beg of you to help me get this message out, and I beg of you to pray for clarity on my part.

—Glenn Beck, The Glenn Beck Program, April 20, 2010

The plan that He would have me articulate, I think, to you, is get behind Me -- and I don't mean 'me,' I mean Him. Get behind Me. Stand behind Me.

—Glenn Beck, speaking on behalf of God on his radio program, April 20, 2010

Finally -- well, he wasn't the president. He was the chancellor, Hitler, decided that it was the only empathetic thing to do, is to put this child down and put him out of his suffering. It was the beginning of the T4, which led to genocide everywhere. It was the beginning of it. Empathy leads you to very bad decisions many times.

—Glenn Beck, on President Obama's statement that he would consider ''empathy'' in choosing a Supreme Court nominee, Fox News' Glenn Beck show, May 26, 2009

If you log onto this (Cars.gov) at your home, everything in your home is now theirs.

—Glenn Beck, arguing that the Cash for Clunkers program was nothing more than a secret government plot to gain access over your computer, July 2009

So, you decide. Fearmonger? Or Cultural Warrior?

If Women Become Priests, Do We Still Call Them "Fathers?"

A group of women in England want the Pope to allow women to become priests, and their saying so with large bus boards all throughout London.

The Church defends its men-only stand in two ways this time. (1) Jesus was a man and priests are "stand-ins" for Him and (2) Jesus had 12 disciples who were all men.

Admittedly, this is better than labeling the ordination of women as priests a sin on par with pedophilia. Thank Ra for small favors.

Still, why not just say "because God said so" and end the debate. Because as long as the explanation is based on interpretation, it's just discrimination.

Let's address the "Stand-in" argument first. OK, so, his stand-in HAS to be a man? Jesus was Jewish and (therefore) circumcised. Are all priests Jewish and circumcised? No? Then isn't this really just an arbitrary qualification. Are women less able to give a homily or understand scriptures? Are women less able to pray or sacrifice? I fail to see how having a vagina instead of a penis somehow makes someone less qualified to be a symbol and engage in liturgical rites. It just sounds like sexism to me.

And the disciple argument.... Well, Jesus chose his disciples 2000 years ago. Have gender roles changed at all in the past two millennia? Apparently not in the Catholic Church. Though outside the walls of the Vatican and the Seminaries, um, yeah, just a little. We get to own property, choose who we marry, vote and everything! Almost as good as being a man! Right?!

The priest addressing this issue also said that "[m]en and women are equal in Christianity," but apparently not enough to actually be equal in the eyes of the Catholic Church. It's separate but equal, right? Segregation. Because men and women are different. Separate but equal. Right.

As I have gotten older, I have observed people engaging in religion more as a cultural phenomenon than a true spiritual exercise. That's OK. It's a free country and all that. Let your faith flag fly. But IMHO, as long as churches perpetuate a culture of inequality, they are undermining the spiritual growth of their members.

Growing up Catholic and female must create quite a stigma. "You're valuable, honey, just not as valuable as your brother is. He is more like Jesus, having a penis and all." *rolling eyes*

I don't mean to pick on the Catholic church. Truly, it is hard to find a Christian denomination or any religion that does not institutionalize and actually teach gender inequality (though there are some). I think churches are like art, they reflect the society out of which they emerge. Churches are just perpetuating the biases and prejudices rampant in society. The problem is that because these proclamations come from behind stained glass, they are treated as divine and irrefutable. But 50 years later, we all look back and groan at our ignorance.

Let me boil this down: any church that tries to tell me that God made men and women intending women to be inferior and subservient is NEVER going to get my ass in the pew or my coin in the plate. NEVER. I have enough self esteem at this point in my life to tell that smiling preacher-man to take his "women are to be silent in church" and stick it where the Son don't shine. And mean it.

It's Not a "Culture War." It's Fearmongering.

Here's a very small sample of what Glenn Beck said at his rally on Saturday.

"America is at a crossroads. We must decide: Who are we and what do we believe?"

What crossroads, Glenn? Are you and your uptighty-righties drawing a line in the sandbox? To draw that line is to lob a grenade in the infamous "Culture War." Aren't you tired of that yet?

It's not about "us" and "them." We're all Americans, and we are in this together, whether we like it or not. So instead of fear and alienation, how about a little acceptance and understanding. Does everyone different from you have to be a threat, Glenn?

We don't have to choose a side, Glenn. We live in a free country populated by people of all religions, races, music genres, cable news networks, and ethnicities. That's sort of the point of being in a free society. No one has to conform to someone else's idea of what constitutes "American."

So, Glenn, when you declare a Culture War on "them" and "those people," you're declaring war on "their" freedom and "their" Americanness. How unAmerican of you, Glenn.

I am an American, and I believe we each have the right to be who we are without fear of reprisals, and believe what we choose without fear of recrimination. Is that scary?

In Nettleton, Mississippi Middle School, Segregation Lives

This is a preface addendum: Please read the comments. Apparently this policy rotates to permit the minority black students to have a chance at getting elected. The policy has been around for 40 years. Nevertheless, it is still segregation.

I saw this story on the news this morning and have been anxious to blog about it ever since.

In Nettleton, Mississippi, the class officers' positions at the middle school are segregated by race, but only for "black" and "white." (I guess there are no Asians, Hispanics, Jews, Persians, Indians, Native Americans, or Arabs in Nettleton's Middle School.)

One woman was so offended by this outdated, antiquated, offensive, immoral, racist policy, she packed up her four kids and moved to another town.

Are these people living in Brigadoon? Where have they been for the past 50 years?

As you can see from the policy, there is no opportunity for a black students to run for President. And the lower the grade, the lower the opportunity for black candidates.

Where is the ACLU? Why aren't they all over this BS?

Here is the school district's website. Their slogan is "Teaching Today What Matters Tomorrow." Apparently that includes segregation. Huh. I thought segregation was (thank God) yesterday. Apparently, in Nettleton, it's "tomorrow."

I will not type all the things this story makes me want to say. Suffice it to say I feel shocked, angry and offended. And to the school officials of Nettleton who propagate this oppressive, racist policy, I say "SHAME ON YOU!" (because some of you might be offended by what I really want to say).

BTW, if you are so moved, why not drop a line or two to the School District and let them know how you feel about racial segregation in 2010.

NETTLETON SCHOOL DISTRICT
179 Mullen Avenue
Nettleton, MS 38858
Phone: 662-963-2151
Fax: 662-963-7407

Get Above This Bad Idea

I found this blog discussing the difference between Supply Side Economics (SSE) versus Demand Side (or Modified Keynesian) Economics. It's a little over-simplified, but factually fairly accurate IMO.

Let me esplain. Wait, no time. Let me sum up.

SSE dictates that lowering the tax burden on the richest Americans is the solution to every economic condition. Recession? Lower taxes on the rich. Debt? Lower taxes on the rich. War? Lower taxes on the rich. Get it? SSE has only one tool in the box.


(Modified) Keynesian economics dictates the opposite, based on the theory that "economic activity is driven by demand for goods and services. Moreover, money in the hands of the middle and lower classes has greater inherent VELOCITY—meaning that a given dollar will be spent and then re-spent more often, if the middle class is passing it around with sequential purchases, than if it is stockpiled in a rich person’s portfolio."

The reason I am a left-leaning person politically, aside from social issues, is that I am more a Keynesian that a Supply-Sider. Here's why: the premise that rich people create jobs by investing when their taxes are lowered is simply false.

What do rich people, banks and corporations do in a recession? LAY PEOPLE OFF AND STOCKPILE MONEY. They don't hire people because demand is down and fewer goods and services are being bought.

How do we increase demand? Not by giving money to rich people - BECAUSE THEY ALREADY HAVE MONEY. But if you put money in the hands of the poor and middle class in a recession, do you know what they do? They spend it on things like cars, rent, food, clothes, child care, etc. Putting money in the hands of people who don't have money creates demand. And creating demand grows the economy.

How do you make money? Probably by working. But how do rich people make money? BY INVESTING. This is true whether taxed at 30% or 35% or 40% etc. See my point? Rich people create jobs by investing regardless of their tax bracket (up to a point of diminishing return, obviously). And the economy grows because of demand, not supply.

As an MK lefty, let me add that lowering taxes on the wealthiest people has a purpose in economic stability: to slow inflation. That's right. If we need to slow growth, reduce demand, we lower taxes on the rich.

So why do we keep electing people who advocate this SSE nonsense when we have seen it decimate our economy off and on for the past 30 years? It's not a rhetorical question? Does anyone know?

Haven't we learned yet that this "theory" is nothing of the sort? It is simply a nice way of packaging the idea of concentrating the nation's wealth in the top 10% of our population. And it absolutely strangles our economy.

So, as an American, I am asking you not to take my word for this. Don't even take the word of the blogger. Go read academic sites on economics and see what they say. SSE is a bill of goods that President George H.W. Bush called "VooDoo Economics." Let's come out of our trances, start voting in a way to actually make our country's economy work, and stop being doormats for neo-con corporate sycophants.

Be Proud, Denver!

Normally, this blog focuses on embarrassments. But this one is about something the residents of Denver, CO can be proud of.

Bruce Randolph School will be the first in Denver Public Schools to offer birth control to students.

Way back before cell phones (but after faxes), when I was in college, I wrote a research paper of the relative ineffectiveness of sex ed in high school in preventing teen pregnancy, except and unless birth control was taught and/or provided. And here we are, (let's just say) quite a few years later, and it is still a controversy.

I recall an episode of Designing Women discussing this (way back in the shoulder-pad days). We had a panel discussion at my college about having condom machines in the restrooms on campus, and that was controversial.

Why are Americans so hung up on this? Why do so many Americans think they can ignore the sexual maturation of their children and pretend they are not having sex? Instead of driving yourself into a full-on panic, why not prepare and equip them with the knowledge and protection they need to prevent pregnancy and the spread of disease?

No one is stopping anyone from teaching abstinence. Please do. But people, puh-leeease!

Yes, sex should be private, but why does it have to be a dirty secret, conducted in dark alleys and in the backs of second-hand minivans with a only a hope and a prayer that no one gets pregnant? I mean, as a form of birth control, prayer is not a very successful technique.

This school in Denver is taking a rational approach to a real problem. Too many teen pregnancies? Then let's give 'em some birth control. Don't you think that will be more effective than simply wagging a finger at them and hoping they don't taint your upholstery after Prom is over?

WWJP?

For four (4) years, the New Beginnings Church of God in Warsaw, Ohio would periodically send some of its number out to protest the neighboring strip club, called "The Foxhole."

The strippers got a little annoyed at this, and started protesting the church.

(This is already an interesting enough turn of events to warrant a blog entry. But wait, it gets better!)

A woman in San Diego, California named Sheri Brown (of The Rock Church) heard about what was going on in Ohio, and had a reaction that might surprise you. "My heart was just grieving for the girls, because I felt like they didn't know that Jesus loved them, and they needed to know that," said Brown.

A lot of church-goers I know would have wanted to go join the church's picket to show that the righteous would not be outdone by the naked. But not Sheri. Sheri and a friend traveled to Ohio to hug the strippers and tell them that Jesus loves them.

She then spoke to the congregation at New Beginnings, saying, "It's not our job to call the girls out of the club. I would like to see you love on the girls as Jesus would love on them. If you want to change that -- if you want to do things differently -- then stand with me." Reportedly the entire congregation stood to their feet.

After the service there was a sniveling hug-fest on the church lawn with the saved and the sexy hugging each other and wiping teary but smiling faces. Ain't love grand?


After Sheri went back to California, the pastor told the local paper he still felt "called" to shut down the club. Of course, that didn't keep him from getting a hug from one of the strippers and asking for her forgiveness.

Would the love have lasted longer if the Pastor led in that direction? We cannot know the answer to this question, but reading the article, it seems like maybe if the Pastor really had had a change of heart, and led in that direction, it might have made a difference. Instead, he acted sorry, then went right back to the protesting.

Now, it's not like I think strip clubs are just peachy-keen or even a healthy way for a woman (or man) to make a living. On the contrary, I personally find it distasteful. But what I find even more distasteful is the self-righteous judgment and facade of Christian love that barely lasted long enough for Sheri to get through security at the airport.

Apparently, they acknowledge that Jesus loves the dancers, but really, mostly, they wallow in their belief that He judges them, and that's what they have chosen to emulate in this earthly realm. So little grace, charity, forgiveness, sacrifice, kindness and love, but so much righteous indignation.

As an evangelical tool, is judgment and animosity doing it for you? "Come join our church and you, too, can act morally superior and feel spiritually fulfilled in the knowledge that you are better than them!"

I am not suggesting that the New Beginners condone something they finds immoral. I am suggesting that they stop obsessing over everyone's level of nudity and sexual activity and MIND THEIR OWN DAMN BUSINESS!

Because ultimately, if you are a Christian, isn't the most important question you have to ask yourself, "What Would Jesus Protest?"

BEWARE THE TERROR BABIES! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Here's a clue on how to listen to and filter political rhetoric. The difference between leadership and pandering is ......


wait for it ....


the former addresses a real issue and the latter peddles irrational fear.

East Texas Congressman Louie "Fearmonger" Gohmert (R) has said, officially, on the floor of Congress that terrorists are plotting to "make" terror babies by shipping pregnant women here to give birth to their babies, then returning home to train the new Islamic American citizens to be terrorists, then 20-30 years later, sending them back to attack the US.

Wow. Just. Wow.

Then he went on Anderson Cooper repeating the charge. When asked for evidence, he talked about Chinese tourists planning vacations to give birth here. But, no evidence of an actual terror baby plot (though he would not admit that). (In fact, Anderson had a former FBI agent on to discuss the possibility, and the agent said there is no indication this is happening.)

Aside from being completely unsupported by any facts or evidence, this idea is just STUPID. And if there is one thing we learned from 9/11, it's that these guys are not stupid (aside from being willing to blow themselves up).

Islamic terrorists need not plan so far in advance, nor make new babies to bring up to be terrorists. All they have to do is (1) figure out how to get existing terrorists into the country OR (2) recruit existing American citizens to act as terrorists. I hope the first option is more difficult than it used to be. Unfortunately, the second option has actually found some traction.

So, since we KNOW that we are being targeted by people trying to get into the country AND/OR recruiting Americans to take up the mantle of Jihad, why not get behind the efforts to stop these real threats, and STOP MAKING STUFF UP!

Why Is This a Controversy?

I am a child of the modern age, so I'm going to start off with a quote from one of my favorite movies. It's actually a rom-com, not a political drama, but clearly, the writer(s) have a soft spot for freedom of expression.

"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free"."

The America President, 1995.

Yes, Michael Dougals's character was a (fictitious) liberal democratic president, but are these words really partisan? Isn't the freedom he's describing at the very core of what it means to be American?

I want to know why it is controversial that a Muslim organization wants to build a community center in Manhattan 2 blocks from one corner of Ground Zero. It may upset people, but is it really debatable that they have the right to do so?

I don't think it matters that groups of religious leaders (of various faiths) in NYC support the center (which will include a Mosque/Prayer Room inside). Even if they all disagreed, it wouldn't change the fact that they have the right to build it.

And are we so narrow-minded that we think those 19 zealots represent the average Muslim? Wouldn't it be better to show the Muslim world that Osama bin Laden and those like him (who hate us) are wrong, that we are not their enemy?

We seem to have some folks who treat the entire religion like a cancer, and its followers like pariah. If we declare ourselves to be the enemy of Islam, haven't we made a terrorist into a prophet?

Hate comes out of fear. The first step to ending hate is to stop acting out of fear (and eventually our fear will recede). We pride ourselves on being free and open and democratic. Let's not let fear make us into petty, racist theocrats. Instead, let's be brave in the face of what we know to be a real threat, and let the Islamic world know that even though some of their number may hate us, (and some of our number may hate them), as a nation, we are their friend.

We will never end terrorism with guns and bombs, because fighting and destruction only proves that they are, in fact, our enemies. If we end terrorism, it will be with
courage and a hand of friendship. Are we committed enough to the end of terrorism to be this brave?

Is It "Conservative" to Want to Amend the Constitution Every Time There's Something you Don't Like?

Am I the only one who's noticed the rhetoric from the right that is at once decrying liberals for not honoring the constitution (as they see it) while simultaneously promising the make multiple amendments to that same constitution?

Just a few of the proposed amendments:

Declaring marriage to be only between a man and a woman (New Amendment)

Removing the part of the 14th Amendment that declares anyone born in the US to be a citizen

Banning flag burning

Requiring a balanced budget

Banning abortion (Though I haven't really heard much of that this year)

Repealing the 17th Amendment (popular election of senators)

Those are the ones I found in a 10 minute search online. There may be others.

I hope voters realize how very difficult it is to amend the constitution. Since the Bill of Rights was adopted (Amendments 1-10), it has only been amended 17 times. The last three: 27 - preventing congress from giving itself a raise (delaying pay raises until the next congress); 26 - setting the voting age at 18 years; and 25 - dealing with Presidential disability and succession (a reaction to President Kennedy's assassination).

I have several points to make here. First, if your candidate promises you a constitutional amendment on anything, he/she is lying. Amendments are impossible to get passed without an overwhelming consensus (as it should be). So, ignore that campaign pandering and focus on things that actually matter.

Second, amending the constitution is not a serious way to address the real problems our country faces.

Let's assume they prevailed on all these amendments.

(1) You lose your right to directly choose your senators.

(2) We would have legalized discrimination against same-sex couples and banned a form of political protest. (How will that make your life better?)

(3) The return of back-alley abortions and increased death among the women who get them.

(4) The balanced budget amendment would actually cause the government to shut down. Some of you are thinking, "Good!," but you'd be wrong. No matter how conservative you are, when the "fit hits the shan," we all turn to Uncle Sam for help. That is not going to change. Debt is a tool that, if used properly, helps a business, a family, or a government function properly and smoothly. To think otherwise is to be short-sighted IMO. (Think about the things you rely on the federal government for: postal service and protection form our enemies at the very least. Add the interstate highway system, regulatory agencies (that ensure some level of safety when you eat, drive, fly, ride a train, buy a car or other consumer product, etc.), and federal criminal laws that provide some rules for doing business and co-existing, and we already have a pretty full plate. Yet we take all of this for granted.)

(5)And we now have to decide how we determine who is a citizen and who is not. Will there be tests for everyone? Will the government get to decide who is and who is not a citizen?

Scared yet?

In truth, it is difficult for me to imagine myself changing so much to one day wake up and decide to join the GOP, but I can assure you, it will never happen until that party can find some serious people to advocate some serious ideas.

BTW - I'm not buying the "smaller government" and "balanced budget" rhetoric. In the last 30 years, the federal government and the debt have grown more under Republican administrations and leadership than under the Democrats. I'm too old and too smart to fall for that. I just wish more people noticed.

I'm not suggesting that it has always been this way. It has not. But Eisenhower and Nixon would likely be conserva-dems in this political climate. For sure Goldwater would be a as he would likely be vilified by the GOP for being pro-choice.

So, other than pandering to people's fears, and empty words about fiscal responsibility, what do you have to offer me, GOP?

*crickets*

I Will Write About Other Topics Again. I Swear!

I know it must seem like I have a one-track mind right now. And yes, if we were to speak on a daily basis, you would find yourself learning strange trivial facts about Adam Lambert. But this really is not about him. OK, it is, but only because of the role he is playing in our society's evolution right now.

Do you know who these yahoos are?

These are the protesters from Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas. They like to show up at military funerals and wave these signs and scream hateful things through megaphones. Unfortunately, they have cars, so they planned to come over to Springfield, Missouri today to protest the Adam Lambert Glam Nation concert. It's like hating two birds with one stone for these people, since he's both gay and Jewish.

But a funny thing happened on the was to the coliseum. The Westboro folks announced their intentions, and the Glam Nation responded. The pic above is one of the Adam-supporting anti-protesters. Here's another picture.



I think part of the reason his fans are so ardent is because he seems (from time to time) to be under attack, not for any specific thing he has done, but for who he is. But that's the crazy part, because really, he see,s like a nice guy with amazing talent who happens to be gay.

Adam rarely responds to protesters at all, throwing off the blaze' "everyone has a right to their opinion" quote provided by his PR people, but I guess he was inspired by the show of support and tweeted this: "Amazing Anti-Hate protest outside venue. Completely outnumbered the Westboro Bastard Church of Ignorance. Love overcomes hate. I LOVE FAGS!!" His fans are now trying to trend #ILoveFags on twitter.

I don't know if this is even interesting to any of you, but it occurred to me that Adam has (perhaps unwittingly) become a trailblazer, not for gay rights necessarily, but maybe for gay acceptance. After all, would you want to be "tolerated?" Or do you want to be loved?

Is the Moral Choice the Popular Choice? Or is Morality Objective?

I wonder if the fundamentalist Christians in the US appreciate the irony of the relativist moral position its members take on the issue of gay marriage.

Today, a federal judge in California struck down Prop 8, finding the people's referendum to ban same-sex marriage unconstitutional. The Court stated, "Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples." And that's exactly what all such bans do - discriminate. When did it become moral in the US to discriminate against people?

Senator DeMint was one of the first responders, calling the decision "another attempt to impose a secular immorality on the American people who keep voting to preserve traditional marriage." He went on: "Traditional marriage has been the foundation of civil society for centuries and we cannot simply toss it aside to fit the political whims of liberal activists with gavels," Demint said.

My first observation of this comment is that he is just making stuff up. Nothing in the decision limits or re-defines opposite sex marriages. People can be as religious and as committed and as serious about opposite sex marriage as they always have been. The only difference is that now same sex couples can too. Why is that a bad thing?

Second, Senator DeMint seems to be taking the view that since most Americans think same-sex marriage is immoral, then it is immoral, and should be banned. By this logic, something is moral if it is popular, and immoral if it is unpopular.

But really, this is not about the morality of same sex marriage, IMO, it's about the morality - or immorality - of discrimination. When is it moral to discriminate against any group of Americans? According to Senator DeMint, it's OK to discriminate against gay people.

I have another humble opinion: any group, including churches, that opposes legalizing gay marriage is advocating discrimination. Depriving people of legal rights and privileges because they are different from you is just bigotry, I don't care how many Bible versus you quote to support it.

Congrats to the people of California. Whether you agree with the decision or not, today you are more moral than you were yesterday!

Usually, I Am A Little Afraid of People Who Scream for States' Rights

There is no getting around the existence of the 10th Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

There can be no question that since this was first written and adopted as the last part of the Bill of Rights, our country, and our state and federal governments, have changed a lot. The additional amendments to the US Constitution have certainly help to expand the authority of the federal government, but mostly, this expansion has been about taking steps to protect individuals, especially minorities. So, when I hear people scream for "states' rights," what I hear is a rally for more discrimination, oppression, and theocracy. Sorry, states-righters, but that is what history has taught me.

Whenever the states and the feds are on opposite sides, it usually means some state has made some redneck decision to deny rights to a minority or impose some religious theology on people. Segregation in all its forms, the "papers please" law in Arizona, and requiring creationism to be taught in science classes (Kansas) in public schools are just a few boneheaded examples of states run amok. In some of these examples, the federal government has intervened (or is intervening now) to keep the craziness in check.

But here's an exception: the Commonwealth of Massachusetts recently challenged the Federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA")(Passed under Bush and a GOP congress) (which defines marriage as only being between a man and a woman) as violating the Tenth Amendment. Since the authority to issue marriage licenses and define marriage is not granted to the federal government, the federal court in Massachusetts ruled the law unconstitutional, violating the 10th Amendment.

DOMA was passed as a culmination to the anti-gay-marriage wave that got Bush elected in 2004, in order to avoid paying spousal benefits and entitlements to gay married couples. The Court's ruling means that if a state issues a marriage certificate to any couple, whether opposite sex or same sex, the federal government has to treat the couple as married for purposes of all federal benefits and entitlements, since states and only states have the power to define marriage. Judge Joseph Tauro wrote in his decision, "Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification the Constitution clearly will not permit."

It is ironic that a lot of states righters are also opposed to gay marriage, yet the 10th Amendment, their amendment, was used to expand federal rights to gay married couples. Isn't it ironic? Don'tcha think?