From the Left

Well, Hurricane Katrina has left her mark. Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama has seen utter devastation along their coasts, and civilization has essentially broken down.  The only way devastation could be more complete would be if we got into a massive nuclear war, with multiple cities being hit.

Katrina has also impacted other states seriously. Here in North Carolina this morning, I went to buy gas. Some stations had run out totally, and those that did have gas were charging from $3.29 to $3.49 a gallon for regular, with the price expected to go even higher. That's a dollar more than just last week, and over two dollars more than a year ago. Now, I fully realize that this is nowhere near the problem the people of, say, New Orleans are having, but it's still going to have a big impact. A lot of people around here drive 20, 30, or even 50 miles one way to get to work. And what about a  commuting college student? There's exceptions, but we all know that most college students have little or no money. Will he have to drop out or miss so many classes he fails, just because he can't afford the gas?

I spoke with one woman this morning whose husband is a long haul, independent trucker.  She said his cost to operate has gone up over $500 in just the past week. I quote her directly "That's just money burned, and going up the smokestack!"

So let me make sure I've got this straight. Gas is $3.49 a gallon (if you can get it at all), we're fighting a war in Irag that we SHOULDN'T be fighting, we're neglecting the war in Afghanistan that we SHOULD be fighting, and we have the highest deficit in our nation's history immediately after having the highest surplus.  But thank God that two Gays can't get married! Isn't our President great?

I'm just so glad that George Bush has his priorities in order.

I've figured out what to do,though, since I probably won't be able to drive anymore. I've decided to buy me a good old dependable jackass (we still call them that here in NC) and ride it around. When it needs refilling, I can just let it graze in somebody's yard. It might make the yard look better too, if you get my drift! And on it's backside, in great big letters, I'm going to paint "George Bush!"

The only reason I haven't done it already is that I thought it might be too cruel and insulting to the jackass. I wouldn't want to hurt it's feelings. Besides, the FBI would probably arrest me under the Patriot Act, since exercising my First Amendment rights is apparantly against the law now.

I do know one thing, though. If there was a Democrat in the White House under the same conditions we have now, he would have already been impeached.

Funny how we totally forget the "I" word when it's a Republican.  

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

It's funny how different things in our history often occur on the same date. Take yesterday, May 25, for example.

May 25, 1787--The Constitutional Convention meets in Philadelphia. The original idea was to revise the Articles of Confederation, but it quickly becomes apparent that it is totally unworkable, and a document is needed with "more teeth." The delegates decide to meet in total secrecy and not talk to family, friends, their constituients, or the press, because they want to have open debate, and the ability to change their minds freely and without ramifications. The result is our Constitution, which happens to be the oldest continuosly used one on the planet. Minor changes, revisions, and new interpretations will occur with changes in time and sensibilities, but it is basically the same document written in 1787.

May 25, 1925--John T. Scopes is indicted for teaching evolution at the high school in Dayton, Tennessee. Legislatures in several southern and mid-western states had recently passed laws making the teaching of anything but the Genesis version of the Creation a felony, in order mainly to please the Fundamentalist voters (does this sound familiar?), but Tennessee would be the only state to actually charge and prosecute somebody. The resulting trial became one of the most famous in history, and would be known as the Scopes Monkey Trial. At issue would be freedom of religion, freedom of speech, academic freedom, and the right for people to--dare I say it?--THINK! Scopes would be eventually found guilty (technically, he DID violate the law), but for his horrible, terrible crime, would only be fined $100. He does not even pay this, however. The verdict was appealed, and the appellate court quickly threw the verdict out on a technicallity.

Now, a few things about this trial and it's aftermath. First of all, it was something of a set-up. Many academic circles wanted a test case against these Creation Laws (feeling them uncostitutional, which they were), and at the urging of some town fathers in Dayton (who thought a trial would bring a lot of money into their little town) Scopes more or less agreed to be charged. Things quickly got out of hand, however, and Dayton and the trial became a circus. Also, Tennessee quickly became a laughing stock in the press, both here and abroad. The other states, seeing this, would never enforce their Creation Laws. The politicians quickly retreated from their previous stance, and wanted the whole thing to go away. Although in many states the Creation Laws stayed on the books until the 60's, there would never again be an attempt to enforce these laws, and Scopes would never be retried. He would go down in history as the only person ever tried, in this country or any other, for teaching evolution.

That's nice. Ancient history, you're thinking. But it's still going on today.

Since the annointing of King George by the Supreme Court, the Religious Right (or, as I like to call them the Religious Reich) feels that they finally can do what they want. They obviously want to force everybody to follow their Fundamentalists beliefs, and in the past couple of months we've seen it plainly exhibited. Now, I don't believe that King George ordered the Religious Reich to take these actions, but you can bet he's definately giving them a wink and a nod. At the very least, he's not trying to curtail them from shredding our constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties.

Currently, there are attempts going on in 16 different states to curtail, disparage, or even ban the teaching of evolution. And, in many of these states, to include the teaching of Creation Science, which isn't science at all, but Fundamentalism religion. The Religious Reich, in full goose-step, banners flying, except they claim the cross instead of the swastika.  And yep, you guessed it, all 16 are "Red" states! And this is just the first step. Next students will be taught that geology is a false science, that physics is blasphemy, and the only book they'll be able to read in English class will be the King James version of the Bible. "The Constitution be damned. WE know what's right!" 

My good, caring, thinking people--DON'T LET THEM DO IT!!!!!!

Apparently, the folks in 1925 and 2005 have forgotten what the folks in 1787 did. We've obviously learned nothing in 80 years.

I heard a strange sound the other night. It was sort of like a powerful whirlwind, a long way off.  I honestly believe it was James Madison and his buddies, spinning in their graves!

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

What makes our country different from others? Pretty simple, actually. We've had the same Constitution since 1787. How is this possible, especially when other countries are continuously changeing governments and constitutions? That too  is simple. James Madison.

Now for those who don't  remember, Mr. Madison wrote most of the Constitution. Granted, he had a lot of input from other founding fathers, and being well educated, and a lawyer, was not above "borrowing" (ok, stealing) ideas from political philosophers, from John Locke and Edmund Burke all the way back to ancient Greece and Rome. For you trivia buffs, he was also our most intelligent president, and at 5'4", also our shortest. But a giant lived in that small body!

Madison was also--dare I say it?--A LIBERAL! How do I know? From his writings, and his actions. 

A perfect example is the Bill of Rights. Believe it or not, Madison was originally against it. He didn't believe it was necessary! Why? It was his belief that the Constitution should not be interpreted literally, and all of those rights were implied already. However, there was rumbling in the states before ratification, and after consultation with George Wythe and others, he decided to relent and add the Bill of Rights. After all, he was also an astute politician. The states and the people wanted their rights specifically spelled out, so he gave in.

A great example of his political thinking is in The Federalists Papers. If you haven't read it in a while, go pick up a copy of it.  It makes for some very interesting and thought-provoking reading, especially given today's political climate. And I think it quite curious that there is a right-wing conservative group today called the Federalist Society whose main aim is to get conservative judges on the bench, with a strict, literal view of the Constitution. The Federalist Society certainly has nothing to do with The Federalists Papers! I wonder if old James could bring a lawsuit for stealing the name.

The 10 Amendments of the Bill of Rights are not meant to be in order of importance, but for some reason I've always suspected there was a reason the 1st Amendment was first. This gives us freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly. And of these, freedom of speech is the most important, because that's where everything comes from.

Now, "freedom of speech" does not mean getting up on a soapbox and making a speech (that's rhetoric). Although it certainly includes that. Speech is basically thought and communicating that thought. What religion you have says something about you, ergo--freedom of speech. I wear jeans and a golf shirt instead of a suit? Freedom of speech. I vote for a certain candidate? Freedom of speech. I get a mutt instead of a purebred AKC dog? Freedom of speech. The right to bear arms? If I point a 12-gauge shotgun at you, it says a lot, loud and quick! All of these,  and much more, are expressions of thought, and therefore variations on freedom of speech.

With freedom of speech, gauranteed in the Constitution, you have everything. Without it, you have nothing. Yet, for some reason, conservatives seem to despise this basic right more than any other. And in fact are consequently trying to deny people this basic right, from the Patriot Act to Chan Chandler kicking members out of his church.

And a conservative's view? Most will tell you the right to bear arms is the most important, and the rest are just plain stupid! And when they're telling you this, they're excercising their--FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

With apologies to Jesus Christ, "Father forgive them, for they're so lame-brained they don't know what they're talking about!"    

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

Well, the Constitution of the United States has been saved. The Pasture Chad Chandler (read the post below to see why I spell it that way) has resigned.

I don't know this for a fact, but I have a strong suspicion his lawyer may have given him a jolt and shown him the seriousness of his actions. I still don't think he believes he did anything wrong, though. His reason for leaving? "To end the pain" he and his family have been through! No apology to the wronged parishioners whatsoever, he's the poor victum.

Evidently about 40 parishioners left the meeting when the Pasture left this meeting where he made this announcement. No word yet on if they've actually left the membership of the church. Something these 40 don't seem to realize, though, is that even if they agree that the Pasture can force church members to vote the way they want, someday somebody might force them to vote in a way they DON'T want!

Now let me give an open note to the Fundamentalists. You are more than welcome to worship and believe the way you want. It's guaranteed in the Constitution. But PLEASE do NOT think that you have the right to force others to believe the same as you. That is also guaranteed in the Constitution. You do not have the right to invade and take over our schools. You can not invade our judiciary. You can not force me to believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old, that dinosaurs never existed, that the "Big Bang" never happened, and that we've never walked on the moon. AND YOU DEFINATELY CAN NOT FORCE ME TO VOTE FOR A CERTAIN CANDIDATE!

And incidentally, for you grammer freaks, I purposely used can instead of may. Can means ability to do something, may means permission to do something. Under our Constitution, you do not even have the ability to force a religion on somebody, let alone have permission.

There was a picture floating around of the Pasture Chandler, and it was pretty scary. He had this unusual, vacant look in his eyes. I've seen it before. It's the same look I remember in the eyes of Jim Jones and David Koresh.

Should we be keeping an eye on this fella??!! 

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

It is now official. If you're a Democrat, or a Republican who voted for John Kerry, you can not be a Baptist.

So says Chan Chandler, pastor, seer, prophet, and one who has all absolute knowledge (yes, I'm being sarcastic) of the East Waynesville Baptist Church here in North Carolina. Sometimes I wonder if the state I live in isn't really a large insane asylum, and I wondered in by accident.

Before the election, he preached that if anybody didn't vote for George Bush, they should repent or resign. After the election, his sermons became increasingly political, and he also said that Kerry voters were voting for gays and abortion, The last straw was Monday night.  At a supposed Deacons' meeting, eight members were excommunicated for voting for Kerry, and one later left in protest. The word is that other members have since left, in support of  the members who were thrown out.

Incidentally, these members were not late-comers, either. At least one was a Deacon, and another was the church treasurer. Most had been attending the church over 25 years.

Now the Rev. Chandler is backpeddling, saying that the members were not thrown out after all! So let me get this straight:  it's a sin to vote for Kerry, but it's not a sin for a Baptist preacher to lie. Now I get it.

The Rev. Chandler (I almost hate to connect his name with that title) is entitled to his opinion, and even voice them from the pulpit. But he is NOT entitled to throw out members who disagree with him politically, and force them to vote a certain way.  It is both illegal AND immoral! I'm not sure how well educated he is, but I know of at least two important literary works he obviously hasn't read:  the U.S Constitution, and the Bible.

Legally, there's several different avenues to pursue here. Since he's trying to create a Republican church, then their tax exempt status should be revoked. Also remember the Establishment Clause, the government can not ordain an official religion, but--a religion can't ordain a government, either! Chandler is also guilty of violating his parishioners freedom of speech and voting rights, not to mention their religious rights. It wouldn't bother ME so much, but I'm sure that these parishioners take excommunication very seriously, an extreme punishment, worse than a scarlet letter or even jail time. He's guilty of violating the "Waynesville Eight"'s civil rights, and THAT, my friend, is a 10 year sentence in the Federal pen!

He says voting for Kerry means you're voting for gays and abortion. I guess he forgot to tell his parishioners that voting for Bush meant voting for getting our young men and women killed in a war we don't need to be in, doing away with Social Security, destroying our environment, and only helping you if you own an oil company or work on Wall Street.

Pastor Chandler? He should be called PASTURE Chandler. Because that's where you usually find b*llsh*t!  

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

Well, Eric Rudolph has copped a plea. In exchange for 4 consecutive life sentences (instead of getting the needle), he has pled guilty to bombings at the Olympic Park Village in Atlanta, a lesbian nightclub, and (I believe) 2 abortion clinics. As a result of his actions, two people were killed, one died later of a heart attack, and a nurse is now blind and crippled, no longer able to practice her nursing craft.

It's always amazing to me how these far-right extremists are so willing to maim and kill other people (even kids), but when it comes to their own deaths for the "cause", they start singing a different tune--namely that of the chicken, cackling and laying eggs!

Now, for those of you who don't remember, Rudolph is an ardent follower of the Christian Identity movement. It's basically an anti-black, anti-gay, anti-Jewish, anti-government...ok, anti-EVERYTHING except white Anglo-Saxon Protestant "religion."  In other words, a typical White Supremacist organization, although they're not actually an organization, more like a loose association of "churches." They like to throw around terms like "mud people," and they believe that whites are actually the lost tribes of Israel (and therefore the "chosen people"), and that other races and religions are "genetically inferior." And yes, it's actually a religion! (Well, THEY claim they are. I would say they're a hate group/terrorist organization in Christians' clothing). And you thought the Taliban was bad.

There's not an official link with the Ku Klux Klan or the Aryan Nations, but there is a loose association. They sort of run around in the same circles, birds of a feather  flocking and all that. In fact, the ADL and the Southern Poverty Law Center has described them as one of the most dangerous organizations in the country. 

Now let's get down to it. If we're fighting a war on terror, shouldn't we be trying to destroy the terrorist groups in our own country? Can't we use the Patriot Act (which, as you know, I despise) to investigate and charge these same groups?  Instead of war protestors and librarians? I don't know about you, but I feel a lot more threatened by the KKK and the Aryan Nations than I am by some guy holding up a sign that says "Bush Stinks!," or whatever. If you ask me who the FBI should be investigating, it's a no-brainer.

If nothing else, I think the bona fide Christian groups should bring civil action against the Christian Identity groups to get them to quit using the name. And make them go bankrupt in the process. After all, it's a defamation and slander on the name "Christian."

Christ's main teachings were peace and love. Not setting off bombs to kill people.  

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

Well, King George I is at it again. Now we're no longer going to have as much money put in to Social Security, and instead we're supposed to invest it on the stockmarket.

I'll admit that even though I'm a smart person, I know absolutely nothing about finances or investing.  I don't have an MBA from Harvard business, and I have no idea how to pick out stocks to invest in.  I look at a stock page in the paper, and it looks to me like ancient Norwegian runes or something. I'm not a stockbroker, and I don't play one on television. And, I'm guessing a majority of people are just like me.

The few times I did do some light investing, it was in supposedly safe vehicles, Mutual Funds and 401K's. And guess what. I LOST money! It would have been better if I had put it in a regular savings account, or even stuck it in my mattress. I have heard of people getting rich on Wall Street. I've also heard of people who have seen Sasquatch and UFO's, but I've personally never met one.

The point being, with Social Security, at least you knew what you were getting. It's safe. What the Repubs aren't telling us is that investing is a BIG risk. They're acting like you'll just automatically make more money. Maybe you will, but then again maybe you'll lose everything. If they wanted to insure retirement investing (a la FDIC insurance for checking accounts) then I'd feel a little better, but so far I haven't heard anything along these lines.

One other thing. On NPR the other day, I heard someone from a Conservative think tank who said they've always been opposed philosophically to Social Security. Why? He said they believe that people should have a "choice" when it came to investing and spending their own money. I think that's quite ironic, when they don't want us to have a choice on our own moral issues, reproduction,  or religion.

Really, I think what we should do is take the money and instead of investing, go to Vegas, or better yet have a No-Limit Texas Hold-Em game. At least I know how to play poker.

And--it wouldn't be any riskier.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

Sorry I haven't written in awhile. Been tied up with all the holiday stuff, and probably won't write again until after the New Year. So I'll do a brief one, with more in the near future.

Ever since the election, I've been trying to boil down the basic difference between Liberals and Conservatives. A basic tenant I can put into one or two sentences, and cut through all the malarky and smoke screens. And I think I've finally cut to the chase, but let me give a brief preface.

It may surprise most conservatives to learn that on many specific issues, liberals feel the same way. In my own case, and I speak only for myself, I'm against abortion, gun control, and I'm pro death penalty. The difference, though, is what we do about it.

Ok, here's the basic difference: Liberals believe that people should have a choice, Conservatives believe that things should only be one way. Therefore, if you have a choice, you don't have to force your views on anybody, whereas Conservatives have absolutely no problem doing this. Everything is one way, black or white, right or wrong.

I mentioned earlier that I was against abortion. True enough, yet I'm also pro-choice. How can that be? Simple. I'm not a woman, so I can't even imagine what it is like to be pregnant, let alone have an unwanted pregnancy. And I certainly can't imagine what it is like to be pregnant from rape or incest (or both). Or to be told if I continue with the pregnancy I'll die, or that the baby will be born with horrible birth defects, and will die a horrible death in a few days anyway. Therefore, it should not be my views imposed. I can't tell a woman what to do with her own body. Am I the only one who finds it odd that most of the anti-choice organizations are led by men? And incidentally, don't call us "pro-abortion." I have yet to hear anybody say that every woman who gets pregnant should abort!

If you really want to do away with the abortion problem, then we should develop simple, safe, effective, and AVAILABLE birth control. And yes, affordable.

Gun control? I'm against it as a concept, but I don't see a problem with certain restrictions. You have to be 18 to vote, so what is the problem with having minimal restrictions to own a gun? I wouldn't mind it if you had to get a gun license, like a driving license. Pass a vision test, a written gun safety test, and then have a shooting test, to make sure the person knows what they're doing. When I'm out fishing, I certainly don't want a blind as a bat hunter who can't shoot aiming at a deer and killing me with a stray bullet! And for those of you who say it's the government trying to take away your gun, we could do it at the state (or even local) level, and also bring in a little extra tax money for our schools and roads.

And we don't need assault weapons. If it takes 300 rounds to bring down a deer, or even a home intruder, I don't think you ought to have a gun, anyway!

I could write an entire book about specifics, but you get the idea. The difference isn't so much in what we feel, but what we do about it. I just hope that we always have choices. I'd hate to live in a world where everybody felt exactly the same, and did exactly the same. BORING!

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

I'm not actually going to write an article now, but for those of you who read "Attack of the Killer Fundies" below, check out the Nov. issue of "National Geographic." There's an excellent article on evolution, showing the "factuality" (is that a word?) of it. There's also a great explanation of what scientists mean by the word theory, much better than the definition I gave.

One little bit of trivia I'll pass on from the article. The great apes and humans are so closely related, an orangutang's hand fits almost perfectly in a first baseman's mitt! Makes you wonder who (or what) we might see playing in the Majors next year!

Now, if the Braves would only......

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

I heard something today on NPR that has made me absolutely furious.

I'm sure that all of you have these quaint little stories about funny laws in your area that have never been taken off of the books. They're not enforced anymore, but the government has just been lazy all these years, and never bothered to rescind them. In my hometown (Kingsport, TN) it's a law that if you're driving a car downtown, you have to have somebody running in front of you waving a lantern and yelling "Car," so as not to scare the horses! Nowdays, I don't see many horses on Broad Street when I go to visit, and if somebody runs in front of a car there, with the way they drive, they'd probably get run over! Now the law is totally useless, but it's still on the books.

That example brings about a good chuckle, but in some places old laws aren't so funny. Alabama, for instance.

Recently, an attempt was made for an amendment to the state Constitution to remove racist language. Remember, we're talking the land of George Wallace here. Up until fairly recently (by that I mean within my lifetime) such language was the norm in the deep South, even in laws and state documents. You find laws against such things as "miscegenation." Now, for those of you too young to remember, miscegenation is simply interracial marriage.  It was a buzz word for blacks and whites marrying, although I suppose it could also mean that I (a white male) couldn't marry, say, a nice Korean lady, or even a Native American!

Evidently, some of this language still exists in Alabama's Constitution (I'll admit I haven't read it) and this was an attempt to right this wrong. But--the amendment was voted down! And the main group who led the push for the "No" vote was a group called the Christian Coalition, on the grounds it would increase taxes! I'm not sure if this is Pat Robertson's old outfit or a different one, but I guess this just shows that if you're a white Fundamentalist Christian, racist language is ok. I can remember the civil rights struggle of the 60's, and a lot of these churches didn't exactly have a good track record. I can even remember one Baptist preacher on national television who said segregation was taught in the Bible! (Makes me proud that I'm a Unitarian!)

The fact that these laws are no longer enforced is totally irrelevent. A state Constitution tells it's citizenry (and also other states) what it thinks of them. If the language is degrading, inflammatory, orinsulting to a certain race or races, it should be removed or changed. And if somebody can explain to me how taking an eraser to this document would create an undue tax burden, I'm all ears!

C'mon, Alabama, get with it!

I'm looking at my calendar very closely. Yep, it says 2004. NOT 1954! 

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this