Catching Up...

My my, things have been busy during my time away. Let's see:

John Edwards backed out from a debate in Nevada sponsored by Fox News for that very reason, rightly accusing it of being biased. I'm glad to see Edwards taking this sort of stand.

The best part is the resulting fit Fox has thrown when it continues to assert that it is "fair and balanced." I don't see how they can say that slogan with a straight face. That's my real problem with Fox News. It's not that they're biased--it's inevitable that an organization will have some sort of bias--it's that they lie through their teeth to claim that they are not political whatsoever while at the same time praising conservatives for everything they do while deriding liberals at every turn. I would have no beef with Fox News if they were just honest about their slant. Sure, I'd disagree with them, but I would respect them for being honest. In fact, I think it would be best if all media organizations were up front with their biases. American media should follow the European model and be up front with their biases.

Read more at Daily Kos

Next, we have the Alberto Gonzales scandal. This is probably just the first bit of fruit we're seeing from the Democrat-controlled Congress. The details of the scandal don't surprise me at all but, in case you haven't heard about it, in early 2006 Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to fired several US Attorneys even though they had positive job evaluations in order to replace them with more Republican-friendly attorneys. Since this is extremely unethical, Gonzales will probably step down in a matter of days, but what's more interesting is how far this seems to go. The latest inquiries have turned to Karl Rove and his certain involvement in the scandal. We'll see how far this goes, but I really hope the law can finally nail Rove for his shady (and probably illegal) activites.

Read more at Daily Kos, Time, and The New York Times

Finally, the Secular Coalition of America announced that Representative Pete Stark of California acknowledged that he is the highest-ranking atheist in the US government. First off, I want to applaud him for his courage. In today's political climate, this was a bold move. Secondly, I'm surprised it was someone so high in the government. I was expecting a rather minor political appointee. Needless to say, I'm pleased. I just hope it doesn't cost him his position in the next election. I fear that it will.

You can see the press release at the Secular Coalition of America's website.

Well, that's the major events of the previous week and my thoughts on them. More to follow as I get caught up.

Here's a Good Sign: Religious Right Can't Find a Republican Presidential Candidate to Support

On Saturday, the New York Times had an interesting article on the Religious Right's current political woes. After a meeting of the Council for National Policy, a group comprised of several leading Fundamentalist Christian leaders, they all agreed on one thing: they don't have a winning Republican to support.

Obviously, they can't turn to Democrats since the RR has painted them as evil baby killers. That might look too hypocritical (never say never, right?). However, the leading Republican candidates aren't much better from a Fundamentalist Christian's point of view. McCain, despite his recent pandering, was pro-choice in 2000, so that leaves him out. Guliani is currently pro-choice and pro-gay rights, so he's definitely out. Romney is a Mormon, a religion that most fundamentalists view as a cult, so they can't support him either. Of course, Brownback, Huckabee, and Sanford all say the right things to soothe the RR's ears. Too bad they're losers and are lagging far behind the others in the polls, and no one wants to bet on a losing horse.

More than anything, the RR might have to admit that most of the country really doesn't give a damn about their "family values" agenda. There's much more important problems with this country: war, massive deficits, individual liberty abuses, incompetent government, etc. The last thing people should be worrying about right now is "sinful" activites between consenting adults that harms nobody. This nation has real problems, and blaming it on abortions and homosexuals is not a solution.

Sorry Fundamentalist Christians, but you've had your opportunity and you couldn't do anything but mess it up for everyone. It's time to put rational people back in complete control.

How Dare You Suggest We Defend Our Views!

Representatives John Shadegg (R-AZ) and Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) just released a "dear colleague" letter with the following astounding statements:

We are writing to urge you not to debate the Democratic Iraq resolution on their terms, but rather on ours.

Democrats want to force us to focus on defending the surge, making the case that it will work and explaining why the President's new Iraq policy is different from prior efforts and therefore justified.

We urge you to instead broaden the debate to the threat posed to Americans, the world, and all "unbelievers" by radical Islamists. We would further urge you to join us in educating the American people about the views of radical Islamists and the consequences of not defeating radical Islam in Iraq.

The debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily. If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose.

I can't believe the sheer ignorance this letter displays. These men actually think that they have no need to show why the surge will work--a an action that will cost millions of dollars and more lives lost--because America will lose if we dare question it's chance of success? America is not a dictatorship where a small group of men get to make decisions while the rest of the people are ignored. We are a democratic republic where open debate is necessary to reach a satisfactory compromise. Since the American people are the ones shouldering the burden of this war both in terms of cost and lives, we should damn well have a good reason to keep doing it.

Plus, using fear just a convenient way of trying to divert attention from the actual issue at hand. Speculations of what may or may not come to pass without good evidence is nothing mroe than scaremongering and does not belong in a rational government. It's thinking like this that shows just how poor the current state of American politics has become.

Daily Kos has more.

Let's Make an Example of Bill Donohue

If you haven't heard of Bill Donohue, he is the head of the Catholic League who demanded that Senator Edwards fire two of his staffers, Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, for posting anti-Catholic statements on their personal blogs. The only problem is that these statements were not anti-Catholic in the intolerance sense. They were simply critical of the Catholic Church's stance against women's rights. Donohue is also a habitual anti-Semite and is the last person who should even consider pointing the intolerance finger.

Sadly, Amanda Marcotte resigned on her own (she was not fired as Donohue demanded) to protect Edwards' campaign (read about it on her blog here).

Now, where this gets interesting is the fact that the Catholic League is a non-profit organization and, by law, cannot influence politics, and Donohue using the Catholic League to demand that a political candidate fired some of his employees is definitely influencing politics. This is a perfect opportunity to make an example of the political preachers who tell their congregations how to vote while enjoying the benefits of tax-exempt status. It's time we show them that they are breaking the law through their actions and we will no longer stand for it. Daily Kos has more. I'll try to get more information as I find it.

As an aside, Amanda Marcotte has recieved some downright disturbing emails from supposed Christians, and several of them deal with sexual violence. You can see Marcotte's post on the subject here. It just goes to show how low of an opinion many Christians have of women. It's disgusting and immoral and we decent people should not tolerate it.

I'm Really Starting to Like John Edwards

The lastest issue of Newsweek has an interesting article on Democratic Presidential hopeful John Edwards. Here's some more enlightening quotes:

In the fall of 2005, John Edwards sat down with a pad and pen and scrawled out three simple words: "I was wrong." It was nearly three years after he'd joined a Senate majority in voting to authorize war in Iraq. After an unsuccessful run as John Kerry's vice presidential candidate in the 2004 election, Edwards had returned home to North Carolina and watched as the war descended into chaos. Increasingly filled with regret, he concluded that the three-word confession would be the right way to start a Washington Post op-ed admitting his vote was a mistake. But when a draft came back from his aides in Washington, Edwards's admission was gone. Determined, the senator reinserted the sentence. Again a draft came back from Washington; again the sentence had been taken out. "We went back and forth, back and forth," Edwards tells NEWSWEEK. "They didn't want me to say it. They were saying I should stress that I'd been misled." The opening sentence remained. "That was the single most important thing for me to say," Edwards recalls. "I had to show how I really feel."

On Feb. 4, in an appearance on "Meet the Press," he broke the cardinal rule of presidential politics and admitted that his proposal for universal health care would require raising taxes. Then, last week, he refused to fire two campaign employees who'd criticized Roman Catholics and religious conservatives on their personal blogs, despite pressure from conservative leaders.

If John Edwards is actually this committed to honesty, then this is exactly what we need in a President to fix the problems of the current one. Here we have a man who seems unafraid of speaking the truth and will stand by his principles. Furthermore, it's nice to see a candidate who refuses to pander to the Religious Right. Only time will tell if he maintains this promising stance, but so far, Edwards has my vote.

Addendum: DavidGX also has a post expressing similar sentiment.

Vladimir Putin Makes a Good Point

Russian President Vladimir Putin might be a freedom-hater who longs for the return of the Soviet Union, but he made an excellent point in a speech earlier today. From CNN:

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Saturday blamed U.S. policy for inciting other countries to seek nuclear weapons to defend themselves from an "almost uncontained use of military force."

"Unilateral, illegitimate actions have not solved a single problem, they have become a hotbed of further conflicts," Putin said at the Munich Conference on Security Policy, an annual forum attracting senior officials from around the world.

The Bush administration said it was "surprised and disappointed" by Putin's remarks.

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, who was also attending the conference, described Putin's remarks as "the most aggressive speech from a Russian leader since the end of the Cold War."

I'm sorry Senator McCain, but the truth hurts. Even though he's critical of US policy, Putin's comments are entirely valid, especially in relation to Iran.

Let's use an analogy to better understand Iran's situation. Say you're chilling in your house when the rich guy in the mansion down the street who you've never gotten along with starts calling you a member of the "Club of Evil" because you don't adhere to their neighborhood covenant. That alone might not be a big deal, but you consider buying a couple of guns you've always had you eyes on to protect yourself whenever your financial situation allows it. However, the rich guy down the street then sends in his personal security detail to take over your next door neighbor (who was also labeled a member of the "Club of Evil") and forces him to adhere to the neighborhood covenant regardless of the fact that most of the neighborhood is against the action in the first place. Would that not make the purchase of a few guns your primary priority? Would you not put all other needs aside when your way of life is threatened? Sure, the rich man will warn you not to buy the guns, but he already announced a public hit list with you on it. Why should you listen to him when you can buy a proven deterrent?

In much the same way, Iran knows it is in the Bush administation's crosshairs. They were included in the "Axis of Evil" in 2002. They watched the US ignore world opinion and invade another nation in this "Axis". Sure, Iran probably wanted to develop nuclear weapons long before 2002, but now the Bush administration has shown the willingness to use military force when most of the world opposes it. What's the only thing that can deter the US from doing the same thing to Iran? Nuclear weapons. They worked in the Cold War. They made warfare between the US and the Soviet Union unthinkable and prevented World War III. In the mind of most Iranians, the US poses a clear and present danger, making the development of nuclear weapons extremely attractive because diplomacy and world opinion obviously did nothing to deter the US from invading Iraq.

Now I certainly don't agree with Iran's policies or form of government. Afterall, they are a theocracy. However, Iranians are human, and they will react like threatened humans, so we shouldn't be surprised by their actions. President Putin is simply telling the truth that needs to be told. The US has scared Iran into developing nuclear weapons because Iran sees no other effective methods of protecting itself.

The best thing we can do now is admit our error, stop pretending like we're blameless, and actually talk to Iran. The truth might hurt, but it's better than living in a delusion that will only make matters worse. Furthermore, rejecting criticism outright is simply a refusal to adapt and improve. It's dogma and doesn't belong in sound foreign policy. Of course, why should I expect anything but dogma from a born-again Christian in the White House? Alas, these are the times we face.

More on Bush Administation's Supression of Science

The Boston Globe's online newpaper has an article concerning recent statements from US Representative Peter Welch, D-Vermont:

U.S. Rep. Peter Welch says it was a "stunning personal experience" to hear federal scientists say they had been stymied from talking about climate change.

"There was a story about a scientist who got authorized to speak at a conference. He was prohibited from using the phrase 'global warming.' He was allowed to say 'global,' and he could say 'warming,' but he couldn't put them next to each other. It became a charade," Welch said.

I'm surprised it took Rep. Welch this long to figure it out. Regardless, the entire charade by the White House is sickening. What's worse is how the article ends:

The White House maintains it was trying to bring balance to reports on global warming.

What is there to balance? The vast majority of the scientific community agrees with the evidence. Once again, the problem comes down to ignorance of science. This quote from Paul Ehrlich says it best:

Laypeople frequently assume that in a political dispute the truth must lie somewhere in the middle, and they are often right. In a scientific dispute, though, such an assumption is usually wrong.

Scientists Reveal Bush Administration's Pressure Against Global Warming

Now that the Democrats have control of Congress, we're finally starting to see the full extent of the Bush Administration's abuse of science. MSNBC has a good article on the subject. Here's a short excerpt:

The Democratic-controlled Congress on Tuesday stepped up its pressure on President Bush’s global warming strategy, hearing allegations of new political pressure on government scientists to downplay the threat of global warming.

Lawmakers received survey results of federal scientists that showed 46 percent felt pressure to eliminate the words “climate change,” “global warming” or similar terms from communications about their work.

The scientists also reported 435 instances of political interference in their work over the past five years.

We all knew it was happening, but now that the political climate in Washington has changed (no pun intended...okay, maybe it was), we're finally starting to see something done about it. We've already seen the President acknowledge climate change and the need to do something about it in the SOTU. Only time will tell if he backs up his promises. Somehow, I doubt he'll do anything about it.

Montana Loves Freedom

Last Friday, Representative Robin Hamilton of the Montana House of Representatives introduced House Joint Resolution No. 21, which would ensure separation of church and state, particularly in Montana's public education system (see the NCSE post about it here). Here's the main language of the bill:

WHEREAS, a high quality science education is critically important for Montana students to be able to participate in today's technologically driven society; and
WHEREAS, the statewide science standards adopted by the Board of Public Education and implemented through a science curriculum designed by local boards of trustees across the state have resulted in a very high quality education system in our state; and
WHEREAS, Montana is fortunate to have many knowledgeable science teachers who are well qualified to determine appropriate strategies and tools for teaching science to Montana's students; and
WHEREAS, there are a number of national fundamentalist organizations seeking to force local schools to adopt a science curriculum that conforms to their particular religious beliefs and that includes theories commonly referred to as creationism, creation science, and intelligent design theory; and
WHEREAS, in 1999, these organizations were successful in pressuring the Kansas State Board of Education into removing evolution theory from the science curriculum, resulting in the State of Kansas being held up to national ridicule and portraying that state in a very negative light; and
WHEREAS, these national efforts undermine a community's local control, a teacher's academic freedom, and a student's opportunity to receive quality science education; and
WHEREAS, the doctrine of separation of church and state protects citizens, churches, and religious organizations from the government adopting or endorsing a particular religion's teachings.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:
(1) That the Montana Legislature support local adoption of a science curriculum that is based on sound scientific principles and supported by science teachers, parents, and the local community.
(2) That the Montana Legislature oppose the efforts of national organizations seeking to impose their religious interpretations of events and phenomena on local schools under the guise of science curricula.
(3) That the Montana Legislature recognize the importance of teaching Montana students about religious traditions, beliefs, and history and encourage inclusion of these topics in religious studies, sociology, and history.
(4) That the Montana Legislature recognize the importance of and support the separation of church and state to protect religious freedom of all citizens to worship as their conscience guides them.

I must say, I am extremely glad to see something like this appearing in a state legislature to ensure the constitutionally-mandated separation of church and state. Furthermore, teaching children ID and creationism does not teach them anything about science. It teaches them to be satisfied with not understanding the world. It's the antithesis of science. Every state in the nation should have something like this to keep us from falling behind the rest of the world scientifically and technologically.

Unfortunately, I don't know how likely this bill is to pass, but a similar measure died in committee in 2005, so we'll see what happens.

Colorado State Senator Wants to Destroy State's Education System

Here's a little local news for me today. Too bad it's not positive. State Senator Dave Schultheis of Colorado Springs (where else?) recently introduced a bill in the state legislature to create a "Public Schools Religious Bill of Rights." Besides being completely unnecessary, the bill would give students wildly different educations depending on the religious views of their teachers.

The bill seeks to codify several rights students and teachers already have, including the right to proclaim their religious beliefs, hold prayer meetings outside of school hours, wear religiously themed clothing, exchange gifts, etc. All of these rights are already guaranteed by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. Most of the proposed bill is pure fluff.

However, there are two proposed rights I would like to comment on:

(V) USE A RELIGIOUS GREETING;

This is almost humorous coming from a Republican considering the Right has been the only group trying to limit the winter holiday greetings to "Merry Christmas." Regardless, it's guaranteed by the Constitution, making this proposed right as unnecessary as the others.

The most harmful proposal is the following:

(VII) [A teacher or an employee of a public school may:] NOT BE REQUIRED TO TEACH A TOPIC THAT VIOLATES HIS OR HER RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND NOT BE DISCIPLINED FOR REFUSING TO TEACH THE TOPIC;

This is obviously a sneak attack directed towards teaching the theory of evolution. The problem is that if a teacher refuses to teach a topic on religious grounds, then his or her students will suffer while students who recieve the instruction will have an advantage. It creates a harmful disparity in education. As goverment officials, teachers have a constitutionally mandated responsibility to not respect an establishment of religion. Teachers can have whatever beliefs they want, but those beliefs cannot be forced onto their students.

Luckily, the bill doesn't stand a chance of passing. As Senator Bob Hagedorn, D-Aurora, said, "I would have to question whether or not Sen. Schultheis is serious about passing meaningful legislation or whether he just wants to throw something inflammatory out there and get shot down and then go play the martyr." It makes sense. Considering Schultheis represents the evangelical enclave of Colorado Springs, this is probably just a way for him to appeal to his voters. More than likely, he wants to look like another poor, persecuted Christian so he'll be reelected whenever his term ends.

Bravo Senator Hagel

I found this encouraging video on YouTube today:



I'm amazed he's actually a Republican. It's nice to see them start to break ranks and stand up for the right thing when it comes to Iraq. I don't know where he stands on any other issues, but Senator Hagel shows that it is still patriotic and American to disagree with bad policies. Senator Hagel, I applaud you for your courage to take the harder path and do what is right. Bravo.

Uncommon Stupidity on Iraq

DaveScot over at the pro-intelligent design blog Uncommon Descent created a rather assinine post titled "Jim Webb: Clueless" in reaction to Senator Jim Webb's delivery of the Democratic response to the State of the Union. DaveScot says:

As I was watching the Democratic response to President Bush’s State Of The Union speech tonight Senator Jim Webb played the United States Marine card three times (for himself, his brother, and his son all Marines). I take it personally when someone does that.

The first thing Webb does is claims to know better than the president and all the president’s advisors how to effectively fight terrorism because, well, Jim was a Marine in Vietnam. Well Jim, I was a Marine at the end of the Vietnam war. I didn’t go, it was mostly over by then, but one thing I noticed was that all the non-commissioned officers senior to me were real combat veterans. They knew how to survive guerilla warfare in an Asian backwater. Me and my generation of Marines, all we did was play at wargames 4 weeks a year in the Mojave desert. No one was trying to kill us, no foreign language was spoken by the natives, no guerillas in civilian clothes running around, none of that. After 30 years of that kind of experience our military was virtually without anyone in any rank who’d had actual combat experience. Here’s the deal Jim. In order to have an effective force in fighting guerilla and urban wars in Arab countries we need actual combat veterans seasoned in that type of warfare leading the unseasoned troops. Use your head, Jim. Now we have an effective force led by NCOs who know how to survive urban and guerilla wars in Arab countries. And Bush managed to build that force without losing 58,000 American lives as were sacrificed in Vietnam but rather limited the losses to 3,000. Use your head for something other than a place to put your hat, Jim. We needed a veteran ground combat force for the Middle Eastern theater. Now we have one. Now what happened to Russia in Afghanistan won’t happen to us.

All I can say is wow. He accuses Senator Webb of playing the Marine card and then responds by...playing the Marine card. Furthermore, he didn't even fight in Vietnam. How dare he belittle Senator Webb's service to our nation.

Secondly, how idiotic can you get when you suggest invading other countries just so we can have an effective fighting force? As if our image on the world stage wasn't tarnished enough. I thought DaveScot just didn't understand the methods of science. It appears he also knows nothing about policy and how to interact with the rest of the world.

As much as DaveScot would like to fantasize, the war in Iraq hasn't made our military more effective. The strain on personnel from multiple rotations and the steady loss of servicable equipment has placed us in a more vulnerable position than before the Iraq war.

DaveScot, the way you prepare a professional military for war is by training, not sending them to kill and be killed. Our training is the best in the world and you can see it in the speed and effectiveness at which we initially succeeded in Afghanistan and Iraq. That's the reason we've lost 3,000 lives compared to 58,000 lives in Vietnam. Our training is much better today than it was then. Plus, we're fighting a much smaller number of enemies in Iraq since we're dealing with just insurgents instead of insurgents and the entire nation of North Vietnam.

What about all the combat experience our troops have gained? Well, it hasn't helped in Iraq because military operations rely on an achievable goal. The military hasn't had that. The redeployment of combat veterans also hasn't lessened the insurgency. It continues unabated almost four years later. Combat experience can't fix bad policy. DaveScot, I'm afraid it is you who is clueless.

Then DaveScot goes to bashing Senator Webb's discussion on the economy. I haven't done the research to refute this, but Ed Brayton of Dispatches from the Culture Wars does an excellent job dealing with this bit of ignorance. Brayton also saved a great comment left by the angry spouse of a servicewoman. True to form, DaveScot afterwards suspended all comments and erased the existing posts.

New Science Subcommittee

House Democrats have formed a new and badly-needed subcommittee to investigate the science abuses of the GOP. The subcommittee will report directly to the House Committee on Science and Technology, which deals with funding for all non-defense related scientific research. Read about it here at Daily Kos.

I just want to say this is probably the best thing the Democrats have done so far. The selective use of science to influence policy has got to stop. What good is science if you're just going to ignore data that doesn't fit your political goals? Hopefully, this will bring some reality back to Congress and allow them to move forward on some critical issues.

Some Thoughts on the SOTU

So, I watched the State of the Union address last night. I must say I'm not impressed except for one key part: President Bush said the words "climate change." I was a bit taken aback by this apparent about-face considering the denials and the distortions of science Bush's administration has utilized concerning Global Warming. However, he made the same promise he's made in previous years about alternative fuels and has yet to do anything about it. I seriously doubt he is truly sincere about stopping climate change and it was just a way for him to appease the new Democratic Majority.

Of course, he's still not listening to anybody on Iraq. No surprise there. I loved how quiet the chamber became when Bush spoke about it.

Finally, he didn't say anything about the "family values" issues. I'm not really surprised since 2006 showed that most Americans don't care about those issues. He's just avoiding the issue to save face politically. However, Bush's failure to mention anything on the "family" agenda certainly pissed off conservative Christians. Check out this video from Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council where he protests the President's lack of commitment to "family values." Sorry Tony, but most Americans don't want your "values."

I am happy to hear the President mention climate change, but, given his track record, I doubt anything will come of it or any of his other promises. I 've got to keep telling myself: Just two more years and hopefully this nightmare will be over.

On a more positive note, I enjoyed watching Senator Jim Webb give the Democratic response. It was one of the best deliveries in years and did a good job outlining the Democrats' goals. Plus, I like the way he stuck it to Bush on his lack of military service. Good job Senator Webb!

More Lies from the White House

The Center for American Progress has a revealing analysis of "Advancing Stem Cell Science Without Destroying Human Life," a document recently published by the White House. The CAP points out the wild distortions of science throughout the document, particualrly concerning the usefulness of adult stem cells and amneotic stem cells (here's the scientist who discovered amneotic stem cells saying they are not an alternative to embryonic stem cells).

Despite the fact it's theology (and, therefore, unconstitutional) to believe that a sphere of 100 undifferentiated cells is a human being, the sheer audacity of the science distortions are amazing. Even with the general consensus within science against these claims, the White House has no problem lying to satisfy its supporters. This sort of lying to the American public is downright criminal. I can't wait for January 2009 when we finally get a new administration. Hopefully they'll show a degree of decency, unlike the current one.

War With Iran = Rapture?

Sarah Posner at AlterNet has a great, but frightening, article on President Bush's recent suggestion of war with Iran. From all appearances, it seems as though fundamentalist Christians have started to convince Bush that God requires war with Iran. Just look at his most recent speech when he said, "The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time." Sorry, but meer ideology does not justify war with Iran. There needs to me more legitimate reasons than that.

Of course, Bush is a fundamentalist himself, but as a government official he must keep his religious beliefs separate. He can think what he wants out of office, but while in it, he owes it to the American people to keep theology out of his decisions. In my opinion, the unprecedented access that Bush gives to fundamentalist Christians has got to stop. They have taken his mind outside of the realm of reality (at least more than it already was) and are convincing him to use the nation's power to live out a fantasy. Posner correctly states: "That the president's top national security advisor on Middle East policy met with the popular author of a best-selling book that claims that God requires a war with Iran demonstrates just how intensely politics trumps policy (and human lives) for this unhinged administration."

There is no reason for the Bush administration to listen to these End Timers. They're living in a fantasy world that has no correlation with reality, and their foreign policy desires will do nothing but bring our country to ruin. Plus, our military is stretched too thin to take part in another Middle Eastern adventure. Where is Bush going to get the troops? I have an idea: Bush should recruit all the Christian soldier wannabes who advocate war with Iran and send them in. If they want the war to bring back baby Jesus so bad, then let them do it with their own lives.

James Dobson Refuses to Support McCain

Check out this video from CNN where Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family and habitual liar, states that he "would not vote for McCain under any circumstances."

Considering the power Dobson wields over conservative Christians and the Republican Party (but remember, Focus on the Family is not political) this has got to be devastaing to McCain's hopes. He might still be capable of winning the national election, but the way Republican politics work these days, it will be nearly impossible for McCain to make it past the primaries without the support of conservative Christians.

In my opinion, this illustrates the sad state of affairs of Republican politics since Republicans have to pander to dishonest, intolerant, religious leaders to make any headway. No religious group should have that kind of power over the affairs of the government. The worst part is the fact that McCain is one of the last few moderate Republicans. I won't vote for him because of his recent efforts to endure himself to the RR (for example, his speech at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University last May), but the fact that moderate Republicans stand no chance at making it through the primaries is discouraging.

Proving the damage this has done to his aspirations, McCain has already started to try and mend fences with Dobson. In my opinion, McCain should just ignore that lying bigot and bring the Republican Party back to its roots by appealing to the moderates in this country. They've been left without representation for far too long and it's time this country stopped trying to return to the Middle Ages. Of course, I could be wrong about McCain being unable to make it through the primaries. If he does make it, he should do the right thing and save his party from becoming the party that drags this country into a theocracy that only 10% of the population wants.

Rep. Jack Kingston (R) Is a Dirty Hypocrite

Here's a good one from thinkprogress.org:

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) made headlines last month after complaining about Congress’ new schedule that requires members to work five days a week:

“Keeping us up here eats away at families,” said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), who typically flies home on Thursdays and returns to Washington on Tuesdays. “Marriages suffer. The Democrats could care less about families — that’s what this says.”

Yet, last night, Kingston offered this advice to Americans living in poverty: work longer hours. During House debate over the minimum wage, Kingston said raising the minimum wage would do nothing for poor Americans. Instead, if people marry and work longer hours, “they would be out of poverty,” he said. “It’s an economic fact.”

This really doesn't have anything to do with theocracy or the RR, but I thought it was hilarious and wanted to share. Also, how does getting married improve one's economic situation? I'm going to be a conspiracy theorist here, but it seems like Kingston said that little gem to appeal to his "pro-family" fundamentalist base. There, I made a connection.

Stem Cell Vote Today

The Democrats' bill to provide funding for embryonic stem cell research is up for vote today. It will undoubtedly pass, but President Bush has promised to veto it, saying the measure, "would use federal taxpayer dollars to support and encourage the destruction of human life for research," despite the fact that this "human life" is a sphere of 100 undifferentiated cells with no chance of having a consciousness, making it difficult to call it a "human being." At this time, it does not look like the House will have enough votes to override the veto, but time will tell.

Read more about it here.

2007: The Year Stem Cell Research Finally Gets to Move Forward in America?

With Democrats now in control of Congress, I seriously hope that the US federal government will finally give stem cell research the funding it needs to get America caught up with the rest of the world. It’s amazing that the only veto President Bush has used during his time in office (the lack of vetoes also shows the frightening control Bush had over Congress) was one against the single most promising line of medical research in recent history. The funny part is that several states including California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut have bypassed Bush’s decision and have funded stem cell research on their own. Furthermore, countries like South Korea have already pushed ahead with stem cell research, threatening to leave us far behind. Whether Bush wants it or not, stem cell research will occur somewhere in the world. Of course, he doesn’t seem to worry about that since he clearly thinks God will protect America no matter what we do. However, now that funding for stem cell research will certainly be up for vote once again this year, and the Democrats could gain enough votes to override a veto, I thought I’d share a couple of my thoughts on this controversial and divisive issue.

The main argument that conservative Christians use against stem cell research is that it kills babies since it requires the destruction of a human blastocyst, a clump of 100 undifferentiated cells formed shortly after an egg has been fertilized. Conservative Christians believe the soul enters the blastocyst at the moment of fertilization, and, therefore, constitutes a human life. Unfortunately for opponents of stem cell research, there’s no scientific evidence that a soul exists. It’s no different that the Intelligent Design argument. It’s the use of a religious belief with scientific-sounding language. It might sound good, but it’s not science at all.

One rediculous argument I've heard against stem cell research is that scientists abort pegnancies to obtain the blastocysts from stem cell research! Not only is that completely wrong, but it sounds like nothing more than propoganda to scare fundamentalist Christians into opposing stem cell research. Scientists don't get stem cells from pregnant women. They get them from balstocysts left over at fertility clinics. If not used, these blatocysts would literally be thrown away. If conservative Christians are so concerned about the welfare and survival of these blastocysts, why don't they protest fertility clinics for killing all those unborn "babies" or try to save those "babies" from the garbage?

As far as I’m concerned, an embryo does not represent human life until it has enough of a central nervous system and consciousness to have a human experience. A blastocyst doesn’t even have nerve cells, so it cannot have a human experience, much less feel pain. To think otherwise shows a willful appeal to ignorance on the subject.

Besides, as Sam Harris pointed out, shouldn’t we stop caring so much about something that has no nervous system and actually try and reduce suffering in beings that have a fully developed central nervous system?