reconciling god and science

This weekend I made my usual run to Target for 'necesities' (as much as one 'needs' Sun Chips and Drano).  I'm getting into the habit of bringing my reusable shopping bags every time I go thanks to the bag fee in DC (I go to the Target in DC a lot and I got tired of that fee really quick).  I brought just enough bags with me to carry what I needed to buy.

 

And then I saw that all Vitamin Waters were $1.  I'm addicted to that stuff so I stocked up of course. 

 

When I got to the check out lane, I noticed that I didn't have enough shopping bags for all the Vitamin Waters plus my necessities.  Still, I handed the cashier my bags and she went to town bagging my stuff.  Somehow, she was able to fit everything in 3 bags.  I'm not going to go into detail about these 'necesities' I had purchased so you'll just have to believe me when I say that I really didn't think it was humanly possible to pack all that stuff in 3 bags.  Impressed with her bagging skills, I complimented the cashier, "Wow you really know how to pack those things."  She replied, "Well I haven't figured out if it's God or science."  I thought about that dichotomy for a sec and replied, "Can't it be both?"  Yeah, I wasn't talking about her bagging skills any more.  She replied, "I don't think so."  I don't think she was referring to her bagging skills either. 

 

I encounter this idea a lot as a Christian and lover of science--the idea that God and science are working against each other.  Having attended Catholic school my whole life, it wasn't that strange to me that my religion classes were often followed by my science classes.  Heck, no one made a fuss when we learned about evolution.  I never questioned all the knowledge that comes through scientific breakthroughs and research (well, until I got older and understood research methods a lot better).  I've always assumed that God was the one that gifted scientists and researchers with the intelligence they possess and exercise in doing research.  And I had no problem believing that God started the Big Bang.  

 

But some Christians do--in fact, they have a big problem with science.

In fact, on a particular creationists website (I refuse to link to them, but if you really want to know, shoot me an email), the people behind the site claim that dinosaurs and humans were created by God ON THE SAME DAY.  Not that there is any proof of that other than some bible verses from particular translations that referred to God creating 'beasts' (which I've always understood to mean 'large animals').  In fact, the only resource quoted as 'proof' on that site is the bible. 
 

Why is it that some Christians are anti-science?  Are they people who believe every single word of the bible (hope they don't wear cotton blends or eat shellfish)?  Why do they feel so threatened or defensive when science disproves something contained in the bible?  If everything is a part of God's plan, was it not God's plan to give researchers the intelligence to figure out these things?  The bible is an ancient text that was written by many, many people and translated into many, many languages.  Is it possible that some things got lost in translation?  (I have a translating business on the side and, let me tell you, things definitely get lost in translation between English and Spanish and vice versa). 

These are honest questions.  I'm really trying to understand the other side here especially since I have had no problem reconciling Catholic teachings with science.

You know?  I can't help feeling that some of this is political (oh lordy...that's a whole other blog post...).

happy marriage equality day, DC!!!

 Today, the city of DC will begin to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  One of my old bosses is going to apply for one today after having been with his partner for over 25 years.  I couldn't be happier for them. 

I don't think I truly grasped the magnitude of this law until yesterday.  I was chatting with a very politically involved co-worker when I suddenly remembered March 3rd and it's significance.  "Tomorrow is the big day!" I said.  He replied, "I know!  It's so exciting.  I've been with my partner forever and we can finally start talking about marriage and having a family and...I've been so afraid that this wasn't going to happen that we didn't really talk about that stuff before.  This changes everything"

A life-changing law?  It truly is.

Congrats to all the gays applying for marriage licenses today and beyond! 

images courtesy of icanhazcheeseburger.com

my reaction to Virginia election results: meh

First my Anaheim Angels lost the ALCS.  Then my Hokies lost two games in a row.  THEN my Trojans lost to Oregon in the most embarrassing game I've ever witnessed.  By the time Creigh Deeds (D) lost the election for Virginia Governor my reaction was meh*.

Unlike the mass hysteria that infected conservatives when Obama was elected a year ago (OMG Virginia is now blue therefore a communist state, OMG we've just elected a Muslim terrorist, OMG we have a baby killer as president), I will gracefully admit defeat.  The Dems lost fair and square.  There's no conspiracy, no right wing effort to keep the poor from voting, no excuse. 

Yesterday, I had to convince my boyfriend to vote.  Why did he not want to vote?  Well, he was sure Bob McDonnell (R and women-hater) would win.  I was all ready to drag him to the polls, but fortunately I was able to convince him that Deeds was not the only Dem who needed our support.  But it bothered me that he didn't really care. 

Not that I blame him.  I didn't feel very personally invested in Deeds' candidacy. 

As much as I enjoy the voting process, the decision to vote for Deeds was--again--kinda meh.  Deeds was not my pick in the primaries; Brian Moran was.  I phone-banked for the guy because I really wanted him to win the nomination.  Sure, he was a long shot, but I supported Moran out of principal--he was the only candidate of the three that vocally opposed the marriage amendment that defined marriage in VA as an arrangement only between a man and a woman.  When Deeds came out of nowhere to win the primary, I was less than enthusiastic.  However, as a loyal Dem, I knew I was going to vote for him (especially, considering the opposition). 

I thought about volunteering for Deeds a couple of times but I wasn't really inspired by him to do anything.  I've been hearing since the campaigning began that the VA and NJ governor's races would be an indication of the public's feelings about Obama thus far.  I didn't so much as THINK about Obama whenever I thought of Deeds and I don't think Deeds loss has anything to do with the President.  Deeds lost because he failed to connect with voters.  He didn't connect with independents and he definitely didn't connect with the base.  I visited a liberal VA blogger's open election day thread yesterday where everyone was posting whom they had voted for.  I was SHOCKED by how many libs didn't even vote for governor.  Sure, they voted for the other candidates but they left the governor slot blank.  Wow.  That's how disconnected we were.

Why the disconnect?  Well, Deeds didn't always represent my interests.  In the second debate, Deeds actually said he would consider "opting out" of any public option for health insurance, even though polls in Virginia showed that the majority of Democrats and Independents want a public option.  Who was Deeds representing with that statement?  The GOP?  As the Dem candidate?  It's statements like that (or the one where he told a reporter that he was going to do good in Richmond because people like him there) that caused a disconnect with the base. 

Still, I voted for Deeds but my vote was not so much FOR HIM as it was AGAINST MCDONNELL.  The man makes my feminist blood boil.

I hate to be selfish but I'm so grateful to live in the liberal enclave that is Arlington (sorry, rest of Virginia).  It's going to be a long 4 years but I hope that McDonnell doesn't f*ck up the state too badly (if he is as great a governor as Schwarzenegger then Virginia is doomed). 

Oh and good luck trying to widen 66 inside the beltway, McDonnell.  It's a 10-year-old battle but I'll to be happy to join the protest against your initiative.  

*Meh--"The verbal equivalent of a shrug of the shoulders." (definition courtesy of Urban Dictionary)

the truth about obamacare

I can't believe they totally figured us out. You all know who 'they' is. 'They' are the brave citizens showing up at the town hall meetings, screaming about how their America is being flushed down the toilet with the feces of socialism. I guess they're just too smart for the President and the rest of the Dems (Not those Blue Dogs though. They know what's up).

First off, these death panels. I mean, how did they figure those out from the text of the 1000+ page plan which I'm sure they read? Yes, Obama totally wants to knock off all of those who are a complete strain on our economy. It's all part of the stimulus, you see. Come on! Old people? Who wants 'em? Their eating up my (future) social security and they're increasing the cost of Medicare with all of those illnesses they keep getting! Sure, Medicare only makes up about 2% of the federal budget (far less than our defense spending or those wars we've been fighting), but that's 2% that can be going to something else. Like the cost of these death squads. They're going to be meeting on a regular basis, I hope. That way we can eliminate the old people as quickly as possible.

And you know what? Even Sarah Palin gets it right every once in a while. Trig better watch out! Children with disabilities are totally on that list. Nevermind that the Democrats are the ones responsible for getting them a special education and all back in the day. Well, we're taking it back! No cushy life for you, disabled kids!

One of my favorite parts of the plan is the mandate for free sex-change surgeries. I heart transgender people. In fact, more people should change their sex. Personally, I've always wanted to know what it was like to be a man (particularly, what it is like to earn a man's wage and using the world as a giant toilet). With Obamacare, you now have that chance!

Another one of my favorites is the mandate for school based clinics. What I like about this is that now we can force abortions upon pregnant teens. Come on! How convenient is that? The clinics can totally replace those day cares that some high schools have. Find yourself inconveniently pregnant at 16? Well, then ditch homeroom and head over to the school clinic. In about an hour, you'll be totally de-pregnified. I wish I had that at my conservative, Catholic high school. I totally would've had promiscuous sex back then!

Speaking of abortions, under Obamacare, they are totally free, paid for by tax payer dollars!  Isn't that awesome?  Despite never having been pregnant, I've always wanted to have one so I plan to take advantage of this benefit.  Nevermind the countless federal laws that prohibit public funding from being used to fund abortions.  Obamacare is totally going to take care of that.  He is, after all, the most pro-abortion president ever.

My favorite part of Obamacare is that you will no longer have to think about what medical procedures you need. The Obama-approved Health Choices commissioner is going to do that for you. Granted, we already have that now. They are commonly known as Kaiser and United and Blue Cross. You know them. They're the same people who denied you that mammogram because of your pre-existing condition (pre-existing condition = being female), remember? Under Obama's plan, only one person will be making those decisions for everyone. Which is great for me because I can be so indecisive sometimes.

And you all know how the economy is crap right now. Well, there's a cost savings measure in the plan too. Basically, any medical procedure costing more than $22000 will not be covered by Obamacare. That's simply too much money for one person. It doesn't matter if that $25000 surgery will save your life. It's still too much money for government rationed health care. What? You think the government is made of money?

Personally, I'm all for this plan. There will be far less annoying old people in the world and abortions for everyone! What a perfect world.

*******************************************************************

*SIGH* I guess I can take my tongue out of my cheek now. How ridiculous does this post sound? Well, that's what conservatives think about Obama's plan for health care reform. The hilarious thing is that people are eating the lies that the insurance industry is feeding them and screaming it back to their representatives at these town halls.

So, you can be a sheep for the insurance industry and fight for the status quo which leaves 1/3 of the US population without health insurance, OR you can make up your own mind by doing the research. In fact, I've started the search for you. Here are some non-partisan sites that are dissecting the many health care reform plans that are out there:

politifact.com
factcheck.org
ABC News
AARP

Personally, I think politifact.com is awesome and comprehensive and it has even won a Pulitzer.

how is it that i haven't blogged about this already?

Some food for thought...

More health care reform stuff tomorrow.

UPDATE: For the story of Deamonte, go here.

post-race era my ass

Wow. Just wow.

Some people concluded that the election of a black man for president would be the beginning of a post-race era in this country. I think the criticism of Sonia Sotomayor has proven that is not the case.

FYI: I'm a woman and Latina and I cried tears of joy when Obama announced Sotomayor as his SCOTUS nominee.

Maybe I did buy into the post-race hype because I still can't believe how far the GOP has gone to discredit her simply because she is female and Latina. I don't remember race being an issue when Clarence Thomas was nominated (his sexism and incompetence were).

Let's discuss the cartoon. First off, it's from the Oklahoman (I like to source...this is not an implied judgment of Oklahoma). Second, it appears that Sotomayor is supposed to be a piñata. However, she looks like she's being lynched. Moreover, piñatas are Mexican and Sotomayor is Puerto Rican. Not the same country.

This cartoon is NOTHING compared to what the GOP/conservatives are saying. Here's a small sample:

Mike Huckabee: "The appointment of Maria Sotomayor for the Supreme Court is the clearest indication yet that President Obama's campaign promises to be a centrist and think in a bipartisan way were mere rhetoric." Obviously all Latinas are named Maria. Also, Maria and Sonia totally sound the same.

Newt Gingrich: "Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman.' Wouldn't they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism." Context is everything. Here's the quote, spoken within the context of the issue of diversity on the bench, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." I hate that Obama excused this statement by saying that she misspoke. Also in the same speech: "I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires."  Yup, totally hating on White males.  Regardless, I completely agree with her 'controversial' statement. Women judge differently than men.  The best example I can provide is the SCOTUS decision on "partial-birth" abortion. In the opinion, Justice Kennedy said that the State should make the final decisions about pregnant women’s healthcare, because the State knows better than the woman herself that her “ultimate” role is as a mother. You think a woman would've agreed with that? Heaven forbid that there is one more woman on the SCOTUS that believes women are more than incubators.

Rush: "Here you have a racist — you might want to soften that, and you might want to say a reverse racist. The libs, of course, say that minorities cannot be racists because they don’t have the power to implement their racism. Well, those days are gone, because reverse racists certainly do have the power. … Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he’s appointed one." Ummm...Rush? WTF is a 'reverse racist'? Are rich, White males so oppressed these days? Also, your White male privilege is showing.

Tom Tancredo: "If you belong to an organization called La Raza, in this case, which is, from my point of view anyway, nothing more than a Latino -- it's a counterpart -- a Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses." FYI, Tancredo, Raza doesn't just mean Race, it means family or community. Also, NCLR works to improve opportunity for Latinos so that they can achieve the American Dream but not at the expense of other, non-Latino types. You know, that whole bootstrap pulling sh*t you Republicans like.

G. Gordon Liddy: 'Let's Hope That The Key Conferences Aren't When She's Menstruating." Yes, women are irrational creatures that go insane once a month.  First off, Sotomayor is probably old enough to be menopausal. Secondly, ummm, seriously? Liddy, your misogyny is showing.

Fred Barnes: "I think you can make the case that she’s one of those who has benefited from affirmative action over the years tremendously." Right. So, that whole getting the top academic prize while in Princeton and being the editor of the Yale Law Review have nothing to do with her abilities/intelligence. Next thing you'll tell me is that George Bush Sr had nothing to do with W getting into Ivy League schools. Because W is a Mensa member.

Go ahead and attempt your filibuster. It won't do a damn thing. Sotomayor is going to be a Supreme Court Justice, much to your chagrin. So just take it like a man and deal with it.

george tiller, hero

After having watched the documentary Religulous on Saturday, the news of Dr. Tiller's death on Sunday was incredibly hard to accept. I am still filled with hate and rage at the moment but I will do my best not to use swear words in this post.

For those of you who have never heard of Dr. George Tiller, I think NY Governor George Patterson described him best in yesterday's press release:

I was deeply saddened to learn that Dr. George Tiller, a well-known provider of and advocate for women’s health care, was gunned down this morning at his church in Wichita, Kansas. With his murder, we are robbed not only of a dedicated and courageous physician, but also of a husband, father and neighbor.

Dr. Tiller was targeted for his belief in the right of women to make their own health decisions. He protected that right and sought to ensure that his patients were provided with the medical, emotional and spiritual counsel they needed to make the right choice for themselves and their families. He continued this work despite the threat of harmful retaliation, physical attacks and the destruction of his clinic. We will forever remember his fearlessness, compassion and commitment.

Dr. Tiller was one of three abortion providers in the U.S. who performed abortions after 24 weeks of gestation. Late term abortions are almost always done when a woman's health is at risk or if the fetus has no chance of surviving outside of the womb or if the fetus has a condition that will lead to a slow, painful death post-partum. In a sense, Dr. Tiller was performing abortions that were deemed medically necessary (for testimonials of some of Dr. Tiller's patients, please go here).

But that's not what the anti-choicers want you to believe. He was a killer, running an abortion mill in Wichita, the abortion capital of the US. He had to be stopped. Domestic terror cell, Operation Rescue (let's just call a spade a spade, shall we?), had longed targeted Dr. Tiller, going so far as to move their terrorist organization to Wichita and posting all information about the people who worked in Dr. Tiller's clinic, including photos. Isn't that convenient? Why would they do that if not to incite violence against those employees and Dr. Tiller?

It is of no surprise whatsoever that Dr. Tiller's murderer was affiliated with Operation Rescue.

What should be of no surprise to the anti-choice movement is that the man who murdered Dr. Tiller (at his church, with his wife watching from the choir loft), has now created a martyr. Everyone in the women's rights movement was already familiar with Dr. Tiller and his passion for reproductive rights. This was a man who wore a bullet proof vest to work. Who had legal charges brought against him constantly by anti-choice politicians (he was never convicted, of course). Whose clinic had been bombed and, most recently, had been vandalized. Who was shot in both arms by another domestic terrorist (now serving time in prison). Who went to work every day despite these obstacles because he believed that women were capable and had the right to make their own health decisions.

In women's rights circle everywhere, we are banding together to decide what could we do to honor Dr. Tiller's memory. This blogger is making a sizable donation (of money I don't really have) to Medical Students for Choice, an organization that works to ensure that reproductive health procedures are taught in all medical schools and that the next generation of Dr. Tillers are properly trained to follow in his giant footsteps. Others are calling their local PP clinics in order to volunteer as escorts. Still others are planning to donate money to reproductive health organizations (such as PRCH, which Dr. Tiller was on the board of directors).

Some of us were inspired by Dr. Tiller's determination and perseverance. But now all of us know about it. He's inspired us to be more resolute in our efforts to defend a woman's right to choose and to fight back against those so-called pro-life groups that do nothing but breed terrorists who act in the name of their god.

I have just one thing to say about Scott Roeder.
May he rot in hell.  I hope he gets what he deserves.

cali sucks: prop 8 upheld

I've got a lump in my throat as I type this. 

If anyone is in the mood for some protesting, I encourage you to check out this website, which helped coordinate these events all over the country.  For the DC peeps, our event is tonight in Dupont Circle. 

It feels like I'm reliving the passage of Prop 8 all over again.

and what say you now, california supreme court?

Today is D Day, or Day of Decision, as the California State Supreme Court is expected to announce its opinion on three cases filed shortly after the passage of Prop 8, all of which sought to overturn the proposition that amended the state constitution to include the refusal of equal rights for gays.

At the time of its passage, I really couldn't find the words to express the extreme disappointment in my home state (ugh. By the looks of the previous statement, I still can't). After all, this state is the home to San Francisco, Hollywood, and Disneyland (which would all be nothing without the gays). How could the state relegate gays to second class citizenry? How could the Mormon and Catholic Church wield their political prowess and still be tax exempt in this day and age? Whatever happened to the separation of church and state? How soon until we become a theocracy? How can we allow religious bigots to determine the rights of a minority?

In their decision to legalize same sex marriage, the Iowa Supreme Court said it best:

While unexpressed, religious sentiment most likely motivates many, if not most, opponents of same-sex civil marriage and perhaps even shapes the views of those people who may accept gay and lesbian unions but find the notion of same-sex marriage unsettling. Whether expressly or impliedly, much of society rejects same-sex marriage due to sincere, deeply ingrained—even fundamental—religious belief.

...Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates. State government can have no religious views, either directly or indirectly, expressed through its legislation. As a result, civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individuals.

However, that is not the case before the California Supreme Court. The question is the validity of Prop 8--a so-called amendment to the state constitution that actually dramatically changes the intent of the constitution because Prop 8 essentially denies gays equal protection under the law. Prop 8 is more than just an amendment. It's a re-write. And how can a simple majority of voters basically re-write the state constitution? The prosecutors in these cases are arguing that such a decision of monumental consequence such be left up to the state legislature.

The court can rule one of three ways:

• Uphold Prop 8 and nullify all same-sex marriages that were legal before.

• Uphold Prop 8 and let stand all same-sex marriages that were legal before (thereby creating a class divide between married gays and those who now can't get married).

• Strike down Prop 8.

This past Thursday was the anniversary of the White Night Riots, a not-so-peaceful protest following the conviction of Dan White (the man who killed Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone). He had been facing a charge of 1st Degree Murder and would've been sentenced to death if found guilty. Instead he was found guilty of the most lenient charge of voluntary manslaughter (and was in jail for 5 years).

This past Friday would've been Harvey Milk's 79th birthday.

June is gay pride month. And June 28th marks the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots.

Will today's date be just as significant in the history of the gay rights movement?

At 1 pm Eastern time today, we will find out the answer. 

move over, spaghetti cat (and dick cheney)!

are people leaving the GOP in droves?

In news that made Democrats happy, a recent Gallup analysis reveals that people are moving away from the GOP in almost all demographic areas.

Taking a look at this lovely graph from gallup.com, more young voters and people from the Midwest are de-identifying as GOP (9% change), followed closely by men (at 7%).

In this next graph (also from gallup.com), almost all categories show significant change with the biggest change being the college graduate demographic at 10%. The only demographic that has remained steadfast in its support of the GOP are frequent churchgoers (which is the only category that exhibited no change). People over the age of 65, conservatives, and non-college graduates saw little change in their identification as Republican.

As a proud liberal, I really want this news to make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but it doesn't. The analysis is about party identification. Although some of these people are no longer identifying as Republicans, this doesn't mean that they won't vote conservative in an upcoming election. If anything, this analysis shows that more and more people are ashamed of being associated with the GOP.

And honestly, who can blame them? Yeah, the GOP is in shambles right now but that's beside the point. The point is that the party leaders (Rush, Boehner, et al--I'm looking at you) feel that the best way to turn the party around is to be even more conservative.  I take this to mean that the white, elderly, church-going demographic is far more important to the GOP than young college graduates (which makes me wonder what the future of the party is if young people are averse to identifying as Republicans).

As far as the quest to be even more conservative, I'm not quite sure what their reasoning is, seeing as that the GOP has been catering to the ultra-right for quite some time (and still got their *sses kicked in the last election--you would think they would have heard the message voters were sending). Republicans who dare to suggest appealing to minorities or moderates are immediately shushed by Rush & Co as being RINOs (Republicans in name only). Hey, if the GOP wants to further isolate themselves and create a divide (Real America vs. Fake America), I'm all for it. I think the last election showed just how well that Real vs. Fake sh*t was received by the voting public.

The changes shown in this Gallup analysis do not mean that these people will be voting Dem any time soon. When push comes to shove, when a vote comes down to voting for someone who supports Obama or voting for someone who opposes Obama, I think we all know who they are going to vote for.

So, to answer the question posed in the title of this post, my answer would be no.  I think some conservatives are simply ashamed of the GOP--what it has become and what the leaders propose it will be in the future.

i'm totally ok with rush limbaugh's kidneys failing

The White House Correspondents Association Dinner was this past Saturday. Comedienne Wanda Sykes took on the comedic roll made famous by Stephen Colbert in 2006 (best roast EVER...don't believe me? see for yourself).

The GOP is up in arms over some of the jokes Wanda Sykes made about Rush Limbaugh. In case you missed it, this is what she said:

"Mr. President . . . you've had your fair share of critics. ... Rush Limbaugh, one of your big critics, boy — Rush Limbaugh said he hopes this administration fails. So you’re saying, ‘I hope America fails.’ You’re like, ‘I don’t care about people losing their homes, their jobs or our soldiers in Iraq.’ He just wants our country to fail.

To me, that’s treason. He’s not saying anything differently than Osama bin Laden is saying. You know you might want to look into this, sir, because I think Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker but he was just so strung out on Oxycontin he missed his flight

“Too much?

“You’re laughing inside, I know you’re laughing.

“Rush Limbaugh — I hope the country fails. I hope his kidneys fail, how about that?

“He needs a waterboarding, that’s what he needs.”

Considering my hatred for Rush, I laughed my *ss off. A certain political party who has anointed Rush as their new leader thinks otherwise.

Oh boo hoo. A liberal lesbian comic has offended Rush Limbaugh and is hoping that he dies. I can think of other more offensive statements...

• When a gay person turns his back on you, it is anything but an insult; it’s an invitation.

• The difference between Los Angeles and yogurt is that yogurt comes with less fruit.

• Have you ever noticed how all newspaper composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?

• The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.

• I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.

• You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray. We miss you, James. Godspeed.

• "Too many whites are getting away with drug use...Too many whites are getting away with drug sales...The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them, and send them up the river, too." Eight years later..."I am addicted to prescription pain medication."

• He is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act.  This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting.

• Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.

This is a small sample, considering Rush adds to the list every day.

I'm vehemently against torture. But I would happily waterboard Rush any day.

the party of no gets its just desserts

We are approaching the mark of Obama's first 100 days in office and. Pretty soon, the media will be weighing in with report cards to grade not only Obama but Congress on what they've been doing since the new president was sworn in. Some news agencies are taking it straigh to the people in the court of public opinion. In a recent WaPo/ABC News poll, 69% of respondants approve of Obama as president. Almost 70% of people approve of what Obama is doing internationally, particularly with the war in Iraq.   Nearly 60% of people polled approved of what Obama is doing for the economy.  Congress as usual got low approval ratings, but the ratings were much lower for Republicans (45% for Dems vs 30% for GOP).

What I thought was particularly interesting was that the poll revealed that fewer people (than ever in the history of this particular poll) consider themselves Republican. Only 21% of respondants identified as such (vs. 39% for Dems).

I usually take polls with a grain of salt unless they tell me what I want to hear. Granted, the hardcore liberal in me is doing a little happy dance over this poll. Given the context of current events, I am completely not surprised by the results.

[Total aside, but I'm completely surprised that Obama got such high marks, especially in light of those tea parties (aka Obama hate fests) two weeks ago. This only goes to show what I've suspected all along--the crazies on both sides make the loudest noise.]

So, let's talk about how the GOP got here. Well, first off, there was 8 years of Bush 2. Then there was that whole 2008 election debacle, resulting in Democrat majorites in both chambers of Congress. And then there was the race for RNC chair (Michael Steele vs. the guy behind the 'Barack the Magic Negro song' and the guy who had been in an All-White country club but quit before running). And then there were Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh complaining up a storm, spreading their hate, and NOT OFFERING ANY SOLUTIONS. And then there were the Republicans in Congress, refusing to vote for anything Obama supported. And then the GOP governors started refusing stimulus dollars despite their states' rising unemployment rate. And then there was/is the use of those Karl Rovian scare tactics which most Americans seem to be immune to now.

And then there's this poll.  Americans just said no to the Party of No.

I'm not going to put that much weight on this poll, but the truth cannot be denied--the GOP is on a decline. They are the Party of No, the party against change (and not just Obama's Change™ but any change). The party is led by a bunch of old white men (Michael Steele will not lead until he grows a pair) that refuse to change or adapt to the changing political landscape. The party is split in two: there's the Old Guard (led by Rush Limbaugh) and the New Guard (led by--dare I say it--Meghan McCain). And the Old Guard is currently in charge of the Party and refuses to listen to those young whippersnappers in the New Guard.

So how will the GOP change? The New Guard needs to find some strength (in numbers) and be heard.

If the GOP doesn't change? Well, then, the GOP presidential ticket in 2012 will be Palin/Limbaugh.

And, being the proud Dem that I am, I totally won't have a problem with that.

Meghan McCain is making waves in the GOP yet again

Meghan McCain is making waves in the GOP yet again, this time with a speech to the Log Cabin Republicans at their recent annual convention. Meghan continued on her "GOP must change" campaign and repeated her socially progressive ideas. I certainly don't need any new reasons to like Meghan McCain. As a liberal, I love how she's leaning left socially and I especially love how she's stirring sh*t up in the Republican Party.

Meghan is to the GOP what Obama was to voters in the 2008 presidential campaign--CHANGE. However, this post isn't about that. I'm confused about something. At some point in her speech, she declared herself a 'pro-life, pro-gay marriage Republican'. But is she really pro-life?

In her Larry King interview (shortly after Laura Ingraham called Meghan 'fat'), she stated, "I personally am pro-life, but I'm not going to judge someone that's pro-choice. It is not my place to judge other people and what they do with their body." Hmmm.

In her speech to the LCR, she said, "I think government is best when it stays out of people's lives and business as much as possible."

I hate to break it to you, Meghan, but you're really pro-choice.

Pro-choice doesn't not mean pro-abortion. A LOT of us want to reduce the number of abortions. In fact, some of us would probably never elect to undergo an abortion (like me). While we may choose not to abort, we do not judge those who do. We believe that the government has no place in our private lives. We believe that when a woman finds herself pregnant, she has the RIGHT TO CHOOSE to keep the baby, give it up for adoption, or get an abortion.

People who get abortions are not baby-killers. Some elect to abort in the event of a rape. Some abort because their child has no chance of living more than a few days because of a degenerative condition. Others abort because they cannot afford to feed the children they already have. Still others abort when they are 9 years old and pregnant with twins because of a step-father's sexual abuse (I'm referring to that case in Brazil).

Meghan says that government needs to stay out of our private lives and she wouldn't judge people and what they decide to do with their bodies. That's basically standard pro-choice speak for defending our positions.

So, Meghan, it's ok to admit it. "Pro-choice" is not a dirty word. So what if you piss off a bunch of Republicans?

Clearly, you've already done plenty of that.

probably the last thing i will say about the teabagging movement

The picture speaks for itself.

Picture was taken at an OC Tea Party yesterday
Source: The Liberal OC

and a happy teabagging day to you too

Today is tax day! My taxes are done (federal) and done (VA) and for the first time in years, I'm getting some moola back  Woo hoo!

Anyhoo, all over the country, people will be staging tea parties (you know, like the Boston Tea Party of yore) and sending tea bags to the White House and Congress (aka, thanks to Faux News, as Teabagging). Apparently, people are sick of being taxed and paying for things they feel they shouldn't be paying for...like bailing out banks. They are also taking this opportunity to hate on Obama for his economic policies (have I mentioned that the bank bailouts started under Bush? did people forget that?) and using their money to expand *GASP* unemployment benefits and *GASP* medicare.

I'm all for free speech so I'm not going to knock this movement (I will question the people behind it, though). However, I am suspect of any movement promoted by Faux News*. Aren't they all fair and balanced? Why the hell is a 'news network' endorsing and promoting a movement, especially one titled the Teabagging Movement?

Conservatives are in on the joke, right?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

What is even more ironic than the name of the movement is the fact that the Teabagging Movement is being promoted and funded by Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity. Quick google searches reveal that "While working to promote Social Security privatization, Freedom Works was caught planting one of its operatives as a "single mom" to ask questions to President Bush in a town hall on the subject. Last year, the Wall Street Journal exposed Freedom Works for similarly building "amateur-looking" websites to promote the lobbying interests of Dick Armey." Freedom Works is not the only suspect. According to Think Progress, "Americans for Prosperity is run by Tim Phillips, [a] former partner in the lobbying firm Century Strategies. The group is funded by Koch family foundations -- a family whose wealth is derived from the oil industry. Indeed Americans for Prosperity has coordinated pro-drilling 'grassroots' events around the country."

Privatizing Social Security? Promoting unnecessary drilling? Um, no thanks.

The funny thing is that the Teabagging Movement believes that we are Taxed Enough Already (hence, TEA). However, 95% of Americans will receive a tax cut in the next year if the upcoming Obama budget passes. Only Americans with incomes above $250,000 will receive a tax increase. You know, like those fat cat leaders of Freedom Works and Americans for Progress. Of course they don't want to pay higher taxes! Screw the middle and lower class! In fact, why don't they just trick the lower and middle classes into promoting their agenda...

If that's the case, I'd say that Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity have done their job.

*I will stop bagging on Faux News the day they accept they are not fair and balanced.

iowa supreme court shows U.S. that separation of church and state is not dead

On Friday, the Iowa State Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the state's DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) is unconstitutional. After the seriously big downer that was Prop 8, this was the most awesome news in...well...since the California State Supreme Court upheld a law allowing same-sex marriage.

I actually read the decision Saturday morning. It's 69 pages. Hey, Nicky woke me up at 7 a.m. and Jesse doesn't usually wake up until 11 so I had plenty of time to kill. Allow me to summarize the key awesome points for you...

• Regarding the plaintiffs: Like all Iowans, they prize their liberties and live within the borders of this state with the expectation that their rights will be maintained and protected—a belief embraced by our state motto (which is "Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain”).

• The defense: The County offered five primary interests of society in support of the legislature’s exclusive definition of marriage. The first three interests are broadly related to the advancement of child rearing. Specifically, the objectives centered on promoting procreation, promoting child rearing by a mother and a father within a marriage, and promoting stability in an opposite-sex relationship to raise and nurture children. The fourth interest raised by the County addressed the conservation of state resources, while the final reason concerned the governmental interest in promoting the concept and integrity of the traditional notion of marriage.

The Court's rationale:

• Among other basic principles essential to our form of government, the constitution defines certain individual rights upon which the government may not infringe. Equal protection of the law is one of the guaranteed rights. All these rights and principles are declared and undeniably accepted as the supreme law of this state, against which no contrary law can stand.

• Our responsibility, however, is to protect constitutional rights of individuals from legislative enactments that have denied those rights, even when the rights have not yet been broadly accepted, were at one time unimagined, or challenge a deeply ingrained practice or law viewed to be impervious to the passage of time. The framers of the Iowa Constitution knew, as did the drafters of the United States Constitution, that “times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,” and as our constitution “endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom” and equality.

• No two people or groups of people are the same in every way, and nearly every equal protection claim could be run aground onto the shoals of a threshold analysis if the two groups needed to be a mirror image of one another. Such a threshold analysis would hollow out the constitution’s promise of equal protection. Thus, equal protection before the law demands more than the equal application of the classifications made by the law. The law itself must be equal. (argument against procreation as a requirement for marriage)

• It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. (discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal in Iowa)

• If the marriage statute was truly focused on optimal parenting, many classifications of people would be excluded (child abusers and sexual predators were given as examples), not merely gay and lesbian people (basically there is no fundamental difference in child-rearing between same sex couples and heterosexual parents.)

Oh and this is my favorite part of the ruling...

• While unexpressed, religious sentiment most likely motivates many, if not most, opponents of same-sex civil marriage and perhaps even shapes the views of those people who may accept gay and lesbian unions but find the notion of same-sex marriage unsettling. Whether expressly or impliedly, much of society rejects same-sex marriage due to sincere, deeply ingrained—even fundamental—religious belief.

• This contrast of opinions in our society largely explains the absence of any religion-based rationale to test the constitutionality of Iowa’s same-sex marriage ban. Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates. State government can have no religious views, either directly or indirectly, expressed through its legislation.

• And the Pièce de résistance: As a result, civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individuals...

• A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person’s religious faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution. The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law.

Not much to say here. Basically the decision put forth by the Iowa Supreme Court is what I've been feeling all along. It's so nice to see my opinion defended by a legal entity.

So gays have just as much a right to get married as straights do?  Wow. What a concept.*

Source: iowacourts.gov

* Yes, that was sarcasm.

new prez + change = science/politics*

Last night, I was delighted to read that a federal judge ruled that the Bush administration was wrong and determined that Plan B (emergency contraception) should be available without a prescription to girls as young as 17. Ok, so the previous age was 18, but still! This is a big step in the right direction. Now, if we can just get Plan B to be truly available over the counter, as opposed to behind the counter and under the judgmental eyes of a pharmacy tech, everything would be awesome!

If you recall, Plan B was held up for OTC approval in the FDA by many Bush cronies who did not want this pill to be available to teens because of the potential for the creation of teen sex cults!!! No, seriously. That was one of the reasons. Their line of reasoning was that, with increased availability to Plan B, teens would not be able to control their raging hormones any longer and engage in wanton (unprotected) group sex and then pop Plan B pills like candy afterwards. This wasn't based on actual facts (naturally, this was the Bush Administration after all) or anything. In fact, studies showed that teens didn't engage necessarily in careless sex if Plan B was available to them. In fact, their sexual habits showed no change.

But we all know that the Bush administration was averse to science and research and facts (global warming is another great example).

After 8 years of anti-science crap, we now have a president who does not place politics over science. Last month, the new administration worked to remove one of Bush's last acts known as the Provider Refusal Rule. Essentially, the Provider Refusal Rule or "Conscience Clause" (was written to be incredibly ambiguous and open to interpretation on purpose) allowed for religious ideology in the clinical setting. Under the rule, workers in health-care settings -- from doctors to janitors -- can refuse to provide services, information or advice to patients on subjects such as contraception, family planning, blood transfusions and even vaccine counseling if they are morally against it.

For example, if a clinician felt uncomfortable providing birth control or a Plan B prescription or the HPV vaccine, it was within his/her right to refuse to provide it to their patients. The thing is that judgment has NO place in health care, especially religious judgment. If you have a problem dispensing birth control (but not Viagra), then don't be a pharmacist. Don't want to perform an abortion if the mother's life is in danger? Well, then maybe you shouldn't be an OBGYN.

It's the same thing outside of health care. Do you hate Latinos and think gays should burn in hell? Then you wouldn't want my job. So why was the health care field specifically targeted in the Conscience Clause? Because of abortion, of course!

As a public health geek, it is so refreshing to have a president who thinks sound science should be the basis for policy as opposed to religious ideology. The NY Times piece above quoted Dr. Susan Wood, former director of the Office of Women's Health at the FDA who resigned because she didn't want to be part of Bush's morality militia. She commented, "There is a new chance to restore the scientific integrity of the F.D.A.”

Oh God I hope so.

*the title should be read as: new president plus change equals science over politics.

i hate myself for liking meghan mccain

It's not often that I admire a Republican for...well...anything really. So, I'm actually quite shocked to find myself liking Meghan McCain more and more.

I love a good political debate with the other side. However, I can't get into a good debate with most of the Republicans I know (note that I mention the ones I know; I'm aware that not all Republicans are like this) because they simply repeat the party talking points or they repeat often-misleading garbage that comes out of the pundits' mouths or they repeat whatever they hear on Faux News (you know, that bastion of honesty and balance on cable TV). I want to debate a Republican that can think for him/herself and believes in what he/she says with passion. I don't want to hear that Obama sucks because he shouldn't even be president due to the fact that he wasn't born here (I'm curious. Is Faux still pushing that BS? If not, why am I still hearing this crap?)

So then I start reading Meghan's postings on the Daily Beast (I read her personal blog once and found that all of the comments in the one post I read were complimentary to Meghan and her dad, which led me to believe that comments were moderated and only the ones that agree with Meghan were allowed on the blog). Holy crap, she sure is smart and articulate. At once, I think Dude, I would love to pick her brain. After reading more of her stuff, I realize that I can't debate Meghan because I already agree with most of what she says.

Which is strange for me. I mean, how often do I find myself agreeing with a Republican?

Personally, I think Meghan is more of an Independent than she realizes. I get that she wanted to support her father in the campaign, but she supports stem cell research and gay marriage. She's most certainly a little left on the social side. To be honest, I don't know about her stance on fiscal issues. Yeah, she obviously supports the military, but I don't think the GOP has a monopoly on this.

Regardless of her true political affiliations, she has made some great points as far as what the GOP needs to do to stay relevant. Look, I get that they are the party without a unifying message or leader (ummm...Rush is anything but unifying) at the moment. But honestly, now is the time for a makeover.

Meghan wrote a thoughtful piece on how the GOP needs to jump on the internet bandwagon. I mean, no sh*t. This is how you reach young people with your message. The Obama campaign used and abused the internet. His message was everywhere. The campaign even had its own personal 'myspace' type of thing, where volunteers could connect with other volunteers to organize grassroots efforts. As a frequent user, I found it awesome to connect with people who believe what I believe in and had the passion to act on behalf of those beliefs.

Recently Meghan wrote the now controversial piece on how Ann Coulter sucks (no, that's not the title, but the gist of the piece). She writes about how dangerous it is that Ann Coulter is the face of the GOP (personally, I think Rush is more detrimental). Because of her extreme views and the GOP-ers that sing her praises, she is alienating potential Republicans. With Ann, it is such an 'us vs. them' mentality at a time when the GOP needs to be more inclusive.

So here is Meghan, a young woman who can eloquently describe the issues within her own party and what must be done to gain prominence once again. And what does the GOP do? Well, conservative blow hard Laura Ingraham calls her fat. Rather than get into a thoughtful debate with Meghan, she labels her as a hater whose fat (and Laura's not the only one; go to her Daily Beast postings and read the comments about how Meghan is stupid and fat). Really? That is the extent of intelligent discourse in the GOP these days? See?  It's an 'us vs. them' mentality (and sexist too, seeing as that intelligent women are being told to shut up).

And therein lies the problem. And as a proud Dem, I'm pretty happy to see the infighting in the GOP. But I can definitely appreciate what Meghan is trying to do.

Lucky for us libs, the GOP isn't listening.

stay tuned...political cynicism to return in 1-2 business days...

Last week, I did something that I had never done before--I wrote my Senator. You know, I spend so much time bitching about politics that I finally put my money where my mouth is (btw, money tastes kinda gross).

I was so pissed that the House version of the economic stimulus bill did not contain that family planning provision (you know the one where the GOP said the money would be used to pay for contraception and therefore they would not vote for the bill, yet, the provision doesn't pay for contraception and they still didn't vote for the bill when the provision was removed?) that I became very concerned about the public health provisions in the Senate version. Gosh darn it, states are having some financial crises of their own and they need help funding medicaid and the unemployed would probably appreciate some help with covering COBRA costs! But what do I know? I'm just a constituent.

However, I am a constituent (yes, I realize I said that, but I removed the just) and I helped put some people in office and I demand that they take my interests into account. So I emailed Mark Warner (Junior Senator of VA) and I told him Don't you dare cut a dime of public health spending in the Senate stimulus! I voted for you and you owe me, dude!

Or something to that effect. The actual wording used might have been a bit less harsh.

Anyway, I expected my email to be part of the masses that a senator would receive on a daily basis* but amplified by the fact that this stimulus bill would affect many and everyone wants to get something out of it therefore they would more inclined to speak up. So imagine my reaction when I actually got a reply two days later.

If you guessed open-mouth Shock followed by Awe followed by warm fuzzies because I'm a constituent and I deserve to be heard...then you would be CORRECT!

The email said this:

Thank you for contacting me about public health funding as part of the economic stimulus package. We have been receiving a number of requests from across the Commonwealth about what should be included in the economic stimulus package. President Obama, as you know, has announced publicly that he will not accept a package that includes specific earmarks. Senator Webb and I have sent the attached letter** to the Senate Committee leaders who are devising the stimulus package. In the letter, we set out priorities that you and others have underscored that we hope are included in any final package.

As this bill moves through the process we will continue to look for programs and initiatives that will benefit Virginia. Again, thank you for your input. Please do not hesitate to contact me about other issues of concern to you in the future

**And yes, there was an attachment containing a letter written by both Sen. Warner and Sen. Jim Webb expressing their support for several provisions, including the public health-realted ones I want.

Granted, I get that the email didn't actually come from Sen. Warner. It was probably written by some poor, overworked staffer or it's a form letter done as an email merge (it was personalized with my name, so I'm guessing mail merge). But for a few minutes, I felt like my opinion mattered to somebody and was being taken into account as the Senate debates the stimulus.

Not to worry though. I'm sure my political cynicism will return in a couple of days, if not by the end of this post.

*The link above is very eye opening and I recommend that you click.  And no, I do not get any money if you do so.