The Douchery of North Carolina

Well, after not having anything really relevant to write about yesterday, we have a outrage double header today. First, as I posted below, the Republican party is hard at work weeding out anyone with half a brain (or ability/desire to govern).  Now, I find out that North Carolina has passed their discriminatory anti-gay marriage amendment.  I am not sure what they call it, but I will tentatively name it the "There is something that I don't understand and therefor it is wrong and protect the family somehow American patriot amendment."   What a load of horseshit. 

Two things.  One: it is totally ridiculous that we can decide by a majority vote what rights people in a minority will have.  Not only is it ridiculous, it is scary; very, very scary.  Clearly, if you are not presently in the majority, you have no rights.  You may have privileges, but no rights.  What you thought were your rights were only the good will (and I use the term loosely) of the majority.

Two: Gays and Lesbians were already (profanity omitted) prohibited to get married by North Carolina law.  This isn't defense of marriage, they are on the offense.  Offense of marriage.  That does sound more like what is going on here.

Anyhow, I will leave you with this little thought...first go here and look at the picture.  Next, go here and watch the video.  Apparently, the golden rule applies in traditional marriage.  /snickers 

My two cents 2/17/2012

This isn't going to be a long entry, but a panel on contraception with no female members is complete bullshit.

Angry

Atheists have a bad reputation for being angry.  Just the other day I was talking to a friend and the subject of religious fundamentalism came up.  About ten seconds in, my friend brings up that he can't stand atheists, they are so angry and always trying to force their views on other people.  I listened patiently for a while before revealing that I was an atheist.  That was fun to watch.

Truthfully, I have not met any "angry" atheists.  I am sure there are some people out there who are angry most of the time and also happen to be atheists, but the great majority of atheists I have met have been fun and genuinely caring people.

All that aside, today I am an atheist who is angry (correlation only).  The source of my anger is Susan G. Komen for the Cure.  The pink ribbon people.

Before I go further, I would like to say that I have nothing but respect for the foundations efforts in the battle against breast cancer.  What I can't respect is there decision to cut their funding for breast exams to Planned Parenthood, an organization that always seems to be at the forefront of women's health issues.

I also don't buy their reasoning.  According to a statement on Komen's website in response to the furious reaction of so many to this decision:

To support this new granting strategy, Komen has also implemented more stringent eligibility standards to safeguard donor dollars.  Consequently, some organizations are no longer eligible to receive Komen grants.

...

We regret that these new policies have impacted some longstanding grantees, such as Planned Parenthood, but want to be absolutely clear that our grant-making decisions are not about politics.

So why is it that Planned Parenthood no longer meets Komen's eligibility standards?  Apparently, Komen's board decided last year that they wouldn't support any organization that was under official investigation.  As it would happen, Planned Parenthood is under investigation by Representative Cliff Stearns of Florida.  He is an anti-choice Republican, and as you know, Republicans hate Planned Parenthood (my irony meter flipped out when I read that he is also trying to increase privacy protection for Americans).  According to this article, the president of Komen, Elizabeth Thompson, didn't know of any organizations other than Planned Parenthood that would be affected.  So it seems that to act surprised and say that they are just following their standards that they hold everyone to is a load of crap.  It seems far more likely that this restriction was put in place specifically to distance themselves from Planned Parenthood.

The faux-surprise expressed in that statement is also irritating in that if it were genuine it would mean that Komen, a $400 million charity, lacked any sort of PR savvy.  How could they not expect a backlash to cutting funding for breast cancer screenings from someplace like Planned Parenthood that is constantly under attack from forces that are virulently (and inexplicably) against proper women's healthcare.  How are people to believe that this was not Komen caving to bullying from these anti-choice groups.


Anyhow, that is my little rant for today.  Planned Parenthood is accepting donations directly for breast cancer screening.  There are also some nice petitions to sign.

How is your state doing?

I was perusing through some articles (as usual over at NPR) and I came across this article, which did not make me happy at all.  I read through it and it looks like last year was a great year to be anti-choice.  The thing about the heartbeat really went off the deep end.  I mean, what does the heart have to do with personhood (and I don't even want to talk about personhood amendments now)?  Why not elbows?  Or nostrils?  But none of this is new, and most of it wasn't even news to me.  What did catch my eye was the American's United for Life Life List.  It is a list ranking states in how much they restrict women's reproductive freedom.  Those that restrict it the most, as you can see, are labeled: Best States.  Those that restrict it least: Worst States.  No qualification to that at all, just best and worst.  Screw that.  My home state of Indiana sadly scored a "Most Improved Over 2011".  *Sigh*

War on religion

I just read this article over at NPR.  The irony burns.  It burns!  Just check out this line:

"I believe the greatest threat to religious liberty is the clash between religious liberty and LGBT rights," [Mathew Staver] says.

Staver says as rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people make gains, religious conservatives are having to set aside their convictions. A Christian counselor was penalized for refusing to advise gay couples. A court clerk in New York was told to issue same-sex marriage licenses, despite religious reservations. A wedding photographer was sued for refusing to shoot a same-sex wedding. Staver says these people aren't trying to impose their religious views on others.

"What people of faith don't want to do, however, is be forced to participate in something that literally cuts to the very core of their belief."

What a crock of shit.  I'm sorry, this is not a zero sum game.  There is no law impugning the right to not get abortions, and there is no law impugning the right to not get gay-married.  Grow up people.  

A spot of tea

In my recent rage over current politics in the U.S. I decided to take a look at how the other half live, so to speak.  This landed me over at the home page of Tea Party Patriots.  I was immediately struck by the banner that reads "TEACH U.S. HISTORY IN OUR SCHOOLS".  Ignoring the conundrum of a group who thinks that teachers are making too much money demanding more education, I remembered that I did indeed study U.S. history in school.  Have schools in the U.S. stopped doing this?  I had to know more.  So I went here.  I found the campaign interesting in that it not only asked its readers to send a letter to their school superintendent, but it asked for them to send three letters, and they want you to send letters that they (Tea Party Patriots) have written.  Hmm.  What was their angle here (Sharon?)?  At the bottom of the text I noticed there is a link to the NCCS store which sells a "Constitution Week Education Package".  NCCS, huh?  NCCS stands for National Center for Constitutional studies.  Fair enough, I think it is important for us to study the Constitution.  Wait, was the NCCS the same group that published The Making of America by Cleon Skousen, which claimed that "white slave owners were the worst victims" of slavery?  I'll spare you the suspense; it was.  Is that the U.S. history that they want taught in schools?  Anyhow, if you have some time to spare you can go over to NCCS site and test your knowledge of history with one of their super fun quizzes.  See if you can spot the agenda. 

Baby factory

Today I read about an article on Project Reason.  I say I read about it because the Wall Street Journal requires a subscription to read some content, and I try to avoid giving News Corp. money whenever I can.  The excerpts I read (one at PR the other at WSJ) suggested that some conservative lawmakers are trying to make the issue of gay marriage an issue of religious freedom.  Anyhow, as I mentioned, I couldn't read the whole article so I can't say too much about it, but it did get me thinking about a couple of things. 

The main thing I started thinking about was the definition of marriage as an institution designed to produce and raise babies.  Let me be clear, if that is what you think marriage is about, or that is what your marriage is about, I am not saying that you are wrong.  That is often a religious point of view, but it doesn't have to be.  I am not criticizing people who think that way.  I am criticizing people who expect other people to think the same way.  Providing a good environment to raise children is a definition of marriage, but it is not the only definition of marriage.  Even if somehow you could go back a hundred thousand years (or so) and prove definitively that the first man and the first woman walking the plains of Africa got married and the only reason for it was so that they could more effectively raise children, to suggest that in modern society we must stick exclusively and strictly to that ancient definition would be asinine.  People get married for many different reasons, and I think it is quite presumptuous to tell any married couple what their relationship is about.  What if they don't want children?  What if they are infertile?  What if they are elderly?  Should we deny the right to marry to them as well?  In this case, it seems strange and dishonest to say that a woman and a sterile man who love each other can get married, but two men or two women who love each other cannot.

I am tired of this subject.  It is a silly waste of time that one day we will look back on and uncomfortably explain to future generations.  *sigh*

Incidentally, I wanted to learn a little more about some Christian ideas about marriage and I found some interesting links, which I have included here:

Biblical Definition of Marriage

Christian Marriage

and an L.A. Times article by a "liberal"

That passage from Romans 13 was especially revealing.  Enjoy!