Atheist Revolution

Abstinence-Only Sex Education to Make Comeback

2009-11-21T13:54:00.003-06:00

Think Progress is reporting that the Senate version of the health care bill restores funding for abstinence-only sex education after Obama's FY2010 budget eliminate it. I'm sure you will remember that the reason it was cut from the budget in the first place was that abstinence-only sex education does not work. And yet, it has somehow made it into the Senate bill. It sounds like we have Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) to thank for that.

It really baffles me why the Democrats are so eager to compromise with Republicans who are not going to vote for the final bill no matter what is in it. A bad bill may be better than no bill with regard to Obama's 2012 reelection, but I am not convinced that a bad bill is what the people need. I'm also not convinced that Obama deserves reelection.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Technorati Tags: health care, Obama, education

Teabagging for Jesus

2009-11-19T05:30:00.003-06:00

Start with a fundamental lack of understanding that many of the same services on which one relies are paid for by the same taxes one hates having to pay. Add a deep but highly selective mistrust for government (i.e., it really only applies to Democratic officials). Toss in a pinch of racism and a sprinkle of serious delusion (e.g., birthers, deathers, czarists, etc.). Heat to a rolling boil over the fires of misinformation and extremist propaganda provided by Fox "News" and right-wing talk radio. Now add several measures of Christian extremism. Congratulations, you have cooked up a tasty Bachmann protest that would make Sarah Palin proud!

As atheists in the U.S. watch this debacle, one of the primary sources of intrigue is the role which Christian extremism is taking. If a recent article in The New Republic is to be believed, it is an expanding role.

Well, this time, the Tea Partiers brought their Bibles with them. “It’s a bailout for the abortion industry!” one speaker on the steps of the Capitol cried. And before Bachmann took the stage, a preacher from Maryland led an opening prayer that praised the Almighty for “the torch of liberty lit in this land,” followed by a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. “One nation, UNDER GOD, indivisible…” the protesters chanted, yelling out the phrase that deserved special emphasis.

This is precisely the sort of observation of which atheists should sit up and take note. If you are like me, you are growing somewhat weary of the whole anti-health care spectacle. It is stressful to be reminded day after day that one is surrounded on all sides by idiots. One needs to turn off the news every so often and escape. And yet, if this article is correct, we may be seeing the early stages of something that should be cause for great concern.

As Christian extremists, led by those opposed to reproductive rights, enter the already volatile mix, we are forced to wonder how much worse things may get before they begin to improve. In the last week, I have found myself starting to ponder what I believe may soon become inevitable questions. What happens if the U.S. continues to become increasingly divided along political lines? Is there a point of no return beyond which there will be no clear way forward?

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Tags: Bachmann, Palin, Christian extremism

"Support Our Troops" vs. Homeless Veterans

2009-11-17T05:29:00.003-06:00

I am not a pacifist any more, but I do find the U.S. to be unacceptably pro-war. Although I did not support the first Gulf War, I did understand the need to intervene in order to help an ally (i.e., Kuwait). My primary objection to that war was that I found myself doubting that we would have been so quick to help an ally without oil. But I could at least swallow the concept of helping an ally who had been invaded. Similarly, I understood the need to go into Afghanistan following 9/11. This seemed like defensible move, even if it is not clear to me why we are still there and now appear to be on the verge of committing even more troops.

The second invasion of Iraq was absolutely unjustified, and never should have been permitted. As much as I detest W, I place the majority of the blame for this war on the shoulders of Congressional Democrats. They had multiple opportunities to stop it, including those that came well after they knew there were no weapons of mass destruction, and yet they lacked the political will. They let our country down in a massive way and deserve to lose their offices as a result. This does not mean that I hold W blameless, only that I do not accept the Democratic claims that this was solely his war. Besides, we are still there.

When I was in college, I had great difficulty understanding why some of my friends had joined the military to go fight a war in which they did not believe. Again and again, I wondered if the real power to change U.S. foreign policy rest with those who were considering joining the military. If they just said "no," there would not be enough troops to fight unnecessary wars. Bring back the draft and see how long it would take the flag-waving morons who mindlessly chant "USA USA" at every sporting event to change their tunes.

Perhaps this was naive of me. I felt like the cost of war was being hidden and that the majority of the population was so disconnected from the true cost that supporting a war became little different from supporting a sports team. Win or lose, it doesn't really affect them. Meanwhile, the military families must bear the burden with precious little assistance. It doesn't seem fair at all.

I am well aware that criticizing those who make the decision to send our young men and women into combat inevitably brings accusations of failing to "support our troops." These same accusations should be flipped and applied to those who refuse to fund the Veterans Administration, those who deny the existence of atheists in the military, and who object to providing those who served their country with the best possible care.

There should be no homeless veterans in the U.S. One is too many. If even a tiny proportion of those who affix "support our troops" stickers to their vehicles and feel self-righteous about doing so would contribute some money, to provide shelter to those they claim to support so much, this problem would evaporate before our eyes.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Technorati Tags: military, war, Gulf War, 9/11, Afghanistan, veterans

One Good Reason to Oppose H.R. 3962

2009-11-11T06:38:00.000-06:00

I don't know about you, but I tend to admire those who stand on principle, doing what is right rather than simply what it popular. Many atheists I have known over the years fit this category. By rejecting faith for reality, they have taken what can be a lonely path but one which has the advantage of being most congruent with reality.

Politicians, it seems, rarely have such a luxury. Their primary aim is often merely to gain re-election. As such, they rarely take principled but unpopular stands. I tend to admire those who do, but I understand that many people will not share this sentiment.

The recent House vote on their version of the health care bill, H.R. 3962, was very close. It passed by only five votes, and I could not help noticing that many Democrats voted against the bill. I admit that my initial reaction on seeing this was one of outrage but I now see that I was most likely wrong.

This bill that does not go nearly far enough. Frankly, anything short of a true single-payer system does not go far enough. Sadly, this was taken off the table at the outset in what I can only call a misguided preemptive compromise. Rather than starting from a position of strength, the Obama administration gave up on progressive health care reform before even beginning the process. They appear to have resigned themselves to the concept that passing reform-in-name-only is better than nothing and redefining this as their goal.

As much as I want to see health care reform, I want to see real reform. Thus, I think Dennis Kucinich was probably correct to vote against the House bill.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Technorati Tags: atheists, health care, Congress, Kucinich, progressive

Idiot of the Week: John Boehner

2009-11-07T09:00:00.002-06:00

Ah, Saturday at last. Time for another Idiot of the Week award. Let's get to it.

When I first heard that Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) was calling for her teabagging supporters to converge on the Capitol to intimidate anyone who might actually support affordable health care, I knew there would be some idiocy on display. Would I have to honor Bachmann yet again in this series? It certainly looked like it. But then someone else would step forward at the last minute to take the prize.

Let me set the stage a bit more. Pictured here to the left is Greenman, a Philadelphia figure made famous by the hillarious TV show, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia (FX). If you haven't been watching it, you are missing out. I am convinced it is the best comedy on TV these days.

The thing about Greenman is that he is supposed to be funny. When someone dons a Greenman costume, they are going to get attention and laughs. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Why the hell am I bringing this up? Good question. I am doing so because I'd like to contrast the image of Greenman with another famous figure, one that is equally hillarious but also pathetic because he isn't meant to be funny. Ladies and gentlemen, I present this week's idiot - Orangeman.

That's right, this Idiot of the Week award goes to Rep. John Boehner (R-OH). What did our winner do to deserve this award? As House Minority Leader, making him a prominent Republican leader in Congress, Rep. Boehner should have known better than to participate in Rep. Bachmann's embarrassing protest. She is well known for her crazy, but Boehner is supposed to be respectable and represent the GOP establishment rather than the fringe. By speaking at her teabagger rally on the Capitol steps, he wholeheartedly embraced her particular brand of crazy and signaled that this is the modern Republican party. Let him be known not just for his bad spray tan or tendency to sob like Glenn Beck but also for willingly associating himself with birther nutjobs comparing health care to Nazi concentration camps.

And yet, this was not enough for Rep. Boehner. During his speech, he proudly displayed a copy of the U.S. Constitution and quoted from it. The problem was, it was not the Constitution he was quoting from but the Declaration of Independence. An honest mistake for you and me, but this is a powerful Congressman who is supposed to know something about our Constitution.

This is the second time Rep. Boehner has been honored here. Something tells me it won't be the last.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Christian Extremism Alive and Well

2009-11-06T06:17:00.000-06:00

I agree completely with Americans United for Separation of Church and State that there are important lessons in the recent elections in Virginia and New Jersey, as well as the abolition of civil rights in Maine. Christian extremism is alive and well.

According to Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of AU,

I wish I could say the Religious Right is dead, but this election shows that reports of its demise are inaccurate. The pundits who announced the Religious Right's demise in 2008 were simply wrong.

He's right. While nobody is saying that the outcome of these elections was solely based on Christian extremist influence, nobody should deny that there was an influence.

...Americans need to know that this movement's leaders are still influential in American politics. They haven't given up on their crusade to impose their fundamentalist beliefs on everyone through government action.

Our work is not finished. Not by a long shot.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Left Wing Hate Speech

2009-11-05T05:20:00.000-06:00

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Courtesy of Fox "News" and a plethora of right-wing talk radio personalities, the airwaves are filled with right-wing hate. The influence of these pervasive messages is undeniable. But what about left-wing hate speech? Few would deny that the left harbors it's fair share of idiocy, but I have trouble finding much that could be considered left-wing hate speech. So many voices on the right complain about it regularly, but where is it?

We should examine some recent high-profile left-wing flubs, focusing on those that seem to elicit the most outrage from the right. Take Rep. Alan Grayson's (D-FL) use of the word "holocaust" when pointing out how many Americans die simply because they do not have health insurance. You've heard the outrage from the right, and you've seen how Rep. Grayson has been accused of trivializing the Holocaust. I agree with those on the right that this was a poor choice of words, just as I agree with those on the left that Christian extremists' recurrent use of the holocaust label when discussing abortion is a poor choice of words. But while I might disagree with Rep. Grayson's word choice, I don't see this as anywhere close to hate speech.

Unlike those issuing death threats against atheist bloggers or President Obama, Rep. Grayson was not calling for anyone to be killed. Unlike those hoping for military coups against Obama, Grayson was not calling for the Constitution to be abolished. Distasteful? Perhaps. Hate speech? Not even close.

What else? Surely the left is guilty of disparaging Republicans. Rep. Grayson did so recently on Maddow, and Olbermann makes a nightly practice of it on his show. They often sound angry, resort to name calling, and could fairly be accused of lacking in civility in the tradition of GOP hero, Rep. Joe Wilson. I get all that. But hate speech? Maybe Olbermann regularly calls for the death of those with whom he disagrees - maybe he even prays for it, but if so, why is it that I always seem to miss those episodes?

Maybe these aren't fair comparisons because the extreme right is currently out of power. Maybe I need to focus on the left-wing rage directed at Bush and Cheney. I remember hearing (and writing) all sorts of negative stuff about them. I continue to believe that the Bush regime committed war crimes and should be tried as war criminals. But this isn't hate speech anymore than Republican calls for the impeachment and criminal trial of President Clinton were hate speech.

When right-wing extremists call President Obama a fascist or a Communist, it simply indicates that they do not know what those terms mean. But when they call for his death or not-so-subtly suggest that he should be overthrown, we're witnessing something else entirely. And it is something that I don't recall seeing from the left.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Afghanistan: Is It Winnable?

2009-10-27T05:17:00.000-05:00

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

I've ben thinking about the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan lately. When Bush initially went in after 9/11, I supported it. Admittedly, my support was based on a desire for revenge and not reason. The idea of going in quick and crushing those who attacked us was appealing, even if it turned out to be completely pointless. I don't mean it was pointless because Bush didn't finish the job but because Al Qaeda simply crossed into Pakistan and waited for us to leave. Had the decision to go in been a bit more deliberate and thoughtful, it might have been possible to get it right. But regardless of the initial U.S. entry, we're back and appear to be bracing to be there for the long haul.

Obama campaigned, at least in part, on the idea that Iraq was the wrong war and that resources there needed to be withdrawn and reallocated to Afghanistan. I agreed with this and am disappointed that he now seems to have little intent on following through with plans to withdraw from Iraq (at least in the near future). But Afghanistan isn't going well, and nobody can be surprised by this.

Now it appears that the U.S. is going to send more troops. It seems to me that success is going to be elusive unless we decide to go into Pakistan with more than just drones. It does not appear that they have been at all cooperative, and it is difficult to imagine that real progress can be made on one side of the border without support from the other side.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Absence of Reason in the U.S. Health Care Debate

2009-10-12T05:33:00.002-05:00

Image by jonathantellerelsberg via Flickr

Reason appears to be largely absent from the current debate over health care reform in the U.S., and this is true for both sides: the far right and the center right. In this post, I want to briefly address what I see as the single most obvious sign of reason's absence. There are many others, but I am picking this one because it is so simple I would expect anyone to understand it. What I'm talking about is the chasm between public perceptions of the relative standing of U.S. health care quality and the well publicized facts about how health care in the U.S. compares to that of other nations.

This post was prompted by a simply poll I encountered on Facebook. The question was: "Do you think the United States has the best health care system in the world?" My initial reaction upon reading the question was that it didn't matter what I thought because the facts are quite clear.

According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. health care system ranks 37th out of 191 countries. (While we were #1 in responsiveness, our score suffered from our lack of universal health care. That is, we would have scored much higher if our health care system wasn't so damned expensive.).
Health care costs in the U.S. far exceed that of any other nation.
Using any of the common statistical indices of health (e.g., life expectancy, infant mortality, etc.), the U.S. falls well below other developed nations.

So, what exactly does it mean to say that we have the best health care system in the world? If one defines "best" as most expensive without regard to quality, then the U.S. would have the best health care system in the world. However, this is not how most of us would define it. By "best," we tend to be interested in outcomes. Here, it is quite clear that the U.S. ranks far lower than most developed countries.

The question of what one thinks about health care is still valid. Perhaps questions like this are intended as indirect measures of irrationality. What are we to make of those who answered "yes" to the Facebook poll? Some may not have taken the question seriously. Among those who did, those answering "yes" would have to be thoroughly misinformed, lying, or some combination of these possibilities.

The reasoned approach would reflect the data. Conclusions would be based on facts rather than opinions. When so much is at stake in this debate, it is sad that idiocy once again prevails.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Are Democrats as Incapable of Governing as it Appears?

2009-10-07T05:21:00.001-05:00

Image by sneakerdog via Flickr

When they were the minority party during the Bush years, the Democratic Party revealed themselves to be wholly ineffective at mounting even mild opposition. They submitted to the draconian Patriot Act, went along with Iraq, and squandered countless opportunities to halt the damage Bush and Cheney did to the U.S. Bush was the 2 year-old loose in the toy store, and Democrats in Congress were the parent who decided it was best just to look the other way. Now that the Democrats control the Presidency and both houses of Congress, one would think that they might be able to deliver on the message of change on which President Obama campaigned so effectively. Sadly, this has not been the case.

When it comes to being an effective opposition party, the Democrats have never seemed particularly effective. And yet, I have generally assumed that they could govern once in power. In contrast, the Republicans have been (and in my opinion, continue to be) an extremely effective opposition party. Those who count them out now are underestimating their prowess. Of course, they have repeatedly proven that they are thoroughly incapable of actually governing when in power. Given their flawed political ideology, this is hardly surprising.

No, the surprise has been that the Democrats, once in power, do not seem to be much more capable. Despite their majority in Congress and their control of the Presidency, the Democrats have become little more than a bad joke. They have the superior political ideology to be sure, but their delivery has been disastrous so far. Obama seems completely incapable of setting aside his fantasy of bipartisanship. As a result, he is unlikely to accomplish any of the progressive reforms he promised those of us who voted for him. The party allows itself to be held hostage by Republicans and a handful of conservative "Democrats," further ensuring that nothing meaningful will be accomplished.

Unless Democrats in Congress and especially President Obama can grow a spine and push through some progressive legislation, they are guaranteeing that potential Democratic voters will stay away from the polls in 2010 and 2012. They still have time, but so far I can see only one reason that I would even think about bothering to vote and that is to make it more difficult for the Republicans to regain control of Congress. Then again, it is getting harder and harder to tell the difference.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Joe Wilson: Reality and Civility

2009-09-13T11:36:00.000-05:00

Image by Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com via Flickr

If you read yesterday's post about Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) being the idiot of the week, you may assume that I think he should apologize to his peers in Congress, something he is under tremendous pressure to do. However, you would be wrong. I do not believe Rep. Wilson should have to apologize to anyone unless he decides that he wants to do so. I also disagree with those on the left who seem determined to make Wilson's outburst about Obama's race, although I do acknowledge that it fits into the broader critique of Obama that does appear to be race-related.

In parsing Rep. Wilson's outburst and the varied reactions to it, I find two issues worth addressing: civility in political discourse and the interface of reality and politics. Aside from these two areas, I am content to ignore the entire spectacle.

Let's start with the easier of the two issues, the role of reality in politics. As I have argued previously, I believe that U.S. politics desperately needs a dose of reality. Political propaganda is absolutely toxic to democracy, and it should not be tolerated from either party. Rep. Wilson's mistake was that he accused the President of lying when he was not in fact lying. In other words, Wilson was wrong. Loudly and uncivilly wrong to be sure, but it is the wrong part that matters most.

I was disappointed by Obama's bluff that he will "call out" those who spread lies about whatever health care bill emerges from Congress. I do not believe this for a second. He's already shown me that he lacks even a basic willingness to stand for justice against those who tortured in our names. Until he rectifies this, I do not expect him to be a moral actor. But more to the point, the responsibility of calling out those who spread lies, misinformation, and other forms of propaganda is a responsibility we all share. I may not care whether Obama calls anyone out, but I care deeply whether the rest of us do so. When someone spews lies, including those cloaked in religious garb, they must be called out.

The second issue, that of civility in political discourse, is admittedly more complex. The argument from free speech has great appeal even if it seems somewhat naive. Let Rep. Wilson say what he wants, and let his critics respond as they wish. Out of the debate, truth will emerge. The slippery slope claim also holds appeal. By allowing our political discourse to become decreasingly civil, are we not opening the door to the end of meaningful debate? Imagine that what began at the Palin rallies and has now devolved into teabagging, "birthers", and "deathers" continues unabated. Should this continue to bleed into Congress, it is difficult to imagine our fragile democracy surviving.

Of course, the counterarguments are compelling too. Perhaps if we had seen more incivility during the Bush years, we wouldn't be in the mess in which we now find ourselves. Perhaps if the Democratic Party had grown a pair during this time, they'd now be able to lead competently! And doesn't all this whining about incivility make us sound like a bunch of...(gasp)...Christians?

Yeah, I can see both sides of this one quite clearly. So, how to I come down? In the particular case of Rep. Wilson, I am not bothered by the incivility he demonstrated during his outburst. On the other hand, I think we should all ask ourselves about the purpose of political discourse and debate. If we believe that it functions to move us closer to the truth, then I think it is appropriate to expect at least a minimal level of civility. If, however, we no longer care about approaching the truth - if we care more for being heard without regard to how wrong what we have to say might be, then it is indeed bedtime for democracy.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

American Hate: Images From the 9/12 Rally in DC

2009-09-13T08:10:00.000-05:00

You may have already seen these. They've been circulating since Glenn Beck's 9/12 rally in Washington DC yesterday, and I found the link to this particular "hall of shame" set through Twitter. If you haven't yet seen them, brace yourself. This is pure American hate, and it may turn your stomach. You've been warned.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

The Party of Selfishness: Republican Opposition to Health Care Reform

2009-09-10T05:27:00.002-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

Have you seen any of the clips from Rep. Lynn Jenkins' (R-KS) July town hall? I was watching it the other night, and I think it contained a moment that perfectly sums up the Republican mind set when it comes to health care reform and most social programs. Jenkins received a great question from Elizabeth Smith, a constituent whose employer does not provide health insurance and cannot afford private insurance.

I want an option that I can pay for. I work. I pay my bills. I'm not a burden on the state. I pay my taxes. So why can't I get an affordable option? Why are you against that?

It is a fair question at which Jenkins initially laughs and then responds in a condescending manner, suggesting that "people should...go be a grown-up and go buy the insurance." But none of this was what really got my attention.

No, even though Rep. Jenkins appeared to be saying something akin to "let them eat cake," this was not the significant moment for me. That came when someone in the crowd could be heard shouting the following to Ms. Smith:

Why should we pay for your health care?

I have a very difficult time seeing this sentiment as anything but pure selfishness. It goes beyond a mere lack of empathy and arrives at what I can only describe as an antisocial attitude. The unidentified audience member might as well have been saying,

As long as I have mine, to hell with everybody else!

Where does such a despicable attitude come from? Is this what people are learning at church these days? Are parents actually teaching their children this sort of contempt for their neighbors? Are we destined to turn into a society of sociopaths?

I suppose we can find consolation in the fact that the town halls weren't nearly as heated as many in our media would like us to believe. Then again, the behavior of South Carolina Republican Rep. Joe Wilson last night was a stark reminder of the degree to which our political discourse has deteriorated.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Great Americans or Terrorist Sympathizers?

2009-09-02T05:39:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

When one of the roughly 2,000 people reported to be in attendance at one of Rep. Wally Herger's (R-CA) town hall meetings stood up and described himself as "a proud right-wing terrorist," the media took note. Their focus was on Rep. Herger's troubling response:

Amen, God bless you! There is a great American.

The story deserved coverage and received it. One small problem. As wildly inappropriate as Rep. Herger's handling of the situation was, I am even more disturbed by the loud cheering from the other audience members.

As the anniversary of Sept. 11 nears, we have a room full of Americans, many of whom probably see themselves as patriotic, cheering in response to a declaration of terrorism. Have the lessons of 9-11 already been forgotten?

Of course Rep. Herger should have handled the situation differently! But that is only part of the story. The rest of the story concerns those in attendance who cheered at such a statement. What is wrong with these people? What should the rest of us be doing to reach them and those who share their twisted worldview?

H/T to Think Progress

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

President Obama, Do the Ends Justify the Means?

2009-08-26T05:37:00.001-05:00

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Suppose for a moment that President Obama is correct in his calculation that holding top Bush administration officials, including Dick Cheney, accountable for war crimes and illegal spying on Americans would prevent him from accomplishing his broad legislative agenda. I do not believe this for a second, but let's suspend disbelief for a moment and assume that he's right. He can either pursue his agenda or permit a full investigation of the previous administration, appointing a special prosecutor with the authority to go up the ladder all the way to Bush if supported by the evidence.

Operating under such an assumption, we might be able to construct a cogent argument for "looking forward and not backwards." We could insist that the good accomplished by enacting universal health care, rebuilding our economy, and the other parts of Obama's agenda would outweigh the bad of allowing Bush and Cheney to get away with a multitude of crimes.

Alternatively, we might construct the opposite argument - that Obama's moral and legal obligation to uphold the U.S. Constitution and defend our nation from enemies foreign or domestic requires him to root out the malfeasance of his predecessor, whatever the political cost. We could claim that the positive ends of legislative accomplishments simply cannot justify the means if those means means that Bush and Cheney escape unscathed.

Of course, both arguments fall apart to the degree that they are based on a false assumption. Holding Bush and Cheney accountable would not necessarily render Obama's agenda impossible to enact, nor would forgoing his agenda guarantee criminal convictions.

So yes, I think that Obama's political calculation that he must "look forward" and allow criminals to escape without punishment is a serious mistake that should have devastating political consequences. I will go so far as to say that there is no way I can support a second Obama term if he persists on this course.

It is not about mere retribution, although I will not deny that the thought of Dick Cheney in a prison cell is appealing. Instead, it is about setting the record straight, showing the world that the American people will not tolerate evil done in our name, and setting a precedent for all future administrations. Where would we be today if Nixon had faced no consequences for Watergate? Now where will we be in the future if Bush and Cheney face none for their crimes?

And if you are still hoping that AG Holder will somehow do the right thing when Obama refuses to do so, think again.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Perhaps Bush's Invasion of Iraq Really Was a Crusade

2009-08-19T05:15:00.000-05:00

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

In the aftermath of 9/11 and during the build-up and early stages of former President Bush's unprovoked war against Iraq, virtually every political pundit asked the same question of countless interviewees: "Why do they [terrorists] hate us?" Bush himself and many administration spokespeople had a consistent answer to this question, as did many of those interviewed on various news programs:

They hate us because of our freedom.

The statement had a certain self-promoting appeal. Obviously, these terrorists hated us because they were jealous of our freedom or our very way of life.

As it became clear that the post-invasion period in Iraq was not going well, the question became even more common. A variety of experts on the Middle East were brought out to answer the question. But despite the answers, the question remained in everyone's mind.

Now there is evidence that persons throughout the Middle East may have had many other reasons to hate our government. It appears that former President Bush may have invaded Iraq without provocation in order to fulfill biblical prophecies. It seems that his use of the word "crusade" was not accidental. As if that wasn't bad enough, some of those representing the U.S. in Iraq (i.e., Blackwater) are Christian extremists, determined to kill or convert Muslims.

And by the way, some of these crusaders are continuing to receive large sums of money from the Obama administration.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Remembering Sen. Jeff Sessions

2009-08-10T20:28:00.001-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

Just because Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court does not mean we should forget about the embarrassing racism of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL). For that matter, we should also remember Christian extremist Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) and his Human Physical-Mental Enhancement Prohibition Act! But no, this one is about Sen. Sessions.

There was the delicious irony that Sessions, himself rejected as unqualified for a federal judgeship, had the leading Republican role on the Judiciary Committee. There was the blatant hypocrisy involved in fixating on her "wise Latina" comment when both Thomas and Alito said nearly identical things. There was the sinking feeling any astute observer probably recognized that the Republican attacks on Sotomayor are little more than attacks on Obama by proxy. And then, of course, there was Sessions' not so subtle racism.

Regardless of what one thinks of Sotomayor (and I still want to know where she stands on church-state separation), I would hope that her record would have been the focus of Sessions' inquisition instead of...well...unapologetic racism.

According to Sam Stein's article in The Huffington Post,

Ian Millhiser, a Legal Research Analyst with the Democratic-leaning Center for American Progress Action Fund, told the Huffington Post that he was "flabbergasted that conservatives picked someone with a long history of race-based attacks as their point person on the Sotomayor hearing."

I think Stein is right on the money with his view that Sessions himself became the image by which the hearings will be remembered: a white southerner with a history of making racist comments trying to land political points by quoting Sotomayor out of context and then basically ignoring her answers.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Democrats Not Selling Health Care Reform Well

2009-08-09T07:52:00.000-05:00

Image by TunnelBug via Flickr

The political debate over health care reform in the U.S. is heating up and will only become more intense in the near future. It seems to me that the Democratic Party, including President Obama, has done a terrible job explaining the need for meaningful reform and the importance of the so-called "public option" to the American people. I suspect that some do not understand it themselves, and others are clearly in the pocket of the insurance companies. This is more than a PR failure, but it is most certainly that too. And on the PR front, it seems to me that many Democrats are making this far more complicated than need be the case.

For those politicians who are serious about bringing about heath care reform and are not merely pandering on a popular issue to win votes, your message must do the following:

Demonstrate that the status quo is untenable (i.e., convince us that doing nothing is not an option).
Convince us that your plan will improve the quality of the health care to which many of us now have access.
Convince us that your plan will permit more Americans to have access to health care than is now the case.
Convince us that your plan will be more cost-effective over the long-term than the current system.

So far, I feel like I have seen largely ineffective attempts to accomplish #1 and #4 with very little attention devoted to #2 and #3. This is concerning because #1 and #2 should be closely tied together if any plan is going to win widespread acceptance. Focusing on #1 and #4 while ignoring #2 is merely going to scare people and turn them off to the whole thing.

What we need to hear more of with regard to #1 is that the U.S. has the most expensive and one of the least effective health care systems that can be found in the industrialized world. But as we hit people over the head with this fact, we must follow with a cogent plan for improving the quality of health care.

What about #3? This is one of those that sounds very appealing until one realizes that lots of middle-class voters already have health insurance (or do not want health insurance) and are not really as concerned about the poor as they might want us to believe. This is a big part of why #2 must receive much more attention than it has so far. Americans will get behind #3 but only as more of a secondary benefit of #2. Without #2, I fear that #3 is going to have next to no real traction.

It also seems that #4 is getting too much attention this early in the game. It is important, but it has to be clearly tied to #1 and #2. Many people will be willing to pay a little more if they will see a clear benefit for themselves and their families. Of course, there are some other considerations which could be implemented in a health care plan that would result in improved care and significant savings.

Perhaps health care reform will fail because too many politicians of both parties are bought and paid for by the insurance and pharmaceutical companies. At least our goal would then be clear (i.e., divorcing politics from money). But if it fails due to ineffective PR, I'm not sure anyone will know where to go from there.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Racist Tones of the Teabagger Movement

2009-08-05T05:29:00.000-05:00

Bay of Fundie has a great post about the tea party movement, "Teabagging with Jesus (Part 1)," that notes how racism has been involved from the beginning. This certainly seems to be the case. Sure, there are probably some people who turn up at these rallies because they are upset about having to pay for the governmental services from which they benefit. But the center of the movement seems involve a different sort of anger. After all, most of those who attend such rallies are paying lower taxes under Obama than they did under Bush. No, most of those in attendance seem to be upset about something else.

Bay of Fundie's thesis is as follows:

The whole teabagging movement has had racist overtones from the beginning. Whether they admit it or not, it’s mostly about white Americans feeling like a minority for the first time ever, and they aren’t happy about it. The anti-tax message is merely superficial. They’re actually tapping into some deep-seated frustration that has been brewing for a while. Anti-taxes is just one small part of what they’re pissed off about.

Not content to make such a claim and expect readers to accept it a face value, the post continues with support for the claim. Most of it comes from an analysis of the demographic characteristics of those participating in the tea parties.

Another far more obvious piece of evidence can be found in the messages of the teabaggers themselves. One merely has to read their signs and listen to their speeches to learn that many are deeply troubled by President Obama's race and the degree to which he is perceived as foreign. As Bay of Fundie highlights, the tea parties can be viewed as protests against multiculturalism.

When I look at the tea party movement, I experience two competing thoughts. First, I find myself thinking that even though I don't agree with their message, it is nice to see that somebody still gives enough of a damn about something to be willing to protest. Sure, many of these things look far more like political rallies than protests, but at least people are willing to get out there and express their discontent publicly. If only those of us who think President Obama is making himself an accomplice of Bush administration war crimes by refusing to demand accountability would do the same!

My second thought is that this sort of white, right-wing rage has been brewing for awhile and will probably get far worse before it finds resolution. Let's face it, a bad economy is an ideal breeding ground for this sort of thing, and the most optimistic among us agree that the economy is not going to rebound anytime soon. If conditions continue to worsen such that even larger numbers of people are out of work, things could get scary on the right-wing nutjob front.

In any case, I think the best course of action for those of us not interested in teabagging (outside of our personal sex lives) is probably one of cautious curiosity. We need to keep an eye on what is happening, and it would benefit us to try to understand what is driving the teabaggers. I do not think that there is cause for great concern yet, but that could change quickly.

The photo used in this post was taken by userjack6880 during a 2009 teabagging in Biloxi, MS

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Christian Extremism in America: The Family

2009-07-22T05:22:00.000-05:00

Cover via Amazon

I had heard of the secretive Christian extremist organization known as "the Family" before the latest high-profile Republican sex scandals hit the news. However, I did not know much about the group. In fact, all I had really heard was that they were a well-connected Christian dominionist organization in the Washington D.C. area. I still do not know very much about them, but I have to say that what I've been learning in the aftermath of the Ensign, Sanford, and Pickering scandals has been more than a little concerning. I hope that more information about the group emerges, so much information that they are essentially neutered. After all, it strikes me as nearly impossible to view this group as anything less than a serious threat to democracy.

Bruce Wilson has an informative post on the Family over at Huffington Post, and as much as I hate the thought of relying on them as a source of information on any subject, it seems like a reasonable place to start because he assembles information from a variety of reputable sources. Religion Dispatches also has some good information on the Family. Here are some details about the group worth knowing:

The Family is the oldest conservative Christian organization in Washington D.C.
The Family runs (but does not own) the notorious "C Street House" as a church to provide assorted politicians with inexpensive living space, Christian bible study, and "spiritual counseling."
"C Street House" is owned by an organization, Youth With a Mission D.C., headed by Loren Cunningham, a man with a vision for worldwide Christian dominion. Cunningham links to Campus Crusade for Christ and Christian Embassy, a D.C.-based ministry that tries to convert Pentagon officials.
The Family is responsible for the annual National Prayer Breakfasts and runs assorted prayer groups in which both Republican and Democratic members of Congress participate.
According to Jeff Sharlet, author of The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power (added to my to-read list), the Family is "committed to a political theology that views democracy as a form of secular humanism, to which they're deeply opposed."

It does not sound to me like members of the Family, including the politicians who continue to associate with them, have much interest in democracy. If this group was not on your radar before, I suggest they should be now.

The kingdom of God that’s to be built here on earth, Family organizers are fond of saying, is not a democracy.

- Jeff Sharlet

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Mark Sanford is Innocent, Blame Satan

2009-07-08T05:04:00.000-05:00

Image by PK Kool via Flickr

It looks like I may have been unfair in honoring Republican Governor Mark Sanford (SC) as Idiot of the Week. If the whole sordid affair was not his fault, it seems wrong to celebrate his idiocy. How could it not have been his fault? Simple. Satan did it. Warren "Cubby" Culbertson, described as Sanford's "spiritual adviser, appears quite determined to win next week's Idiot award.

According to USAToday:

...In an interview with The Associated Press this weekend at his Columbia office, just blocks from the State House, [Warren "Cubby"] Culbertson said he believed his friend when he said that this was his only marital transgression. He thinks Sanford was simply caught off guard by 'the power of darkness.'

I have a simple hope for future generations. I hope that someday "spiritual advisers" like "Cubby," Billy Graham, Rick Warren, and their associates are regarded with the same contempt that is now reserved for televangelists and others who prey on human misery.

H/T to Pam's House Blend

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Palin Resigns

2009-07-03T15:58:00.004-05:00

Image by Jon Person via Flickr

Christian extremist favorite, Sarah Palin, has resigned as Governor of Alaska amidst rumors that Todd Palin was "hiking the Appalachian Trail." Okay, the part about Todd is just in my head, but she really did resign.

This is great news for the people of Alaska. It is also likely to be great news for the Democratic Party if it has anything to do with Palin's plans to run for President in 2012.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

What Does the Bible Say About Mark Sanford?

2009-06-29T06:27:00.000-05:00

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

One of the common claims I have heard about the Christian bible is that it provides an excellent guide for living. Even though it was written a long time ago, many believers consider it to have been divinely inspired and thus timeless. It is only natural, then, that we would look to the Christian bible in times of tribulation. What wisdom does the Christian bible offer in the case of Gov. Mark Sanford's (R-SC) extramarital affair?

Put yourself in the shoes of the core Republican base for a moment. As a proud bible-believing "family values" conservative, you were dismayed to learn of Sanford's sin. You know that he will be seen as a hypocrite and that this sort of publicity hardly helps your party. Moreover, you feel personally betrayed by Sanford because he seemed to speak from the heart when promoting your shared values. He spoke your language, and you were convinced that he was one of the good ones, a true believer like yourself. It is perfectly natural that you would feel betrayed.

As an evangelical Christian, you are used to finding strength in your bible when you most need it. So what does your bible say on the subject of Gov. Sanford, Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), and so many others? According to Leviticus 20:10,

And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

As State of Protest recently pointed out, Sanford had better hope that nobody takes his repeated references to "god's law" or his efforts to violate separate of church and state too seriously. Note to Sanford and Ensign: Stay the hell away from any future Palin rallies!

Of course, neither Gov. Sanford nor Sen. Ensign deserve death. But they do deserve to be labeled hypocrites. And the bible-believing "family values" conservatives? They deserve a therapeutic dose of reality.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Idiot of the Week: John Boehner

2009-06-13T05:47:00.001-05:00

Idiocy of this magnitude deserves attention, and that is exactly what it gets right here in the ever popular Idiot of the Week series. A new winner is announced each Saturday.

This week's winner is House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH). There is plenty to detest about Boehner, from his histrionic sobbing to his orange spray-tan. But Boehner is also a repository of some grade A idiocy. Take, for example, Boehner's recent comments about how his Republican party:

We’re digging ourselves out of a deep hole. We took it in the shorts with Bush-Cheney, the Iraq War, and by sacrificing fiscal responsibility to hold power.

On the surface, this doesn't look like idiocy at all. In fact, it might even be an accurate statement. One little problem though. As Think Progress points out, Boehner should be blaming himself rather than the administration he consistently supported.

He voted to authorize use of military force against Iraq, and voted against a House-approved Iraq withdrawal in 2007. He also voted for the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which were largely responsible for turning our nation’s surplus into a massive deficit. As Boehner himself said in 2006, “I think that Republicans ought to stand up and support George W. Bush for the job that he’s done.”

By blaming the Bush administration, Boehner does not have to acknowledge that much of our current situation is due to his politics, politics he has not exactly disowned.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

What Happened to the "Get Tough on Crime" GOP?

2009-05-29T06:30:00.000-05:00

Image by fPat via Flickr

Remember when Republicans proudly identified themselves as being "tough on crime," at least compared to their Democratic opponents? Now that they are determined to make sure that top Bush Administration officials who ordered torture escape a war crimes investigation, I cannot help wondering what happened to them. Even worse, it now appears that they are willing to can their own investigation of Clinton officials for rendition if it gets the Bush Administration off the hook with Justice. So much for being the party of law and order.

It seems awfully hypocritical for the "tough on crime party to oppose an investigation of something as serious as war crimes. Maybe "get tough on crime" only applies to poor African American drug offenders.

It seems even more hypocritical that the GOP is now trying to block a war crimes investigation by threatening to launch their own investigation of Clinton officials for using rendition if the Justice Department investigates war crimes. If they have evidence that Clinton Administration officials committed crimes, why have they not already investigated them? They should do so and do so immediately. And how absurd is it to attempt to use that as a bargaining chip now? If Clinton officials committed crimes, they should be investigated! And the same is true of Bush officials.

We have compelling evidence that top Bush administration officials committed war crimes by authorizing and then implementing torture. A criminal investigation is necessary. If it turns out that Pelosi was in on it, she must be investigated too. If it turns out that Clinton officials were doing similar things, they must be investigated too. Why is this so difficult to grasp? Criminals must be brought to justice regardless of what political party is involved.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution