You Want My Opinion?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali fled to the Netherlands a Somali refugee in 1992, escaping from an arranged marriage. She began working as a cleaning lady, but learned Dutch relatively quickly and found a job as a translator for other refugees in positions similar to her own. She attended the University of Leiden, became synonymous with women's rights and honesty about the repression of women in the Islamic community that she grew up surrounded by. Soon after death threats followed, and she moved to the US in 2002, only to be urged by the deputy prime minister of the Netherlands to run for Parliament, and promised security. In 2004 she and filmmaker Theo Van Gogh produced "Submission", a short film with several monologues that showed a frank image of a woman's status in Islamic society. Van Gogh refused security, and was subsequently violently killed, a note threatening Ali stabbed into his chest. Since then she has been under intense security, eventually forcing her to leave the Netherlands, and, just a month ago, being informed that she would not be protected by the Dutch government after all.

I've read Ali's second book, "Infidel", and was blown away. She struggled through a particularly trying childhood only to take on an even more trying career later on. And what pains me about this story is that here is a woman who has done most of her work and was elected to Parliament in Holland-- one of the most liberal countries in the world. And yet, she faces a death threat because she spoke her mind on a religion that generally repressed her and the women she knew for as long as she considered herself a Muslim. Would this happen if she had denounced vegetarianism? Alchemy? Astrology? Techno music?

The reality is that religion is the only kind of organization/nation/belief system/etc that would have this violent reaction to someone criticizing their beliefs. And while all religions have believers who range in their level of fervor, Islam is one of the few with such a large percentage of people who are willing to kill themselves and others in the name of god. Any Christian, Jew, or otherwise theistic and religious person does not have the right to criticize Islam on a factual or scriptural level, because no one can prove that Jesus was or wasn't born of a virgin, that Moses did or didn't part the Red Sea, or that Muhammad did or didn't hear the perfect word of god in a cave. However, we can't prove that Mary didn't have a little lamb, that Humpty Dumpty didn't fall to his death, or that the Big Bad Wolf ate Little Red Riding Hood's grandmother, but the average rational person would not lean towards the affirmative in the case of any of those fables. However, one cannot deny that as far as violence as a result of faith goes, Muslims seem to be ahead in that race.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an intelligent and brave woman who happens to be a prime example of just how malignant an influence religion has on the world, and on individual people. I would be almost willing to bet that the man who killed Theo Van Gogh would not have been so eager to do so had he not been raised to believe that apostates deserve death or worse. I feel similarly in regards to the hijackers of 9/11, who without Islamic influence in their lives, may not have been willing to give up their lives in the name of Allah. But, again, Islam is certainly not the only religion to have a group of violent and strongly fervent faithful. But we cannot deny that it is very plausible that they have a monopoly on this breed of religion. The question that I am getting at, is that if this is the horrible result of faith, even if it were just a minority (though I don't believe it is), how can anyone still say that religion in general is useful?

I'm sure that everyone by now has heard about Osama's latest video. I'm also sure that very few know exactly what he said, the first cause being that few in this country speak Arabic (myself included), and the second being that the transcript is not exactly a most-searched item on Google. I did manage to find it on the New York Daily News web page, though.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/09/08/2007-09-08_transcript_of_osama_bin_laden_video.html

While reading it, I immediately noticed all of the things I did not agree with or even sympathize with. First being his constant devotion to "Allah" and at any mention of a prophet or otherwise highly regarded Islamic figure, saying "Peace and blessings of Allah be upon them". I strongly disagree with his idea that Islam is the solution to America's problems. Quite the opposite, all major religions such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam pose a threat to America's future, and there will not be any answer to come from them that will help us in any way. He contradicts himself largely by stating that Islam is what will bring about peace to the world if we all embrace it, but that in order to make us see this he feels he must attack as many nonbelievers as possible. In my own rationale, you can only bring peace through peace, and bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity. Sadly, many Muslims view the world in this violent way and that is a huge source of our national security woes at this time. For these things, I would say that Bin Laden could not have been more wrong.

However, call me crazy, but some of his statements were not inherently evil or narrow minded or anti-American. In one part he says, "And for your information media, during the first years of the war, lost its credibility and manifested itself as a tool of the colonialist empires, and its condition has often been worse than the condition of the media of the dictatorial regimes which march in the caravan of the single leader."  Can we really disagree with that? The integrity of American media has, indeed, been on a steady and steep slope since 2003. Fox News comes to mind, with its incessant bias toward the White House despite its repeated blunders, but all news channels are guilty of misrepresentation at one point or another. During the war you really have to fend for yourself in terms of finding honest news reporting on television. Every station has a different spin on the same story. In a more specific case, during Hurricane Katrina isn't it funny how when white people were seen grabbing things out of store windows or other houses in effort to survive, it was called "scrounging for food" but when a black person did the same thing for the same purpose it was "looting"? 

He goes on to say, "Then Bush talks about his working with al-Maliki and his government to spread freedom in Iraq but he in fact is working with the leaders of one sect against another sect, in the belief that this will quickly decide the war in his favor. And thus, what is called the civil war came into being and matters worsened at his hands before getting out of his control and him becoming like the one who plows and sows the sea: he harvests nothing but failure." I seriously doubt that anyone could argue that Bush has made strong efforts to satisfy Shia, Sunni, and Kurds in this mess we call the Iraq war. The roots of why we have such problems with fighting is totally political. Each group not only fights against one another, but some even fight within themselves, and no matter how large the troop surge, the only way to solve a political problem is to use a political solution. Bush has said several times that this is not a conventional war of nation against nation, but yet he continues to fight it like it is such a war. I found his simile of Bush being "like the one who plows and sows the sea; he harvests nothing" to be both amusing and true. His tactics in this war are not working, and it has gotten so out of control there that our only real option is to attempt to solve the political problems that exist there, and if that still doesn't work, we have to leave.

Most disturbing about the video is his repeated statements that Islam is peaceful and the solution to all our problems is Islam. As I have said, this is very clearly not the solution at all. He states, "the morality and culture of the holocaust is your culture, not our culture. In fact, burning living beings is forbidden in our religion, even if they be small like the ant, so what of man?! The holocaust of the Jews was carried out by your brethren in the middle of Europe, but had it been closer to our countries, most of the Jews would have been saved by taking refuge with us." I would think most can agree that almost all cultures have had their form of holocaust one way or another, including, if not especially, Muslims. Islam became such a prominent religion by its believes spreading it by the sword. The Quran is chock full of passages that condemn non-believers to death. Almost any sin is punishable by death. It is also quite common for a man to burn his wife if she should disobey or disgrace him in any way, which is a great deal different than the picture he paints with his statement. This is very clearly not a religion of peace. Also, perhaps Osama is tolerant of Jews, if his statement is true, but few Muslims are. If there areas where Jews and Christians can live alongside Muslims in relative peace, it is only because, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali said once, they pay their high taxes and take a submissive position as "dimmies". 

Yet, I would have to agree with him when he says, "you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose [ending the war], but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there, which has led to the vast majority of you being afflicted with disappointment."  Our Congress has an even lower approval rating than the president. I would be the first to say that the democrats have not done what they said they would do. They have made attempts to legalize stem cell research, but instead of blocking more spending for the war they campaigned against, they passed the bill. Instead of stopping the wiretapping they were so outraged about, they passed a bill that legalized it. I am, indeed, disappointed with them in this sense.

He mentions something suggesting that Kennedy was killed to continue the Vietnam war, which I doubt because as far as I know the Vietnam war did not really exist at the time of Kennedy's presidency. He contradicts himself again shortly after by saying how appalled he is at Bush's cabinet choices for their "horriffic murdering of humans", meanwhile he acknowledges responsibility for killing more than 3,000 people (I'm sure at least 1 being a Muslim, not counting the suicide pilots) on 9/11. He condemns capitalism, using global warming as an example that many in the world have been so greedy as to endanger the furture of the earth and the human race through emissions of factories, cars, planes, factory farming, etc. That fact cannot be denied, even though it seems odd he would adhere to such an idea.

"You believe with absolute certainty that you believe in Allah, and you are full of conviction of this belief, so much so that you have written this belief of yours on your dollar. But the truth is that you are mistake in this belief of yours... So how about you when you associate others with Him in your beliefs and separate state from religion, then claim that you are believers?!" He is quite wrong in this statement; "In God We Trust" wasn't put on our dollars until 1957, and the founding fathers very much intended for us to keep church out of state and vice versa. Our country was built on this principle, and only until we began to deviate from that did we develop such problems. The reason why we are absolutely obligated to keep them separate is very simple: not everyone believes the same thing. I'm sure this has crossed Osama's mind, but Islam, surely not being the picture of peace he wishes it to be, does not leave room for people to lead their own lives at their own expense. Islam promotes the idea that Islam is correct, and anyone who disagrees should be put to the sword. And then he wonders why we do not all embrace any single religion. He says that separating church and state is a form of polytheism, in what way I cannot really be sure, unless he means to imply that Americans worship secular government in the same fashion some might worship a god, but other than that I really cannot be sure. 

Osama continues even further to say that the "American empire" is coming to a close in much the same way the Soviet Union did, because we have a leader who will not admit his mistakes in waging a silly war. I cannot say that America is going to survive or fail, I doubt that I will see any particularly decisive  fate in my lifetime. However, I would say that because we are a democracy and because we will not have Bush around for much longer, we stand a fighting chance of lasting quite a while. Should Bush be allowed to last another 8 years, though, I fear I would agree that America might see its last days. As long as in 2008 we can elect an honest and responsible leader, I am confident that our outlook is not as bleak as Bin Laden would like to think.

As a young child, writing in school was the absolute last thing I would have been interested in doing. Many times it would seem like every time I wrote something, there was a problem, and I grew bored easily from this cycle.

Then, in fifth grade I had a teacher who had such a passion for language that it made even me want to put effort into my work. She taught me how to create and appreciate kinds of writing I would not have otherwise embraced, or even heard of, if not for her. I learned the "rules" of writing. I learned the specifics of nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives. I learned all the little sayings and rhymes I would ever need to know grammar off the back of my hand. Many times she would tell us that if you couldn't read or write well, you couldn't do anything well. When she would be asked by the wiseguy of the class "What if you can't read or write at all?", she would shake her head and say "You would be very, very lost in life".

I wrote in almost every form you can think of. All kinds of poetry-- limericks, haikus, free form, quatrains, couplets, sonnets, you name it I wrote it. There were the ever tedious current events but the happily surprising moment when we were told to use our current event to write a short story. At such a young age, my head was spinning, but I learned that I was totally in control of my own writing, which I immediately loved. My characters were a nation and I their leader-- their entire lives would surround my decision to let them live or die, fall in love or remain a spinster-- no matter what I did to them, they were mine.

The more time I spent in her class writing and reading, the more I realized that I was actually good at writing. I had a strong understanding of the English language and I knew that with that I could do anything. I started slow, writing only when necessary in class. I would receive the occasional praise for my writing, but nothing that made me think I was particularly good at it. I just knew I was capable of doing it. Eventually I started to write things outside of school, starting slowly with a notebook where I would jot down random thoughts, poems, etc, and moving gradually into writing little outlines for what might be novels, songs, short stories-- it could have been anything and I couldn't have told you what they would be if I tried.

My first manuscript was 150 pages, exactly. If I told you what it was about you would laugh, most likely. I barely understand it now. I worked on it my entire 7th grade year, and I couldn't have been more ambitious in writing it. I was going to have it published and use my earnings for college. I was on the fast track. Though I quite obviously did not hit that goal, every piece I write is just another attempt to one-up the last thing I wrote. I read over old writing and I think about all the things that don't make sense or that I don't like anymore, and I strive to change all those things in whatever I do next. I don't know that I do this well. I don't know that I even like this. No one knows if they love to breathe, they just know that they can, and that they have to in order to survive. In that same light, I do not know if I love to write, I know only that I have to if I want to survive.

Poll #1046597 Hot Topic Poll: Alberto Gonzalez vs. Michael Vick
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 0

Whose actions were worse

Why is it that every time an athlete or otherwise famous person gets in trouble, the have to "find God" to redeem themselves in the court of the public eye? Michael Vick apologized for his sickening treatment toward the dogs he used in violent fights, and those he killed for lack of good performance while fighting, saying "I found Jesus and asked him for forgiveness and turned my life over to God". What?!

I have a few problems with this statement. The first is that he didn't seem to be too concerned with "God" while he was torturing and killing these dogs in the first place. Second, these were actions that he was very much in control of. There is no god that forced him to do them, and there is no god that will prevent him from doing them again. Whether or not you believe in any kind of god, I think most will agree that if there is one, he/she didn't (and won't) have a hand in helping or stopping this kind of behavior. Third, the bible advocates animal cruelty all over the place. They suggest that if a man "lies" with an animal, both the animal and the man be killed. God likes Abel's animal sacrifice better than Cain's vegetable sacrifice, as he claims vegetables aren't sufficient. God drowns the world because of man's supposed evil, but he kills all the animals, too. God orders Abraham to kill his son Isaac as a burnt offering, but at the last minute provides a goat for him to kill instead. In the fifth plague, all the cattle are killed. God gives specific instruction on how to properly kill and offer animals to him, because apparently this kind of cruelty pleases him. God instructs people to offer two lambs to him each day. I could go further but I'll spare you. If this isn't enough to make you see what I mean, nothing will be. Why should anyone be impressed that Vick is trying to "cure" himself by turning to a God who demands generally the same kind of cruelty he is in trouble for to begin with?

Then there's the issue with what he's admitting to. He admits he bankrolled dogfights. He admits he did this on his property. He admits that he took part in killing dogs. He admits he took part in training dogs to fight. But gamble on it? Oh, no, no, he was above that. What is that about? That pretty much says to me that in his eyes, dog fighting is pretty bad, but admitting to gambling would be worse. On top of all the heinous things he's accused of right now, is gambling really the worst of it? To be honest, if he hadn't tortured and killed dogs like this and was ONLY accused of gambling on football, baseball, sports in general, I would be much less horrified and offended. He has been indefinitely suspended from the NFL and could be banned totally. Why, do you ask? Not because of the way he tortured and killed dogs, but because he ASSOCIATED WITH GAMBLERS!

Someone please tell me why, in the midst of being accused (and guilty) of vicious crimes such as these, GAMBLING is the cause for dismay from the NFL? In my opinion, that's the least of his crimes.

The fact that Vick has been accused of this has brought out many who disapprove of him and have boycotted anything associated with him, and shockingly, some supporters. People like to turn issues like this into a racial situation, which it is not. If a white man or woman was guilty of this crime, those who truly care about the issue would feel exactly the same about it. I have also heard some arguments that this crime is being treated with more outrage than the murder or abuse of a human being. Anyone remember OJ Simpson? Kobe Bryant? Were people not outraged at those cases? OJ, despite being set free, has been made into a pariah of society and Bryant, who likely cheated on his wife but did not rape anyone, has been given his fair share of wrist slaps. Too many people are not focusing on the fact that regardless of his skin color or other situations perhaps taken more lightly, Michael Vick still killed dogs, still tortured them, still made them fight to their deaths. Whether he gambled on it is quite minute and irrelevant, if you ask me, in comparison to the myriad of sick crimes he committed.

The best thing for Vick to do right now is state that his actions were wrong, and that he will do his best to redeem himself in the public eye-- but not hide under the cover of "Jesus" or "God" to help him. Michael Vick must acknowledge that he and he alone took these actions and that he and he alone will do what he can to resolve the problems he has caused for himself. I, for one, am tired of hearing every celebrity who has done something stupid (Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Nicole Richie, Isaiah Washington, etc) saying they are going to "find God" to make their problems go away. Instead of trotting out your bible, maybe you should trot out your conscience and your common sense and handle life's problems that way.

You know that the administration is in trouble when the President has himself believing the lies he tells to the people. Alberto Gonzalez's resignation is one that Bush claims he took "reluctantly" and that Gonzalez himself is a "talented and honorable person" being "impeded from doing important work because his good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons". How seriously is the average American supposed to take this, especially coming from a man who has consistently appointed people based generally on their loyalty to him and the Republican party?


While serving as White House counsel, he attempted to strong-arm then-Attorney General John Ashcroft into sign off on the NSA's unwarranted spying as legal. He was appointed Attorney General of the Department of Justice in 2005. In March 2007 he was probed by Congress about the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, about which he claimed he knew nothing of (he was recorded as saying some form of "I don't know" 71 times at one hearing). U.S. attorneys serve at the leisure of the president, and it is typical for a new president to fire the existing ones at the start of a term. However, these eight were fired mid-term, an unprecedented move. Some of those who were fired were Republicans themselves.

Gonzalez has continually maintained that he did not know anything of the firings, but even former aide Monica Goodling (who, interestingly enough, graduated from Messiah college and then televangelist Pat Robertson's law school, AKA "Home of the Fighting 'Christ'ies") testified that Gonzalez tried to coach her on her recollections of the issue and claimed it "made me a little uncomfortable".

How many scandals does this administration need to prove its incompetence? Illegal NSA wiretapping, unprecedented firings, unwarranted wars, disgraceful handling of Hurricane Katrina, passionate defense against stem cell research, the most viable method to potentially cure millions of various diseases, etc. The list could go on and on. Alberto Gonzalez, sadly, is just a minor example of what happens when you are appointed for not much else outside of being a "Loyal Bushie". This administration has proven time and time again that it is neither capable nor willing to serve the people, but rather far more interested in serving themselves. Bush defends this man by saying he was forced to resign for "political reasons", but fails to mention that he was appointed for political reasons, as well. Even Gonzalez's aide, Monica Goodling, was very clearly appointed for political reasons. She graduated from Messiah College and later Pat Robertson's Regent College, and was described by many as naive, young, and inexperienced. Nevertheless, she was given (by Gonzalez) right to hire/fire any appointee except U.S. attorneys, and was noted for having not hired Democrats because she felt they "couldn't be trusted". She acknowledged this kind of hiring practice in her statement at a May 2007 hearing before the House of the Judiciary Committee.

In this country, we like to pretend we know what matters. We like to pretend that the most important part of being president is not getting blown, but is that really it? By those standards almost all of the Bush administration would be doing great. But maybe there's more to this job than that, like appointing people who are qualified to do their job, like providing for those displaced by Katrina, like coming up with a reasonable immigration plan, like researching and analyzing the situation before invading a country for the hell of it.

The eight attorneys who Gonzalez fired (and apparently forgot about immediately afterwards) weren't "Loyal Bushies". They weren't prepared to investigate every Democrat for every shit they've taken in the last 20 years, knowing that the mere announcement of an investigation on a candidate can ruin the election, whether or not they actually did anything. That's why they were fired. By Bush's own terms they weren't "patriotic". We are constantly hearing definitions of what Bush views as a "patriot". But should we really be listening to this guy anymore? This is a guy who basically thinks a patriot agrees with him all the time. That seems to be the only qualification needed for him to consider you a patriot, or hire you for a job in the White House, for that matter.

I'm not a "what have you done for me lately" kind of girl, but come to think of it, what has Bush done for me lately? He's gotten the country into debt and lowered the taxes-- taxes I will no doubt be paying within the next ten years. He has vetoed stem cell research, and if I should ever get cancer, diabetes, AIDS, etc-- I'll be out of luck in terms of trying to cure it. In fact, he's even prepared to veto a bill for children's health care, so my kids will probably be out of luck, too. President Clinton got a blow job and I know how disturbing that is to the many prudish Republicans out there, but did he ever have this many fuck ups? Has any president? Isn't it time to prioritize things and realize that maybe we'd all be better off if the president was getting screwed as opposed to screwing the country?

Poll #1042088 Religion
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 414

Do you belong to an organized religion?

Poll #1042089 Religion and Government
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 395

Does religion have too much involvement in government

Poll #1042090 Belief in God
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 407

Do you believe in God?

It's relatively well known that George Bush is no secular son of the enlightenment. It's probably equally known that he has often credited his quitting drinking to his spirituality, namely, Jesus. He has said that a discussion with Billy Graham years ago lead him back to Jesus so he could truly commit himself to Christ. He also has said that he later joined bible study groups and intricately examined the bible, eventually leading to his 20 year sobriety. 

That's a really nice story. I like to read it right before bedtime after I've finished "The Three Little Pigs" and "Little Red Riding Hood". If President Bush thinks Jesus saved him from the drink, great. That's good for him. But my concern is not whatever he believes led to his sobriety, but what happened after he "found" Jesus. 

We all know that the president is infamously against abortion, stem cell research, and gay marriage, all for admittedly religious reasons. He has even been quoted saying that evolution is "just a theory". Yeah, that's true. Just a theory that has consumed years of scientists' time and efforts spent finding and putting together ancient remains of hominids, dinosaurs, etc. Just a theory with a massive fossil record detailing various species' evolution. Just a theory. Meanwhile, he has supported "intelligent" design, and it being taught alongside evolution in schools, which is essentially like teaching how a human fetus is conceived but also teaching about the stork. (I put quotation marks around "intelligent" because this is essentially creationism dressed up as science; certainly not intelligent.) 

The problem with the president "finding" Jesus is the effect he would like it to have on the rest of the country. If religion were about self-healing and comfort, I would have no objection to it. Alas, it is not. Religion has become a driving force behind protests against causes I've named above. (It's a force that led to the horrific proposal of Fred Phelps that a monument dedicated to Matthew Shepard's "entry into hell" for being gay because, according to Phelps, God hates gays.) But why is it that when the president came across these fervent new beliefs that he expects others to accept them, too? His belief that Jesus "saved" him from the drink has led him in zealous campaigns against gay marriage, a woman's right to choose, and stem cell research, all of which are totally irrational (with the exception of his pro-life views, which I disagree with but do understand can have secular rationales behind them). 

If I had a coke problem, went to rehab and  finally got a hold of it ten years later, crediting Mickey Mouse with "saving" me from being a cokehead, I would likely be laughed into a looney bin and kept there for a long time.  People would say "what proof do you have Mickey saved you from coke?" or "that's ridiculous, a fictional cartoon character can't cure drug addiction". They would be right. But if you really consider things, how different is it from saying Jesus "saved" me from coke addiction? Neither can be proven or disproven. Neither has evidence to support it. But the latter would be taken much more seriously than the former. Why?

In this country, we are forced by society to accept that crticizing one's religion is rude. You can criticize a person's carniverous diet/vegetarianism, music taste, politics, etc-- but religion is always the big white elephant in the room that no one is permitted to discuss. We put religious beliefs on a pedestal and keep them there, even though there are few (if any) religions that actually have proof to support the claims they make. For instance, Christianity is the first to say that evolution is false and creationism is the true story of how the world came into existence, but they have no proof to support this claim other than "paintings have a painter, buildings have a builder".  And it is always the ones who understand evolution the least who like to criticize it the most. Or, there is Islam, which teaches that those who die for Allah will receive 72 virgins in the afterlife. What proof do you have that this is true? Jews believe that Moses parted the Red Sea, and I could easily say right now that I believe there are leprechauns on my shoulder that are so small you can't see them or hear them, but you know they are good or bad based on whether you perform more good or bad deeds. Can either of these claims be proven? No.  The most ironic part of pious people who defend these claims is that they are proven because the book where these ideas originated says they really are true.

The problem in this country is not faith itself. If you choose to lead your life based on books that are outdated and full of often crude teachings (i.e. stone those who worship other gods, kill unbelievers, kill homosexuals, cut off the hand of naughty kids, etc), that's your prerogative. The problem is that pious men and women get it in their heads that their lives are made better by believing in these fairy tales, and that if they could only share their stories with others, they would believe them too. Or, more radically, they try to force their views into laws whether or not other people believe/agree with them. Bush believing Jesus stopped him from drinking is fine. The fact that now he believes that gay people shouldn't get married because he believes this is what Jesus wants in return for his favor is not. The fact that he believes a 150 cell blastocyst used in stem cell research is "human life", and thus thousands will suffer and possibly die from diabetes, cancer, AIDS, HIV, etc, is not fine. The fact that he thinks illegalizing abortion and forcing women to hurt themselves, give birth to their children, or go to back alley abortion doctors would make Jesus happy, is not fine.

We have to come to understand that sparking debate over religion is not intolerant. In fact, it is the first step toward tolerance. I would not expect anyone to believe or respect that Mickey Mouse saved me from coke any more than I should be forced to respect Bush's assertion that Jesus is behind his sobriety. Neither have proof, and neither deserve credibility. Should we all start a debate with each other while waiting in line at the post office, having dinner in a restaurant, at home with friends, etc? No. But if the topic arises, no one should feel like they can't ask "What evidence makes you believe that?". Anyone who holds beliefs that have no proof do not need deserve to be taken seriously. As an atheist, I do not have solid proof that I know there is no god-- no one does. But no one has proof that their is a god, either, and I would appreciate if people would stop asserting that they know this. I know that humans evolved from simple life forms over millions of years, but I do not know what caused the big bang, or if the big bang happened, or how the universe as a whole came into being. But I don't claim to know these things. Many religious zealots do. The reality is that they know just as much as I do, really, but are not as willing to accept it. 

If we can all agree that there are some questions that no one has the answers to, can't we all agree that the golden rule for people of all beliefs should be "Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself"? (thanks George Carlin, for that rule)

After watching the YouTube Democratic Debate, I came away both encouraged and disappointed. Some candidates managed to answer questions head on, others did not. I felt a strong attraction to Dennis Kucinich's views, but sadly came to the realization only moments later that Dennis Kucinich will not be elected. Ever.

Why, might you ask, does he not stand a shot? Here's why. Dennis Kucinich is a petite man who doesn't have the "strong" appearance of any of the other candidates. What is ironic about this is that aside from physical shortcomings, Kucinich seems to be the stronger on his views than any other candidate.

Kucinich is pro-choice, pro gay MARRIAGE (not the laughably unequal "unions"), anti-war, anti-assassination as a policy, and a vegan. His policies would bring America to the fine standards we set for ourselves a long time ago, but have fallen pathetically short of in the past eight years. I do believe that Clinton, Obama, or Edwards would all make great presidents, but none of them are so unafraid to vocalize their beliefs as Kucinich.

During the debate, I was greatly disappointed by Edwards' clear lack of regard for separation of church and state in relation to the issue of gay marriage. Funnily enough, his wife is pro gay marriage (would she be willing to run?), and he deems himself "torn" on the issue. Torn? Really? Well here are the facts:

-Church and state are SUPPOSED to be separated in this country.
-By that token, we are supposed to disregard religious reasoning for certain things. Religion deems homosexuality immoral, but there is no secular reason that it is labeled such.
-This country is supposed to be secular, and is supposed to give all citizens "life, liberty, and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS". If, in that pursuit, you choose to marry someone of the same sex, that is your born right.

So, Mr. Edwards, the only thing you are torn between is church and state.

Senator Edwards also skirted around the question of whether he truly thought he was a better advocate for women's issues than Senator Clinton, refusing to answer "yes" or "no". But he was not the only candidate to avoid directly answering questions. Senator Obama, like Edwards, could not justify his opposition to gay marriage without citing religion. Both Obama and Edwards stated that they do not believe faith justifies a denial of peoples' rights, but yet they still stated that they do not support gay marriage.

Clinton surprised me at her ability to be generally quite a straight-talker (except for her initial hesitation in admitting she does not believe sending US troops to Darfur would be appropriate), but in my eyes, Kucinich still shined through. He is firm in his ideas because he knows that he could lead our country into a better state. He stated that he is well aware of the connection between the Iraq war and global warming, because the war is being fought in a quest for oil, and coming up with an eco-friendly alternative would end our dependency on Middle Eastern oil and save our increasingly evaporating ozone layer. 

I was impressed, and moved, also, by the not-much-mentioned Mike Gravel's passionate statement of "The only thing worse than a soldier dying in vain, is more soldiers dying in vain". Sadly, it is true that our men and women are dying without a cause in this war brought about by village idiots in search of oil (cough, cough Bush).

But, at the end of the day, Kucinich will never be elected because he doesn't have the image. He may be the best man for the job, but he's no "cowboy" like our last president. And, you all remember how important image is when it comes to electing a good leader, right?

Poll #1026889 Presidential Candidates '08
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 3

Who do you support for the 2008 election?

In case anyone has been living under a rock for the past few months, Paris Hilton went to jail. Paris spent give or take three weeks in jail for driving with a suspended license. I'll admit, when I first heard the situation of the case, I agreed she should have to do time for her crime. However, shortly after she was released from prison, Scooter Libby got away from, in my eyes, a much bigger crime, relatively unscathed.

The society we live in is such that people like Paris Hilton rarely ever have to suffer for their misdoings because they are rich enough to be above the legal system. And we, the eager public, are all too often watching with wide eyes at every move people like her make; even going so far as to cheer at her misfortunes. Then, take Scooter Libby. Here is a man who revealed the identity of a CIA agent because that agent's husband did fudge the facts of a report in order to back Bush's fairy tale (aka Iraq's WMDs). After working as an assistant to George Bush and chief of staff for Dick Cheney, surely one would not doubt his bias. Scooter Libby was tried and convicted on one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury, and one count of making false statements to federal investigators. Though he wasn't actually charged with outing a CIA operative, that's what he did, and the lies he told later on to cover that up were what got him sentenced to 30 months in prison, 400 hours of community service, and a $250,000 fine. That seems a fair price to pay. But wait! Scooter Libby's head honcho commuted his jail time, deeming it "excessive". Scooter Libby, a relatively wealthy man, had friends who rallied to support him and raise money to pay his fine (though he now says it was not that money that he used, even though many claim he is in a financial hardship due to legal fees). And, I'm sure, his community service will probably not be anything along the lines of picking garbage off highways. Scooter Libby will face no jail time. Scooter Libby will face no jail time. Scooter Libby will face no jail time. Say that over and over to yourself and really think about what this means.

Scooter Libby will face no jail time. Paris Hilton spent three weeks in jail. Say it slowly, now, Scooter Libby will face no jail time. Paris Hilton spent three weeks in jail. Why is it that Paris Hilton, who faced a much less grave charge than Libby, spent three weeks in jail, while Libby gets off generally scot-free? Perhaps he was not the only one to throw Valerie Plame's name around. Maybe he was one of a few. But he still did it. And he still lied to cover it. And Bush still lies behind all of this. Even, hypothetically, if Libby did not out Plame, he probably knows who did. And he still lied. He still lied. He still lied. Yet Libby will not go to jail. Any way you want to spin it, the entire situation just smells so bad, doesn't it? All this whole trial proved is that President Bush is even more arrogant than anyone else could have imagined. This administration really and truly does not care or consider what is legal or morally right, but just does whatever the hell it wants to do. After all, Bush is the "decider".

I will say this. If anything is excessive, it is the amount of sheer arrogance in this administration. Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame's husband, did not return a report that supported Bush's disaster of a war. He also spoke out against it. So, Bush, Cheney, and whoever else got together to figure out a way to retaliate. An opinion that contradicts that of the "deciders" clearly is not an opinion anyone should hear. Before anyone knows it, a woman's career is ruined, and now, no one is paying the price. How sad it is that Paris Hilton has to go to jail, but Lewis "Scooter" Libby pays no price for his actions, because Bush is on its side. Our country's motto is "liberty and justice for all", the last time I checked. But this administration has gotten it all wrong. "Liberty" does not mean the right to destroy lives on whatever level you wish, and "justice" does not mean making someone suffer-- or go free-- for their beliefs. With both cases so close to each other, it is hard for me not to look at this and think to myself... what kind of justice was served here? If it was served at all, it was on nothing more than a flimsy paper plate that sways with the breezes and never delivers quite the same way twice.

Poll #984018 Gay Rights...?
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 3

Was Peter Pace right to make anti-gay comments in the midst of war?

I don't know how far "Crusade" magazine reaches, but I found a copy today and was truly appalled by what I saw. One of the first articles I read was in reference to the comments of General Peter Pace made several weeks ago. In case anyone didn't know, Pace made a statement that homosexual acts were immoral and that the military is not well served by a policy that condones what he deems immorality.

At one point, they wrote: "Despite all the media hype about it, there is nothing wrong with the stand taken by the distinguished Marine general. In fact, it is in perfect harmony with natural law, whose first principle is: 'Good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided'." I find it incredibly disturbing that homosexuality is equated with evil. Why is it evil? Why are people condemned for this? The only level on which homosexuality is considered immoral is that from a religious standpoint, and if someone is not religious, why is it immoral? They call it "natural law" because it flows from "human nature" and claim homosexuality is against "nature". But articles such as these that promote intolerance of homosexuality cause incidents like that of Matthew Shepherd, the gay man beat to death because he was gay. One cannot say "all men are created equal" but then say "except they aren't equal enough to get married". The Church is kidding itself by urging followers to pray for those who "try to impose their lifestyle on society as a whole, in flagrant opposition to traditional Christian morality and natural law". Pray for what, exactly? Condescending statements such as these are the seeds of hatred and inequality. I do not believe in any god, but I would hope that people who claim to believe in a loving and merciful god would actually carry out that supposed love and mercy.

Further, the article mentions the "liberal media" several times, which fascinates me because I'd love to know where this exists. It seems that all conservative groups love to blame things on the "liberal media", but forget that FOX news is one of the most watched cable news networks in the country. The bigger issue, to me, is that everyone-- both left and right-- stop blaming the media for everything you don't like. Blame yourselves. The fact that America has gotten to a point where nonsensical anti-gay junk can even be taken seriously is at the fault of the people, not the media. The media is a reflection of the people, which is why some forms of it are liberal, and some are conservative.

I suppose what bothers me the most about this is just the unanswered question of: Why do you care? A gay person's sex life or lack of one do not affect anybody but them and their partner. Give me a reason why this affects you personally and I will take this issue seriously. But when all these ignorant people do is quote the Bible and various "scholars" from 600 years ago, I cannot take you seriously. Those views may have served people well in previous centuries, but in present day, I would hope that mankind has evolved into beings that can accept people for who they are, and let them do their thing without reciting passages from outdated books at them. I would hope, really, that mankind can learn just to live and let live.

Here's something to chew on: no one can be surprised that the war is still going on. Yes, I know you're angry at the death toll, lack of a plan, and unstoppable spending, but you cannot claim you are anti-war unless you do something about it. Therefore, democrats need to stop pretending that they are attempting anything. Americans have had to sacrifice nothing for this war, unlike World War II, unlike Vietnam-- unlike basically every other war this country has seen. The only connection Americans have to this war are the usually biased reports of the media. The death count varies from every source you look at, the national deficit varies just as much, but the only thing remains the same: we have accomplished nothing.

The big problem with this war is that no one has had to give up a thing, so who cares about the war? Who cares when it ends? The country's debt has affected no one, really, as of yet, so why bother? This is our problem, this is why our men and women are dying every day for a cause that doesn't exist. I hate to say it, but activists like Cindy Sheehan-- though doing a tremendous amount of work for the movement to bring the troops home, would probably not be as active in this cause if her son was not killed in the war. It isn't until something truly huge happens, whether on a personal or national level, that anybody really cares what's going on. But the fact of the matter is that this war is affecting us right now, every minute that it continues. Should a democrat, or maybe even some republican, get elected in 2008, taxes will undoubtedly go up, and that person will be the bad guy, because for the past two terms Americans have been comfortable. And far too many are still comfortable having our troops stay in Iraq. But to all of those people who say "if not in Baghdad, in Boston", please explain how you know this. Because our goals for this war have changed every time that a mission has not been accomplished. First it was to take away their weapons of mass destruction. Oops, there were none. Then it was to capture Saddam. Though we found him, I think I can speak for many when I say I'd have preferred if our energies were spent finding Osama Bin Laden, the real lunatic who's after this country. After Saddam's capture, it was to instill democracy. When that didn't work and more sectarian violence ensued, the goal became-- and currently is-- to keep the shit to shoe level and keep it "stable".

The bottom line is that no one can be surprised that Congress is not being more tough on Bush about getting out of Iraq. Unless you are doing something to fix this problem, or at least trying to make a difference by getting the word out, you can only get what you give, and that's absolutely nothing. Americans will buy, buy, buy until they are out of their money, out of their mind, and out of a home on this planet. We ignore the war and continue to drive around in giant SUVs, going into drive-throughs and eating ourselves silly. We forget that people are dying for us, just so that we can drive that SUV. Because, if you don't know, that's what this war is about. Oil. Keeping big businesses running so you can keep your fat ass on the road. But not only are we causing death to humans through this ignorance, we are causing death to the planet. So, Mr. Bush, if this was your goal, misery accomplished.

Poll #977095 Abortion
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 4

Should abortion be banned?

This should be a future rule for everyone: you cannot be "pro-life" if you are responsible for even one unnecessary death. I have difficulty understanding all these evangelists and various other Christian groups who continually rally around President NoBrains-- I mean, Bush-- because he's "pro-life" but yet they forget that all the American soldiers and Iraqi civilians that have died have died because of him. Instead of focusing on preserving the life that has actually exited the womb, these people prefer to march in parades in Washington for the "noble" cause of "saving" life. I was watching clips of that documentary, "Jesus Camp", which is disturbing on many levels, but one that comes to mind is a girl of 8 or 10 crying hysterically at the mention of abortion by a raving lunatic preacher and screaming "No more" over and over again. Did this girl actually know what abortion was? And even if so, did she ever have a look at the other side of the argument? Too many Christians are bringing up their kids to think exactly like them, stifling any independent thought and indoctrinating them with the things they make up. These same kids will later grow up to be the future radical Christians of America. The sad thing is that so many of these kids are intolerant of opinions that in any way contradict their own.

The problem with the entire pro-life movement is that they pick and choose when they are pro-life. They would have all abortion made illegal tomorrow if you suggested it, but almost never entertain the idea that this would have a catastrophic effect on women with unwanted pregnancies. We would essentially revert back into the early 1900s when women would self-mutilate themselves in attempt to abort their pregnancies, or we would make way for a new class of back alley hacks who charge tremendous amounts of money to perform less than sterile abortions. I shudder to think that the "pro-lifers" who do think of these possibilities still would ban abortion and almost hope that these women are injured, infected, or even killed in attempt to have abortions.

I am sure that plenty of pro-lifers believed that the recent ruling on partial birth abortion was a "gift" from "god", but is it, really? Out of 1.6 million abortions performed every year, partial birth abortion represented 2,500 of them. I don't support partial birth abortion, but this law won't stop them from occurring. Doctors probably will stop performing them, for the most part, but the potential harms I mentioned before could easily apply here as well. The answer to the problem is difficult, but maybe, if women were educated in school, at work, at home--wherever-- about their options, even fewer women would need partial birth abortions. If we promoted contraception despite the ridiculous backlash from right-wing religious groups, unwanted pregnancies would drop and abortion rates would decrease. Christians are really the root of the problem here, because if they just gave up their opposition to prophylactics, then abortion wouldn't be so frequent or so much of an issue. Europeans as a whole perform far less abortions than our country, and I cannot help but think that this is likely because they are less religious as a whole, and would undoubtedly have as many (if any) objections to contraception. Our goal in this country needs to be to keep women from having unwanted pregnancies to begin with, and teaching abstinence in high schools just won't do the trick. Teens will have sex no matter what anybody says and we need to recognize this and deal with the issue for what it is. More contraception = less abortion which should mean at least slightly happier Christians. Given the choice, what would bother them more? The fact someone used a condom or had an abortion? Even as a pro-choice advocate, I would much prefer if people prevented unwanted pregnancy to begin with, just to shut the Christians up about abortion.

The biggest question this debate poses, in my eyes, is why can't you be pro-life but advocate leaving the abortion laws as-is? Why can't we agree to keep abortion legal, safe, but RARE? Anyone who believes in a woman's right to choose is not saying that abortion is good. Abortion is not good. But making abortion illegal would cause more problems than it solves. Why is it so difficult to suggest that abortion be used in hopeless cases and that pregnant women be educated on the pro-life and pro-choice sides of the argument? People who believe that making abortion illegal would stop abortions are delusional and ignorant. Drugs are illegal in America. And that cut crack sales in half, right?

It's increasingly obvious that our country is changing and shifting as to what is important and what should be swept under the comfortable carpet of corruption that is becoming our government. And perhaps, in the midst of this change, I missed the point where having an opinion became illegal. Maybe I skipped class the day that "the decider" taught his lesson of blind obedience and agreement. The last time I checked, America was founded upon the principle of free speech, and I was thus allowed to say whatever I want, whenever I want to. But it seems that with the events that took place within the past few weeks speak louder than the mere Constitution.

First I'll start with Don Imus. His comments are well known by now and his punishment far longer lasting than the "crime" itself, but does his situation not stand for a bigger issue? His remarks were offensive and rude, but as an American he has a right to free speech and a right to make those offensive and rude comments. But let's be honest, any white people reading this, I somehow doubt that you were seriously offended. White people shouldn't be offended because we have held the reigns in America since its existence. And black people shouldn't be offended because 99.9% of the rap/hip hop songs out there today use far worse terms than Don Imus used. No, it is not acceptable in "art" because I don't recall there being any artistic merit to 50 Cent's "Candy Shop" or Lil Jon's "My Balls". Most (not all) rap consists of several rappers talking about women like sex objects, talking about being "gangsta" from experiences they probably made up, and using all kinds of four letter words. The thoughts are often incoherent and just strung together for shock value. The only people with a right to be offended at Don Imus's remarks are the Rutgers basketball team who know, and have proven, that his comments were completely false. Those girls worked hard and deserve praise for their accomplishments. But Don Imus should not be blamed for taking their glory. Had no one reported this and made it so huge, those girls may never have even heard his comments. But they did hear them, and they were hurt. Imus apologized. Why should he be fired for such a stupid incident? We have freedom of speech and we have a right to say anything. Since when do we live in a country where something we say can end our careers? Yet, what truly amazes me is that we have a president who makes off-color remarks every day and he's yet to be fired! We have a man in office who has been responsible for 100,000+ deaths over the past 5 years, yet Imus proves he's not a comedian, and he's got to go immediately.

As far as I'm concerned, if we start restricting what we say, it will only escalate from there. First it is the prohibition of racist words, then we're blocking words that are offensive to the government, to religion, to anyone. Words are not wrong themselves, it is the meaning and connotation behind words that are hurtful and wrong. We need to understand that these words are cruel in their origins and understand that using them should not be acceptable but should not be capable of ruining someone's career. If MSNBC and CBS had waited the full two weeks of Imus's suspension, this wouldn't even be an issue. Imus would have his job and do whatever he does and the rest of us could turn on the news without hearing about it anymore. Turn on the news right now. I promise you that you won't hear about this story, because people got tired of it. If two weeks had gone by and no one talked about it, no one would care anymore. In the first 9 days of this story's breaking, thirty two soldiers were killed in Iraq and twenty four were injured. Before worrying about what Don Imus has to say, worry about what Bush has to say. Worry about what exactly this man is doing to actually show his support for our troops and bring them home now.