A Few Recent Examples of Right Wing Lunacy

Yeah, I know. It’s been a while. Sorry. Busy, busy. And, frankly, there just hasn’t been much that I’ve really wanted to write about over the last few weeks. Or, if I did want to write about it, I didn’t have the time or patience to do so. (You know me: Why say in one paragraph, what I could say in a few thousand words instead…)

Anyway, I thought I’d take some time to briefly highlight a few stories that caught my attention recently. You can probably files these away in the “this is what we’re up against” category. And they’re indicative of what I’ve been referring to as the “stoopid” or just crazy. Or bigoted. Hateful, maybe. Choose your own preferred descriptions.

First, I’d like to direct your attention to a July 15 forum for candidates running to represent Iowa in the Senate. According to a story in The Iowa Republican (“News for Republicans, by Republicans”), at a forum sponsored by the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition, one of the questions posed to the candidates was “How do we know you won’t join “the brotherhood” once elected to the U.S. Senate?” The author of the article (remember this is “News for Republicans, by Republicans”) noted that “[e]veryone in the room knew that ‘the brotherhood’ was code for the gang of moderate senators who seek compromise instead of advancing a conservative agenda in the Senate.” So how did Senate candidate David Young answer the question about “the brotherhood”?

Young said that what really needs to happen in Washington D.C. is a change of hearts and minds. Young said as a Senator, he would invite New York Senator Chuck Schumer to lunch so that he could share the good news of Jesus Christ.

That’s right. In order to show just how “conservative” he was and prove that he wouldn’t “compromise” (because, you know, compromise is evil), a Senate candidate from Iowa expressed his desire to go to Washington to proselytize a Jewish senator. I mean, nothing says “conservative” like wanting to use the Senate as a place to try to convert your Jewish political opponents. And lest you think that Young is some country bumpkin that doesn’t know his way to Washington let alone around the the halls of power, apparently he was formerly the chief of staff for Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). So what does it say about Republican candidates and conservative thought that someone would even contemplate this as an answer? For that matter, just thing about the question itself or the notion that compromise is unacceptable.

After reading this article, I also broke one of those cardinal rules for reading online news stories: I read the comments. I think that a two are worth noting (remember, this is “News for Republicans, by Republicans”):

• Seems to me that Schumer could use a refresher in some of the beliefs of his religion…just like Pelosi and Reid do… [¶] Perhaps if people like Schumer, Reid and Pelosi actually remembered some of the tenants of their faith — they might actually understand why their political positions are 180 degrees out of phase with their professed faith.
• Jews are supposed to believe in the exact same Ten Commandments as Christians. [Recitation of four of the Commandments.] Today's Democrats believe in killing unborn babies [¶] ALL of today’s Democrat lie, lie, lie. Truth is irrelevant. [¶] Today’s Democrats steal from producers and redistribute the wealth to the parasite class. [¶] Today’s Democrats depend on many to covet what belongs to others.

Why do I highlight these two comments? Because they are indicative of how at least some people on the right actually think. There is this common thread that only conservatives (and only Christian conservatives) really know and understand what G-d commanded and what the Bible means. I mean, there’s no better way to get someone to want to sit down and work with you that to tell them that they are acting opposite to what you think that their faith demands. And to think that so many Christians wonder why most Jews vote for Democrats. Hmm.

And on a somewhat similar note, please watch this video. It’s from a recent meeting of the Alabama Public Service Commission. The woman speaking at the beginning is Twinkle Cavanaugh (and no, I did not make that name up), the head of the Public Service Commission. Listen to her introduction. What follows is hard to hear (but clicking through to YouTube will give a full transcript). The most interesting bit comes at approximately 5:20 (and I’ll provide a transcript of that below). Just watch (but you might want to put a cushion under your jaw, first).

Did you catch the last bit of the prayer?

We’ve taken you out of our schools; we’ve taken you out of our prayers; we’ve murdered your children; we’ve said it’s OK to have same-sex marriage, God. We have sinned.

First, ask yourself why the Alabama Public Service Commission needs to open with a prayer at all. Really. What is the point? Are these folks unable to get in enough prayer at home, at church, in their cars, or wherever else? They have to pray before this meeting? And then think about the fact that the leader of the Alabama Public Service Commission doesn’t just introduce the person who has been selected to give the prayer; no, she goes beyond that to really endorse the message that will be delivered. And, if all of that wasn’t enough, Twinkle (OK, fine, Ms. Cavanaugh…) then asks those in attendance to stand. But wait, there’s more! In addition to standing, those in attendance at this governmental meeting were then asked to raise their hand if they believe in prayer, believe that G-d answer’s prayers, and believe that people need prayer. Finally, what relation do the issues of school prayer, abortion, and same-sex marriage have to do with the business of the Alabama Public Service Commission? And when did we take G-d out of prayers?

So tell me, how many Jews would be comfortable in this environment? How many Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, or atheists would be? But shouldn’t all citizens be comfortable attending a public meeting, especially one that seems far removed from issues like church-state, abortion, and same-sex marriage?

What is the job of the Alabama Public Service Commission, you ask?

To ensure a regulatory balance between regulated companies and consumers in order to provide consumers with safe, adequate and reliable services at rates that are equitable and economical.

Yep. Sounds like gay marriage and abortion sure could interfere with that. Better call Jesus. Oh, and the meeting that this prayer was offered before? Yeah, it was a meeting to discuss power rates. Remind me what Jesus said about how much people should pay for their electricity. And remind me what school prayer, abortion, and same-sex marriage have to do with electric price rates.

Or perhaps you might consider some of the objections raised last week to Kentucky’s Next Generation Science Standards. According to the Louisville Courier-Journal, in a hearing at the State Department of Education, opponents to the new science standards offered several … um … interesting reasons that those new standards should be rejected:

Matt Singleton, a Baptist minister in Louisville who runs an Internet talk-radio program, called teachings on evolution a lie that has led to drug abuse, suicide and other social afflictions.

“Outsiders are telling public school families that we must follow the rich man’s elitist religion of evolution, that we no longer have what the Kentucky Constitution says is the right to worship almighty God,” Singleton said. “Instead, this fascist method teaches that our children are the property of the state.”

At one point, opponent Dena Stewart-Gore of Louisville also suggested that the standards will marginalize students with religious beliefs, leading to ridicule and physiological harm in the classroom, and create difficulties for students with learning disabilities.

“The way socialism works is it takes anybody that doesn’t fit the mold and discards them,” she said, adding that “we are even talking genocide and murder here, folks.”

Did you catch all that? New science standards are part of a “rich man’s elitist religion” and somehow prohibit Kentuckians from worship. And the teaching of evolution is apparently “fascist” and “teaches that our children are property of the state”. What does that even mean? But those comments almost pale in comparison to those of the woman who claims that the standards are socialism (wait, are science standards socialist or fascist?) and that they will lead to “genocide and murder”. Seriously. The teaching of evolution (and climate change) will lead to genocide and murder. Oh, and note her concern about the marginalization of students with religious beliefs. What do you bet that woman would have no problem with requiring children to pray in school or allowing gay kids to be be bullied. Yet another example of perceived Christian victimization.

But it wasn’t just science standards that led to really poor comparisons. Nope. One of my “favorite” members of Congress, Louie Gohmert (R-Texas, where else?), at a hearing on civil rights legislation, compared the legislation under discussion to … are you ready? Well, I’ll let Rep. Gohmert speak for himself. But first, it’s worth understanding that the legislation under discussion would prohibit “third parties from intervening in any regulatory action that prevents or is intended to prevent discrimination on the basis of race, sex, national origin, or other protected characteristic”. Got that? So here’s what Rep. Gohmert said:

There is nobody in this chamber who is more appreciative than I am for the gentleman from Tennessee and my friend from Michigan standing up for the rights of race, religion, national origin of the Delta Smelt, the snail darter, various lizards, the lesser prairie chicken, the greater sage grouse and so many other insects who would want someone standing for their religion, their race, their national origin and I think that’s wonderful.

Isn’t that just precious. Instead of talking about real challenges facing human minorities, Rep. Gohmert decides to compare those issues and minorities themselves to endangered special of animals. Yet Republican voters in Texas just keep reelecting this guy.

And down in Mississippi, the Governor is worried about important things, too:

Gov. Phil Bryant of Mississippi has long wanted children to pray at public schools. This week, with his grandmother’s worn Bible on his desk, he signed a bill that gets him closer to that goal.

The new law requires public schools to develop policies that will allow students to pray over school intercoms, at assemblies and at sporting events.

While not allowing school-sanctioned prayer, the law permits students to offer public prayers with a disclaimer by the school administration. “You might put on the program that this is not a state-sanctioned prayer if a prayer does break out at a football game or graduation,” Mr. Bryant said.

Although the state is not in the business of establishing religion, he said, “we are about making sure that we protect the religious freedoms of all students and adults whenever we can.”

Gee. Let’s see. We have a policy to let kids use the school’s public address system … but the school isn’t sanctioning what’s said. Right. OK. So can a Muslim student offer a Ramadan prayer to Allah? Can a Jewish student offer a prayer, perhaps in Hebrew? Can a Wiccan student … oh, hell, I don’t know, do whatever a Wiccan might want to do? More importantly, can an atheist student borrow the school’s PA to tell students that G-d is a figment of their parent’s imagination and that religion is evil? I’m sure that the school, if it permits prayers to Jesus (non-sanctioned, of course), will also allow competing views. Right? Right?

I’d love to hear the outcry when the Muslim or atheist 2nd grader uses the school’s PA, shortly after a pre-Christmas prayer from a Christian child (non-sanctioned, of course), to tell his or her classmates that Santa isn’t real. And when the Scientologist decides to relay his religion’s creation story… “Boom!”

And finally, who could forget the words of Tea Party favorite Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas, because you know, most of the batshit crazy far right wingnuts seem to come from Texas…) in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network (footnote added):

“If you look at other nations that have gone down the road towards gay marriage, that’s the next step of where it gets enforced,” Cruz agreed. “It gets enforced against Christian pastors who decline to perform gay marriages, who speak out and preach biblical truths on marriage*, that has been defined elsewhere as hate speech, as inconsistent with the enlightened view of government.”

“I think there is no doubt that the advocates who are driving this effort in the United States want to see us end up in that same place.”

You see, though he went to Harvard and seems to think that he’s therefore a smart guy, Sen. Cruz has no fucking idea of how the First Amendment works or what it is that gay rights advocates are fighting for. First, whatever may have happened in another country in this regard is largely irrelevant because those countries don’t have our First Amendment protections (and for that matter, I’m not even sure that whatever Sen. Cruz thinks has happened elsewhere has really happened**). More importantly, though, can anyone show me a single example of gay rights activists saying that Christian pastors should be required to perform gay marriages? Yet again, we have an example of perceived Christian victimization. It’s not the loving same-sex couple who is the victim of homophobic behavior and laws; rather, it’s the poor Christian pastor who … well, um … who never be required to do something he doesn’t want to do except in the fictional, paranoid world he and his leaders have created.

Sen. Cruz may be correct that some people view preaching against people who love one another as a form of hate speech. But so what? We don’t ban hate speech. To see the truth in that, Sen. Cruz just needs to listen to some of his colleagues talk about Muslims and immigrants (I’d suggest Rep. Steve King [R-Iowa] as a good starting point). But show me an example of where “it gets enforced” (it being what, exactly?) against pastors who preach against same-sex marriage or use any form of hate speech. Have pastors gone to jail for saying bad things about Muslims? Did the pastor who publicly prayed for President Obama’s assassination go to jail? Have pastors gone to jail for claiming that Jews killed Christ (and if that isn’t hate speech, then what is…)? Of course not. But idiotic ideologues like Sen. Cruz don’t care about reality or the law or even the First Amendment (but they do care about the Second Amendment!). No, all he and his ilk want to do is scare the red meat Tea Party base who are xenophobic, racist, homophobic, or just want to take their country back (to a time before black Kenyan Muslim Marxists could be elected to the White House, non-Christians could be treated fairly, and gays could be open about, well being themselves); after all, those are the voters who elect people like Sen. Cruz.

I’d love to take the time to talk about what’s been going on in Texas (banning tampons but allowing guns during abortion debates) and North Carolina (using anti-Sharia and motorcycle safety laws to restrict abortion rights) or to discuss the revelations about former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels’ efforts at state censorship of a historian he disliked. But time is short. So, that’ll have to be enough for now. See ya soon.

---

*“Biblical truths on marriage”? Really? Perhaps Sen. Cruz should listen to Betty Bowers (in a clip I originally posted back in August 2010):

Now, remind me again about those “biblical truths”.

**And don’t just take Sen. Cruz at his word. This wingnut has argued that the Harvard Law School faculty includes a dozen Marxists committed to overthrowing the US government, but won’t (or can’t) back up his claim, even though he stands by it.

Dinosaurs and Humans: Parochial Education Teaching That Science Is Wrong

As readers of this blog probably know, I am an opponent of school vouchers (see, for example, School Vouchers — Why I Oppose Them). My opposition stems from several concerns, including (but not limited to):

• Taking away money from public schools;
• Private schools being able to choose their students (where public schools have to take everyone);
• Lack of academic standards for parochial schools; and
• Use of taxpayer dollars to fund parochial/religious education.

Anyway, a story that I read last night (and the accompanying images) got me thinking about vouchers and a few other issues as well. The story comes from Snopes (which fact-checked it and found it “probably true”). The images that follow (copied from the article) are of a test given to 4th grade students in an unnamed (at least until the end of the school year) parochial school in South Carolina:

Note that the child received a perfect score! And a Smile! sticker.

I have no idea if any parochial schools in Indiana teach material similar to that which is reflected on this test, but I have my suspicions that the answer would be yes. And I have no idea if any Indiana parochial schools that are teaching this sort of material are accepting students who pay all or a portion of their tuition via taxpayer-funded vouchers. But again, I have my suspicions that the answer would again be yes.

If we were to discover that taxpayer-funded vouchers were being used to send children to a school that taught this sort of material, would that impact your view of the voucher program?

Ask yourself this: How well are children raised on this sort of education going to be able to compete on the global market? When employers are looking for intelligent, skilled workers, how well will people who received this sort of educational background fare against people from China or Europe? I doubt kids in China are learning about dinosaurs helping build the Great Wall; they’re learning math and science and skills that will help them compete … and thrive. America didn’t become the world’s superpower and dominant economy by rejecting science. The Bible didn’t split the atom or fly man to the moon; mistrust in science didn’t build the Internet or the computer; and trust in G-d didn’t create a vaccine for polio or enable organ transplants.

And yet we have parents willfully sending their children to schools where science is viewed as some sort of evil, liberal construct.

Moreover, don’t think that it’s just a few isolated religious schools. Just two hours southeast of Indianapolis, you can find the Creation Museum which says of itself (emphasis addedd):

The state-of-the-art 70,000 square foot museum brings the pages of the Bible to life, casting its characters and animals in dynamic form and placing them in familiar settings. Adam and Eve live in the Garden of Eden. Children play and dinosaurs roam near Eden’s Rivers. The serpent coils cunningly in the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Majestic murals, great masterpieces brimming with pulsating colors and details, provide a backdrop for many of the settings.

It also has exhibits depicting humans living with dinosaurs:

I shit you not.

But some people actually believe this dreck.

And they teach it to their children.

In schools.

Maybe even using your tax dollars.

Part of me says, hey, if these people really want to stunt their children’s intellectual growth, that’s not my problem. Have at it. It will just make it that much easier for my kids to climb one rung higher on the ladder. But the better part of me understands (and I know that this sort of claim will infuriate the right-wingers in the room) that in a way, children belong to all of us. They represent the future, not just of their parents’ bloodline, but of our communities and our culture. That is one of the primary reasons that we have public education in the first place, why we demand that even those without children help pay (via taxes) to educate all of our children, and why we make it the law that children must be educated (even if only via so-called “home schooling”). So, no, I’m not really OK with the idea that we have schools teaching our children that science is wrong. Would you object to a school teaching kids that 2+2=5 or that the Sun orbits the Earth? Exactly.

But even if I could get by that problem, I see no way around my objection to tax dollars — money that should be used to pay for a public education for all children, regardless of race, income, socio-economic status, or disability — being diverted to allow some parents to teach their children that science is evil, wrong, or the enemy, so that their children will grow up to help lead us into the past rather than forward to the future. Similarly, those tax dollars shouldn’t be spent to teach kids that Jesus is the only way to heaven or that Muhammad ascended to heaven on a winged horse or that Moses spoke to a burning bush.* Leave that for church, mosque, and temple. Not school. Or at least not using our tax dollars.

Education that denies science is wrong. It’s dangerous. And using tax dollars to pay for any sort of religious education is also wrong.

For an interesting look at the Creation Museum, please take a few minutes to watch the video Atheists at the Creation Museum.

Updated to correct errors in links.

---

*I’m still waiting for the outcry when someone finds a voucher being used to pay for an education at a Muslim madrassa that teaches a fundamentalist form of Islam of the same sort that has been at the root of many terrorist attacks. I’m sure that people who want their children to learn that Adam rode a dinosaur will love knowing that their tax dollars are being used to pay to teach some kids that America is the Great Satan, that democracy is incompatible with Islam, and that jihad against America is good.

Yeah, Rah, Death Penalty!

In my continuing examination of Gov. Rick Perry and his “out there” political views, I want to focus on one particular issue that was raised in last night’s debate: Capital punishment. I think that Gov. Perry’s response to the question during the debate, when presented in light of the actual record in Texas, is potentially illustrative of just how dangerous Gov. Perry really is. Moreover, the response from the audience (more on that in a bit) is also, I think, illustrative in some respects of just where the Republican party and its core constituents are policy-wise right now.

But before getting into Gov. Perry’s views on the subject , I want to take a moment to talk about my own views on the death penalty. While this may come as a surprise to some (given that I’m apparently regarded as a left-wing wacko by some), I’m not against the death penalty. But I’m not necessarily for it, either. I have no problem with having the state execute those convicted of the most heinous crimes. But I would prefer not to execute people who might be innocent and I’d prefer to err on the side of not executing people. Moreover, I’m concerned that there may be a racial element at work both in deciding against which defendants the state will seek to impose the death penalty and the way that juries and judges handle capital cases. I also worry about the difficulty that a public defender has in providing an adequate defense to a defendant accused of a capital offense. And I’m very concerned when I hear about the possibility of evidence that might exonerate a person convicted of a capital offense not being allowed for various procedural reasons. But in cases where the crime was heinous, the evidence is clear, the accused received a fair trial and was not treated differently than other defendants, the jury was not tainted, and there is no remotely plausible claim for exonerating evidence, then, in those cases, I think that the death penalty may be an acceptable punishment.

Now, back to last night’s debate. Here is a brief video clip of a question posed and Gov. Perry’s response:

 

Before delving into Gov. Perry’s response, I want to note my disgust at the fact that the crowd actually cheered the fact that Texas, under Gov. Perry, had executed 234 people. That people may support the death penalty is fine. But to actually cheer that people have been executed. Oh, I suppose cheering when Osama Bin Laden was killed may be acceptable, but I’m very concerned that a large group of Americans would cheer that 234 of their fellow citizens have been executed. We should feel sad that so many people resort to or commit crimes, especially capital crimes. We should, I guess, feel a sense of satisfaction that the justice system worked and that the families of the victims received a measure of justice and some kind of closure. But executing a criminal, let alone 234 criminals, doesn’t seem like something we should be cheering; death is a bit more final than say a touchdown at a Texas Longhorns football game.

Now add to this the outpouring of Islamophobia (“Ground Zero Mosque!” and cries of sharia [rhymes with Maria…]), homophobia, nativism (anti-immigrant), and even some racism and anti-Semitism coming from some elements of the Republican Party and Tea Party electorate and this cheer begins to take on a sort of bloodlust quality. No, I’m not suggesting that rank and file Republicans are out to execute gays or Muslims. But what I am suggesting is that combining a political worldview that cheers executions with a perspective that views so many people as “others” or “not really American” or “out to get us” is trending down a potentially dangerous path.

Whew. OK. Breathe.

And now back (again) to Gov. Perry. The principal point of his response that I want to comment upon is his statement that he has “never struggled” with the possibility that one of the criminals executed on his watch might have been innocent. Maybe I’m just too soft, but I want to know that my elected officials do struggle with thoughts like this; I want them to understand and recognize the finality and severity of the decision to execute someone and to struggle with the decision in order that we can all be comfortable that the correct decision was made. If, as Gov. Perry claims, he does not struggle with the issue at all, then that tells me that he either doesn’t really understand the severity and finality of his decision or he just doesn’t care. Unfortunately, I suspect that the he understands quite well. President Bush used to talk about “compassionate conservatism”; there is no compassion in Gov. Perry. He’s more akin to the fictionalized old West hangin’ judge for whom hard evidence isn’t really needed.

But I also want to look a bit more closely at Gov. Perry’s explanation. He claims that he doesn’t struggle because he trusts the judicial system. If that’s true, then explain this:

Yesterday, the Republican governor of Texas, Rick Perry, abruptly dismissed the chairman and two members of the Texas Forensic Science Commission investigating the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham, which I wrote about last month in The New Yorker. The move came two days before the commission was scheduled to hear crucial evidence that Willingham was put to death, in 2004, based on arson theories that have since been disproven by modern science. The new chairman appointed by Perry promptly postponed Friday’s hearing, when the noted fire scientist Craig Beyler was supposed to testify regarding his findings.

Beyler, who had been hired by the commission to review the original arson investigation, had determined that there was no scientific evidence that Willingham had set the fire that killed his three children, in 1991, and that the original investigators had relied on folklore and methods that defied rational reasoning. Several of the country’s other top fire scientists have reached a similar conclusion.

Perry, who is in a contested campaign for reelection, had been governor at the time of Willingham’s execution. Before the execution, Willingham’s lawyer had asked Perry to grant a stay based on a report from Dr. Gerald Hurst, a leading fire expert, who had concluded that “there is not a single item of physical evidence in this case which supports a finding of arson.” Willingham’s request, however, was denied.

Perry insisted that the three commissioners’ terms had expired and the change was routine. But the ousted chairman, Sam Bassett, told the Houston Chronicle that he had heard from Perry’s staffers that they were “concerned about the investigations we were conducting”; another of the removed commissioners told the Associated Press that Perry’s office informed him that the governor was “going in a different direction.”

Bassett added in a statement, “In my view, we should not fail to investigate important forensic issues in cases simply because there might be political ramifications.” Unfortunately, the process has now been tainted.

It’s one thing if Gov. Perry doesn’t struggle with the execution of someone when there is no question as to the person’s guilt. But when legitimate questions arise, don’t we want our elected officials to struggle — even just a little bit — to know that they’re doing the right thing? And don’t we expect those officials to want to be sure that truth and justice prevail in the end? Gov. Perry could have stayed the execution long enough for a court to examine the overwhelming exonerating evidence. If the court dismissed the evidence, then the execution could have gone forward. But Gov. Perry didn’t struggle with the decision; he just allowed a man who appears to have been wrongly convicted to be executed by the State of Texas and then stopped an investigation that might have posthumously exonerated that man. Gov. Perry was apparently able or willing to just ignore the modern scientific evidence. His recent comments of global warming and evolution suggest that ignoring science is not something he struggles with under any circumstances.

Something else to consider: Gov. Perry talks about this faith in the Texas criminal justice system. We should all have faith in our judicial system. But that can’t be a blind faith and it must be a faith that can acknowledge and learn from errors. So how does Gov. Perry’s faith in the system reconcile the fact that since he became Governor in 2001, Texas has exonerated at least 41 people on the basis of more modern scientific evidence. Given a statistic like that, shouldn’t we expect a Governor to want to be absolutely, positively, without any possibility of doubt, sure that available scientific evidence wouldn’t exonerate a convicted criminal before that criminal is executed?

Perhaps Gov. Perry’s cavalier/cowboy approach will play well with the Republican base. But how will that attitude go over with the broader electorate? And what does his attitude toward executing people tell us about how Gov. Perry might approach other issues for which we’d expect a President to engage in some sort of internal struggle? Would he have any sort of internal struggle before launching missiles at terrorists? What if those terrorists were in the middle of a densely populated civilian area? Would he struggle before deciding to start a war or sending American soldiers off on dangerous missions? Would he struggle before making any decision that might cause harm to some, even if the decision was for the greater good? I’d like to think that my President would struggle with those kinds of issues so that, when a decision was reached, that President could be confident in the rightness of the decision and the thoroughness of the investigation and discussions upon which that decision is based. And I would be very worried about a President who could make life and death decisions with a cavalier attitude and without even stopping to contemplate the evidence. You know, there’s a great big button that a President can push that would cause a whole lot of damage. I’d like to know that a President Perry wouldn’t just push that button to show Russia or China or Iran just how macho he is; unfortunately, I don’t have the sense that he’d think twice about pushing that button, either.

Yet one more reason why I think it is imperative that our next President not be Rick Perry.

Let’s Blame God … Because Surely Science Doesn’t Offer a Good Explanation!

Yesterday on his 700 Club program, longtime anti-everything bigot Pat Robertson blamed this week’s east coast earthquake on G-d because, you know, G-d might be pissed about gays or abortion or something.

Ladies and gentlemen I don’t want to get weird on this so please take it for what it’s worth. But it seems to me the Washington Monument is a symbol of America’s power, it has been the symbol of our great nation, we look at that monument and say this is one nation under God. Now there’s a crack in it, there’s a crack in it and it’s closed up. Is that a sign from the Lord? Is that something that has significance or is it just result of an earthquake? You judge, but I just want to bring that to your attention. It seems to me symbolic. When Jesus was crucified and when he died the curtain in the Temple was rent from top to bottom and there was a tear and it was extremely symbolic, is this symbolic? You judge.

In this particular diatribe, he doesn’t get around to explaining the particular thing that might have pissed off the benevolent deity upstairs. But we know that Robertson has previously blamed natural disasters on America’s tolerance for abortion, homosexuality, and other sins.

Frankly, I’m getting tired of this kind of “G-d is punishing America” bullshit. For one thing, I remain firmly convinced that the earthquake was caused by … wait for it … plate tectonics which is, you known, explainable by science. I don’t think a deity, benevolent or sadistic, had anything to do with it.

But on the off chance that I’m wrong, might there be some other reasons besides Robertson’s usual list for which _____ [insert the identity of your favorite or least favorite deity; for purposes of the rest of this post, let’s just refer to him/her/it as Mr. Deity] might be pissed? I mean, isn’t it possible that Mr. Deity is pissed at America because we allow people to be homeless and sleep in the streets at night? That seems like a worse sin that tolerating homosexuality. Maybe Mr. Deity is pissed because we still allow millions of children to go hungry or without decent healthcare. That seems a worse sin than tolerating abortion. Maybe Mr. Deity was showing his frustration because House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (who is from Virginia where the epicenter of the quake was located) refuses to try to lessen the burdens on the least among us so that he can protect tax breaks and corporate tax loopholes for the richest Americans. If I was a benevolent deity, that would certainly piss me off. Or maybe Mr. Deity was just trying to say “a pox on all your houses” because of the gridlock in Washington. Perhaps, but if Mr. Deity is really supposed to be benevolent, then I’d expect him to at least frown on the GOP’s antics. On that note, it’s probably worth noting that earlier this year, Texas Gov. Rick Perry sponsored a three-day prayer for rain to ease the Texas drought (yes, that was a different prayer event than his big Houston shindig). Um, guess what? No rain.

Or maybe the earthquake had nothing to do with politics at all. Maybe Mr. Deity is a Washington Nationals fan and he’s pissed at year after year of bad baseball. If so, I’m glad that Mr. Deity isn’t a Pittsburgh Pirate fan because, if so, that city would have been laid waste years ago. But we know that Mr. Deity must be a sports fans given how many players seem to think that he’s taken an active roll in their success. Maybe Mr. Deity simply got fed up with sitting in Washington DC’s epic traffic jams and the earthquake was a form of road rage. Or maybe, just maybe, Mr. Deity was pissed because McDonald’s couldn’t get his order right; I mean that’s something that we’ve all experienced a bit of rage over, isn’t it? Maybe Mr. Deity has a favored prophet who happens to have a financial stake in the general contractor that would be hired to repair the Washington Monument!

But back to Pat Robertson’s claims. If Mr. Deity is angry about tolerating homosexuality, shouldn’t Iowa be a wasteland and Massachusetts be at the bottom of the Atlantic? And why hit Washington DC instead of New York where same-sex marriage was just legalized? Is Mr. Deity’s earthquake aim that bad or is he just really tardy in setting wrath against wicked cities? If the anger has something to do with abortion, why crack the Washington Monument? After all, the Supreme Court is only about a mile away and it was the Supreme Court that legalized abortion back in 1973. And I note that most of the natural Mr. Deity-caused disasters we’ve seen in the world (earthquakes in Haiti, Chile, and Japan; tsunamis in Thailand, Indonesia, and Japan; famine in east Africa) don’t quite seem tied to the sorts of sin that Robertson likes to rant about. Exactly why were those countries and regions punished? Similarly, those countries with more liberal abortion and gay rights policies (I’m looking at you Western Europe and Israel) don’t seem to have suffered many natural Mr. Deity-caused disasters recently. Hmm.

I wonder. Could it be that abortion or homosexuality or generic sin have nothing to do with earthquakes? Might it be best to blame the earthquake on, you known, physics and plate tectonics?

If I turn into a pillar of salt tonight, then maybe I’m wrong; but if not, perhaps I’m on to something?

Republicans Who Don’t Believe…

One thing that I heard several Republicans proclaim during the fiasco negotiations over the debt ceiling and national deficit was that they didn’t believe that failing to raise the debt ceiling and/or defaulting on our obligations (if the debt ceiling wasn’t raised) would cause a financial catastrophe. They “didn’t believe” what economists were telling them. Some even implied (or said outright) that a default would somehow be a good thing.

Well, that got me to wondering. How many of those Republicans who didn’t believe what economists were telling them are the same Republicans who don’t believe what scientists tell them about global warming? How many of those Republicans don’t believe what scientists tell them about evolution? How many of those Republicans don’t believe that President Obama is an American or that he’s not a Muslim?

Just sayin’…

Graphic Slogans That Describe My Mood

Over the last few days, I’ve encountered several interesting graphic slogans that do a pretty good job of describing certain thoughts that I’ve had, some of which I’ve tried to express on this blog. So, rather than hashing out the ideas again, I’ll let the graphics speak for themselves.

In a similar vein (and t-shirts and stickers with these slogans can be purchased here):

 

This next one, sort of boils down Obama Derangement Syndrome and birtherism into a great bite-size nugget:

 

Also, one of my constant problems with the Republican party has been its seemingly utter disregard for science. Hence:

I was led to some of the following images following a message from a friend that linked to the story “Newly Crowned Miss USA Was One Of Only Two Contestants Who Believe In Evolution”. Several of the contestants, in response to a question about whether evolution should be taught in schools, responded that they thought that “both sides” of the issue should be taught. Well, it seems that there are lots of other issues where we’re making a mistake by only teaching one side of the issue. These images address some of those issues (and t-shirts and stickers are available here):

We should be teaching the other side that says that the moon landings were faked, and

We should be teaching the other side that says that the real elements are Air, Earth, Fire, Water, and Aether, and

We should be teaching the other side that says that the pyramids were built by aliens, and

We should be teaching the other side that says it’s “turtles all the way down” (seriously…) or that the sun and planets orbit the earth, and

Along with astronomy we should be teaching the other side that believes in astrology (hey, it worked for Nancy Reagan…), and

Along with chemistry we should be teaching alchemy (though I’m sure that Glenn Beck and Goldline don’t really want people to learn how to turn lead into gold), and

Along with medicine, we should be teaching the other side that says that disease and illness is caused by demons (why do you say, “God bless you,” after someone sneezes…?), and

We should be teaching the other said that says that babies are delivered via stork, and

So long as we’re basing our curriculum on the Bible and other religious beliefs, then we should certainly be teaching the other side that believes in reincarnation or that humans were brought to earth on an airplane by Xenu (a fundamental teaching of Scientology), and

We should teach the Mayan belief that earth will be destroyed in 2012 (we better get on that one … time is running out), and

We absolutely must teach the other side that says that Elvis is still alive, and, of course,

We should be teaching the other side that says that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans. (Note: The Creation Museum in Kentucky apparently has exhibits depicting humans riding dinosaurs and using them as domesticated animals.)

This stuff would just be funny if it weren’t for the enormous number of people who really believe some of this shit. And that the fact that some of them want to be President … terrifying.

(If you like one of these images, go buy yourself a shirt!)

Updated February 2, 2012: Broken links fixed.

The Ever-Narrowing Path to an Ongoing GOP Majority (I Hope)

In November 2010, Republicans took control of the House of Representatives and numerous state governments. The question thus becomes whether this control is sustainable. From what I’ve seen so far, I think not. I continue to believe that the driving force behind most (but by no means all) Republican victories in November 2010 was the economy (and that force was largely dominated by misinformation and outright lies coming from the Republicans and FOX News). Certainly social issues played a part, but social issues, I believe, motivated the Republican base; those issues did not sway moderate and independent voters to come to the polls, let alone vote for Republicans, the way economic issues did.

But let’s look for a bit at what Republicans have done since taking control and reflect on how these issues and actions will impact the Republican base, moderate and independent voters, and the Democratic base. As you read through the following, ask yourself whether these actions will make each of those classes of people more or less likely to vote in 2012 and, if they do vote, whether they will vote for Republicans or Democrats.

With regard to the economy, what exactly have Republicans done? Have they passed bills to increase employment or otherwise solve the unemployment crisis we face? For that matter, have they even introduced bills to address this concern? Or, speaking more broadly, what have Republicans, whether in Congress or state legislatures, done to improve the economic outlook for middle or lower class Americans? I’d contend that the answers to each of these questions is the sound of crickets — in other words, nothing.

But in state after state after state, Republicans have lowered corporate taxes and paid for those tax reductions with policies that will adversely effect lower and middle income Americans. They’ve decreased public education funding, decreased social services, cut programs that would or could lead to job growth, rejected federal funds for infrastructure creation (such as high speed rail or a tunnel from New Jersey to New York, each of which would have generated jobs), and taken other steps to reduce deficits at the expense of those least able to afford adverse impacts. But Republicans have not, so far as I’m aware anywhere, raised taxes on those who can weather the impact of a tax increase.

So query: Is taking from the poor to give to the rich (the “Reverse Robin Hood” approach) a viable strategy to appeal to voters in 2012 and beyond? Sure, there may be plenty of wealthy Americans and corporations who will continue to support Republican policies (and will be able to throw enormous amounts of money into the election thanks to the Supreme Court’s terrible Citizens United decision), and I’m sure that plenty of Americans will continue to vote against their own economic self-interests either because social issues are more important or because they believe the lies that they hear from Fox News (hello, Joe the Plumber!). But how many more moderates and independents will continue to support these sorts of Republican legislative agendas?

And query further how motivated the portion of the Republican base consisting of small town and rural voters will be if Republicans cannot point directly to economic successes tied to Republican policies.

In addition, I suspect that quite a few voters who may have sat out the 2010 elections will be far more engaged in 2012. Union families, in particular, will I believe be far more motivated to show up at the polls in 2012. While there are fewer union workers now than in the past, the number of people who are either in a union or in a family with a union worker is still a really big number. And while those people may have split their votes in the past (prioritizing social issues over economic issues), the anti-union zeal of the GOP will, I suspect, lead many of those votes back to the Democratic candidates.

But economic issues are not the only place where Republicans seem to be shrinking the pool of supporters. For some time, the Republican base has been very motivated on social issues. They turn out to support anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage candidates. And, at the same time, those issues don’t seem to have been major forces motivating voters to support Democratic candidates (not to say that Democratic supporters aren’t pro-choice, just that it appears that other issues have been far more important). None of that should be particularly surprising given that it is Republican candidates who have been seeking changes in the law (either to restrict access to abortion or to further ban same-sex marriages or civil unions).

The problem that I see for Republicans is that now that they’ve had some successes on these issues, voters who do support reproductive rights or same-sex marriage (or even just civil unions), or any of the other social issues that Republicans have focused on, will be far more energized than they have been in the recent past. Now it’s their turn to vote against what Republicans have been doing. I think that this is especially true with regard to same-sex marriage, where polling seems to indicate a dramatic shift in public opinion away from bigotry and toward equality (especially among the youngest cohort of the electorate). But even with regard to abortion, I suspect that Republican legislative initiatives to restrict access to abortions won’t sit well with some voters, including some who may oppose abortions generally. For example, Republican-sponsored bills that require doctors to actually lie to patients (telling them, for example, that abortions lead to breast cancer or mental health problems), bills that would have actually permitted the killing of abortion doctors, bills that seek to restrict access to abortion following a rape (by redefining rape to only include “forcible rape” — whatever that may mean), bills that require vaginal ultrasounds (remember, it is Republicans who favor less government involvement in health care…), and other similar abortion bills, are far beyond what even moderate opponents of at-will abortion may support and are so far beyond the position of pro-choice voters that these segments of the electorate may be energized to vote (or, in the case of moderate abortion opponents, de-motivated).

Or maybe ask the question this way: How many abortion opponents who otherwise would not have voted will come out to vote Republican in 2012 because of these bills? How many moderates or independents will vote Republican because of these bills? How many of those moderates and independents will vote Democratic because of these bills? And how many abortion rights supporters who otherwise would not have voted will come out and vote Democratic (or at least against Republicans) in 2012?

In addition to their extreme anti-abortion positions, Republicans have also been engaged in a war against women. How else can you explain such things as bills that require rape victims to be referred to not as victims but as accusers? Or a state legislator who votes against an exception to an abortion bill for victims of rape or incest because women might lie about whether they’d been raped.

But women aren’t the only minority groups that Republicans are waging war against. Republicans have targeted the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) community. And this isn’t just about gay marriage. Set that aside for a moment. It is Republicans who have voiced opposition to human rights ordinances and laws that would prohibit housing and employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or identity. As more voters become aware of issues like this, will they be more likely to support Republicans or Democrats? Remember, it was Republican Rand Paul who argued that the Civil Rights Act was a bad idea. And, as they pursue their quest to ban same-sex marriages, I have yet to hear Republicans adequately explain what would be wrong with civil unions or, for that matter, why government is in the marriage business at all.

Just a month or two ago, numerous Republican or right-wing organizations pulled out of the CPAC (a major conservative political conference) because a Republican gay-rights group was permitted to be a co-sponsor of the event. Subsequent to the conference, other groups have said that they won’t participate next year if that group remains a co-sponsor. Think about that for a moment. Republican and right-wing organizations are refusing to participate in one of their most important conferences solely because … gasp … gays might also participate. Is there any clearer way of saying, “If you’re gay, you’re not welcome here?”

So as gays are being increasingly targeted by Republicans, how likely is it that even gay Republicans (if there are any left) will be highly motivated to come out to support Republican candidates? I would think that a gay Republican who strongly supported Republican economic policies would be hard-pressed to vote for a party that is working so hard to marginalize that voter and restrict the voter to a second-class status.

It is also worth noting that poll after poll shows the public shifting away from homophobic positions and toward acceptance of same-sex marriage, especially among the younger segment of the electorate. Young voters stayed home in November 2010, but that is expected for an off-year election. But how many younger voters will be motivated to come out and vote against Republicans and for Democrats who advocate for tolerance and equality?

Notwithstanding having an African-American has head of the Republican National Committee for two years, I don’t think that much of the black community would say that Republicans have done much to support their community. The Republicans were quick to denounce payments to black farmers as a settlement for years of discrimination against them by the federal government (without much denunciation of the discrimination itself). And Republicans have largely set by and been silent — when not leading the charge themselves — as a whole host of thinly (and not so thinly) disguised racial allegations have been levied against President Obama and African-American members of his administration. Combine this with the sham efforts of Republicans to attack ACORN, Planned Parenthood, and the NAACP (see the James O’Keefe hit videos, all of which have turned out to be elaborate hoaxes pushed largely by FOX News) and the efforts to defund or restrict vital social service programs, I don’t think that there will be a dramatic shift away from Democrats within the black community, but I do think, especially with President Obama on the ballot again, that blacks will turn out in very large numbers to again vote for Democrats and against Republicans.

And what about Latino voters? Somehow, I don’t think that the plethora of nativist anti-immigrant bills will encourage Latinos to turn out and vote Republican (and query for a moment why Republicans seem so fond of Cuban immigrants at the same time that they oppose other Latino immigrant communities). Considering that recent census results show that nearly 1 in 6 Americans identifies as Latino and that the largest growth in a number of states has been Latino, then Republicans should be at least concerned about how the Latino community will view Republican candidates in 2012.

Republicans even seem to be waging something of a war against non-evangelical Christians with policies that are supported only by the evangelical portion of the electorate and which alienate moderate and liberal Christian denominations. The more that Republican policies incorporate evangelical Christian doctrine, the more those who are not slaves to that doctrine (or, said slightly more snarkily, those who have the ability to think for themselves) may find themselves no longer part of that so-called Republican “big tent” (which seems to be getting smaller and smaller and less and less welcoming; Ronald Reagan would be so proud).

Of course the war on non-evangelical Christians pales in comparison to the war against Muslims. From efforts to outlaw sharia law (I still plan to write about that nonsense one of these days) to efforts to define Islam as not being a religion to statements from prominent right-wing advocates that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to Muslims and that Muslims are only allowed to pray and build mosques in America because America, in its graciousness, has permitted them to do so (seriously, I’m not making this up…) to efforts to block the construction of mosques and community centers to Congressional hearings focused solely on Muslim extremism, the right-wing and Republicans are clearly in an all out war against Muslims.

Perhaps oddly, one of the groups most antagonized by the Republican war against Islam has been … Jews. For the Jewish community recognizes the importance of religious freedoms and protection from discrimination afforded by our Constitution. So not only have Republicans done a spectacular job of ensuring that virtually no Muslim will vote for them, they’ve also given additional encouragement to Jews to vote against Republicans as well. And I’m not sure, but I’d be willing to suspect that the same argument would apply to many other smaller religious minorities in the United States.

And we can’t forget the Republican war on science. Whether it is the refusal to believe that global warming is a real, man-made threat (all 31 Republicans on a Congressional committee charged with environmental oversight voted against a measure that would have recognized global warming as a real, man-made threat) or the desire to ignore science and force religious beliefs to be taught in classrooms (creationism or intelligent design) or to be used as a basis to convince women not to have abortions (statements that abortion causes breast cancer or leads to mental problems; in Indiana, Republicans voted against an amendment that would have required medically accurate information be given to women seeking an abortion) or the inability or refusal to recognize the dangers of offshore drilling and nuclear power (and to apologize to BP…), Republicans have demonstrated that they either don’t understand science or that they simply don’t care. While the evangelical Christian community may applaud the refusal to accept science, I suspect that many other Americans will become increasingly disturbed by this trend.

Oh, and don’t forget that as part of their budget cutting zeal, Republicans have sought to eliminate funding for volcano monitoring and the West Coast tsunami monitoring system.

I could probably go on and on and on. But I’m sure by now you get my point. Republicans may have the proverbial upper hand right now. But as the 2012 election draws closer, I believe that the portion of the electorate that will support Republican candidates will shrink. They’ve both alienated and motivated huge swaths of voters, from union workers to gays to minority religious and ethnic communities to those who believe in science. And while white Christians still make up an enormous percentage of the electorate, that percentage is shrinking and diversifying. And demographics further show that those who support Republicans are getting older and older and older…

So, unless either: (a) Republicans find a way to moderate their message to either appeal to those that they’re policies have alienated or at least keep them from voting in 2012; or (b) FOX News and Republicans continue their pattern of outright lies as a method to achieving political power, then I think that the Republican majority will be relatively short-lived. Unfortunately, the fact that FOX News doesn’t show any signs of ending its war on reality and truth (not to mention the ability of corporations to spend disgusting amounts of money to mislead voters) may mean that the election of 2012 won’t actually be decided on the basis of real issues. In that case, nothing that I’ve said here will be meaningful.

Is This Why People Voted Republican?

I’d hoped to post more this week, but after my week without Internet, I’ve had to deal with Icepocalypse 2011. I’m still trying to dig out (both literally and metaphorically and both at home and at the office). Thus, this post will be shorter on detail and citation than is my norm.

Anyway, a few weeks before the November 2010 elections, I wrote a series of posts (“Do We Really Want the Insane Right to Gain Control?” and “Do We Really Want the Insane Right to Gain Control? (update)”) in which I briefly examined some of the Republican candidates for office. Well, thankfully, some of the crazier candidates were defeated (Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell, for example), but many more were elected. So now that the election is over, let’s take a brief look at some of the legislation being proposed, both in Congress and across the country. And for those of you who voted for Republicans in November, ask yourself these two questions: 1) Was this kind of legislation the reason that you voted for a Republican and 2) how many jobs will this kind of legislation create?

I think my “favorite” (heavy dose of sarcasm…) bill so far (which was thankfully dropped earlier this week) was the effort to redefine “rape”. For those who haven’t followed this story, it is truly mind-numbing. At present, the law does not allow Federal funds to be used for an abortion (e.g., funds from Medicaid); however, there are exceptions in the law for the protection of the life of the mother, rape, and incest. Well, Congressional Republicans (and a handful of Democrats) decided that they didn’t much care for these exceptions because, you know, that might allow for a few more abortions. So they sought to limit the rape exception to cases of “forcible rape” (which was not defined). In other words, Federal funds could not be used for an abortion in a case of statutory rape. Just think about it: A 24 year old teacher has sex with a 14 year old student or a pair of 13 year old kids "experiment". Whoops, not a “forcible rape” (even if state statutes call it rape). Or a sorority girl gets really drunk or us given a date rape drug and "consents" to sex (or is unconscious). Tough luck. And how about sex with a mentally disabled girl who can’t actually give consent? The bill would have also excluded incest if both people are over 21. How about that mentally disabled girl who was “raped” (but not forcibly) by her father or brother? Nope, no abortion funding allowed. I understand that some people oppose abortion, but how many opponents of abortion really want to stop abortions in those sorts of situations? Is this why people voted Republican?

Not to be outdone on the issue of rape, a Georgia legislator (ordinarily, I’d include links, but as I mentioned in the intro, time is short…) has introduced legislation to prohibit rape victims from being called “victims” until the accused rapist is convicted. Until then, the victim is merely an “accuser”. Note that the legislation would not require the same terminology in the case of a murder victim or the victim of a mugging or burglary or any other crime. Nope. Just rape victims — oops, sorry, accusers —would be singled out. Is this why people voted Republican?

Here in Indiana, Republicans want doctors to tell a woman that a fetus might feel pain — even though science doesn’t support that. And Republicans want to be sure that Planned Parenthood doesn’t get any state funding (forgetting, of course, that Planned Parenthood provides many services other than abortion, including birth control). Indiana Republicans also want to prohibit insurance policies from covering “elective” abortions without a separate rider (and who thinks to acquire a separate rider for an abortion, especially if the abortion is necessitated by rape). Indiana Republicans have also sought, once again, to define human life as beginning at conception (see my post “Keep Your Religious Doctrine Out of My State's Laws” from January 2008). And Indiana Republicans have sought to ban all abortions in Indiana unless a doctor certifies that the abortion is necessary to save the mother’s life. Apparently, one of the sponsors of the bill wants this statute to be the test case to take to the Supreme Court of the United States to challenge Roe v. Wade. Is this why people voted for Republicans?

In Congress, Republicans made a big show of trying to vote to repeal health care reform. Note that they voted on the idea of repealing reform before even presenting their own plan to replace the health care law if they could manage to get it repealed. And in states all across the country, Republicans are introducing legislation that would allow their state to “opt out” of the health care reform passed by Congress. Forgot for a moment the Constitutional problems with allowing states to opt-out of Federal laws. Instead, think about what opting out would mean for citizens of a state that opts out (or of the country as a whole if Republicans were successful in efforts to repeal the law without having a plan to replace it). OK, perhaps that would mean that citizens wouldn’t be subject to the mandate to buy insurance. But it would also mean that insurance companies could drop them if they became sick, could refuse coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions, could drop kids from parents’ plans, could impose lifetime limits, and the list goes on. Note that so far as I’ve been able to discern, none of these opt-out proposals include legislation to extend rights to citizens in the states; rather, they only seek to remove the “burden” of the Federal health care reform legislation. Is this why people voted Republican?

Similarly, Republicans are also introducing legislation in some states to allow the state to “veto” Federal legislation that the state doesn’t like. Apparently, these legislators are unfamiliar with both that little spat often referred to as the Civil War and the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2):

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Is this why people voted Republican?

Many states are also wasting time worrying about the imposition of Sharia law and passing laws to prevent courts from considering Sharia or foreign laws. (I plan to write more about this later…) It is worth noting, however, that most states have laws specifically incorporating foreign law (the English common law). Moreover, I suspect that the Republicans pushing these sorts of bills have no understanding that following Sharia for a Muslim is not much different than keeping Kosher for a Jew or following the rules set forth in the Bible for a Christian. I guess if we can’t look to foreign laws, then the Ten Commandments will certainly be out. But I digress… And again, I ask, is this why people voted Republican?

Guns are also a favored subject these days. Across the country, Republicans have introduced legislation to loosen gun control regulations. After all, the shooting in Tucson certainly showed that the availability of high capacity magazines and the ability of people who might be mentally unstable to get weapons isn’t strict enough (another dose of sarcasm…). Several states are looking to adopt new provisions regarding carrying concealed weapons, including on college campuses (even in classrooms). Here in Indiana, Republicans have proposed legislation to prevent an employer from asking an employee or prospective employee about gun ownership and to allow a person to carry a licensed weapon onto school property so long as the person isn’t a student. (How comfortable would you be knowing that a parent visiting your kids school might have a concealed gun?) And I can’t help but include the digest of Indiana Senate Bill 506 (emphasis added):

Allows a person to carry a handgun on or about the person's body without being licensed to carry a handgun if: (1) the person is in or on property, or in a vehicle, that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by the person; (2) the person is lawfully present in or on private property, or in a vehicle, that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by another person; (3) the person is carrying the handgun at a shooting range, while attending a firearms instructional course, or while engaged in a legal hunting activity; or (4) the handgun is unloaded and securely wrapped.

Read the introduction and clause (2) again and then tell me where the person isn’t allowed to have an unlicensed gun. As I read that digest, a person could have an unlicensed handgun on my property and there would be nothing that I could do about it (other than, I suppose, kick them off my property if I found out). But remember that last year Indiana adopted a law that prohibited employers from declaring their property “gun free” zones. Is this why people voted for Republicans?

And before we leave the subject of guns, it is worth noting the novel idea that has been proposed by Republicans in South Dakota. In an effort to try to show that the Founding Fathers would not have approved of the mandate provision of the health care reform legislation and that the mandate is unconstitutional, South Dakota Republicans have introduced a bill to require all residents of South Dakota to purchase a firearm. Do we really think that encouraging people (let alone requiring people) to have weapons is a good idea? But the funny part of this is that rather than demonstrate how the health care mandate may be unconstitutional, South Dakota Republicans may, in fact, have done just the opposite. You see, in response to this bill, some folks did a little bit of historical research (something that Republicans seem to have a wee bit o’ difficulty with) and learned that — are you ready for this? — while George Washington was President, Congress enacted a law requiring that all citizens own a firearm! Yes, our first President, Father of the Nation, signed into a law a mandate requiring citizens to purchase something! (And don’t forget during Adams’ presidency [I think; maybe it was Jefferson?], Congress enacted a law mandating the 18th Century equivalent of health insurance for seamen.) Hmm. Is this why people voted for Republicans?

In state after state, Republicans are proposing legislation like that adopted in Arizona, to enact racial profiling into their laws in the hopes of stopping illegal immigration. Here in Indiana, Republican legislators want to prevent the State of Indiana from printing documents in any language other than English because, you know, doing so might actually help someone who doesn’t look and talk like the rest of us. Is this why people voted for Republicans?

In quite a few states, Republican legislators have introduced “birther” legislation that would require Presidential candidates to prove that they are natural born citizens. Gee. I wonder why Republicans feel this legislation is necessary? Is this why people voted for Republicans?

Republicans have introduced legislation to protect teachers who want to teach “alternative science” — you know, like creationism, that global warming is a myth, vaccines cause autism, the planets and sun orbit the Earth, the Earth is flat, Jesus was … OK, fine. I won’t go there. But is this why people voted for Republicans?

In Congress, newly elected Senator Rand Paul has proposed eliminating (or nearly so) the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Centers for Disease Control, the Food and Drug Administration, and numerous other departments and programs. And remember, he’s a doctor! He also wants to eliminate all foreign aid, including all foreign aid to Israel (he calls it “welfare”). Is this why people voted for Republicans?

And finally, in state after state, Republicans are trying to pass laws or even amend state constitutions to ban same-sex marriage. Is this why people voted for Republicans.

It was my understanding that Republicans were concerned with the economy and job growth. It was my understanding that the Tea Party was concerned with the so-called erosion of individual liberty. Yet across the nation, Republican legislators are introducing legislation to tackle social issues while ignoring the economy, often at the expense of individual liberty. Or, said another way, individual liberty is a good thing, but only if it’s the “right kind” of individual liberty; otherwise, Republicans want to ban it. Finally, consider whether these bills will create jobs or help the economy.

Is this why people voted for Republicans?

If not, let your Republican legislator know that these kinds of bills are not why they were elected. Let them know why they were elected. And remind them that another election is coming…

A Little Bit of Good Left the World Yesterday

We all like to think that we’re good people. And most of us are, at least within our own universe of friends and acquaintances and business contacts. But how many of us are really good people in the sense that we can honestly say that we’ve given of ourselves in a way that truly makes the world a better place? Many of us volunteer some time or donate some money, but how many of us have really made that a central part of their lives, even going and giving beyond our own community in order to help people?

Indianapolis lost one of those good people yesterday, when Dr. Mark Pescovitz was killed in a car crash.

Mark was an organ transplant surgeon. He was also very active in the Indianapolis Jewish community (he served on the Executive Committee of the Jewish Community Relations Council and was a vice president during my term as president). But I’m sure that you’ll read all about Mark in The Indianapolis Star or other written tributes (please take a moment and read the tribute by Mark’s younger brother).

In all honesty, I didn’t really know Mark that well. I know that I liked to tease him when he’d miss a JCRC meeting (“Sorry, but flying off to Lebanon or Iraq to perform a transplant or teach other doctors how to do so just isn’t as important as whatever ‘big issue’ that we had to discuss,” I’d tell him). I know that he was named a village elder by a tribe in Kenya for helping them learn about AIDS. I know that, no matter what the subject, whenever Mark had something to say, it was worth listening to. And I know, from a lengthy discussion in an airport waiting for a delayed flight, that he really, really loved his family.

But beyond that, one of the most important things that I learned about Mark was something that he wouldn’t say about himself: Mark was a good person; he was one of those people who worked hard to try to make the world — not just the world of his family or friends or even the broader Jewish or Indianapolis communities — but the entire world, a better place. And I think, in that, he succeeded in ways that most of us can barely comprehend.

I offer condolences to his family and to those who were close to him. But all of us should recognize that we — Jews, Hoosiers, humans — have lost a special person.

When Politicians Are Forced to Answer Yes/No Questions

How many times have you watched a political debate and felt exasperated because the candidates wouldn’t answer the actual question posed to them? And how many times have you wished that candidates would answer simple yes/no questions with a simple “yes” or “no” without dissembling and trying to obfuscate their response? Well earlier this week, some voters in Indianapolis had a chance to see what happens when candidates are pressed to answer hard questions with a yes or no. And the results, I believe, say much more about each of the candidates than many of their detailed answers to more complicated questions.

On Wednesday, October 6, 2010, the Indianapolis Jewish Community Relations Council hosted a candidate forum. Candidates for the Indiana General Assembly from many districts in and around downtown and the north side of Indianapolis were invited to participate. Thirteen did so. Each of the candidates was given a chance to make a brief opening statement before questions were asked. Unfortunately, because of the number of candidates and the need to give each an opportunity to respond, there was only time for three detailed and substantive questions (how to address Indiana’s fiscal crisis, health care, and immigration).

But after those three questions were asked and answered, the forum moved on to the “Lightning Round”. Before beginning the Lightning Round, the moderator Dr. Judy Failer, professor of Political Science and American Studies at Indiana University, explained to the candidates that they were expected to give “yes” or “no” answers and she even had them practice saying “yes” and “no” before she asked the questions (which had been submitted by members of the audience). Below are videos of four of the five questions (the fifth question asked the candidates if they’d support taxing services to raise funds for education). I apologize for the quality; this was my first time using my iPhone to try to take this kind of video for the web (you may want to turn up the volume to hear better).

The candidates (from left to right) are:

Senate District 29:

Sen. Mike Delph (R), incumbent

Robin Shackleford (D)

House District 86:

Rep. Ed Delaney (D), incumbent

Kurt Webber (R)

House District 88:

Rep. Brian Bosma (R), incumbent, current minority leader

Dr. John Kunzer (D)

House District 92 (note that the Democratic candidate was scheduled to attend, but canceled following the death of his father several days earlier):

Rep. Phil Hinkle (R), incumbent

Jason Sipe (L)

House District 94:

Clint Fultz (R)

Rep. Cherish Pryor (D), incumbent

House District 97:

Rep Mary Ann Sullivan (D), incumbent

House District 99:

Rep. Vanessa Summers (D), incumbent

House District 96:

David Dessauer (R/L) [I’m not sure if Mr. Dessauer is a Republican or Libertarian; he had not RSVP’d for the event and showed up about 15 minutes late and asked to participate]

So on with the questions:

Question #1: Do you believe in evolution?

 

Question #2: Would you require a woman who is raped to carry the fetus to term?

 

Question #3: Is global warming real and man made?

 

Question #4: Do you support civil unions?

 

I guess that I’m not terribly surprised by the answers to the questions regarding evolution and global warming (though I was a bit taken aback by Kurt Webber’s insistence that his beliefs on these subjects didn’t matter and by the fact that several candidates used responded “I don’t know” to the question of global warming). The suggestion that these issues aren’t meaningful at the state legislative level is nonsense; after all, state legislators can be actively engaged in pollution regulation and carbon control at the state level and are also very much involved in establishing the curriculum for state schools. And for a incumbent legislator to suggest that global warming is “a figment of man’s imagination” tells me precisely how that legislator views science.

And I was somewhat relieved to see that several candidates who weren’t Democrats did support civil unions, though none of the incumbent Republicans did so (including Rep. Bosma who, if the Republicans win control of the House, will become Speaker again). And note that the question was not same-sex marriage, but simply civil unions. So those three Republican incumbents would deny homosexuals the right not only to marry, but also to enter into some kind of lesser union. I’d really like to hear them explain how same-sex marriage, let alone civil unions, threatens their marriages.

But the question (and answers) that absolutely stunned me was whether the candidate would require a woman who is raped to carry the fetus to term. Just think about that proposition for a moment. Short of murder, rape probably the most heinous, vicious crime that can be committed against a person. And yet every single incumbent Republican (with one “pass” – but remember that he said “life begins at the moment of conception to explain his “no” on the evolution question) and each of the Republican candidates, would require a woman who is raped to carry her rapist’s fetus to term. I can’t begin to imagine the anguish that a woman would feel going through pregnancy, knowing that the fetus was the product of a rape. Every time the fetus kicks, the woman would be reminded of the rape. And when the baby is delivered, what emotion would be preeminent? What of the woman’s husband, knowing that the child is not his, but that of someone who assaulted his wife? And what are we to do with the baby, once delivered? I’m sure that the callous would simply say, “if you don’t want it, put it up for adoption,” but I’m sure those same people are the ones who aren’t willing to appropriate sufficient funds to care for those children and probably would oppose a same-sex couple from adopting the product of a rape. Oh, and I note that all of those Republicans are men.

I understand that abortion can be a complex and controversial issue, but the fact that so many Republicans have veered so far to the right that they are no longer even interested in exceptions for rape (and what about incest?) tells me quite a bit of what I need to know to understand the worldview of these candidates.

Keep these answers in mind when you go to the polls in November.