The Watering Hole; Thursday December 31 2015; Gay Marriage, a Flashback

Fifteen years ago this last July, Vermont became the first state in the country to allow and accept civil unions as a legal entity, an arrangement which no doubt served as a prime motivator in the movement to ‘legalize’ gay marriage once and for all. Then this year — fifteen years almost to the day down the road — the Supreme Court ruled that Gay Marriage was legal everywhere and had to be accepted, at which time the vast bulk of the religious/evangelical right wing found itself in dire need of a diaper change. Apparently that’s what happens when secularists sneak in right under god’s nose and start the destruction of Amurka by being, you know, tolerant and stuff.

A couple of weeks ago, while taking a peek at some old floppy-disk backup files from way back when, I ran across the transcript of a chat room (email) “discussion” I’d had back in 2002 with, of all people, an Evangelical Christianista from, of all places, Vermont. He had responded to some things that I and a couple other fair-minded folks (screen names ‘Herb’ and ‘Gillian’) had previously written while discussing same-sex civil unions and marriage. The end result, I think, quite well presents the polar perspectives on the matter — ie. the hyper- vs the non- religious viewpoints — and the judgments that are implicit when the discussion’s principle religious motivator is the interpretation of a word or two — phrase maybe — from that bestselling fictional work some call The Bible.

What follows is the transcription of my own email response to that post written by “Jim in Vermont;” it wasn’t a ‘live’ discussion, obviously, so if “Jim in Vermont” had a response to anything I wrote, it would not show here. Still, the conversation is, I think, interesting and, if compared with current day viewpoints, it demonstrates that, indeed, some things NEVER change.

******

At 0151 PM 11/1/02 -0500, Jim in Vermont wrote:
DOGMATIC CHRISTIAN HORSE PUCKEY

Frugal wrote: “Not all of the dogmatic Christian horse puckey in the world is enough to logically condemn and warrant legal discrimination against that roughly ten percent of the earth’s human population which generally believes it had no choice in the matter of sexual preference but is condemned anyway. To maintain otherwise is to pretend that dogmatic bigotry represents the high moral ground.”

Who’s been talking about condemning homosexuals, Frugal? I know that I haven’t.

You might try this site, GodHatesFags. It pretty much answers your question.

If their sexual behavior condemns them, that’s God’s business, not mine.

Then further argument is basically moot, so why worry?

But if we are interested in sustaining civilization . . .

Oh, yes, now I see.

. . . I think that we should not give legal or moral sanction to any immoral behavior, including homosexual behavior.

I’m starting to lose count of the fallacies — have run out of fingers. “Sustaining civilization” is not an issue. Ten percent who do not reproduce do not doom society; they probably don’t even make a blip on the population increase scale. “Immoral behavior, including homosexual behavior” is a straw man argument; there is no basis other than Biblical upon which to ‘define’ homosexual behavior as “immoral”, and the Bible does not enjoy universal acceptance or privilege. Nor should it.

Is it begging the question to argue that homosexual behavior is immoral?

Of course it is. “Morality” is peripheral, not absolute; nor is it secularly mandated, far as I know. What was it the Scottish Bard wrote about Morality?

“Morality, thou deadly bane,
Thy tens o’ thousands thou hast slain
Vain is his hope, whase stay an’ trust is
In moral mercy, truth, and justice!”

Ah, yes. Thank you Robert.

I don’t see how. How can two mutually exclusive sexual behaviors
both be right?

“Mutually exclusive sexual behaviors”?? First of all, I don’t know what you mean by ‘both be right’, although I assume you’re referring to more than simply the procedural? In any case, and as far as I’m concerned, the only ‘right’ that’s on the table is the ‘right’ to equal treatment under secular law. Christian “law” (or whatever you choose to call it) may, in your view, apply, but it doesn’t – or certainly shouldn’t — be applied to the nation as a whole.

If homosexual coupling is “right,” it logically follows that its opposite (i.e., heterosexual marriage) is “wrong.”

Good grief. That one about takes the cake, so far at least. The most sophistic argument in several days, in fact. It’s also just plain silly.

Yet the former, if taken as the norm, would lead to the end of the human race . . .

It would only lead to the end of the race if it was the ONLY norm. As it stands, “it’s” the norm for only about ten percent of the population, and has little or no impact on population growth. (I think I probably said that already).

. . . while the latter, which has traditionally and universally been taken as the norm, has been the building block of civilization.

“Appeal to Tradition” fallacy — ‘the latter’ which has certainly at least been the cause of a globe grossly overpopulated with humans. If you want to call that a “building block” I guess I won’t quibble.

It is a perilous enterprise to abandon the norm in favor of an “anything goes” attitude towards human sexuality.

There is no ‘norm’ being abandoned, Jim. No one is saying that you have to marry a man. The single issue is simply to extend the same legal rights to a homosexual relationship as a hetero relationship already enjoys. That’s ALL.

Social innovators – such as those who think that marriage should be redefined to include homosexual couplings – never know how close to the tap root of civilization they are hacking with their innovations. I see no reason to trust their judgment about human sexuality over the lessons taught by thousands of years of civilization.

Sophistry. There is no “innovation”, for BGate’s sake! The relationships already exist, have always existed, and will always exist.

The essence of my argument, Frugal, has been that abandoning moral standards (sexual or otherwise) in obedience to the zeitgeist of postmodern relativism is no way to perpetuate civilization.

“Appeal to fear” fallacy. And once again, you assume a single ‘governing’ morality which, if it exists at all, remains mixed in the same pot with all the other ‘moralities’. Because the Bible says something does not make it a universal standard except in opinion.

Homosexuality (the sexual preference) may not be a conscious choice, but homosexual behavior (acting on the preference) is.

Really? And that particular “behavior” is somehow your business? Jim, you’re wandering further and further into the realms of sophistic hyperbole.

Recognizing that does not obligate us to pass laws against homosexual behavior, but neither does it obligate us to pass laws granting homosexual couplings legitimacy on a par with heterosexual marriages.

You’re right, it doesn’t obligate either of those. The only obligation is to insist on legal fair play. Name one good reason why a homosexual partner should have any less right to accumulate and inherit an estate with his/her partner than you.

As Phillip Johnson wrote: “A rational society will be generous in recognizing exceptions, but it will emphatically define the norm around the values of the stable families that build the future.”

I don’t know who Phillip Johnson is, and I don’t necessarily disagree with that statement. What I do find disagreeable is the implicit pronouncement that a homosexual couple has less ‘values’ than any other couple, that they are any less interested in or capable of building the future. Not everyone begats, you know, thank all gods. Some heterosexual couples make the choice not to, some are biologically unable. And whatever shall we do with the sot who gets a vasectomy? Or the woman who undergoes a tubal ligation? Birth control? Should we relegate all of those ‘sinners’ to the same dirt pile as homosexual couples simply because they, too, violate “the norm around the values of the stable families that build the future” by not spinning off begats??

Homosexuality is viewed in different ways by different people . . .

By golly, we finally agree on something! Let me take a brief respite and
‘carpe momentum’ (or however the Latin works there).

. . . but it is most emphatically NOT the norm that builds the future. In a rational society, then, the definition of the norm (i.e., monogamous heterosexual marriage) should not be changed to accommodate homosexual relationships – which is the goal of homosexual activists.

That was, indeed, a brief respite. There you go again with your standard “Appeal to Fear” fallacy. Who has suggested that the “definition of the norm (i.e., monogamous heterosexual marriage)” be changed in any way? It doesn’t have to be changed to accommodate homosexual relationships, they already exist. The “definition of the norm” might come into play if the proposition on the table were to put the shoe on the other foot and allow full legal benefit to homosexual ‘marriage’ only and to take it away from heterosexual couples, but last I looked that had not been suggested. As Burns noted:

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
an’ foolish notion
What airs in dress an’ gait wad lea’e us,
an’ ev’n devotion!

At any rate, Frugal, your characterization of the traditional Christian view that homosexual behavior is immoral as “dogmatic bigotry” is evidence of, well, dogmatic bigotry.

Well, yes, perhaps from the Christian point-of-view it could be so seen. I should note, however, that my ‘dogmatic bigotry’ has its basis in a phrase that goes something like this (from memory): “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Now I know as well as anyone that the DOI’s thesis statement is not legal basis or legal authority for anything, that it’s simply a statement of elevated understanding, of elevated purpose, and of elevated goal. And (especially) in that regard it stands as if a beacon of light when alongside the relative darkness which so often is poured forth from the Bible. Perhaps I’m not alone when I say that I care less about the “traditional Christian view that homosexual behavior is “immoral;” my concern is with the secular practice of denying a group of people a ‘right’ granted others, denied a few only because of that “traditional Christian view that homosexual behavior is immoral.” Ridiculous. And, in fact, not all Christian denominations believe in or preach that BS. Most are not, in fact and THANKFULLY!!! not of the fundamentalist and/or evangelical mold, and that fact sometimes is VERY comforting.

Frugal asked: “Have any of you Christians ever heard the word LOVE when used to describe interpersonal relationship?” Of course we have, Frugal. As Christ said, love is God’s “greatest commandment.” But we Christians have also listened to God’s descriptions of sinful (i.e., immoral) behavior and to His desire that we not condone sinful behavior – in our own lives or in the lives of others. Love does not grant us a license for immorality.

“Immorality” in your eyes, Jim. Somewhere I thought you said that was God’s business, not yours. Maybe I was mistaken. Jim, you can “listen to God” all you want — and if you’d just keep it all between yourself and whatever you envision “God” to be, no one would ever argue with you about it. But using your belief as a basis upon which to justify the denial of others a very simple ‘right’ is a bit much.

Your avoidance of the topic of Love between two people (regardless of gender) as opposed to ‘sex’ between two people (regardless of gender) has been noted, btw. I’m disappointed, but not surprised.

Meanwhile, the list of fallacies grows like Pinnochio’s nose.

Herb wrote: “Marriage is actually a contract. A contract that allows two people to live together and act as one financial entity.”

If that’s all that marriage means to you, Herb, then you’ll never understand the argument I’ve been making.

I’ll never understand the argument you’ve been making, Jim. The issue has nothing at all to do with what YOU might think marriage means, it has to do ONLY with, as Herb says, allowing “two people to live together and act as one [legal] financial entity.” How in the heck you can equate that simple premise with the demise of civilization is beyond me, but if civilization has truly sunk so low that it’s demise will be brought forth by that dot over that ‘i’, I guess it’s high time to demise away and start over.

As I’ve repeatedly explained, I think that homosexual marriages should not be legalized because doing so fosters the dangerous notion that all sexual relationships build for the future in equal measure. In my view, it is utterly foolhardy to redefine marriage to accommodate the sexual preferences of homosexuals. Let them have their sex, but don’t let them undermine the institution of marriage and the (dare I say it?) traditional family values that sustain civilization.

Let’s see. Appeal to Fear, Appeal to Belief, Appeal to Spite, Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Common Practice, Appeal to Consequences of Belief, Appeal to Ridicule, Appeal to Popularity, Questionable Cause — have I missed any?

Do I believe in separation of church and state? Yes – in the sense that we should not have a theocracy and in the sense that the state should not interfere in religion. No – if separation means that religious beliefs have no place in deciding social policy. The First Amendment does not require people of faith to leave their faith behind when they enter the public arena.

Nor does it allow ‘them’ to overlay ‘their’ belief on others. “Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion . . .” about covers it, I think. We are a society based on secular law, not on religious law. Thank all gods.

If it did, the institution of slavery (to cite only one example) might still be alive – given that Christians, informed by their faith, were the leaders in ending that institution.

Of course, Christians, informed by that same faith, were pretty good at
participating as well. When was it that God decided slavery was evil, I wonder?

I doubt that Christ regards my defense of biblical morality as “bad.” He spoke at great length about the evils of sin – which made his mission to Earth necessary. Among other things, He said that “the things that come out of the heart…make a man ‘unclean.’ For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.” (Matthew 15:18-19) Is there any doubt, given Christ’s full acceptance of “the Law,” that the phrase “sexual immorality” referred to the sexual sins (including homosexual behavior) described by “the Law?” Is there any doubt that Christ hates sin? Following Christ’s lead, I think that we are to love all people, but that we are to hate all sin.  I also have no doubt that Christ would not approve of those “who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality…” (Jude 14)

All of that is very nice, I’m sure. It’s also irrelevant, with its generally inferred but unspoken conclusions. “Appeals to the Consequences of a Belief” is probably close enough.

Gillian wrote: “…the problem is that some people are hate-filled.”

I quite agree. Given a choice between “hate-filled” and
“respectful” to describe the replies to my thoughts on the issue of
homosexuality, I think that a fair-minded reader would pick “hate-filled” as being the most apt. The problem with some people that you’ve identified has been repeatedly demonstrated on this very forum, and I’m not afraid to let the lurkers decide for themselves just whose writings have been filled with hateful vitriol.

Jim, I have to hand it to you. You have the most amazing gift of re-spinning the yarn that I’ve ever encountered.

Given a choice between “hate-filled” and “respectful” to describe the replies to my thoughts on the issue of homosexuality, I think that a fair-minded reader would pick “hate-filled” as being the most apt.

Or maybe rather than ‘hate-filled’ or ‘respectful’, how about calling it what it is — ‘a direct, no nonsense, no BS refutation of the assumed privilege of public meddling in private lives because the Bible so instructs’?? Whichever words you care to use, ‘it’ all comes down to one thing: the US legal system and canon of law and jurisprudence are NOT legally referent to the King James (or any other) version of the Bible; that notion is, in fact, specifically refuted by the very clear language of The Bill of Rights, Article I: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . .” Works for me.

******

So that was it, that’s where it apparently ended — thirteen years ago last month, at least. Problem is, ‘it’ is back in force now that the SCOTUS has ruled that homosexual marriage is legal in all states. I recently read where Ted Cruz’s daddy Rafael, in his new book titled ‘A Time For Action’ wrote, “. . . the recent Supreme Court ruling legalizing homosexual marriage is one of the biggest signs of our country’s moral degradation.” Apparently Rafael’s preferred method of solving that “problem” is to do all he can to see to the election of his son Ted as President. Some of us think differently, however. Meanwhile, I still gotta wonder — how come so many folks who profess to be ‘Christians’ and ‘driven by Love’ of others are so filled with so much hate and fear of everything in the world that’s not spoken highly of in their favorite fictional manuscript? I mean, what’s it to them, anyway?

If I should ever stumble upon the answer to that one, I promise I’ll post it here the same day. Don’t hold your breath, however; ain’t no margin in suffocating.

OPEN THREAD

Oh, and Feliz Año Nuevo!

The Watering Whole. 12/30/15.

From “The Lord’s Prayer”:

“forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us”

“forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us”

“forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors”

The word “as” appears in each version. “As” – in the same manner – to the same degree. The universal law of balance.

 Those who call themselves Christians recite these words in one version or another by rote, without much thought as to their meaning and implication. They speak the words on Sunday morning, and by Sunday afternoon, have gone back to hating all things Muslim, because, you know, terrorists. Muslims are the scapegoats du jour.

“forgive us our trespasses to the same degree we forgive those who trespass against us”

One need not be religious to apply this universal law of attaining balance in one’s life.

OPEN THREAD

The Watering Hole, Monday, December 28th, 2015: No Religious Test?

I ran across this opinion piece at christianpost.com [and for more religious wackiness, check out some of the stories on their home page] and felt it was a perfect example of the ridiculousness of the “Christian Nation” argument. In it, Reverend Mark H. Creech cherry-picks references from some version of the bible, from early American historical documents, and from the Star-Spangled Banner.

Recently, WTVD News ABC 11 for Raleigh-Durham reported that the mayor of Franklin, North Carolina, Bob Scott has a long tenure of public service. He was in the Army as a public affairs officer. He flew in the Civil Air Patrol. He spent ten years on the Franklin Board of Alderman.

Each time he was sworn into office he placed his left hand on the Bible to take his oath. But this year, which will make his second term as Franklin’s mayor, he decided to do something different. He decided he wouldn’t use the Bible, but instead swear upon a copy of the Constitution.

According to WTVD, Scott said that he had been thinking about the matter for a long time.

“I realized we are taking an oath to defend the Constitution, pure and simple, and those are the laws of the land. And If I’m gonna give an oath, that’s what I’m giving an oath to. It had nothing to do with religion — for or against — just swearing to protect and defend the Constitution,” said Scott.

Regarding the office of any public official, Scott also said, “We do not represent any religion, what we represent are the laws of the land. As far as I am concerned, there is no place in government for religion. I’m a secularist in that respect. I just don’t think there’s a place for any kind of religious doctrine in government because we represent everybody.”

The woeful ignorance of Scott’s view is breathtaking. You can no more separate our nation’s form of government from the Christian religion than you can separate smoke from fire or water from ice.

Granted, at the start of our fledgling republic, there was a severing of the politico-ecclesiastical ties that had long existed between the church and state. But the separation of the two did not mean the severance of our way of government from God, or from its basis — the Christian religion. As John Quincy Adams, the sixth president of the United States stated, the American Revolution connected in “one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government and the principles of Christianity.”

This fact is voluminously evident in such matters as the biblical worldview that shaped the resistance of the colonists to King George’s tyranny, the Declaration of Independence’s references to “Nature’s God,” the “Creator,” the “Supreme Judge of the world” and its signers acknowledgement of “a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence.” This is not to mention the repeated presidential and congressional calls for prayer and days of fasting in periods of great national challenges throughout American history.  [HUH?]

Scott may claim that there is “no place in government for religion,” but even something as simple as the concluding words of our National Anthem summarize the United States was birthed out of a religious commitment — out of a commitment to God.

“Blessed with victory and peace, May this heaven rescued land, Praise the Power that hath made And preserved us a nation!

“Then conquer we must, When our cause is just; And this be our motto, ‘In God is our trust!’**

“And the star-spangled banner in, Triumph shall wave, O’er the land of the free, And the home of the brave.”

Scott may have chosen to take his oath on the Constitution, but neither can he remove that great document from its Christian influences. Stephen McDowell and Mark Beliles, in their book, Liberating the Nations, point out that James Madison, who has justly been referred to as the “Father” of the US Constitution, was a tremendous Christian statesman that delineated the biblical responsibilities of government in its preamble:

To establish justice — the goal of government as taught in Romans 13 and I Peter 2:14 is to punish evildoers and to protect those who do right.

To ensure domestic tranquility — a phrase that comes from the focus of prayer for government, which instructs us to pray “in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.”

To provide for the common defense — “The protection of innocent human life is at the base of not only capital punishment (Gen. 9:6) but also in the provision of an army for protection from external threats.”

To promote the general welfare — Romans 13:4 says that civil rulers are servants of God “to you for good.”

To secure the blessings of Liberty — Liberty is a gift from our Creator, not simply a privilege granted by the government. The government should secure the God-given rights of every man to his life, liberty, and property.

No wonder Noah Webster said, “The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and his apostles … to this we owe our free constitutions of government.”

Moreover, these are some of the same reasons George Washington in his farewell address warned:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars …The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for prosperity, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths…? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion …Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.”

Mayor Scott certainly has the right to reject putting his hand on the Bible when taking his oath of office, but his choice sends a dangerous message that places every citizen at risk. His actions declare the erroneous notion that our rights come from the state — not God.”

While there’s a lot here that should be picked apart, I’ll leave most of that to you, my readers. I’m just going to throw out a few comments regarding certain parts.

First: Who the hell sings the entire National Anthem?

Second: Noah Webster was wrong: the democratic principles of the Greeks, not “the religion of Christ and his apostles”, introduced civil liberty and “our free constitutions of government.”

Third: Mayor Scott’s decision to swear his oath of office on the Constitution is not a danger to any citizen, it is a promise to ALL American citizens to uphold our rights as granted by the Constitution – NOT by the Reverend’s, or anyone else’s, god. No one’s god can take away my rights as a U.S. citizen.

Fourth: Obviously I disagree with George Washington’s notion that morality is dependent upon religion; however, I must point out that Reverend Creech left out an important line that followed the Washington quote he referenced:

“Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.”

If only George Washington could have foreseen the bastardization that is Liberty University.

**According to www.treasury.gov, we can blame adding the motto “In God We Trust” to U.S. coinage (not on paper currency) on Salmon P. Chase, who apparently was totally ignorant of the First Amendment. An excerpt:

The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861. It was written to Secretary Chase by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania, and read:

Dear Sir: You are about to submit your annual report to the Congress respecting the affairs of the national finances.

One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins.

You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were not shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation? What I propose is that instead of the goddess of liberty we shall have next inside the 13 stars a ring inscribed with the words PERPETUAL UNION; within the ring the allseeing eye, crowned with a halo; beneath this eye the American flag, bearing in its field stars equal to the number of the States united; in the folds of the bars the words GOD, LIBERTY, LAW.

This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters…

“As a result, Secretary Chase instructed James Pollock, Director of the Mint at Philadelphia, to prepare a motto, in a letter dated November 20, 1861:

Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins.

So, America has “Divine protection”? Coulda fooled me.

 

UPDATE:  Being ever so suspicious of religious quotes attributed to our Founders (or their children), Wayne checked and found out the John Quincy Adams quote above is a fake quote.  The words were written by John Wingate Thornton and are believed to be Thornton’s summary of a concept he attributed to John Quincy Adams.  Whether they represent Adams’ views or not, they are not his words, they are Thornton’s.

 

This is our daily Open Thread – have at it!

Sunday Roast: Another year gone; what have we learned?

I know I’ve posted this video a few times over the years, in one form or another, but I’m posting it again.

Why?  That’s a good question.  I’m glad you asked.

I don’t know if it’s because I’m feeling especially pessimistic or cynical these days, but I’m thinking that we haven’t learned anything over the past year.  Maybe it’s just that the United States is absolutely fucking bonkers right now, and I’m having trouble seeing the good in the world; or maybe we’re at a critical turning point, and, much like correcting a naughty child, the behavior gets much worse before it starts getting better.

I hope it’s both, and I hope the “getting better” part starts happening soon.

This is the last Sunday Roast of the year — What do you think?

The Watering Hole, Saturday, December 26, 2015: A Man, A Turtle, and Fear of Muslims

Bret Colvin and his turtle – photo Miles Bryan of Wyoming Public Radio

Bret Colvin is prejudiced. We all are, to a certain extent, and it’s partly a survival mechanism. If you don’t learn to recognize potential dangers by doing some internal “profiling” in your mind, you could get killed. And it works, so long as your prejudices have some rational basis. Bret Colvin’s do not. Bret is afraid of Muslims he has never met. This is a stupid kind of fear to have because virtually any Muslim he’s likely to meet will pose no more danger to him than any non-Muslim would. I’d even say it’s highly likely that anyone he meets who does pose a danger to him will do so for reasons that have nothing to do with Islam. He’s in Wyoming, FFS. There aren’t a lot of Muslims to fear there in the first place. In fact, the mosque that got him so worried he started a Facebook page called “Stop Islam in Gillette” is only the third mosque in the entire state of Wyoming. And it was started so that members of one particular family would have a place to freely exercise their First Amendment right to practice the religion of their choice. They hope to save enough money to build a new mosque (this one is a regular house, converted for their purposes) to which they would welcome Muslims from other areas. It’s the American dream from before there was an America built on consumerism (in violation of the Ten Commandments.) In response to Bret’s FB page, another FB page was started called Save Islam in Gillette.

Since then, Bret has changed the name of his FB page to “Stop Forced Syrian Immigration to Gillette.” (Maybe the little chat he had with one of the mosque’s founders convinced him to refocus his hate and ignorance.) His concern now is, “Well, I don’t want Jihadis in my neighborhood.” Is that a rational fear? Of course not! Why not? Well, for one thing, Wyoming is the only one of our 50 states that does not have a refugee resettlement program. Which means that when the federal government eventually finishes its extensive background checks and interviews with refugee applicants some 18-24 months from now, they won’t get settled in Wyoming. I’m guessing Bret is totally unaware of the procedure for Syrian immigrants to apply for refugee status and resettlement in the US. The fact that Bret is a YUGE Donald Trump supporter makes me certain he doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to immigrants, refugees, and terrorism in general. He’s not the only one with that problem.

According to a NYT survey, a lot of people have a misguided fear of terrorism. Which brings me to a second point on which I’d like to rant – public opinion polling. I am thoroughly convinced (okay, maybe there’s a teeny, tiny chance my mind can be changed in this, but I’d be surprised if the right evidence and facts could be shown me to convince me I’m wrong) that public opinion polling in America is pure bullshit, and there are several reasons for this. It’s not the mathematics themselves, just their application to poll results. Statistical analysis is fine when you’re analyzing actual facts or events that have actually happened. For example, by analyzing the time of day at which people actually had heart attacks, you can come up with the day of the week and time of day at which you’re most likely to have a heart attack. (I believe this was done once and the answer was Monday mornings.) And that’s fine and it’s valid and it makes sense because it’s based on actual facts. But if a bunch of inaccurate days and times were thrown into the results, would the final number really have any meaning? Could you point to this analysis and be confident with the result if you knew a bunch of lies and misinformation were factored into the final number? Opinions are not facts. And worse still, opinions based on lies and misinformation are less than worthless. And that’s what public opinion polls are often based on – lies and misinformation.

For example, suppose I’m an idiot who believes leprechauns, pixies, unicorns and elves are all real and plotting together to take over the Earth from humans any day now through violent acts of terrorism, but I keep that to myself. You come along and ask me a survey question asking me what I thought the likelihood of a terrorist attack on the United States is. Of course I’d tell them it’s high or very high, but do you think my opinion has any merit and should be considered as part of this survey response? Do you think the President should consider my opinion when developing our counter-terrorism strategy? Should he factor this in and order the Dept of Defense to stock up on poison darts to kill the elves? Of course not, because there’s no reality-based reason for my fear. Now replace “leprechauns, pixies, unicorns and elves” with “typical Muslims.” Is my opinion any better? Is there any reality-based reason to believe typical Muslims are plotting to take over the Earth through violent acts of terrorism? Of course not. But the guy asking me the survey question doesn’t know on what I base my answers, so why should it be lumped in with all the reality-based answers and factored into the poll results?

Donald Trump is polling well among Republican voters, but should we really assume he’ll win the general election (or even the nomination of his party, whichever that is this year)? Are we really going to operate on the premise that the people saying they support Trump are basing their views on facts and reality? He is saying things that appeal to people who do not put a lot of effort into their thinking. Do you want a nation’s foreign policy to be based on the opinions of people whose views of Muslims is no more accurate than that of someone who says they believe leprechauns, pixies, unicorns and elves are all real and plotting together to take over the Earth from humans any day now through violent acts of terrorism? I have a surprise for them. My brother’s ex-wife married a Muslim who helped raise my nephews, and I never once feared that he might secretly be a terrorist waiting to do terrorist things. Not once. Not even for a nanosecond. Abraham is a good man and I am even grateful for his being a part of raising my nephews. The men in my family have a little problem with alcoholism and my brother was not immune to this. (Neither am I, which is why I gave up drinking decades ago.) So when Abraham instituted a rule that there would be no alcohol in his house, I was glad because it meant my nephews would be less likely to turn into full blown drunks. But it also meant that they would have a good role model in their stepfather because, like 99.9% of all Muslims, he’s a man who practices Peace. But the people telling the pollster they fear a terrorist attack probably wouldn’t know that.

Here’s something else about polls: You can never be sure how the person answering is interpreting the question. For example, what do they consider “terrorist attack” to mean? Is it a bombing or mass shooting committed by radicalized Muslims only? Could it also be a lone, crazed Christian who thinks the vast majority of what Planned Parenthood does is abortions? Could it also be someone who thinks the federal government killed those people in the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, TX, and then went too far with a ban on assault weapons? Could it be a white male who wants to start a race war by executing nine people in a church just because they were black? You don’t know. The person answering is free to apply his own definitions of the words used in the question so, in essence, you’re really not getting answers to the same question from different people. There’s too much room for lies and misinformation to enter into the process and, therefore, you are no longer applying statistical analysis to empirical facts. You are applying them to worthless answers, answers that may not have any connection to Reality. Can you still conclude that there are Americans who fear we might be subject to an act of terrorism? Of course you can, for two reasons. One, you don’t need a survey to learn there are people who are afraid of terrorism. And two, given how broadly one can define “terrorist,” it’s obvious we’re going to be subject to another terrorist attack. But it doesn’t mean we have to seal our borders, build a giant wall along one of them, and stop all Syrian refugees fleeing war in their home country. We can’t let fear dominate our decision-making. Because that’s what the terrorists want us to do.

Note: There is no evidence that Bret Colvin’s turtle has expressed fears about Muslims in Gillette, which makes the turtle a better man than Bret.

Late though it is, this is our daily open thread. Feel free to talk about irrational fears, untrustworthy poll results, lazy bloggers, or anything else you wish to discuss.

The Watering Hole, Friday December 25th, 2015 – Christmas Music (Zoo style)

The Watering Hole; Christmas Day 2015

Feliz Navidad!

******

******

“May our nation continue to be the beakon [sic] of hope to the world.”
(Dan Quayle’s 1989 Christmas card)
[Not a exactly a beacon of literacy]

******

OPEN THREAD

 

The Watering Hole; Thursday December 24 2015; Peace

Go placidly amid the noise and haste and remember
what peace there may be in silence.
(Max Ehrmann)

******

My wish for everyone I know and for the rest of the world as well, is

Not sure why it is that Peace is so tricky to come by, but in my 73 years it hasn’t shown itself very often, if ever, on anything approaching a global level. There are places where it prospers, however — the above photo (doctored a wee bit for use on our Christmas cards that year) was taken during the summer of 2005 on a foggy morning in the high mountains of E. Arizona, at the wooded edge of a wild place called Horseshoe Cienega. It’s a mountain meadow with an old barbed wire fence still wrapped around part of it, and though it was once a holding pen for cattle, in ’05 it was the haunt of elk, deer, wild turkeys, an occasional pair of Mexican Gray Wolves, crows, the infrequent black bear, wildflowers — and under surrounding trees, the two of us “superior” lifeforms, plus tent and campfire ring. In shorter summary, it was definitely one of the most peaceable and tranquil scenes one might ever dare to imagine.

Peace IS refreshing; it scrubs the soul, refreshes both mind and spirit. I know. The elk, deer, wolves, turkeys, even the wildflowers understood, they said it every day. ‘Listen’ carefully to this peaceful fellow — he knows all there is to know about it . . .

-Peace Defined-

“Climb the mountains and get their good tidings.
Nature’s peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees.
The winds will blow their own freshness into you…
while cares will drop off like autumn leaves.”
(John Muir)

******

Peace to all creatures everywhere, humans included, and

Merry Christmas!

OPEN THREAD

The Watering Hole, Wednesday, December 23, 2015. What’s your Christmas wish?

Ho, ho, ho…

All I want for Christmas is ….

 

 

 

 

 

 

OPEN THREAD

it’s ok to wish

The Watering Hole, Tuesday, December 22, 2015 – Environmental News and Food Politics

How to have a ‘green’ Christmas

Probably too late for this year, but worthy tips for the future, unless you are already doing most of these.

Buy Less

Buy Smart – think ‘green’

Connect with Nature

Lower the impact of holiday lighting

Choose a live tree

Homemade Cards

Alternatives to Wrapping Paper

Reuse/Recycle

CLICK HERE FOR THE DETAILS

The Watering Hole, Monday, December 21st, 2015: GOP Pander-dates

In yet another example of GOP Presidential hopefuls pandering to the right-wing evangelical “christians”, six (so far) of them have signed a “pledge” being pushed by several conservative groups. The “pledge” concerns support of what’s now being called the “First Amendment Defense Act“, which was originally introduced in June as the “Marriage and Religious Freedom Act” – I’m guessing that the name was changed to make it sound more “constitutional” and less “screw the other Amendments, religion’s in #1! ”

The pledge states:  “If elected, I pledge to push for the passage of the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) and sign it into law during the first 100 days of my term as President.”

From ThinkProgress:

“It has become clear that the First Amendment Defense Act is rapidly becoming a signature issue that unifies the GOP,” Maggie Gallagher, Senior Fellow at American Principles Project, said in the group’s statement announcing the pledge. “Three out of the four top contenders for the nomination — Carson, Cruz, and Rubio — have pledged to prioritize passing FADA in their first 100 days of office. Additionally, Bush, Graham, Paul, and now for the first time, Donald Trump, have publicly expressed support for FADA.”

Gallagher added that a Republican win in 2016 could mean that FADA becomes reality. “Real, concrete protections for gay marriage dissenters appear to be just one election victory away,” she said.

Ms. Gallagher, I think that using the term “gay marriage dissenters” is a tad disingenuous, don’t you?  “Gay marriage dissenters” can “dissent” all they want, what they CAN’T do is discriminate against gays/gay marriage.

For another slant on the “pledge” and FADA, here’s part of the Christian Post’s reporting:

Conservative groups including the American Principles Project, Heritage Action for America, and the Family Research Council affiliate FRC Action created a pledge for candidates to support.

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, Dr. Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee have signed onto the Project’s pledge in support of FADA.

GOP candidates Donald Trump, former Governor Jeb Bush of Florida, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky have expressed support for FADA but did not sign the pledge.

In a letter sent to each candidate regarding the FADA pledge, the conservative groups stressed the possible threat to religious liberty from the legalization of gay marriage.”

Here’s the text of the letter:

[T]he gathering concern around whether or not the Left will succeed in its ongoing efforts to force those who disagree with the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, prompts us to write to you and ask: will you commit to making it a top priority for you to ensure passage of the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) in the first 100 days of your administration?

FADA protects supporters of natural marriage from punishment by the Federal government or its regulatory arms, including the IRS: “the Federal Government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.”

It prevents the IRS from issuing regulations denying tax-exempt status to charities or schools that support natural marriage, and forbids the Federal government from discriminating against them in contracts, loans, licensing, accreditation or employment. It prevents Federal discrimination against individuals, employers and other organizations that continue to act in accordance with a belief in natural marriage, while specifically guaranteeing conscience protections will not also be used to disrupt benefits to which people are legally entitled.

Serious scholars suggest [I love that sort of phrase, it’s like commercials that say “some studies suggest” that consuming their product will do whatever” – but I digress] religious schools should expect to be punished by the withholding of federal funds under current law if they do not treat same-sex unions as marriages. “It seems to me very likely that, in the coming years, schools and universities that accept public funds and support will be required—as a condition of those funds—to have nondiscrimination rules that forbid discrimination on sexual-orientation grounds,” One such scholar, a professor who oversees the Program on Church, State & Society at Notre Dame’s law school, told The Atlantic. “And, these rules will not distinguish between sexual-orientation discrimination and non-recognition of same-sex marriages.”

The second most powerful Democratic Senator has publicly stated he’s not sure whether such schools should be stripped of their tax-exempt status. When the Weekly Standard asked, “should religious protections extend beyond houses of worship to, say, religious schools that require employees to affirm their faith’s teaching about marriage?” Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois responded: “Getting into a challenging area, and I don’t have a quick answer to you. I’ll have to think about it long and hard.” Many Americans, particularly African-American Christians like Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran, are losing their livelihoods, at least in part because they privately support natural marriage.

When no less a distinguished legal expert than the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts, has pointed to the serious religious liberty consequences that may stem from the Court’s redefinition of marriage, it is time to take the need for new conscience protections seriously. “Today’s decision . . . creates serious questions about religious liberty . . . Indeed the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage,” wrote Chief Justice Roberts. Millions of Americans can disagree over the definition of marriage, however, it is essential that the millions of Americans who support natural marriage are not punished by the Federal government for their support for marriage as it has been understood for millennia.

We ask, therefore, for your public assurance that you would prioritize passing the First Amendment Defense Act in the first 100 days of your administration.”

I know that this post is a bit lengthy, but I wanted to point out The American Principles Project (APP)’s Mission and Purpose:

“American Principles Project recognizes the dignity of the person as the basis of the founding principles of the United States. We are committed to the declaration made by the Founding Fathers, that we are all created equal, endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

APP believes that local and national policies that respect the dignity of the person will lead to a flourishing society. As such, we educate and advocate for public policy solutions that respect and affirm: human life from conception to natural death; the union of one man and one woman as the definition of marriage; the freedom to practice and proclaim religion; authentic economic progress for working Americans; education in service of the comprehensive development of the person; and, the legacy of immigrants in contributing to the American story.”  [emphasis mine]

I have a few bones to pick with this, but it will have to wait for another time – but you can go ahead and start without me.

Bonus Track: More pointless investigations into Planned Parenthood! [Warning: the countless lies and demonstrations of ignorance contained in this article may be harmful to your mental health.]

This is your daily Open Thread – talk about whatever you want.

Sunday Roast: Breathe

There’s a lot going on in the world, and more particularly with my Critters and Zoosters.  Too much happening, and time passing too quickly.

Step back…

This is our daily open thread — Breathe

 

The Watering Hole, Saturday, December 19, 2015: Monkey Washing a Cat, Instead

I can’t write anything today. My oldest nephew and my late brother’s first child, Jimmy, who was born five days after my sixteenth birthday, suffered a very, very severe stroke a couple of days ago. My sister told me that because of severe weather at the time, they could not airlift him to a hospital, and so he had to be driven down there by ambulance. When they were finally able to operate, they found that a large clot was blocking the major artery going to his brain, and that his brain had been deprived of oxygen for far too long. As of now, he is on a ventilator and a feeding tube and it appears that he can only blink his eyes. He can’t move anything else. His mother and her other sons are grappling with the most difficult of decisions a family can make, and that is whether or not to discontinue life support and let Nature take its course.

I thank you in advance all for your kinds words and support, and for your good wishes for my nephew and his family. As with all open threads, feel free to discuss what you wish. I don’t think I’ll be around much this weekend.

I really can’t think about anything else right now, so here’s a video (made famous by David Letterman’s frequent use) of a monkey washing a cat.

The Watering Hole, Friday December 18, 2015 – Music Night

I started out looking for a winter solstice song, and ended longing for its opposite. Happy summer solstice to our South American and African friends.

The summer solstice occurs when the tilt of a planet’s semi-axis, in either northern or southern hemispheres, is most inclined toward the star that it orbits. Earth’s maximum axial tilt toward the Sun is 23° 26′. This happens twice each year (once in each hemisphere), at which times the Sun reaches its highest position in the sky as seen from the north or the south pole. (Wiki)

The Watering Hole; Friday December 18 2015; Happy Holidays!

Where is Jesus gone?
They said that Jesus — always came —
Perhaps he doesn’t know the House –
(Emily Dickinson)

******

‘Tis the season, so they say. Holidays: Saturnalia, Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, and others I’m sure. Christmas first showed up, I’m told, in the 4th century C.E. when Christianity was adopted as the official religion of the Roman Empire. The celebration of the birth of Christ took over the December celebration of the ancient Roman God Saturn, and with local variations it’s been that way — globally — for seventeen centuries and counting.

When I was a little guy, I thought Christmas was really cool, especially the Tree, Santa, and presents part. I particularly remember Christmas of 1947 when I asked Santa for “a coal loader to put coal in my train.” I unfortunately don’t have any photos of Santa’s Christmas Eve delivery, but I do have one taken the day I — personally — asked him if maybe he might be able to bring that coal loader. It was all I wanted, I told him. He said he’d do it, and he DID! It was there waiting for me on Christmas morning!

As you can see, this was the REAL Santa, not one of those ‘Ho Ho Ho’ fakers!

Anyway, that’s the part of Christmas that really appealed to my little-guy imagination. I honestly didn’t care much for the mythological part of Christmas — the tall tales the preacher told in church about a baby, a manger, wise men, angels, etc. — none of it really made much sense, y’ know? I mean, there was nothing to capture the imagination. No presents, no lap sitting, no reindeer — only those hard church pews and maybe a picture or two of the myths embedded in stained glass windows. Suffice to say I was a skeptic, even way back then.

Fast forward to today, some sixty-eight years down the road from the demonstrated reality of Santa and that really cool coal loader. Today we STILL are asked to listen to chatter about the manger, the wise men, all of those popular fables. No big problem, obviously, but watch out,  ’cause every time somebody says “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas,” Bill O’Reilly and all the nuts at Fox News (and elsewhere) get really MAD and bring up that old ‘War on Christmas’ meme.  Kinda makes one wonder what it’s all about, y’ know?

It’s really something that’s been puzzling me for a long time — why all this vicious reaction to someone — anyone — who might see the world thru a different lens? Like those who choose to say “Happy holidays” or “Seasons Greetings” instead of “Merry Christmas”? What’s up with that? Surely not every person out there is obligated to cross every ‘T’ and dot every ‘I’ in the words ‘Merry Christmas.’ Right? To some, it might be a celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, but what about those others who have found ‘Holiday’ motivations elsewhere? Is that option somehow not permissible? The anger of some out there over that little non-issue has long puzzled me. Why the outrage over something so inspiring as a society with mixed beliefs?

Here’s a very recent link to a detailed and scholarly analysis of Five Reasons to Suspect Jesus Never Existed. I imagine some will call it malarkey after simply reading the title, while others will (hopefully) give the concept some reasonable consideration. Christianity may well be based on a false premise, after all, and just that little factoid serves to dismiss the whole Christmas thing as baseless, right?

Of course not. Religions of all kinds are never burdened by facts or the need for supporting data. There has never been verifiable “proof” of any religious premise ever offered anywhere by anyone — none. Why? Because religion is Faith. Religion is Belief. No facts are needed, ever. It’s always been that way, always will.

As for me, well, I’m not much for believing in myths and fantasies, that sort of thing. But in spite of that, I hope to never feel the need to castigate or make fun of anyone of sincere and honest (i.e. non-Fox non-Christer) belief. Because if I did THAT, I’d be no better than those (phony) ‘religionistas’ who freely castigate and threaten anyone who does not appear to accept their particular theology. Simply because “they” believe in something in which “I” have no interest does not, as Jefferson said, “pick my pocket or break my leg,” so why not simply smile and wave?  To engage in hateful trivia causes far more problems than it can ever hope to solve, after all.

But all of that aside, there is clearly one Happy Holiday / Seasons Greetings / Merry Christmas detail that remains on MY side!

Santa is Real! (see above) 😀

******

Oh Jesus — in the Air —
I know not which thy chamber is —
I’m knocking — everywhere —
(Emily Dickinson)

OPEN THREAD

The Watering Hole; Thursday December 17 2015; Of “They” and “Them” and “Those”

“We have now sunk to a depth at which
the restatement of the obvious is 
the first duty of intelligent men.”
(George Orwell)

******

Antonin Scalia, appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, is currently the longest-serving Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court. In the continuing (anti-Affirmative Action) case of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, Scalia had this, in part, to say (highlights mine):

There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans . . .

I’m assuming here that Scalia’s use of the word those refers to, in his own warped and clearly racist context, each and all of those folks (including himself I’m sure) who believe and maintain that ALL African-Americans are a bit less of everything that defines Teh Superiority implicit in ALL white folks — Teh Stupid (obviously) included.

Scalia continues:

. . . to — to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school — a slower-track school where they do well.

One of — one of the briefs pointed out that — that most of the black scientists in this country do not come from the most advanced schools. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they‘re — that they‘re being pushed ahead in — in classes that are too — too fast for them. . . .

Note that in a mere 95 words, Scalia uses the words they and them, resp., six and three times each, and by doing so implies that EVERY African American is intellectually inferior to EVERY white American, all based on premises which I expect would be dismissed and laughed at by anyone with half a mind.

A couple of conclusions are obvious. First, Scalia is a racist. Second, this country clearly has NOT — in spite of popular rumor and its occasional attempts — progressed very far beyond the racist place it was in 1787 when our current Constitution was completed and offered for ratification by the ‘several States.’ Ratification by the original 13 states was completed in 1790, at which time slavery was legal in eight of the states, and not legal in the other five.

It is, of course, fair to note that in the main body of the 1787 Constitution, ALL black African-Americans were defined as being three fifths that of a free person. It’s also worth noting that Founder and Slave-owner James Madison constructed the Second Amendment so as to enable slave states to put down slave rebellions by allowing them full access to the well regulated Militia(s) which were now, courtesy of Article I, Section 8, fully under Federal control. Slave owners — and racism — thus were Constitutionally protected. More or less.

Following Abraham Lincoln’s election in 1860 (but prior to his inauguration in 1861), seven states — South Carolina first, then in quick succession, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas — seceded, citing “states rights” and “slavery.” The Civil war followed quickly in 1861; the Emancipation Proclamation was issued in 1863; the Civil War finally ended in 1865, the same year that the Thirteenth Amendment — which began with the line Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude . . . shall exist within the United States — became the law of the land. In 1866, the fanatical Ku Klux Klan rose from the racial ashes of the Civil War, a dour event that was followed by ratification, in 1868, of the Fourteenth Amendment which plainly stated that ALL persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States and . . . No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens . . . etc. Racism was, in other words, officially dismissed and forever banished.

Sadly, however, the era of Jim Crow and Segregation — driven by unending embedded racism — persisted in the legal shadows with only occasional efforts to interrupt. And it endures yet today as it continues to drive portions of the national politic, including even issues brought before those who sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Some still love to call America The Greatest Country in the World, even though it’s made manifestly clear each and every day that far too many in America can more correctly be said to still represent what the country has always been: a bigotry-driven white supremacist nation. For everyone on the receiving end of that type of hate-driven agenda and behavior, however, there is nothing great implicit in what they know is still the dark reality that is solely intended to both define and suppress them.

In other news, Ben Carson notes that ‘America As We Know It Is Gone’ If Hillary Clinton Picks The Next Supreme Court Justices. In Carson’s words,

“If we get another progressive president and they get two or three Supreme Court picks, America as we know it is gone.”

That’s the best reason to vote for and elect a progressive president I’ve run across in at least the last couple of hours! Why? Because the truth forever remains that Progressives are far less likely to harbor deep-seated fears, or hatreds, or religious/racist bigotries, or irrational xenophobia(s) than are radical Conservatives, nor do Progressives covet the ‘privilege’ of imposing the horrors implicit therein upon anyone, anywhere. Those seem to be tools that are far more common to extreme right wing politics — tools designed and used to instigate fear, hate, bigotry, and even violence of and by the masses —  invariably to be directed against them, the fresh enemies of the state.

And who might our ‘fresh enemies’ be? They will, of course, be them — not necessarily the African Americans of Scalia’s they and them (and certainly NEVER the murderous gun-toting anti-immigrant anti-abortion anti-Muslim anti-LGBT white Christian terrorists), but rest assured that whomever they might turn out to be, they WILL be duly targeted. Why?  Because in the (shallow) opinion of far too many Americans, it is the grand mentality of those destined to become our Leaders — those who are willing and anxious to denigrate and/or destroy them — that will

MAKE AMERICA GREAT . . . AGAIN.

(yeehaw)

******

“In a time of universal deceit,
telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”
(George Orwell, 1984)

OPEN THREAD

 

 

 

The Watering Hole, Wednesday December 16, 2015: Happy — Merry — Whatever….

Dear Readers,

Please accept without obligation, explicit or implicit, our best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, politically correct, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral, celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious and/or secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions.

Please also accept, under aforesaid waiver of obligation on your part, our best wishes for a financially successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the calendar year 2016 CE (C.E., being an abbreviation for “Common Era” or “Christian Era”, is equivalent to A.D., but is placed after the year, and is preferred by some in secular writing), but with due respect for the calendars of other cultures or sects, and having regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith, choice of computer platform or dietary preference of the wishee.

By accepting this greeting you acknowledge that: This greeting is subject to further clarification or withdrawal at the wishor’s discretion.

This greeting is freely transferable provided that no alteration shall be made to the original greeting and that the proprietary rights of the wishor are acknowledged.

This greeting implies no warranty on the part of the wishor to fulfill these wishes, nor any ability of the wishor to do so, merely a beneficent hope on the part of the wishor that they in fact occur.

This greeting may not be enforceable in certain jurisdictions and/or the restrictions herein may not be binding upon certain wishees in certain jurisdictions and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wishor.

This greeting is warranted to perform as reasonably as may be expected within the usual application of good tidings, for a period of one year or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first.

The wishor warrants this greeting only for the limited replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wishor.

Any references in this greeting to “the Lord”, “Father Christmas”, “Our Savior”, or any other festive figures, whether actual or fictitious, dead or alive, shall not imply any endorsement by or from them in respect of this greeting, and all proprietary rights in any referenced third party names and images are hereby acknowledged.

~anon~

 

(Open Thread)

 

The Watering Hole, Tuesday December 15, 2015 – Environmental News and Food Politics.

The Day the Earth Stopped!

The earth is spinning slower due to global warming. Think of it this way. The day is being extended. You’ll live longer. What’s not to like?

The coefficient of friction is larger?

 

 

Sunday Roast: What’s After Dinner?

Mmmmmmmmmm, cookies!  Little single servings of sugary heaven.  🙂

Obviously, I didn’t make the cookies shown in the photo, because if I had, I would be forced to hurt whoever had the nerve to eat them.  That just doesn’t go over well with family and friends — so I’ve heard.

If I make cookies, they’re little blobs of dough that get dropped from a spoon, and then bake into gooey deliciousness.  No one is harmed by my ordinary blobby cookies, unless they mind putting on several pounds, or they are diabetic.  I was unkind to my (now former) brother-in-law, who, if he’s still alive, is a diabetic, when I came upon him stuffing cookies into his facial blackhole.  He thought I was joking — I wasn’t.

He deserved it!

Anyhoo, what’s your favorite holiday cookie?  Feel free to share your cookie-related holiday traditions, and how they came about.

This is our daily open thread — COOKIES!!!!!

The Watering Hole, Friday December 11, 2015 – Music Night

Back across the pond again this week. Anybody remember Mott the Hoople? All the Young Dudes, a David Bowie song.

The Watering Hole; Friday December 11 2015; “Ecrasez l’Infame”

“Écrasez l’infame.”
(Voltaire)

Sometimes I run across stuff that makes me mad. Like this, for example:

And here are a half-dozen-plus-two of similar ilk, each and all of which express nonsense that apparently is, this day, acceptable to both the political (Republican) and religious (Christer) realms as well as to the innumerable ‘bastions’ of radical right wing punditry.

Trump’s Anti-Muslim Campaign Is Helping Fuel White Supremacist Recruitment

Brigitte Gabriel: ‘Trump Is General Patton Reincarnated’

Pamela Geller Hails Trump, Warns A ‘Large Conspiracy’ Is Bringing Down Civilization

Pat Robertson Defends Donald Trump’s Muslim Immigration Ban

Jim Simpson: Immigrants Will ‘Destroy The Culture,’ Usher In ‘Despotic Governments’

Jeff Sessions Defends Trump On Muslim Ban, Says It’s ‘Appropriate To Begin To Discuss This’

Bachmann: ‘Donald Trump Is Right’ On Muslim Immigration Ban

Tony Perkins: ‘Only 16 Percent Of Islam Is A Religion’ So Immigration Ban Not A ‘Religious Test On Muslims’

I admit it. I’m at a loss to understand why such a pile of nonsensical vitriolic gibberish is so widely broadcast; I’m even less able to comprehend the obvious mentality lack that apparently motivates not only those who spout it, but also those who listen and pay attention to it. As the New York Times has recently reported,

Americans are more fearful about the likelihood of another terrorist attack than at any other time since the weeks after Sept. 11, 2001, a gnawing sense of dread that has helped lift Donald J. Trump to a new high among Republican primary voters, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

In the aftermath of attacks by Islamic extremists in Paris and in San Bernardino, Calif., a plurality of the public views the threat of terrorism as the top issue facing the country. . . .

I’ll say it straight: I do not like, at all, what’s happening in and to this country, courtesy the influences of our home-grown haters, bigots, and fear-mongers (aka Republicans/Conservatives). The bottom line is a simple one; there is something terribly wrong with a country in which so many of its people are so easily and readily afflicted — for infamous political purposes ONLY — with irrational fear and the hate-filled consequences thereof. Even worse, however, are those many voices that continuously shout their fear-inducing epithets that serve no purpose other than to feed the infamy of their spurious motive.

Voltaire said it best: Écrasez l’infame. Crush the infamous. I agree. Where do we start?

OPEN THREAD

 

The Watering Hole; Thursday December 10 2015; Kristallnacht?

Courtesy of The History Place:

Kristallnacht

A massive, coordinated attack on Jews throughout the German Reich on the night of November 9, 1938, into the next day, has come to be known as Kristallnacht or The Night of Broken Glass.

The attack came after Herschel Grynszpan, a 17 year old Jew living in Paris, shot and killed a member of the German Embassy staff there in retaliation for the poor treatment his father and his family suffered at the hands of the Nazis in Germany. . . .

For Adolf Hitler and Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels, the shooting in Paris provided an opportunity to incite Germans to “rise in bloody vengeance against the Jews.” [highlights mine]

Maybe it’s just me, but when I read those few lines, a whole lot of today’s Republican candidate “mantra” quickly brings back some rather foul recollections of events from days long past. The candidates’ current passions — religious “liberty” (for Christians only),  their anti LGBT, their anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim hatred and fear — seem to me to be legitimate reason to ask that eternally obvious question: where does it end?

The History Place essay on Kristallnacht continues:

On November 9, mob violence broke out as the regular German police stood by and crowds of spectators watched. Nazi storm troopers along with members of the SS and Hitler Youth beat and murdered Jews, broke into and wrecked Jewish homes, and brutalized Jewish women and children.

All over Germany, Austria and other Nazi controlled areas, Jewish shops and department stores had their windows smashed and contents destroyed. Synagogues were especially targeted for vandalism, including desecration of sacred Torah scrolls. Hundreds of synagogues were systematically burned while local fire departments stood by or simply prevented the fire from spreading to surrounding buildings.

About 25,000 Jewish men were rounded up and later sent to concentration camps where they were often brutalized by SS guards and in some cases randomly chosen to be beaten to death.

Is that where we’re headed?

Here are but two — out of what surely are dozens of undoubtedly familiar posts — that “hint” at what several of the Republican candidates have to say on the various matters:

Republican Presidential Candidates Want You To Know They Are Against LGBT Rights

Is Trump Using Hitler As A Populist Role Model?

Rubio, Cruz, Carson, Huckabee, and Trump (at least) have proven themselves to be  completely willing to essentially shout out their religious “liberty”,  their anti LGBT, their anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim hatred and fear attitudes. Perhaps it’s a bit ironic, but the fact is, the bulk of their biases as spouted in the aftermath of the shooting in Paris — the one that’s apparently provided an opportunity to incite Republican Presidential candidates to advocate a rise in bloody vengeance against all of those they proclaim worthy of their (irrational) hate and fear — has become, today, widely sprawled across the entire of our mass media.

Should one of these candidates somehow reach the pinnacle of power in this country, might it portend another brutal and equally deadly Kristallnacht??

The following pic was presented in one of the comments to the ‘Is Trump Using Hitler . . .” post noted above. Might it prove to be an adequate, though obviously abbreviated, portrayal of what might lie ahead?

Are we — the citizens of this country — actually watching/witnessing the rise of the world’s next deadly Fascist movement?

OPEN THREAD

 

 

The Watering Hole: 12/9/15: Trump Calls for Ban on Tanning Salons

One thing is certain: When Trump finds a message that resonates with the people, he runs with it as long as possible. And when his air time surged following call to ban all Muslims from the United States, he decided to double-down, calling for a ban on all tanning salons.

“Brown people are the scourge of the earth.” Trump said at a recent rally. “All of our problems can be directly traced to brown-skinned people. Everybody knows this. You wanna see your future terrorists? Go to any tanning salon. Any one of them. There’s only one reason to go to a tanning salon and that’s to get brown skin. So you wanna stop terrorism? The solution is simple: ban tanning salons.”

OPEN THREAD

The Watering Hole, Tuesday December 8, 2015 – Environmental News and Food Politics

Maybe it is just me, but these climate summits have been happening for a while yet very little seems to be accomplished. Mr. Peadbody’s coal trains still chugging past former West Virginia mountaintops. Climate summits seem a lot like Earth Day. Feel good for a little while, but there will be no sense of urgency until the officials at the meetings sit around the tables knee deep in water. Climate deniers, while in a vast minority in the scientific community, rule the roost in political circles, where money sets the agenda. A part of me thinks that Republican/Libertarian support of marijuana law changes in the various states is a cultural shift away from ‘religion is the opiate of the people’ to ‘cannabis is the opiate of the people’.

Read on, if you dare.  

 

The Watering Hole, Monday, December 7th, 2015: Smile For The Camera!

With last week bringing us a tragic escalation in the madness for which America is the new poster-boy, this Monday calls for another diversion. So today’s fare will be: Animals – first in photobombs, then just cuteness. All photobombs courtesy of either dogtime.com, or from two separate photobomb categories from Huffington Post.

‘Hey, look what I found!’

‘What – you’ve never seen a Boston Terrier driving?’

‘Big Orange, Little Orange’

‘Cat Thinker with Derp Brother’

Now just cuteness:

There, that should help a bit.

This is our daily Open Thread–go ahead, talk about stuff.