Recently, a devote literal christian sued UC Berkeley for having a web page endorsing religion, and stating that religion and evolution are compatible. The women suing, Jeanne Caldwell, says that Christianity and evolution cannot be compatible, and has appealed her case to the US Supreme Court, after being rebuffed by the lower courts. The courts say she has no case because the web page hasn't done real damage to her, in a legal sense, so she has no grounds to sue. Even more than that, the establishment clause prevents the government from endorsing religion, not scientific doctrines. In fact the constitution is silent on the grounds of which scientific doctrines to endorse. I'm shocked and appalled that this frivolous case has gotten so far, it makes light of our legal system. Some people might call her actions being a real American, fighting in defense of the ~60% of American's that do not believe in (evolution). I would call her actions ludicrous, and I would call her a damned busy body. I'm all for free speech, and free expression, but when it comes to wasting everyone's tax dollars in court to do it, I say screw that.
If you want to know more, go here to read the story on this lawsuit in detail.
I know I have some Christians that read this blog, what are your opinions on this? I feel people have a right to believe whatever they want, for this case evolution OR creation, or both. I tend to think god(s), in its/their ever abounding wisdom would create beings with the capability to evolve. I hate it when people like this woman try to force their opinions on other people, and attempt to set back civilization by dismantling science.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Saturday, February 7, 2009
PETA: A Chronicle of Insanity.
I am a big advocate of civil liberties, especially First Amendment rights, but there are some people that should think more before exercising their right to speak. I generally feel this way about PETA. It's not that I disagree with their ideals, I'm in favor of animal rights, I'm a pet owner, a nature lover, and I try to buy humanely raised meat. What I am saying is that it's getting impossible for them to seem legitimate anymore, and without legitimacy they are marginalized. To make my case, I will utilize two ludicrous, recent, examples of PETA's ad campaigns:
Sea Kittens: http://www.peta.org/sea_kittens/
Ben and Jerrys Breast Milk Ice Cream: http://www.peta.org/mc/NewsItem.asp?id=11993
Read over those two sites, hosted on PETA's official webpage. Is it just me, or does PETA seem a little misguided these days? What do either of these things, (re-naming fish to "Sea Kittens" and trying to make ice cream out of human breast milk), have to do with PETA's mission statement of protecting animal rights? Both of these campaigns seem like a waste of funds to me, especially the Sea Kitten one though it is highly amusing, especially the "Create Your Own Sea Kitten." PETAs justification for this campaign is that "fish need to fire their PR guy", making the assumption that they could do a better job. PETA feels that no one "could possibly want to put a hook through a sea kitten". Right, because changing the name of something makes it any different, a rose is a rose, even if called by any other name.
Petitioning Ben and Jerry's to make breast milk ice cream is only slightly less insane than renaming fish, but only by a hair. I can understand PETA's view on it, if ice cream was made out of breast milk no cows would be "harmed" in the making of it. Also since people can give consent, arguably it would be vegan ice cream, based on the assumption that vegans do not use dairy products because animals cannot consent to be milked. At the same time, there are regulations in place on what chemicals can be put into cows, and indirectly into the milk. There are no regulations on what can be put into a person, and as such there is a higher likelihood of contamination in the milk. If for example, a crack addict wanted to sell their breast milk to get money, that would be a catastrophe. Presumably you would screen people, like when you get blood drawn, and only people that are "clean" could give milk. Even then, what if the person was eating or using a legal drug that would contaminate the milk, that couldn't be tested for? As a whole, the idea of eating breast milk ice cream is appalling, and a horrible idea.
Sea Kittens: http://www.peta.org/sea_kittens/
Ben and Jerrys Breast Milk Ice Cream: http://www.peta.org/mc/NewsItem.asp?id=11993
Read over those two sites, hosted on PETA's official webpage. Is it just me, or does PETA seem a little misguided these days? What do either of these things, (re-naming fish to "Sea Kittens" and trying to make ice cream out of human breast milk), have to do with PETA's mission statement of protecting animal rights? Both of these campaigns seem like a waste of funds to me, especially the Sea Kitten one though it is highly amusing, especially the "Create Your Own Sea Kitten." PETAs justification for this campaign is that "fish need to fire their PR guy", making the assumption that they could do a better job. PETA feels that no one "could possibly want to put a hook through a sea kitten". Right, because changing the name of something makes it any different, a rose is a rose, even if called by any other name.
Petitioning Ben and Jerry's to make breast milk ice cream is only slightly less insane than renaming fish, but only by a hair. I can understand PETA's view on it, if ice cream was made out of breast milk no cows would be "harmed" in the making of it. Also since people can give consent, arguably it would be vegan ice cream, based on the assumption that vegans do not use dairy products because animals cannot consent to be milked. At the same time, there are regulations in place on what chemicals can be put into cows, and indirectly into the milk. There are no regulations on what can be put into a person, and as such there is a higher likelihood of contamination in the milk. If for example, a crack addict wanted to sell their breast milk to get money, that would be a catastrophe. Presumably you would screen people, like when you get blood drawn, and only people that are "clean" could give milk. Even then, what if the person was eating or using a legal drug that would contaminate the milk, that couldn't be tested for? As a whole, the idea of eating breast milk ice cream is appalling, and a horrible idea.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Barack Obama: Mortgaging Our Children's Future
Let me preface this by saying I voted for Obama, and even worked for the DNC over the summer going door to door to get donations for the Democrats efforts. I was raised Western Orthdox Democrat, Bush has always been a dirty word in my fathers house. I currently am a registered Republican, for the primary vote, leaning Democrat. Naturally, I could not vote for McCain and, the idea of VP Palin, makes me pale. So I had to default to Obama, really I would have perfered someone more like Mike Bloomberg. Now, let me get on to my argument.
I have always been skeptical of Barack Obama, I have always suspected he might be a wolf in sheeps clothing, but now he has shown it. During his run for President, my favorite line that Obama reused in speeches was the one about "Mortgaging our children's future." He always condemned George W. Bush of doing that, by charging obscene sums to the national debt, with no plan to pay it off. Currently, President Obama is guilty of the same reckless spending, according to the New York Times, we are potentially facing years of trillion dollar deficits. This in addition to the $825 billion dollar stimulus package he passed, loaded with pork spending. ABC World News reports, "Republicans say the bill is filled with old-fashioned big-government spending that won't stimulate the economy. For example, $600 million to buy new cars for government employees, and $1 billion to follow up on the 2010 census, which, of course, hasn't happened yet."
I'm usually not so anal as to grip over the small details, but in a time of such hardship, when the economy is so strained and close to the breaking point, now is the time for restraint. I don't see how Obama can publicly scold Citigroup for using some of their bailout funds to buy a $50 million dollar jet, when Obama is using $600 million to buy new cars. Perhaps the $600 million is an additional "bailout" for Detroit's hurting auto industry, who knows? What I do know is how hypocritical this looks to the average observer, and I also know how much that could hurt Obama's legitimacy. For me the real irony is that my favorite line he used in the speeches, has turned into the thing I dislike the most about his Presidency.
We're already so indebted they had to remove the $ symbol from the national debt clock, to make room for another digit, we're already at 10.6 trillion dollars in debt, add in the $825 billion stimulus, that's over 11 trillion dollars. That is money that my generation, and my grandchildren, will have to pay off. If I shrunk this down in scale to my own personal life, it would be like my father buying a mansion, a yacht, and a new corvet on credit, then dying and leaving it to me to pay off. No self respecting parent would do that, and no respectable government should do that. I want to run for office someday, that is presuming there is still an America then, the way things are going I don't know if anyone will be able to pick up the pieces. I worry for the future of this country, and not just the economy, we're only at the tip of the ice berg, it's all uphill from here. After we get the economy stable, we still have the issue of nuclear terrorism, also global warming coupled with a devastating drought here in California, lets not forget the ongoing immigrantion issues.
There is a school of economics where massive deficit spending is considered the way to combat a recession, but Keynesian economics can only go so far, and only do so much. Theoretically a country is only meant to apply it's methods for a few years, then switch back to a balanced budget. America has been running on Reaganomics (supply side, Keynesian economics) since Reagan coined the term in the 80's, before I was born to protest it. Now that I am alive, I want an end to financial irresponsibility. My American Government teacher at Cabrillo College always had a good way of helping her students wrap their heads around government. The way she explained Keynesian economics to us was thus: "Shrink it down to your personal life, and you running your house. In Keynesian economics, you cut taxes and spend more, so in our example you are basically working less hours at your job but spending more. How long do you think you could keep that up for?" That example has stuck with me, and I ask Obama, and America, how long can we keep this up for?
I have always been skeptical of Barack Obama, I have always suspected he might be a wolf in sheeps clothing, but now he has shown it. During his run for President, my favorite line that Obama reused in speeches was the one about "Mortgaging our children's future." He always condemned George W. Bush of doing that, by charging obscene sums to the national debt, with no plan to pay it off. Currently, President Obama is guilty of the same reckless spending, according to the New York Times, we are potentially facing years of trillion dollar deficits. This in addition to the $825 billion dollar stimulus package he passed, loaded with pork spending. ABC World News reports, "Republicans say the bill is filled with old-fashioned big-government spending that won't stimulate the economy. For example, $600 million to buy new cars for government employees, and $1 billion to follow up on the 2010 census, which, of course, hasn't happened yet."
I'm usually not so anal as to grip over the small details, but in a time of such hardship, when the economy is so strained and close to the breaking point, now is the time for restraint. I don't see how Obama can publicly scold Citigroup for using some of their bailout funds to buy a $50 million dollar jet, when Obama is using $600 million to buy new cars. Perhaps the $600 million is an additional "bailout" for Detroit's hurting auto industry, who knows? What I do know is how hypocritical this looks to the average observer, and I also know how much that could hurt Obama's legitimacy. For me the real irony is that my favorite line he used in the speeches, has turned into the thing I dislike the most about his Presidency.
We're already so indebted they had to remove the $ symbol from the national debt clock, to make room for another digit, we're already at 10.6 trillion dollars in debt, add in the $825 billion stimulus, that's over 11 trillion dollars. That is money that my generation, and my grandchildren, will have to pay off. If I shrunk this down in scale to my own personal life, it would be like my father buying a mansion, a yacht, and a new corvet on credit, then dying and leaving it to me to pay off. No self respecting parent would do that, and no respectable government should do that. I want to run for office someday, that is presuming there is still an America then, the way things are going I don't know if anyone will be able to pick up the pieces. I worry for the future of this country, and not just the economy, we're only at the tip of the ice berg, it's all uphill from here. After we get the economy stable, we still have the issue of nuclear terrorism, also global warming coupled with a devastating drought here in California, lets not forget the ongoing immigrantion issues.
There is a school of economics where massive deficit spending is considered the way to combat a recession, but Keynesian economics can only go so far, and only do so much. Theoretically a country is only meant to apply it's methods for a few years, then switch back to a balanced budget. America has been running on Reaganomics (supply side, Keynesian economics) since Reagan coined the term in the 80's, before I was born to protest it. Now that I am alive, I want an end to financial irresponsibility. My American Government teacher at Cabrillo College always had a good way of helping her students wrap their heads around government. The way she explained Keynesian economics to us was thus: "Shrink it down to your personal life, and you running your house. In Keynesian economics, you cut taxes and spend more, so in our example you are basically working less hours at your job but spending more. How long do you think you could keep that up for?" That example has stuck with me, and I ask Obama, and America, how long can we keep this up for?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)