?

Log in

Previous 10 | Next 10

Sep. 2nd, 2008

Biker Slam

slamlander

Governor Sarah Palin?

SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "", url: "" });</script></p> Notes:
  1. But Mc Cain, at least, has the benefit of multiple decades as a Senator []
  2. I was actually preparing another global warming article with new evidence for a volcanic culprit when this news about Palin hit my screens. []
--------
--> Sorry, due to spammers, I am only taking comments at LiveJournal, for now. Thank you, The Slamlander

Aug. 30th, 2008

thedoctor9

mor(e)-on Sarah Palin (from Moveon)

Who is Sarah Palin? Here's some basic background:

* She was elected Alaska 's governor a little over a year and a half ago. Her previous office was mayor of Wasilla, a small town outside Anchorage. She has no foreign policy experience.1
* Palin is strongly anti-choice, opposing abortion even in the case of rape or incest.2
* She supported right-wing extremist Pat Buchanan for president in 2000. 3
* Palin thinks creationism should be taught in public schools.4
* She's doesn't think humans are the cause of climate change.5
* She's solidly in line with John McCain's "Big Oil first" energy policy. She's pushed hard for more oil drilling and says renewables won't be ready for years. She also sued the Bush administration for listing polar bears as an endangered species—she was worried it would interfere with more oil drilling in Alaska.6
* How closely did John McCain vet this choice? He met Sarah Palin once at a meeting. They spoke a second time, last Sunday, when he called her about being vice-president. Then he offered her the position.7

This is information the American people need to see. Please take a moment to forward this email to your friends and family.

We also asked Alaska MoveOn members what the rest of us should know about their governor. The response was striking. Here's a sample:

She is really just a mayor from a small town outside Anchorage who has been a governor for only 1.5 years, and has ZERO national and international experience. I shudder to think that she could be the person taking that 3AM call on the White House hotline, and the one who could potentially be charged with leading the US in the volatile international scene that exists today. —Rose M., Fairbanks, AK

She is VERY, VERY conservative, and far from perfect. She's a hunter and fisherwoman, but votes against the environment again and again. She ran on ethics reform, but is currently under investigation for several charges involving hiring and firing of state officials. She has NO experience beyond Alaska. —Christine B., Denali Park, AK

As an Alaskan and a feminist, I am beyond words at this announcement. Palin is not a feminist, and she is not the reformer she claims to be. —Karen L., Anchorage, AK

Alaskans, collectively, are just as stunned as the rest of the nation. She is doing well running our State, but is totally inexperienced on the national level, and very much unequipped to run the nation, if it came to that. She is as far right as one can get, which has already been communicated on the news. In our office of thirty employees (dems, republicans, and nonpartisans), not one person feels she is ready for the V.P. position.—Sherry C., Anchorage, AK

She's vehemently anti-choice and doesn't care about protecting our natural resources, even though she has worked as a fisherman. McCain chose her to pick up the Hillary voters, but Palin is no Hillary. —Marina L., Juneau, AK

I think she's far too inexperienced to be in this position. I'm all for a woman in the White House, but not one who hasn't done anything to deserve it. There are far many other women who have worked their way up and have much more experience that would have been better choices. This is a patronizing decision on John McCain's part- and insulting to females everywhere that he would assume he'll get our vote by putting "A Woman" in that position.—Jennifer M., Anchorage, AK

So Governor Palin is a staunch anti-choice religious conservative. She's a global warming denier who shares John McCain's commitment to Big Oil. And she's dramatically inexperienced.

In picking Sarah Palin, John McCain has made the religious right very happy. And he's made a very dangerous decision for our country.

In the next few days, many Americans will be wondering what McCain's vice-presidential choice means. Please pass this information along to your friends and family.

Thanks for all you do.

–Ilyse, Noah, Justin, Karin and the rest of the team

Sources:

1. "Sarah Palin," Wikipedia, Accessed August 29, 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

2. "McCain Selects Anti-Choice Sarah Palin as Running Mate," NARAL Pro-Choice America, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17515&id=13660-46017-6YTuikx&t=1

3. "Sarah Palin, Buchananite," The Nation, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17736&id=13660-46017-6YTuikx&t=2

4. "'Creation science' enters the race," Anchorage Daily News, October 27, 2006
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17737&id=13660-46017-6YTuikx&t=3

5. "Palin buys climate denial PR spin—ignores science," Huffington Post, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17517&id=13660-46017-6YTuikx&t=4

6. "McCain VP Pick Completes Shift to Bush Energy Policy," Sierra Club, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17518&id=13660-46017-6YTuikx&t=5

"Choice of Palin Promises Failed Energy Policies of the Past," League of Conservation Voters, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17519&id=13660-46017-6YTuikx&t=6

"Protecting polar bears gets in way of drilling for oil, says governor," The Times of London, May 23, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17520&id=13660-46017-6YTuikx&t=7

7 "McCain met Palin once before yesterday," MSNBC, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=21119&id=13660-46017-6YTuikx&t=8

Aug. 21st, 2008

Faery

spiritualcanvas

I'm not sure if maybe my creativity creates my insanity or my insanity causes my creativity.

I'm not sure if maybe my creativity creates my insanity or my insanity causes my creativity.

Jul. 12th, 2008


hambydammit

On Religious Moderation

One of the most controversial questions among atheists involves moderate theists. Many who identify themselves as simply non-religious would prefer that us outspoken atheists leave moderates alone. After all, they will say, moderates don't hurt anybody, and most of them are really nice people. Their religion is mostly just cultural. They don't really believe the nasty parts of the Bible. They should be left alone even though they do happen to practice a potentially nasty religion. I take an opposing view, and I believe there is a very good reason for doing so.
Read more...Collapse )

Jul. 1st, 2008


hambydammit

Why Are Atheists So Angry?

"Why are all atheists so angry?"

I hear this question all the time. In fact, my Rambo-Kitty avatar is partially inspired by the question. Anyway, today I was reading an article about the debate between Sam Harris and Rick Warren, and was struck by Warren's statement, "I've never met an atheist who wasn't angry."

My first reaction was denial. Many atheists, myself included, are happy most of the time. My atheist friends are great fun to hang out with. We laugh and joke and drink beer, and hardly ever mention religion.

My second reaction, I confess, was anger. How dishonest of him to try to discount atheism by labeling us all as angry malcontents! This is exactly why people like him make me angry!

That's when it hit me, square in the forehead. He's not being dishonest. I don't doubt that every atheist he's met has been angry. If I met him, he'd almost certainly make me angry, too. That's just it! HE makes atheists angry, so they're all angry around him. So, I forgive him for thinking that all atheists are angry. I understand how he made the mistake.

Anyway, I'd like to reflect on "Atheist Anger" for a few minutes, and ask a couple of questions.

First, why is it a bad thing to be angry? The suffragists were quite angry, and for good reason. New Zealand had granted women equal voting rights in 1893, and America, supposedly the land of equality, was violently opposed to the idea twenty years later. There are still plenty of women who are angry because women make less money doing the same jobs as men in many industries, and women are often not even considered for promotions when they're equally (or better) qualified for the position. Are they wrong for being angry? Should they just sit quietly and wait for men to realize the error of their ways? Some people think so. I've noticed that the majority of them are men.

Am I making a valid comparison? Is it reasonable to compare life as an atheist in America in 2007 to life as a woman in the early 20th century? Clearly there are significant differences. Atheists can vote. They can, in theory, hold public office. They can get married, sign contracts, work wherever they're qualified. So, do we atheists have a right to be angry in the same way suffragists had?

To answer that question, I'll recall some more history. In Mosaic law, as we all know, women were slightly better than slaves. They had no property rights. In Roman law, women were completely dependent on male relations for all legal matters, and when they were married, it was a matter of purchase between two families.

Here, we can ask a pointed question. Do women have the right to be angry that they're not making as much as men in the workplace? After all, they can vote, own property, divorce their husband, sue him for child support and alimony, and live quite happily on their own. This country is one of the best places in the world to be a woman! What right do women have to be angry?

If your skin prickled a little bit when you read the previous paragraph, good for you. You're halfway to understanding why atheists have a right to be mad. The reason women still have a right to be mad is that things are still not equal. They have no obligation to remain silent simply because they have it better than someone who lived a hundred, or a thousand years ago. The reason women have it better now is that people were angry all through history, and made small gains here and there over many generations. Without the fuel of anger, women would still be property, and wouldn't even have the opportunity to be mad about making less money in the workplace.

So, what about us atheists? Do we have a right to be mad? Actually, yes. Did you know we've had atheist presidents? We have. I'll let you do your own homework on this, but it might surprise you to learn that many of the leaders of the U.S. throughout history have been openly atheist. Is this possible today? One congressman in California recently admitted to being atheist, and it caused a nationwide stir! It remains to be seen whether he'll be reelected. To be sure, he'll be attacked for being godless and amoral when election time comes around.

Until the McCarthy Era, the pledge of allegiance didn't have the word "God." Money didn't have "In God We Trust." Until the 70s, Christians were not actively involved in politics for the purpose of legislating religious values. Clearly, America is more theist than it used to be, at least politically. So, are things getting better for atheists? I dare say they're not. Unlike women, our situation is not improving. We are not being afforded more respect. Rather, we are being legislatively pushed farther into the margins where we have been quietly lurking for sixty years since the Red Scare.

To bring things back around, recall my comment about my atheist friends and I sitting around having beers and laughs. This is a good picture for you to hold in your mind's eye when you think of me, or any other atheist. This is what we want. We don't like being angry any more than women who'd like to be paid more. I'm sure all the angry feminists would rather things were better for women so they wouldn't have to be angry anymore. It's the same with atheists. If we were a bit less hated, vilified, and marginalized, it would be a lot easier for us to be in the presence of theists and not get angry.

Why are atheists so angry? Because things could be better, and we don't like being marginalized.

Aug. 15th, 2006

Zombie

evil_genius

Rationalists International

WHY RATIONALISM?
By Sanal Edamaruku

Sanal Edamaruku

Looking back on the last two centuries, humanity can celebrate the triumph of reason, progress and emancipation. The tyrant gods have been exposed as paperboard monsters. The cruel and violent forces that governed throughout the dark ages in their name have been driven out of a major part of the world and of human minds. The wheels of progress are rolling with enormous speed. Scientific research and technology are improving our lives and extending our horizon and potential. These achievements have been possible under the influence of a strong and irrepressible rationalist movement that braved harassment and backlashes to break one by one the chains of mental slavery and make us the masters of our destiny.

But there is no time to rest on rationalist laurels. The victory lasts only as long as we are watchful and ready to defend and extend the empire of reason.

Religion has a tendency to creep back into liberated territory in ever new shapes and to try and recapture lost bastions. Once cornered and weakened, it can hibernate and return in fundamentalist, sectarian and neo-religious strings. With the Iranian revolution, Islamic fundamentalism went political and tried to recapture parts of the world, provoking and encouraging Christian fundamentalism and Hindu fundamentalism. The weakening traditional Christian churches in secular Europe and America sprouted a multitude of zealous evangelical missionary movements to target the developing world. Revival movements like the hyperactive Pentecostals, born-again Christians, hysteric faith-healers and bizarre cults came up. In India, fading Hinduism reared in a fanatic Hindu nationalist movement besides becoming fertilizer for thousands of colorful and scurrile god-men, who are increasingly drawing rich devotees from the spirituality hungry west.

Despite the multitude and sometimes wildness of religion’s new faces, Rationalism has established itself as the general frame of reference in today’s world. There have been many excellent and courageous individuals and determined and dedicated movements, who contributed significantly to today’s achievements.
Quite a bit more under the cutCollapse )
Xposted to rationalists and antitheism.

Jun. 29th, 2006

Zombie

evil_genius

JOSEPH EDAMARUKU, RATIONALIST LEADER PASSED AWAY


New Delhi, 29 June 2006.

Joseph Edamaruku , veteran journalist and rationalist leader, passed away in sleep this morning. He was 73. He is the father of Sanal Edamaruku, the President of Indian Rationalist Association and Rationalist International.

As per his wishes his eyes were donated to All India Institute of Medical Sciences. The body is now kept at Kerala House (3, Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi) for Public Homage. Later in the evening the body will be handed over to the anatomy department of AIIMS, for the use of medical students.
More under the cutCollapse )

Xposted to rationalists and antitheism.

Dec. 30th, 2005

twistedreality1

(no subject)

My views on the importance of balance.

BalanceCollapse )

Please let me know what you think about this.

Much appreciated,
~Ellie

Dec. 21st, 2005

sgt_mustacho

What Would Jesus Want for Christmas?

Hello, hope all is going well. I hope you all are surviving the dreadful madness which we call the Holiday Shopping Season(used to be Christmas Shopping Season, but since we live in a politically correct time period this is what I will refer to the period as, sorry for any inconveniences. Thank you!) I am surviving without being trampled on because I am buying everything at the local Meijer store during the not so busy hours of the day. Already, I have bought most of my gifts and they all together should retail under $75 which is pretty darn good. Other than that, I am eagerly awaiting the return of my brother from Germany, and waiting for the madness to end, and hopefully get a phone call soon about working for the local newspaper in my area. Other than that, everything is fine.
A question, if this holiday that we call Christmas is really about Christ's birthday, then why is it we hear no one in particularly in the Christian community ever talk about what would Jesus want for Christmas (WWJWC), nice acronym, hey; since Christians talk about WWJD (I do not have to write it out do I. I always wonder that is it possible that he would not wanted anything at all because he was a extremely benevolent man, or a perfect man to believers that was so modest that he would'nt want anything. If Jesus were alive, I would probably go to Home Depot and rob it and get whatever he needs since he is a carpenter, and has the power to create anything. Then I expect him to go inside and not only create replacements of the stolen items but just by his presence alone will enable the store staff whom many of them probably admirers/believers will allow him to get away with it since he is God and can send all of them to Hell if he wants to. However he may condemn my actions but hey he allegedly is God after all, so you can rob for God, or even kill for God which the people of the Book have been doing for thousands of years.
That reminds me the "Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine gave me a whole new outlook on the Bible in particularly the Old Testament which is not written by people other than those who purported to have written them but they written years after, for example the Book of Samuel continues after the death of Samuel, and Samuel wrote it, kinda silly huh. Any how back to my initial statement, the Old Testament according to Paine is nothing but violence-blood and gore in all, now the New Testament is'nt so violent because Jesus seemed to be an awfully nice fellow to get along with. It's a shame that the Romans and the Sadducees had to kill him because he was not only a nice guy but happened to be a good teacher of men. However they thought he was a nut-case and he probably was for that time like Socrates was for his time or Joan of Arc for her time, and Martin L. King Jr. for his time. It is of my strongest opinion, nut-cases move and drive the engine of history for us all, they are our leaders and visionaries.In the end, Paine concludes that the Bible is no more than an anthology of violent hear-say, not revelation which many are led to believe since the beginings of the Bible around the time of the 4th Century AD . Personally, I take Paine's view.
It appears that I have ran out of time, I shall talk to you all later. Love you all! Ciao!

Dec. 18th, 2005

In You I Taste God

_____lain

(no subject)

Hey all! I'm currently writing a paper about, "Religious Faith Versus Scientific Reason- The Argument in Support of Evolution." I'm going to delve into the fight that science has had throughout history against religion, ie: the earth being flat, oh wait! it's round, the universe revolving around the earth, oh wait! the earth actually revolved around our sun! Etc. Any info anyone wants to help with, add or w/e would be appreciated. :) :) I'll post it when I'm done in a couple days.

Will be Xposted.

Thanks!

Previous 10 | Next 10