I respond

The latest thing going around the atheistosphere is a list of questions on where atheists get their beliefs. This list helps define what atheism is to the individual atheist.

Funnily enough, and despite there being no dogma, there is a great deal of unanimity in the responses. In fact, far more unanimity than there seems to be within identical churches or from one xian to another. Dare I say it? My guess would be that our lack of dogma allows for simplicity...

So, here goes: My Answers in Atheism -

• Why do you not believe in God? From a rational standpoint, it doesn't make sense to believe in the impossible; and we have found no irrefutable evidence of one - only fanciful stories about him.

• Where do your morals come from? Simply from knowing that to be good, kind and ethical makes life easier for self and others.

• What is the meaning of life? Life has no purpose. But propagation of the species does. What we do with the time we are alive is more important to others, since we have no afterlife to look forward to.

• Is atheism a religion? No. No. And absolutely not!

• If you don’t pray, what do you do during troubling times? Living the Serenity Prayer makes the most sense: Can it be fixed? Then fix it. If it can't be fixed? Accept it with maturity.

• Should atheists be trying to convince others to stop believing in God? Yes. Encouraging people, actively or passively, to believe in a fantasy hinders their maturity.

• Weren’t some of the worst atrocities in the 20th century committed by atheists? No. They committed the atrocities for political reasons: to gain power and remove threats to it. The "leaders" were only incidentally atheists; their actions weren't to make more atheists. Coincidentally, religion has commited attrocities for religio-political reasons: to consolidate power, to maintain power and to remove threats to it - and to make more believers through terror.

• How could billions of people be wrong when it comes to belief in God? Because they were infected with the virus by their parents, starting in infancy. Religion is regional, tribal, and generational.

• Why does the universe exist? The more elegant question is: why does the universe allow man to exist?

• How did life originate? We don't know yet. But it's being investigated both vigorously and rigorously.

• Is all religion harmful? Yes. It holds a false promise of an afterlife. It has an authoritarian power over the people who follow it. It uses their money to glorify individuals (Pope! Robertson! Dobson!) and does little for poverty, disease and quality secular education. It keeps adults in a child-like state.
  

• What’s so bad about religious moderates? Because they stand as a bulwark protecting extremism by protecting and enabling the extremists. Both christianity and islam lean toward terroristic words and actions.

• Is there anything redeeming about religion? I can't think of anything.

• What if you’re wrong about God (and He does exist)? I'll take my chances, thanks. But I'm not worried.

• Shouldn’t all religious beliefs be respected? Not really. Why should it?

• Are atheists smarter than theists? Not necessarily smarter; but the fact is, the more education you have, the less you believe in god and the less you need faith. Atheism is not for the weak.

• How do you deal with the historical Jesus if you don’t believe in his divinity? In my opinion, there was no biblical Jesus; the bible passes off second-, third- and fourth-hand narrative as "eyewitness testimony". Trust me, in a court of law, Jesus would have no "corpus" to be "habeas-ed"! It's all circumstantial evidence. And borrowed from earlier myths...
  

• Would the world be better off without any religion? Yes. Everyone would be rated on their mature judgment and critical-thinking skills. And the money would be put to much better use.

• What happens when we die? The human body is a "wet-cell battery". When the electrical power dies, the body dies and consciousness winks out like a television screen that's been turned off. This concept is too scary for children and childlike adults.

So, that's one atheist's perspective. Feel free to take the questions and answer them yourselves.

George puts a lip-lock on Harriet - eeyew!

Harriet Miers, who has been shown to have a "crush" on the president, obeyed George's command to ignore a Congressional subpoena. The committee has voted to issue a "contempt of Congress" citation.

It now goes to a full vote.

Do we still have too many republicans in Congress? Dambetcha!

Congress must recuse itself!

There is clearly a conflict of interest in the struggle to clean corruption out of Congress. The voters flipped the majority/minority status in 2006 and, incidentally, "flipped a bird" at the GOP. Clearly, they voted AGAINST the republicans (maybe more than they voted FOR the democrats). Unfortunately, some of the Dems have behaved as Bush did in 2004, when he erroneously said he had been "given a mandate to govern". No, Dems, you were given not a "mandate", but a golden opportunity. And I'm asking you now: Why you are wasting it?

Dear Federal Officeholder:

Part of the reason why you are wasting it is because many of the votes on critical issues involved, directly or indirectly, corporations that contributed to your campaign (or from whom you want contributions, in the future). It's difficult to bite the hand that feeds you, isn't it? Or at least the hand that fills your campaign coffers. How do you vote "for" a bill that will go "against" an entity that has given you thousands and thousands of dollars? If you think that we believe, for one second, that the money came to you because they REALLY like you, or that your centrist or populist stand agrees with their own, think again, Mr&Ms Democrat! We know too well that they want something from you, something that they can't buy in the general marketplace: access to power. Not ordinary power but power to change laws, exemptions from rules/regulations, access to government contracts, phony public perception, even forgiveness. And if we didn't know about this before, the GOP has taught us this lesson, nearly every day, for more than ten years. The earmarks, the under-the-table deals, the "scratch my back...", Abramoff/DeLay/Ney/Cunningham felons (three in prison; one to go) and the Hunter/Feeney investigations that are heating up - well, consider this our "learning curve".

So, how can Congress clean up the House and Senate? We've proposed term limits - you didn't like that. You passed McCain/Feingold - since that was just "altered" by the neocon SCOTUS, ask the Senate how it happened; the history books will be all over that for the next century. You've made little bleats about controlling the lobbyists - but none of your little twitches will "muck out the stables" one damned bit! Asking the members of Congress to police themselves is like asking Larry Flynt to become a censor. (Sincere apologies for using your name, Mr. Flynt. Your grasp of freedom of speech issues exceeds that of 5/9ths of the SCOTUS!)

My point is this: running for re-election every two (or four or six) years, you have a vested interest in getting money wherever and however you can, subject to Federal Election regulations. (By the way, the FEC only provides transparency; the corrupting influence of money is still rampant. And don't think we haven't noticed that nifty little "money-laundering" trick you guys perform! It's illegal to use your PAC money on your campaigns. So, in order to "clean" it, you give money from your PAC to another politician's campaign war chest who is happy to "scratch your back" in return. That is shameful! Did you learn that from Hot-TubTom?) It seems your life revolves around your next election - but NOT doing the People's Bidding. When your money comes from BigBizness, but you campaign to be elected by "the mythical LittlePeople", you are hoist upon your own petard. You are like a faithless mistress...or, even, like a "mole", secretly planted to implement nefarious schemes...

My remedy is simple: Recuse yourselves on this issue. You can't be trusted to do it. Let us vote on Election/Campaign/Lobbying reform. Let We the People decide how, and how thoroughly, Congress should be cleaned.

We know how hard this struggle will be; it's always difficult to deny your sweethearts' their heart's desires. Let us do it for you. Let us finance your campaigns, with our own tax dollars. We'll tell the media that they can't gouge you (us!) and reap obscene profits every other year (something they've grown so dependent on, it's become an "election cycle entitlement program"!), many of whom already get their licenses to broadcast on our dime, anyway.

But you will have to accept something that will cause you real pain: we'll level the playing field, so that challengers have a better chance against the "tyranny of the incumbency" (read: bloated war chest). It'll be your voting record, your ideas and ideals against someone else's, duking it out on the campaign trail and in the voting booth.

Whaddya say? Will you do it for the good of the country? Can you stop thinking about yourself and your party, and remember the oath you took to our Constitution? They're not "merely words", you know. It's not "just a god-damned piece of paper", to quote President Godsend. It is, by far, the strongest piece of paper ever written by Man and for Man - not just man and corporation.

Put it to a vote of the people. Let us show you how to make a better and stronger America.

Wow! My first tag!

I must be the most unpopular blogger around - I've been reading "tag posts" for about two years and this is the first time for me, making me a virgin no more. Tag-cherry is busted! But Stardust, of Stardust Musings and Thoughts for the Freethinker, having received her second tag, finally thought of me. Read this full post for my thoughts, and some guidance courtesy of another blogger...

First, as instructed, the rules:

1. We have to post these rules before we give you the facts.

2. Players start with eight random facts/habits about themselves.

3. People who are tagged need to write their own blog about their eight things and post these rules.

4. At the end of your blog post, you need to choose eight people to get tagged and list their names.

5. Don't forget to leave them a comment telling them they're tagged, and to read your blog.

Okay, here goes:

1. I am so fucking depressed about America's future. Some days, I am practically paralyzed with grief and fear. This makes me almost bi-polar while reading the bad reports and stumbling across nuggets of good news. I've turned into a "voodoo priestess", reading portents, omens and America's Future in chickenshit-journalism's entrails.

2. I lie about my weight. Just little lies. I really weigh (by my scale) 193 pounds (without clothes, and after emptying my bladder first thing after waking up). I do this every day, the same way everyday, hoping that I haven't gained back more of the weight I've lost in the last year. FYI: my scale is actually four pounds less that the beam-scale at the clinic. Fuck! 197 pounds...although, like weight-obsessed people everywhere, I tell myself a) I'm wearing clothes and shoes now, and b) I have eaten and drank since my morning weigh-in.

3. I am worried about my "baby sister". Seriously worried. She flirts on-line with UK men who think she's from the UK. She is now obsessed with the idea of going to the UK for sex. I tell her how dangerous this may be, but she dismisses my concerns. (FYI: she's 47 and was recently "downsized"; with plans to take the summer off, she's on-line the whole time her husband is at work.) This doesn't help my feelings that the whole world is screwed up badly.

4. I'm supposed to be looking for a job. But I'm suffering from acute "interview anxiety", a form of stage-fright. At bottom: being 61 sucks!

5. I spend too much time on-line myself. I think I'm afraid of missing a "portent". This started on Election-Night 2006; I didn't go to bed until 8AM, when I posted Pelosi's picture, as incoming House Speaker, on Martian.Anthropologist and then succumbed to my exhaustion. Why did I do this? I'm like the "control-freak that keeps the plane in the air". My job that night, in 2006, was to avert what happened in 2000 and, again, in 2004: I went to bed with "Dem victory in the bag" but when I got up the next morning, GOP thieves had stolen the bag. You don't need to thank me - I was happy to do it!

6. It's becoming more of an issue with me that I never finished college. And please don't tell me that it's never too late. It just is.

7. More body issues: losing weight may have helped some conditions, but it's left me with a body that can never even wear shorts, much less a bathing suit. It'll take a lot of money for the plastic surgery needed to remove the loose skin. Clothed - looking better. Naked - looking much worse. Reuben's had a lovely idea. (*sigh*)

8. I do love to drive. Still. Since I got my first license 45 years ago, I've wanted to hit the road. I was lucky to find truck driving; for the first time in my life, I had found some way to make money doing something I am totally mad for!

9. Bonus#1: I wish I had the discipline to write a novel (I have enough ideas for ten or more) and/or a screenplay. I'm good with the ideas; bad with the follow-through. I'm good with expressing ideas; bad with sitting down to do it. And easily distracted...

10. Bonus#2: I hate housecleaning! Hate it! Cubed! Some time in my teens, I rejected the idea of "homemaker". I was rejecting my mother, too. I didn't want to be like her in any way/shape/form. Nuh-uh! I made it - but I'm no happier than she was...

You'll notice that there are ten, when only eight was commanded. I'm with the Sacred Slut at A Whore in the Temple of Reason - I hate chain letters, too. She stopped hers after she posted her allotment - and so will I.

I'm thinking of adding this to my banner: "Tagging is prohibited!"

I love Glenn Greenwald!

Richard Cohen thinks that I.Lewis "Scooter" Libby was unfairly treated and blames the "vast left-wing conspiracy"!

Greenwald, in Salon, lays out the whole "left-wing" list of players. It's too delicious!

The Libby prosecution clearly was the dirty work of the leftist anti-war movement in this country, just as Cohen describes. After all, the reason Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed to investigate this matter was because a left-wing government agency (known as the "Central Intelligence Agency") filed a criminal referral with the Justice Department, as the MoveOn-sympathizer CIA officials were apparently unhappy about the public unmasking of one of their covert agents.

In response, Bush's left-wing anti-war Attorney General, John Ashcroft, judged the matter serious enough to recuse himself, leading Bush's left-wing anti-war Deputy Attorney General, James Comey, to conclude that a Special Prosecutor was needed. In turn, Comey appointed Fitzgerald, the left-wing anti-war Republican Prosecutor and Bush appointee, who secured a conviction of Libby, in response to which left-wing anti-war Bush appointee Judge Reggie Walton imposed Libby's sentence.

Sorry, Cohen, that left-wing bird won't fly...

"One nation, under...a spell"

Meet Pat Condell. He's an Englishman, who loves America. Or, rather, Pat loves the America the Founding Fathers invented. As he says, "before it was hijacked by xian zealots"...

The Parallax model: the genesis of the DI/IDiots

OMG! A book about "hoodwinking" the public? Biblical "literalism" has been done before? Say it isn't so!

At this point, Garwood's narrative becomes a study of how knowledge is produced and disseminated in a complex modern society. The flat Earth idea is proposed and promulgated in Victorian England by a colourful cast of con artists and eccentrics, the leader of whom is a quack doctor and snake oil salesman who calls himself "Parallax." He is a smooth debater and a clever self-promoter who leaves audiences dazzled; the real scientists who take him on have reason on their side, but no sense of how to communicate to a popular audience. Parallax plays the anti-elitist, inviting his audience to use their common sense and focus on the "facts" they all know, while leaving the speculative "theories" of establishment science in the dust. The round Earth, he declares, is merely a "theory" for which no actual proof has ever been found, and is a central part of a sinister conspiracy to undermine piety and true faith by a troop of atheistic scientists and their liberal, pseudo-Christian allies in the established mainline churches. And he's getting famous and making quite a lot of money with this stunt.

Is this all sounding familiar?

MORE

From a book review, on The Vanity Press website, of Flat Earth: the History of an Infamous Idea, by Christine Garwood. She states, "Every educated person in the Middle Ages knew that the Earth was a sphere..."

Until the charlatans and con-men cribbed from the bibble - and so began "biblical literalism"!

It is not a coincidence that, simultaneously, Lamarckians and Darwinians were "shaking the foundation of religion" with critical examinations of "creation in just six days"...

Had we known about this before, we could be rolling our eyes and saying, "Here we go again!"

(Originally posted here.)

Mr. Deity!

If this is the first time you've heard of Mr.Deity, you might consider watching episodes One through Nine first. They are all available on the Mr.Deity webpage, also linked again below the YouTube. Although this is a stand-alone video, you can gain some backstory on the characters that might enrich this experience...



Mr.Deity, episode 10: Mr.Deity and the Seed

Yes, it is about "that Seed" -- Sacred Sperm! My favorite subject! NOT! I love to snark about it a lot, though.

Here is the Mr.Deity webpage, where you can see the first nine episodes, read the FAQs and listen to an interview with Mr.Deity on Humanist News Network.

BTW, here is something interesting from the FAQs:

Brian, what is your stand on Religion?

I am a formerly religious person (non-bitter), and as such, have great sympathies for the beliefs and feelings of religious people. I love the fact that they are concerned with the big issues like Good and Evil, Existence, Creation, etc... I don't always agree with the answers they provide to these questions, but I deeply respect their concern. Our goal here is not to mock religion, but to use it as a foundation for the humor. I'm thrilled that so many religious people have written to tell me that they love the episodes. In future episodes, I intend to turn the tables a bit and poke fun at what I call the "angry atheists" (of whom I am not fond). We'll see if they take it so well.

We "angry atheists" are likely to cringe. But our "moderate/liberal atheists" can jump to our defense...

Actually, you can contact him on his webpage, and nicely express your disappointment in his flawed understanding of atheists' anger. I'm going to!

Charting the cultural abyss: the chasm between Left and Right

(For larger image; from Otaku, Cedric's weblog)

The Ideological Animal

...We think our political stance is the product of reason, but we're easily manipulated and surprisingly malleable. Our essential political self is more a stew of childhood temperament, education, and fear of death. Call it the 9/11 effect.

Excerpt:

Most people are surprised to learn that there are real, stable differences in personality between conservatives and liberals—not just different views or values, but underlying differences in temperament. [Jost, Carney, and Gosling] have demonstrated that conservatives and liberals boast markedly different home and office decor. Liberals are messier than conservatives, their rooms have more clutter and more color, and they tend to have more travel documents, maps of other countries, and flags from around the world. Conservatives are neater, and their rooms are cleaner, better organized, more brightly lit, and more conventional. Liberals have more books, and their books cover a greater variety of topics. And that's just a start. Multiple studies find that liberals are more optimistic. Conservatives are more likely to be religious...

[It's not necessary to read the first four paragraphs; they are more color than texture...]

If this it true, and it seems plausible to me, coupled with "opium of the people" and the "addiction model", there is a low probability they will budge on the faith part and only slightly higher odds on the religion part.

I'm counting on time and attrition. More and more teens are leaving religion -- so many, in fact, that it's "shivering the timbers" of evangelical religion! Now is not the time to let up on the pressure!

Well?

(First posted at God is for Suckers!)

It's time for an intervention

This is a follow-up to Karl Marx's "...It is the opium of the people..."

When Religion is an Addiction

I remember hearing popular psychological speaker and writer John Bradshaw say that the “high” one gets from being righteous was similar to the high of cocaine. As both a former monk and addict, he knew the feelings personally.

As the religious right pushes its anti-gay, anti-women’s reproductive rights, anti-science, pro-profit agenda nationally and in state capitals across the nation and wins, that high is a sweet fix for the addicted. It gives them a comforting feeling of relief that they’re really right, okay, worthwhile, and acceptable.

...Like all fixes, though, it doesn’t last. So, the addict is driven to seek another and another – another issue, another evil, another paranoiac threat to defeat. It can’t ever end. Like the need for heavier doses, the causes have to become bigger and more evil in the addict’s mind to provide the fix.

This mind-altering fix of righteousness covers their paranoid shame-based feelings about the internal and external dangers stalking them. The victim-role language of their dealers, right-wing religious leaders, feeds it. Like alcoholism and drug addiction, the fix numbs the religious addict against any feelings about how their addiction affects others...

If you’re an enabler or the addict yourself, the above must sound over the top. You’d prefer to deny or soften the reality of the addiction...

Addicts reinforce each other. Fundamentalist religious organizations and media are their supportive co-users. So the person who deals with someone’s addiction cannot do it alone. They must have support from others outside the addiction...

You can’t argue with an addict...

You can’t buy into the addict’s view of reality...

Never say, even to reject it or with “so-called” before it: “partial-birth abortion,” “gay rights,” “intelligent design,” “gay marriage,” etc...

Don’t let the addict get you off topic...

Never argue about whether sexual orientation is a choice...

Never argue about sex...

It’s okay to affirm that you don’t care or these aren’t the issues. You don’t need to justify your beliefs to a drunk or druggie...

Get your message on target and repeat it...

Don’t nag addicts...

Don’t accept that the addiction needs equal time...

Model what it is to be a healthy human being without the addiction. Addicts must see people living outside the addiction, happy, confident, proud, and free from the effects of the disease. In spite of the fact that we’re a nation that supports both substance and process addictions so people don’t threaten the institutions and values that pursue profits over humanity, live as if that has no ultimate control over you.

Don’t believe that you, your friends, children, relationships, hopes, and dreams, are any less valuable or legitimate because they aren’t sanctioned by a government, politicians, or religious leaders that are in a coping, rather than healing, mode of life.

Dealing with addictions takes an emotional toll on everyone. Yet, recognizing religious addiction as an addiction demystifies its dynamics and maintains our sanity.

This is an excellent primer for talking to the religious-addicted. Please link and read the complete article (which is part of a soon-to-be released book).

If you've ever been through addiction recovery, you'll recognize most of the "empowering ways" to speak to the addict. If you have been lucky enough to escape the curse of addiction (chemical and otherwise), you can still appreciate how important it is to set up and maintain the conversation, and keep YOUR focus on THEIR problem. If you even once sound sympathetic and/or defensive, you've lost your power. End the encounter immediately. That allows you to come back later, having shown your control of the issue by walking away from it on your terms. It's not complicated but it requires self-control.

Reminder: "Model what it is to be a healthy human being without the addiction. Addicts must see people living outside the addiction, happy, confident, proud, and free from the effects of the disease."

(Dr. Minor is a Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Kansas. Through his Fairness Project, he is an advocate for, and lecturer on, LGBT issues.)

(First posted at God is for Suckers!)

"...It is the opium of the people..."

Shortest:

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.
Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right
German economist & Communist political philosopher (1818 - 1883)

In context:

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.
Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

From atheism.about.com:

In the above quotation Marx is saying that religion’s purpose is to create illusory fantasies for the poor. Economic realities prevent them from finding true happiness in this life, so religion tells them that this is OK because they will find true happiness in the next life. Although this is a criticism of religion, Marx is not without sympathy: people are in distress and religion provides solace, just as people who are physically injured receive relief from opiate-based drugs.

The quote is not, then, as negative as most portray (at least about religion). In some ways, even the slightly extended quote which people might see is a bit dishonest because saying “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature...” deliberately leaves out the additional statement that it is also the “heart of a heartless world.”

What we have is a critique of society that has become heartless rather than of religion which tries to provide a bit of solace. One can argue that Marx offers a partial validation of religion in that it tries to become the heart of a heartless world. For all its problems, religion doesn’t matter so much — it is not the real problem. Religion is a set of ideas, and ideas are expressions of material realities. Religion is a symptom of a disease, not the disease itself.

Still, it would be a mistake to think that Marx is uncritical towards religion — it may try to provide heart, but it fails. For Marx, the problem lies in the obvious fact that an opiate drug fails to fix a physical injury — it merely helps you forget pain and suffering. This may be fine up to a point, but only as long as you are also trying to solve the underlying problems causing the pain. Similarly, religion does not fix the underlying causes of people’s pain and suffering — instead, it helps them forget why they are suffering and gets them to look forward to an imaginary future when the pain will cease.

Maybe that's why we can't change the minds of the fundamentalists: we can't offer them a better drug, Our social issues of Poverty, Ignorance and Injustice are still with us. It's the height of irony that religion imposes its own injustices on so many...

Until we create a reality that is more attractive to them than the one they exist in now, they will remain addicted to the false promise of an afterlife.

(Click here to see a larger image and feel the "luuuvv"!)

(First posted at God is for Suckers!)

Chastity belts are "sooo yesterday"...

Rapists in South Africa: Beware the Rapex!

Rape-Stopper's Razor-Sharp Bite, WiredOnline:

Scumbags of South Africa, you have been warned. Later this month, women there "will be able to arm their vaginas with the Rapex device, a product priced at 1 rand (around 14 cents) and sold over the counter," the Guardian reports. "Shaped like a female condom and worn internally, its hollow interior is lined with 25 razor-sharp teeth, which fasten on to an attacker's penis if he attempts penetration."

Arm their vaginas? WTF? Couldn't they come up with a better metaphor?

If you think this is a belated AprilFoolsJoke, check out the GuardianUK:

The biggest problem though, is that it places the onus for stopping rape not on the perpetrators, but on women - entirely the wrong way around. It implies that rape is an inevitable part of human culture and that women need to adapt accordingly. Still, you can understand why South African women might be willing to try anything. Each year, 1.7 million of them are raped. In this environment, vengeance seems fair.

I feel certain that our GifS-men do not condone rape under any circumstances. But this must have a huge CF (cringe factor) for men. It's already an Urban Legend -- and has been for centuries:

The vagina dentata appears in the myths of several cultures, most notably in several North American Indian tribes. Erich Neumann relays one such myth in which “A meat-eating fish inhabits the vagina of the Terrible Mother; the hero is the man who overcomes the Terrible Mother, breaks the teeth out of her vagina, and so makes her into a woman.”

Presumably, Hero makes her a woman by raping her, after breaking through her defense system! Crude-but-effective "homeland defense" crumbles under siege by Hero, allowing him entry into Heaven -- but did he respect her in the morning?

I'm with Twisty Faster: I blame the Patriarchy, too.

(Cross-posted from God is for Suckers!)

Impeach the Quadrumvirate! NOW!

We've never impeached a Supreme before; however the mechanism is in place and it IS possible! All we need is the "will" of Congress. But, first, Congress needs more progressives before we can take down Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito...

Court Rebukes [Bush] Administration in Global Warming Case

In a defeat for the Bush administration, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that a U.S. government agency has the power under the clean air law to regulate greenhouse gas emissions that spur global warming.

The nation's highest court by a 5-4 vote said the Environmental Protection Agency "has offered no reasoned explanation" for its refusal to regulate carbon dioxide and other emissions from new cars and trucks that contribute to climate change.

The ruling came in one of the most important environmental cases to reach the Supreme Court in decades. It marked the first high court decision in a case involving global warming.

[...]

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the court majority, rejected the administration's argument that it lacked the power to regulate such emissions. He said the EPA's decision was "arbitrary, capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law."

In sending the case back for further proceedings, Stevens said the high court did not decide which policy the EPA must follow. "We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute," he wrote.

The Bush administration has consistently rejected capping greenhouse gas emissions as bad for business and U.S. workers.

The court's four most conservative members - Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both appointees of President Bush, and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas - dissented.

From the full NYTimes article, we see their "reasoning"(?):

The lawsuit was filed by 12 states and 13 environmental groups that had grown frustrated by the Bush administration's inaction on global warming.

In his dissent, Roberts focused on the issue of standing, whether a party has the right to file a lawsuit.

The court should simply recognize that redress of the kind of grievances spelled out by the state of Massachusetts is the function of Congress and the chief executive, not the federal courts, Roberts said.

His position "involves no judgment on whether global warming exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem," he said.

The time has come for Congress to address the damage done to our environmental laws by President "I'm still waiting for the Rapture" Godsend. We, as humans, are the last group to be considered in DC decision-making! Being poisoned by the air we breathe, the water we drink and the plastics next to our skins--all unimportant to BigCorporate America (and the shareholders who reap their profits from "blood-money") and, thus, to George and much of Congress.

Medical journal headline I'd like to see: Political Donations Cause Politicians to go Deaf and Blind. The study shows that the larger the campaign contribution, the greater the vision- and hearing-loss...
* * * * * * * * *The above-image shows:

The Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States as of 2007. Top row (left to right): Stephen G. Breyer, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Samuel A. Alito. Bottom row (left to right): Anthony M. Kennedy, John Paul Stevens, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Antonin G. Scalia, and David H. Souter.

A Perfect Mess: The Hidden Benefits of Disorder

Sometimes you come across a book that just begs to be read...especially when it tells you something that you want to hear. Well, I wanted to hear it--I don't know about you...

"A Perfect Mess: The Hidden Benefits of Disorder", authored by Eric Abrahamson and David Freedman, and published by Little, Brown and Co.

Are You a Slob? Good, You're More Productive

Karen Jackson would be the first to admit her desk looks like a disaster area.

Her stacks of papers and photographs are so sloppy that the Texas schoolteacher won first place in a contest to find America's messiest desk...

[Abrahamson and Freedman's new book] argues neatness is overrated, costs money, wastes time and quashes creativity...

Barry Izsak, head of the National Association of Professional Organizers, disputes the authors' claims, saying they oversimplify and confuse mess with disorganization...

Freedman argues that it is neatness that is expensive.

"People who are really, really neat, between what it takes to be really neat at the office and at home, typically will spend anywhere from an hour to four hours a day just organizing and neatening," he said.

From The Books, a sales site:

Ever since Einstein's study of Brownian Motion, scientists have understood that a little disorder can actually make systems more effective. But most people still shun disorder—or suffer guilt over the mess they can't avoid.

From a personal perspective, most (if not all) of the people I know who suffer from incipient or latent "obsessive-compulsive tendencies" and those with "anal-retentive proclivities" ALSO suffer from a delusional belief in a gawd.

It is only "MY general rule" and is based on friendships and relationships with "neatniks", including my ex-husband. He is German-Lutheran and his father is a neat-freak; and he was further damaged by his parents divorce and his mother remarrying--a career soldier! Poor guy never had a chance... And I (in some mistaken notion that I could have a happy marriage with a man who never threw his clothes on the floor, always put his towels in the hamper and was diligent about the toilet seat) married a mental mess!

There is a bright side to that dark tale: he dragged me to a counselor and told him, "Fix her!" Well, Steve and I fixed ME, the marriage ended, and I was healthier than when I started it. My ex-husband probably still muddles along, wiping down countertops to avoid serious discussion, rearranging his sock&underwear drawer when anxious, and impulsively buying nice presents for his new wife today and suffering "buyers remorse" tomorrow...

Are you in a relationship with an "opposite"? Are you neat--or messy?

(Cross-posted from God is for Suckers!)

Scripture brings out the "bully" in christians!

Research links some scriptures to hostile acts

Just let me say this straight out: I'm not surprised at the findings of this study. What irks me is that its methodology makes it utterly useless.

PROVO — Chances are, not many people in Utah would like to think of scripture as a violent medium that promotes hostility.

But a study of 490 students — 248 of them at Brigham Young University — suggests a correlation between exposure to scriptural violence that is condoned by God and increased aggression.

University of Michigan psychologist Brad Bushman, BYU professor Robert Ridge and three other researchers co-wrote "When God Sanctions Killing," which will appear in the March issue of Psychological Science magazine.

Although the study points to a correlation between scriptural violence and aggression, Ridge said the research is not meant to attack scripture study.

You would think for a control group, they would use all US students, not mix in a group from The Netherlands! They recruited two groups, one of which was 99% bible+gawd believers (from Utah) and the other (control group?) was 50% pro-gawd and 27% pro-bible.

For the test, they were divided into two-person-teams and shown various passages from the bible, some of which were violent. They each wore headphones and had a buzzer ("weapon") that they had to push "as fast possible" for 25 trials. The fastest was given the "honor" of choosing how loud the buzzer would sound into the other's headset!

...Aggression was measured by the frequency with which the winning students blasted their partners.

The study indicated that those with a stronger religious background responded with slightly more hostility — and louder blasts — than those who were not as religious.

And Ridge says that indicates a correlation between aggression and isolated violent passages.

The correlation also mirrors studies that show the relationship between hostility and violent movies, music or video games. The key difference is that if scriptures are read as a whole and not taken out of context, the results can be the opposite, Ridge says, as the overall themes of the Bible, specifically, are peace and love.

WTF does that mean? Is Ridge a xian? Oh, hell yeah! Is the bible full of violence that masks its "true message of love"? Yes! Do people read the bible just for the "juicy violent bits"? Maybe. Do people come away from a bible reading remembering the violence and forgetting the love? I wouldn't be surprised!

Daniel Judd, BYU professor of ancient scripture, who was not involved in the study, said he agrees with the importance of understanding scriptural context. Taken by itself, a scriptural passage can wrongly rationalize negative behavior, he says.

"You can use scripture to justify anything you're looking for," Judd said.

Now there's a newsflash!

Cross posted from God is for Suckers!)

In which the Political Magician's "coin trick" is revealed...

“It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system for, if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” — Henry Ford

Admitting to my limited experience in understanding Economics 101, I was always mystified as to where the money went that was lost in the Market Crash of 2001. If money is a real commodity, MY loss might be YOUR gain--but it doesn't disappear. Someone made money--but who? I'm still mystified...

Now we find that the Federal Reserve Bank has propped up the Markets following the "dips/dives" of the last two weeks. For background on the "money quote", you can read the link first. Or not.

Pushing On a String - The New York Fed

Edit: as an after thought to writing this post last night, I might add that I am reserving judgment as to success or failure since it's still early in the process. As I noted in the comments section, The Federal Reserve has evolved from hands off (eg. not doing anything about the 1929 to 1932 stock market collapse) to a Central Bank that has learned to take aggressive action, to the extent that it can, by providing money, or liquidity.

My point of concern here is that even for our times $55 bln in one week is a lot of coin -an annual rate of nearly $3 TRILLION. $55 bln a week makes the war in Iraq look like a petty cash expense. While I realize the Fed won't need to inject $55 bln every week into the system, I can't help but to wonder how much moolah it will take if the Fed has to address a market emergency that goes beyond the stock market and into the realm of something scary like the [10-15 times] leveraged OTC derivatives market.

Really the question that comes to mind - What is it that Bernanke and Paulson are afraid of to not allow the market to fall naturally? There's also the inflationary issue. While these open market operations involve money that is lent out for periods of 1 day to a few weeks, there is basic 'Money 101' velocity of money where each loaned dollar that is used ends up in someone else's pocket and so on. So even if the original loan is paid back each loaned dollar perhaps is spent on a futures transaction, then re-loaned by the seller of the futures contract, spindled, washed, rinsed, etc.

Effectively, billions are being created out of thin air by the NY Fed operations which end up being added into the money supply over time. It's no wonder they eliminated reporting M3. This sudden currency creation, in my simple mind, would seem to be dollar negative and bad from an inflationary standpoint for everyone over time.

Oh, and with a 2008 presidential election cycle ahead, there also the question of what happens to Republican chances of capturing the White House again if the stock market goes into a bear market and the economy tanks into a recession. Perhaps that adds an extra dimension of urgency to keep the markets propped up? Now I'm getting too conspiracy theorist.
The specter of collapse and recession-cum-depression is coming clearer.

It seems to me that this "magician's trick" of conjuring money from thin-air is a very dangerous practice! Like a high-wire artist, one mistake can mean a deadly crash to the ground. Our economy, as Paul Krugman has been saying in various ways, is balanced on the razor sharp edge of collapse. Given the known cronyism and incompetence in the Bush administration, can we really trust that those in charge know what they're doing?

For some historical context and clarity on a few recent trends, I suggest a speech by Paul Krugman, NYT columnist and Professor of Economics, Princeton. Entitled A History of America's Disappearing Middle Class, it was delivered at the Economic Policy Institute's recent conference on The Agenda for Shared Prosperity.

Krugman is noted for his populist-based analysis of past, present and future economic issues. He has increasingly used a "political science" frame to express his views, believing that this is critical for his readers to understand the significance of events and policies that begin and end with GWBush.

How does the future look to you? Hopeful or hapless? Boom or bust?

(For more info to back up Krugman's references to unionism, see my Martian.Anthropologist posts Is Labor's "Day in the Sun" Over? Part One and Part Two.)

(Cross posted from God is for Suckers!)

Brokeback, Wyoming!

Wyoming Kills Anti-Gay Bill , courtesy of ColoradoConfidential blog:

In a dramatic March 1 vote, the Wyoming House Rules Committee killed a bill that would have allowed the state to deny recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries.

In a state that is large (ninth in size) and underpopulated (50th in the US), one that is still filled with working cowboys and ranchers, and one that still has more men than women, a bill denying civil rights to GLBTs was defeated in a House committee after being passed by the Senate. And feelings are running high!

Of course, from this distance I can't prove it, but this is what I think: Activist-outsiders (non-Wyoming citizens) have pushed this through the legislative process. What they thought would be a cakewalk, with a Republican House and Senate (oh, never mind that the governor is a Democrat!), has turned into a sour disappointment for them. And they will likely be back next year...

According to the post on CC, two Republicans House members spoke very eloquently at the Rules Committee's hearing. One has a gay daughter; the other is very young and spoke of gay rights as being "my generation's civil rights struggle".

From 27-year-old Rep. Dan Zwonitzer(R) of Cheyenne:

"Under a democracy the civil rights struggle continues today, where we have one segment of our society trying to restrict rights and privileges from another segment of our society. My parents raised me to know that this is wrong.

"It is wrong for one segment of society to restrict rights and freedoms from another segment of society. I believe many of you have had this conversation with your children.

"And children have listened, my generation, the twenty-somethings, and those younger than I understand this message of tolerance. And in 20 years, when they take the reins of this government and all governments, society will see this issue overturned, and people will wonder why it took so long.

"My kids and grandkids will ask me, why did it take so long? And I can say, hey, I was there, I discussed these issues, and I stood up for basic rights for all people."

But equally dramatic -- and perhaps more surprising -- was the testimony of conservative Rep. Pat Childers (R) of Cody. Childers’ daughter is gay. "My testimony was clearly stating that I oppose the legislation because I just think it is flat wrong," he says.

Childers also compared gay rights to earlier civil rights efforts. "People say you can’t compare gays with blacks. I disagree. Do we deny a class of people their rights? I say, ‘No.’"

SF 13 [the bill had no name] was killed by the House Rules Committee 7-to-6.

Close enough, for this year. And I hope the vote is 13-0 against it next year...

Your body. Your billboard.

Just remember: This is your country, your government, your democracy, your Constitution and Bill of Rights! I urge you work to take it back. It I can tolerate your religion if you can tolerate my rights

Be a smart ass! Vote Democrat

Mommy! There's a Republican under my bed!

won't be so easy in two or five or ten years...

We have a lot of work to do before Election2008. In order to create a "veto-proof" Congress, we need 69 more Dems in the House and 12 more in the Senate.

Remember that Giuliani or Romney may be elected--don't think it couldn't happen! And if it does, and if we respect the Doctrine of Separation of Powers, then we need to get and keep the reins of Congress. The RaptureRight was weakened in the 2006 election but they have "Divine Powers of Restoration" and, after all, GAWD is on their side...

Work on a campaign. Give any amount of money to candidates (a ton of small contributions from the people can equal the corporate whores who want to own their "johns"!). Find a group in your state that's working on Campaign Finance Reform.

In other words, get involved!

And while you're working or playing, why not display your displeasure with the GOP/RaptureRight and President Godsend's minions AND the votes-for-sale neo-cons in DC? I won't promise that you won't get some feedback but I will offer you this possibility: according to many polls, Americans are coming around. You could even make a friend or two...

Sport a Tshirt with a message, such as these:

Liberals: We Founded America, We Can Save It

Other than telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children, and die, Republicans have done quite a job getting government out of our personal lives.

Feminism is the radical notion that women are people

The Apocalypse Is Not An Exit Strategy

Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative.

Can I cut off your reproductive rights if you cut off mine?

The GOP: Building a bridge to the 19th century

How about compassionate competency?

I support our veterans--I VOTED for one

If you destroy Liberty to defend America, then what are you defending?

Separate Church and Hate

Can you remember when the only red states were in the USSR?

I can tolerate your religion--if you can tolerate my rights

Clinton and Monica. W and Iraq. Which one is harder to swallow?

Jesus, save us from your followers!

Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church

* * * * * * *

How will you explain to your grandchildren about the dinosaurs that frollicked with Adam and Eve?

By: Naomi

The American Soldiers' Dilemma in Iraq

(For a larger image of the cartoon below, go to Vagabond Scholar and click on cartoon to enlarge.)



Here is the transcript:

A. This is an al-Qaeda terrorist in Iraq He hates Shi'ites. He hates Americans. He is our enemy.

B. This is a Sunni insurgent in Iraq. He hates Shi'ites. He hates Americans. He is our enemy, too.

C. This is an Iraqi who supports the Shi'ite-led Iraqi government. He hates Americans. He is our friend.

D. This is a Shi'ite militian man. He hates Sunnis. He supports the Iraqi government who are our friends. He is our enemy.

E. This is an Iraqi Kurd who hates the Turks who are our friends. He is our friend.

F. This is a Turk who hates the Kurds who are our friends. He is our friend, too.

G. This is an Iranian who supports the Shi'ite-led Iraqi government who are our friends. He is our enemy.

H. This is a Syrian Sunni foreign-fighter in Iraq. He hates the Iranians who are our enemies and the Iraqi government who are our friends. He is our enemy.

I. This is a Sunni from a moderate Arab country. He hates Iran. He hates America. He is our friend.

J. This is a Shi'ite who works for the Iraqi government who are our friends. He supports the Iranians who are our enemies. He hates Americans. He is our friend.

Question: Who do you shoot? Turn over for answer:

Answer:
Definitely shoot A, H and B.
Sometimes shoot C and D.
Don’t shoot E, J, F and I.
Try not to shoot G, but if you do, we won’t worry too much about it.

Cartoon by Darryl Cagle, from a post on Vagabond Scholar.

What can I add to this, except: What a catastrophuck!

It's (almost) Presidents' Day!

I took a quiz (and aren't they silly!) to find out what US president would suit me--if I was into being courted by a president, that is. (Jackie Kennedy v Marilyn Monroe, Hillary Clinton v Monica Lewinski--there's courted, and then there's "courted, right?)

So which one did I end up with? James Madison!

James Madison (March 16, 1751 – June 28, 1836), an American politician and fourth President of the United States of America (1809–1817), was one of the most influential Founding Fathers of the United States.

More than anyone he designed the new Constitution of 1787, and is known as the "Father of the Constitution". In 1788, he wrote over a third of the Federalist Papers, still the most influential commentary on the Constitution. As a leader in the first Congresses he drafted many basic laws and was responsible for the first ten amendments to the Constitution, and thus he is also known as the "Father of the Bill of Rights".

As a political theorist Madison's most distinctive belief was that the new republic needed checks and balances to limit the powers of special interests, which Madison called factions. He believed very strongly that the new nation should fight against aristocracy and corruption (especially of British origin), and was deeply committed to creating mechanisms that would make Republicanism in the United States work in practice.

And he was married to one of the foremost feminists of Colonial America: Dolley Todd Madison!

Hah! Take that, Jackie, Marilyn, Hillary and Monica!

The Anti-bible takes on the "global worming"

Picture this: We're a small band of rational minds on a mission, in the Xian Wilderness, to re-establish a True Enlightenment. Attacked on all sides by subhuman theist-zombies, and running low on ammunition (Dawkins/Harris/Dennett/Pollit need to publish more often!), we've circled the wagons against the DimWarriors of XianDarkness. It looks bad for our brave band...

Suddenly, a shout! "Look! On the ridge!"

Can it be? YES! It's the 10th Cavalry of Reason, bringing us copies of "The Quotable Atheist"!

A little over-the-top. Sorry...

Ammunition for Atheists

The following is an excerpt from Jack Huberman's new book, The Quotable Atheist: Ammunition for Nonbelievers, Political Junkies, Gadflies, and Those Generally Hell-Bound (Nation Books, 2007).

The world (not just America) is deeply divided.The main fault line is where the tectonic plates of religion and of reason/secularism/ modernity/science/Enlightenment meet and grind against each other, making an absolutely unbearable noise. It's sort of like ... forget it, I can't describe it.

[Quoting End of Faith, by Sam Harris]"...Only 28 percent of Americans believe in evolution; 68 percent believe in Satan. Ignorance in this degree, concentrated in both the head and belly of a lumbering superpower, is now a problem for the entire world."

We need to change the cultural climate so as to make supernatural, occult, and faith-based claptrap feel unwelcome and to make adults ashamed of the blithe surrender of their otherwise sound minds to idiocy.We need climate change. Bullshit levels are rising globally, threatening to submerge intellectually low-lying areas. Much of the United States is already inundated.Temperatures are rising; IQs are dropping. Four of the five stupidest years on record have occurred since 2000.

I would of course have preferred a declaration by the president of the United States -- purportedly God's messenger on earth...Failing that, it is up to atheist/secularist groups and individuals to do what we can to stop global worming (people groveling like worms before nonexistent deities). That's where this book comes in.

You can read the rest of the post and samples (link above) from Richard Dawkins, Phyllis Diller, Phil Donahue, Frederick Douglass, Jerry Falwell, Thomas Jefferson, Michael Moore, and Katha Pollit. (Jerry Falwell? WTF?)

By: Naomi

America's Day of Shame!

If you read Martian.Anthropologist, you'll remember VastLeft, of VastLeftWingConspiracy blog, and a regular contributor on MA. As a favor, he asked that I post on as many blogs as I can that today is the anniversary of a shameful day: Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, a respected military man and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, addressed the United Nations on Saddam Hussein's non-existent "weapons of mass destruction". If not exactly treason, it has damaged his reputation irreparably. (I lifted the photo from the Day of Shame website; I can't do "teh photoshop"--otherwise, it would be "stamped" with the word "Whore!")

Do you remember watching his speech to the UN? Did it make your afraid? In the photo, he's holding that "tell-tale" vial of (supposedly) anthrax. How well did he convince you that it really held Death?

On February 5, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the United Nations to rally support for an invasion of Iraq.

Outside of war co-planner the United Kingdom, few international troops would join the U.S. in the invasion and occupation.

Yet Powell's speech had a galvanizing effect on America's mainstream media. As one, they declared the presentation "compelling."

For a nation living in the ghostly shadow of the twin towers, the MSM's Good Warmaking seal of approval was enough to keep that treasonous question — "why?" — relatively unheard.

In this space, we'll consider what was lost that day, as we mark a sobering holiday: America's Day of Shame.

Please visit VastLeft's log page and share your thoughts about this tragic occasion — your recollections of the run-up to the Iraq war and your ideas on how we can fix a news establishment that traded its reporter's fedora for a cheerleader's uniform.

Iraq vs Vietnam: Where are OUR protest songs?

"For What It's Worth", by Buffalo Springfield

Last week, a songwriter here in Nashville asked a group of us, "Where are OUR war protest songs? They're being written and recorded--but the radio still won't play them!"

Let's be honest about that: The MSM is too heavily invested in supporting the administration of President Godsend to allow it. That same MSM also own most of the radio stations, with corporate policy prohibiting stations from playing anything NOT on their playlists...

In large part, you can thank Bill Clinton for that. His odious "triangulating, third-way politics" sold us out. You can argue, 'til you're blue in the face, that he didn't know what would happen, that he didn't see the ramifications of selling out to BigBroadcast companies--I, personally, don't buy it!

Now, I absolutely detest the GOP for smearing him, for continuing to blame Clinton (and his penis) for everything that goes wrong. But, as a Dem who voted for him twice and worked on both campaigns, I have the right to be critical--the GOP doesn't.

So, when he dies (please, gawd, not soon!), I want his epitaph to read: I have two big regrets--NAFTA and Media De-regulation. And I'm sorry for both!

Naomi

Cutting-edge medicine and the science-phobic Christianist

Medical miracle for conception-challenged fundie moms? Or the "New Coke" of biological science?

And, hey, how's that overpopulation thing working out for global climate change?

First U.S. Uterus Transplant Planned: Some Experts Say Risk Isn't Justified
(Washington Post--01.15.07)

...[D]octors are planning the first womb transplant in the United States. A team based in Manhattan has begun screening women left barren by cancer, injuries or other problems who want a chance to bear their own children.

"The desire to have a child is a tremendous driving force for many women," said Giuseppe Del Priore of the New York Downtown Hospital, who is leading the team. "We think we could help many women fulfill this very basic desire."

Hunh! Global climate change is caused by overpopulation. Overpopulation is caused by fertile wombs (and low intelligence, i.e. failure to know about or respect the issue of birth control). Doesn't anyone else see the "cause and effect" here?

"It is the convergence of two fields that are already embedded in large ethical disputes," said Lori B. Andrews, a bioethicist at the Chicago-Kent College of Law. "This represents the worst of both worlds."

Several experts said the plan highlights the unique status that childbearing holds in the United States and elsewhere, and the lengths to which some women will go to experience it, even with the availability of such options as adoption and surrogacy.

"I'm not convinced that science and medicine and society as a whole should be putting so much emphasis on having this particular nine-month experience," said Adrienne Asch, who studies family life at Yeshiva University. "Why is that the sine qua non of being a parent? The real work of parenting is in the time after a child is born and is in someone's home."

[,,,]

After performing the complex surgery, doctors would wait probably about three months to make sure the organ is functioning and has been stabilized with anti-rejection drugs...An embryo created through in vitro fertilization would then be placed in the womb. If the pregnancy goes well, the baby would be delivered by Caesarean section to minimize risks from labor and to allow doctors to simultaneously remove the uterus, so the woman could discontinue the anti-rejection drugs.

"We are calling it a temporary transplant," Del Priore said. "This minimizes the time patients have to be on the medications and makes it a much more reasonable risk to take to have a baby."

[...]

"This is not like a kidney transplant -- it's not medically necessary to the woman's life," Andrews said. "Without it, the woman can live a healthy life. She still has options. She can adopt. She can even still have her own biologic child with a surrogate."

Del Priore acknowledged the possible risks, but he and others said women should have the choice.

Women should have the choice to have a baby--BUT NOT HAVE THE CHOICE TO NOT HAVE A BABY? WTF?

Some days, LIKE TODAY, I think all "wombs" (such a quaint word) should be removed and all eggs and sperm be given over to a rational, non-profit foundation...

Quiverfull Families, no birth control/abortion/masturbation/condom-use/gay-sex--we are seriously doomed!

My head hurts...