Categories
Diversity Political

God and technology

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

The recent posts that Norm Jenson and PZ Myers have been publishing demonstrate a disturbing trend in the United States: that discrimination against atheists is not only to be tolerated, but to be encouraged. Republican candidate Mitt Romney answered a heckler last week who challenged his religion by saying it doesn’t matter the type of faith a President of the US has, as long as they were persons of faith. An opinion poll recently stated that Americans would be more likely to vote for a black, gay, Muslim, woman before voting for an atheist.

And now PZ Myers points to a letter to an editor from a person who doesn’t even believe that atheists should be allowed to live in the US:

It’s time to stomp out atheists in America. The majority of Americans would love to see atheists kicked out of America. If you don’t believe in God, then get out of this country.

The United States is based on having freedom of religion, speech, etc., which means you can believe in God any way you want (Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, etc.), but you must believe.

I don’t recall freedom of religion meaning no religion. Our currency even says, “In God We Trust.” So, to all the atheists in America: Get off of our country.

Atheists have caused the ruin of this great nation by taking prayer out of our schools and being able to practice what can only be called evil. I don’t care if they have never committed a crime, atheists are the reason crime is rampant.

(Originally printed at My Confined Space, though it would seem this one has been making the rounds a few years.)

Alice’s letter to the editor brought up something I was curious about…

If I tell you I’m an atheist, would this make a difference to you whether you would buy one of my technology books?

Would you be less willing to buy? More willing to buy? Or do you believe that there’s no connection between technology and religion, and your purchasing of any of my books would be based solely on the contents of the books?

Or is it that you believe it’s OK for me to write and sell the books, but only if I move to, say, Canada or Australia?

If you’re less likely to buy my books, why? Do you feel you’re helping to support a sinner who only deserves condemnation and despair? Or do you think that God talks to technology writers who believe? If so, what do you think she says?

You used “its” when you should have used “it’s”. I really hate that. Do it again, and I’ll send lightning.

This is an informal poll: all opinions are welcome.

Categories
Political

Blame Jay

We’ve had an extraordinary and rather unpleasant situation here in Missouri the last few years. Our governor, Matt Blunt, and our State Attorney General Jay Nixon have not seen eye to eye on many issues, and almost any event associated with our state ends up being about the two of them.

Leaving aside the fact that both will face each other for election to governor next year, there are fundamental differences between the two men, which has left Jay Nixon spending a great deal of his time countering the efforts of our governor. Not surprising: Matt Blunt is the new breed of Republican that is backing away from the fundamentalists, favoring a form of social Darwinism that has even the most hidebound Republican going: eh, now, wait a sec.

I’ve written about the Katy Trail bridge and the Taum Sauk Dam break, but the recent fooflah literally boggles the mind.

Several months back, a woman who worked in the Department of Agriculture, Heather Elder, complained to the Governor’s office about the sexual harassment and discrimination she had suffered from the head of the department, Fred Ferrell. She accused Ferrell of hugging her, touching her inappropriately, telling her she should participate in a wet t-shirt contest, telling others that women are ‘show dogs’, and the only reason to hire such is because of our looks, and so on.

However, Ferrell is a friend of Big Agriculture, working hand in hand with the ‘new’ head of DNR, Doyle Childers, to roll back many of the environmental protections in place in our state so that large agricultural interests don’t have to worry about the smell of their big hog farms, or how much crap they dump into our rivers and streams.

When the complaint was received, Blunt took the unprecedented and illegal act of having the State Patrol investigate the allegations. He then used the DNR’s legal staff to negotiate a settlement with Elder that included what amounted to a slap on the wrist for Ferrell (sensitivity training, 10,000 fine, which he hasn’t paid), and a payoff and ordered cover up with Elder. The amount of money of the pay off was 70,000 dollars, paid from the Department of Agriculture’s equipment fund.

This all blew up last week when Elder rejected the offer and took the issue to the Attorney General’s office after the Missouri Human Rights Commission issued her a right-to-sue letter. Jay Nixon has now filed a suit on her behalf. The reason Elder refused the offer? She refused to let this be swept under the table, itself an act that is also illegal based on the Sunshine Act.

Caught not only misusing the state Patrol, misusing Agricultural department funds, misusing DNR resources, and protecting a man who isn’t fit to slop the corporate pigs he tried to protect, Blunt did the only thing he could: he tried to blame Nixon. How? By saying that he, Blunt, had to manage on his own since Nixon wouldn’t get involved in the initial negotiations.

As the *opinion piece in the conservative publication News-Leader, based in that strongest of Republican holds, Springfield, demonstrated: no one is buying any of this crap:

Blunt faces a growing cacophony of criticism for his mishandling of the sexual harassment and demeaning behavior of Ferrell, his former director of the Department of Agriculture. His initial reaction? Deflect some of the blame to Nixon for not getting involved in the case earlier.

The problem with that is Nixon didn’t hire a lecherous old man to join his cabinet. Blunt did.

Nixon didn’t respond to a serious allegation of sexual harassment by a female state worker by ordering an illegal Missouri Highway Patrol investigation. Blunt did.

Nixon didn’t ignore a report that any reasonable thinking person would realize displayed the sort of behavior by Ferrell that would disqualify him from any position of management in today’s society, let alone a position atop a state agency. Blunt did.

The governor told the News-Leader he believes in second chances, but apparently that lofty idea only applies to cabinet members and not their victims.

This act will kill any of Blunt’s chances for re-election, though with his growing friendship with Mitt Romney, he may not mind. Expect him to head toward a shot at the nationals, and if he does, run, run to your polls and answer with a resounding, “No!”

I am serious when I write that Blunt has done an amazing amount of damage in this state in his zeal to provide a ‘comfortable’ support system for big business. Kicked 300,000 children, disabled, and elderly off of Medicare; helped change water laws until the EPA brought all of that to a screeching halt; turned the Taum Sauk event into a political opportunity; brought in incompetent Republican cronies to head important departments; trying to sell off the fund that enable poor folks to go to school; put absurd restrictions on the universities for what they can do with the money set aside for capital improvements with this money.

This voters of this state made a terrible mistake when they put Blunt in as governor. Like the Ferrell case, that’s another thing that can’t be blamed on Jay Nixon–we did it all by ourselves.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch interviewed the Republican women state representatives, and the majority of the answers are understandable, though a little disappointing. Most condemned Ferrel’s behavior (or pleaded the 5th), but were reserved on Blunt’s role. However, there was one….

One of the Republican legislators interviewed said she hadn’t reviewed the case; she said similar sexual harassment claims stem from misunderstandings.

Rep. Jane Cunningham, R-Chesterfield, said she’s worked around men long enough to know that two women can often interpret the same behavior differently.

“I work in a man’s world and sometimes men show encouragement by hugging,” she said. “Is that sexual harassment or is that encouragement? In my mind, it’s encouragement.”

Un-be-liev-able.

* via Black River News.

Categories
Political

Evolution and fact

The Kansas State Board of Education removed the ‘intelligent design’ propaganda from the state’s school system, but that won’t end the battle. I don’t think people fully understand how rabid some of the fundamentalist are here in the Kansas/Missouri area. It doesn’t matter what the populace wants; it doesn’t matter what the majority believe; it doesn’t even matter what the Supreme Court rules: these folks are right, everyone else is wrong.

In Missouri, even after the vote that allowed for stem cell research, state representatives want to place another vote on the ballot in 2008 on this issue again. The only way to stop this is to stop putting these people into office, or barring that, stop giving them any power.

Categories
Political Weblogging

Bloggers resign from campaign

Both Shakespeare’s Sister Melissa and Pandagon’s Amanda have resigned from the Edwards compaign. Amanda’s site is down, but at Shakepeare’s Sister, Melissa had this to say:

I regret to say that I have also resigned from the Edwards campaign. In spite of what was widely reported, I was not hired as a blogger, but a part-time technical advisor, which is the role I am vacating.

I would like to make very clear that the campaign did not push me out, nor was my resignation the back-end of some arrangement made last week. This was a decision I made, with the campaign’s reluctant support, because my remaining the focus of sustained ideological attacks was inevitably making me a liability to the campaign, and making me increasingly uncomfortable with my and my family’s level of exposure.

I understand that there will be progressive bloggers who feel I am making the wrong decision, and I offer my sincerest apologies to them. One of the hardest parts of this decision was feeling as though I’m letting down my peers, who have been so supportive.

There will be some who clamor to claim victory for my resignation, but I caution them that in doing so, they are tacitly accepting responsibility for those who have deluged my blog and my inbox with vitriol and veiled threats. It is not right-wing bloggers, nor people like Bill Donohue or Bill O’Reilly, who prompted nor deserve credit for my resignation, no matter how much they want it, but individuals who used public criticisms of me as an excuse to unleash frightening ugliness, the likes of which anyone with a modicum of respect for responsible discourse would denounce without hesitation.

This is a win for no one.

(Also see this ABC Story for more)

I don’t think any supporter of both would be disappointed, and I admire both of them for taking this stand. They would never be able to speak freely as part of Edwards’ campaign, but now they can use their voices and their popular blogs however they see fit, and no one can shut them up now.

As for this quack Donohue or that tedious and dull Malkin claiming victory, small minds must get gratification where they can. Frankly, the rest of the country could care less what these two carp in a small pond think.

My only concern is if Amanda and Melissa are going to suffer some financial repercussions from this event. If so, I imagine many of us would be willing to donate a few bucks to help them get settled back home.

Amanda’s announcement.

Categories
Political

Sleight of hand

It would seem that the US isn’t the only country whose primary leader plays sleight of hand when it comes to debate: Australia’s Howard is using Obama’s candidate announcement speech to deflect discussion away from climate change to the Iraqi conflict.

If I were the people of Australia, I would balance 1400 soldiers in Iraq against the fact that it is completely surrounded by water when making a decision about what is of most critical importance to the people of that country. Unless Howard would prefer that Iraq remain a lightning rod for Islamic discontent, rather than have such shift focus to, say, Indonesia.

This kind of political rhetoric isn’t surprising: it seems to be representative of anyone associated with Bush. What is surprising, though, is how anyone can possibly think there is any question of ‘win’ or ‘loose’ regarding Iraq. Frankly, I would question the intelligence of any person who uses such terms in regards to this conflict. But, we have enough problems with our own fearless leader, who now seems to want to make bad matters worse by trying to trigger a war with Iran. Howard is Australia’s concern, not ours.