Mindful Digressions

I'd like to give the world a gun...

Remember the 70s Coca-Cola commercial with the catchy jingle, “I’d like to buy the world a Coke”?

 

Newt Gingrich has a slightly revised version that he proposed to a cheering audience at this year’s National Rifle Association convention a few weeks ago. Only Newt’s jingle would have gone, “I’d like to give the world a gun.”

Go ahead and sing along with Newt...and don’t forget to change the word from “Coke” to “gun.” Hey, it’s the real thing.

According to Gingrich, “the right to bear arms comes from our creator, not from our government.” You know, it is one of those God-given rights I referred to in my blog posting from March.

Of course, since he was speaking at an NRA convention, perhaps there was a bit of pandering to God and guns going on. Who knew that the old, bearded man somewhere up there in the clouds was a member of the NRA?

Newt referenced the Declaration of Independence in his assertion that the right to bear arms comes from God. The second paragraph of the Declaration reads, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” I assume Newt must consider the right to own a gun to be one of those unalienable rights endowed upon us by our creator.

Perhaps Gingrich was inspired by the John Lennon song, “Happiness is a warm gun.” Can’t you imagine Newt in bed with his three wives, gently stroking his gun and singing:

Happiness is a warm gun / Happiness is a warm gun mama / When I hold you in my arms / And I feel my finger on your trigger / I know nobody can do me no harm

I invite you once again to sing along with Newt.

 

Newt also claims that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is “a right for all mankind,” not just for Americans. The Bill of Rights was not written only for Americans, he said. “It is a universal document.” No doubt our Founding Fathers were shocked and disappointed when King George didn’t embrace this “universal document” and apply it immediately to his British subjects. 

Of course it’s universal, Newt. After all, these rights are God-given, and should, therefore, be available to everyone...all God’s chillun...everywhere on the planet. You know, like all other rights in the U.S. Constitution are granted to all people, and not just to Americans.

Not only did Gingrich assert that the right to bear arms comes from God, he also chastised the NRA for being “too timid.” Should he be elected president of the United States, Gingrich would introduce a motion to the United Nations making the right to carry a gun “a human right for every person on the planet.”

“With your help,” Newt told the enraptured audience of 5,000 gun-toters, “I would like to...lead an effort across the planet to ensure that the right to bear arms becomes permanent and is a human right everywhere....”

What I find most interesting is not the idea that Newt wants to put guns in the hands of every human being around the world. After all, this is the same guy who, during one of the many debates among the GOP presidential wannabes, said, “By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American.” He added, “When 13,000 Americans are living on the moon, they can petition to become a state.”

No, what really amazes me is that Newt still considers himself to be a viable candidate for president, even if in his own mind. Give it up, Newt. You’re toast. Save yourself and everyone else a lot of embarrassment and crawl back into those primordial waters from whence you came.

Monkey business in Tennessee

We Americans are a funny lot. According to a Gallup poll conducted in late 2010, forty percent of Americans believe in strict creationism, including the belief that God created humans in their present form only about 10,000 years ago.

In another poll conducted by USA Today and Gallup, two thirds of Americans responded that they believe creationism is “definitely or probably” the best explanation for the origins of human life. But at the same time, 86% of Americans also believe that evolution is “definitely or probably” the best explanation. What this reveals is that most Americans don’t understand how to respond to poll questions. Either that or we are a nation of schizophrenics.

A Harris Interactive poll found that just as many Americans believe in ghosts as believe in evolution. Ghosts, for crissake! And more than one-third of Americans believe in UFOs. Seriously, ghosts and UFOs. I am not making this up!

A Pew Organization survey broke down the belief in evolution by religious affiliation. Buddhists, Hindus, and Jews are the most likely to believe in evolution, whereas Evangelicals, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and all Republican candidates for public office are least likely to accept Darwin’s theory as the explanation for the origin of human life.

Tennessee in 1925

Speaking about Darwin’s theory, the teaching of evolution was put on trial 87 years ago in Tennessee in the now infamous Scopes “Monkey Trial,” which opened the door for the teaching of the scientific theory of evolution over the religious theory of creationism.

Some say that the Monkey Trial contributed to the growing chasm between science and faith. Science won that round and for close to a century, evolution has prevailed over creationism as the accepted theory for the origin of the species.

Yet those who shun Darwin’s theories of natural selection and consider evolution to be an affront to the bible, to faith, and to religiosity have not been silently sitting around taking it on the chin for all these years. They have continued to practively advocate for their belief that evolution is nothing more than a flawed theory and has no more basis in fact than does creationism, which, by the way, has no basis in fact whatsoever.

This argument against decades of exhaustive scholarly research and overwhelming scientific evidence used to be made only by those on the far right religious fringe. More recently there has been an all-out assault on the science of evolution by Christian evangelicals and even some religious main-streamers. They believe that creationism needs to be taught right alongside of evolution in science classes, and have been very aggressive in promoting that position. They also believe in ghosts and UFOs.

Tennessee in 2012

In the latest round in the battle between science and religion, Tennessee has become the second state, joining Louisiana, to allow teachers to teach creationism as a viable alternative to evolution in science classes. The new Tennessee law, sometimes referred to as the “monkey law,” requires that teachers permit discussions of “alternative theories” to evolution and climate change in their classrooms.

The governor of Tennessee, Bill Haslam, commented that the legislation does not change the state’s scientific standards or school curriculum. He noted that on such “controversial subjects” as biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, the new law merely stipulates that “teachers cannot be barred from helping students understand the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories.”

Apparently the governor of Tennessee considers creationism to be a “scientific theory.” When, exactly, did the bible become a science textbook?

In the guise of “academic freedom,” those promoting the teaching of creationism want “all sides” of the origin of man to be taught in science classes. That means they want to teach their religious views of human life’s origins even though such views are not accepted science. They believe that students will benefit from what they call “critical analysis.”

But what exactly is “critical analysis”? I always thought it was based upon leveraging the scientific method of inquiry, which starts with observed facts, continues with gathering empirical and measurable evidence, and concludes with testable laws and explanatory theories supported by the facts and evidence. The scientific method uses inductive reasoning and it is intended to be as objective as possible in order to reduce biased interpretations of results.

Real critical analysis or inquiry does not start with a desired conclusion and then build a case to support that conclusion. Yet that is exactly what proponents of creationism are doing. They conclude that evolution alone cannot explain the origins of humanity, so they develop an argument to challenge it.

Since evolution can’t explain everything, their answer is to fill in the gaps with God, who must, therefore, have created human life from scratch, not from monkeys, around 10,000 years ago

Where is the empirical evidence to support this conclusion? Oh, right. It’s in the bible. Can I get a hallelujuah?

The Tennessee law basically paves the way for high school science classes in the state to engage in religious indoctrination, despite the 1987 Supreme Court decision, in Edwards v. Aguillard, making it illegal to do so.

Listen, I’m all for teaching creationism to your children if that’s what you and your religion believe. Teach it in your home, at church, at Sunday school, or even as part of your private, parochial school curriculum.  But creationism as the origin of the human species is religion, not science, so please keep it out of the science curriculum in our public schools.

Men, women, and overhead bins

Do you remember that book from the early 90s written by relationship counselor John Gray titled Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus? Gray’s premise was that most common relationship problems between men and women are due to fundamental differences between the genders. Gray metaphorically suggested that men and women are from different planets (i.e., Mars and Venus) and that each gender is acclimated to its own planet’s society and customs, but not to those of the other.

Twenty years after Gray’s book hit the shelves, men and women are apparently still coming from very different places, if not different planets. There was a blurb in a recent issue of The Week, my must read weekly magazine, that caught my eye. The blurb was titled, “Why women seek conflict,” and opened with the sentence, “Men who say that their wives or girlfriends deliberately pick fights may be on to something.” Interesting.

The referenced study, “Eye of the Beholder,” was published in the Journal of Family Psychology. The study found that women “are most content when their partners are upset or agitated, because the intensity of their emotions shows they’re invested in the relationship.” Researchers discovered that “women tend to want to engage around conflict.”

One of the study’s authors, Massachusetts General Hospital psychologist Shiri Cohen, told NPR.org., “That’s because women feel most connected when they can tell that their partners are distressed—or when the men understand that the women are suffering.” Cohen continued, “Men, on the other hand, find conflict threatening, and feel best about their relationships when their partners are in a good mood.” Very interesting.

The bottom line, according to Cohen, is that “the more men and women try to be empathetic to their partner’s feelings, the happier they are.” Conclusion: women have to accept men when they’re blithely content, while men must be willing to deal with women’s occasional need to be unhappy. Yup, Mars and Venus.

Wait just a doggone minute, young lady. Um, make that 72 hours.

Speaking about being from another planet, Utah’s Republican governor, Gary Herbert, signed a law extending a required waiting period for women seeking an abortion to 72 hours. The governor feels that “the bill appropriately allows a woman who’s facing that decision to fully weigh her options and the implications of that decision.”

I wondered if there are any other elective medical procedures that require waiting periods. You know, like cosmetic plastic surgery or liposuction. What about hair transplants? Apparently not. Only for abortions. And 26 states currently have such waiting period laws, although most that do limit the waiting periods to “only” 24 hours.

But why impose a waiting period only upon women who are seeking to get an abortion? Why is there no law requiring a man who wants a vasectomy to wait one to three days after discussing it with his doctor before having the procedure? Why not require men to speak with contraception counselors three days before they can purchase condoms?

What I find truly fascinating is that Utah is imposing a three day waiting period before a woman can get an abortion, but there is no permit required to purchase a handgun and no waiting period whatsoever. In Utah, it’s apparently fine to require a woman who wants an abortion to wait three days so she can understand the implications of her decision, but anyone who wants to purchase a handgun can do so immediately, without considering the implications of such a purchase. God bless the NRA and the religious right.

Up in the air

According to the Federal Bureau of Transportation Statistics, cash-strapped U.S. airlines’ revenues from checked baggage fees were $3.4 billion in 2010. That’s billion with a B, as my barber, Bob, might say. Jim Corridore, an airline analyst with Standard & Poor’s, commented that, “If it weren’t for the fees, the airlines would most likely be losing money.” In fact, in 2010, the major airlines made a combined profit of $2.6 billion, less than the amount they collected in bag fees.

Why then, if the airlines are hauling in the big bucks with checked baggage fees, would they be spending what has to be a sizable chunk of change increasing overhead bin capacity? Well, apparently they want to make boarding smoother and reduce passenger dissatisfaction with having to pay for checked bags and having to push and shove their way to get their carry-on bags in the small capacity and limited availability of overhead bins.

I’ve spent days (okay, minutes) searching the internet trying to find out how much it will cost the airlines to increase the size of all of these overhead bins. I would think it’s not an insignificant amount of money. So instead of doing that, why not reduce demand for the larger overhead bins by simply eliminating the fees for at least the first checked bag?

For fliers that need to check two or more checked bags, make ‘em pay. But if the first bag flies free, won’t that significantly reduce the volume of bags passengers try to stuff into the overhead bins? And wouldn’t that, then, mitigate the need for the airlines to spend megabucks enlarging the overhead bins?

But what do I know? I’m just a guy who writes a blog that nobody reads.

God-given rights

In a previous posting, I discussed a column by Michael Reagan, son of Ronald Reagan, entitled “Cool It, America.” That post was all about apologies: giving them and accepting them.

But there was something else that caught my eye in Reagan’s column. He wrote, “It’s time we start acting more responsibly with our God-given rights.” By those “God-given rights,” Reagan was referring, of course, to freedom of speech, a right guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to all American citizens.

I was intrigued by Reagan’s use of the phrase “God-given rights.” I’m sure he was using language that religious people and/or those who believe in God could relate to. I am pragmatic enough to understand the broad appeal of the phrase “God-given rights,” since most Americans claim Christianity, in one form or another, as their religion and also express a belief in God. But I wondered why he couldn’t have used words such as “inherent,” “self-evident,” or “inalienable,” rather than “God-given” to describe these rights.

The truth is that I see references to “God-given rights” all that time, so Reagan’s phrasing is not at all unusual. As an atheist, though, I am a little bothered by the implication that rights bestowed upon American citizens by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights are “God-given,” especially since the word “God” appears nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Some might argue that the rights the Founding Fathers bestowed upon us when they wrote the Constitution, which is the very foundation of our republic, are God-given because their actions were guided by the hand of God. Perhaps our infallible Founding Fathers mistakenly forgot to give God credit for their work. D’oh!

I don’t believe in the existence of an all-knowing, supernatural being that is looking down from heaven above, watching over each and every one of us here in America. But that’s me. My philosophy is simple: whatever floats your boat. If believing in a supreme being gives one comfort and solace and helps people get through their trials and tribulations, joys and tragedies, highs and lows, and the activities of daily living, good for them...and for their superstitions.

God is on OUR side...and only our side

What is a little hard for me to swallow, though, is the somewhat arrogant notion held by many Americans that the “Almighty” is nationalistic enough to have granted us...Americans...these “God-given rights” while withholding many of them from “his children” in countless other countries.

Americans are convinced that God is on our side, plain and simple. Yet Christianity teaches that all humans are God’s children, right? So if these rights that Reagan speaks of are “God-given rights,” how come God didn’t give them equally to all of his children around the globe? Why does God pick and choose only certain people to give these “God-given rights” to? Why does he give some people more rights than others? Better rights than others?

Why did God grant us freedom of religion, but withheld that freedom from Jews in various nations at various times throughout history? What was God thinking when he allowed white Americans to enslave black Africans? Why did God bestow upon us freedom of speech and of the press, but he didn’t bestow it to the citizens of many other countries around the globe?

Why do we deserve the “God-given right” to a fair and speedy trial in front of a jury of our peers, but those who live in Islamic countries, for example, don’t enjoy that right? If it’s God-given, shouldn’t they, who are also his children, have that same right? Are we in America his favored children while those in other countries are his mistreated stepchildren?

If God guided the actions of our Founding Fathers, why did he guide only their actions? Why did God not also guide the actions of those who founded other countries? Why has God chosen to bless the lives of people living in America, while seemingly not bless the lives of people from other countries or regions?

I don’t know the answers to these questions. So, like everyone else, I made up answers to fit my particular mindset. And to me, the reason that this omnipotent God is so inconsistent in the way he treats his children is really quite simple. There is no omnipotent God.

I believe that man created God in man’s image in order to fill in the gaps in our knowledge and understanding of our very existence, of why and how it all began. I believe that God is a means by which we try to make some sense out of the things that we find incomprehensible and unknowable.

As this concept of an all knowing, all seeing God, an entity to be both revered and feared, evolved, it became a powerful lever useful to the High Priests and big Pooh-Bahs as a means to control and manipulate human behavior. So, of course, all of the various religious hierarchies embraced this “God-fearing” theme and vigorously promoted it to the gullible masses who longed for an explanation for why things are the way they are, no matter how inconceivable that explanation.

But hey, if people want to embrace that kind of mysticism in order to feel better and feel empowered, that’s fine by me.

Apparently, that is their God-given right.

Rick says the darndest things

Some of my fellow aging Boomers out there may remember a radio and TV personality by the name of Art Linkletter. Back in the mid-50s and 60s he hosted a TV show called Kids Say the Darndest Things. It was later reprised by Bill Cosby in the 80s. Linkletter would ask questions to a panel of young kids and the audience would be, in contemporary cyber-speak, ROLFing at the cute and funny way the kids would answer.

I’m reminded of Art Linkletter and that show I used to watch back in the day nearly every time I hear Rick Santorum speak. Let me elaborate.

There was never any question about my going to college. I am a first generation American. My parents were blue collar immigrants firmly entrenched in the lower rungs of the American middle class. Their dream for their only son was for him to get a college education, and they did everything they could, made every sacrifice possible, to ensure that their dream became a reality.

I appreciated what I felt to be both a significant struggle and a generous gesture on the part of my parents, even though their contributions fell well short of the total cost of my college education.

But now Rick Santorum has helped me to see the light and to recognize my parents for what they were: snobs. Rick has enabled me to realize that I am the product of indoctrination by “liberal college professors.”

Ah, so that’s why so many institutions of higher learning are referred to as “liberal arts colleges.” Now it all makes sense. Thank you, Rick, for providing me with this new perspective. I can clearly see that I was the innocent young victim of a subtle, yet insidious form of abuse inflicted upon me by my parents, two people I trusted and who claimed to be my benefactors.

Naive to the horrors that my snobby parents’ selfish, wicked dreams were about to impose upon me, I went off to college for my liberal indoctrination. Despite their sinister plans and their evil conspiracy of working long hours to earn enough money to fund at least part of my college costs, I still had to work part-time to help pay for my undergraduate education.

And just like Jim Jones’ cult followers at his Peoples Temple in Jonestown, Guyana, I obediently drank the liberal Kool-Aid that those malevolent, freethinking professors figuratively poured down my throat. Having miraculously come through that experience seemingly unscathed, I actually decided to go to night school after I graduated in order to earn a Master’s Degree while holding down a full-time job. Oh God, Rick, what kind of Satan’s work was at play?

Look what happened to me. I grew up to be a faithless, college-indoctrinated liberal and, dare I say it, an atheist! Yes, just as Santorum says happens to children of faith when they go off to college, I lost my faith sometime during (or possibly before or after) my period of liberal indoctrination.

Never mind that researchers have found that “young adults who never enrolled in college are presently the least religious young Americans.” Facts like that won’t sway a man who possesses the depth of faith of Rick Santorum. Despite evidence to the contrary, he will continue to make such unsubstantiated claims over and over again until all social conservatives in the country believe it to be so.

Rick’s no dummy. He knows that if you say something often enough, loud enough, and with passion, it must be true. You know, just like the Gospel. Besides, everyone knows that this research was conducted by liberal, college-educated snobs...probably atheists, as well...who were, themselves, unwittingly indoctrinated by their liberal college professors.

And then, to make matters worse, just as my parents had done to me, I passed this insidious liberalism to my offspring. Having become one of those college-educated, faith-abandoning snobs that Santorum has warned us about, I demanded that both of my innocent children go to college and get their undergraduate and graduate degrees. What kind of inhuman, socialistic, elitist snob had I turned into? What kind of phony theology had I exposed my kids to?

Ashamed, I thought about what my parents had put me through and what I had perpetrated upon my own innocent children. Just as JFK’s 1960 speech on religious freedom made Santorum almost throw up, the realization of what had happened to me and what I did to my own children made me nauseous. Or, maybe that sensation was due to the stomach flu I suffered through last week.

Yes, I’m reminded, nearly every time I hear the things Rick Santorum says, of Art Linkletter and that show I used to watch before my college indoctrination. Except rather than ROLFing, it makes me feel more like barfing.

Be fruitful and multiply

I have been biting my tongue, figuratively speaking, trying hard not to be drawn into this silliness that virtually every Republican politician and most members of the Catholic clergy are calling a “war on freedom of religion” and a violation of the First Amendment.

Well politics is politics and as Isaac Newton once noted in his third law of politics, “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” Okay, so this wasn’t Newton’s third law of politics, but his third law of motion. Politics, physics...what’s the difference?

I’ve been trying to understand the logic behind the Catholic Church’s intractable and contradictory positions on birth control and abortion. Of course, trying to apply logic to religious belief is a fool’s errand, as logic and religious belief are wholly (or holy?) incompatible.

Some might argue that because I’m not Catholic...in fact, not a member of any organized religion...I have no standing on this matter or any right to question the dogma of the Catholic Church. But given that this has become a political hot potato that could effect the outcome of the presidential election in November, as an American citizen, I believe I do have standing.

Back to the subject at hand, I’m having trouble comprehending why the Church considers both artificial birth control and abortion to be sins. Does the Church really equate the “sin” of preventing a pregnancy through the use of contraceptives with the “sin” of terminating a pregnancy through abortion? Apparently it does.

I did some research and I learned a few interesting things that I hadn’t previously known. For example, I didn’t realize that prior to 1965, contraception, even for married couples, was illegal in many states. But in 1965, in the case Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court found that a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraceptions violated the “right to marital privacy.” Seriously? 1965!

I also learned, according to religiousconsultation.org, that the contemporary “Catholic position” on contraception only dates back to a 1930 encyclical of Pope Pius XI. The Pope decided to tidy up what was described as a “mixed and jumbled” tradition by declaring that “contraception and sterilization were sins against nature and abortion was a sin against life.”

And how about this gem? Until the 19^th Century, the Church believed that sperm were “little homunculi, miniature people,” and for this reason male masturbation was sometimes called homicide. Honestly, I swear I am not making that up.

Perhaps that’s why God, so the bible says, took the life of Onan when he “wasted his seed on the ground” in order not to give offspring to his brother. Apparently that really pissed God off, and he smote the fifthy seed-waster. Hey, even for God, imposing the death penalty for masturbation seems a bit harsh.

But I still hadn’t figured out why the Catholic Church is so adamant about the seemingly incongruent positions banning both birth control and abortion. It seems to me that birth control would likely reduce the demand for abortions by preventing unplanned pregnancies in the first place.

I finally broke the code, though. It’s all about populating the planet with as many Catholics as possible. According to catholicsource.net, God said, “Behold, children are a gift of the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward.” In Genesis the bible states, “And God blessed them [Adam and Eve]; and God said to them, be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

So there it is. Fruitfulness in marriage is a commandment from God that is repeated numerous times in the bible. The use of contraceptives violates this commandment because it attempts to prevent couples from being fruitful and multiplying. In other words, the Catholic Church wants its members to be breeders for the Church. Perhaps that why they refer to their parishoners as “the flock.”

There is no argument from me that every religion has the right to its own set of beliefs, no matter how preposterous. But are the beliefs and practices of the Catholic Church today as applicable and relevant as they may have been when the bible, upon which those beliefs are based, was written centuries ago? And should the beliefs and convictions of one religion be imposed, in this case as restrictions to personal freedoms, on those who have a different set of beliefs?

Whether or not you support or oppose a woman’s right to choose, when it comes to birth control, there is simply no legitimate reason to oppose the use of contraceptives. The Catholic Church’s position on birth control is backward, regressive, and is clearly out of touch with the contemporary American needs of its followers. After all, according to the Guttmacher Institute, 98% of all sexually active Catholic women have used contraceptive methods banned by the Church.

I have a tough time comprehending how Republicans politicians object to government involvement when it comes to the economy and how they fight against imposing regulations over big buisness. Or how member of the clergy fight tooth and nail against any kind of government involvement in their religious practices. Yet when it comes to getting involved in and regulating the personal and private reproductive decisions of women, both Republicans and the clergy welcome government intervension.

It’s a true paradox, unless you happen to be a member of the Catholic clergy, a Republican politician, or an ultra-conservative pundit, in which case you embrace it.

This is totally absurd.

Seriously, Virginia?

When did Virginia become part of the Deep South?

I was raised in the Maryland suburbs of DC, and back then, Virginia was THE place for young adults to live and play. In an effort to further promote the state and boost tourism, Virginia launched its catchy and highly successful slogan, “Virginia is for Lovers.”

My home state countered with its own slogan, “Maryland is for Crabs,” which, while catchy, in hindsight might not have been the best way of promoting what one can catch when visiting that state.

But that was then. Today, a mere 40 years later, Virginia is anything but the place for lovers. In fact, the Republican-led Virginia House of Delegates is in the midst of enacting two legislative initiatives that are basically telling lovers, particularly fertile lovers, to keep out.

First, Virginia is poised to become the first state in the nation to grant personhood rights to fertilized eggs. This “personhood” law would criminalize the birth control pill, stem cell research, and perhaps even In Vitro Fertility (IVF) assistance for childless couples. And, of course, since the proposed legislation defines “personhood” as beginning at the moment of conception and gives legal rights to a human fertilized egg, it essentially equates abortion with murder, even in cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment.

During the debate, Republican delegate Todd Gilbert said, about a woman’s decision to have an abortion, “in the vast majority of these cases, these [abortions] are matters of lifestyle convenience.” Yeah, just like being gay is a lifestyle choice, right?

As if that’s not enough, the Virginia House also passed a rather Draconian piece of legislation that would require a woman who might seek a legal abortion in the state to submit to a “transvaginal ultrasound,” essentially a forced vaginal invasion. I’m told that this procedure is not only medically unnecessary, it is painful and humiliating. It is essentially being imposed on a woman against her will, like rape with a foreign object.

Further, according to an article in Slate, doctors in the Commonwealth will be required to certify whether or not the patient “availed herself of the opportunity” to view the ultrasound or listen to the fetal heartbeat. That certification would go into the woman’s medical records...whether she wants it there or not. So much for the legal definition of physician-patient privilege and the concept of confidentiality of patient personal health information.

Yet both of these Constitutionally questionable and personally invasive measures are likely to become law in a state where Republicans control both the House and Senate and where the governor, Bob McDonnell, is a socially conservative Catholic.

Interestingly, an amendment that would have required any man seeking Viagra to get a rectal exam did not make it into the law. Coming from a predominantly white male state legislature, that certainly is a shocker!

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. I think you just elected him into your House of Delegates.

Bad history

If you don’t like what actually happened in the past, the solution is simple. Rewrite history.

On this very site in May 2010 I posted something I titled The Texas Textbook Massacre. That posting was about how the very conservative Texas State Board of Education decided to alter the state’s social studies and history textbooks so that they would more appropriately promote the notion of the United States a Christian nation governed by Christian principles.

The changes imposed by the school board reconsidered certain historical events and personalities in order to better jibe with the views and values of the far right and Christian conservatives on the board.

For example, the somewhat revised version of history to be published in newly approved U.S. history textbooks suitable for Texas school children removed all but cursory mention of Thomas Jefferson. In the view of the Texas school board, Jefferson, that unholy, slave-screwing deist, was deemed to be an unfit example of an influential political philosopher.

Most egregious, though, was how the conservative majority on the school board proposed that the revised textbooks refer to the slave trade as the “Atlantic triangular trade.”

Fast forward to January 2012 and look at what is happening in Tennessee. The Tennessee Tea Party is proposing to eliminate references to slave ownership and other “mean and nasty habits” of our Founding Fathers from American history textbooks.

As Hal Rounds, the Tennessee Tea Party’s spokesman, said at a news conference, “an awful lot of made-up criticism about the founders intruding on the Indians or having slaves or being hypocrites in one way or another” needs to be corrected.

Never mind that George Washington and Benjamin Franklin owned slaves, that Thomas Jefferson fathered children with one of his slaves, or that John Adams had at least one slave working for him at the White House. Apparently, according to the Tennessee Tea Party, that is simply “made-up criticism.”

Yes, school children across our glorious, Christian nation should be taught that these virtuous and flawless men, our Founding Fathers, the framers of our Constitution, must only be remembered as paragons of infallibility.

Just look at how these wise men, a number of whom were, themselves, slave owners, avoided the contentious issue of slavery in the new country they were forming. They simply agreed to adopt a provision in the Constitution known as the Three-Fifths Compromise.

This provision counted slaves as three-fifths of a person for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives and for distribution of tax dollars. Well, all things considered, that was relatively good news for slaves. After all, Native Americans were not considered persons at all.

Let us not, my friends, allow actual historical facts to adversely affect the sensibilities of those fine young minds in Tennessee. After all, the purpose of modifying history textbooks in Tennessee is to ensure that “no portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership.”

Hey, I get it. Just because something actually occurred doesn’t necessarily mean that it actually happened. Or, as far as Tennessee Tea Partiers are concerned, that it actually mattered.

Send in the clowns

At the beginning of December there were eight contenders vying for the GOP nomination to run against President Obama in November’s election. Three weeks into the new year, the field had winnowed down to just four. And what a weird group of four it is.

Of those remaining, the least likely to gain the nomination is probably extreme Libertarian and perennial presidential candidate wannabe, Ron Paul. Congressman Paul has earned the nickname “Dr. No” because he says that he’d never support legislation that is not “expressly authorized by the Constitution.” He’s pro-life, anti-war, pro-guns, anti-labor, pro-lower taxes, anti-Fed, and pro-shrinking the government to the bare essentials. Some question whether Obama was born in the United States. I question whether Ron Paul was born on this planet.

The next least likely to win the nomination, in my humble opinion, is Rick Santorum, the extreme social conservative and vituperative [look it up] anti-gay candidate. He also proclaims to be God’s chosen candidate, and believes he is doing what God wants. Now that Bachmann, Cain, and Perry, God’s other chosen ones, are out of the race, Santorum is God’s last man standing.

Personally, I dismiss anyone who claims to know what God wants. First, God is a myth, a figment of man’s fertile imagination and insatiable need to find unknowable explanations to unanswerable questions. Second, for those who do believe in God’s existence, how can any mere human know what God wants?

And then there’s Newt Gingrich, the personification of sleaze. Remarkably, he has a legitimate shot at the nomination. Seriously, have you listened to this clown? Please, listen to some of the things he’s said, read his positions on matters of public policy. Remember when he recently said he would arrest activist federal judges and force them to appear before Congress? He also said that he would simply ignore Surpeme Court rulings he didn’t agree with. This guy is nuts!

And as the recent allegations from wife #2 about how he tried to persuade her to have an “open marriage” so that he could continue his relationship with his mistress prove, he’s also a slime ball. Gingrich is a first-class egomaniac who believes he’s smarter than everyone else. He may be...but he’s seriously misguided.

That leaves poor Mitt Romney. Romney is the poster boy for everything the GOP stands for. He’s a successful entrepreneur, a savvy businessman, a faithful and religious man, and he looks presidential. Yet most conservatives think he’s too moderate. Many evangelicals question whether he is even Christian, equating his Mormon religion to a cult. He also comes across stiff, detached, and unsympathetic. And he has a tendency to stick his foot in his mouth, like when he bragged, “I like being able to fire people....” Sure, that sound bite was taken out of context, but that’s politics in the twenty-first century.

Can’t you visualize President Obama as he ponders the upcoming election season? There he is, sitting at his desk in the oval office, his iPod on and the earbuds secure in each ear. He’s listing to Sinatra’s rendition of the Stephen Sondheim classic, Send in the Clowns.

The President has a big smile on his face.

Bah humbug!

It’s two days before Christmas and all through the house (condo) not a creature is stirring (except for the cat, Colbert). All that can be heard is that dreadful Michael Bublé Christmas album.

Yes, it’s Christmastime and that means it’s time for my annual Christmas grouse. And no, I’m not referring to the chicken-like bird.

The festive holiday seaon atmosphere [choose one: surrounds, ungulfs, suffocates] us all. Crowded stores, restaurants, and public places are elaborately decorated with wreaths and trees filled with ornaments and colorful lights. It’s beautiful.

People are doing all that they can to help our sputtering economy by logging on to retail websites and buying goodies in record numbers. They are braving the holiday crowds and venturing out to malls and shops to pick up gifts for friends and family. It’s generous.

The air is filled by inescapable, omnipresent Christmas music. It’s too much.

Sure, most people love Christmas music. I am not one of them. I remember when Christmas music on the radio, piped into stores and malls, and played in restaurants didn’t really start until immediately after Thanksgiving. That meant about four or five weeks of uninterrupted, interminable joy to the world.

Over the past few years, though, Halloween seems to have become the kick-off of the commercial Christmas season. Seriously, do we really need two full months of this constant reminder of Christmas?

And if my son doesn’t stop playing that goddam Michael Bublé Christmas album on the iPod speaker system in our small condo over and over again, I’m going to go ballistic! Enough already!

I am a Grinch

Okay, I admit it. I am a Grinch. Yes, I know that Christmas, the holiday that celebrates the birth of Christ, is an important and joyous holiday to Christians. I’m enough of a pragmatist to recognize that our nation, while not a “Christian Nation,” as some conservatives suggest, is a nation that is overwhelmingly Christian

And yet, year-after-year, there are those (e.g., everyone on Fox News) who insist that there is a “War on Christmas.”

Seriously, do most Christians really believe that small sliver of the American population comprised of atheists, agnostics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and other non-Christians have somehow stolen Christmas?

I look around and wonder how anyone can come to that conclusion. I hear continuous, unavoidable Christmas music; it’s virtually nonstop. I see Christmas shows and specials on TV, Christmas movies in theaters, Christmas musicals and plays on live stage.

Flyers and advertisements for Christmas sales add significant weight to the newspapers I stuff into my recycling bin each week. The bulk of TV commercials at this time of year are all about the Christmas gifts you absolutely must buy...like a Lexus adorned with a huge, red bow.

I see formerly vacant lots filled with Christmas trees and wreaths that are selling briskly. I see homes, condos, and apartments throughout the city decked out with colorful and blinking lights and fully adorned Christmas trees in the windows. I see nativity scenes on public squares and common areas around city and on town hall lawns throughout the area.

I see grown men wearing red suits, fake beards, and pillows stuffed under their belts, little kids sitting on their laps in stores and malls. At any other time of the year these men would be arrested.

But at Christmastime, there are long lines of parents, with their kids in tow, eager to put their little darlings onto the lap of some otherwise unemployable, probably drunk old man wearing a phony beard and dressed in a strange costume promising to bring them all kinds of gifts that their parents can’t really afford.

Can someone please explain to me how Christmas is being stolen?

Well, maybe the “Christmas spirit” has, in fact, been usurped by crass commercialism. Christmas has become less a religious holiday than a two-month long Washington’s Birthday Sale on steroids that drives people to extreme behaviors. Shoppers desperate for bargains are over-the-top competitive, pushing and shoving...even pepper spraying, tasing, or shooting...anyone who stands in the way of the doll, gadget, game, or toy they simply have to have.

Instead of the holidays bringing out the best in people, it seems that this season of good will and joy instead brings out the worst in many. Me included.

Bah humbug! Oh yeah. Happy Holidays.