Church v. State

The separation of church and state is a delicate subject. The argument has gone on for some time. The basic history of the debate is this:

Founding Father support separation of church and state, meaning the state does not form its own church which everyone is required to attend, and nothing more.

Supreme Court is formed.

Supreme Court oversteps its bounds.

John Kerry is born.

Bill Clinton outlaws prayer in public school. Prayer may help children to live better lives. Nobody wants that.

Mitt Romney runs for President. Despite being the best candidate, he does not win because he is Mormon.

And there you have it.  Now, I want to focus on two sides to the argument - the misconceptions about it, and the needs for it.

The misconceptions:

1: Some people think separation of church and state means the state must have nothing to do with God.  Wrong.  The founding fathers said the Bill of Rights was written after the 10 commandments.  They repeatedly said, over and over, and the union would only succeed as long as we kept our trust in God.  America has always been a Christian country.  

If I were to go to Israel, or Iran, or any country in that region, and were to attend a soccer game, I would be expected to listen respectfully as they started the game with a prayer after their manner. Would this offend me to listen to their prayer? No. I would sit and listen respectfully.  If I were disrespectful, I would use that time to get my refreshments.  If I felt too lazy, I may even just sit there and work at that particularly stubborn bugger than had plagued me for some time. But there would be no reason to be offended that they were praying.

If I were going into a government building, and they had a stone plaque out front with an inspiring quote from the Koran, would I be offended? No. If it teaches good principles, then why should I care? It is not forcing me to all the sudden become Muslim.  The fact that somebody else prays does not brainwash me into believing what they believe. In fact, reading inspiring things from religions other than my own may even force me to see the good in ways of life different than my own, and may lead me to live a better life.

2: Separation of church and state is not even in the constitution.

Surprise.  It is the Supreme Court becoming legislative instead of judicial.

The Need

1: Separation of church and state, however, is necessary in the fact that you can not legislate religion.  Religious principles are guiding principles, they are deeply personal to everyone.  I do think they should stay that way.

The delicate balance is this:  You can't use religion to argue politics.  I cringe when I hear people say that if you don't support a certain policy, or if you don't vote a certain way, than God is going to destroy you and the nation.  In the scriptures God said that a nation is ready for destruction if the majority of the people choose wickedness over righteousness.  That's it. 

The other delicate balance is that you can't legislate religion, but you have to let it guide you.  If you believe something is important to the nation, but don't do anything about it, it's not only wrong, but weak.  I actually applaud the democratic party for changing the official stance of the party on abortion - they now say that the goal is to educate people about the dangers, emotional and physical, of abortion, and to reduce the number of abortions.  I think that is awesome.  Most democrats are not the crazy feminists that think women should do what they want, when they want.  Most think abortion is wrong, but that you can't legislate against people's choices.  So what do you do?  You teach against it, discourage it, and make it extremely difficult to do.  I think the Democratic party needs to do more to discourage abortion, but it's a step in the right direction.

I am strongly against gay marriage.  It originates religiously, but I also think it hurts countries where it is implemented (Denmark, Norway and Sweden, for example.  It was instituted there in the early 1990's - now the vast majority of children are born out of wedlock.  They are finding similar tendencies towards crime and low self-esteem in those children.  Marriage rates have dropped and divorce has skyrocketed.  But that's a discussion for another day).  I do not think that same-sex marriage should be legal.  Do I think they should have rights?  Absolutely.  They should visit each other in the hospital, be legal heirs, etc.  We should tolerate their decisions, but draw the line at support.  Vocal does not necessarily mean right.

You can't legislate that something is sin.  But you can legislate things to protect the nation.  Those things may also be religious.  That is where most people get their values and ideals, and it will always be that way.  And it will be to our advantage if we will always remain a nation "under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

It has Begun

People have finally opened their eyes.  It's been a long time that Barack Obama has been able to do what he wants.  All he has to do afterwards is give a speech about hope and love and change, and everyone suddenly agrees with trillions of dollars of aimless spending.  Well, a reporter - an actual reporter from the real live news media - called him on it.  An article in the San Francisco Chronicle, posted below, said Obama's administration is embarrassing America.  Some highlights:

- The article highlights President Obama's recent trip to Britian, where the British Prime Minister gave Obama a pen holder made out of wood from the ship that helped stamp out the slave trade.  Obama gave him 25 music videos.  Luckily, one of them was OK Go.

- I think it mentions in there somewhere that Obama likes to kill furry woodland animals. 

- Hillary Clinton told European Union leaders that she agreed to stay married to Bill because of a pact they had made... something to do with goat's blood and Satan.

- President Obama walked an old woman halfway across the street.

- The woodland animals organized the masses and marched on the White House, revolting against President Obama's senseless killings.  In a strange twist of fate, Nancy Pelosi was sighted at the head of the march.  She is fourth in line to the President... if something were to happen... mad chipmunk feeding frenzy... the possibilities are endless.

- Barack Obama both lost and found his mojo.

- Harry Reid tried to force Democratic senators to sign the stimulus bill in their blood.

- Rahm Emanuel placed a bulk order for dead fish.

- Obama sat down to meet with the woodland coalition to negotiate peace.  The ending results are still unclear, but sources close to the President say it involved his life in exchange for North Dakota.  Both sides consider themselves the winners in that deal.

Those are the basic highlights.  You can read the whole article here.  (This link is to a reprint in the Examiner, the original appeared in the Chronicle.)  Details, per se, are not so important. The most important thing is the honesty of the press.  And also, the safety of the woodland animals.  I'm a big supporter of Bambi.

Say What??

Good news everyone:

President Obama announced today that, as part of the "most transparent Presidency", he is going to come down hard on earmarks.  (For those of you who don't know what earmarks are, it is money given to special interest groups that has no Congressional oversight after it is given to see how it is spent.  Basically, 80% of Obama's stimulus package.)  

This is good news for America.  Luckily for Obama, his time for cutting down on earmarks came after he signed $700 billion of them into stimulus law, not to mention the $410 billion budget that he needed to last him until December.  (For further information on the "stimulus bill", go here.  It is in parentheses because it is not stimulating the economy... only stimulating the Democrats.)

So, well done Barack.  You've managed to pull the wool over America's eyes, recklessly spend money like it's going out of style, and then you have the gall to come out and say that it's time to crack down.  This is almost as bad as Bill Clinton speaking on personal morality.  Way worse than the Pharisees praying in the streets and stealing in private.

Incredible.

Frustrated

Yesterday Barack Obama signed his stimulus package into law. It will likely be one of the characterizing decisions of his Presidency, which means he risked a lot on it.
I'm going to be frank for a minute. Watching the inauguration, I was glad it wasn't John McCain up there. I realized how much our country needed somebody else, and Barack Obama really seemed like he wanted to make a good difference in the country. I believed he would. I even think that, for the most part, he has made good decisions so far as our President.

This stimulus bill, however, is ridiculous. My brother-in-law, who campaigned heavily for Obama and still strongly supports him, characterized the stimulus bill as follows: "Let's be honest, this stimulus bill is just a wish list of the things the Democrats have been wanting to do for a long time." That's exactly what it is - it is Barack Obama paying off all the corporate sponsors, the lobbyists, the special interest groups, environmentalists, etc. for all their support in getting him elected. The part that really disappoints me is that Barack Obama has promised the American people, on multiple occasions, that there are no earmarks (spending that is outside congressional control once approved), pet projects, or unnecessary spending in his bill. $187 billion of that bill is necessary - the rest of it is just that, pet projects, earmarks, and unnecessary spending. I am disappointed that Obama could lie so blatantly to the American public.

I have to admit, I'm frustrated. That is one of my frustrations. My other frustrations:

1: What is wrong with our media?

I have two issues with the media:
Last week there were elections in Iraq. Surprisingly, the news gave very little time to covering the elections. The reason why - the elections went perfectly. Iraq had an 85% turnout for the elections. There were no big security problems, and the U.S. wasn't involved in keeping or enforcing peace for the elections hardly at all. Democracy is working in Iraq. The people are getting involved and making decisions about their country.

Where is the media on this?

This is another classic example of the failure of our news sources today. Besides the fact that they have been biased, they are not being honest. You can bet if the elections went bad, or if there was a suicide bomber at a voting location, or anything like that - the media would have been all over it. But since it went well, since it tends to vindicate rather than invalidate the war in Iraq - and maybe because it hints at some foresight on George W. Bush's part - there was no mention of it. CNN didn't even put a story about it on their website. All across the world people read about it, and the only places I could find information on it was the BBC - apparently CNN thought it was more prudent to report how the lady that got a face transplant can smell now.

I guess even the media knew they couldn't try to give Obama credit for democracy in Iraq already, so instead of pointing out that things are already going well when he got in, they'll wait a year to point out how good everything is, and then credit Barack Obama for it. President Barack Obama's reaction to these remarkable elections was a statement noting that they "should continue the process of Iraqis taking responsibility for their future." As one reporter put it, it "was shockingly detached and ungenerous." (For a great article on the failure of the news media to report on this, go here. It is a fantastic read.)

My other frustration is the lack of scrutiny of Barack Obama. It almost happened this time - they almost called Obama for what the stimulus really is. Once it got close to that point, however, the news switched from reporting on the gross spending to reporting on how the Republicans refuse to work with both sides. So close, media, yet still so far.

2: How does Barack Obama get off claiming to be bipartisan?

I know that conservatives are not bipartisan - but at least they don't claim to be. Barack Obama is as biased and critical of his political opposites as anyone else - yet he is hailed as a change to the current political system, above the bickering of old politics. Wrong. He is not only guilty of the crime, but of the hypocrisy of speaking out against it.

In his book The Audacity of Hope, for example, Obama says (and I paraphrase), "We liberals need to realize that conservatives cling to their guns like we liberals cling to our library books."

Excuse me?

So, basically, Mr. Obama, you are saying that all conservatives are a bunch of old town hicks in overalls who chew on wheat and carry the dead 'possums they just shot, while the liberals are a group of elite intellectuals, all of whom pass their time in their studies, perusing the finer points of Aristotle. This would be like Sean Hannity (who I do not agree with) saying, "We conservatives cling to our happy family values like you liberals cling to your baby killing." A fair and balanced representation, right?

3: In regards to bipartisanship, the media has jumped on board with Harry Reid in criticizing the Republicans for not being bipartisan and working with the Democrats on the bill.

For those of you who don't know the process of this bill, it was something like this:
Republicans were not allowed to contribute to the writing of the bill - Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and their cronies got together and drafted the bill. Then they asked the Republicans to look it over and give suggestions to changes. Those suggestions were then ignored. Then Barack Obama got up at a Democratic retreat and gave a rousing speech ripping on the Republicans and ridiculing their ideas.

Everyone got back from the retreat and told the Republicans to vote for the bill. Really? They weren't told to work with both sides - they were told not to think, to get on board and just agree.

That's not bipartisanship. That's the same line the gay activists try to use: Either agree or you are close minded. The Democrats showed how willing they are to work across the aisle, yet the media praised them for their "efforts" to work with the "close-minded" Republicans.

On that same note, Harry Reid criticized House Republicans because not a single one voted for the stimulus bill. My question is: How is that any different than not a single Democrat voting against it? If Republicans are dumb for all voting against it, what does that say about the Democrats who all blindly voted in favor of it?

4: Obama's transparency on the bill.

I don't even know what to say about this. Obama wanted to have the most transparent Presidency. They put up their website, recovery.gov, to show how the money was spent. The problem is, the American public was promised that we would have 48 hours to look over the bill. Then, it was finished 11 hours before it was voted on. Worse than not letting the American public read it - there is not a single Senate member or House member who read that bill. Not a single one. It is over a thousand pages long. Nobody that voted for that bill even knew what was in it. They voted along party lines, doing exactly what they were told, and who knows now how much ridiculous spending was just laid on the American public's back 10 years from now. The worst part is, by then Barack Obama will be out of office, and the next President, most likely Republican, will be blamed for the failure. It is the housing crisis all over again. Democrats are making stupid decisions that are momentary fixes that cause worse problems a decade later, at which point Republicans are then blamed for it.

I do not think that Republicans are perfect in this situation or any. I find myself disagreeing with their methods often. But I don't think it profitable to the country or to any of its citizens that one party have so much control, and no media scrutiny. It is almost getting to the point when anyone that speaks out against Obama is characterized as a foolish extremist, listened to only to laugh at their "crazy ideas" and then dismissed just as easily.

So I'm frustrated, and a little disappointed. I just hope this does not set the tone for the next 4 (8) years.

A Voice of Warning

As is characteristic, Dick Cheney warned last week of certain attacks that would result from Obama’s naivete in international relations. He said that if Obama didn’t start taking things seriously, we could expect nuclear or chemical attacks on Americans soon. Naturally, Cheney meant attacks from Middle Eastern terrorist organizations.

There is a much more immediate threat.

In the frozen wastelands to the North, Canada lies quiet… a little too quiet. They have lulled us into a sense of security with their peacefulness and their cheap prescription drugs. There are no fences to keep out the Canadians… they’re everywhere. And the worst part is they look just like us. There could be one next to you right now. They have infiltrated society at high levels. The only way to find them is for them to say “About” or “Out”. Then you know what they are. Our best option as a country right now is to seduce anyone you think may be Canadian - when they ask you "oot", they are caught. Then you know… they are either Canadian, or Sarah Palin.

You can’t say you weren’t warned.

Stimulus This

For a long time, Democrats accused Republicans of using scare tactics to win votes. In looking back at some things that were said during the campaigns, I can agree with that. There were Republicans who hinted that if Obama were elected, we could expect to have a terrorist attack soon thereafter. I don't agree with those tactics at all - in fact, I think using fear to garner support is characteristic of the support you will get - those stupid enough to be scared by it.

Oh, how the tables have turned.


Nancy Pelosi is the Democrat's scare tactic. Besides the fact that she has fangs, and eats little children, she has commented on President Obama's stimulus package multiple times, saying - and I quote:
"If we do not pass this economic recovery package, 500 million Americans will lose their jobs each month. I don't think we can go fast enough."

In case you didn't catch the irony there - according to the US government, there are about 306 million Americans total.

What we are saying here, people, is that if you do not support the President's stimulus package, and pass it right now, EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN will lose multiple jobs every month. Every man, woman and child, from the baby born last week to the Alzheimer's patient of 98 will lose multiple jobs - every month. Now quick, ACT! Without thinking! The jobs of every American plus one are on the line!

Now there could be benefits to this massive job loss. I could soon be in the NBA... I figure by July they'll have gone through enough people to get to me. Or don't be surprised if you go in for dental work, and you see me smiling through the blue face mask. Just because my hands shake doesn't mean I don't know what I'm doing.

And to all you out there who don't think that the media is biased - imagine what would have happened if Sarah Palin had said this. It would be an uproar.

The thing that kills me is it wasn't just once. She said it once in a Mike Wallace interview - and he corrected her. Since then she's said it twice more on the Senate floor. Mongering the fear.

If we're to push through legislation, Nanci, let's do so honestly. And let's try to follow your own advice - no scare tactics. If I hadn't already banned Stephanie Meyer this week, it would be you. You live to see another day, Senator.

Banned

This is straying a little ways off from my usual political discussion, but common decency moved me to write.

Now, in high school, I wrote for our school newspaper, the Bingham Prospector. In each of my articles I would try to write something provocative to incite people to think and, if I was lucky, to write angry letters to the teacher in charge of the newspaper.
Our paper had a few features that appeared in every issue, two of which were "Band of the Month" (which highlighted a new band that people should listen to), and "Banned of the Month" (which highlighted an untalented and unskilled band, usually whining about how they hate their fathers, and somehow get people to listen to them). I wrote "Banned of the Month" each month. Prime examples of bands that were banned: Simple Plan, Linkin Park, Dashboard Confessional, Marilyn Manson, Snoop Dogg, Lil' Bow Wow, Good Charlotte, etc. (Listening to these bands is still a bad idea, and many times may cause severe bleeding from the ears. I know this because I experimented with headphones on my sister's cat... don't tell PETA.)
Anyway, recent events on the world scene have compelled me to reach forth my quill once more to ban untalented and unskilled artists - so this Millenium's Ultimate and Eternal Banned of Forever - Stephanie Meyer and the Twilight series.


Now, I know that many of you may have been tricked into reading these books. Repentance is always available to you.

To be fair in my assessment of the books, I have not read them all. I tried to read through the first book. I am somewhat of a nerd, I love Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, so I figured that a novel of this sort, that was that popular, might be worth a read.

It made me cry. Nightmares of talented writers of the past stabbing me to death with feather quills for having betrayed my literary integrity haunted me for several weeks. There were very few pages in that book I could finish without laughing at loud at either a) the terrible writing b) the complete absence of any hint of a plot besides Edward's beauty and nasty Bella's lust for him, or c) the total void of any writing talent whatsoever. The book is ridiculous.

So now, I don't understand the fascination with the books. I don't understand what is driving people to start waiting at 11a.m. for the movie that night. I don't know why this lady is making money off her writing. It is basically just a romance novel that doesn't get quite as nasty as most do, until Book 4.

On her website, Stephanie Meyers talks about her publishing process, and all the rejections she got from publishers who missed out on the money but kept their souls. She also says some things about the story that I found particularly enjoyable:
1) She said Bella is modeled after her life, and that is why all the boys in the High School are in love with her even though she is only average looking. I quote, "[In college] I was... like, an eight. I had dates every weekend with lots of really pretty and intelligent boys." The humility is stunning. I smell pulitzer.
2) Stephanie Meyers listens to Linkin Park, Weezer and All American Rejects while she writes. Of course she does.
3) In talking about her family, Meyers said,
"I filled the "Jan Brady" spot in my family—the second of three girls. Unlike the Brady's, none of my three brothers are steps, and all of them are younger than all the girls. My big sister was, however, very similar to Marcia (only instead of being self-absorbed and vain, she was sweet and shy, which made her all the more perfect—Emily, Emily, Emily!!), and we did have a dog named after a non-canine animal (Eagle, in this case). We never had a maid, so my mom is clearly superior to Florence Henderson's character, and also has a better singing voice."
So... really the only similarities you have with the Brady Bunch is that you both have male and female members of the family? Following this logic, your family is eerily similar to the Ozbournes... fitting.
4) She actually used the word "fantabulous". 7th grade girls everywhere are wondering what is wrong with that.
5) She admits she is in love with the vampire. Everyone pretty much knew this anyway. The actor who played Edward said, "When I read it, it seemed like (grimace) I was convinced that ... Stephenie was ... convinced that she was Bella, and uh, and you, it wasn't, it was like it was a book that wasn't supposed to be published, like reading her ... her sort of sexual fantasy about some -- especially when she says that it was based on a dream, and it's like, "Oh, then I had a dream about this really sexy guy" and she just writes this book about it, and there's some things about Edward that are just so specific that it's like, I was just convinced that, that this woman is mad, she's completely mad, and she's in love with her own fictional creation and I -- sometimes you, like, feel uncomfortable reading this thing, and I think a lot of people feel the same way, that it's kind of voyeuristic, ah, and it creates this sick pleasure in a lot of ways."
Thank you.
6) There is a character named Marcus. Edward's explanation of him: "Marcus sees relationships. He's surprised by the intensity of ours." What? That's his power?? That's the worst X-Men/Heroes/Superhero power ever. On my list of superpowers I would like to have, it is dead last, right behind the power to see someone's Scrabble-playing ability, the power to sprout 2-inch butterfly wings at will, and the power of extended bladder control. It's like Stephanie Meyers realized halfway through the series that she hadn't established any reason for a relationship between Bella and Edward besides hormones - no confidence or companionship - so to legitimize it, she gave some random person the power to see relationships. Predictably, theirs was intense. I think the true scope of their relationship and the series as a whole would be measured by the vampire with the power to see IQ's below "vegetable" level.
7) She actually dedicated her last book to the band Muse. The music industry still won't let them hear the end of it. Good Charlotte breathed a collective sigh of relief.

For those still interested, here is the Twilight series, summed up for the casual reader (This was originally written by someone else, and embellished by me):

"Okay, so. Emoteen Bella Swan moves to a tiny little depressing rainy town and won't shut up about it. There she meets a mysterious boy who turns out to be a 100+ year-old vampire who literally sparkles "like diamonds" in direct sunlight and reads minds (but not hers), and after three hundred pages of Bella wondering why he's so mean to her and why he's so weird and why he's not being mean to her anymore and what his deal is and if he likes her and if he actually loves her and how much he loves her and how he could possibly love as someone as plain and boring and clumsy as she is and if his vampire family will like her - a plot almost shows up, but it doesn't last very long. And then they go to prom. In the second book, Edward the sparkling vampire leaves Bella for her own good, and she spends most of the book trying to kill herself with motorcycles and cliff-diving. Sort of. And then her best friend falls in love with her and turns out to be a werewolf, but Bella runs away to save Edward from committing suicide by public sparkling in Italy. In the third book, Jacob the best friend/boyfriend wannabe/werewolf turns into a total [choose-your-own-4-letter-word] trying to force himself on Bella, and a vampire with a grudge from the first book is trying to kill her, but most importantly, Bella and Edward argue about whether they should have sex, get married, and/or vampirize Bella, and in what order. In the last book they do all of these, in this order: Married, Sex, Pregnant, Demon baby has to eat its way out of Bella to be born, vampirized to save her from the demon-baby-eating, and at long last, in chapter 28 of the last book - a real plot finally arrives. It's not a good one."
The best part is - none of that is made up.

So, congratulations, Stephanie Meyers - in addition to being "USA Today's Most Promising Author to be Stabbed to Death by Quills of 2008", and the prestigious "J.K. Rowling has more talent in her toenail clippings than I have mustered in all 4 500-page books Award", you are now officially: Banned.