On Broken Clocks and Right Wing Bloggers Thursday, Mar 29 2007 

Yesterday, a blog post about the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case from a certain right wing blogger came under my radar. Of course, I expected the post to say that this was just liberals advocating smoking pot, because that’s what all liberals do, and the schools have a right to censor students outside school; you know, typical authoritarian conservative diatribe.

I was wrong.

As the saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day. In fact, the post is, I daresay, overflowing with sensible ideas, something quite rare from “conservative” bloggers. This guy, Greg, argues that Tinker vs. Des Moines must not be overturned, in direct opposition to this opinion piece published in the Wall Street Journal.

I’m sorry, but Daniel Henninger [author of the opinion piece] has this one completely wrong here. If one fundamental mission of public education is to teach young people the importance of American political values and the freedoms that are part of our representative democracy, then it is essential that Tinker not be overturned, but instead be reinforced. If it is not, our public school would become no different from the old Soviet Union, which had a Constitution guaranteeing expansive individual liberties which were systematically denied to the inhabitants thereof.

I often feel that the term “communist” is thrown around amongst conservatives to ridicule anyone they don’t like (a fad that made sense during the Cold War, not so much anymore). But here, the comparison between the way public schools would be if Tinker were overturned and Soviet Russia could not be more accurate (or timely).

He further adds:

Can young people learn freedom by being taught lessons in oppression and suppression of their fundamental civil liberties?

I fully agree. I feel that Public schools are bastions of hypocrisy these days by not practicing what they preach.

Now if only conservatives were this sensible all the time…


Obama 2008 Wednesday, Feb 14 2007 

This is just pure speculation, but I think the first person I ever vote for in an American Presidential Election could very well be Barack Obama.

I mean, not only is he not a republican or Hilary Clinton, I think he can be a real uniter. He seems to respect the conservative point of view. I have a good feeling about him, but the election is a good 21 months away. A lot can happen in that time…

Only in San Francisco Sunday, Jan 7 2007 

I don’t know if it’s still there, but a couple weeks ago there was a Gay.com Billboard (“Are you?”) on one side of the Bay Bridge on-ramp, and a billboard congratulating Nancy Pelosi on the other.*

I wonder how many conservatives’ heads burst into flames upon seeing that.

*Update: The billboard is no longer there.

Vote No on 85 Saturday, Oct 14 2006 

If you live in the state of California, this is for you: Vote No on 85! That way, we can provide real safety for teens.

Unless you want to encourage back-alley abortions, then vote No on 85. If you’re one of those silly people who will vote ‘yes’ because of your religion, I highly recommend you visit this page. You’ll thank me later.

That is all. Now back to your regularly scheduled blogging.

Boy Am I Dizzy! Thursday, Aug 31 2006 

…From all the spin Agape press is putting on this, about the Bill to prevent discrimination against sexual orientation in California.

To review, class:

  • Pro-family = anti-gay
  • Religious expression = being able to discriminate if you want

This paragraph tops it off (I think; I stopped reading after it):

In signing SB 1441 into law, the governor has “trampled religious freedom to satisfy hyperactive sexual activists,” Thomasson contends. He says Schwarzenegger apparently “has two faces. He speaks at churches and says he believes in religious freedom and family values, yet he’s stabbing pro-family Californians in the back.”

Putting the ‘Fun’ back in ‘Fundamentalist’ Sunday, May 28 2006 

Apparently Fundamentalists can be funny. I’m staying away from this subject for now, but I think if the Dixie Chicks had said “We support the troops and our president, and by the way screw the ACLU and atheists” Conservatives would be singing paeans to them.

By the way, fuck you Babe Ruth, and fuck the Yankees. Barry Bonds, an SF player, is now #2 on the all time Home Run list. Hey, I can’t name my blog after a certain word and not be that word at least once (see the About page for what I’m talking about).

DaveScot on Roe Vs. Wade Thursday, Feb 23 2006 

This is just too good. I’ll review in-depth later, but for now I’ll just link it.

Shame Tuesday, Jan 24 2006 

I found a new blog whilst doing my duty as a citizen of the blogosphere by voting in the Bloggies, when I came across a blog entitled “The Political Teen“. Just a read a few of the entries on the front page.

One has to wonder if the writer (purportedly a teen) is angry or just stupid (possibly both). If he’s angry, I can dig that; perhaps he’s been raised in babyjesusland Alabama and has discovered that troublesome rest of the world. If not, then I belong to possibly the stupidest generation of people in the modern world. People born between 1987 and 1992 in America. I was born in San Francisco in 1990.

Is it any wonder I’m ashamed to say I was born in this country? Why do you think I use spellings like “whilst”, “favourite” and “colour”?

Call me anti-american all you want. I enjoy it. Know why? Because I am.

In conclusion Mr. Political Teen can shove a sock down his throat if he thinks people who don’t support the troops should have their asses kicked, or if that saying something as trivial as “I think we should get out [of Iraq] now” constitutes “liberal bias”.

The Problem with Americans Thursday, Dec 22 2005 

In case you needed proof that Intelligent Design truly is creationist pseudo-science that has no scientific merit and is totally based in religion, I invite you to read this post on Uncommon Descent:

But there was no jury with Dover — only a single biased judge. This trial therefore wasn’t about ID. It was about what one judge thinks about ID. The success of ID has never depended on its success in the courtroom but always on the success of its scientific research. And it remains so.

I predict this decision will amount to very little in the long run. Why? Because ID is true. And in God’s world truth always wins out in the end. [Source]

(Emphasis Mine). Now tell me, does that sound like someone whose religious views in no way influence their scientific views? Right now is the eschaton of Intelligent Design, just like the late 1980s were for “Creation Science”.

Now I’ll admit that I read blogs that like because there is something deeply addicting about it. That is why I read blogs like The Blue Site and watch the 700 Club. It’s addicting. The aforementioned link goes to a site by some guy in Indiana who looks suprisingly Indian. He’s a typical conservative Christian creationist (the 3 C’s); the kind of guy who hates Michael Newdow and Evolution and all those evil secularist thingies; who even thinks that police should shoot every criminal in a car chase (read the “Rants” and “Essays” part of his site).

In short, an extremist. An example of what is wrong with Americans. They’re unwilling to admit that they might be wrong; unwilling to say, “Gee, maybe using a secular government to force schoolchildren to pray to the Christian God is wrong”, or “maybe evolutionary theory isn’t a secularist lie, seeing as how even Pope John-a Paul 2 gave it props”. They certainly won’t consider “Maybe Hitler was was so hellbent against Jews because he was taught that the Jews killed his Lord”.

People don’t need “open” minds. They need “free” minds. Free-thinking Minds.

Making a case for Church/State Separation Tuesday, Oct 11 2005 

How often have you heard arguments from religious (ie, Christian) wackos that “‘Seperation of Church and State’ appears nowhere in the constitution” or “The Founding Fathers were Christian men who didn’t value church state separation”? It’s time to give these morons an answer and way of refuting these ridiculous arguments.

Now, the first argument is correct; however, neither “freedom of religion” or “right to have guns” appear anywhere either. Stop being so literal! Let’s review the First Amendment, shall we?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That sounds pretty clear to me. The Founding Fathers understood the value of keeping religion and government separate. That’s why it’s the very first section of the very first amendment!

Besides, even if it wasn’t in the constitution, mixing church and state is a ridiculous idea anyway! To quote someone’s signature from The Daily Kos, “The last time we mixed politics and religion people got burned at the stake”. How very true.

Next Page »