I’ve never heard an invocation as inclusive as this one:

Well done!

And it’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.

Luckily, there are patient and eloquent people out there who can say nice things and make the point without resorting to the immature name-calling I am likely to do.

From NYC Mayor Bloomberg’s speech earlier this week: (Emphasis mine)

“Of all our precious freedoms, the most important may be the freedom to worship as we wish. And it is a freedom that, even here in a City that is rooted in Dutch tolerance, was hard-won over many years. In the mid-1650s, the small Jewish community living in Lower Manhattan petitioned Dutch Governor Peter Stuyvesant for the right to build a synagogue – and they were turned down.

“In 1657, when Stuyvesant also prohibited Quakers from holding meetings, a group of non-Quakers in Queens signed the Flushing Remonstrance, a petition in defense of the right of Quakers and others to freely practice their religion. It was perhaps the first formal, political petition for religious freedom in the American colonies – and the organizer was thrown in jail and then banished from New Amsterdam.

“In the 1700s, even as religious freedom took hold in America, Catholics in New York were effectively prohibited from practicing their religion – and priests could be arrested. Largely as a result, the first Catholic parish in New York City was not established until the 1780’s – St. Peter’s on Barclay Street, which still stands just one block north of the World Trade Center site and one block south of the proposed mosque and community center.

“This morning, the City’s Landmark Preservation Commission unanimously voted not to extend landmark status to the building on Park Place where the mosque and community center are planned. The decision was based solely on the fact that there was little architectural significance to the building. But with or without landmark designation, there is nothing in the law that would prevent the owners from opening a mosque within the existing building. The simple fact is this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship.

“The government has no right whatsoever to deny that right – and if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question – should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here. This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions, or favor one over another.

“The World Trade Center Site will forever hold a special place in our City, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves – and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans – if we said ‘no’ to a mosque in Lower Manhattan.

“Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11 and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values – and play into our enemies’ hands – if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists – and we should not stand for that.

“For that reason, I believe that this is an important test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetime – as important a test – and it is critically important that we get it right.

(via)

For once in my life, I agree 100% with Jon Stewart.

Point being, I make that effort. I don’t always succeed, and sometimes I do it a little begrudgingly, but I recognize the worth and value of those around me and offer what I can to hold them in the esteem worthy of a fellow human being.

The big thing in the news right now is the overturning of Proposition 8 in California – the law that took away the right for same-sex couples to marry in 2008 after they had already been given that right.

Yesterday, Federal Judge Vaughn Walker made a historic decision when he overturned Prop 8. (Emphasis mine)

The case was brought by two gay couples who said California’s Proposition 8, which passed in 2008 with 52 percent of the vote, discriminated against them by prohibiting same-sex marriage and relegating them to domestic partnerships. The judge easily dismissed the idea that discrimination is permissible if a majority of voters approve it; the referendum’s outcome was “irrelevant,” he said, quoting a 1943 case, because “fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote.”

He then dismantled, brick by crumbling brick, the weak case made by supporters of Proposition 8 and laid out the facts presented in testimony. The two witnesses called by the supporters (the state having bowed out of the case) had no credibility, he said, and presented no evidence that same-sex marriage harmed society or the institution of marriage.

Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in their ability to form successful marital unions and raise children, he said. Though procreation is not a necessary goal of marriage, children of same-sex couples will benefit from the stability provided by marriage, as will the state and society. Domestic partnerships confer a second-class status. The discrimination inherent in that second-class status is harmful to gay men and lesbians. These findings of fact will be highly significant as the case winds its way through years of appeals.

One of Judge Walker’s strongest points was that traditional notions of marriage can no longer be used to justify discrimination, just as gender roles in opposite-sex marriage have changed dramatically over the decades. All marriages are now unions of equals, he wrote, and there is no reason to restrict that equality to straight couples. The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage “exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage,” he wrote. “That time has passed.”

To justify the proposition’s inherent discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation, he wrote, there would have to be a compelling state interest in banning same-sex marriage. But no rational basis for discrimination was presented at the two-and-a-half-week trial in January, he said. The real reason for Proposition 8, he wrote, is a moral view “that there is something wrong with same-sex couples,” and that is not a permissible reason for legislation.

“Moral disapproval alone,” he wrote, in words that could someday help change history, “is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and women.”

I know there are many many people out there who believe that morality alone is very much a reasonable basis to deny rights. To those people I ask: Who decides what is and isn’t moral?

There are men and women in Utah who believe it is perfectly moral to have multiple wives. Should we allow that view of morality be the line that dictates our legal system?

What about the men and women who believe it is perfectly moral to engage in negotiated infidelity? Should that view of morality be the line that dictates our legal system and our rights?

Judge Walker is absolutely right: Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and women. (I would add to any men and women)

Being gay does not make someone less American or less of a human.

The Friendly Atheist posted a video today that I hadn’t seen before, but I’m so glad he did. It is a clip of Keith Olbermann from right after Prop 8 was voted in:

… With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?

With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate… this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness — this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness — share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

The full transcript is here.

How wonderful that the idiotic ballot measure was overturned yesterday.

How could you read the reactions to Judge Vaughn Walker‘s ruling and not be overjoyed?

You’d have to be heartless.

The song is called Keep the Change and would be clever, had that phrase not already been worn out since Obama first began campaigning.

Let me be clear on one thing before I take a look at the lyrics. I don’t fault him for using his voice to say what he wants. We all have the right to say and think what we want to – even when it’s inappropriate. My purpose here is to show how arrogantly ignorant the lyrics are – not to say the song shouldn’t have been recorded or played on the radio (funny thing though, I haven’t heard it on the mainstream country station here in the Triangle – I heard it on the very conservative small town station from a few towns away).

If you see me hold my hand over my heart
Before I start the pledge of allegiance
There’s a reason
It’s to honor those who died

I can’t really say anything negative about this part. It’s a great way to catch your attention for the song though – declaring how patriotic you are.

And if you see me close my eyes and bow my head
Before I break bread with my family
It ain’t a habit, it’s important
It’s my right

Yes. It is your right to do so. Just like it’s my right not to do so. For some reason, you never see the good God fearin’ man standing up for my right not to believe in God.

I work half the year for me
The other half for Uncle Sam
While he’s bailin’ out those sinkin’ ships
And drownin’ the little man

I watch the news and have to wonder
If this country’s goin’ crazy
Talkin’ ’bout how much they love it here
But how they want to rearrange it

Okay, I get it. You’re questioning why we want to change something we claim to love so much. But, maybe that’s why? Progress is inevitable. Change is inevitable. And those who are seeking change are trying to make things better. It doesn’t always work out like that, but there are definitely a lot of things about this country that *do* need changing.

I’m just your average Joe
And that makes me smart enough to know
There’s a bunch of us out here
That feel the same

Wanna keep our God, our freedom
A little money in the bank
Y’all can keep the change

No one is trying to take anything away from anyone. Ever. That’s the exact opposite of what the majority of people want. Okay let me rephrase – no one this song is directed at is trying to take anything away from anyone.

We want you to be able to keep your God. Just like we want you to leave us be and not force your God into our living rooms. The point of keeping church and state separate? It’s so that you can live and worship your way and I can live and not worship mine.

It’s that simple.

Now the fat cats on the hill acting so brilliant
Ain’t smart enough to notice
That we’re angry
And that America’s in trouble

If they don’t wise up and stop
Bustin’ out the blocks that were laid
As a foundation well our nation
Could wake up in a pile of rubble

I can only assume that he’s referring to the belief that this country is a Christian nation founded on the principles of the Bible. See above.

They say we’re making progress
But it’s a big old shame to me
Common sense ain’t near as common
As it used to be

Finally! He said something I agree with 100%!

The rest of the song is mostly repeating the chorus and other lyrics. To what end? Clearly his message is anti-Obama and anti anything that doesn’t involve faith.

I really wish that people would stop being so defensive long enough to see things objectively and realize that just because someone doesn’t believe in the same things it doesn’t mean that they want to oppress or subdue you and yours.

That’s a pile of bull poop.

NY Times Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman gets it:

Now, I don’t have the impression that unemployed Americans are spoiled; desperate seems more like it. One doubts, however, that any amount of evidence could change Ms. Angle’s view of the world — and there are, unfortunately, a lot of people in our political class just like her.

But there are also, one hopes, at least a few political players who are honestly misinformed about what unemployment benefits do — who believe, for example, that Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, was making sense when he declared that extending benefits would make unemployment worse, because “continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work.” So let’s talk about why that belief is dead wrong.

Do unemployment benefits reduce the incentive to seek work? Yes: workers receiving unemployment benefits aren’t quite as desperate as workers without benefits, and are likely to be slightly more choosy about accepting new jobs. The operative word here is “slightly”: recent economic research suggests that the effect of unemployment benefits on worker behavior is much weaker than was previously believed. Still, it’s a real effect when the economy is doing well.

But it’s an effect that is completely irrelevant to our current situation. When the economy is booming, and lack of sufficient willing workers is limiting growth, generous unemployment benefits may keep employment lower than it would have been otherwise. But as you may have noticed, right now the economy isn’t booming — again, there are five unemployed workers for every job opening. Cutting off benefits to the unemployed will make them even more desperate for work — but they can’t take jobs that aren’t there.

Wait: there’s more. One main reason there aren’t enough jobs right now is weak consumer demand. Helping the unemployed, by putting money in the pockets of people who badly need it, helps support consumer spending. That’s why the Congressional Budget Office rates aid to the unemployed as a highly cost-effective form of economic stimulus. And unlike, say, large infrastructure projects, aid to the unemployed creates jobs quickly — while allowing that aid to lapse, which is what is happening right now, is a recipe for even weaker job growth, not in the distant future but over the next few months.

But won’t extending unemployment benefits worsen the budget deficit? Yes, slightly — but as I and others have been arguing at length, penny-pinching in the midst of a severely depressed economy is no way to deal with our long-run budget problems. And penny-pinching at the expense of the unemployed is cruel as well as misguided.

It really bugs me when people say that those currently receiving unemployment benefits are abusing the system. Perhaps that is true when the economy is flourishing and jobs are abundant. But right now, today?

People receiving unemployment benefits are trying to survive.

Someone else who gets it is Eugene Robinson, op-ed columnist for WaPo:

The good news is that unemployment has fallen to “only” 9.5 percent. The bad news is that the jobless rate is down only because so many people have given up hope of finding work. Perversely, the jobless who aren’t actively looking for jobs are not counted as “unemployed.” Perhaps there should be a new category: “mired in existential despair.” If anyone in Washington wants to know why people in the hinterlands are angry, one simple answer is that our political leaders seem to be so calculating and unmoved about the parlous state of the economy.

…

The employment numbers aren’t just a monthly set of partisan talking points. They represent actual lives. They represent mortgages that might not be paid and college educations that have to be deferred; they tally mental health crises and broken marriages. Those sterile, emotionless figures speak of pain and anxiety. They mock our faith in the American dream.

Let me put it in terms that Washington understands: The party that begins to treat the unemployment crisis with the hair-on-fire urgency that it deserves is the party that will do well in November.

…

Republicans block an extension of unemployment benefits, rail about the deficit and complain that Democrats don’t understand that economic renewal will come when the private sector is unleashed. The problem is that since Republicans are in the minority, they have to work with the Democrats to get anything done. I suspect that their strategy — standing on the sidelines and yelling, “The Democrats are doing it all wrong!” — will not win as much favor from voters as the GOP hopes.

Democrats, on the other hand, do have the power to enact an agenda. But individual members of Congress act as if they are more concerned about their own electoral prospects than about bringing those unemployment numbers down. If a second economic stimulus is the answer, then that’s what Democrats should do. If the answer is something else, fine. But they should know that whether they call themselves progressives or Blue Dogs or whatever, voters see them as one party and will hold them accountable.

(via)

What’s happened this year is that Republicans are jumping at their chance to assert their political ideals – disguised as “balance.”

I have to agree with what Rep. Mike Villareal (San Antonio, D) said:

I am disturbed that a majority of the board decided their own political agendas were more important than the education of Texas children.

And what Board Member Mary Helen Berlanga had to say:

“They are going overboard, they are not experts, they are not historians,” she said. “They are rewriting history, not only of Texas but of the United States and the world.”

It seems pretty clear, based on statements made by David Bradley, that the focus of the vote was political, not educational.

But Republican board member David Bradley said the curriculum revision process has always been political but the ruling faction had changed since the last time social studies standards were adopted.

“We took our licks, we got outvoted,” he said referring to the debate 10 years earlier. “Now it’s 10-5 in the other direction … we’re an elected body, this is a political process. Outside that, go find yourself a benevolent dictator.”

I really don’t understand this need to be on top politically at the expense of a child’s education.

Some of the changes include:

Texas schoolchildren will be required to learn that the words “separation of church and state” aren’t in the Constitution and evaluate whether the United Nations undermines U.S. sovereignty under new social studies curriculum.

In final votes late Friday, conservatives on the State Board of Education strengthened requirements on teaching the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation’s Founding Fathers and required that the U.S. government be referred to as a “constitutional republic” rather than “democratic.”

I’m amused that some of the most ignorant things (I might as well go ahead and say it… stupid things) I’ve heard said in my lifetime are coming out of this controversy.

“I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state,” said David Bradley, a conservative from Beaumont who works in real estate. “I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.”

Try reading the first amendment and its clauses. Or better yet, listen to what your peers have to say:

Mavis B. Knight, a Democrat from Dallas, introduced an amendment requiring that students study the reasons “the founding fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring the government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion above all others.”

It was defeated on a party-line vote.

Am I the only one who sees the irony there? Ms. Knight, following the lead of the conservative members of the Board, removed the words “separation of church and state” from her amendment and was still defeated.

I’m flabbergasted!

Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”)

This just keeps getting better and better, doesn’t it? It’s like a trainwreck and you can’t look away.

What is happening in this country? First Arizona, now Texas. What’s next?