Politics

Great quotes about marriage equality

by

I had planned to write something about Obama’s announcement regarding his support for marriage equality (which was long overdue, I think), but decided to just post a couple quotes I found in a discussion thread started by Phil Plait.

From Steve Keller:

"Language and culture" do not define marriage or its purpose. The laws put in place that provide the legal benefits and responsibility of marriage do. Being denied those benefits and responsibilities because someone else says you don’t deserve them – well, that right there is the very definition of a civil rights violation.

From Owen Roberts:

It is a VERY simple issue. You either believe in human rights or you don’t. i.e. You believe that the same rights apply to ALL humans, or you believe that some are more deserving than others.

I (heart) Jon Stewart

by

Jon Stewart addresses the birth control mandate and the oppositions claims of “religious persecution” and “wars” on religion.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
The Vagina Ideologues – Sean Hannity’s Holy Sausage Fest
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

I agree with Bachmann. Oh… nevermind.

by

In yesterday’s Republican debate, Michele Bachmann made an uncharacteristically lucid comment regarding Newt Gingrich’s claim that “I did no lobbying of any kind for any organization.” (Freddie and Fannie)

Said Bachmann…

You don’t need to be within the technical definition of being a lobbyist to still be influence-peddling.

Gingrich comes off as very Clinton’esque when he makes his “I didn’t lobby” claims.

Of course, at another point during the debate, Bachmann headed back to her comfortable but loopy world of sunshine and rainbows.

I think it’s just outrageous to continue to say over and over throughout the debates that I don’t have my facts right, when it as a matter of fact, I do. I’m a serious candidate for president of the United States, and my facts are accurate.

Ummmm…

That sounds very much like, “I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.”

Anti-science? No surprise there.

by

Denying realityPaul Krugman had an editorial today in the New York Times about the decidedly anti-science bent of the Republican party… or at least of the current crop of candidates. John Huntsman seems to be the only candidate grounded in actual scientific reality at the moment. Romney was, too, but now he’s hedging.

When it comes to science, Republicans seem to have no problem with things like atomic theory, gravitational theory, germ theory, physics, chemistry, etc. The problem is just when it comes to science that reaches conclusions that don’t mesh well with their ideology (or the ideology of their base). The obvious mentions are evolution and climate change, both of which are supported by an astounding amount of evidence, yet both of which cause Republicans some discomfort; one on political note and one on a theological note. But rather than acting responsibly and dealing with the reality the science represents, they attack the science or the scientists or the data or (more often) the make-believe stories conjured up as easily-attackable straw men.

Sadly, Huntsman is way behind in the polls, so that leaves either the outright anti-science group or Romney, who has, in a politically stereotypical move, hedged his bets on science in an attempt to placate the Republican base. That leaves the party with pretty lame options. As Krugman says in his editorial…

So it’s now highly likely that the presidential candidate of one of our two major political parties will either be a man who believes what he wants to believe, even in the teeth of scientific evidence, or a man who pretends to believe whatever he thinks the party’s base wants him to believe.

Phil Plait, on his Bad Astronomy blog, follows up on Krugman’s piece with a few more details on some of the candidates, and with this thought…

[Huntsman] recently said he thinks both evolution and global warming are real. This makes me sad, and scared. Why? Because this statement is considered bold.

How can it be bold to accept reality, to not deny the overwhelming evidence, and to agree with the vast, vast majority of scientists studying the very topics of discussion?

Huntsman wants his party not to be "the antiscience party". But that shouldn’t be bold. That should be common sense.

It should be common sense. Sadly, for most of the Republican presidential candidates, it seems to be neither common nor sensible.

How far we’ve fallen

by

With two notable exceptions, the Republican candidates really need to take a page from Woodrow Wilson’s playbook.

Of course, like every other man of intelligence and education I do believe in organic evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised.

Woodrow Wilson
Letter to Winterton C. Curtis (29 August 1922)

 

Update: Sadly, it seems Romney is hedging on the science, presumably to pander to the science deniers that tend to inhabit the Republican base and the Tea Party. He said, “Do I think the world’s getting hotter? Yeah, I don’t know that but I think that it is,” he said. “I don’t know if it’s mostly caused by humans.”

As I’ve said before, if you want to argue policy, that’s fine, but do it honestly. Don’t try to discredit the science just because you don’t like related policy suggestions.

Bachmann wins Iowa straw poll

by

FacepalmMichele Bachmann won the Iowa straw poll on Saturday, beating Ron Paul by a narrow margin. I’m not really that surprised, but I am disheartened. She won with a total of 4,823 votes (over Paul’s 4,671). However, by some reports, she gave away 6,000 vote tickets herself, tickets which normally cost $30, so the people who voted for her didn’t have to shell out the $30 themselves, so as the Hot Air article says, it’s "not exactly a big endorsement."

However, just the fact that there are 4,823 people, in Iowa alone, who are willing to vote for this woman (whether it cost them $30 or not) is what I find disheartening. This is the woman who has touted theocratic views, anti-equality views, anti-scientific views, and just general nonsense (including revisionist (read "false") history) on a regular basis for years, putting her ignorance and bigotry on display for all to see… and people still want to vote for her.

That someone like this is given even passing consideration for political office is a sad statement about our country.

Hooray for New York!

by

New York finally passed legislation to allow same-sex marriage in their state. According to CNN (and other news sites), the vote was 33-29 in favor. It was the “first time a state Senate with a Republican majority has approved such a bill.”

Other than the awesome news that gay couples will now have the same rights as straight couples, that also means that there are still 29 people in the New York senate that are probably theocratic bigots.

Says the CNN article…

The new law, which will allow same-sex couples in New York to marry within 30 days, drew a sharp rebuke from opponents, who spent millions to try to defeat the measure.

Because, you know… those damn gays!

But the Catholic Church stepped up in support! Oh wait. No they didn’t.

“We worry that both marriage and the family will be undermined by this tragic presumption of government in passing this legislation that attempts to redefine these cornerstones of civilization,” the state’s Catholic bishops said in a joint statement released late Friday. It was signed by Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan and seven other bishops.

It’s an absurd argument. Marriage isn’t undermined by omg-teh-gheys!!!. It’s undermined (if it is at all) by drunken Vegas weddings, marriages of convenience, sex scandals and infidelity, hypocrisy, televised marriage contests, marrying for money, serial marrying, arranged marriages, and a myriad of other things, none of which have anything to do with two people of the same sex loving each other.

And to show how loving and considerate the opponents of same-sex marriage are…

Opponents of the marriage equality law have vowed to take political action against any Republican who voted for the bill.

Because presumably, standing up for equal rights is just wrong and should be punished!

Fortunately, there were enough rational politicians to get this measure passed. It’s sad that it needs to be passed at all. You’d think in a country that prides itself on freedom and human rights, this would be a complete non-issue, but the religious right can’t help but try to impose their twisted moral values on the rest of us.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg gets it, though.

“In recent weeks, I have had many conversations with our state Senators. I emphasized that not only is marriage equality consistent with bedrock American principles, but it is also consistent with bedrock Republican Party principles of liberty and freedom — and the Republicans who stood up today for those principles will long be remembered for their courage, foresight, and wisdom. In fact, 10 or 20 or 30 years from now, I believe they will look back at this vote as one of their finest, proudest moments,” Bloomberg said in a statement released shortly after the vote.

So three cheers for New York. Kudos to those Republicans who had the wisdom and courage to stand up to their party’s archaic stance on the matter.

And congratulations to all those who are waiting to be married and now are able.

Oh no! Sunspots! (or lack thereof)

by

Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy beat me to it (as did probably another 50 blogs).

I heard the report last week about the decrease in sunspot activity and just knew that the global warming deniers would pounce on it with a vengeance, even though plenty of articles had statements such as…

But scientists warn that the temperature change due to a decline in sunspot activity would likely be minimal and not enough to compensate for global warming. – Global Post

Statements like that will most likely be dismissed with a haughty "poo poo" from deniers, however, because it doesn’t fit into the strategy of cherry-picking data in vain attempts to support their untenable position.

It’s one thing to disagree on policy issues and about how to handle the situation. That’s a matter of political opinion and can be debated endlessly from various ideological viewpoints. However, to avoid the policy issue by trying to discredit the actual science… the science that is backed up by virtually all the available data, by virtually all climate scientists, and by virtually all scientific organizations… is disingenuous, dishonest, and despicable.

I constantly read deniers railing against climate science based on policy issues, saying things that basically amount to "climate science is wrong because cap and trade legislation would cause job losses!" It’s an absurd statement, but it’s one that gets repeated, in various forms, over and over and over and over by global warming deniers… seemingly without any awareness of how ludicrous it is.

It’s the position that "facts don’t matter to me because they don’t fit neatly into my preconceived conclusions based on my ideology."