Sunday, July 10, 2011

The Progressive War Vet: Who Is The Most Right of the Right?

The Progressive War Vet: Who Is The Most Right of the Right?: "The race to become the top Republican to challenge President Barack Obama has now come to a full swing! (unless Rick Perry decides to r..."

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Can we please fire Rick Perry?

Why is it so important to conservatives to increase the number of needy children in Texas? Women who either cannot support a child or know they shouldn't (for various reasons) have just had their decision made even harder.
Dick Perry signed into law a bill that requires women considering abortion to endure a guilt trip, a waiting period, and a biology lesson. The assumption is that women considering abortion are stupid and have no idea that they are carrying what could develop into a child.
Conservatives are unaware of some of the finer points of society and biology. For one thing, sometimes a woman's body aborts a fetus outside of the will of the potential mother. Also, not every woman who can carry a child should. What we need in this country is less unwanted and disadvantaged children, not more.
Lastly, the bill requires that the woman considering an abortion to be given a sonogram and listen to the heartbeat of the fetus. So who pays for the sonogram? Hopefully not the tax-payer. Texas already has budget problems. Why can't Dick figure out how to fund schools? Seems a little contradictory doesn't it? Let's bring more children into the world, but we're not going to educate them. I guess the conservative ideal is to ban birth control all together so we have more kids in the workforce (have to lower the legal age for work). This also increases jobs: we need more orphanages and people to work them. Remember that just because a woman can have a child doesn't mean she can take care of it.

Sunday, May 22, 2011


I wish everyone would grow up and stop believing fairy tales. May 21 came and went with no rapture and no earth quakes. 2012 will come and go, then we'll see 2013. What will the next prophecy be then?
I'm watching "7 Signs of the Apocalypse" on the History channel. Apparently, a book written two thousand years ago predicts a number of events that herald the end of times. It's hilarious!
Of course, anyone who knows how prophecies really work also understands why this is hilarious. People are taking events that have happened over the course of many years and saying they are evidence. Every time a plague happens, that's one of the signs. Every time a natural disaster strikes, that's another sign.
What no one considers is that the world is big. Very big. We dropped nukes on Hiroshima and the world is intact. Cholera, AIDS, and the Black Plague have spread and killed millions of people and yet, somehow, the world population continues to grow. The reality is that diseases are easier to contain and cure due to advances in communication and science. Atomic warfare is scary, but still relatively nonthreatening considering the sheer size of the world.
The statement they keep repeating in this show is "even scientists agree." This is not convincing evidence even if it is true. A more truthful statement would be "some scientists agree." But then it would be less authoritative.
I'm not surprised that some of the things that the book of revelations "predicts" have occurred (many times in several cases). In fact, the events would have to happen all at he same time and in a magnitude of thousands of times worse than has already happened for any significant impact on the world. The thing no one is keeping in mind is that the end of the world was supposed to have happened already. Two thousand years ago! The events in the prophecy were supposed to have happened during the author's lifetime.
Every generation believes they will witness the end of the world. The reality is that if life is wiped out on earth it will be the result of an asteroid or other cosmic event (basically a roll of the dice) or the ultimate death of the planet (about 7.5 million years from now).
So relax and enjoy. You won't be around to see the end of the world. As Thomas Jefferson wrote to General Alexander Smyth, the book of revelations is "merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams."

Friday, April 29, 2011

No guns in school!

Since this is my first post, I figured I'd just jump in.
Sen. Jeff Wentworth is a Republican senator who has suggested that concealed handguns be allowed in schools. His opinion is that students shouldn't be defenseless against armed attackers (Virginia Tech was his example). Luckily, his bill (SB 354) failed.
Before I go on, I'll make it clear that I own a gun and have no problem with other citizens owning and carrying guns. However, I think that anyone who thinks that a gun will protect them from another armed citizen is not using their brain. Guns make very small shields. Also, gang members, for example, have no trouble shooting opposing armed gang members, so why do you think they'd cower before your handgun?
I've heard the arguement that "an armed society is a polite society" too often and really don't understand the reasoning. The Code of the West sounds nice in theory, but what would have happened if the Virginia Tech shooter had opened fire on an armed student body? There's a term that most war veterans are familiar with called "friendly fire." And that's among soldiers trained in combat, not mediocre practice shooters. Imagine bullets flying at where they think the sounds came from. An armed student who is disoriented may think the guy in the crowd shooting at Seung-Hui Cho is the enemy. 32 students were killed. That number might have been lessened by an armed student body. It also may have been much larger.
The assumption that everyone should carry a gun is flawed. Not everyone is skilled (practice or not) and not everyone is mentally stable. Guns don't belong in the hands of emotionally charged and stressed out students. Please leave the shootouts to the police, who are less likely to turn a horrible situation worse.