Archive for August, 2007

Hillary Clinton has just been endorsed by an ex-madam and a porn queen. I say let the wingers have their fun. They have so little else to smile about these days. (And I’m not so hot for Hillary myself.)

Check it out. The access station has wireless coverage in the studio, and I have a new laptop for school. And here we are. Weird coincidence today — Don’s on the show, and both Tracy and I independently decided to show up to spectate. This is the biggest collection of current “talent” that we’ve ever had in here, to my recollection. Bonus: if any caller says something that needs to be verified today, I can Google it!

One of religionists’ most egregious lies is that there are no atheists in foxholes. Tell this to the multitudes of unbelievers who are proud veterans of our armed forces. One of these, I learned today, passed away on August 9 at the ripe old age of 90. Hans Kasten was a genuine American hero, enduring unimaginable hardship at the hands of the Nazis in WWII. From the AA profile: With his fluent knowledge of German, Hans Kasten was selected as a “chief man of confidence,” the Hauptvertrauensmann, to interpret the instructions to prisoner and do what he can on their behalf. Kasten also became the focus of rage by his Nazi captors, in part because of his full German name, Johann Carl Frederick. He was considered “worse than a Jew,” a “traitor to the German race.” Not to politicize this, but this sounds to me disturbingly reminiscent of the way right-wingers in this country have been quick to yell “Traitor!” at anyone who dares to question the policies of the Bush regime — er, administration. One of his first orders from the SS overseers was to identify and sort out Americans who were or “looked” Jewish. Kasten refused. The German camp commander then ordered an assembly where all “Jews” were told to step forward. None of the POWs moved. Several accounts, including one written by Littell reveal what happened next: “A German officer stood on a platform, with the guards all around us, their guns at the ready,” recalled Littell. “I can still hear these words from that infuriated officer: ‘Alle Juden, ein Schritt vorfwarts!’ (‘All Jews, one step forward!’) In view of Hans’s earlier instructions, nobody moved. Obviously, this was of his doing. So angered was the officer that he leaped off his platform, grabbed a gun from a guard, swung it like a baseball bat and slammed Hans across the chest. Hans flew backward and hit the ground,...
Read more

Ladies and gentlemen, may I please direct your attention to the public attention that Pastor Wiley Drake has received for his call to imprecatory prayer against Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Pastor Drake has urged his followers to call down the wrath of God on the AU leadership, as modeled in such Bible passages as Psalms 109, 55, 58, 68, 69, and 83. Let’s take a quick look at a few passages from these chapters: “Let his days be few; and let another take his office.” “Let death seize upon them, and let them go down quick into hell.” ” Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth: break out the great teeth of the young lions, O LORD.” Now let’s consider a thought experiment. Suppose that prayer really worked. If Pastor Drake’s call to mass prayer were effective, then presumably within a short time, Reverend Barry Lynn and his supporters would be dead, their teeth broken, their children vagabonds, etc., etc. And all as a direct result of a specific action taken by this clown. What we have here is premeditation with an intent to aid in violence and/or murder. Drake doesn’t intend to get his hands dirty by killing Barry Lynn himself, but he is invoking a prayer which he believes will indirectly lead to Lynn’s death. Well, that’s not cool in US law, and if people did believe in prayer, I imagine some of them would want Drake tried and locked up immediately. But prayer doesn’t work. And everybody knows that damn well. Drake’s followers might be incited to commit violence against Barry Lynn — we sure hope not — but God never will. His prayer means nothing. And so the justice system doesn’t need to give this a second thought, because Drake’s words are just covered as freedom of speech. They don’t have a prayer of actually achieving any physical results. Although, of course, I’m sure that he’ll be only too...
Read more

I have gotten some requests for show notes on occasion. In response, I’m going to begin posting summary notes to the blog, so that when requests for notes come in, I can just point them here. Thanks, Martin. The word “tolerance” has two very distinct meanings that can, but do not always, overlap. One is to respect others or their actions and beliefs. The other is to merely allow others to act and express their beliefs—regardless of whether or not I, personally, respect them, their beliefs or actions. It is unreasonable to expect that no one will disagree with my opinions or ideas. In fact, there are many ideas that are so widely disrespected that they are almost universally disdained. The ideas expressed by Hitler or NAMBLA not only lack widespread acceptance; they are openly disparaged by the general population; and the actions they promote are legally prohibited. So, in either sense of the word, they are not “tolerated.” The ideas they espouse are not generally respected; and the actions they endorse are not allowed. No society exercises absolute tolerance by either definition. And expecting any belief, value or idea to be universally respected is simply unrealistic. The goal in the United States—and I realize it’s not always achieved—is to allow the individual the right to believe and act freely insofar as his/her actions do not compromise the rights of fellow citizens. We value, in this country, the right of Freedom of Speech—aka Freedom of Expression. We all have the right to express our ideas and opinions to the extent we don’t violate someone else’s rights. Freedom of Speech can violate someone else’s rights when, for example, I seriously threaten to harm or kill someone for exercising a legal action or expressing an idea or opinion. My right to say what’s on my mind is limited when it forcibly stops others from exercising legal actions or expressing ideas and opinions. In the public forum, I can disagree, disparage,...
Read more