Is it just me, or does today's Republican Party make you hope there really is a Hell? 

I know, they are trying their best to make our planet and our country a living Hell for more and more people, but that doesn't count.

Rep. Jack Kingston of Georgia wants to bring back child labor. You know, to make the poor kids who get free school lunches "earn" them and learn the value of work. Just like Jesus would have wanted. Or Scrooge, pre-visitations.

Pay people a living wage so if they are working full time they can actually support themselves and their families? No, let's subsidize the corporations who are making record profits, largely by not paying people, by having the taxpayers provide food stamps, temporary assistance for needy families, free and reduced school lunch, Earned Incomed tax credits, etc.
Then let's complain about how many people are "mooching" off the taxpayer and point fingers and get everyone mad at the unemployed, or under-employed, or sick, or poor, or infirm, or immigrants, you know all the people with the REAL power in this country, who hold ALL the money. Just like Jesus would have done.

Tell lies as a matter of course. About the poor. About the environment. About the economy. Be disrespectful. Be belligerent and angry and condescending. Be mean. Obstruct at unprecedented levels, through use of the filibuster, by offering endless amendments and "poison pills" to the most ordinary of legislation, legislation that used to be considered "no brainers" and receive quick bipartisan action. Then when called on it, or drive the majority to take action, scream bloody murder. The modern Republican, for all their bellicosity, are most expert at playing the victim.

Spew hate against gays or others who are not "like you". And then scream if you can't make your hatred and prejudice the law of the land. Or if someone calls you on your prejudice. That somehow if you are not allowed to fully practice your hatred and make it legal, that you somehow are the victim.

So for these and many other reasons, as you watch the modern Republicans in action and listen to them, you really hope there is a Hell. Even if it means being pressed into duty as a demon whose job would be to stick in the pitchfork. And you know where it would be fitting for it to go.

Ok, I could have gone with "Inherit the Wind Take2" as a title, but went with a different twist instead.
You may have heard or read that Bill Nye, "The Science Guy" of TV fame, is going to Kentucky to debate the founder/director of a Creationist museum, Ken Ham. You know that "museum", the one that shows dioramas of people and dinosaurs living at the same time.
They will debate whether or not Creationism is a viable explanation for life and its diversity.
Been thinking about this throughout the day and reading other people debate about it as well.
And I'm torn.
On the one hand I believe it's a mistake and a waste of time. Creationists believe something to be true based on belief and in spite of contradictory evidence. So no amount of evidence or logic will sway them. They will fall back on the "because God did it" defense. Which is why Creationism or Intelligent Design do not belong in a science classroom. 
Because at its heart a scientific theory must have the innate ability to be disproved. You can ask questions of a scientific theory and predict the answers. Then you design and perform repeatable experiments, or make observations in nature. If the results are as predicted, the theory is "proved". But if the results do not match then the theory is "disproved". A scientific theory itself can evolve over time based on experimental results or new discoveries. In extreme cases a theory is thrown completely overboard and replaced with a better explanation for the observable phenomena.
You cannot do that with Creationism or Intelligent Design. Any "theory" that relies on a supernatural entity cannot be disproved and therefore is automatically disqualified from the scientific realm of human endeavors. It may indeed qualify as an alternative point of view for how life began, or how it came to be as it is today, but it is not a scientific point of view. 
And that is the problem with this "debate". It is not a debate at all. Creationism and Evolution are two completely different ways of viewing the world. One relies on "faith" and the other on evidence and logic. How do you debate that? You might as well try to shoot a moving breeze.
So I figure Mr. Nye has lost as soon as he steps out on the stage.
But maybe, just maybe, there is a silver lining here. Perhaps Bill Nye can at least illuminate the positives of viewing the world based on evidence, facts and critical, logical thinking. And perhaps he can demonstrate how much better that is, for individuals and a country, then to base everything on wishful thinking and a blind faith in something unseen and "unreasonable". 
At least I'm keeping my fingers crossed that is the case.   

Hi. Long time no blog. One of my resolutions for the New Year is to have a more regular blogging schedule. Unfortunately my paying gig as well as some other things in my personal life have kept me from posting for close to a month.

Part of this blog, especially concerning the holiday season was begun prior to the Christmas/New Year's break. 
My thoughts regarding recent events is that we are once again in the Season. The Season of False Outrage.
You know the annual whining about the fictional "War on Christmas" used by many to boost book sales or ratings.
Or the not at all seasonal outrage that confuses the Constitutional right to free speech with the consequences of exercising that right.
Like many I find the whole "War on Christmas" is getting old. It doesn't exist. People are free to celebrate Christmas in their own lives and in their own way. This phony War on Christmas trope is used by those who want everyone to acknowledge their personal beliefs as the predominant or "one true" religion. They refuse to allow any accommodation for those with differing beliefs than their own, but insist that everyone accommodate their beliefs. 
These are the bullies who complain when a low paid clerk at a retail store gives the more general "Happy Holidays" greeting as opposed to "Merry Christmas". Never mind that the clerk is only doing what they were instructed to do because after all how do they know what the religion/beliefs are of the person across the register from them? And for that matter how does the offended shopper know what the religion/beliefs of the clerk may be? The difference is the "good Christian" shopper insists on having their belief system acknowledged under any and all circumstances and doesn't care about the clerk's position or beliefs. 
Which brings us to Phil Robertson and "Duck Dynasty" on A&E. For those who only track real news or dropped out of site the month of December, Phil is the patriarch of the clan shown in A&E's reality show hit "Duck Dynasty". He is one of those good ol' boys from Looz-ee-ana who has found religion. He gave an interview in a magazine where he sounded off on issues like homosexuality and race. He basically blasted gays and gay marriage because, well you know, the Bible. And he also basically said things in the South were a lot better, everyone got along, and blacks were a lot happier when they knew their place. 
For these statements Phil was suspended from A&E. This of course brought out the right wing outrage machine all whining about the "PC police" and the trashing of the First Amendment. And predictably Phil's suspension was short-lived, he's back on the job, and the right wing has a new  homophobic, racist folk hero.
Now Phil has every right to be an ignorant bigot. And he has every right to be an ignorant bigot publicly. And the First Amendment guarantees that the government cannot do anything or take any action against Phil for holding and stating these views. 
But the First Amendment does not guarantee Phil that he suffers no consequences for holding 19th century views in 21st century America. Let's return to our erstwhile retail clerk. Imagine the clerk insists on lecturing customers about his/her beliefs or views while on the job. The management would likely receive complaints and ask the clerk to desist. If the clerk didn't stop proselytizing on the job, the clerk would likely lose that job and justifiably so. They have the First Amendment right to hold and state their views/beliefs. But that is not a shield from suffering non-governmental consequences. 
The difference of course is that the Christian right only believes in the First Amendment for itself and its views. They would leap to the defense of the clerk in our example if the views being expressed by the clerk were fundamentalist Christian beliefs. But if the clerk was espousing liberal views or those of Islam or promoting atheism, well then First Amendment be damned, fire their sorry ass! The management has every right to do so! Cuz it's Amerka!
And the sad and scary part of that is they see no inconsistency or illogic in holding those incongruent views.
Happy New Year and hope to be sharing more with you in 2014!