Texas is one of five new states requriring safe-burning cigarettes. But, don't just avoid being one of the 800 people a year who die from cigarette-caused fires. Instead, avoid being one of the 44,000 a year who die from smoking caused illness.
That is the real safe cigarette.
January 02, 2009
Harry Reid never had these cojones with GOP
But, he wants to arrest Roland Burris if Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's nominee to Barack Obama's empty Senate seat shows up to claim it?
This is just crazy. And Blago is still laughing all the way to ... wherever.
If Senate Democrats get to the point of forcing Burris to sue, Bobby Rush WILL try rally the Congressional Black Caucus. But, that group may itself split on involvement with the issue.
This is just crazy. And Blago is still laughing all the way to ... wherever.
If Senate Democrats get to the point of forcing Burris to sue, Bobby Rush WILL try rally the Congressional Black Caucus. But, that group may itself split on involvement with the issue.
January 01, 2009
Atheists sue over 'so help me God' - misinformed on Constitution
Fox News reports that the Freedom from Religion Foundation and famous atheist Michael Newdow are suing to get "so help me God" out of the Presidential oath of office.
Given that Michael Newdow, and one "village idiot atheist" troll to this post are showing that they should be forever banished from a courthouse until they pass two philsophy classes - one in logic (including modal logic) and another in epistomology, or something similar, I'm overhauling the original post.
First, no, I have not read the actual lawsuit. And, now that, per a comment from the troll, it's clear that Newdow is a fucking idiot, I have no need or desire to do so.
I assumed (a dangerous action with some people), that Newdow and the FFRF were suing Barack Obama as well as, possibly an ancillary plaintiff, Chief Justice John Roberts.
But, NOOOO.
They're suing ONLY Roberts.
That, despite the clear fact that "so help me God," as well as the person administering the oath of office, are both a choice of the new president.
Given that the "so help me God" is not Constitutionally prescribed, it's a matter of individual choice. Therefore, if Obama wants to say "so help me Allah," "so help me Buddha," or "so help me Flying Spaghetti Monster," he has that right. And, the Newdow/FFRF suit could be seen as violating HIS civil rights.
Washington chose to add the phrase, and use a Bible, at his inaugural and the two actions have become traditional since.
From Washington's adding of the "so help me God" and use of a Bible onward, these issues are adiaphora, matters of choice for the individual president as part of his (or her, should we ever get there) day of inauguration.
Nothing is stopping President Obama from ditching one or both as it is, though.
Commenter Brian Westley shows his own ignorance on the second part of the president's choice, as well as showing himself ignorant of history.
Newsweek points out they have a whole crockload of other things wrong in their suit, starting with the fact that they’re suing the wrong branch of government over the wrong oath.
(Update, Oct. 23, 2015. Having now run into Westley on Patheos, on thegenerally very good Godless in Dixie blog, I'll point out that per Wikipedia's page on Newdow, its section on this suit, I stand by everything I've written.
Update, June 16, 2020: Per my response to Mr. Westley, who I guess is still a mix of bored and Gnu Atheist 11-plus years on, I do need to update one thing. Godless in Dixie is not very good at all. Neil Carter, and his paid minions, it would appear, are pretty hardcore Gnu Atheists. I say this after having been blocked from commenting there multiple times. Carter also doesn't know the bible quite as well as he claims. A bit on the updated reality of Godless here, and much more from my primary philosophy, critical religion and critical thinking site.)
Nothing requires the Chief Justice, or ANY Supreme Court justice, to conduct the oath of office. (I challenge you to show me where in the constitution it says that).) Calvin Coolidge was sworn in by a justice of the peace after Harding's death. LBJ was sworn in by a federal district judge after JFK's assassination.
I have no problem pointing out where atheists are wrong, or acting as "village idiot atheists" or "ugly atheists." I said so about the Dennett/Dawkins idea of "brights."
And, given that Mr. Westley, the trolling commenter here, refused to tell me what he thinks of the merits of the case legally, or the atheist grounds for filing it, and also refuses to disavow Newdow's illogic, until he can address the facts of the matter in a more logical manner than he has, I don't think he'll be commenting here again.
In other words, if Newdow really has no problem with Obama adding the words, since it's Obama's choice who swears him in and what words they ask him to read, Newdow is even more of a fucking idiot than he was four years ago.
I'm am atheist myself who can point out that other atheists are in fact ignorant of the constitution. And, the ignorance is not about the presidential oath; it's about the First Amendment issue involved.
In short, in what is a Twilight Zone moment, I agree with the Veep from the Family Research Council Fox quoted in its story.
That said, Peter Sprig of the Family Research Council is full of bullshit when he claims a successful suit would establish atheism as a national religion.
Atheism is NOT a religion. As a cyberfriend of mine notes, in an online aphorism, "Calling atheism a religion is like saying NOT collecting stamps is a hobby."
Or, per another truism, from before the Internet: "Atheists and Christians are alike, except that we disbelieve in one more god than all the gods you disbelieve, such as Zeus, Allah, Odin, Ganesh, Krishna, etc."
Would I prefer an inauguration free from religious symbolism? Yes. But, the other atheists in question are clearly looking down the wrong end of the First Amendment telescope on this issue, and in so doing, perpetuating steretypes of the "ugly atheist."
Frankly, I think Newdow is as much a gloryhound as American Athiests' Dave Silverman.
Given that Michael Newdow, and one "village idiot atheist" troll to this post are showing that they should be forever banished from a courthouse until they pass two philsophy classes - one in logic (including modal logic) and another in epistomology, or something similar, I'm overhauling the original post.
First, no, I have not read the actual lawsuit. And, now that, per a comment from the troll, it's clear that Newdow is a fucking idiot, I have no need or desire to do so.
I assumed (a dangerous action with some people), that Newdow and the FFRF were suing Barack Obama as well as, possibly an ancillary plaintiff, Chief Justice John Roberts.
But, NOOOO.
They're suing ONLY Roberts.
That, despite the clear fact that "so help me God," as well as the person administering the oath of office, are both a choice of the new president.
Given that the "so help me God" is not Constitutionally prescribed, it's a matter of individual choice. Therefore, if Obama wants to say "so help me Allah," "so help me Buddha," or "so help me Flying Spaghetti Monster," he has that right. And, the Newdow/FFRF suit could be seen as violating HIS civil rights.
Washington chose to add the phrase, and use a Bible, at his inaugural and the two actions have become traditional since.
From Washington's adding of the "so help me God" and use of a Bible onward, these issues are adiaphora, matters of choice for the individual president as part of his (or her, should we ever get there) day of inauguration.
Nothing is stopping President Obama from ditching one or both as it is, though.
Commenter Brian Westley shows his own ignorance on the second part of the president's choice, as well as showing himself ignorant of history.
Newsweek points out they have a whole crockload of other things wrong in their suit, starting with the fact that they’re suing the wrong branch of government over the wrong oath.
(Update, Oct. 23, 2015. Having now run into Westley on Patheos, on the
Update, June 16, 2020: Per my response to Mr. Westley, who I guess is still a mix of bored and Gnu Atheist 11-plus years on, I do need to update one thing. Godless in Dixie is not very good at all. Neil Carter, and his paid minions, it would appear, are pretty hardcore Gnu Atheists. I say this after having been blocked from commenting there multiple times. Carter also doesn't know the bible quite as well as he claims. A bit on the updated reality of Godless here, and much more from my primary philosophy, critical religion and critical thinking site.)
Nothing requires the Chief Justice, or ANY Supreme Court justice, to conduct the oath of office. (I challenge you to show me where in the constitution it says that).) Calvin Coolidge was sworn in by a justice of the peace after Harding's death. LBJ was sworn in by a federal district judge after JFK's assassination.
I have no problem pointing out where atheists are wrong, or acting as "village idiot atheists" or "ugly atheists." I said so about the Dennett/Dawkins idea of "brights."
And, given that Mr. Westley, the trolling commenter here, refused to tell me what he thinks of the merits of the case legally, or the atheist grounds for filing it, and also refuses to disavow Newdow's illogic, until he can address the facts of the matter in a more logical manner than he has, I don't think he'll be commenting here again.
In other words, if Newdow really has no problem with Obama adding the words, since it's Obama's choice who swears him in and what words they ask him to read, Newdow is even more of a fucking idiot than he was four years ago.
I'm am atheist myself who can point out that other atheists are in fact ignorant of the constitution. And, the ignorance is not about the presidential oath; it's about the First Amendment issue involved.
In short, in what is a Twilight Zone moment, I agree with the Veep from the Family Research Council Fox quoted in its story.
That said, Peter Sprig of the Family Research Council is full of bullshit when he claims a successful suit would establish atheism as a national religion.
Atheism is NOT a religion. As a cyberfriend of mine notes, in an online aphorism, "Calling atheism a religion is like saying NOT collecting stamps is a hobby."
Or, per another truism, from before the Internet: "Atheists and Christians are alike, except that we disbelieve in one more god than all the gods you disbelieve, such as Zeus, Allah, Odin, Ganesh, Krishna, etc."
Would I prefer an inauguration free from religious symbolism? Yes. But, the other atheists in question are clearly looking down the wrong end of the First Amendment telescope on this issue, and in so doing, perpetuating steretypes of the "ugly atheist."
Frankly, I think Newdow is as much a gloryhound as American Athiests' Dave Silverman.
Nobody called, nobody wanted me
I forgot to turn on my cell phone yesterday.
Then, when I remembered
I had forgotten to turn it on,
I still didn’t turn it on
Until this evening.
But, nobody had called for me
Anyway.
No voicemails, no text messages.
Not even a list of missed calls.
I guess I’ll survive.
Do I have a choice?
Well, it seems pretty stupid otherwise.
I never thought I would appreciate
The wireless link to the outside world.
But, sometimes it relieves a bit of loneliness;
Is there anything so bad about that?
After all, farmers a century ago led our nation in suicides
Before the wireless waves of radio
Relieved the mind-numbing, stupefying tedium
Of life after dark
In the not-so-idyllic rural heartland.
So, before we overl8y bemoan
The electricity-gobbling technology of modern life,
Let us remember that many would-be Luddites
Actually do not want to make too far a trip
Back into the oh-so-idyllicized past.
Talk of carbon taxes, or traded caps,
Can be a time for reflection
At just what price we paid for our modern era,
And just what we have been paying to escape.
(It still would be nice, though,
To escape the sense, the expectation,
Of on-demand availability
Others may have of us now.
Or that we have of ourselves.)
-- Dec. 31, 2008
Then, when I remembered
I had forgotten to turn it on,
I still didn’t turn it on
Until this evening.
But, nobody had called for me
Anyway.
No voicemails, no text messages.
Not even a list of missed calls.
I guess I’ll survive.
Do I have a choice?
Well, it seems pretty stupid otherwise.
I never thought I would appreciate
The wireless link to the outside world.
But, sometimes it relieves a bit of loneliness;
Is there anything so bad about that?
After all, farmers a century ago led our nation in suicides
Before the wireless waves of radio
Relieved the mind-numbing, stupefying tedium
Of life after dark
In the not-so-idyllic rural heartland.
So, before we overl8y bemoan
The electricity-gobbling technology of modern life,
Let us remember that many would-be Luddites
Actually do not want to make too far a trip
Back into the oh-so-idyllicized past.
Talk of carbon taxes, or traded caps,
Can be a time for reflection
At just what price we paid for our modern era,
And just what we have been paying to escape.
(It still would be nice, though,
To escape the sense, the expectation,
Of on-demand availability
Others may have of us now.
Or that we have of ourselves.)
-- Dec. 31, 2008
My initial Tom Craddick prediction
Can Tom Craddick get re-elected as Speaker of the Texas House? Like two years ago, he claims he has the votes while Dems and anti-Craddick Republicans say he doesn't.
Who's right?
Well, the Dallas Morning News has a rundown of the 64 committed, or theoretically so, anti-Craddick Democrats.
No shock, but PLENTY of disgust, that DeSoto's Helen Giddings does NOT have her name on that letter. Just what the hell is she getting from Craddick? More than just committee assignments? Does Tom keep her "sprightly" in some way?
The News has more on the anti-Craddick chess board at this point, as well.
All of which leads to my take.
If only 64 of the 74 Dems in the Texas House have signed the anybody-but-Craddock pledge<, and at least a few of them are squishes, then I would have to say his chances of keeping the speakership are at least 50-50.
Craddock opponents may counsel that House Republicans who lead the anti-Craddock charge have yet to center on one prime opponent, and that, when this happens, then Democratic support against Craddock will solidify.
I disagree.
To counter that, I note that Craddock has yet to, publicly at least, dole out goodies to Craddock Democrats of the recent past. And, if necessary, he may offer to change his behavior this session or even apologize for some rough elbows in the past, he could shore up his support.
Who's right?
Well, the Dallas Morning News has a rundown of the 64 committed, or theoretically so, anti-Craddick Democrats.
No shock, but PLENTY of disgust, that DeSoto's Helen Giddings does NOT have her name on that letter. Just what the hell is she getting from Craddick? More than just committee assignments? Does Tom keep her "sprightly" in some way?
The News has more on the anti-Craddick chess board at this point, as well.
All of which leads to my take.
If only 64 of the 74 Dems in the Texas House have signed the anybody-but-Craddock pledge<, and at least a few of them are squishes, then I would have to say his chances of keeping the speakership are at least 50-50.
Craddock opponents may counsel that House Republicans who lead the anti-Craddock charge have yet to center on one prime opponent, and that, when this happens, then Democratic support against Craddock will solidify.
I disagree.
To counter that, I note that Craddock has yet to, publicly at least, dole out goodies to Craddock Democrats of the recent past. And, if necessary, he may offer to change his behavior this session or even apologize for some rough elbows in the past, he could shore up his support.
Possible New Year’s resolution No. 1
From me? Hmm.
How about driving to the Preston Hollow neighborhood of Dallas sometime from Jan. 21 or soon thereafter, and giving a full-moon greeting to Dallas’ newest couple?
(Before the Secret Service manhandles me and beats me to a pulp, that is.)
And, amongst your resolutions?
How about driving to the Preston Hollow neighborhood of Dallas sometime from Jan. 21 or soon thereafter, and giving a full-moon greeting to Dallas’ newest couple?
(Before the Secret Service manhandles me and beats me to a pulp, that is.)
And, amongst your resolutions?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)