Pope Chooses Dogma Over Human Life

According to CNN, "More than 22 million people in sub-Saharan Africa are infected with HIV, according to a 2008 UNAIDS/WHO report. Nine out of 10 children with HIV in the world live in the region, which has 11.4 million orphans because of AIDS, the report said, and 1.5 million people there died of the disease in 2007."

The AIDS epidemic in Africa is a tragedy of enormous proportions. With the incredible numbers of sick and dying people there, one would think the world's leaders, including religious leaders, would embrace an inexpensive solution that could stop the epidemic -- use of condoms.

But not the Pope! In his visit to Africa this week, the Pope once again reminded everyone that as the representative of god here on earth, he has banned the use of condoms. He believes his religious dogma is more important than millions of human lives. I just don't understand.

I might could partially understand if condoms caused a fetus to abort. After all, some believe a fetus is a human life. But condoms don't do this -- in fact, they prevent abortions. They also prevent pregnancy and disease -- including AIDS.

I find it hard to believe the biblical Jesus would force people to have babies even if it killed them and made those babies orphans. But that's what the Pope wants to do.

The Pope can call this religious if he wants, but I just call it mean and vicious.

Overpopulation

Political Cartoon is by Mike Keefe in The Denver Post.

California Releases Olson To Parole

In January 2002, Sara Jane Olson (born Kathleen Soliah) pled guilty to two counts of attempting to ignite a destructive device or explosive. A year later she pled guilty to second-degree murder. She received a sentence of twenty years to life. The crimes sprang from the time she spent as a member of the Symbionese Liberation Army in the 1970's -- a home-grown terrorist group.

After being indicted in 1976, the Justice Department said "she evaded capture for 23 years, and in the meantime, became a doctor's wife, mother of three, community volunteer, veteran of charity work in Africa and practicing Methodist living in an upscale neighborhood in St. Paul." She was caught in 2001.

I can understand the victims and police being upset at Olson's release after only seven years. In many other states (including Texas), she would have to serve many more years before even being eligible for parole. But she was convicted in California, and they do things a little differently there. Because of good time and her work inside the prison, the California Parole Board reduced her sentence to only seven years plus one year on parole.

But one thing I don't understand is the hullabaloo over what state she does her parole in -- California or Minnesota. Police unions in both states want her to have to do her parole in California. This makes no real sense. With the overcrowding in California, she'll probably be supervised more closely in Minnesota. I hope this is not just a desire to punish her further by keeping her away from her friends and family.

Minnesota's governor Tim Pawlenty has also jumped into the fray and asked California not to send Olson back. This one's easy to understand. Just another Republican politician trying to make political hay out of a situation he thinks might upset the public. He should really stay out of it.

The real fact is that there's not a lot either parole department could do about the transfer. Olson has a right to be treated like any other parolee. There are currently thousands of parolees serving their parole in a different state than the one their crime was committed in. The receiving state must have a valid reason to deny the transfer and I don't see one here.

Olson has a twenty-year history in Minnesota. That's where her family and friends are, while she has no support system in California. If it was any other parolee, the transfer would be almost automatic since a parolee does much better where he has a support system (family and friends willing to help). Olson cannot and should not be treated differently.

If you think she should have served more time, I agree with you. But if she's being released to parole, it makes sense she do that parole in Minnesota.

Theft

Political Cartoon is by Daryl Cagle at msnbc.com.

Happy St. Patrick's Day !

Everyone is Irish on St. Patrick's Day!

Sometimes A Tax Doesn't Work Out

What is a tax for? Is it to raise money, or is it to solve a social problem? Sometimes, legislators think they can use a new tax to do both. That's what the legislators in California thought. They had a huge cash shortfall and a social problem, and they came up with a new tax they thought would solve both. I'm sure they thought they had found the perfect solution.

One of the new popular trends in alcoholic beverages are the bottled drinks nicknamed "alcopops". They earned that nickname because even though they contain alcohol, they taste more like soda pop (Smirnoff Ice, Mike's Hard Lemonade, etc.). They are especially popular among young women -- particularly those who are underage and not used to drinking alcohol.

The alcopops were classified as beer and taxed at the same rate. But the legislators had what they thought was a brilliant idea. They would reclassify the alcopops as hard liquor and then tax them at the higher rate that purchasers of hard liquor must pay. They reasoned(?) that the higher cost of a six-pack (about $1.74 or 20%) would cause teenagers to stop drinking the brew, and would create a new $38 billion in annual revenue.

But it didn't work. Alcopop drinkers don't drink it because it's cheap. They drink it because they want to get drunk and don't like the taste of alcohol. Another couple of dollars may be a minor annoyance, but it won't deter the alcopop drinkers. They're just happy to have found an alcoholic drink that doesn't taste like one. So legislators struck out on curing the social problem.

At least they pumped a lot of new dollars into the state's revenue coffers, right? Well, no! The new tax went into effect last October 1st, and to date the tax collected is a whopping $9000. At that rate, they'd be lucky to raise $20,000 a year. That's a far cry from the expected $38 billion. What happened?

It seems that the manufacturers did exactly what they told legislators they would do -- they changed their formula and lowered the alcohol content to exactly that contained in a beer. This allows them to go on paying the lower beer tax. Some state employees don't believe this, but they don't have the wherewithal to check the products and the manufacturers refuse to give their formula to the state.

They claim the formula is private property and protected because it is a trade secret. The federal Alcohol and Tax and Trade Bureau has access to the formula, but refuse to divulge it to the state. They say the Federal Trade Secrets Act and the federal tax code prevent them from releasing the formula.

So the new tax is not accomplishing any of the goals it set, and there is very little liklihood that it will do better in the future. The legislators must take the blame for this failure. If they had thought it through, they would have known that taste and not price was the reason teens like the product. They also didn't listen when the manufacturers told them what they would do.

This tax was already a failure before the final vote was taken to pass it.

Career Day

Political Cartoon is by David Fitzsimmons in the Arizona Daily Star.

Three Years Old !

On March 16, 2006, I started this blog and wrote my first post. I didn't really know what I was doing and had no idea how long the blog would last. I just knew I was angry with what was happening and I needed to sound-off about it.

Now it is three years and over 2600 blog posts later, and I'm still finding plenty to "sound-off" about. I hope to continue the blog for a long time. To my amazement, I've found there are even some who want to read my pathetic rants. The blog has shown a slow, but steady growth in readership over the three years and is still growing. For that, I will be eternally grateful to you -- the readers.

For the last couple of "blogiversarys", I've reprinted my very first post. It wasn't very good, but it was the first, and I guess it's sort of a tradition now. Here it is:

Hello out there! This is my first blog and my first attempt at blogging, so if you do accidently drop by and read the blog, cut me some slack. I hope to get better over time. This is not meant to be a news blog. This is an OPINION blog. This is my place to gripe, whine or blow my top when I get disgusted with politics, religion or culture in general. I am a left-winger who is not afraid of the "s" word. If you prefer to call me a socialist, that is fine with me. I am not a religious person, but I believe all people should be free to practice whatever religion they wish or none at all. I don't get upset until you start pushing it down other people's throats. I am a political Independent, since I see both the republicans and democrats as being corporate owned. Although I am male, I am pro-choice and consider myself to be a feminist. I believe in EQUAL RIGHTS FOR EVERYONE [no exceptions]. That should give you some idea of where I'm coming from. If you do read this blog, I hope you enjoy it and come back from time to time. Thanks!

Some Are Doing Well

Political Cartoon is by Jeff Parker in Florida Today.

New Proof That Robin Hood Existed

Every child in the English-speaking world grows up knowing the legend of Robin Hood. Robin was a thief who robbed from the rich and gave to the poor. Although many books have been written and movies made about Robin Hood, there has been very little proof that the altruistic thief was a real person.

Some have said it is just a myth. Others believe the stories of several thieves from the 12th and 13th centuries have been combined to create the hero. Still others believe Robin Hood was a real person. There has also been a question about exactly where the thief lived and operated if he was real. Several locations have claimed to be the home of the famous outlaw.

A recently discovered note found in the margin of a medieval history book may help to answer some of the doubts. Julian Luxford, an art history lecturer at St Andrews University, found the short note that had been scribbled in the book by a monk around 1460. The note said:

"Around this time, according to popular opinion, a certain outlaw named Robin Hood, with his accomplices, infested Sherwood and other law-abiding areas of England with continuous robberies." The note seems to verify that there was a single thief known as Robin Hood who operated out of Sherwood Forest -- just as the legend is popularly told.

That makes me happy, since I have always preferred to believe the stories were true. But it seems like much of the media seem to think the note also shows Robin may not be as heroic as the legend shows him to be. Almost every media story on the discovery says it shows "that Britain's legendary outlaw Robin Hood wasn't as popular as folklore suggests." I disagree.

The note shows only that Robin Hood was not popular among the clergy of the time. This is not news, since the clergy was a big part of the establishment during that time and most likely were among Robin's victims. If a note was found from some noble of the time or the Sheriff of Nottingham, I'm sure you would find the same negative sentiment.

Robin Hood was not a hero of the establishment. He was a hero to poor and ordinary folk who were the victims of that same establishment. Once again, the media doesn't get the story right!

Propping Up The Economy

Political Cartoon is by Daryl Cagle at msnbc.com.

Obama's Tax On Rich Is Actually Low

Ever since President Obama signed his stimulus package to help the United States out of the recession (depression?) the right-wing Republicans have been screaming about how he has raised taxes enormously. They have even been throwing the word socialism around rather freely.

They make it sound like everyone is going to be paying more taxes, but that is simply not true. About 95% of all taxpayers in the United States will actually receive a tax cut. The people the Republicans are whining about are the richest 5% of Americans. As usual, the only people the Republicans really care about are the rich.

But even if it is the richest 5% (those making over $250,000), has he really raised the rate to an outrageous level? Actually no. Compared to other presidents since World War II (including Republican presidents), the tax rate for the richest Americans is actually still going to be quite low. He is raising the rate back to where it was at the end of Reagan's second term -- 39.6%.

As the chart above shows, this is actually a pretty low rate for the top income earners. Here is what the top tax rate was during the terms of other Republicans:

REAGAN after second term.....39.6%

REAGAN after first term.....50%

NIXON.....70%

EISENHOWER.....91%

So don't let the Republicans fool you with their whining and spurious charges. They know Obama's rate is not out 0f line, but they just don't have anything else. The 2008 election, along with Obama's continuing popularity, has scared them. Now they are trying to scare Americans in an effort to get Obama's numbers down. How pathetic!

Clearance Sale

Political Cartoon is by R.J. Matson in The New York Observer.

New Creationist Attack On Teaching Science

It seems like the creationists just won't give up on their efforts to replace science with religion in Texas classrooms. When efforts to outright replace the teaching of evolution with creationism failed, they tried to get both taught side-by-side in Texas classrooms. But the citizens of Texas didn't particularly care for a "multiple choice" science program with the truth decided by students instead of scientists.

Then they decided that the "fallacies" of evolution should be taught alongside its reality in Texas classrooms. When that failed to be adopted, some of us thought we could breath a little easier with the knowledge that real science would be taught in schools. But the creationists haven't given up.

Last Friday, State Rep. Wayne Christian (R-Center) introduced a bill (HB4224) in the Texas legislature. That bill would force the teaching of "the strengths and weaknesses" of all scientific "theories". Of course, this is nothing more than an attempt to get creationism in the classroom through the back door.

But this silly bill could affect even more than the teaching of evolution (which is really a proven fact and not a theory). As Vince Leibowitz of Capitol Annex points out, this bill could be used to question anything of a scientific nature, such as:

•Hurricanes aren’t caused by global warming, or anything to do with ocean and atmosphereic temperature because all of that is based upon fuzzy math and incorrect science; instead, they are caused by God’s wrath and sent to rein down upon cities he views as immoral because it is a more logical viewpoint.

•HIV/AIDS isn’t an autoimmune disease, but rather God’s punishment upon homosexuals because it is more logical to believe that than what scientists have come up with.

•Condom’s never work because the theories and evidence supporting their use are flawed, so abstaining from sex is the only form of birth control acceptable under any circumstance.

It no wonder our state and country is falling behind and not producing the scientists we need. Why can't religion be taught in churches and science in the schools? Why do some people feel they must force their religion on children and families that don't want it? Whatever happened to freedom of religion, which must also include the right to freedom from religion?