(no subject)
you know what i love about baking for myself? if i were to, hypothetically, bake one of my hairs into a pan of brownies, it wouldn't matter!
ok, Kansas, you need to get a clue. there's a pattern emerging here, wherin you make a retarded decision in some area of education, the rest of the country laughs at you, save Pat Robertson, and then your decision gets overturned. this new opt-in form of sex ed is possibly the most dangerous thing i've ever heard of, along with overturning roe v. wade. i mean, have these people even thought of the practical implications of this policy? and how has abstinence-only education gained such momentum? in addition to being the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and going "la la la i can't hear you!", it's inherently a religious idea and not a universal one at that!
this is what really annoys me about all these ideas of the religious right - they couch their morals as though they are universal or at least the morals "intended" by the founding fathers. not so. example one: most of those founding fathers were deists, though we shouldn't expect these nutjobs to know that, because that would require cracking a book, and we know all human creativity and knowledge to be inherently evil. example two (and i'm playing devil's advocate here, not espousing beliefs): it has never been a universal moral concept that life begins at conception. medieval christians didn't think babies were people until the quickening, and according to scripture, babies don't have souls until birth, a view many Jews hold to. Many Jews think that the mother's health (physical and psychological) take precedence over the fetus. same with homosexuality - i'm sick of a certain faction of society (our gvmt included) telling me that gays are and always have been considered abominations. while it is fair to say that our laws are founded in a judeo-christian tradition, it's not like buddhism and hinduism espouse murder and theft (correct me if i'm wrong). and while we may be based in that tradition, if the founding fathers had wanted specifically religious bases for future laws, they would have written it in. sure, you can read intent into the constitution but if you're going to, at least make sure you know what religion the framers espoused. i don't know how this ended up as a political rant but there you go. thoughts and comments welcomed.
props to Without a Trace for getting the highest FCC fine ever! $3.6 million! apparently, the teenage "orgy" from two seasons ago that seemed sad and upsetting to the rest of us was vulgar and inappropriate to those at the FCC. CBS got quite a few fines but the FCC decided not to fine FOX for Nicole Richie and Cher dropping the f-bomb on live TV. hmmmm.
ok, Kansas, you need to get a clue. there's a pattern emerging here, wherin you make a retarded decision in some area of education, the rest of the country laughs at you, save Pat Robertson, and then your decision gets overturned. this new opt-in form of sex ed is possibly the most dangerous thing i've ever heard of, along with overturning roe v. wade. i mean, have these people even thought of the practical implications of this policy? and how has abstinence-only education gained such momentum? in addition to being the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and going "la la la i can't hear you!", it's inherently a religious idea and not a universal one at that!
this is what really annoys me about all these ideas of the religious right - they couch their morals as though they are universal or at least the morals "intended" by the founding fathers. not so. example one: most of those founding fathers were deists, though we shouldn't expect these nutjobs to know that, because that would require cracking a book, and we know all human creativity and knowledge to be inherently evil. example two (and i'm playing devil's advocate here, not espousing beliefs): it has never been a universal moral concept that life begins at conception. medieval christians didn't think babies were people until the quickening, and according to scripture, babies don't have souls until birth, a view many Jews hold to. Many Jews think that the mother's health (physical and psychological) take precedence over the fetus. same with homosexuality - i'm sick of a certain faction of society (our gvmt included) telling me that gays are and always have been considered abominations. while it is fair to say that our laws are founded in a judeo-christian tradition, it's not like buddhism and hinduism espouse murder and theft (correct me if i'm wrong). and while we may be based in that tradition, if the founding fathers had wanted specifically religious bases for future laws, they would have written it in. sure, you can read intent into the constitution but if you're going to, at least make sure you know what religion the framers espoused. i don't know how this ended up as a political rant but there you go. thoughts and comments welcomed.
props to Without a Trace for getting the highest FCC fine ever! $3.6 million! apparently, the teenage "orgy" from two seasons ago that seemed sad and upsetting to the rest of us was vulgar and inappropriate to those at the FCC. CBS got quite a few fines but the FCC decided not to fine FOX for Nicole Richie and Cher dropping the f-bomb on live TV. hmmmm.