Shock! UTAH Gov Vetoes Anti-Sex Education Bill

Well, this is a surprise. The Mormon Republican governor of Utah Gary Hebert refused to go along with his homophobic, theocratic and Republican-dominated legislature to ban sex education or any mention of homosexuality in Utah schools.

Instead Gov. Hebert vetoed HB 363, as reported by Reuters:

In vetoing the measure, dubbed HB 363, Herbert said that as a parent and grandparent he considered proper sex education in public schools an important component to the moral education youngsters receive at home.

"If HB 363 were to become law, parents would no longer have the option the overwhelming majority is currently choosing for their children. I am unwilling to conclude that the state knows better than Utah's parents as to what is best for their children," he said.

"In order for parents to take on more responsibility, they need more information, more involvement, and more choice—not less. I cannot sign a bill that deprives parents of their choice," he added.

Supporters of the bill argued that sex education was best left up to parents.

When even the Republican Governor of Utah won't go along with your know-nothing policy agenda, don't you think perhaps you may have gone too far?

Apparently not. Here is what the Salt Lake Tribune attributed to HB 363 proponents (read it and puke!):

"It never entered our minds that the governor who told us he was conservative would veto such an appropriate piece of legislation," she said. "By vetoing this bill, he just sent the message that Utah’s stamp of approval [is] on teaching children how to have sex, teaching contraception and saying this is the safest way to have sex." 

Sen. Margaret Dayton, co-sponsor of the bill, said she was disappointed the governor hadn’t contacted her to discuss his concerns and said teaching children about contraception is comparable to telling kids not to do drugs, then showing them how to "mainline" heroin.

Yes, a state senator did just compare teaching about contraception to promoting drug addiction. I really have no words in response. How can one engage in meaningful dialogue or debate with a raving lunatic? I bet she thinks mentioning homosexuality makes kids gay. But then again, she probably didn't have any sex education and wants to make sure that Utah produces more, ignorant, homophobic adults who share her views!

All I can say to the kids of Utah, "It Gets Better" (when you leave Utah)!

POLL: Most AL, MS Republicans Are Racist Idiots

Today is Republican primary election day in Alabma and Mississippi.

Here are some  poll results of questions asked of Republican primary voters in
 Mississippi:

and Alabama:

which indicate that majorities of respondents in those two states do not believe in evolution (66% and 60%) and believe Barack Obama is not a Christian (88% and 86%).

How else can one describe these results but to characterize them as indicators of bigotry and ignorance?

Hat/tip to Dave Weigel of Slate Magazine.

Utah Legislature Kills Gay Rights Bill For 5th Year In A Row

Bad news from Utah. For the fifth year in a row a bill which would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in housing and employment anywhere in the state of Utah has been killed by the Mormon (and Republican) dominated Legislature. SB 51, authored by Democratic State Senator Ben McAdams, would have

prohibited discriminationincludes sexual orientation and gender identity as a prohibited basis for discrimination in employment; prohibits political speech or activity as a basis for discrimination in employment; modifies exemptions to the Utah Fair Housing Act; includes sexual orientation and gender identity as a prohibited basis for discriminatory housing practices;

Interestingly, in the last few years the Mormon Church has dropped its opposition to statewide LGBT protections in employment and housing and several municipalities in the state have passed local ordinances which do just that.

Just to demonstrate the extreme level of ignorance about civil rights in Utah check out this quote published by the Salt Lake Tribune:

Gayle Ruzicka, president of the Utah Eagle Forum, spoke against the bill, saying that exemptions for religious organizations should be expanded to include religious people. Although existing anti-discrimination laws exempt owners of four or fewer units, Ruzicka questioned how she would be affected if she owned a 100-unit apartment complex.

"What if I was renting to singles and wanted I certain standard. I couldn’t say, ‘You’re living a homosexual lifestyle. You cant live here,’" Ruzicka said. "I think I should have the right to do so." 

McAdams said allowing bias because of a person’s religious beliefs would undermine state and federal laws that prohibit discrimination. 

"If I want to rent only to people of a certain ethnicity [because of my religious beliefs], I can’t do that. That’s discrimination," McAdams said.

It is because of religious extremists like Ruzicka that we need federal prohibitions on discrimination in housing that include sexual orientation and gender identity. McAdams makes the immediate connection that if you can allow discrimination based on religious beliefs it will soon lead to what is clearly unacceptable discrimination based on other categories.

Progressive and LGBT activists are not taking this repressive action by the Utah legislature denying equal rights to the LGBT community quietly.

Analysis of Field Poll Showing 59% Support Marriage Equality

The latest Field Poll is out and it has some encouraging news for supporters of marriage equality in California. By a margin of 25 points, 59% to 34%, California registered voters support "same-sex marriage," a jump of 7  points in support from the last Field poll taken in July 2010 which had the margin at a mere 9 points, 51% to 42%. The margin of error of these polls is ±4.5 percentage points.

Although this is very good news that the most respected polling outfit in California is showing support for marriage equality well above the majority position, it should be noted that 1) Field has a history of overstating supporting for the pro-equality side and 2) this is a poll of registered voters, which means it is essentially meaningless in predicting the outcome of a voter initiative on the measure.

First I will elaborate on my first point (Field has overestimated marriage equality support in the past). In 2008, during the fight to defeat Proposition 8 and defend California marriage equality from June 15 to November 4 (173 days) the Field poll issued 3 polls, all of which had the NO side ahead, often by significant margins. On September 19, 2008 Field said Proposition 8 was losing 55% No, 38% Yes among likely voters, On August 29, 2008 the Field Poll said Proposition 8 was losing 54% No to 40% Yes among likely voters and on its first poll on the issue on July 19, 2008 Field said that Proposition 8 was losing 51% No to 42% among likely voters. According to David Flesicher's exhaustive (and definitive) analysis of the campaign published in The Prop 8 Report, the internal polls of the No On 8 campaign NEVER had the No side above 48% of support, although their daily tracking polling did sometimes have the No side slightly ahead of the Yes side when the Undecided number would get larger. Once the "Princes" ad ran on California television for 10 days without a response Proposition 8 was ahead outside the margin of error. Field has never explained why their polling was so off on the Proposition 8 question, which ultimately passed by a margin of Yes 52.3%, No 47.7%.

My second point is to note that this is a poll of registered voters, not likely voters. It is true that it does not make sense to even speak about likely voters at this point, more than 8 months before the general election, but I want to clarify that there is always a difference between polling the set of all possible voters, and the results created when the subset of voters who actually go to the polls (or return their absentee ballots) and vote. However, the fact that we finally have one data point where majority support for marriage equality has been reached OUTSIDE the margin of error, bring us closer to the pre-conditions for when I would support an attempt to place a ballot measure to repeal Proposition 8.

I repeat those conditions here, for completeness:

1. multiple polls separated in time of weeks or months indicating clear majority support for marriage equality among registered voters;
2. at least one million dollars in the bank to begin a campaign; and 
3. a clearly delineated, consensus-driven model of a campaign structure that is responsive to and supported by all (or nearly all) the various segments of the California LGBT  and progressive activist communities.

I would also note that the two putative (and abortive) attempts by Love Honor Cherish to repeal Proposition 8 (in 2009 and in 2011) by ballot measure did not meet ANY of these above three conditions. In fact, only one of these conditions has ever been met (Condition 2), briefly by Equality California. I suspect that by November 2012 Condition 1 will have been met.

Then again, it is not clear that a campaign to repeal Proposition 8 is necessary, thanks to the federal court case of Perry v Brown, which has declared that measure as violative of the United States Constitution and has been struck down by the two courts which have examined it, on August 4, 2010 and on February 7, 2012. Proposition 8 is currently only in effect due to a stay issued by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on August 16, 2010 as the heterosexual supremacists who are defending it ask for an 11-member en banc panel of that court to consider their appeal, and after that they can also appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

More comment about the new Field poll. They also ask the question about what kind of legal recognition should same-sex couples have and here the response is that now 51% support marriage equality, with another 29% supporting civil unions (or comprehensive domestic partnerships, which is what California law is right now) and a mere 15% support no legal recognition for same-sex couples (See Table 3, below). Note, this 51% is not a majority position when the margin of error is considered. It's curious what the difference is between the 59% who support "allowing same- sex couples to marry and having regular marriage laws apply to them" and the 51% who think that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry  (when given the option of civil unions and no recognition whatsoever).

This is all great news for supporters of marriage equality and just more evidence that the heterosexual supremacists are fighting a battle that they will lose; it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.

An interesting poll would to also ask specifically about a Proposition 8 re-do which Field last asked in March 2009 and the results were 48% Support Repeal, 47% Support Prop 8. But this was before even the California Supreme Court had upheld Prop 8 and two federal courts had struck it down. I wonder what the Proposition 8 re-do poll numbers are now? Inquiring minds want to know.

Virginia: As Homophobic As They Wanna Be

Careful readers of this blog may realize that I currently live in California and Virginia (Los Angeles and Arlington County, respectively). Anyway, so these days I am paying more careful attention to what goes on in the Virginia legislature, especially as it affects "teh gays."

This little news nugget at Joe.My.God struck my eye. A Virginia legislative committee rejected a bil which would have outlawed discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation. Last November Republicans seized control of the Virginia Senate (there are equal number of Democrats and Republicans but the Lieutenant Governor is a Republican and he can break ties) and anti-gay public policy is one consequence:

Reflecting the recent switch from Democratic to Republican control of the Virginia Senate, a bill aimed at prohibiting discrimination in state hiring on the basis of sexual orientation was defeated today.

The Senate General Laws and Technology Committee rejected Sen. Adam Ebbin’s bill,SB263, on an 8-7 party-line vote.

A similar measure was passed by the Senate last year when it had a Democratic majority, only to be defeated in the Republican-led House of Delegates. Republicans won effective control of the Senate in the November election.

Really? In 2012 when lots of other states are talking about enacting marriage equality (which has majority public support among Americans nationally in polls) and most people already think it is illegal to fire someone because of their sexual orientation and upwards of 70% support laws to ban anti-gay discrimination, the Virginia legislature is continuing the homophobic status quo.

And, that, basically tell you all you need to know about Virginia!

GODLESS WEDNESDAY: "God Is An Imaginary Friend"

Noticed a story in Huffington Post that the above billboard is apparently being displayed in Boulder, Colorado. The message is that "God is an imaginary friend. Choose reality, it will be better for all of us." It is paid for by the Colorado Coalition of Reason.

On their website, the organization explains why they put the billboards up:

One of the reasons we put the billboard up is that we are concerned when religious people feel they have not only the right, but the obligation, to force their religious views on others. Examples are proselytizing in the military, educational systems, and government. Another example is the attacks by religious people on gays, lesbians, and abortion providers. 

If you agree with the sentiments of the sign and live in Colorado, there is probably a secular organization near you. You will be surprised how much we do, both as activists and in the social arena. Most of the COCORE groups have monthly meetings, book discussions, lunches, and social activities. The Atheist Alliance of America will be having their national convention in Denver in 2012. 

If you disagree with the sentiments of the sign, please don't be offended. We are more interested in opening a dialogue than upsetting you. We don't ask you to stop believing in your version of a super-natural being. We do ask that you consider not forcing your religious views on others.

I couldn't say it better myself! I wish there were hundreds of these billboards up around the country. What do you think?

WA: Majority Of Senators Support Marriage Equality

Excellent news! In Washington State, there is now a majority of Senators who have publicly announced their support for pending marriage equality legislation.

According to the Seattle Times ("Legislature has the votes"):

Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island, announced Monday that she supports gay-marriage legislation in the Senate, giving proponents the 25 votes needed for passage.

The state House already has enough lawmakers in support of the measure to approve it. Gov. Chris Gregoire backs the bill as well.

[...]

"I know this announcement makes me the so-called 25th vote, the vote that ensures passage. That's neither here nor there. If I were the first or the seventh or the 28th vote, my position would not be any different," Haugen said in a statement.

"I happen to be the 25th because I insisted on taking this much time to hear from my constituents and to sort it out for myself, to reconcile my religious beliefs with my beliefs as an American, as a legislator, and as a wife and mother who cannot deny to others the joys and benefits I enjoy," she added. Haugen said her preference would be to send the issue to voters to decide, but there aren't the votes in the Legislature to do that.

It is widely expected that the same heterosexual supremacists who forced a referendum in 2009 on Washington's comprehensive domestic partnership bill (which they lost!) will do so again when Governor Gregoire signs the marriage equality bill into law.

The legislative majority correctly is refusing to include a ballot measure provision in the legislation because marriage equality is a civil right and they are supporting the  principle that the rights of a minority should not be decided by a majority vote.

In other exciting marriage news, the Democratic Governor of Maryland, Martin O'Malley is expected to introduce a marriage equality bill today.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God.

WATCH: Sh*t Homophobic People Say

Godless Wednesday: Catholic Charities Got $2.9B in 2010 Federal Funds

The New York Times recently ran an article summarizing a new front in the ongoing kulturkampf (culture wars): the claim by Catholic officials that they are being discriminated against due to their religious beliefs by advances in LGBT equality.

This graf in particular struck my eye:

Catholic Charities is one of the nation’s most extensive social service networks, serving more than 10 million poor adults and children of many faiths across the country. It is made up of local affiliates that answer to local bishops and dioceses, but much of its revenue comes from the government. Catholic Charities affiliates received a total of nearly $2.9 billion a year from the government in 2010, about 62 percent of its annual revenue of $4.67 billion. Only 3 percent came from churches in the diocese (the rest came from in-kind contributions, investments, program fees and community donations).

In Illinois, Catholic Charities in five of the six state dioceses had grown dependent on foster care contracts, receiving 60 percent to 92 percent of their revenues from the state, according to affidavits by the charities’ directors. (Catholic Charities in the Archdiocese of Chicago pulled out of foster care services in 2007 because of problems with its insurance provider.)

The federal government is providing nearly three billion dollars in U.S. taxpayers monies to an organization which refuses to acknowledge basic tenets of science and aggressively seeks to force its world view upon others, discriminating on the basis of sex and sexual orientation in the process.

Ugh. It makes me nauseous to think that there are people who think they can accept funds (hello, some of which must be coming from LGBT people) and wants to use that money actively discriminating against those people, all in the name of "serving children." Is this not the text book definition of hypocrisy?

We had previously covered the conflict in Illinois between Catholic Charities heterosexist policies and the state's new civil union law on Godless Wednesday but had not seen an eye-dropping quote from religious extremist side before like this one (bolded):

Critics of the church argue that no group has a constitutional right to a government contract, especially if it refuses to provide required services.

But Anthony R. Picarello Jr., general counsel and associate general secretary of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, disagreed. “It’s true that the church doesn’t have a First Amendment right to have a government contract,” he said, “but it does have a First Amendment right not to be excluded from a contract based on its religious beliefs.”

This is not just a text-book definition of hypocrisy but also hubris! It's shocking to me the Catholic Bishops dude mentions the First Amendment (twice!) in his statement to the New York Times. Has he read it recently?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If your free exercise of religion involves discriminating against other citizens' "equal protection of the laws" and can be construed to contribute to an "establishment of religion" since you are attempting to propagate and promote your religious beliefs to children then it is pretty clear that you lose. And to think that you want federal money to do so is simply sickening.

Santorum Would Annul All U.S. Same-Sex Marriages

Rick Santorum, the ex-Senator from Pennsylvania who is one of the biggest religious-based homophobes now running for President (although that is a hotly contested title!) made news over the weekend for two reasons: he has surprisingly surged into the Top 3 in polls for tomorrow's Iowa caucuses and he said that he thinks that all same-sex marriages in the United States should be invalid.

I don't really care about the first item (I am confident that President Obama will be re-elected for a second term in November) but the second item needs further attention.

Here is what Santorum said exactly (to MSNBC's Chuck Todd):

SANTORUM: I think marriage has to be one thing for everybody. We can’t have 50 different marriage laws in this country, you have to have one marriage law…

TODD: What would you do with same-sex couples who got married? Would you make them get divorced?

SANTORUM: Well, their marriage would be invalid. I think if the constitution says “marriage is this,” then people whose marriage is not consistent with the constitution… I’d love to think there’s another way of doing it.

This statement demonstrates an astonishing ignorance and misunderstanding of federal law and marriage law, especially for a former United States Senator. Then, again, there's a reason why Santorum has been declared (by a fellow Republican who served as Senator John McCain's top aide for decade) as the dumbest United States Senator of the last twenty years:

Ron Paul may be the wackiest candidate in the GOP field. But for pure, blind stupidity nobody beats Santorum. In my 20 years in the Senate, I never met a dumber member, which he reminded me of today.

There are many reasons why Santorum's statement is so stupid but I will just list a few here

1. There is no precedent for invalidating any legal contract which was legal when it was entered into (i.e. even when Proposition 8 passed preventing any future marriages all the previous marriages entered into before its enactment are still legal and recognized in California).
2. The regulation of marriage IS a state issue and has been that way for centuries in this country; it is precisely that history (as well as the clearly defined animus against homosexuality that the law represents) which makes the so-called Defense of Marriage Act so constitutionally dubious, and this legal point will probably be settled within the current calendar year when the 9th and 1st U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal finally issue rulings on the matter.
3. The only way to "have one marriage law" would be to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution and there is absolutely no way that there are 2/3rds majorities in both houses to destroy the marriage rights of fellow U.S. citizens in the 6 states (and District of Columbia) where it is now legal.

This is really about Rick Santorum trying to burnish his heterosexual supremacist credentials with Iowa Republican caucus-goers. There is no way that he would ever be in the position to be able to enact his theocratic version of law into reality.

Godless Wednesday: Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011)

This week on Godless Wednesday we are commemorating the untimely passing of Christopher Hitchens, who has been the public face of godlessness for a decade at least.

Here's an excerpt of part of an obituary of Hitch from Slate magazine:

Born in Portsmouth, England, in 1949, Hitchens studied at Oxford before launching his journalism career in the 1970s with the magazines International Socialism and the New Statesman. In the early 1980s, he emigrated to the United States, where he was a regular columnist at The Nation for two decades before parting ways with the liberal magazine after proudly disagreeing with its editors about the Iraq war.

Hitchens won the National Magazine Award for commentary in 2007, the same year that he became an American citizen on his 58th birthday. Foreign Policy named him to its list of the top 100 public intellectuals the following year, and Forbes magazine labeled him one of the 25 most influential liberals in the U.S. media in 2009, a distinction that took some by surprise given Hitchens's vocal support of George W. Bush's war on terror.

He was a frequent guest on news programs and at public debates, and rarely passed up the opportunity to defend his positions when given the opportunity to do so. He was the author of nearly 20 books, including God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, The Trial of Henry Kissinger, Hitch-22: A Memoir, and Arguably, a collection of his more recent essays that was published earlier this year.

Hitchens remained steadfast in his criticism of religion even in the face of his grim prognosis. In an August 2010 interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, his colleague at The Atlantic, Hitchens made it known that even if he were to somehow recant his devout atheism on his deathbed, any apparent conversion would be a hollow gesture. "The entity making such a remark might be a raving, terrified person whose cancer has spread to the brain," he said. "I can't guarantee that such an entity wouldn't make such a ridiculous remark. But no one recognizable as myself would ever make such a ridiculous remark."

Godless Wednesday: Texas is "One State Under God"

The latest news from the Patriarchal Confederate Republic (also known as Texas) is that they have created a state-issued license which promotes the Christian Religion.

The Chicago Tribune reports:

Jonathan Saenz, the Director of Legislative Affairs for the Liberty Institute, a Texas-based group which fights to 'limit government and promote Judeo-Christian values,' said critics of the religious plate are "Christian bashing." 

He said there are already several specialty license plates which feature Christian crosses. In 2007, the Texas Legislature agreed to insert the phrase "One State Under God," the same phrase that is on the plate, into the Pledge to the Texas Flag which is said by school students every day, he said. 

"This is a matter of individual free speech, freedom of choice," Saenz said, adding that he would not oppose a state license plate which bore those words and featured a Jewish Star of David, the Islamic Crescent, or other non-Christian symbols. 

"There is no requirement that you agree with every specialty license plate there is. There are people who don't like the Boy Scouts, they have a plate. There are people who don't like the Knights of Columbus (Catholic men's organization), they have a plate."

Fasconating. I'm sure that Mr. Saenz will support the application of an Atheist organization to promote their view that God not exist? Or how about a Texas state license plate that has a rainbow flag and the word: "Pride" on it?

Yeah, I wouldn't hold my breath either.

Hat/tip to Richard Dawkins.net

Godless Heathens Respond To Rick Perry

Recently, Rick Perry started airing an offensive television ad which attacked gay people and complained about the attacks on religious beliefs by President Obama and liberals. Today, "godless heathens" responded to Perry's homophobic statements and so have other people.

Godless Wednesday: IL Catholic Orgs End Lawsuit On Foster Care

Ha, ha! Over the summer MadProfessah.com and other LGBT blogs reported about the obnoxious lawsuit by a number of Catholic dioceses in Illinois who were suing the state for the right to obtain payment from the government to offer foster and adoption services which would illegally discriminate against same-sex couples in civil unions.

The lawsuit was laughable on its face and last week even the religious extremists and heterosexual supremacists at the Catholic Dioceses of Joliet, Springfield and Belleville recognized that fact and dropped their lawsuit and ended their foster care services in the state.

The Chicago Tribune reports:

Since March, state officials have been investigating whether religious agencies that receive public funds to license foster care parents are breaking anti-discrimination laws if they turn away openly gay parents.  

After the civil union bill went into effect in June, Catholic Charities told the state that accommodating prospective foster parents in civil unions would violate Catholic Church teaching that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.  

Catholic Charities said it would instead refer gay couples elsewhere and only license married couples and single parents living alone.  

The agency has pointed to a clause in the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act that they believe protects religious institutions that don't recognize civil unions. 

But lawyers for the Illinois attorney general said that exemption only shields religious clergy who don't want to officiate at civil unions. The policy of Catholic Charities violates state anti-discrimination laws that demand couples in civil unions be treated the same as married couples, they said.

Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say. Thankfully, there are plenty of secular foster care agencies who care more about helping children then promoting religious-based homophobic ideology.

Approval of Congress Hits Single Digits (9%!)

Who's Oppressing Who?

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

Correlation Of Bigotry With Religious Belief?

Celebrity Friday: Brad Pitt Explains Marriage Equality Support

Brad Pitt, the once and future Sexiest Man Alive, gave an interview to the widely read Sunday newspaper insert Parade Magazine which explains his unconditional support for marriage equality:

“Can you believe that we’re still fighting for equality in America? To be against marriage for everyone is utter discrimination.  I feel strongly about that because if equality of marriage doesn’t happen now, the next generation will have to deal with it.

“It is an amazing thing that New York has finally gotten same-sex marriage. But the real problem is that the federal government hides behind states on this issue. It is blatant, ugly bigotry, and the federal government shouldn’t be doing that. You’re denying some Americans the right that all Americans have, to live their lives as they choose.

“What are you so afraid of? That’s my question. Gay people getting married? What is so scary about that? It’s complicated.  You grow up in a religion like that and you try to pray the gay away. I feel sadness for people like that. This is where people start short-circuiting—instead of being brave and questioning their beliefs, they are afraid and feel that they have to defend them.

“I don’t mind a world with religion in it. There are some beautiful tenets within all religions.  What I get hot about is when they start dictating how other people must live. People suffer because of it. They are spreading misery.    

I couldn't have said it better myself. Go Brad! Looking good at 47 years old, too!

Prof. Dawkins Responds To Rick Perry's Ignorance

Wowsa. I love Richard Dawkins. Texas Governor Rick Perry is right now the leading contended for the Republican Presidential nomination, and he recently said that evolution is "a theory that's out there" in response to a question. Professor Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and former Oxford professor, one of the more famous new Atheists, responds in the Washington Post with this excoriation (emphasis added):

There is nothing unusual about Governor Rick Perry. Uneducated fools can be found in every country and every period of history, and they are not unknown in high office. What is unusual about today’s Republican party (I disavow the ridiculous ‘GOP’ nickname, because the party of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt has lately forfeited all claim to be considered ‘grand’) is this: In any other party and in any other country, an individual may occasionally rise to the top in spite of being an uneducated ignoramus. In today’s Republican Party ‘in spite of’ is not the phrase we need. Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job.


[...]


A politician’s attitude to evolution is perhaps not directly important in itself. It can have unfortunate consequences on education and science policy but, compared to Perry’s and the Tea Party’s pronouncements on other topics such as economics, taxation, history and sexual politics, their ignorance of evolutionary science might be overlooked. Except that a politician’s attitude to evolution, however peripheral it might seem, is a surprisingly apposite litmus test of more general inadequacy. This is because unlike, say, string theory where scientific opinion is genuinely divided, there is about the fact of evolution no doubt at all. Evolution is a fact, as securely established as any in science, and he who denies it betrays woeful ignorance and lack of education, which likely extends to other fields as well. Evolution is not some recondite backwater of science, ignorance of which would be pardonable. It is the stunningly simple but elegant explanation of our very existence and the existence of every living creature on the planet. Thanks to Darwin, we now understand why we are here and why we are the way we are. You cannot be ignorant of evolution and be a cultivated and adequate citizen of today.


[...]


There are many reasons to vote against Rick Perry. His fatuous stance on the teaching of evolution in schools is perhaps not the first reason that springs to mind. But maybe it is the most telling litmus test of the other reasons, and it seems to apply not just to him but, lamentably, to all the likely contenders for the Republican nomination. The ‘evolution question’ deserves a prominent place in the list of questions put to candidates in interviews and public debates during the course of the coming election.

It should be noted that, in February 2009, on the bicentennial of Darwin's birth (same day as President Abraham Lincoln, February 12, 1809), Gallup released a poll which showed that a mere 39% of Americans believe in evolution. (25% says they do not believe in evolution and 36% have no opinion.) Hopefully someone will re-do that poll again (particular to minimize the no opinion category) as Rick Perry grows more prominent in the public eye, and perhaps Mr. Perry will recognize (and be asked about) the separation of church and state that American's founding fathers believed in.

Rick Perry's Top 10 Crazy Ideas (That Will Affect You)

Oh good grief. Maybe it's true that George W. Bush was "the smart one." His successor, Governor Rick Perry is now running for President and  has even crazier ideas about government than Michele "Crazy Eyes" Bachmann.

Blogger Matt Yglesias took his life in his hands and read Perry's book, Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington and posted the Top 10 craziest ideas he found inside:

— 10. Social Security Is Evil: According to Perry Social Security is “by far the best example” of a program “violently tossing aside any respect for our founding principles.” (page 48)

— 9. Private Enterprise Blossomed Under Conscription and Wartime Price Controls: Not only does he argue that the New Deal failed to end the Great Depression, but he asserts “recovery did not come until World War II, when FDR was finally persuaded to unleash private enterprise.” (page 48)

— 8. Medicare Is Too Expensive But Must Never Be Cut: Both establishing Medicare in 1965 and expanding it to include prescription drugs in 2003 are examples of “an irresponsible culture of spending in Washington” (page 63), but establishing “‘councils of experts’ and panels of various sorts” to assess the cost effectiveness of different Medicare-eligible treatments is a “frightening” “scheme” that “undermines freedom” and can be fairly labeled “death panels” (page 81).

— 7. All Bank Regulation Is Unconstitutional: Criticizing the Security and Exchange Commission’s rulemaking process under the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill, Perry asserts that “if the Constitution were shown the appropriate respect, Washington regulation writers wouldn’t have to worry about underrepresented views, because they wouldn’t have control over them in the first place” (page 94).

— 6. Consumer Financial Protection Is Unconstitutional: Further reiterates his view that all federal financial regulation is illegitimate, listing the SEC on page 44 as part of a “federal alphabet soup” in which “undemocratic unelected Washington bureaucrats” are “now (dubiously) empowered to dictate their own preferences to the American people.”

— 5. Almost Everything Is Unconstitutional: Regrets the existence of jurisprudence construing the Commerce Clause to permit “federal laws regulating the environment, regulating guns, protecting civil rights, establishing the massive programs and Medicare and Medicaid, creating national minimum wage laws, [and] establishing national labor laws.” Perry makes a partial exception for laws barring racial discrimination which he says fulfill “the intent behind the passage of the Reconstruction Era amendments.” (page 51)

— 4. Federal Education Policy Is Unconstitutional: Cites the willingness of Republicans to vote for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as a “perfect example” of “losing sight of the fact that perfectly laudable policy choices at the local level are not appropriate (much less constitutional) at the federal level.” (page 87)

— 3. Al Gore Is Part Of A Conspiracy To Deny The Existence Of Global Cooling:Jokes that the Social Security Trust Fund “must be somewhere in Al Gore’s lockbox, right next to his notes from inventing the Internet and that global cooling data he doesn’t want anyone to see” (page 60). Argues that moderates oppose curbing greenhouse gas emissions because “they know that we have been experiencing a cooling trend” (page 92).

— 2. Not Only Is Everything Unconstitutional, Activist Judges Are A Problem:Having called the majority of the duly enacted modern welfare state and federal regulatory apparatus unconstitutional, Perry pivots to the complaint that “the [Supreme] court too often chooses to take it upon itself to govern and to develop policy” (page 114).

— 1. The Civil War Was Caused By Slaveowners Trampling On Northern States’ Rights: Rather than simply citing chattel slavery as an exemption to his “states’ rights are good” principle, Perry argues that slaveholder activism in the 1850s was an example of big government federal overreach. “In many ways it was was the northern states whose sovereignty was violated in the run-up to the Civil War,” he argues, citing the Fugitive Slave Act and completely ignoring the human rights of the enslaved African-Americans of the south. He says “we can never know what would have happened in the absence of federal involvement,” ignoring again the fact that federalism would have bought peace at the price of continued slavery.

Please don't think that Gov. Perry just wrote these comments in a book nobody read and is now distancing himself from these extreme positions. In an interview with The Daily Beast last week, Perry repeated many of these extreme positions unapologetically.

Pick your poison: Perry, Bachmann or Romney. No thanks, I'll take Obama!