high court looks at military funeral protests
this is clearly a case of intentional infliction of emotional distress. the phelps cult had no real business at Matthew's funeral BUT to inflict emotional distress. they are hiding behind two banners -- (1) religion, and (2) free speech. but you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and you can't yell "i'm glad you're dead; god hates you; you're burning in hell" at a private funeral.
the cult's lawyer says they'll keep "talking" until they get their message across? -- they're not talking to anyone; they're yelling at everyone. they've gotten their point across; now they can go home and wait for their god to reward their good acts. SCOTUS should rule in favor of Mr. Snyder, because this is a clear intention to inflict emotional distress, hiding behind the guise of a church. it is a hate crime, just as if they had burnt down a place of worship or blown up some children.
and this is a nontheist talking. i personally don't believe in any gods, but i do believe in respect for peoples' grief. Matthew Snyder is beyond grief now, but his family and friends are not. they are vulnerable to attack, and emotionally sensitive. turning his funeral into a hate-filled spectacle is the same thing as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, as i said before. it creates the exact same kind of emotional distress.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
what schools and students need, and why
Obama -- money alone can't solve school predicament
i have been saying, for years, that our education system has more than enough money, not enough good teachers -- and, consequently, too many bad teachers -- and too short a schedule. finally, obama has said something i can agree wholeheartedly with! i am a testament to what good teachers can do for students -- they inspire, create curiosity, and generate interest in the subject matter by bringing it to life.
here's a shout-out for some of my best, A#1 teachers: Mrs. Salisbury (4th grade), Mr. Davis (8th grade), Dr. Harned, Lorenzo Thomas, and Dr. Haney (university). they all deserve(d) much more money than we pay them. and librarians, too -- don't leave out the very important keepers-of-books. these people should be compensated monetarily according to the importance of their careers and the success that they have achieved.
another thing -- teaching to the test is not the way to find out if you are a good teacher. teaching the subject matter well and successfully is the way to find out. how interested are the students? are they excited to come to class? are they intellectually stimulated? do they welcome tests, in order to show what they know as well as find out what they don't yet know? do they do homework willingly, even gladly? these are some of the ways to judge a good teacher.
and if teachers had more time to teach students, students would learn more. that's just common sense. with good teachers, students would be much more anxious to attend school, much less likely to ditch classes (right, Ferris?), and much more likely to understand the subject matter in a mature way that generates lifelong interest. they just might be interested in having a clear mind for learning, rather than a clouded mind by drugging and drinking. we are educating citizens, future leaders, fellow homo sapiens. what could be more important?
i have been saying, for years, that our education system has more than enough money, not enough good teachers -- and, consequently, too many bad teachers -- and too short a schedule. finally, obama has said something i can agree wholeheartedly with! i am a testament to what good teachers can do for students -- they inspire, create curiosity, and generate interest in the subject matter by bringing it to life.
here's a shout-out for some of my best, A#1 teachers: Mrs. Salisbury (4th grade), Mr. Davis (8th grade), Dr. Harned, Lorenzo Thomas, and Dr. Haney (university). they all deserve(d) much more money than we pay them. and librarians, too -- don't leave out the very important keepers-of-books. these people should be compensated monetarily according to the importance of their careers and the success that they have achieved.
another thing -- teaching to the test is not the way to find out if you are a good teacher. teaching the subject matter well and successfully is the way to find out. how interested are the students? are they excited to come to class? are they intellectually stimulated? do they welcome tests, in order to show what they know as well as find out what they don't yet know? do they do homework willingly, even gladly? these are some of the ways to judge a good teacher.
and if teachers had more time to teach students, students would learn more. that's just common sense. with good teachers, students would be much more anxious to attend school, much less likely to ditch classes (right, Ferris?), and much more likely to understand the subject matter in a mature way that generates lifelong interest. they just might be interested in having a clear mind for learning, rather than a clouded mind by drugging and drinking. we are educating citizens, future leaders, fellow homo sapiens. what could be more important?
democrats v. republicans -- a pox on both of you
it is unfortunate that both major political parties are really two heads of the same coin. they are both corrupt and ineffective. much of what they do is to slander the other party, as if the truth were limited to the one being attacked. my husband used to say, "if you have one finger pointed at me, then you have three fingers pointing back at you."
when republicans point at the democrats and accuse them of, e.g., abuse of power, they are condemning themselves as well, with their own words. nothing can be said about the one that is not true of the other, as well. and, as we all know, two wrongs do not make a right.
political parties are sects that are beholden to one another. they invite corruption. i believe it was James Madison in Federalist 10 or 11 who railed against the party system. right now, it is the party that builds the platform for which it stands; it should be the individual who is running for office -- any office -- who is required to set forth his or her platform. and i don't mean that they should just say, "i'm for the democrats" or "i'm for the republicans." they need to set out detailed statements/explications of their political views. this would of course require thinking and writing; and reading, by the public.
we are all complicit -- we need to fully participate. we cannot afford to be mentally lazy when it comes to electing representatives, and they cannot afford to be mentally and philosophically lazy when it comes to defining their platform. no more adhering to the republicrats; let's see individual accountability and individual participation.
candidates need, for one, to leave religious values out of their platforms. the First Amendment gives us rights that cannot be undone, no matter how much one sect would have their moral standards thrust upon all citizens. this goes for democrats as well as republicans -- one would legislate what goes on in our bedrooms, the other would dare legislate what goes on in the rest of the house.
there is an evil at work here; it is called bureaucracy. untold millions of trees are killed to make the paper behind which politicians hide, the huge mass of paperwork that does naught but obfuscate and misrepresent.
popularity should be exorcised from candidacy; personal traits, such as religious belief, should be kept personal. i look forward to the day when an atheist can openly run for office and actually be elected. we have had atheists in office, but they must behave as though they were caught by the throat of a "don't ask; don't tell" policy. belief in gods should not be a prerequisite for holding office. the Constitution allows for oath or affirmation, and that is all it has to say on the subject. the Bill of Rights works as a check upon government -- the "they shalt nots" that government cannot perpetrate upon its citizenry. too many people mix it up with the ten commandments -- the "thou shalt nots" -- that ought to be obeyed by one and all. this is explicitly forbidden by the First and Ninth Amendments.
it is very difficult to vote in today's climate. one must settle for the lesser of several evils, and then hope that congress is of the opposite persuasion, so that nothing can get done. this is the safest we can ever be, when it comes to enacting legislation. it is simply a total waste of the sapient mind and of a reasonable citizenry.
but at least we get to vote, which is a good thing, as martha stewart would say. how and whether our votes are counted and registered is, of course, another story. practically every election since 2000 has brought up that political bad boy. we remain uncertain as to whether our vote "counts," and this engenders disillusionment in the entire system. and we're back to the beginning of my argument ...
when republicans point at the democrats and accuse them of, e.g., abuse of power, they are condemning themselves as well, with their own words. nothing can be said about the one that is not true of the other, as well. and, as we all know, two wrongs do not make a right.
political parties are sects that are beholden to one another. they invite corruption. i believe it was James Madison in Federalist 10 or 11 who railed against the party system. right now, it is the party that builds the platform for which it stands; it should be the individual who is running for office -- any office -- who is required to set forth his or her platform. and i don't mean that they should just say, "i'm for the democrats" or "i'm for the republicans." they need to set out detailed statements/explications of their political views. this would of course require thinking and writing; and reading, by the public.
we are all complicit -- we need to fully participate. we cannot afford to be mentally lazy when it comes to electing representatives, and they cannot afford to be mentally and philosophically lazy when it comes to defining their platform. no more adhering to the republicrats; let's see individual accountability and individual participation.
candidates need, for one, to leave religious values out of their platforms. the First Amendment gives us rights that cannot be undone, no matter how much one sect would have their moral standards thrust upon all citizens. this goes for democrats as well as republicans -- one would legislate what goes on in our bedrooms, the other would dare legislate what goes on in the rest of the house.
there is an evil at work here; it is called bureaucracy. untold millions of trees are killed to make the paper behind which politicians hide, the huge mass of paperwork that does naught but obfuscate and misrepresent.
popularity should be exorcised from candidacy; personal traits, such as religious belief, should be kept personal. i look forward to the day when an atheist can openly run for office and actually be elected. we have had atheists in office, but they must behave as though they were caught by the throat of a "don't ask; don't tell" policy. belief in gods should not be a prerequisite for holding office. the Constitution allows for oath or affirmation, and that is all it has to say on the subject. the Bill of Rights works as a check upon government -- the "they shalt nots" that government cannot perpetrate upon its citizenry. too many people mix it up with the ten commandments -- the "thou shalt nots" -- that ought to be obeyed by one and all. this is explicitly forbidden by the First and Ninth Amendments.
it is very difficult to vote in today's climate. one must settle for the lesser of several evils, and then hope that congress is of the opposite persuasion, so that nothing can get done. this is the safest we can ever be, when it comes to enacting legislation. it is simply a total waste of the sapient mind and of a reasonable citizenry.
but at least we get to vote, which is a good thing, as martha stewart would say. how and whether our votes are counted and registered is, of course, another story. practically every election since 2000 has brought up that political bad boy. we remain uncertain as to whether our vote "counts," and this engenders disillusionment in the entire system. and we're back to the beginning of my argument ...
Sunday, September 12, 2010
yahoo censors this comment re: arresting the pope
Different pope, different times for pope's trip to England
ratzinger should be arrested. he was in charge during the initial stages of the sex-abuse scandal, and he is in charge now as the ultimate figurehead of the rcc. he is the gang leader, and should be made to pay for his crimes and his aiding and abetting criminals.
ratzinger should be arrested. he was in charge during the initial stages of the sex-abuse scandal, and he is in charge now as the ultimate figurehead of the rcc. he is the gang leader, and should be made to pay for his crimes and his aiding and abetting criminals.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
yahoo censors this comment re: the nature of islam
obama commemorates 9/11 with appeal for tolerance
to everyone out there in internet-land -- rent the documentary "Islam: What The West Needs To Know" before you talk about free speech rights. islam is determined to take over the world, until they are the only religion, except for the dhimmi. read the qur'an and the hadith. it's all in there. islam is a religion of the sword; they have elevated death while killing infidels to the level of martyrdom. there is nothing peaceful about a religion whose name literally translates to "submission" and whose stated and unstated desires are for world domination. there is no such thing as a moderate muslim -- they are considered apostates and are targeted for death by assassination. if you read islam's religious texts, you will see that "moderate" has no place there. believers are permitted to lie and deceive to get to the eventual goal.
again, watch "Islam: What The West Needs To Know" and listen to what the experts say. they will kill over a cartoon, a book (Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses," even over a threat to burn their qur'an. they will kill at the drop of a hat, because islam is all about killing. no doubt about it.
to those who believe that the acts of 9/11/01 were cowardly, they were not. they were the acts of deeply committed religious people who KNEW that they would be rewarded in islamic heaven with virgins and family members. they were merely following the precepts of their religion to the letter. let that be a warning to all those who do the same, no matter what religion it may be.
to everyone out there in internet-land -- rent the documentary "Islam: What The West Needs To Know" before you talk about free speech rights. islam is determined to take over the world, until they are the only religion, except for the dhimmi. read the qur'an and the hadith. it's all in there. islam is a religion of the sword; they have elevated death while killing infidels to the level of martyrdom. there is nothing peaceful about a religion whose name literally translates to "submission" and whose stated and unstated desires are for world domination. there is no such thing as a moderate muslim -- they are considered apostates and are targeted for death by assassination. if you read islam's religious texts, you will see that "moderate" has no place there. believers are permitted to lie and deceive to get to the eventual goal.
again, watch "Islam: What The West Needs To Know" and listen to what the experts say. they will kill over a cartoon, a book (Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses," even over a threat to burn their qur'an. they will kill at the drop of a hat, because islam is all about killing. no doubt about it.
to those who believe that the acts of 9/11/01 were cowardly, they were not. they were the acts of deeply committed religious people who KNEW that they would be rewarded in islamic heaven with virgins and family members. they were merely following the precepts of their religion to the letter. let that be a warning to all those who do the same, no matter what religion it may be.
Friday, September 10, 2010
yahoo censors this comment re: homosexuals serving in the military
this poster claims that only perverts and/or pedophiles support homosexuals who serve their country, so, i guess i'm a pervert and/or a pedophile. news to me. opinions like that are the reason we have courts to rule on Constitutional questions, and the reason the Bill of Rights was written. rights trump opinions, especially opinions like that.
btw, i'm a heterosexual woman, NOT a pervert or a pedophile. you're the pervert ... are you also a pedophile? methinks the poster doth protest too much.
btw, i'm a heterosexual woman, NOT a pervert or a pedophile. you're the pervert ... are you also a pedophile? methinks the poster doth protest too much.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
yahoo censors this comment re: the sexual nature of god/s
why does any god have to have a sex at all? it doesn't need a penis or vagina to reproduce, it doesn't need eggs or sperm; it uses dirt and breath, if i am not mistaken. i won't be answering to an it, because it doesn't exist. none of the its exist. it's your problem, what its sexual orientation is or is not, if indeed it should have a sexual orientation. why does it need one? is it because men invented gods and anthropomorphized them? i think that is its nature -- i.e., man's nature.
Monday, September 6, 2010
yahoo censors this comment re: persian woman sentenced to death by stoning
regarding the persian woman sentenced to be stoned to death -- what about the two men? apparently, what is a crime for a woman is not a crime for a man. this is a misogynistic religion, as well as one trapped in the dark ages. where are the "moderate" muslims condemning both the woman's punishment and the men's lack of punishment?
what the heck is she being punished for? she was a widow and she had sex. she did not commit adultery, unless having a dead husband prevents you from ever having sex again. this is so totally backwards and immature that i cannot imagine the people who actually take this seriously!
if this woman is put to death, a great crime will have been committed. having already subjected her to 99 lashes -- a very painful punishment (just see mel gibson's passion of christ) -- is barbarous. these people don't have the sense or maturity to be ashamed of themselves. please let's don't take them seriously, as they would like us to do.
see what they are willing to do with stones and whips? now imagine what they will be willing to do with nuclear weapons.
what the heck is she being punished for? she was a widow and she had sex. she did not commit adultery, unless having a dead husband prevents you from ever having sex again. this is so totally backwards and immature that i cannot imagine the people who actually take this seriously!
if this woman is put to death, a great crime will have been committed. having already subjected her to 99 lashes -- a very painful punishment (just see mel gibson's passion of christ) -- is barbarous. these people don't have the sense or maturity to be ashamed of themselves. please let's don't take them seriously, as they would like us to do.
see what they are willing to do with stones and whips? now imagine what they will be willing to do with nuclear weapons.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
yahoo censors this comment re: legalizing prostitution
men and women who sell sex are businesspersons. they should be able to advertise, their health should be regulated, and they should pay taxes. the opposition is mainly from the religious community, whose sense of morality is conflicted at best, perverted at worst.
and another thing, why should businesses be closed on sunday? i'm all for 24/7/365 workdays. if you want to go to church, fine -- go to church. if you want to buy a bottle of liquor, fine -- buy a bottle of liquor. sunday is just another day of the week.
the post office should lower the price of stamps and deliver mail 7 days a week. then, maybe they'd get more business. there would certainly be more jobs available.
all these objections/prohibitions are based on judeochristian morality, which has no place in secular government. just because one group of people find sex purveyors immoral, doesn't mean that they are immoral. if you don't like it, turn off the tv, change the channel, don't hire a sex worker, etc. but don't impose your outmoded, faith-based morality upon the rest of us.
reason tells us that there are people -- of both sexes -- who want to engage in sex, and there are people -- of both sexes -- who are willing to accommodate them. a person's religion or faith in general have no business in the public arena. i am personally offended at the imposition of an irrational morality that ignores reason in favor of belief without evidence. sex sells, and there will always be people -- of both sexes -- who are willing to sell. let's let them!
and another thing, why should businesses be closed on sunday? i'm all for 24/7/365 workdays. if you want to go to church, fine -- go to church. if you want to buy a bottle of liquor, fine -- buy a bottle of liquor. sunday is just another day of the week.
the post office should lower the price of stamps and deliver mail 7 days a week. then, maybe they'd get more business. there would certainly be more jobs available.
all these objections/prohibitions are based on judeochristian morality, which has no place in secular government. just because one group of people find sex purveyors immoral, doesn't mean that they are immoral. if you don't like it, turn off the tv, change the channel, don't hire a sex worker, etc. but don't impose your outmoded, faith-based morality upon the rest of us.
reason tells us that there are people -- of both sexes -- who want to engage in sex, and there are people -- of both sexes -- who are willing to accommodate them. a person's religion or faith in general have no business in the public arena. i am personally offended at the imposition of an irrational morality that ignores reason in favor of belief without evidence. sex sells, and there will always be people -- of both sexes -- who are willing to sell. let's let them!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
