Did You Notice How Quickly The Free Market Swooped In To Take Over Head Start And Do It Even Better? Me Neither.

There’s nothing the government does, so I’m told,
That the free market doesn’t do better
So now with the government shutting its doors
And the market cut loose from its fetter
There is nothing to stop it from jumping right in—
Taking over, and doing things right—
Bureaucracy stood in its way until now,
But with government down, now it might!
So the kids who are staying at home for a bit
Cos the money was cut from Head Start?
The market should see an investment to make…
But they don’t. So the world falls apart.

“We Want To Patriotically Ignore The Will Of The Voters. Patriotically!”

The last time constituents voted, they noted
That one of the issues was health care reform
One candidate promised, “don’t heal it—repeal it”
And promised to take on the nation by storm
The nation, by whom they elected, rejected
The notion that healthcare was nothing but trash
The losing Republicans, routed, just pouted,
And bought local races with shitloads of cash

The courts said the law, despite bluster, passed muster,
So now, on the books, it’s the law of the land
Too late for opponents, so screaming and scheming
Is all they have left, which they simply can’t stand.
Within their own party, the fractions of factions
Are zealously fighting their way to the right—
Where once there were moderate voices, no choice is
Allowed to seem soft, or unwilling to fight

The ideologically driven are riven
By forces that split them and make them unwise
They’ll claim they’re just heading where freedom will lead ‘em
And death’s on the table, before compromise
But the thing is, they lost! There’s no mystery—history
Shows that such losses have happened before!
With the pathway the voters selected rejected,
Democracy fails… the alternative’s war.

Oddly enough, the Tea Party Republicans put me in mind of this verse… I wonder why. Man, for people who loves them some constitution, they sure are quick to abandon it when the process leads to someone else winning.

GOP’s Toddler Tantrum Tactics

You won’t make a deal with me?
Two can play that game, you see—
So now I will not negotiate with you!
Since we’ve talked this thing to death
Now it’s time to hold my breath—
And we’ll know that you’re to blame when I turn blue

Hey, you guys, it isn’t fair
That you keep me from my air
And my pipeline, and my drilling, and my coal
And Obamacare’s repeal
And Paul Ryan’s budget deal
It’s a battle for the nation’s very soul

You keep telling me to note
That Obama won the vote
I don’t like it, but I’m very much aware
When the nation had their say,
Though, they didn’t vote my way,
So I’m telling you, quite clearly, I don’t care

So I’d better get my way
When you hold your vote today
And you’d better give me everything I want
Cos if not, you’d best believe
I’ll just take your ball and leave
And condemn you for your politicking stunt

We’ve moved from political negotiations to hostage negotiations in Washington.

Impeach… um… Eisenhower!

In my in-box, there was drama—
We must now impeach Obama!—
And a screed without one comma
Made the case why this was so.

Since he won his last election,
This is cause for insurrection!
(It’s assumed there’s no objection
And the man must simply go)

Once the president’s elected
It has come to be expected
The mistake must be corrected
When the losers raise their voice

But it seems, each generation
Has the chance to save the nation
By suggesting usurpation
Of the people’s lawful choice

Oddly enough, I got a bunch of spam email this morning telling me how wonderful it is that there are Republican lawmakers making noise to their constituents about impeaching Obama. They’ve reached the bottom, the email rejoiced; this has replaced even the meaningless posturing about Obamacare that had previously represented the dictionary example of “exercise in frustration”.

And then, in a bit of synchronicity, NPR has a story up today about how pretty much every president gets the impeachment rhetoric from somebody. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter… and the reason I am writing today, Eisenhower.

But this post is not really about impeachment. Rather, it’s about poetry, and yet one more example that what I write is not poetry (and I’m cool with that–it’s verse, or better yet doggerel, and I am proud enough of it without calling it poetry). You want poetry about impeachment? The NPR story linked to a poem, “Tentative Description of a Dinner Given to Promote the Impeachment of President Eisenhower“. Now, that’s poetry (and anyone who thinks that not rhyming makes writing easier, I’m here to say otherwise). Read and enjoy.

Wouldn’t It Be Nice?

“Religious Values” classes have been fading from the schools
Although, strangely, their inclusion wasn’t breaking any rules
It didn’t take a lawsuit, or a dozen, or a score
Just… the Christian volunteers weren’t volunteering any more

A story out of New Zealand, with a title I wonder if I’ll live long enough to see in the US: Adherence to religion falling fast.

For generations of pupils at Midhirst’s closeknit primary school, the weekly routine included half an hour of religious instruction.

“No-one ever opted out and the children loved it,” principal Stuart Beissel says.

“Things have changed over the years. We don’t have all the people going to church any more, but I think people still hold the basic values of the Bible.”

But after decades without interruption, religious instruction has ended at Midhirst.

“All the great people that took religious instruction moved out of the district or retired,” Mr Beissel says.

It’s a trend being seen across the country. A survey of 1800 primary and intermediate schools carried out by rationalist David Hines showed 62 state schools had dropped religious instruction since 2011, mainly because of a lack of volunteers able to teach it.

It’s quite a lengthy article, actually, which gives it the space for a really nicely thorough analysis of the situation, with the input from reasonable people all around–some who find the change alarming, and others who are actively encouraging it. This is a big social change, and that is explored as well.

“I asked a principal who just cancelled Bible In Schools – I said ‘would you say it’s biased?’ – he said it was biased by omission. They mention there are good Christians around. They don’t mention there are good Muslims and Hindus around, so they create a bias by just what they don’t say.”

The bias is not just against other religions but against those without religion – a group to which 36 per cent of the population claimed to belong in the 2006 census. Should trends continue, the 2013 census is likely to show this group has grown to 40 per cent.

This is a stunning turnaround from 1956, when just 0.5 per cent of New Zealanders indicated they had no religion. But it was in that religion-soaked climate that the Education Act 1964 was passed and it is this act that allows religious instruction in otherwise secular state schools.

I also like that the story closes with specific definitions of “secular state” and “secular education”. Such inclusions might spare a lot of rancor on sites like Fox or CNN, where it’s not so much a duel of definitions, but a mob of them.

Oh, and for those who like such things, there is a poll at the article: Do you think state schools should conduct religious instruction for primary-aged children?

But wouldn’t it be nice to have establishment clause battles cease here in the US, simply because (e.g.) nobody was motivated enough to get on the school public address system and recite a prayer?

The Best Argument For Atheist Chaplains Is… Christian Chaplains

From the US Army Chaplain Corps website:

Mission Statement:
The U.S. Army Chaplain Corps provides religious support to America’s Army while assisting commanders in ensuring the right of free exercise of religion for all Soldiers. In short, we nurture the living, care for the wounded, and honor the fallen.

Source.

We nurture the living
We care for the wounded
We honor the fallen. That’s all.
Our mission is not
To convert unbelievers,
Or promote Christianity’s call.
To those who will claim
That the godless are different
And somehow, we can’t get along…
It’s not that you’re spouting
A different opinion—
The God’s honest truth is, you’re wrong.

I have former students in the military. To the best of my knowledge, none of them are atheists. One calls me his “atheist friend”. (I hate phones. I loathe phones. I avoid phones. I have this man’s number on my phone, and keep in touch. He’s that important.) Some, I am well aware, have been under fire. None of my own students have been killed. Others at Cuttlefish U. have not been so fortunate.

Think of the people you know who are in the military. Whether you agree with their religious views or not, whether you agree with their mission or not, my goodness, you care about them. With that in mind… please watch this:

The caller, identified as a “former Navy Chaplain” (we have reason to suspect callers), is an utter ass. (update–apparently, he is identified by name, and is in fact who he says he is, and remains an utter ass.)

They don’t have spiritual needs the way that religious sailors do. I was a Navy Chaplain and chaplains, by definition, are people of faith. They cater to the spiritual needs, they cater to the beliefs, or the religious needs… if you don’t have a religion, then you don’t have religious needs, so you don’t need the services of a chaplain.
If you need counseling, you can go to a secular psychologist in the military — that’s free of charge and that’s confidential*, so what would the duties of an atheist chaplain be?

The chaplains themselves (quoted up at the top) say that they “nurture the living”. Atheists certainly might need that, now and again. Perhaps quite often, if they happen to be in a stressful situation, like… oh, I don’t know… combat. Chaplains “care for the wounded”. I suspect that wounded atheists need every bit as much care as any others. Different context, but Shakespeare would probably have asked “if you prick us, do we not bleed?” (oops–sorry, Jewish chaplains are allowed.) Chaplains “honor the fallen”. Anyone who thinks atheists do not honor and mourn is a sociopath.

The caller, apparently Navy Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt, is exhibit number one as to why Christian chaplains are inadequate. I have no doubt that there are other christian chaplains who are competent. Who can look beyond the “atheist” on the tag and see a human being who needs help. And be willing to help. But as long as there are Klingenschmitts in the Chaplains Corp, there is a serious need for atheist chaplains.

Oh, and as an aside (it doesn’t deserve more attention than an aside), Solomon’s quip about atheists encouraging suicide is one of the more offensive things I have seen this year (and as you know, I intentionally read comment threads on the internet). I could, of course, direct his attention to the good people at Rapture Ready (no, I will not link there–search at your own risk, or just think about what the title implies), and consider that I could make a claim (with considerably more backing than his) that it is evangelical christians who would advocate self-slaughter. But really, a truly good person would be above that. Guess I’m just all right.

*this Klingenschmitt bearing false witness. Visits to the psychologist are part of your permanent record.

Article VI, Section III

When they wrote the constitution
The framers thought it best
To make it clear
An office here
Needs no religious test

To defend the constitution
To the clause, the word, the letter
The framers knew
What best to do
But Congress, now, knows better

A chaplain serves the public trust
And Congress foots the bill
By their decree
A chaplain’s free—
“Choose any church you will”

The framers couldn’t mean, of course,
The godless get a voice!
You must pick one—
You can’t say “none”…
And that’s religious choice

Yeah, so… I was wondering about this chaplaincy thing. Chaplains are (duh) government employees–otherwise, Congress would have no authority to regulate them. Which, smarter people than I have already noted, brings to mind Article VI, Section III of the US Constitution–the “No Religious Test Ban Clause“:

no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

This clause, along with the first amendment clauses, is the basis of what we atheist types like to call the “wall of separation between church and state”. Sometimes called (again, by us atheist types) “freedom from religion”.

But, of course (as I am so often told), there is no freedom from religion, only freedom of religion. That’s the only explanation for the recent votes about atheist chaplains–religious choice must mean “your choice of religions”, not “your choice to worship or not”. Mind you, today’s Congress is not the beginning of the kerfuffle: here’s a nice source discussing the radical nature of the clause at its beginning. (Interesting note–religious types keep reminding me of how often our founders wrote and spoke about God. They don’t notice that there is a conspicuous lack of such talk in the Constitution itself.)

Anyway… I did want to quote one thing I read about the manufactroversy here…

Surely some basic equity—allowing service members without a religious tradition to have a safe space to talk about the fears and anxieties that come with military service—would benefit the military as much as it would benefit atheists. But for the House Republicans, it seems that acknowledging the needs of nonreligious service members would be another nail in the coffin of god-fearing America.

I couldn’t agree more.

Why, Oh Why, Oh Why-Oh (…Would You Act This Way, Ohio)

Attorney General Mike DeWine
(Republican, Ohio)
Is looking for an act of hate
To supplement his bio

He can’t be seen as gentle
(He’s Republican, of course)
So while Jim’s love John is dying
Mike is showing no remorse

While he can’t appeal the ruling
(Which is really quite a shame)
He can still deny the rights of those
Whose marriage is the same

That’s the law here, in Ohio
(And we follow every rule)
Though it makes gays less than human
And it makes DeWine seem cruel

He will fight, defending marriage
(So the local paper quotes)
Just as long as that position
Is the one that gains him votes

My most recent post on Jim and John ended on a partially optimistic note:

The bad news is, the court’s injunction is limited to this particular case and these two individuals. The good news is, even Cincinnati doesn’t expect that to remain the case

Ed also had reason to be hopeful:

This is just a temporary restraining order, but it obviously indicates how the judge is likely to rule on the case itself.

Looks like even if Cincinnati recognizes a marriage, and the judge does as well, the attorney general does not. Although DeWine appears to have initially said he would actually appeal the judge’s decision, he seems to have walked back from that cliff just a bit. ThinkProgress includes this update (after an unknown number of calls to DeWine’s office by concerned citizens):

A spokesperson for DeWine clarifies that he does not intend to appeal this temporary order because, the spokesperson says, such an order is not generally appealable. Nevertheless, DeWine also plans to “continue to defend Ohio’s constitutional amendment and law banning same-sex couples from marrying and banning the state from recognizing such marriages,” according to BuzzFeed’s Chris Geidner.
In other words, while DeWine does not plan to appeal the judge’s recent temporary order, he still plans to put up a full legal fight against Arthur and Obergefell’s right to be permanently recognized by Ohio as husbands.

Fucking Bastard.

How Did Your Congressweasel Vote?

It was only a little amendment
And no one would really take note
But of course, it would all be recorded
(Check your own representative’s vote!)
There are thousands of chaplains already
Not one is an atheist, though
If the Pentagon thinks they might need some
It seems Congress already said “no”.
We have patriots working in Congress
Watching over our soldiers abroad
And we’ll do what they can to support them
Just as long as they worship our God.

In yesterday’s post, I missed the fact that they actually voted–and the amendment banning atheist chaplains did pass. You can check here for how your congressweasel voted, and consider contacting them to thank or chastise them, as the case may be. The only possible reason for supporting this amendment that I can see, would be that they attach more importance to the word “chaplain” than they do to the needs of thousands of soldiers.