Rider Bills (or, why I don't need a Hummer)

Republican leaders are willing to allow the first minimum wage increase in a decade but only if it's coupled with a cut in inheritance taxes on multimillion-dollar estates, congressional aides said Friday.

- GOP makes conditions on wage increase

Perhaps the members of the GOP who wish to couple these two issues should more carefully consider the differences in needs between someone who lives on a salary of $10,712 per year (5.15 * 40 * 52) versus someone who has a multimillion-dollar estate. Or, perhaps said representatives should be required to give back the more than $30,000 “cost of living increases” on their salaries since the last time minimum wage was increased. Or, perhaps said representatives could just come right out and say, “we are trying to kill this bill for political reasons by making it unpalatable to everyone except those with multi-million dollar estates who also work at a minimum wage job.”

Even if we put the particulars of this situation aside, rider bills remain one of the most ridiculous concepts I’ve ever heard of. It’s essentially the same as if I want to buy a pencil, because I need one to write the next Great American Novel. However, before I can purchase my pencil, a strange man informs me that I can only buy said pencil if I also purchase a small pet penguin. I don’t really like this idea… but hey, really, what’s the extra cost of a penguin to me. Anyway, I really need the pencil to write my novel, so though I don’t want the penguin for any other reason, I’ll buy it as well just so I can get my pencil.

This isn’t the end of it, though. As I walk to the check-out with my pencil in one hand and my small pet penguin in the other, another man walks up to me and informs me that in order to complete my purchase, I’ll also have to buy furry green shoes, a taco stand in Alaska, and a bright red Hummer (which, not being a male with impotence issues, I don’t really need). Additionally, after making my purchase, I’ll have to steal candy from a homeless blind child. At this point, I have two options. I can steal the candy and spend obscene amounts of money to purchase a bunch of stuff that I don’t want, just so that I can get the one useful item out of the bunch. Or, I can give up, and leave the store sans pencil, as I don’t have the money or the moral stomach to complete the purchase.

I’d probably just abandon the entire venture (as I’m assuming that those who supported the original bill will also do). After all, I don’t want a small pet penguin, furry green shoes, a taco stand in Alaska, a bright red Hummer, and a clearly un-nice task... I just want my darn pencil!

Doesn’t it seem logical to vote on just one pencil at a time?

Save Yourself...

... By Becoming an Atheist

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=11875

One nation… Under the legislative branch

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives again passed legislation that would prevent federal courts from hearing cases on the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance -- such as whether the words "under God" violate the separation of church and state.

(a few paragraphs down)


"Jurisdiction stripping" bills are nothing new. Pending legislation in Congress includes proposals to keep federal courts from hearing cases about prayer in schools, Ten Commandment displays and gay marriage. Cannon recently introduced a bill that would remove a federal court's ability to review state anti-pornography laws.

- Pledge of Allegiance bill pending in Congress questions origins

Because, certainly, we have no need for a system based on checks and balances. Separation of powers? Why would we ever want to support crap like that?

A Good Reason to Support Invisible Unicorns

I spent the last week as staff member at Camp Quest, a week-long summer camp aimed at the children of atheists, agnostics, and other varieties of non-believers. The experience was all varieties of nifty due to a fantastic assortment of staff, kids, and programs.

A good article about the camp is Camp: "It's Beyond Belief", the somewhat awful subtitle and inaccurate statement that we teach children that there is no god not withstanding.

Studies find....

... the longer you live, the longer you can expect to live.

This sounds like an Onion article headline but no, it's from Harvard. It all makes more sense (or, really, just makes less obvious sense) after one reads the article.

Democrats and Evangelicals…

… sitting in a tree, cra-a-aft-ing pol-i-cy.

It’s hard for me to take biblical arguments for public policy seriously when they seem so cherry-picked from a tall tree of highly-ignored additional (ridiculous) laws. For example, I’m not going to take religious arguments against homosexuality seriously until Christians start observing the rest of Leviticus. I’m sure they’ll have particular fun with the rules about dripping penises, attending the funerals of your in-laws, and wearing multi-fiber cloth. While, a few years ago I certainly would have appreciated a good argument against attending in-law activities, it’s not enough of a pull for me to give up my cotton-polyester-blend shirts.

I was somewhat frustrated with Obama a few weeks back when he began his “Democrats need to appeal to Evangelicals” parade of speeches and articles. Generally I’ve found that this results in silly speeches and disappointing slights, such as when Dean appeared on the 700-club a month or so back. However, after reading Obama’s USA Today article, I’m more approving. Most notably:

This separation is critical to our form of government because in the end, democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

This might be difficult for those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics involves compromise, the art of the possible. But religion does not allow for compromise. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime; to base our policymaking on them would be dangerous.

This is a most excellent description of the importance of the separation of church and state. So, I suppose I have trouble seeing exactly how an earlier paragraph from his article fits in…

Moreover, it's wrong to ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square. Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Martin Luther King Jr. - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, they also used religious language to argue for their cause. To say men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality.

… as it feels to me that if we make it a requirement for the basis for laws to “be subject to argument, and amenable to reason” and acknowledge they must be “accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all” then lawmaking is something does indeed require a checking of religious beliefs at the doorway of politics.

Perhaps it is a difference of opinion of the definition of “personal morality”. Personal morality is fine. I have no issue with irrational personal morality, providing people practice it personally and therefore don’t inflict it on others (this means NOT injecting it into policy debates). I have no issue with rational personal morality because it is rational, and therefore can be justified without resorting to the supernatural.

As Obama points out, there is even often an overlap between the secular and religious. The average evangelical might think it’s a bad idea to kill people because god threatens to smite him. I might find it a bad idea to kill people because… well… it’s extremely not nice. Said average evangelical might find vultures disgusting based the lord’s holy word on the subject in Deuteronomy 14.13. I might find vultures disgusting because they eat week-old road-kill. Regardless, we end up in the same place. See how easy this is?

However, since we can get there without religion, why bring it to the political table to begin with? Starting with a religious belief and then trying to find some way, any way to justify it in a secular sense seems like it might result in some pretty ridiculous, highly contrived arguments, such as that homosexual marriage will lead to legalized polygamy (or hamster marriage, depending on who you talk to).

So, I suppose the lesson is that yes, Obama, perhaps it is a good idea to court evangelicals, especially if it ends up being all pretty and friendly like it sounds in your article. So, court away! In fact, at this point, I’d encourage almost anyone to do almost anything that will help the Democrats win more seats in the 2006 elections. As a personal preference, though, I think I may keep my tongue in secular mouths.

Back Again (kind of)

Well, I’ve been back, gone again, back again, and am about to be gone again. There is great pressure in adding a blog entry after so much absence… it feels like whatever I write must be brilliant, witty, and relevant in order to make up for the fact that I haven’t written for so long.

Earlier this week, I decided to avoid the entire pressure of a good blog entry by writing about something entirely mundane, such as getting my tires changed on Wednesday. However, my tires were not indeed changed on Wednesday due to a mix-up, so even my mundane writing prompt failed me. I also considered writing about how I pondered, on the way home from the non-tire change, the blog entry that I could write if my still-damaged-right-back tire exploded on the freeway. A near death experience would certainly be worthy of writing about. Do all people who write do this, wander around with the running dialogue of “well, if that happened, think how brilliantly I could express it in (blah, blah, blah) work of literary significance I am creating!” I certainly do, especially when I feel a writing project looming over my head.

Ah, I’m considering erasing all of this and starting over again, but I’m pretty sure that I’ll just not start again, so I’m going to be stubborn and leave it all exactly as it is.

My life in summary since I disappeared a few weeks ago:

I’ve been traveling frequently, though not out of the country as I had wished. Nonetheless, hiking, whale watching, rock climbing and visits to both a belly-dancing bar and a lesbian club were potentially almost as cool as Italy. Okay, probably not. But I’m pretending and it’s good for moral. I’m off to Las Vegas for the weekend, back for a week, off to teach a Camp Quest for a week, back for a week, visiting LA for a week… after which, I’m planning on sitting at home and absorbing life for a while, or at least doing some of the homework and work-work that will pile up while I’m gone.

The brother situation proved too much and I moved. I have alternating pangs of guilt and frustration at how that entire situation played out, but I’m quite happy where I am now not the least because I currently have lots of truly exciting food in my refrigerator. There is nothing like stores nearby carrying such amusements as cheap chevre and vegetable pot stickers to help make up for the fact that I officially live in the city rather than in my log house.

I’ve started my second to last class before I’ll be entirely done with my master’s degree. I found one subleasor for my building, who will pay me about a third of what I need someone to pay me, so I’ll only be partially financially devastated by the end of the summer. I’m not packed in the slightest and my plane for Vegas leaves in a few hours. I need to go back.

Now that I’ve broken the curse of the “returning blog entry” the next should be something of more general interest and relevance. Probably.