In what is quite possibly the dumbest law ever, the Michigan house passed legislation that would  allow health care workers “to refuse service to anyone on moral, ethical or religious grounds.” In a surprise twist the house is made up of a Republican majority and the bill was sponsored by The Michigan Catholic Conference. The bill would, however, prohibit emergency treatment from being refused.

Nevermind the fact that this bill is clearly unconstitutional. Nevermind the fact that the house wasted my tax money to put through a law that will never hold up in court and, most likely, will be vetoed by Michigan Governor, who is a Democrat.

The problem with how the bill is worded is that it would clearly allow health workers to refuse treatment to gays because of religious beliefs. I’d like to think that most of the doctors out there simply care about helping a human in need, but I sadly doubt that is the case. I’m troubled by this because I can see the other side’s point, which is that forcing medical workers who have certain religious beliefs to work on gay patients could be a violation of their religious freedoms, which are guaranteed by The Constitution.

It all comes back to the simple fact that you can’t please everyone all the time.

I was browsing around the Internet, as I often do, and came across this chilling picture. It’s a portrait of the fallen soldiers who gave their lives in the second Gulf War.

I think everyone here knows my stance on the war in Iraq, which is why I thought it was apt that I post this photo. You can view a larger version by clicking on the image to your left (warning: it’s a large download).

My only hope is that President Bush has seen this photo and feels a slight pang of guilt. Even if he saw this picture I doubt that he would feel any remorse about his hactions. Afterall, some of us think he is a sociapath.

I’ve been reading up on the “Coalition of the Willing”. Did you know that most of the countries in the “Coalition” were paid and that most did not even provide troop support? Did you know that fully 9% of people in the UK supported the war in Iraq. The UK, however, was split evenly at 45% when asked who was a greater threat to the world: George W. Bush or Saddam Hussein. Personally, I think GWB is because he’s got the nukes to back up his crazy ass plans. So the next time you are thinking we were right and just to invade Iraq I want you to think about the following things:

1. We have found absolutely no evidence of WMD, which was, in the beginning, the reason for us going to war.
2. The Iraqi citizens hate us just as much as they hated Saddam.
3. Real people are dying every day in Iraq tearing apart both Iraqi and US families.
4. We have found absolutely no evidence of WMD, which was, in the beginning, the reason for us going to war.
5. Picture the above portrait – there are real costs to this war other than dollar signs.

In other news the Pentagon is pissed off about the recent release of photos of dead soldiers arriving back stateside. Personally, I think the photos are something that everyone should take a look at. It puts things in perspective. Much thanks to The Memory Hole for filling out the FOIA forms and fighting to get these photos to the public.

It seems that every good mud sling has some return fire on the same path. The left has been questioning Bush’s Vietnam “service” record for quite a few months. It’s not quite clear when or where he served, but what is known is that he spent some weekends in both Texas and Mississippi training in the National Guard.

Recently the right has been questioning the validity of Kerry’s Vietnam record. The irony is so thick I could cut it with a knife. Here are just a few points that I’d like to point out about the right’s argument about Kerry’s record.

1. Kerry actually went to Vietnam and was shot at by the enemy. This is well documented.
2. Kerry was injured by shrapnel and a mine explosion in Vietnam. This, again, is well documented.
3. Kerry did not lie cheat or steal the Purple Hearts. They were given to him in accordance with the rules. To meet the criteria to get a Purple Heart you must have required medical attention. True it’s rather lenient (ie. stitches), but Kerry wasn’t padding his war record to boost a future run for President.

This is just a smoke screen to tarnish Kerry’s admittedly better service record. I’m constantly amazed at how the right can twist the simple facts. The fact is Kerry has a better service record than Bush does.

On her radio show recently, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant  Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. It’s funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. …. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Law and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
5.  I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally Obligated to kill him myself?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? 
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die? 
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? 
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? – Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy Considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

James M. Kauffman, Ed.D.
Professor Emeritus
Dept. of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education
University of Virginia
405 Emmet Street South
PO Box 400273
Charlottesville, VA 22904-4273
(434) 924-0763 [FAX (434) 924-0747]

I’ve been trying to sit out the whole gay marriage thing that has been somewhat consuming the news recently. I tried really hard, until I read this take on gay marriage (note: the site has adult/insensitive content on portions of the site – so don’t go clicking around if that stuff bothers you – the link itself is safe). The guy who wrote the opinion is a rather crude guy who can see that gays having access to the same rights as married couples isn’t so tragic.

All these issues because same sex marriages are currently illegal. Okay. So let me think for a minute, that if they were legal, how would they effect my life. Would I have to pay more taxes? No. Would married gay people get a special check out line at the supermarket to get through line faster than me? No. Do they get their own special lane to avoid traffic jams? No. Do they get cheaper car insurance? No. Free car? No. Free socks? No.

That about sums it up. I think that the gay community would be better off not using the term “marriage”, which carries religious conotations for some (despite the definition not mentioning religion anywhere). If they used a term like “osmosis” everyone would laugh and say “those crazy gays are up to it again!” – hell they’d probably have gay couples on the wedding shows.

I was talking a while ago with a relative of mine who didn’t agree with gay marriages. This person’s main problem was with gay adoption, which is currently legal oddly enough. I think their opinion was that if they were raised in a gay household they would be gay themselves. I posed the idea that given the equal rights clauses in every state constitution I know of includes the term “gay” and “lesbian” it’s difficult to create a two tier system on this issue. I said the way I see it was that you had to choose between equal rights for all, no matter what, or remove such clauses. Their response was shocking: maybe equal rights aren’t such a good thing. I’m sure I’ll talk to them later after reading this and they’ll tell me I’m naive and young, maybe even an idealist, but I like to think I’m hopeful, maybe even progressive.

I’ll end with what I’ve always said about gays and lesbians. As long as they respect my sexuality I’ll respect theirs.