AFA Abstains from the Truth

The American (Anti)Family Association has struck again and this time its president, Tim Wildmon, is going for broke. In a recent action alert, Tim writes:

Mississippi has a new sex education law and we need your help! Every school district must have in place either an "abstinence-only" or "abstinence-plus" program by June 30th 2012. Superintendents and Boards of Education are deciding now which approach they will choose.

To see the major differences in the two programs, click here, or on the chart at right for a larger version. Don't be fooled by the name!

Sounds scary, doesn't it? Abstinence-Plus. What evil, vicious ideas will be hammered into the heads of innocent schoolchildren? Let's look at their chart and find out:

According to the AFA, Abstinence-Plus programs will teach your children how to go behind your back for condoms, pills, or abortions. The program will show you how to correctly stretch a condom onto an erect penis (or maybe how to correctly put in a female condom). It will tell kids that fucking is fine and they're going to do it someday - might as well start now because it feels good. And finally, that the program will teach kids that oral and anal sex are great ways to avoid getting pregnant. How can anyone but the most godless liberal get behind such a thing? What can we do fight a program that is:

...simply another name for so-called "comprehensive sex education" a contraceptive-based approach with very little focus on abstinence. The focus of these programs is to increase condom and contraceptive use to reduce risk.

Certainly, we must do something to save our kids from this horror. Right? Well, maybe we'd do well to be skeptical of anything Tim Wildmon says before we get in too deep. The Mississippi School Boards Association, a non-profit organization that represents all Mississippi public school boards, has something else entirely to say about the Abstinence-Plus program. The entire program is worth checking out here but I want to hit some of the relevant highlights.

The ____________________________ School Board believes that every student has the right to accurate information concerning the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.

The district shall utilize an age-appropriate, evidenced based, medically accurate, Abstinence-Plus curriculum from the list of curricula approved and recommended by the Mississippi Department of Education (MDE), including as one choice the curricula of Abstinence-Plus developed by the Mississippi Department of Human Services and the Mississippi Department of Health, if such curricula are on the MDE’s approved curriculum list.

They advocate "age-appropriate" and "evidence based" education. Imagine that! They want to help students learn how to prevent pregnancy and reduce STDs. The horrors! I'm swooning in my chair just reading about this. It gets worse though. Let's read the prohibitions and requirements:

1. Prohibits any teaching that abortion can be used to prevent the birth of a baby;

2. Requires boys and girls to be separated into different classes when sex-related education is discussed or taught;

3. Prohibits instruction and demonstrations on the application and use of condoms; and

4. Requires the school nurse employed by the school district to carry out the functions of those strategies to promote consistency in the administration of the program if the district adopts the program developed by the Mississippi Department of Health.

Ok, contrary to the AFA's claims, nobody will be teaching kids how to sneak off to get abortions. Nobody will be encouraging kids to hook up after class. No one will be showing kids how to put the condom on the penis (or go home and practice on Ray Comfort's banana). And the information will be covered by a nurse who actually understands medicine rather than some teacher who can't even say the word "penis" without turning red (and I'm not trying to insult competent science/health teachers - I'm pointing out that Mississippi has many teachers who are also Sunday School teachers and have difficulty distinguishing between both jobs).

Here are the other things that the program seeks to teach (I'm paraphrasing here):

1. That abstinence is good and if you give it up, you might experience some negative consequences.

2. That teen pregnancy sucks and causes problems for everyone.

3. That you should not make unwanted sexual advances and neither should you tolerate them. Also that drugs can lower or erase your inhibitions.

4. That abstinence or a faithful marriages are the only ways to make sure you don't get pregnant too soon or get a disease.

5. That the law prohibits rape and has rules for certain types of sexual conduct and consequences.

6. That the only time people should have sex is when they are in a monogamous marriage.

7. That contraception can't always protect you against STDs and what the risks/failure rates of those methods are.

To be fair, I don't agree with all those points but that's a far cry from what the AFA is telling you is about to happen. The claim that schools will teach your kids easy, guilt-free sex without regard to consequences is not only ludicrous but it's factually incorrect. In fact, parents must opt-in to the program and be given the chance to review the entire curriculum.  They can withdraw their kids at any time and at no penalty.

So why is Tim Wildmon saying incorrect things about the Abstinence-Plus program? Some people might think that he and the AFA staff are genuinely mistaken. However, their unwillingness to ever correct a mistake or issue a retraction coupled with their history of scrubbing websites and pretending they never said anything wrong makes me believe that they are liars. Not just liars, even, but vicious, greedy, evil liars who will stop at nothing to make sure that Mississippi stays as dumb and poor as it always has been and that people will continue to be slaves to the AFA and its holy books instead of thinking for themselves.

Harsh charge? Yeah, it is, but as you can see for yourself, Tim Wildmon has an abstinence only relationship with the truth.

Fox's Larry Allen Taunton Needs a Reality Check

Either Larry Allen Taunton is the worst prophet of all times or else he's a dishonest shill for those who hate the fact that atheists exist. His article, "The Rally For Nothing In Particular" is so full of falsehoods and stupidity that he ought to be feeling really ashamed of himself and issuing apologies right now. But he won't, I'm almost sure, because his job is to blow smoke up people's asses for Fox News - not talk about truth.

So as people prepare to gather on the National Mall to celebrate their belief in nothingness, we might reasonably wonder what they want.

If he had waited to attend  the rally rather than writing the article ahead of time, he would have known what we wanted. We had flags flying high promoting our values - reason, diversity, compassion, etc. Our speakers articulated clearly what we want - a better world for everybody that is guided by reason instead of superstition. We want religion to be held accountable for the harm it does and to be treated like every other institute instead of given special accommodation.

Finding abuses of religion is low hanging fruit—the sexual abuse scandal within the Catholic Church, self-detonating Muslim extremists, snake-handlers, etc.—and Dawkins and his ilk have made a fortune peddling it. 

If religious abuse is low-hanging fruit, then let me ask an important and very telling question: why is it still hanging there for us to pick it? Why hasn't religion, that wannabe bastion of morality, cleaned up its own act already? The answer is obvious - they don't care about the abuses until someone exposes them and puts their feet to the fire. Sometimes the faithful (who I believe are more moral than their leaders and their gods) do this but often it is us atheists who must dare to shine that light in the darkness. 

Also, we aren't the ones profiting from religious abuse. The religious institutions, the megapastors, and the televangelists are the ones who profit while the followers suffer. So don't you dare accuse us of profiting off the misery of others, Taunton, you horrible little man.

Paradoxically, it has become a kind of religion, a Church of Unbelief complete with a saint (Christopher Hitchens), a high priest (Richard Dawkins), and holy writ (anything Dawkins writes). And now, with the political nature of this rally, Dawkins is set to become the Pat Robertson of atheism.

Atheism is not a religion and it's a shame I even have to repeat that. Hitchens is not our saint. He was anti-choice (according to some - I have not read it for myself) and pro-war in Iraq. I do not agree with either of those positions. Hitchens was an important voice but he is not a saint, a preacher, or a martyr for any cause. Likewise, Dawkins is not a high priest. Many of us were appalled by his out-of-place response to Rebecca Watson during Elevatorgate. I've read some of Dawkins' books but not all of them. They are interesting but they are not "holy writ." I'm pretty sure if Dawkins thought he was going to be the next Pat Robertson, he'd slit his own throat and bleed out all over the floor. 

But there is something not quite right about all of this. Christianity, whatever the faults of its adherents, has a rich intellectual tradition that has a comprehensive view of life.

It has given rise to the West as we know it. Our laws, arts, governments, and the very framework of our thought find their meaning in Christianity. Take for example the central premise of the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal.”

Christianity, like Islam, has had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the Enlightenment era. And to suggest that the Declaration of Independence means nothing without the light of Christianity is to be so obtuse and so stupid as to not warrant serious thought. The idea that we are equal is the antithesis of the Bible until you get to that one passage allegedly written by Paul and then promptly dismissed as nonsense by later church fathers. Jews were better than Gentiles. Men were better than women. Straights were better than gays. Masters were better than slaves. To deny this is to deny the very words of the Bible.

That not withstanding, atheism does have a history—a bad history. By conservative estimates, the twentieth century, an experiment in secular governance, witnessed the deaths of more than 100 million people. That is more than all the religious wars in all previous centuries combined.

And here we go with more of this nonsense: Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc. For the love of all that's true, has Taunton not yet figured out that Hitler used Christianity (in particular Catholicism) to perpetuate his garbage? Stalin and other dictators held up their philosophies of communism as the state-enforced religion to perpetuate their garbage. Those of us at the Reason Rally (with few or no exceptions) do not want a state-enforced religion. THAT'S THE WHOLE GODDAMNED POINT. We don't want to force people to believe like us;  we just want the freedom and the equal opportunity that religious people have in this world. Communist values are not the same as humanist values and Taunton would do well to figure that out before he shows his stupidity even more.

If, for instance, you do not believe in God, you are likely to conclude that man is a temporal being meant to serve the state, an eternal institution. This is the view of the communist world. Sacrificing a few million people for the sake of building socialist paradise was always deemed an acceptable price to pay.

If, on the other hand, you believe in a just, benevolent God who made man in his own image, you will likely draw a very different conclusion: man is an eternal being that the state, a temporal institution, is meant to serve.

Bullshit. Humanists and many atheists believe that since there is probably no god and just this one life, we need to spend it making the world a better place. We champion freedom and justice in this life, not some imaginary paradise after death. Life is important to us and, unlike too many religions, no holy book can justify the taking of it.

On the other hand, if you believe in the Bible god, you might get the idea that you have some special place in creation that gives you superiority or dominance. You might think it's ok to destroy unbelievers, suppress believers who don't believe exactly as you do, or else purge from your ranks those who don't measure up to your standards. That's the fruit of "my way or the highway" religion.

Proponents of a society free from religious influence can point to no nation or civilization that was founded upon atheism that we might call even remotely good. The story of those regimes is well documented and may be summarized in a word—murderous.

What they can point to are secular societies that are still running off of their accumulated Christian capital. But beware. When the fumes in that tank are spent, tyranny cannot be far away.

Nice try, Taunton, but the truth is that religion has ruled this world for millenia and its fruits have been tyranny and evil. Good religious people have chosen to be good in spite of the evil doctrines spread across the pages of their holy books. They are better than their evil "do as I say, not as I do" gods. America once had this brilliant notion that people could be more free and more prosperous if the government minded its own business about religion. That foolish men like Taunton try to turn this doctrine on its head and demand that we bow to Christianity shows their true goal - to tell whatever lies it takes to force us to submit once more to their rule. If there is one thing he should have learned from the Reason Rally, it's that we will not submit!

So as the rally for nothingness meets to celebrate, well, nothing in particular, reflect for a moment on the world they would give us. One need not imagine it. It has been done.

You wouldn't need to imagine it if you had just shown up at the Reason Rally and listened to what we had to say instead of making up shit and flinging it at us to see what would stick. You're a disgrace and a liar in my opinion, Mr. Taunton, and you owe every atheist who was at that rally an apology. We won't hold our breath though because we know all too well how people like you act. 

Christians at the Reason Rally - Part 2

This was Nathan's poster designed to counter the claim that we atheists don't believe in anything. The two young men who approached us seem to have been drawn in by this poster so they came by, acknowledged our values, and then asked Nathan where he thought those values came from. Nathan responded in his usual quiet and pleasant manner and I watched with a small smile until I noticed the guys had gotten on either side of him and were kind of cutting us off from one another. I could tell that things were about to get hot and heavy so I did what any gentle Southern belle would do - I jumped into the fray.

Let me make clear from the very onset that these two young men were very gentlemanly and displayed more good grace than I would have expected. So while I can say nothing good about their arguments and their logic (or lack thereof), I can tell you that I believe they are good people and doing what is right as best as they understand it. Honestly, I have great respect for them because I remember what it's like to feel pressured to witness when the last thing you want to do is confront a person you don't know. It was terrifying for me and I never once managed to find the courage to do it. So my hat is off to these guys for their courage and their good manners.

Nevertheless, we got the standard argument about how we were all going to Hell but Jesus could save us if we'd only believe.  I said that if Yahweh set up the game to be rigged from the start, then he was the one with the responsibility, not me. He was the one who made hell and created the rules that would send us there so they should take it up with him. They retorted that we send ourselves to hell and we responded with the classic, "No, we don't. I'm choosing right now not to go." We got to use the thug and Mafia boss analogies which were difficult to refute.

Amidst the hour and a half that we vigorously debated, my point was that Yahweh, as the Bible represents him, is evil. I asked these young men if slavery in any context was ok. Was rape ok? Was murder and infanticide ok? They said no, of course, and when we confronted them with the fact that Yahweh condones or encourages these things, the best they could say is, "No, he doesn't. That's not in the Bible. You're interpreting it wrong."

My response to that was simply that those things were in the Bible and that they needed to get back with me after they'd read it. I told them I was embarrassed for them - how they came to preach the Word to me and instead they didn't even know what it said. For all their protesting, it became quite clear that they didn't really know their Bible and they could do nothing more than say, "Nuh uh." It truly was embarrassing.

My final point was that these guys were more moral than their god. They didn't think slavery was ok. They would not kill their sons if Yahweh told them to. I asked them how they could live with themselves as good people by championing such a evil, psychotic god. They didn't have a good answer but they tried.

I encouraged them to go home and really read their Bibles...not just the parts they were taught in apologetics classes but the whole thing. I don't know whether they will or not but I suspect that, one day, one of them will. Why? Because I saw humanity in his eyes. I saw that spark of doubt that makes us so wonderful. I believe this gentleman cares about the truth and cares about goodness. I'd like to think that maybe one day he will take the seed of doubt we planted and water it enough so that it can grow.

As for me, I am glad that I got a chance for a hot debate with Christians that ended up with handshakes, smiles, and good wishes for the future. That's what America is really all about.

Christians at the Reason Rally - Part 1

If you were as lucky as we were at the Reason Rally, you either got handed Christian material by drive-by missionaries or else you got directly proselytized by the brave but rather unprepared apologists. The next two posts will be my account of these incidents.

We had not been there very long, sitting wrapped in our clear ponchos and holding our little signs, when the first guy came by. He sort of did a drive-by handout: swooping in long enough to hold out a tract and fleeing as soon as it was in Nathan's hand. I found it interesting that both Christians approached Nathan and not me - perhaps they just assumed that, as the man of the group, he would repent and I naturally would follow his lead. It's dangerous to assume that I, as an atheist female, do not have a functioning brain or a sassy mouth.

Regardless, this tract is the one the guy was handing out. How anyone can pass around this garbage with a straight face is beyond me. If these are the best arguments I could make for my beliefs, I think I'd go home and shoot myself in the head out of shame. It became very clear as I read this why the tract is delivered in a drive-by manner. If the gentleman had stopped and discussed any of these points with us, he would have been laughed all the way back to the port-a-potties (which is where arguments like these belong).

Let's take a look at the "arguments" in this pamphlet. First, we start out with this breathtakingly stupid introduction:

The theory of evolution of the Coca Cola can.

Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on its surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky, and formed itself into the words "Coca Cola 12 fluid ounces."

The author proclaims that such a "theory" would be an insult to our intelligence which is true. To use this to try to disprove evolution, however, is even more of an insult. If these people can't tell the difference between living, changing material and an aluminum can, then what hope is there?

Now the test. Let's look at the banana (the one that got Ray Comfort mocked incessantly and then he tried to walk it back and say it was just a joke when clearly it is serious):

Note that the banana:

1. Is shaped for human hand
2. Has non-slip surface
3. Has outward indicators of inward content: Green--too early,
Yellow --just right, Black--too late.
4. Has a tab for removal of wrapper
5. Is perforated on wrapper
6. Bio-degradable wrapper
7. Is shaped for human mouth
8. Has a point at top for ease of entry
9. Is pleasing to taste buds
10. Is curved towards the face to make eating process easy

I'm not sure if Ray realizes it or not but the same could be said of the human penis. It's shaped for the human hand and is rather non-slip (yet easy enough for a hand or mouth to glide up and down). It's outward appearance can give us an idea whether it is ready to be used. It's definitely shaped for the human mouth and is shaped for easy entry of the vagina (or anus) as well. It's very pleasing for both parties when used right and can be curved toward the face.

Does that mean that God designed the penis for all these uses? I really wish I'd gotten a chance to ask the guy. But the point they are trying to make is that God made the banana just for our consumption. They do this by ignoring the fact that we have artificially bred bananas (as well as other things) for centuries to enhance these traits. 

We get into a series of questions now where they try to trap us into answers by only giving a few, narrow options. Of course we know the Coke can was designed by humans. We have no examples in nature of Coke cans randomly coming into existence. Next, they quote mine Darwin about the complexity of the eye, failing to print any of his answer to the problem and failing even further to note that this "irreducible complexity" argument has been shot down both by scientists and by lawyers during the Dover trial. 

Next we get questions about whether stuff has a maker or designer. It's more Coke can rubbish. Then they ask about order in the universe and was it accidental or design. They use more questions to try to trap us into saying that since we don't have complete knowledge of the universe, then we cannot definitively state that there is no designer (God). They neglect the fact that most atheists do not definitively state that but believe that it's true based on observation and testing.

Then they turn the whole thing back on us by declaring that we have chosen to be atheists because we want to sin. The whole 10 commandments thing is flung at us as if it is some model standard when the first part of it is the very antithesis of the Bill of Rights. The only people who could possibly be convinced by this tripe are those who either already believe or those who haven't bothered to examine any kind of logic. 

One of the last appeals is to listen to our conscience. My conscience tells me that any belief based on such irrationality is wrong. It tells me that belief in Yahweh as he is presented in the Bible is unreasonable and the worship of such a creature is evil. Furthermore, my conscience tells me that if I ever want to save someone from certain peril, I'd better do more than just throw a stupid tract at them. I'd better invest my time in actually helping.

Shame on Ray Comfort for selling these ignorant tracts. And shame on the Christians who gave them out without comment and running away before anyone could say anything. 

Here is a link to Part 2

The Shamed Slut Diaries

If you are interested in my 28 day contraception blog, please visit The Shamed Slut Diaries. It's a sarcastic yet somewhat serious documentary about the monthly cycle, contraception, and other family issues written as a testimony to the state legislators and governor who think it's their business to regulate my ladyparts.

Responding at the Reason Rally

There's been a bit of upset in the secular community about some of the people invited to speak at the Reason Rally. Some people don't think Bill Maher should be speaking because of his vaccine denial, support for alternative medicine, and allegedly misogynistic views. Others are unhappy that Senator Tom Harkin will be speaking because he's a Catholic and a big friend to alt med as well. I even saw that some are unhappy that Laurence Krauss will be there because of his defense of a pedophile.

I understand why people are dissatisfied - at the first major event promoting atheism and science, we are touchy about the face we present to the world. We want to make sure we communicate our values effectively to the rest of the nation and we fear guilt by association.

Is the answer to create a litmus or purity test for speakers? I think not. Certainly, we do need to have some standards and I imagine that the organizers of the rally do have some criteria laid out. I am sure that they didn't just slap this together hastily with no thought or concern for the outcome.

So what are we to do when people get up on the stage that we don't necessarily agree with or like? Here's my suggestion: we listen to them. We show that we aren't afraid of things we don't like. We show that we are strong enough and sure enough to let them have their say. If they are rational and supportive of reason, we may applaud.

But if they get up and say irrational things, if they get up and lie, if they get up on stage (or video) and betray the cause of science and reason, we let them know about it. We either withhold applause (can you imagine the national mall with thousands of people draped by an awkward silence?) or else we bring back the time-honored tradition of boo and hiss. Politeness be damned. Show the world how you feel.

We are a people who support free speech. Let's show the world how it works. 

Where Is Tweenky Dee?

This latest round of attacks on women have been very disheartening. Many of you may have been wondering, "Where is Tweenky Dee? Where are all the videos? The blogs? Where's all that work we've come to expect?" 

I'm still here, of course, but I have nothing to give you right now. The fight has asked more of me than I can give and I need time to recover. You see, I'm a woman too - a woman of childbearing age who has some very high stakes in these battles and I'm losing. Let me explain.

Because of the terrible disease that killed our son in the womb and almost killed me too, I absolutely cannot risk another pregnancy. Doctor's orders - not even one more attempt or I will die. We take responsibility for this by practicing two forms of birth control (the pill and condoms) until I can have the surgery to be sterilized. If the unthinkable should happen and, against all odds, I get pregnant again, then I will be forced to either have an abortion or die.

Now I have men and women in our legislatures demonizing me for the responsible use of birth control and doing everything they can to make sure I can't choose abortion in the worst case scenario. I'm a slut because I don't want to die. I'm a slut who deserves shame and disgrace if I think flushing a fertilized egg out of my system so that I can live is a good idea.

I hear them saying to me, "You're worthless. You deserve to die. You can't make any babies so you might as well be dead."

So here I am being doubly responsible with my birth control, yet if by some miracle I get pregnant, the state thinks I should have to have a transvaginal ultrasound before being denied an abortion to save my life. How do they think I'm going to feel, laid up on that table, feet in cold stirrups, a long wand shoved deep inside me and only so I can see the "heartbeat" and form of the embryo that is going to kill me. Because I'd love nothing more than to see another dead child. Losing the first one was so much fun, I just can't wait to do it again.

That's why I can't fight right now. That's why I'm having to take some time for myself. Because I'm a real woman who hurts. I'm a real woman who is afraid. I'm a real woman who is angry. I'm a mother who has lost her son and now all she hears is, "Try it again, slut. We'll get you next time."

Is this what "compassionate conservatism" looks like? Because if it is, you can shove it up your ass.

Slaves to Our Biology No More

What is the most fundamental difference between humans and other animals?

You might start thinking about things like language, music, and culture. Those are good answers but I'm thinking deeper than that. What really sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom? What does humanity have that other animals do not? I believe the answer is simple:



Humans have both the will and the means to become masters of their biology.

Think about it. Most animals are slaves to their biology. They don't get to decide their role in their societies. They don't get to decide when to reproduce or how many offspring to have. They do not appear to have the will to transcend their biologically-assigned roles or the means to do so. If there is another animal so capable of mastering itself so, please enlighten me.

It is human nature to want to understand and control the world around us beginning with our own bodies. Why? I'm sure there are several reasons but self-preservation is the first and most obvious answer. We all want better lives and taking charge of our bodies and our environment is the way to do it. 

In other words, we've been "playing God" since the beginning of our species and doing so with a great deal of success.

While there are many who wring their hands in desperation and look to heaven with chagrin any time someone mentions us "playing God," we should remember that we all do so. The food we eat was artificially bred to suit us. The medicines we take were developed to extend our lives or ease discomfort. The clothes we wear are made to suit both our need for shelter and to feed our egos. No person living in the modern, developed world is immune or exempt. We're all playing God by struggling to become masters of our domain.

But all is not well in paradise. Since our early days, there have been many among us who decided that the best way to become a master of their own interests was to enslave others - especially those who were different. This basic concept is at the root of so much tribalism, racial tension, religious wars, and gender inequality (yes, there are places where women rule the roost and men better keep their mouths shut). 

Of the problems listed above, I want to apply this to the "War on Women" that we're having now. When you boil it all down, there are some people (men and women) who are promoting the idea that men should be the masters of their biology and women must remain enslaved to their biology. That's what this whole forced-birth, anti-contraception mess is really about. It's about going back to the "good ole days" when boys were boys and ladies were the guardian of the gate. It's about seeing men who enjoy sex as "studs" and women who enjoy sex as "sluts." It's about letting men freely exercise their rights to bodily autonomy while telling women that they must be protected from the consequences of their bad decisions. 

It is the re-enslavement of women to their biology, a disgusting double-standard that we should not even be having to talk about in 21st century America.

If you want to know how this looks, take a look over into Muslim countries like Somalia and Saudi Arabia. They are slowly, so slowly, trying to climb out of this enslavement culture but it's firmly entrenched. Women must cover up their bodies because, dammit, those men just can't (and shouldn't have to) help themselves. Women should never show themselves because, after all, that's just a temptation. They're only good for fucking anyway, right?

Wrong. Women are human beings with the same natural rights to be master of their bodies as men have. By what right do these people demand that we surrender our self-mastery to anyone else? By what authority do they dare to suggest that we are too foolish, weak, emotional, helpless, or ignorant to make decisions for themselves?

There is no just cause for these brutal assaults on women's rights. There is no excuse for this attempt to re-enslave women to their biology - to make us nothing more than brood mares for the state. And there is no way in hell that we are going to give up this fight for freedom and justice. 

Men and women who value equality and believe in the American principle of liberty must join together now and rise up against this atrocity. Every where a bill pops up or the enslavement of women is promoted, we must be there with fire in our bellies and rage in our eyes. When politicians priss and preen about, touting their enslavement laws, men must fight back and say, "Not our mothers! Not our wives! Not our daughters!" And women must stand up too, not in the back lines but in the very front, calling down all the curses and condemnation due a tyrant who seeks to suppress another human being.

Thomas Jefferson made a famous remark about a "tree of liberty" and the "blood of patriots and tyrants." I submit to you that we women are well acquainted with bloodshed. We enter the world in blood, we give birth and blood, and all too often, we die in blood. We will not go back into servitude. We will not accept the chains of biology. We are Americans and we will fight with every drop of our blood for right to be masters (or indeed mistresses) of ourselves.

Appetizer 04 "Tu Quoque"

The GOP Jobs Plan

Every so often there comes a time when I must admit to you, my dear readers, that I am wrong and issue an apology.

This is one of those times.

Like many of you, I have been wondering since the Republican influx of 2010 what their jobs plan is. Since they have overwhelmingly submitted forced birth, anti-woman legislation, I assumed that they had no jobs plan and was just following their Christian Dominionist agenda. I was wrong and I must now apologize to the GOP for mischaracterizing their position.

Stay with me now. I haven't lost my mind or been co-opted. I think I see more clearly now and I want to know what you all think.

I think the GOP is implementing the most sweeping jobs plan in my lifetime. It begins simply with passing forced pregnancy and forced birth legislation (what you may call anti-contraception and anti-abortion laws). These laws will increase the number of pregnancies nationwide and increase the need for prenatal services. Jobs will be created as the demand for maternal care goes up. We will likely need some new agencies to enforce these policies so that will create some jobs too.

Now here comes the brilliant part. Since women will be having tons more kids than they want or need, they will all have to leave the workforce and stay home taking care of the children. This will free up millions of jobs for men who will now probably need an extra job to take care of all the extra kids that they didn't want or need too. I predict that even with the extra jobs needed, their will be a surplus of jobs when women leave the market.

Now, having extra kids is more than a financial burden. It is physically and mentally draining as well. We'll need more police and social services to take care of domestic violence, neglect, and abuse so that can create more jobs. Better yet, we can give more of our tax dollars to churches and let them worry about that stuff. After all, nothing solves our social ills better than being forced to follow someone else's patriarchal religious beliefs.

So, yes, I think the GOP does have a jobs plan and it is full steam ahead. All they need to do is put women back in the kitchen where they belong and keep men tied to their job(s). No time to be creative, no time to think for yourself. Just more time and more need to work, work, work.

Oh, yeah, and time to vote as long as you vote right.