No I’m not referring to cross dressers.
I’m referring to the con artists who peddle god.
The hypocrites who claim moral superiority while ripping off their flocks.
The criminal syndicate of priests, bishops, cardinals and popes who shuffle child raping perverts around their vast criminal net work.
Time to end their position in the world.
There is no god. There is no heaven, no hell, no going home to your reward.
You are born, you live, you die.
In the words of Langston Hughes:
“Folks, I’m telling you,
birthing is hard
and dying is mean-
so get yourself
a little loving
Religion hasn’t been right about much of anything over several millennia.
The sun isn’t a chariot driven by a god being pulled across the sky. Lightning isn’t something hurled by a god.
The problem with monotheism is that it has too many women hating gods. If you don’t believe in many gods why believe in any gods?
Why believe in a god who commits such evil, or either won’t or can’t prevent great evil? What sort of god is that? Sounds like one that is some sort of capricious psychopath…
Lately more and more “religious leaders” are sounding like Jim Jones, preparing their flocks to chug the poison laced Kool-Aid.
Women having control over their own bodies…. Argh… Sure sign of the apocalypse.
LGBT/T people being able to enjoy the same rights, the same level of pursuit of happiness as straight people… Argh… Sure sign of the apocalypse.
Priests going to jail for molesting children instead of being transferred to some place else where they can preach homophobia while raping children… Argh.. Sure sign of the apocalypse.
Time to chug the Kool-Aid and wage crusades and jihads.
Time to punish the women and kill the queers.
Time to double down and protect the con game, the criminal scam, the heavenly protection racket.
Elect a fascist who will protect the scam.
Doesn’t matter if his religion is just as squirrelly as Scientology.
Time to end the power of the Child raping, women hating men in dresses.
No gods… No masters…
From The New Civil Rights Movement: http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/archbishop-on-gay-marriage-human-society-would-be-harmed-beyond-repair/politics/2012/09/21/49387
by David Badash
on September 21, 2012
J. Peter Sartain says in this video that “human society would be harmed beyond repair,” should Washington state’s marriage equality law not be voted down in November, and suggests that marriage equality will have consequences “until the end of time.” The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Seattle adds he wants to make clear that the Church and its position on Referendum 74 (R-74) are “not against anything,” merely for enshrining marriage into law as only one-man, one-woman — which is by definition, discrimination.
Calling marriage “a gift” from God that is the “foundation of all human society, and must be protected, nurtured, and held as sacred by us all.” Which, is exactly what legalizing same-sex couples to enter the institution of civil marriage would accomplish. Given the fact that divorce rates and child homelessness are lower in areas where marriage equality is legal, one would think that the Church might embrace expanding the institution.
“Just as God is the creator of man and woman, so is he the author of marriage,” Sartain says. God, Sartain forgets, also — by his logic — created homosexuals, and, it would follow, therefore is the author of same-sex marriage.
“To suddenly change the God-given and time honored understanding of marriage would be a very harmful thing for our state and for the world. Put simply, it is not in the compelling interest of the state to change the definition of marriage. There are many ramifications for such a redefinition. Suffice it to say, should marriage be redefined in our state the very foundational nature of marriage for the good and strength of human society would be harmed beyond repair.”
By Eric W. Dolan
Sunday, September 23, 2012
More than 1,000 pastors plan to openly defy the IRS by telling their congregation on October 7 to vote for a particular presidential candidate, according to Fox News.
The annual event, dubbed “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” has been organized by the conservative Christian group Alliance Defending Freedom. The pastors participating in the event plan to preach about the election, endorse a candidate, and send video of their sermon to the IRS.
“The purpose is to make sure that the pastor — and not the IRS — decides what is said from the pulpit,” Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the group, told FoxNews.com. “It is a head-on constitutional challenge.”
The Johnson amendment in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code prohibits tax-exempt charities and churches from intervening in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate. The IRS has been reluctant to revoke churches’ tax-exempt status for violating the more than 50-year-old IRS rule, but the agency has issued written warnings to dozens of churches.
“The IRS will send out notices from time to time and say you crossed the line,” Jim Garlow, a senior pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in San Diego, told FoxNews.com. “But when it’s time to go to court, they close the case.”
I get so fucking sick and tired of Taliban Christers shoving their crap down our throats. If they want to live in a theocracy they should move to Saudi Arabia.
By Amanda Peterson Beadle
on Sep 21, 2012
When Texas Republicans cut off Planned Parenthood from the state’s Women’s Health Program — losing millions in federal funds and endangering access to health care for women in the program — Gov. Rick Perry (R) promisedto keeping the program going with only state funds and without Planned Parenthood.
Now it’s clear what groups he wants to include in the program for low-income women instead: anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers that do not provide the same women’s health services. In fact, the Women’s Health Program doesn’t even cover pregnant women, so there is no clear reason why crisis pregnancy centers should be included.
Perry laid out his idea earlier this week at the opening of a new crisis pregnancy center in Houston, according to RH Reality Check:
“The Source for Women clinics, in fact, will be part of Texas’s own Women’s Health Program, and Planned Parenthood will not be,” Perry told the crowd. […]
From The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/opinion/krugman-disdain-for-workers.html
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: September 20, 2012
By now everyone knows how Mitt Romney, speaking to donors in Boca Raton, washed his hands of almost half the country — the 47 percent who don’t pay income taxes — declaring, “My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” By now, also, many people are aware that the great bulk of the 47 percent are hardly moochers; most are working families who pay payroll taxes, and elderly or disabled Americans make up a majority of the rest.
But here’s the question: Should we imagine that Mr. Romney and his party would think better of the 47 percent on learning that the great majority of them actually are or were hard workers, who very much have taken personal responsibility for their lives? And the answer is no.
For the fact is that the modern Republican Party just doesn’t have much respect for people who work for other people, no matter how faithfully and well they do their jobs. All the party’s affection is reserved for “job creators,” a k a employers and investors. Leading figures in the party find it hard even to pretend to have any regard for ordinary working families — who, it goes without saying, make up the vast majority of Americans.
Am I exaggerating? Consider the Twitter message sent out by Eric Cantor, the Republican House majority leader, on Labor Day — a holiday that specifically celebrates America’s workers. Here’s what it said, in its entirety: “Today, we celebrate those who have taken a risk, worked hard, built a business and earned their own success.” Yes, on a day set aside to honor workers, all Mr. Cantor could bring himself to do was praise their bosses.
Lest you think that this was just a personal slip, consider Mr. Romney’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. What did he have to say about American workers? Actually, nothing: the words “worker” or “workers” never passed his lips. This was in strong contrast to President Obama’s convention speech a week later, which put a lot of emphasis on workers — especially, of course, but not only, workers who benefited from the auto bailout.
Continue reading at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/opinion/krugman-disdain-for-workers.html
Since 1950, humans have manufactured more goods than have ever existed in history. Our consumption of those goods – a highly inefficient use of our natural capital – has wrought a long list of environmental consequences. Staggering deforestation, check. Increasing greenhouse gas emissions, check. Rising heat, sea level, and incidence of extreme weather events – check, check and check.
To environmental experts, such evidence is the proverbial writing on the wall: we must transition to a low-carbon economy, stat, in order to avoid irrevocable damage. As President Obama affirmed, upon accepting his party’s nomination for president, no less:
“Climate change is not a hoax. More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. They’re a threat to our children’s future.”
The president’s choice of words seemed a pointed response to Republican Senator James Inhofe, author of The Greatest Hoax and, it’s worth noting, recipient of $1.3m in campaign contributions from the oil and gas lobby.
Political maneuvering aside, why are Americans so disengaged from climate change – arguably, one of the most critical problems of our time?
Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt; it’s also in places like North Carolina and perhaps even embedded into America’s cultural DNA. According to the latest study from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, the American public’s concern about global warming can be sorted into six categories, ranging from alarmed (13%) and concerned (26%), to cautious, disengaged, doubtful and dismissive (that’s the other 61% of us). Among the many explanations offered for the knowledge gap are clashing worldviews, varying education levels, demographics, and the media’s handling of the issue.
Even as evidence for climate change mounts and the consequences of the phenomenon become more severe, the amount of climate coverage on broadcast networks has plummeted. According to a stunning analysis by Media Matters, the Sunday morning current affairs shows averaged about one hour each on climate change in 2009, compared to averaging 21 minutes apiece in 2010 and only 9 minutes per program in 2011. In 2011, Fox News Sunday covered climate change the most (just under an hour), “but much of the coverage promoted the ‘Climategate’ controversy and downplayed the threat of climate change,” reports Media Matters.
This is a story about one tribal nation grappling with the stresses of life during oil time – housing, traffic, crime, crowds, their quality of life.
By Evelyn Nieves
September 22, 2012
This story was produced with support from the Economic Hardship Reporting Project .
NEW TOWN N.D. –When the black gold rush began, no one on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation expected it to take down Main Street.
A modest strip of one- and two-story buildings framed by undulating plains, Main Street doubled as the reservation’s community hub, in the tradition of small towns. Neighbors caught up at the Jack and Jill grocery, elders strolled to the library, children rode their bikes on the streets.
No one imagined tanker trucks barreling up and down Main Street, back-to-back like freight trains, seven days and nights a week. No one predicted construction zones that grind traffic to a halt as far as the eye can see, the deafening clatter of semis, the dust kicked up by 10,000 vehicles pulverizing the two-lane road every day or the smell and taste of diesel. No one anticipated the accidents, two or more a week on Main Street and all over the rutted reservation roads, costing lives and shattering families.
In fact, Fort Berthold, home of the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation, or Three Affiliated Tribes, did not reckon on a lot when North Dakota invited the energy industry to Drill Baby Drill. No one knew that energy companies in search of housing for their workers would buy private property and evict some of the reservation’s poorest residents from their homes. No one planned on police and fire calls multiplying. No one guessed that on a reservation of nearly one million acres, all the deer would disappear.
In the heart of the refuge of recession America, this little-known tribe is grappling mightily with the consequences of striking oil.
From Asahi Shimbun: http://ajw.asahi.com/article/globe/economy/AJ201209230022
By Marie-Monique Robin
September 23, 2012
A giant, multinational agribusiness is using its market share and patent system to spread genetically modified crops throughout the world. A movie documenting this problem generated quite a stir. By piecing together facts and presenting it in a powerful, visual way, she can carve out a vision for the future of agriculture.
* * *
I have been working as a journalist for the past 25 years or so, focusing mainly on human rights and the environment.
What struck me was the number of people I encountered who kept uttering a single name: Monsanto, the giant U.S.-based multinational biotechnology company.
I grew up on a farm in France, hence my keen interest in agricultural issues.
I decided to find out more about Monsanto’s global reach.
Monsanto, founded in 1901, started out as a chemical company. It is perhaps best known for producing Agent Orange, the defoliant used by U.S. forces during the Vietnam War.
It now has a commanding share of the global genetically modified seed market. One of its representative products is the herbicide Roundup. The documentary shows how Monsanto makes money by selling Roundup together with transgenic seeds that are resistant to the herbicide.
Monsanto originally marketed Roundup as “environmentally friendly” and “biodegradable,” but it had to change its labeling after the company was found guilty of “false advertising,” first by a U.S. court in 1996 and then by a French court in 2007.
Continue reading at: http://ajw.asahi.com/article/globe/economy/AJ201209230022
By Mike Ludwig
Wednesday, 19 September 2012
What do General Electric, Koch Industries, Bayer, Dow Chemical and ExxonMobil all have in common? They all rank in the top ten of the Toxic 100, a list of the top 100 corporations that produce the most toxic air pollution and put human health at risk. The list, recently released by economists at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, tracks toxic chemicals emitted into the air by top polluters and ranks the companies based on the toxicity of the pollution and other factors such as smokestack size, prevailing winds, and the number of people exposed to the pollution.
The Toxic 100 also tracks environmental injustice by measuring the share of pollution exposure borne by minorities and low-income communities. For example, minority communities bear 69 percent of the health risk from the air pollution produced by ExxonMobil, while minorities make up about 40 percent of the general population.
Finding your company on the Toxic 100 list may sound like an embarrassing public relations debacle, but Toxic 100 co-author Michael Ash, a professor of economics and public policy, says the list is actually a great tool for corporate management and investors. Ash and co-author James K. Boyce are economists working at the crossroads of economics and environmentalism, where information on how pollution is impacting real people can influence the market and help companies clean up their toxic emissions without prodding from regulators. Ash told Truthout how it all works in an exclusive interview.
Truthout: How does an economist get involved in tracking air pollution?
Michael Ash: Economists are very interested in the idea of externalities, which are costs, and in some cases, benefits. But in this case, we’re talking about costs – the burden of pollution – that are experienced by people who are not part of an economic transaction. So, you know, you or I might go to an ExxonMobil gas station to fill up the tank with ExxonMobil gas, and that might look like a transaction between you or me and Exxon, but there are people who are downwind from the refinery in Baton Rouge, for example, who are affected by that transaction. I mean, one transaction doesn’t generate that much pollution, but if we add up all of those visits to gas stations, that generates pollution downwind of the Baton Rouge refinery.
So economists are very interested in that, because those often get left out of the normal economic equation, where people think about, you know, what did you pay and if it was worth it. People often don’t think about the other people who are affected. Economists like to bring those costs to light, and we want to shed light on the idea that there are these externalities: people who are downwind from the chemical facility, or live near a toxic storage facility, who are affected by the use of that facility even if they are not direct economic decisionmakers in the location of that facility or where that facility’s products are bought and sold. Economists need to take that very seriously because that is often left out of the conventional accounting of whether a company is doing a good job or not.
From The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/opinion/the-shocking-news-about-cod.html
September 23, 2012
The ideal fish for human consumption would mature quickly and reproduce in staggering numbers. This does not describe the Atlantic cod. Cod mature late — at 4 to 6 years old — and they can live as long as 25 years. Female cod do, in fact, produce astonishing numbers of eggs. But older cod lay two or three times as many eggs as younger cod. This means that a healthy cod population must include relatively large numbers of older fish.
A recent survey of cod catches in Northern Europe shows exactly the opposite. Extrapolating from survey numbers, scientists at a British government fisheries agency estimate that there are nearly 200 million 1-year-old cod in the North Sea but only 18 million 3-year-olds. As for older cod, the numbers are shocking. The survey team estimates that in 2011 there were only 600 12- to 13-year-old cod, a third of which were caught, and not a single fish older than 13 has been caught in the past year.
Most of the cod being caught are sexually immature, and the rest are just entering maturity. As for the great flood of eggs from older fish — as many as nine million in a single spawning — they have vanished. In other words, we have fished our way down the population until we’ve reached the boundary of reproduction.
Complete article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/opinion/the-shocking-news-about-cod.html