Author: Doug Berger

Founder, visionary, and editor of Doug's Views. Need more info - see the About page linked below the masthead.
Posted on

TV film alert: Alexandra Pelosi holds mirror up to US conservatives in new film

There is a new documentary by Alexandra Pelosi that is to be shown on HBO starting Monday 2/16 about the conservative reaction the 2008 US elections.(check your time and channel in your area).

Here is the blurb from HBO:

On the day Barack Obama was elected the 44th President, more than 58 million voters cast their ballots for John McCain. In the months leading up to this historic election, filmmaker Alexandra Pelosi (HBO’s Emmy®-winning “Journeys with George”) took a road trip to meet some of the conservative Americans who waited in line for hours to support the GOP ticket, and saw their hopes and dreams evaporate in the wake of that Democratic victory. These voters share their feelings about the changing America in which they live. Premieres Monday, February 16 at 8pm (ET/PT) on HBO2.

I did a post about on my Secular Left blog that includes an interview the filmmaker did on the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC on Friday night.

Alexandra Pelosi holds mirror up to US conservatives in new film

Posted on

Happy Birthday Charles Darwin!

Today marks the 200th Birthday of the man who forwarded the concept of Evolution of species, which is a basic foundation of the science of Biology. Evolution is also a flash point in arguments between people with different views on religion. Even though Evolution has nothing to do with religion or religious beliefs, it has been used as a scapegoat for some people’s beliefs that might conflict with the results and facts of Evolution. How did we get there?

One problem has been a misunderstanding of the term Evolution. In science Evolution’s basic definition is: a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

That’s it. Nothing about monkeys turning into humans or “survival of the fittest”, which have been claims used against teaching of Evolution. All it means is to describe changes in a population over time.

Darwin called his idea “Natural Selection” and by that he meant species changed over time by adaptation controlled by the environment they lived in. Species that adapted appropriately passed their genes on to the next generation while those that didn’t adapt eventually died out. It isn’t that one species was “better” than the other only that one adapted better than the other and was able to pass on its genes.

Natural selection also infers that species can come from a common ancestor since it had to start some where to get to that particular point in time. There is strong evidence that Humans and apes share aspects that suggest we came from a common ancestor. At one time there was some species that then split into apes and another branch split into Humans.

That’s where religious people get upset. They fully believe that God created all the creatures on the Earth and if Evolution is true then it puts that idea into jeopardy.

The religious people are the ones who make it an issue. Darwin never cared about all it ALL began. All he did was forward the idea of how species got to where they are. Nothing in the study of Evolution is meant to be anti-religious or to intentionally contradict the story of creation. Many scientists support Evolution and consider themselves believers in a God.

However since Evolution, like all science facts, are tentative, there could be information collected soon or in the near future that solves the ultimate mystery of how it ALL got here.

That’s the promise of science – learning the answers to all the questions we have about the universe in which we live.

A tip of the hat today to the man who got the ball rolling – Charles Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882).

Some links for further info on Darwin and Evolution

The Origin Of Species: 6th Edition

Charles Darwin bio

Charles Darwin Day

FAQs about Evolution and the religious debates

Posted on

Octo-mom being selfish and careless

Modern medicine amazes me sometimes. Diseases once thought deadly have been tamed. Pills are available to treat all kinds of ailments that use to shorten how long we live. One also needs to be amazed at all the work done around genetics. But sometimes just because science can do something doesn’t mean it should. Just like the development of nuclear weapons, using science to have children you can’t support on your own is stupid. Nadya Suleman, who delivered only the second living set of octuplets ever born, made the wrong choice to have more children especially because she had no job and six children already at home. That’s what bothers me.

I think that if a woman wants to have a child and the only way to do it is by insemination then that is her choice to make, but she also has to consider, just like when conceiving children through intercourse, some serious questions.

Can I properly support children – do I have a job, one that pays enough and provides enough insurance for health care. Or am I in a relationship where that support can come from my partner or adds to my support.

Do I have enough home support – do I have enough time and stability to provide emotional support and love to my children. If I am married is my marriage supportive enough to maintain a stable household.

Is this right thing to do at this time.

When I heard that Nadya Suleman had no job and six other children at home, I lost all respect for her. She made the wrong choices. Children just don’t need a loving mother. They need good health care, food on the table, clothes on their backs, and a stable home. When the only parent has no solid foundation for any of that then the children can suffer.

I know there are women who want a child and aren’t able to have them for one reason or another. More power to them if they use medical science to conceive or if they adopt. Most people I know who have gone this route are proud parents and the children well taken care of.

And don’t think I have these concerns about women. I also think the questions apply to men. I once knew a guy who thought his manliness was confirmed based on the number of women he got pregnant. When I heard that I wished he could be castrated. But that is just me.

People like Nadya Suleman give parenthood a bad name.

Posted on

Rep. Jim Jordan continues search for clue on economic meltdown

U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan (R – Ohio 4th Congressional District) once again proves that the GOP are slow on the uptake. In a Q & A with Hancock County leaders he just restated talking points while failing to remember that he is in the party that helped lead us to the economic meltdown.

The Republican from Urbana voted against the package Jan. 28, believing that the $819 billion tax and spending bill would only balloon the federal deficit, reportedly headed toward $2 trillion.

Jordan told officials that a “bailout fever” has infected Washington.

“Once you go down this road, everyone gets in line,” he said.

“A much better solution is to reduce the tax burden on small business owners and entrepreneurs” and cut interest rates and capital gains, he said.

Jordan said he and the other 176 House Republicans who voted against the bill did so on principle, not partisanship.

Jordan says Obama plan won’t work

Remember, we tried the tax cuts and those didn’t work either. But at least Jordan didn’t say anything more ridiculous than another Ohio Congressman.

U.S. Rep. Steve Austria (R- Ohio 7th Congressional District) said to the Columbus Dispatch editorial board:

“When (President Franklin) Roosevelt did this, he put our country into a Great Depression,” Austria said. “He tried to borrow and spend, he tried to use the Keynesian approach, and our country ended up in a Great Depression. That’s just history.”

U.S. Rep. Austria blames Depression on Roosevelt

WOW! Steve Austria is a dumbass. The depression started in 1929. Roosevelt took office in 1933. In 1933 Unemployment was 25% and by 1940 it had been lowered to 15%… etc etc etc.

And these guys think they have a better plan?

Posted on

What happens when rich elitists get to decide on a budget for all Americans? We get the Senate version of the stimulus bill. *sigh*

Well, this week, the political elites who live in the Senate decided that we didn’t need to help the states,. our schools, or our health. The Senate version of the stimulus plan, the one needed to keep this country from driving over a cliff, removed $86 billion dollars of spending that would’ve had an immediate effect in the country – money to the states and education. Yes, the bubble returns to Washington. Douchebags!

Some of the listed cuts in the Senate version include:

$40 billion State Fiscal Stabilization
$16 billion School Construction
$7.5 billion of State Incentive Grants
$5.8 billion Health Prevention Activity
$1 billion Head Start/Early Start
$2.25 billion Neighborhood Stabilization

What the Senate’s cut: Funds for states and schools

Or as Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri) said on her Twitter: Proud we cut over 100 billion out of recov bill.Many Ds don’t like it, but needed to be done.The silly stuff Rs keep talking about is OUT.

Yes, funding the states and education is silly stuff….. classy!

Paul Krugman (remember – the guy who is actually an economist and who won a Nobel Prize) said in his New York Times column:

Now the centrists have shaved off $86 billion in spending — much of it among the most effective and most needed parts of the plan. In particular, aid to state governments, which are in desperate straits, is both fast — because it prevents spending cuts rather than having to start up new projects — and effective, because it would in fact be spent; plus state and local governments are cutting back on essentials, so the social value of this spending would be high. But in the name of mighty centrism, $40 billion of that aid has been cut out.

What the centrists have wrought

And why did this happen? Krugman has an idea:

[C]entrism is a pose rather than a philosophy. And to support that pose, the centrists are demanding $100 billion in cuts in the economic stimulus plan — not because they have any coherent argument saying that the plan is $100 billion too big, not because they can identify $100 billion of stuff that should not be done, but in order to be able to say that they forced Obama to move to the center.

Appeasing the centrists

It is all about being bipartisan – you know where the minority party gets what it wants in full – even though they are in the minority. It’s the bizzaro Congress.

Meanwhile the Wall Street douchebags will be getting more money to spend on hookers and blow…. well does it really matter? They still don’t have any rules on the use of their bailout funds.

*sigh*

About Proudly powered by WordPress