Wheat-dogg’s world
• • • • •

John Lennon’s 1971 song, “Imagine,” is the theme song of neo-Darwinists, according to Walt Ruloff, CEO of Premise Media, and was thus used appropriately in his company’s movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

In an interview with the conservative news site, World Net Daily, Ruloff insisted the use of the song fit the theme of the movie.

“If you really listen to the lyrics of ‘Imagine’ then you realize that it represents everything that the Neo-Darwinists want. ‘Imagine there’s no Heaven … No hell below us … Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too…’ That’s exactly what the Darwinist establishment wants to do: get rid of religion,” said Walt Ruloff, CEO of Premise Media. “And that’s what we point out when we play less than 15 seconds of the song and show some of the lyrics on screen.”

Rrrright … John Lennon channeled Charles Darwin, who wrote a biological theory proposing that we do away with religion. I don’t understand how I missed that connection before.

Expelled alleges that a “neo-Darwinist” conspiracy seeks to quash any debate about the theory of evolution and that evolution — Darwinism — is directly responsible for racism, the Holocaust, abortion and euthanasia. The movie opened April 18 and has grossed just over $3.4 million so far.

Part of the movie includes a short excerpt of “Imagine,” in an attempt to make a connection between the sentiments expressed in the lyrics and the movie’s allegations of this neo-Darwinist (in the old days, it was called secular humanist) conspiracy.

Not too long ago I said I could accept John McCain as president, in the unlikely case the GOP wins the presidential election this year. No more.

McCain has shown an appalling lack of judgment lately. First, he welcomed the support of evangelical nutjob John Hagee. Now, he has all but joined the anti-vaccination movement, stating that there is “strong evidence” that vaccines containing thimerosal (a mercury compound) can be linked to the rise in autism in the USA.

Hagee, a Texas-based televangelist, is anti-Catholic and anti-Muslim, but pro-Israel (the last in keeping with End Time expectations that a restored Temple in Jerusalem will lead to the Second Coming of Christ). He famously declared Hurricane Katrina was divine judgment on the debauched people of New Orleans, and said the USA should invade Iran to put an end to its nuclear program.

McCain has put some distance between him and Hagee, saying he does not endorse all that Hagee represents, but McCain stopped short of rejecting that support, as Barack Obama did regarding Louis Farrakhan’s endorsement of Obama’s campaign.

Last Friday, at a town hall meeting in Texas, McCain said there was evidence that the presence of thimerosal in childhood vaccines could be a cause for the marked increase in autism in the last two decades. Most medical authorities deny there is any connection.

Ken Ham, the Aussie creationist that brought Kentucky the Creation Museum, has published a new book of lies that says the theory of evolution fuels racism and genocide.

Ham and his co-author-in-crime Charles Ware, president of Crossroads Bible College in Indianapolis, have written Darwin’s Plantation: Evolution’s Racist Roots, arguing that the theory inspired the Nazi belief in racial superiority and the despotism of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin.

“What Darwinian evolution did I would say is provide what people thought was a scientific justification for separation of races,” Ham said in an interview with the Associated Press.

Uhh, wrong … what weed are these guys smoking?

Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species says nothing about the superiority of one human race over another. Social scientists and politicians warped Darwin’s idea of “survival of the fittest” to justify their abuse of power, but to blame Darwin for the Holocaust and Stalin’s purges is just a lie, plain and simple.

Rather than deal with evolution in an intelligent manner, Ham and Ware are throwing stones at biology’s underlying theory in an attempt to discredit it. Their hidden agenda is to associate evolution with racism so much that clueless school boards (like the one in South Carolina) will try to pull the teaching of evolution from science classes.

Charles McKinney, a South Carolina board of ed member, in fact used the same arguments that Ham and Ware recycle in their book during deliberations about the science curriculum in South Carolina. If evolution teaches that racism is OK, and we don’t want to teach racism in school, then evolution must be banned.

Normally, I avoid remarking about politics here, since there are so many political blogs out there, but this news story I figure deserves an exception to my self-imposed rule.

Republican candidate Mike Huckabee’s says we should amend the Constitution to be more in line with Biblical principles. That’s right, Rev. Huck believes we need to change the bulwark of our nation’s existence as a free republic to reflect religious principles. Theocracy, anyone?

What’s more alarming is the effort it took to find any mention of this seditious remark in the mainstream media on-line. Only MSNBC excerpted Huckabee’s suggestion from a campaign speech he made in Warren, Michigan, yesterday. All the other commentary has come from bloggers.

That Huckabee would even suggest amending the Constitution — a deliberately secular document — to bring it in line with Biblical laws seemed so fantastical to me that I could not believe the blogosphere had it right. After all, the Internet is infamous for spreading all kinds of false information.

But said it, he did. From MSNBC:

“[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it’s a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards,” Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Hot on the heels of the US House resolution last month supporting the ideas of Christmas and Christianity is another resolution proposing that (Christian) religion played such an important role on our early history that we need to honor it with a special week in May.

Of course, House resolutions are completely meaningless when it comes to matters of constitutional law; they are just chances for Congressional reps to blow hot air. This resolution is a different matter. The sheer number of “whereases” contained in the resolution (HR 888) appear to be an attempt by Christian revisionist historians to embed their cockeyed arguments about “this Christian nation” in the Congressional Record for later exploitation.

Revisionists argue that the Founding Fathers used Biblical principles to construct the US form of government, and that the USA is in fact a Christian nation. Most historians reject revisionist arguments, countering that the founders relied on purely secular resources, but it’s doubtful most of the Congress knows anything that detailed about US history.

So unless voters get their representatives’ attention, it’s more than likely that this piece of trash will be approved (probably overwhelmingly if the Christmas/Christianity resolution vote is any indication).

Chris Rodda at The Daily Kos has a detailed refutation of the points contained in all those whereas clauses in HR 888. Read Rodda’s piece and then wonder if the supporters of HR 888 aren’t trying to rewrite US history to suit their religious agenda.

I’ve been lying awake for nights worrying about whether the USA approves of Christianity and Christmas. I mean, as issues go, it must rank at least on a par with global warming, a looming energy crisis, potential recession and a pointless war.

The House of Representatives, since it has nothing else better to do with its time, has allayed my fears. Yesterday, by an overwhelming majority, it resolved that Christmas and Christianity are good things, officially approved by the House.

The resolution (text below) was introduced by a Republican from Iowa and co-sponsored by a passel of other Republicans (and a few Democrats). Despite its skirting the Constitutional prohibition of establishing a state religion, most of our reps blindly voted for it. The tally was 372-9, with 40 not voting and 10 voting “present” (basically abstaining).

John Yarmuth (D-3rd Ky) abstained. Our other local reps in southern Indiana and central Kentucky voted aye.

What a total waste of time! A resolution has, of course, no legal meaning. Supporting a resolution approving of Christianity and Christmas does absolutely nothing meaningful, other than to demonstrate that the congresspeople want to look like they are doing something meaningful. I suppose they want to avoid being accused of waging war on Christianity and Christmas, like Fox News loudmouth Bill O’Reilly and others allege.

If you watch Fox Snooze (and I feel sorry for you), you may have heard Fox commentators/blowhards Bill O’Reilly and John Gibson pontificating about the alleged “War on Christmas.”

According to O’Reilly, Gibson and other conservative demogogues, secular forces are working to eliminate Christmas from the US of A, leading to the downfall of this great Christian nation.

(I use those words sarcastically, please note.)

Their latest tactic is to enumerate how many retailers use the word “Christmas” in their adverts. The Liberty Counsel, a conservative Christian group associated with the late Jerry Falwell, has published a “naughty and nice” list of major retailers; nice retailers preserve Christmas, naughty ones use the generic word “holiday.”

Avoiding the word “Christmas” is just more evidence of a vast anti-Christian conspiracy, O’Reilly & Co. contend.

This nonsense derives from Christians losing several court cases in which the American Civil Liberties Union has successfully argued that the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause precludes governmental agencies from erecting overtly religious displays.

No creches in city hall, in other words.

Those Christians given to delusions of paranoia have taken these signs and wonders as evidence of an anti-Christian movement in the United States. O’Reilly and Gibson, in particular, have created a straw man argument with their “war on Christmas” diatribes.

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy. You caricature the opposing viewpoint and focus your attacks on the “straw man,” instead of the opponent’s actual statements, hoping to score a few points in your favor.

How deep can hate and hypocrisy get?

One of the country’s most conservative religious leaders, Jerry Falwell, died recently at age 73, apparently of natural causes right in his office at Liberty University. Founder of the religious-political group, Moral Majority, Falwell was known for his condemnation of homosexuality, abortion and pornography as three of the greatest sins threatening the “American family” and the USA.

Now, Friend Falwell and I would probably never agree on a lot of things. His particular kind of theocratic influence on politics to me is an even greater threat to the fabric of our democracy than the three biggest “sins” I mention here. Nevertheless, I would not speak ill of the man. It’s not seemly, and from what I have heard, he was apparently a warm, caring individual, despite his public persona.

It’s no surprise that some other liberals say they are just pleased as they could be that Falwell has gone to meet his Maker. What stupifies me is that someone on the other end of the spectrum — a self-professed Christian — would celebrate Falwell’s death.

Falwell, it seems, is in Hell now because he wasn’t Christian enough! Or at least that is what Fred Phelps, rightwing religious whackjob, claims.

Phelps is hauptführer of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, KS. These are the people that claim God hates America, Sweden, and mostly everyone but Phelps and WBC, because they tolerate the very mortal existence of gays and lesbians. These are the heartless SOBs that protest at the funerals of gays, lesbians and US servicemen and women.

Going forward, I would like to eliminate the clumsy phrase “going forward” from the US lexicon. I mean, what is wrong with saying something more precise, like “in the future,” or something really wordy, like “later” or “soon.”

The phrase sounds stupid, as if the speaker had a lapse in memory and stammered out whatever words came to mind. It has no real meaning, even if one is trying to emphasize he does not want to go backward or regress.

Time was, “going forward” was a favorite of politicians and business types, who utter all sorts of vague and/or wonky terms that carry little real meaning outside these guys’ (and gals’) professional circles. After all, we are still “going forward” in Iraq, despite evidence to the contrary.

Lately, “going forward” has entered into more common venues. National discourse, meanwhile, goes backward.

This week, I heard a fellow on National Public Radio say in an interview, “We need to work on some things going forward.” Right. As if you could work on them by going into the past?

That same day, while glancing through a mail-order electronics catalog, my eyes fell on this charmer, “You’ll need some composite and S-video inputs for your current gear, but going forward, the most important inputs are …”

Now, this sentence could be construed to mean the really  important inputs are in the front of your video equipment, but the copywriter really means that, to stay abreast of high-definition TV development, one needs HD inputs as well as the old kind. In other words, bunky, plan ahead.

Superman in his latest incarnation is a box office smash, a suitable homage to the late Christopher Reeve’s version with a 21st century twist. Amazingly, some conservative bloggers find fault with the movie, for purely socio-political reasons. Chief among them is self-promoting expert on everything Debbie Schlussel.

Who is Debbie Schlussel? Well, I didn’t know either until I started blogging. Schlussel is a sharp-tongued critic of everything to the left of her far-right agenda, especially Hollywood stars who she believes suck up to Arab ass too much. Like all conservative pundits, Schlussel takes everything in popular culture seriously, as if each song lyric, film premise or TV show spells the end of civilization as we know it.

Schlussel is a Jewish Ann Coulter, if you will.

Anyway, Schlussel pops up on TV and radio every once in awhile to spout her special kind of invective. On MSNBC and on her own blog, she lambasts some of the plotline of Superman Returns. I will attempt to summarize, but the links to her post and to the MSNBC transcript are below if you want the news directly from the horse’s mouth.

1. Superman is a wimp because he leaves Earth for five years to “find himself” and his home planet, Krypton, “like every sensitive, slacker metrosexual.” (her blog)
2. Lois Lane is a slut because she has slept with two men (Clark and her fiance), and has a child by one of them, she’s not too sure which.