are some religious symbols better than others? does the gov't have the right to choose that?

yesterday i arrived at a seminar and noticed 3 students with ash on their foreheads. "aha, ash wednesday" i thought, and then i thought about how this really made these students stand out from the rest of the class, designating them as the practicing catholics and the rest of us not.

normally this is where these thoughts would end, but this seminar happens to be one where homeless youth are interviewed in front of a class of soon-to-be clinicians (i am just an observer). overall it is a great experience for everyone involved (if you have questions about it email me). this evening in particular, one of the youths told us he was kicked out of his house at 13 years old because he wouldn't go to church. he spotted those ashes and was maybe a bit more apologetic than he should have been. i couldn't help feeling a little frustrated with these students. it was one of those moments where my mind did not align with my heart. i think that everyone should be free to practice, or not practice, religion as they choose, but i wanted that teenager to be as comfortable as possible.

religious symbols have run up against secular law in many societies. the first one i can think of the turban issue in france. perhaps these issues would not be so loaded if the cultures of each religion weren't clashing with each other on other fronts.

why am i rambling on about this in the first place? well, the supreme court just issued a unanimous ruling that a city park in utah does not have to take a donated monument from a small religion called summum even though it has a 10 commandment statue. although the ruling was unanimous, the justices had differing opinions about its impact. the conservative judges were okay with labeling the 10 commandments "government speech," which i think they implied is also protected by the 1st amendment. the less conservative judges were not so sure about "government speech" and thought the city should make an effort to not appear to be the establishment of religion.

so i guess this isn't such a strong "wtf" posting, but more a way to work out my feelings on this matter. personally, i still think the individual should get to choose what they want to convey about their religion.... even if it makes people (including me) uncomfortable, but goverment should stay the heck out of it. if i ruled the country, established religious monuments could be grandfathered in, but here on out, there should be only secular monuments for what should be (but often isn't) secular government property.

what do you think?

article about supreme court decision
recent article about turban issue in france
joe biden and others with ash for ash wednesday

Are we really cowards when it comes to talking about race?

In his first speech as Attorney General, and in celebration of Black History Month, Eric H. Holder Jr. called the US “essentially a nation of cowards” when it comes to race relations and that, "we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race." He then went on to say that we should use Black History Month as a way of starting a more candid and forthright conversation about race relations here in the US since even though there is less segregation in the work place, there continues to be a lack of communication between the races outside of the workplace.

OK, in general I find this message to be good and worthwhile. Yes we need to have more candid conversations about race in the US, yes people do mostly hang out with people of the same racial/ethnic background, and yes it would be great if not only people hung out more with people of different backgrounds, but also talked to each other about what it means to be from different backgrounds. What I have a problem with is the fact that he completely overshadowed his very good point by calling us all cowards. Was that actually necessary? Was it a ploy to get bloggers such as myself to write about his point and get more press for it? Are we really a nation of cowards? or is it that people naturally flock to people like themselves and dislike conflict? What do you think fair blog readers?


NYT Opinion Piece

Washington Post Piece

the misuse of "science" part I

so i, hotpants, have decided to make a series of the misuse of sciiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeence wahahaha.... to be written about when i feel like it. hotstuff may join in if she wants. what i mean specifically is the misuse of the word science or phrases lifted for science for commercial or political enterprises.

before reading this post i encourage you to see this funny but pointed video that blogger won't let me in embed for some reason:

Target Women: Skin care "science"

in it, sarah haskins humorously talks about some of my favorite pet peeves: stupid commercials, the beauty industry making wrinkles the enemy (and making millions of dollars off it) and the misuse of sciiiiiiiience.

there is a particular oil of olay commercial that she talks about that bugged me too when i saw it. this is the one with the many "doctors" and one asian woman. it was on during the oscars and hotstuff teased me that, of course i thought it was racist... (see prior posts for that one...) no no, it's not racist, i don't think, but it is ridiculously science-y for no good reason (the hands of time cannot be turned back by a cream no matter how smart your scientists are... yet....) then there the shots of molecules and words that are technically science-y, but are mostly misused. and the truth is this hand-waving works and has for as long as there have been beauty products. i mean hell, even though i hated this commercial, there was a part of me that thought "i need new moisturizer."

well there goes my first installment of the misuse of "science". i encourage readers to send me their favorite (or least favorite, really) misuses of science, either via comment or email. until then........ wahahahaha..........

I am all for compromise, but is this really fair? Civil unions with religious exceptions?

Alright, as most of you could probably deduce from the many posts that we have had supporting LGBT rights, we here at RUTHERE feel that same-sex marriages should be allowed. Setting aside the whole issue that giving same-sex couples civil unions instead of marriage is its own way of descriminating against them and treating them as somehow fundamentally different then same-sex couples. Recently there was a NYT (again, shocking I know) Op-Ed piece proposing a compromise between what they see as the two sides of the argument:

"First, most gay and lesbian Americans feel they need and deserve the perquisites and protections that accompany legal marriage. Second, many Americans of faith and many religious organizations have strong objections to same-sex unions."

They then go on to say that a compromise should be made between these two factions setting up federal civil unions with exceptions for religious groups. While this may seem all fine and good on the surface, as compromise is a lovely word, I can't help but wonder if this isn't so much a compromise as just a way to say that it is ok for organizations in this fair country of ours to continue their practices of discrimination as long as it is under the guise of religious beliefs. While I agree that religious organizations should not be forced to consecrate same-sex marriages in their own churches, what about large religious organizations who have employees in same-sex relationships who under the new federal civil union law would legally be entitled to the same rights as those offered to opposite-sex couples. Would that religious organization then be allowed to discriminate against their employees in same-sex relationships in terms of hiring, firing, and benefits? Just because they are a religious organization, does that mean that they are above the law and should be allowed to deny people their legal rights?

Also, what the hell happened to the separation of church and state! WTF?

NYT Op-Ed Piece

gracias por las pelculias

at the risk of sounding like a few cheesy speeches tonight at the oscars, i'd like to spend a little time being grateful for the moving pictures.

i just saw slumdog millionaire. i really liked it. i know there are a few of you out there that are poo pooing it as predictable and some go as far as exploitative. presently, my feelings about these criticisms are just b/c a plot does not twist away from what you expect does not make it boring and just b/c a film is filmed in a developing country does not make it manipulative. though if you have a stronger argument for either, i would like to hear it.

anyway, it is cliche to say movies take to you places you wouldn't go otherwise (it's in the script for tonight i'm sure).... but it's true... so i said it again.

i assume that most of you know where to go to see slumdog so instead i offer up a fabulous filmmaker that is also a close friend of mine: beth botshon. check out her clips, you won't be disappointed (sorry it's so hard to stay away from the cliche):

http://www.bethbotshon.com/

WTF North Dakota? Why are you making women into murderers?

The North Dakota legislature just passed a fetal personhood bill, HB 1572, that declares that fertilized eggs have the same rights as human beings. This is so problematic that I am having a hard time even wrapping my head around its large reaching implications. To name just a few, it makes abortion murder, contraception techniques, like IUDs, murder, and miscarriages involuntary manslaughter.

I mean seriously, WTF North Dakota? Why won't you get out of our bodies and let women make their own decisions about what is right and wrong when it comes to their reproductive rights? Are you really going to prosecute every woman who has a miscarriage or uses contraception?

Feministing Article

Local ND news Article

MSNBC Article

ND Abortion Stats

what? federal funds to promote marriage b/c it's "healthier"? how 'bout promoting health itself first? how 'bout the science is bad anyway?

ok that's a long title, but i want to be clear here. i am not for or against marriage. much like my views on sexual practices: if it suits your fancy and you aren't hurting anyone, go for it. (and gays should get to go for it too!) plus, i absolutely love weddings when done authentically. sharing love is great.

but, there has been a roll out of federally funded program (legacy from the bushies) to promote marriage b/c it's "healthier."

here is the website "TwoOfUs"
and USA today article about it

what?! blogger bella depaulo goes into why the science is bad on the studies that assert causality between marriage and health.
her arguments here

aside from the faulty science (not as bad as the abstinence data, but still not great), i would like to say i can think of many many places where money could go to promote health and happiness of individuals or couples where the science is stronger.

one example: i recently heard a homeless woman tell a story about going to a police department with her boyfriend at the time to ask for anger management courses b/c he was getting out of control. they told her that there were no free classes unless he was charged with something. (which he was eventually, but not before hurting her severely) what if anyone who wanted anger management could get it? or how 'bout mental health therapy or couples counseling?

i know these are expensive ideas, but when a federal gov't barely sends money to its states to fund health and education programs in this economic crisis (so much for states' rights republicans...) and then launches a website with this crappy band-aid, it makes me angry. you too?

Racist political cartoon? Or just making a point about the stimulus package?

Below there is a link to a cartoon that was published in the NY Post today. Since its publication there have been many reactions to it. As Sam Stein from the Huffington Post described it, "The drawing, from famed cartoonist Sean Delonas, is rife with violent imagery and racial undertones. In it, two befuddled-looking police officers holding guns look over the dead and bleeding chimpanzee that attacked a woman in Stamford, Connecticut. 'They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill,' reads the caption."

Seriously? We are now comparing the author of the stimulus package (many of whom would agree is Barack Obama) to a rabid chimp? If you are willing to give the cartoonist the benefit of the doubt and say that this was not representing Obama as a chimp and instead just saying that a chimp could have written the stimulus bill, then you are ignoring an entire history in the US of African-American's being represented as monkeys in ractist attacks. Clearly, there is no way to look at this cartoon without having that history accessed in the collective brain of the US audience. Thus even if we try to give the cartoonist the benefit of the doubt, this cartoon, while attempting to say that even a monkey could have written the bill is in fact showing an overtly racist act of violence with two white policemen shooting a monkey who is meant to represent Obama. For shame NY Post, for shame!

NY Post Cartoon

Huffington Post Article

i am 30 (and woman) hear me roar

... numbers to big to ignore...

i am happy to be 30 and screw you to all the people/media/etc that want to make me feel bad about aging. i don't even want to hear "30 is the new 20." i don't want to be 20 again. i want to be 30 and wiser for it, and less wise than all the years that will come next.

thank you to all the people that have helped me celebrate, and a greater/wider thanks to those who have taught me lessons galore.

Thank God for Hotpants!

I just wanted to give a shout out and a large thanks to God for Hotpants being birthed! Way to go God and way to be awesome Hotpants! You truly rock!

thank god another point of view

due to the academic standards of our potential guest blogger, he points us to another expert. brad delong is an economist other than paul krugman and joseph stiglitz, who is a breath of fresh air compared to the "chicago school" or the less educated economic pundits.
here is his commentary on what do about the recession
here is his blog

no news is bad news

i thought i would switch it up a little and post a comic about how i feel instead of a newspaper article. wtf fox news! really! don't we deserve better stories, even if they are trashy?

Fox News Mad Libs

and another link to http://overcompensating.com/


PS hopefully, tomorrow we will have an extra blog about the bailout. (ahem, guest blogger you know who you are...)

PPS HAPPY 200th bday to 2 great men: darwin (see darwin day website and nyt editorial) and lincoln (see obama help reopen Ford's theatre)

For the love of God, scientists quit your whining!

Promises were made. Funding in science was supposed to return with full force. Scientists were hoping for not only more money but also potentially a little bit more freedom to study things that might have been considered "controversial" by the past administration but could have a real impact on people's lives. And yet, here we are, stimulus package in hand, more money being put into science then the past four years, and scientists are complaining about the allocation of the funds.

I get it, we all have our own agenda and stakes to claim when it comes to science funding, but seriously, everyone is getting a bump up from what they had before. Yes, most of the funding is going to biomedical agencies, and yes, basic science isn't getting the bump they wanted. We love you basic science and know that you are very important, but quit your whining, you are getting more money then you had before and people are dying because biomedical science has been so underfunded for the past four years. I mean seriously, is a $912 million dollar Synchrotron Light Source project more important then finding a cure for cancer or a vaccine for HIV? For once I think the politicians may have gotten their priorities straight!

NYT Article on Science Funding

let's get partisan!

i agree that there are some values that we should share whether we support the red or blue politicians, but there is a large chance that the red politicians don't agree with the values i think we should share. i hope obama taking this in a bit from his experience with the stimulus bill. his killing the republicans with kindness doesn't seem to be working. (i know i know, he says it's a long road... but is it really one that we wanna go down?) one problem is most republican politicians don't have any illusions about bi-partisanship and don't have a desire to take action on the word.

case in point:
" Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) suggested last week that the party is learning from the disruptive tactics of the Taliban, and the GOP these days does have the bravado of an insurgent band that has pulled together after a big defeat to carry off a quick, if not particularly damaging, raid on the powers that be. "

... at the expense of the rest of us...


post article:"GOP Sees Positives In Negative Stand"

additionally i say, "let's get partisan" b/c the centrists are also pissing me off and mr. krugman as well. the first lines of his latest editorial:
"What do you call someone who eliminates hundreds of thousands of American jobs, deprives millions of adequate health care and nutrition, undermines schools, but offers a $15,000 bonus to affluent people who flip their houses?
A proud centrist."

krugman's editorial: the destructive center

i couldn't agree more and neither can the economists quoted by harper's who said "the cuts that would have provided aid to states and education programs...were 'outrageous' and 'disastrous.'”

harper's weekly review

In vitro fertilization gone wild?

As I am sure a lot of you know at this point, last week a woman in southern California gave birth to not one, not two, but eight babies. She is a single mother, a grad student, and already had six children under the age of 7 from in vitro fertilization. This means that now she has 14 children under the age of 7 from in vitro fertilization. Besides for the many issues around how she is going to afford to have so many children and why she kept going back for more and more in vitro fertilization procedures, my main issue is why a fertilization doctor was willing to keep taking her back for more and more procedures. I mean seriously, the woman clearly is not having issues getting pregnant and is only 33 years old (which means she started in vitro stuff when she was 26 years old). So my question for you, dear wonderful blog readers, is do you think it is ethical to take a woman who already has six kids from in vitro to have even more kids from in vitro? Let alone ethical to implant her with six embryos at once when the medical standards say you should only implant one or two in women under the age of 35?

MSNBC Story

LATime Story

thank god for kissing

as if you need more reasons to love it, apparently there's a new study that shows that kissing actually reduces the level of a hormone that causes stress (cortisol).

my favorite quote from this article though:

"In 2007 British scientists measured the brain and heart activity sparked by passionate kissing, but found it was less intense that the stimulation produced by eating chocolate."

article on kissing in the telegram

PS happy upcoming valentine's day to all those that celebrate.

What's the holdup? Shouldn't gays be allowed openly to serve their country if they choose?

So first Obama simply said "Yes" when ask if he would repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy surrounding gays in the military. Now he is going back on his emphatic statement and instead saying there needs to be yet another study to assess if there are any detrimental aspects to having openly gay people serving our country. There have been many, many, many studies done over the years (including one just last year) that have shown no evidence that openly gay service would harm the military, and a great deal of evidence showing it would not. In fact many have argued that it would be monetarily beneficial to end this policy, as you would stop spending money kicking people out and trying to replace them. Additionally there have been plenty of highly skilled people in the military who have been kicked out because they came out, putting our military at a skills deficit in those places until someone could replace them. I mean seriously, the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy does not have a leg to stand on, and yet, Obama is now postponing any action on it until further "study". WTF?

Boston Globe Article

pedophiles sent to AK. really?

quotes from story from the slog
"The Jesuits, he said, sent known pedophiles to isolated Alaskan villages—many of them only accessible by boat or plane—to let them abuse children with impunity."

"A former Benedictine monk, Patrick Wall, said 28 pedophiles from four countries were specifically sent to Alaska "to get them off the grid, where they could do the least amount of damage" to the church's public image."

if this alleged action by jesuit leaders is true, the people that did this are complete assholes(to put it lightly). anyone got any other words for them?

Tax evasion or just a bad accountant?

Today two people stepped down from their appointed roles in the Obama administration (oh how sweet it is to type that) due to issues with their taxes. As I don't really know too much about Nancy Killefer, I will mainly talk about Tom Daschle. So yes, the man messed up on his taxes, and yes taxes are meant to be voluntarily complied with, but seriously, maybe our tax code is a little hard to follow when not one, not two, but three people who have been nominated by Obama have had issues with their taxes, most of which truly do feel like they were involuntary oversights and were not maliciously done.

I recognize that we all have to pay our taxes and it is important for officials in particular to pay their taxes, but can't we give these people the benefit of the doubt and a break on this matter. I mean who the heck knew that if a company you were working for gave you a car and a driver you needed to report that as income? The company didn't even give him a tax form for it! So now we are down a person who could very well have gotten through some important legislature on health care reform and have to look for a one that could at best be considered second choice, and all because the man simply made a mistake (and one he was willing to rectify immediately I might add). (I also recognize that there are other potential issues with his nomination, aka the charges that he did some lobbying, but I am not addressing them here to focus on the fact that this tax thing is what really got him booted)

So what do you think readers? Is messing up unwittingly on your taxes enough to get one booted from a position they are particularly qualified for?

NYT Opinion Piece saying he should withdraw

CNN article about his withdrawal

super bowl ads? really is the cheapest joke stupid violence?

ok, 1. we are in recession, so the amount of money spent on commercials (and writing them) is probably at a low. writers are probably shaking their boots about their jobs and therefore not at their creative height. 2. ads are mostly stupid (at the very least) and more often sexist/racist and obviously manipulative and materialistic.

given these 2 points, the ads for this year's super bowl sucked. the people i watched it with noticed almost all of them had to do w/ gratuitous violence (ok ok, one might say so does football, but can we get a break please). of course there were also some sexist (the potato head ad) and slightly racist ones (white horse=attractive female). in my opinion there was only one good ad (alec baldwin, i love you, especially when you dis on tv and advertise hulu, my own tv vice machine)

ok, if i were an ad woman this is what i would have done: capitalized on the "hope" message and/or sacrifice... and add some puppies. pepsi and coke try at this, but those ads were tired too. pepsi even made their new logo more like the obama o...

so what was your most or least favorite super bowl ad?


SF gate article about the ads that agrees w/ me mostly ;)
hulu ad
potato head ad
pepsi adapting the "o"

What is a Fuzzy Obama???

Hi all wonderful blog readers, so I know that we have been on a little "I heart Obama" kick as of late, and who am I to stop this trend? This weekend I was discussing with a good friend of mine how Obama and all things written by Obama give me the warm fuzzies. And then I came up with one of my most brilliant ideas yet, what if there was a drink named Fuzzy Obama? and what would it have in it? I decided right off the bat that it should be nothing like a fuzzy navel, but that it would need to be strong yet sweet, classic and classy all at the same time. The winner for that evening was a combination of gin, pineapple (giving a nod to his Hawaiian roots), and champagne.

But, I would like to open this blog up to suggestions, what would you our lovely readers like to see in a Fuzzy Obama?