What is a Democratic Socialist?

With Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders leading DNC hopeful Hillary Clinton in early primary states, and with many media outlets declaring Sanders the winner of the Oct. 14th, 2015 Democratic Debate, there are a lot of Americans out there who are now trying to figure out just who Bernie Sanders is.

Sanders' biggest struggle has been competing with Clinton's household name recognition. Now that Sanders has given Clinton a run for her money in a nationally televised and widely streamed debate, people who haven't previously heard his message are Googling him like crazy to see what he stands for.

Merriam-Webster blew up during the debate with people looking up the word "socialism."

Unfortunately, the dictionary definition just makes people think of this:

Some people have trouble understanding that what Bernie Sanders calls "Democratic Socialism" does not in the slightest resemble the communist government of China or the former USSR.

So what is a Democratic Socialist?

A Democratic Socialist is still a capitalist, but a capitalist who believes you can still make a buck without stepping on the poor and starving the worker.

A Democratic Socialist believes in a living wage.

A Democratic Socialist in America believes that things should be "Made in the USA" to provide good jobs here, and not outsourced for cheap labor to other countries through trade agreements like NAFTA and the TPP.

A Democratic Socialist believes that healthcare is a right and not a privilege.

A Democratic Socialist believes that education is a right and not a privilege.

A Democratic Socialist believes that soldiers should be sent to war not for corporate profit, but only as a last resort when foreign policy fails.

A Democratic Socialist believes that the government's responsibility to that soldier doesn't end when the soldier comes home.

A Democratic Socialist seeks a government that uses tax money to create equal opportunities for everyone.

A Democratic Socialist believes corporations should pay their fair share of taxes as they did in Eisenhower's time (people who hold this particular belief are also called Rockefeller or Eisenhower Republicans).

Before you decide this system of government could never work, take a look at Scandinavia.  This type of government has been working for a long time in countries like Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.

Don't believe me that this works?  Then take a look at the World Happiness Report, an index that rates the happiest populations on Earth.

Source: Bloomberg

Any questions?

Kim Davis Should Not be a Figurehead for Conscientious Objectors

UPDATE 10/2/2015: The Vatican has distanced itself from Kim Davis, saying that the meeting was set up by an American bishop and not by anyone in Rome, and that the audience Ms. Davis was granted should not be construed as an endorsement of her actions by Pope Francis.

During his recent tour of the United States, Pope Francis met with Kim Davis, the Kentucky County Clerk who was jailed for 5 days for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the U.S. Supreme Court's Obergefell vs. Hodges decision legalized marriage for gay couples at the federal level.

The idea behind this meeting between Kim Davis and Pope Francis seems to be that the Pope wanted to make a statement about conscientious objection. So he rallied behind Kim Davis to make a point about people having a right to object to the duties of their job based on religious and/or moral reasons.

Here's the problem:Kim Davis is not a conscientious objector. Or at the very least, that's not why she went to jail.

First, Kim Davis refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because she said it violated her religious beliefs. Issuing these licenses was part of her job, and she objected and refused to do it.  At this point, Kim Davis was a conscientious objector.

But, other people in her office did not object to issuing those licenses. As their boss, Kim Davis forbade them from issuing marriage licenses for gay couples even after she had gone to jail.

I was a soldier. In the Army, what soldiers cannot do when they are a conscientious objector is interfere with the duties of other soldiers under their command based on a personal belief system.  If a squad leader decides she/he can no longer perform her/his duties because those duties violate personal religious beliefs or moral holdings, that squad leader cannot order the squad to also not perform their duties. You step out of the system because of your objection, you don't force the system to abide by your personal beliefs.

Second, when a soldier develops an ethical dilemma that prevents him or her from doing their duties, they can request a conscientious objector discharge, which is an honorable discharge. Because if you hold a job that violates your moral belief system in some way, you should leave that job. If Kim Davis honestly cannot issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because she has a religious objection, she should resign.  If she wasn't in an elected position, she would've been fired already. You don't get to have a conscientious objection and demand that you keep the job that you're refusing to do.

If Pope Francis wants to make a statement about conscientious objectors, by all means do so. But if he's going to hold someone up as a figurehead for this cause, Kim Davis is the wrong person for the job.

Why Your Freedom of Religion Doesn't Protect You From Doing Your Job

On June 26th, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) released a now infamous decision making marriage equality a right for all, including homosexual couples.  This was a monumental day for gay rights, and for American history.

Frankly, when it comes to equal rights, we have a pretty shady track record. We didn't abolish slavery until 30 years after the rest of the "civilized" world, and it took a bloody Civil War to make it happen. Women couldn't vote until 1920.  It took us all the way until 1964 to pass the Civil Rights Act, and three more years before SCOTUS heard Loving v. Virginia and allowed interracial marriage nationwide. I'm sure there are other victories that I'm leaving out here.

What saddens me is that even with all of these monumental victories for equal rights over the past 100 years, we still have a large percentage of our population who has learned nothing.

For instance, an Ohio judge refused to marry a same-sex couple in defiance of the SCOTUS decision. In Kentucky, a county clerk refused a marriage license to a same-sex couple and was caught on video.  A gay couple in Texas was also refused a marriage license.  Another in Arkansas, until her lawyer advised her that she had no legal standing. The list goes on an on.  An epidemic of county clerks refusing to do their job, or flat out quitting their jobs in protest of the SCOTUS decision, is sweeping this great nation.

Why? Because Jesus.

Problem is, from a legal standpoint, that argument really doesn't hold water.

Recent Pew Research shows many Christian denominations that are just fine with same-sex marriage. So if you are choosing to discriminate based on your religious beliefs, it is because your personal interpretation of your religion encourages bigotry, and not necessarily because the Bible say so.  That is your right to feel that way, but your personal views are not a reason to oppress others under the law.

Here's the problem with using your religion to deny rights to other people.  You can't.  It isn't legal. You are free to practice your own religion and believe what you like.  But so is everyone else. Your freedoms only exist insofar as they do not infringe on the freedoms of others.  If you subscribe to a denomination of Christianity that strongly feels homosexuality is a sin, that's your right.  You are fully protected under the First Amendment to say and believe what you want. But you cannot force your religion on others.  You cannot force other people to subscribe to the beliefs and tenets of your personal belief system.  That is not oppression, or persecution.  Other people have the right to subscribe to their own belief systems insofar as they do not hurt anyone else, and that is equality.

If you think gay marriage is a sin, so be it.  Don't marry someone of the same sex.  Don't have sexual relations with someone of the same sex. Don't do those things and you are covered.

But SCOTUS didn't rule on the definition of marriage as defined in the Bible. It ruled on the definition of marriage as defined by the secular government of the United States of America, and whether or not homosexual American citizens were afforded equal rights to marriage under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. SCOTUS ruled that civil marriage is a right afforded to homosexual couples, because sexual preference is not a reason to define someone under the law as being less than a citizen. What it comes down to is this: Gay people getting married has nothing to do with your religion.

So if you are a judge, or you are a county clerk, or some other person who works for the United States Government, it is your duty to uphold the laws of this nation.  That includes issuing marriage licenses or performing civil marriage ceremonies, if those are normally a part of your duties.

If that isn't good enough, look at it this way. If you choose not to perform those duties, you are going to get sued.  And because your religion doesn't apply to American law, you are going to lose. You don't have to be happy about issuing that license, but you do have to issue it.  You don't have to like reading out those civil vows at the courthouse, but you have to read them regardless.

Honestly, if you can't handle that, I encourage you to seek a new line of work. We don't pick and choose who we provide services to when we work for the government.  If you can't uphold your oath and impartially provide the services you were hired by the government to provide, maybe that government job isn't for you after all.

Assault rifles, crazy people, and the constitution

Sit down, kids. We're going to have a little lesson about "assault rifles." And crazy people. And the constitution.

First, the assault rifles. 

If you think being scary/cool looking makes a gun an assault rifle, you're an idiot. If you think a gun's cosmetic features somehow make it more dangerous than a regular wood-stock rifle with the same features, I'm surprised you can tie your own shoes.

Military-style assault weapons have one big difference from civilian rifles. They have a fully automatic or burst-fire feature. Civilian hunting rifles, even the AR-15 and the .223 used at Sandy Hook, have no automatic or burst feature. They are no different than a hand-gun. Hell, they both fire 5.56 mm rounds (not interchangeable but the rounds are roughly the same), which are smaller than some handgun rounds.

Banning cosmetically threatening-looking guns will not solve the problem that has settled on our fair country. People will just use other guns. Then, when you ban those guns, they will use the shit under their kitchen sink and make gas bombs or explosives to kill people. Or they'll buy a 6 dollar bottle of booze at the liquor store and make a Molotov cocktail. Or whackos will run into movie theaters with machetes and swords and start hacking people.

It's not the guns. Crazy people are crazy people, and if they want to commit mass murder they will find a way to do so whether they have guns or not. Crazy people do not see "gun-free zone" signs, or at least they don't obey them. Neither do criminals. It's an old one, but that doesn't make it less true: take away guns from law-abiding citizens, and the only ones that will have guns are the criminals. 

CRIMINALS. DO NOT. OBEY. LAWS. Legislating guns will not solve this problem!

Additionally, the 2nd amendment guarantees each and every law-abiding American citizen the right to bear arms. Why? So that some day, when our government finally becomes so corrupt and disgusting that the people can't stand it anymore, the people can arm themselves and revolt. Is that going to happen soon? Probably not. But it could happen someday, and I'd rather that the military and the police aren't the only ones with guns when it does.

So, in closing, let's take a long look at mental healthcare in this country and stop worrying about the millions of gun owners in this country who have owned guns for years and never committed mass murder.

The Truth About Religion in the U.S.

Religion is harmful.  This is just fact.

I've been more than mildly irritated by Facebook lately because of two images that popped up back to back on a friend's newsfeed.

The first was this:

Is it true that atheists are suing for the removal of the cross from the 9/11 memorial?  Absolutely it is.

An organization called American Atheists is suing the memorial, demanding that the cross be removed.  Here is what the president of American Atheists said to CBS News about the lawsuit:

"This shrine is a cross," Silverman told CBS News on Thursday. "It was picked up, trimmed, polished, the word 'Jesus' was carved on top of it, it was prayed over in front of a church for five years, and then it was installed in the WTC memorial with no warning by a priest in a religious service where in the ground was consecrated. This is a working Christian shrine in the memorial and then they had the gall to say it's not religious in nature, that it represents everybody. That's not true. It does not represent Jews, Muslims, Mormons or atheists, and they all had deaths on 9/11."

Silverman said that the museum should either remove the cross or acknowledge everybody else who died in the tragedy in a manner equal to Christians. "We're talking about public lands, we're talking about public funds, we're talking about congressionally ordered public funds. We're talking about an 18-foot memorial, this is grossly inappropriate. We feel very strongly that this is an attempt to Christianize 9/11, to make it about Christians, even though it's not about Christians at all."


Here's what I don't understand.  Why is this a miracle again?  Oh, 3,000 people died horribly painful and brutal deaths.  But there's a cross, so Jesus loves us!  If Jesus loves us so much, why the fuck didn't he prevent the disaster in the first place?  How do you call the death of 3,000 people a miracle?  You know what that cross is?  It's a piece of metal that happens to be shaped like a cross, because that's the way steel beams are shaped in the infrastructure of buildings at every point where they cross one another.  Go look at any building that's under construction and you'll find a few hundred crosses.  That doesn't mean God is speaking through every building that was constructed in the last hundred years.

Also, Mr. Silverman left one more obvious point out of his argument.  If there was no religion, there would have been no 9/11 in the first place.  Muslim religious extremists perpetrated the bombing because we in the U.S. are viewed as infidels.  Of course, Christians may argue "that's Muslim faith!  Christians are peaceful and loving and would never do such a thing!"  Yeah?  Tell that to the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition or the  Westboro Baptist Church.  Religion has done more harm to this world and been responsible for the deaths of more people than any other single entity, yet the flocks of God/Allah/Yahweh press on, completely unable to see the harm they leave in their wake.  It's more than a little disturbing.
Here is the second image that set me off. 

I've heard this argument again and again over the years.  Unfortunately, born-again Christian e-card makers aren't known for their excellent fact-checking abilities.

Fact: Catholics/Protestants make up 75% of the U.S. Prison population.  They make up about 76% of the U.S. population (51% Protestant, 23.9% Catholic, 1.7% Mormon).

Atheists and those who identify as "no religious affiliation" on surveys make up less than 0.3% of the U.S. Prison population.  They make up about 15% of the U.S. population.

So, if atheists are so evil, and if God is so good, please, someone tell me, why are atheists almost non-existent in the United States prison population?  Shouldn't we make up about 15% of it?  I guess we aren't pulling our weight.

It seems to me that this picture has it backwards.  A little less bible reading and holy rolling will probably keep you out of prison.  Why, you ask?  Let me tell you.

Let's address the old-schoolers first.  By this, I mean Catholics, Presbyterians, Lutherans and the rest of the sit-down-and-listen-then-stand-up-and-sing-a-hymn churches.  How many people do you know that went to Catholic school?  Because those are some of the most guilt-ridden fucking people I've ever met.  The same goes for anyone who goes to any kind of "Christian-oriented" school.  By the time they get out of that place, their self-esteem is so low (and generally their education is so poor) that it's no wonder that a decent percentage of them go out and rape the first girl they can find or stab the first convenient store clerk that comes across their path.  This type of religious education damages people.  Sometimes beyond repair.  It's psychologically harmful, and more than just a little bit in many cases.

Then we have the "New Christians."  The Southern Baptists, the Pentecostals, and pretty much any church that calls itself "non-denominational" in this day and age.  These people...oh, these fucking people.  They do what they want, when they want, how they want.  Why?  Because if you sit your ass in a pew on Sunday and repent, none of it matters!  These fuckers actually believe that if you stab someone on Saturday and repent on Sunday, you get to go to heaven.  They believe this crap to the point that they completely take their life on earth for granted, since they believe they get an eternity in paradise to make up for any lost time here.  Even the majority that don't go to prison spend half of their time praying and wasting their life away for God.

So why is the atheist population in prison so low?  Because we believe we have one life to live.  There is no eternity, no paradise.  I only get 60-80 years here, so why would I want to blow any of that time in prison?  Our morals are determined by the society we grew up in, not in a bronze-age book that is barely applicable to modern society.  We have no conflicts between societal law and biblical law.  With a combination of evolution and societal mores, we have reached a point where we don't need a religion to tell us what is right or wrong.  One look at the prison population statistics makes it obvious the Bible is less effective at moral education than the human intellect is.

So, surprise, once again a horribly inaccurate picture based on no fact whatsoever gets 150,000 shares on Facebook and I'll either get flamed for this blog or no one will ever read it.  C'est la vie.

The Top Five Reasons Why You Shouldn't Post About Politics on Your Favorite Social Networks

It's the day after Election Day, and we're all a little butt-hurt.  Even if your favored candidate won, you're still a little butt-hurt.  Why?  Possibly because you blacked out from that electoral vote drinking game you invented, or possibly because you made the dumb-ass mistake of logging into your favorite social network on a day like Election Day.  Bad move, buddy.  Bad move.

1.  Let’s face it, if you have a Facebook, there are between 20-100 people on your friends list that you don’t even like.  Like that guy from high school that used to whip your ass with a wet towel after gym class, but added you three years after graduation and then never acknowledged it when you accepted.  Even though you added that guy so you could see just how badly he’s failing at life, that guy doesn't really like you either.  And all those people that don’t like you are going to find any reason they can to tear you a new one.  And after you work your way through their badly spelled post and discern its message, I bet you’ll feel that wet towel just cracking you on the ass all over again.

2.  On Facebook we all have a few people, and on Twitter some of us have hundreds, who we don’t know at all.  Posting about politics on a social network opens the door for that crazy guy who lives in his mom’s basement and who graduated with your third cousin back in 1992 to tell you what a douche you are, and how he doesn’t even know you anymore, and how his hamster said you’re the devil.  Then there’s always the chance he’ll show up at your house.  With a chainsaw.

3.  There are going to be a few people that you actually care about (most of us have at least 5 out of several hundred contacts) on your social network friend list.  Half of those people love you unconditionally.  The other half are waiting to pounce like a rabid bobcat the second you say something they don’t like.  You hang out, you bar hop together, you pick up chicks/dudes together, you tell each other all your secrets and give each other advice.  Then you post about politics and your bestie is angrily commenting on the status and telling you how stupid you are.  Then you post back, and they post back, and you post back again, and suddenly all those secrets you told said bestie are known to the whole world.  Don’t you wish you’d just complained about Disney buying LucasArts some more instead?

4. Let’s be honest.  You aren’t going to change anyone’s mind.  Nobody ever changed their political stance over a 140 character tweet, and nobody reads those long Facebook statuses you write anyway.  By getting up on a soap box and preaching your political views, all you are doing is wasting your time.  You’ll get a dozen comments telling you that you’re right, half a dozen telling you that you’re a dick, and everyone walks away thinking the same things they were thinking before you posted. 

5. The solution is clear.  We all need to get out more.  Next Election Day, let’s not spend 14 hours cussing out our loved ones (and that weird guy who added you that you don’t know, but always comments on your cleavage pictures) on our favorite social network.  Let’s go to the bar and watch the results come in on TV while we get piss-hammered like our parents used to do.  

You will be missed.

Wednesday morning, February 13th, at around 2 a.m. or so, the world lost one of the last good men. My grandfather, Arthur Simonsen, passed away.

There are things about him I couldn't tell you off the top of my head. I'm not sure exactly what year he was born, or even in what town. I don't know what year he married my grandmother, or where. These things never seemed to be as important as they seem now.

There are things I do know. I know he served in the army, which was part of my influence to do the same. I know he spent many long, hard years breaking his back working for the railroad to support his family. I know he had four children, and that he outlived one of them, which no parent should have to do. I know he had five grandchildren, and he outlived one of them, too, which might be even worse. I know he had a deep faith in God and Jesus Christ, in spite of, or maybe because of, all of these things.

I know he was a father to me during those years my father had better things to do. He took me camping, he took me fishing, he took me bowling. He came to many of my baseball games. He even came to a few of the plays I was in, even though I know that wasn't really his thing.

There are things I learned from him. I learned that working hard is important, that family always comes first, that you don't need money to be rich, and that you should give the shirt off your back without hesitation if it will help someone else. I learned that crying when you are sad or hurt doesn't make you any less of a man.

And of course, there are a few other more practical things that I learned from him. I learned you never take the radiator cap off when the engine is overheating. Or that it's apparently possible to build your own exercise equipment. I learned that dogs will always be better than cats and that puppies and babies turn grumpy old men into baby-talking old men. I learned that I could never squeeze his hand harder than he could squeeze mine. And I noticed that if you don't swear very often, it makes people pay more attention when you do. I found out that you can drive the same old dodge truck for roughly one hundred years if you keep up on the maintenance. I learned that you can fit a ridiculous amount of stuff into a truck camper if you really try. And last but not least, thanks to him, I know that a real man has a tool for everything, and if he doesn't you better be damn sure he can make one.

Arthur Simonsen, always just Grandpa to me, was never a proud man. He wasn't one to boast (except perhaps about the occasional bowling score). Mostly he was a quiet man, but he was great man, and he was loved by many people. He will be sorely missed in this world, and without a doubt welcomed with open arms in the next.

Goodbye, Grandpa. I love you, and I hope I'll see you again in a better place than this one.