The myth of church and state

I was watching "Book TV" on C-SPAN and their speaker was this author named Stephen Mansfield who was giving a presentation on his newest book “Ten Tortured Words: How The Founding Fathers Tried to Protect Religion...and What’s Happened Since.”

The allegedly mangled 10 word phrase: “Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

Basically, this moron spent close to an hour bashing the separation of church and state as a misunderstanding and a bad law.

His main argument is that, while we have the freedom to choose our religion, religion in and of itself is a necessity of a moral and successful society. Furthermore, the Founding Fathers knew this and would never have supported a complete separation of church and state.

Mansfield basically says that "Separation of church and state," is a silly made up phrase that Thomas Jefferson mentioned in passing, and that it has no bearing on the actual Amendment which says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

That's like saying "separate, but not equal," is a silly made up phrase mentioned in passing that has nothing to do with the Amendment which says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Does the Amendment specifically say that separate cannot be equal? No. So, according to Mansfield’s logic we should basically go tell Thurgood Marshall to shove it. Sorry Brown V. The Board of Education, but your court ruling isn’t specifically addressed in the Constitution—we’re bringing segregation back!

He went so far as to accuse the American CIVIL LIBERTIES Union (ACLU), of suing the Boy Scouts of America as a means of making a profit. Not only that, but he says that it uses threats of lawsuits as a means of BLACKMAIL in order to basically spread the plague of secularism.

He claims that it was the intention of the Founding Fathers to protect religion, and that this petty and scrutinizing secularism is an abuse of the entire basis of the Constitution.

This guy is ridiculous, verging on hypocritical. He claims that by misinterpretation of the Constitution, these annoying activists have completely divorced the document from any significance it originally held.

But who is he to claim he knows, for sure, what the original intent of the Framers was? Was he there? No. And the malleability of the Constitution is probably the most significant feature of the incredible document.

I say, that by asserting that only one interpretation of the Constitution can be accepted, he is divorcing the document from any significance it originally held.

All in all, I don't see why this guy is complaining. America is basically a Judeo-Christian state anyway. I mean, look at our lawmakers’ justifications against gay marriage: “sanctity” this, “the Bible” that, “immoral, immoral, immoral.”

Mansfield should just go screw Ann Coulter and leave the preaching in the pulpit.

Hell has frozen over

As I type this blog entry I am watching a pig fly past my window. Why? Paris Hilton and I are actually in agreement... scary.

She released a statement today with the following:

"I must also say that I was shocked to see all of the attention devoted to the amount of time I would spend in jail for what I had done by the media, public and city officials. I would hope going forward that the public and the media will focus on more important things, like the men and women serving our country in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places around the world."

The amount of media attention she has gotten over the past 2 weeks is beyond stupid. Who cares about the problems with the missile defense system or the immigration bill? I even saw an AP story about fans upset about Paris' situation, only the writer didn't bother to check facts and interviewed someone from the Jimmy Kimmel show pretending to be upset.

Ouch.

So can we get back to real news... at least until she is released?

President's refusal to address gun control

On April 16, 32 innocent students lost their lives in a senseless tragedy. The mass murder at Virginia Tech is the largest in U.S. history. Right now, the entire country is in a state of shock, outrage and mourning.

America’s gun culture is under fire from foreign governments. The White House has taken the official position that the tragedy is too fresh in the minds of the public to allow for discussion of U.S. policies on gun control. Still, at a time where gun violence is responsible for such a horrendous massacre, it seems like the perfect time.

Back in 2001, after the attacks on Sept. 11, the White House spoke up immediately. They fought hard for increasing security measures and the public rallied around the flag—even when those measures came into conflict with constitutional freedoms.

Now, after the massacre at Virginia Tech, if the President was to speak up and advocate gun control laws, the country would follow suit. It doesn’t make sense that the White House would want to ignore issues of gun safety at this moment in time—unless you think of the financial and political motives.

Even if it’s in the interest of society as a whole, creating stricter gun laws is not in the financial interest of the Republican Party.

The National Rifle Association has donated millions of dollars in soft money to the Republican Party to date. And it seems like the good old boys are out to protect each other, even in the face of an atrocity like the killings at Virginia Tech.

The National Rifle Association has argued for years that it is our constitutional freedom to own and carry guns. Any step by the government to regulate the gun industry is always met with opposition by this group.

Yes, we are constitutionally guaranteed the right to own firearms. In no way should we be forced to give up that right. But in the face of the shootings at Virginia Tech, it is time for this country to stand up and admit that it has a gun problem.

Dude, where's my pot?

Dude, somebody must have been totally faded. I don’t know how else to explain why three tons, yeah THREE TONS of marijuana was abandoned along the freeway.

An abandoned rental truck was partially blocking the Milliken Avenue exit on the 10 freeway in Ontario. When San Bernardino County police arrived to investigate, they noticed that the whole area reeked of pot.

Police opened the truck to find three tons of marijuana just sitting there. That has to be the easiest drug bust in the history of the world—and one of the biggest.

According to the cops, the street value of the marijuana in that truck is about $20 million.

How did this happen? Did the driver get high and forget what he was doing?

I can’t imagine how anyone, especially a drug dealer, could leave THAT MUCH POT just lying on the side of the road.

Maybe the driver got so baked from inhaling all that pot, that he had to pull over and find the nearest Jack in the Box—never mind that he was in the middle of the freeway.

On the other hand, maybe the driver was stoned and got so paranoid that he bailed out mid off-ramp.

As far as suspects go, police are drawing a blank. Still, it’s not like the police are ever going to find the idiot who basically handed them this huge shipment of drugs. I’m sure the supplier has already had them...neutralized.

I’m sure soccer moms everywhere see this as a victory in the whole “war on drugs,” and teens are crying their bloodshot eyes out over this “travesty.”

But I’m still trying to figure out what happened.

Honestly, three tons of pot being abandoned is mind blowing. It’s the kind of thing that’s so far out there you can’t believe it actually happened. In the end—

—Dude, I forgot what I was saying. I’m going to go get, like, 30 tacos.

Scared skinny

Forget pedophiles, kidnappers and babysitters with a tendency to shake things. There’s a new threat to humanity, and no child is safe.

Children are dropping like flies. Causes of death: a 2-liter of Coke, Oreos, Chicken McNuggets.

You don’t believe it?
Well good, because it sounds stupid to me too.

That hasn’t stopped a slew of cautionary commercials that are basically telling us just that.

I can’t even turn on the TV anymore without seeing at least one of those ridiculous, annoying ads. You know exactly what I’m talking about. “Mom, can I have a cup of sugar,” “some pwocessed junk food,” or “a showtah life span?”

First of all, get kids who can talk to do your commercials. Speech impediments aren’t cute. Second, STOP with the melodrama.

Too much junk food will definitely affect health in the long run. No one is arguing that.

Show me one parent, any one parent who didn’t know that feeding their kid 3 Happy Meals a day was a bad idea. Show me one parent who was actually enlightened by these commercials. You find me that one parent, and I’ll show you an idiot who should never have been allowed to procreate.

Letting your kid shovel in the fast food isn’t exactly going to help them. We know for damn certain that it isn’t healthy. But demonizing any and all junk food is a joke!

There are plenty of healthy adults who ate burgers as a kid. There are millions of kids who will drink soda and NOT develop type 2 diabetes. Sugar and grease aren’t good for you, but they aren’t exactly a death sentence.

The way these ads make it seem, nutrition facts might as well have another column. Right next to Percentage of Daily Value, there should be a column for Days Subtracted from Life Span.

Sugars: 36g, 25 percent of the daily value, 14 days subtracted from life span.

Instead of telling us what we already know, why don’t these commercials focus on something useful? They could promote fruits and vegetables, tell us what breads are best for kids, or talk about all natural juices.

What I don’t understand is why health’s number one enemy is junk food. Parents, if you really want to help your kid, kick them out of the house for a couple hours a day. Get them off of Myspace, World of Warcraft and Wii. Make them play outside; make them get some fresh air. That’ll do a hell of a lot more for their health than counting their carbs will.

As far as these commercials go, we get it already. There’s no need to keep force feeding the public stale information on how bad, bad food can be.

R.I.P.: Anna Nicole Smith or entertainment journalism?

Since the death of her son Daniel a few months ago, all of the entertainment “news” shows and magazines have been hounding her. Now with her death, the onslaught of “news coverage” is in full gear. Every show is covering the topic and everyone seems to have an opinion regarding how she died or who’s the father of her newborn daughter.

As I sat flipping through the channels the other night trying to avoid all of the coverage something came to mind.

Is this as low as entertainment journalism can get?

With rumor/talk of “Entertainment Tonight” paying $1 million dollars for an exclusive interview with Anna’s partner Howard K. Stern, is this the final nail in the coffin that was once a groundbreaking part of journalism?

I already have a problem with shows like “Access Hollywood” for the types of stories they cover, but this makes me want to vomit. What happened to asking the stars of a particular movie a question ABOUT THE MOVIE?! Now it is all gossip, “what are you wearing” and reporters trying to befriend these stars on camera.

Now, people are making assumptions without any facts and just reporting anything without care of it being right. I even came across a story that talked about the rumor of Anna’s son being the father of her child and she killed herself because of that.

What the hell happened when one, people report things like this and two, when people WANT to have this reported on shows and in print.

These shows will say they are only giving the audience what they want. What does that say about us as viewers and readers?

So is the solution for people to stop watching and reading? We know that won’t happen anytime soon.

I, for one, will be finding something else to occupy my time between 7-8 p.m. and not watching these “entertainment” shows.