I have a lot to catch up on.
1 - P3. She's doing well. Tomorrow we go see her surgeon for the post-op consultation. My only concern is that she's impossible to keep down and she looks a little puffy around the incision site. Her stitches will come out tomorrow, though. I'm sure she'll be happy about that (after they're out at least). She has received books, a toy, and a teddy gram with flowers. She's working on thank you notes, but I wanted to tell all of you "thank you" for being so wonderful.
There have been a couple of people who felt weird about my posting Grace's wish list (by request). If I've offended any of you, then I'm sorry. It really caught me off guard to hear that people found it offensive or strange. But, I think hearing this from three non-troll people deserves examination of the behavior. I'm not counting the vindictive trolls. These are regular readers who didn't think it was necessary. What is the "Mrs. Manners" rule on this? For what it's worth, I love giving gifts and helping people. I'll send cute pencil and pen bouquets for my friends or family who have kids starting school. I love buying baby gifts and stuff for my online friends. There are about six people on this blogs whom I randomly send hair bows that I've made or cards to. And, yet, I still struggled with posting that link because I do see that some would find it strange or make a judgement call about it. What do you guys think?
2. Sarah Palin. I've tried to avoid making politically based entries on this blog. It's not that I don't have an opinion. I just don't think it should be assumed that all atheists vote for the same party due to our beliefs. Atheism doesn't address politics. I had always felt like blogging about politics in an atheist blog would lend more credence to the talk in religious circles about atheism being more than a position on the existence of a deity. But, I'm breaking that silence because Sarah Palin rubs me all sorts of wrong ways. I'll break it down into note form.
A) Book banning. Sarah Palin tried to ban certain books about homosexuality from the libraries of Wasilla, Alaska. She claims it was a "policy discussion", but let's call a spade a spade: it's censorship. And, it's not even censoring for a good reason. Reading a book or fifty on homosexuality isn't going to turn little Suzie into a lesbian. This woman, who would be vice president of a republic with a constitution guaranteeing freedom of the press and free speech, had a librarian fired for not cow-towing to her bigoted perspective on homosexuality! The librarian wasn't trying to put "Debbie Does Debbie" on the Young Readers bookshelf. It wasn't pornography. On her list of "inappropriate books" were such titles as; Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson, Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman, Little Red Riding Hood by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm, To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee, and last (but not least), The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood. The last being particularly ironic. "Bridge to Terabithia" is a house favorite! There's little in there that I could imagine as being controversial. The main character, Jess, is a Christian. But, the book contains a healthy dose of imagination. When did a book about two kids creating an imaginary nation of creatures while working through themes of social justice become a threat to children? Children work out their perceptions of the world by trying on different hats in play or creating their own Utopia. And, I don't care if Heather has two mommies - if happy families and stable childhoods are the requirement of children, then I think two mommies (or two daddies) is fantastic. What the hell is wrong with this woman and those like her? The book's not called, "Heather Has Two Mommies And So Should You." Little Red Riding Hood...?? What? Is the wolf considered to be trans-gender? And, so what if he was? To Kill A Mockingbird is a book that presents the nature of bigotry and racism in the negative light it deserves. How can someone be so opposed to letting children read about tolerance and the ills of hatred? Finally, the Handmaid's Tale. I would think that would be high on their list of recommended reading since the premise is theocratic rule in place of democracy. I think this is the ultimate in projection.
B) It's not just her closed-minded stance on literature that bothers me. I think she's ridiculous. Claiming that she was actively involved with international relations because Alaska is close to Russia may have carried some weight during the cold war, but even then I'm not so sure. The waters are protected by the United States Coast Guard and the US Navy. The borders are enforced by them and the United States Air Force. As far as I know, the State of Alaska isn't responsible for any major diplomacy with Russia. Unless she's negotiating the specifics of peace treaties between Russian and American crab boats, I don't know what she's talking about! It's not even like Russia has an abundant population in the parts of Russia that neighbor Alaska.
C) She's a young earther. Yes. Sarah Palin believes that man walked with Dinosaur because she's seen footprints of them together. Jesus Jumpin' Christ...I'm sorry, but if the potential second-in-command for the one of the world's super powers can't be bothered to go to Snopes for a little confirmation, then I don't want her running the country. Not to mention how colossally stupid it is for a leader having such a limited view of science. I don't trust anyone who might consider making Kent Hovind Secretary of Education (not that she has, but the odds it's not something I'd put past her).
Finally, I've been having an e-mail discussion with a fundamental Christian who wrote the following (after three months worth of e-mail exchanging):
"Why can't you respect my point? We can't agree
but you can try to respect that. Science doesn't tell us anything about
morality and that's why I can't say I want it taught in schools."
Um. *head desk* She's right. Science tells us nothing (or very little) about morality. Why? BECAUSE IT NEVER CLAIMS TO! But, saying we shouldn't teach science in school for this reason is beyond ridiculous. By this rationale, we shouldn't teach math, music, art, computers, photography, languages, or any other subject besides philosophy and ethics. If you want to limit your child's education to a two thousand year old book with concepts about the world being flat and a drunk who collects two of every animal on the planet, then I would say you don't value education at all. Why even pretend you do?