Year of the Bible

atheism, atheist, bible, congress, conservative, obama, 2010, stupid,
Apparently, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression ended, and I missed it. I say this because Paul Broun of Georgia (for himself, Lynn Westmoreland, Randy Forbes, Mr. Pence, Phil Gingrey of Georgia, Trent Franks of Arizona, Jim Jordan of Ohio, Zach Wamp, Doug Lamborn, Louie Gohmert, Kenny Marchant, John Carter, Todd Akin, and James McGovern), Congressmen all, found the time to write a bill advancing 2010 as the Year of the Bible.

I'm thinking of having the First Amendment to the US Constitution forcibly tattooed on the forehead of every Republican.

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Encouraging the President to designate 2010 as ‘The National Year of the Bible’.

Whereas the Bible has had a profound impact in shaping America into a great Nation; if we're celebrating everything that had a "profound impact in shaping America", will they also propose a Year of English Common Law and a Year of Science? I rather think not.

Whereas deep religious beliefs stemming from the Old and New Testament of the Bible have inspired Americans from all walks of life, especially the early settlers, whose faith, spiritual courage, and moral strength enabled them to endure intense hardships in this new land; and that has what to do with anything? So has the Q'ran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Lord of the Rings and Star Trek. Are we proposing years for everything that has inspired Americans and given them moral strength?

Whereas many of our Presidents have recognized the importance of God and the Bible, so what? you could list every christian resident of the US in alphabetical order and we still are stuck with the fact that the US is NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION. including George Washington; Franklin D. Roosevelt; Harry Truman; John F. Kennedy; Ronald Reagan, who declared 1983 as ‘The National Year of the Bible’ so, we're against raising the tax rate, which was 50% under Reagan, but we should emulate his exclusivist christian policies?; and especially Abraham Lincoln, whose 200th Birthday Celebration in 2009 highlighted freedom for the slaves non sequitur much?;

Whereas shared Biblical beliefs unified the colonists and gave our early leaders the wisdom to write the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States ENGLISH. COMMON. LAW. actually, the only mention of god in the constitution is at the end, "year of our lord . . ." which is a stylistic thing that still occurs today on some legal documents., both of which recognized the inherent worth, dignity, and inalienable rights of each individual except blacks, women and native americans. but other than that, yeah, thus unifying a diverse people with the right to vote diverse white male landowners, you mean?, and the freedoms of speech and vast religious freedoms which really ought to clue you in as to why "year of the bible" is such a bad idea, which inspired courageous men like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to lead the Civil Rights Movement; okay, i get it, the bible is the source of every good thing that ever happened in the United States! nonchristians suck! we're just leeches on the body christian!

Whereas the Bible has been the world’s best selling book since it was first published in English in 1526, and has influenced more people than any other book; appeal to popularity.

Whereas the Bible has been a cornerstone in the development of Western civilization really? because i'm fairly certain western civilization was influenced by people like, say, the ancient Greeks, as well, and no one ever accused them of being christian, influencing the nations in the areas of history this is a little disturbing. isn't history supposed to be what actually happened?, law for the last fucking time: ENGLISH. COMMON. LAW., politics i'm not celebrating that, culture, music, literature, art, drama, and especially moral philosophy; because atheists aren't moral. i really don't care what the bible influenced, 1 out of every 4 US citizens doesn't find the bible any more relevant than any other book, so why should an entire year be devoted to it?

Whereas the Bible, used as a moral guide, has inspired compassion, love for our neighbor, and the preciousness of life and marriage, and has stimulated many benevolent, faith-based community initiatives and neighborhood partnerships that have healed and blessed our families, communities, and our entire Nation, especially in times of war, tragedy, and economic and social crisis; it also contains such rules as stone adulterers, stone homosexuals, keep slaves and rape women if you marry them later.

Whereas the Bible has inspired acts of patriotism that have unified Americans, commemorated through shared celebrations such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Presidents Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas; and christmas is a patriotic holiday? since when?

Whereas 2010 is an appropriate year to designate as ‘The National Year of the Bible’: um why? why not 2011 or 2012? what exactly makes a year "appropriate" to be National Year o' the Bible? Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the President is encouraged--

(1) to designate an appropriate year as ‘The National Year of the Bible’ how about 2792?; and

(2) to issue a proclamation calling upon citizens of all faiths to rediscover and apply the priceless, timeless message of the Holy Scripture which has profoundly influenced and shaped the United States and its great democratic form of Government, as well as its rich spiritual heritage, and which has unified, healed, and strengthened its people for over 200 years. hey, you a Buddhist? get with the bible reading! you, over there, yeah, the Jew in the corner, start reading about Jesus! atheists- get with the believing!

Can you imagine the collective screaming if Obama declared 2010 the Year of the Q'ran or the Year of the Torah or the Year of the Book of Mormon? I say we lock up 2013 as the Year of No One Prays at All.

Will I Be Stimulated?

I have no idea if the stimulus package will stimulate the economy. I am not an economist. Neither is IamHistoryProfessorWhoThinksTehGayIsNew.

I will say this. Anybody who says that Congress got together to : 1) Create an urgency ("crisis" is the nom du jeur) is living in a fantasy land. The crisis is real. Real people are losing their jobs- faster than ever before. Real people are losing their homes- the most since the Great Depression. The stock market is shocky, credit is all but nonexistent, and if you aren't suffering, good for you. Go tell everyone else who is that, hey, no big deal. I'm a big college professor and it's not bothering me any. What's your problem?

File that under arrogance.

The Part Where I Scam the System

economy, health care, obama, stimulus, conservative, liberal, congress
What percentage of people who declare bankruptcy due to medical bills have health insurance? 68%. What percentage of people who declare bankruptcy do so due to medical bills? 50%. (Link)

Yup, that's right: health insurance won't help you if you develop a devastating illness. Get cancer, lose your house.

Isn't life grand?

Today I will spend the better part of my day scamming the system. Not that I want to, it's totally unethical, not to mention a waste of my time, but because I have to.

See, I 've developed a problem. I don't know what it is, and I can't afford to find out. I have a $500 deductible that I can't pay. So, I can't go to my doctor or get tests done unless I can come up with $500. At the beginning of every year, I may as well not have insurance.

What are my options? Well, I suppose I could rob a bank- or I go to the hospital, sit in the ER for 6, maybe 10, hours with some vague complaint that will force a bill over $600. (I owe the first $100 dollars of ER visits unless I get admitted.) I end up waiting 10 hours because I keep the complaint vague enough that they don't put me ahead of people with immediate problems. (What's wrong with me may really be a problem, but I've had it for 3 weeks, so it's not an immediate problem.)

Then, when I'm done, I have to stiff the hospital for the bill. I can't come up with $500, and the hospital will let me come back if I don't pay them. My doctor, not so much.

Everyone's making a big deal about "socialism" (though I doubt those people know what socialism is) and "spending bills" (please, explain to me the difference between "stimulus" and "spending") and how families don't fix their finances by spending more (yeah, because the economy of your household and the economy of the entire country are two completely different things). [I read a really awesome article on this that I now can't find. If you can help me out with linkage, please do. My comments do allow for ahref.]

Well, you explain to me why a person who works hard and has insurance can't afford to go to the doctor without engaging in hospital chicanery first- then explain to me why that's better than Obama's plan. Be prepared to show your work.