No, it's not just as easy

I see my conservative, gun-loving friends are up in arms about Bob Costas interrupting their fucking football to preach about gun violence.  Now, I haven't seen or heard one word of what Costas had to say -- and in general I'm of a mind that I don't want politics mixed with my sports or my rock concerts, etc -- but I will still applaud him for having the balls to try to interject some sanity into this situation, albeit likely falling on deaf ears.
What really burns my ass is the assertion that Belcher could have as easily killed his girlfriend and himself if he didn't have a gun.  Bullshit!  You can make a snap, rash, out-of-your-mind decision to kill someone and if you have a gun handy, you can execute that thought without a chance to take it back.  A bullet is much more sudden and deadly than your other options.  (and by the way, I'm not going to expound on the thought that guns don't kill people, just like nuclear weapons don't kill people -- leave that for another day)  With a gun, especially the semi-automatic favorites of today, you can kill someone with the second or third bullet fired less than a second after the first...no time for it to sink in what you've done before it's too late.
If all you have at your disposal is a knife or your bare hands, for instance, it's a whole lot more personal and difficult to fully and completely carry out your momentary insane instinct to kill someone.  You have to thrust that knife into their body from a very close distance and likely will have to repeat the act of stabbing.  And strangling someone is even more up close and personal and time consuming.  All the time these options take is time you might come to your senses and stop; and then instead of remorsefully killing yourself for what you've done, your remorse might actually help you save that person's life, to say nothing of your own.
So just color me disappointed, but not the least bit surprised, that the people who most need to hear an opposing opinion on this matter heard nothing but a dog whistle warning about taking away their god-damn guns.  They're selfish and always will be...they'd rather have their guns that ever contemplate what a safer world it would be for everyone, not just them and their loved ones, if their were a whole lot less of them out there (even though I realize we're long beyond the point of return)
Just to prove the point (although some people are allergic to logic) I'll give you two scenarios:  Scenario one, two people are together and neither of them has a gun.  Scenario two, two people are together and at least one of them has a gun.  In which scenario is someone much more likely to die?  And if both people have guns, you're much more likely to die than you are safer.  And don't give me that shit about people being able to make mature decisions.

Very Proud

I know I've said some very disparaging things about the average American (and rightfully so) but my heart is filled with pride tonight that Americans refused to be denied their rights and went out and voted -- standing in long lines to do exercise the right that ALL AMERICANS have, to help determine the outcome of elections that will help determine their futures.  And I'm very proud also of the people who came to the aid of those who waited to vote by bring them food, water and warmth.
I'm obviously happy with the result of the Presidential election and think that result is very telling as well, and that the vast majority of the wingnuts in Senate races lost as well.  Maybe there's hope for us after all.
In the immortal words of George W. Bush, "I've earned some capital in this election and I plan to spend it."  The people have spoken.  If you're not going to help, get the fuck out of the way.  I think this election also proves that the people are still stronger than the vast amounts of money and influence of a few, something that I wasn't so sure of too long ago.
Finally, congratulations to Angus King, our new independent Senator from Maine.  Now we've elected three independents to very high office.  Good night, America.

Character

One of my best friends from high school is a self-described "lifelong Republican" and for the past eight years has been the State Representative in my hometown area, the one I was raised in, went to school in and moved back to almost two years ago.  There is a reason we were friends, at least from my perspective anyway, because Stacey Fitts was a genuinely good person of character.
At this point I'll stop blowing smoke up his ass and let his own deeds and words make the point.  The following is a recently-released commercial "starring" Stacey urging Mainers to vote yes on  Question 1 this fall.


I have actually not seen the commercial yet on television.  Where I learned about this was from Stacey sharing this editorial on Facebook that was written by Bill Nemitz in the Portland Press Herald entitled One Man's Turnaround Reflects a Sea Change.  It is a very well-written article and provides a great deal of background to this story.

This is not the first time he's publicly disagreed with his party and has continued to do so even now that Republicans control both Houses in Maine and the Governor's office.  He has sat on energy-related committees and has always formed his own opinions, some in disagreement with his own party, and has not been shy in publicly disagreeing with Governor LePage.  Recently he wrote the following op-ed in the Bangor Daily News chiding the Governor for making Maine's energy policy a political football.  I know when I read what Stacey has to say on these issues, I'm getting it fair, honest and straight, whether I agree or not.  I wouldn't expect anything less from the man I've called my friend for at least 40 years.  Hey buddy, if you read this, the next Fresca's on me.

I do need to add that this piece as it initially formed in my head was supposed to be a piece in support of Question 1 and legalizing gay marriage in Maine, as opposed to being back-slap for Stacey.  But since it has sorta turned into that, I want to thank him for his eight years of honest service to this community and the people of Maine, and to thank him for his support on this issue.  Make sure you vote in November no matter how you feel about these issues but make sure you have as much honest information as you can get.

Thank you, Senator Pressler

Thank you, Senator Pressler, a Republican, for so succinctly and eloquently and passionately saying what needs and should have been said for quite some time now.  Below is an excerpt from Senator Pressler's endorsement letter of President Obama:

As a combat veteran of two tours in Vietnam with twenty-two years of service as a Republican member of the U.S. House and Senate, I endorse President Barack Obama for a second term as our Commander-in-Chief. Candidates publicly praise our service members, veterans and their families, but President Obama supports them in word and deed, anywhere and every time.
 

 This is a rather long letter as far as letters go but it lays out so well why it's not even close when it comes to how much support the President has given the troops and the military, and how much the Republican Party has let them down, which is putting it kindly, and presents a stark contrast between the President and Mr. Romney.  This is something the average conservative has ignored for years, though admittedly so has the average Democrat.  If you haven't read this letter, you need to and you can do so here.  It'll be interesting to see whether this gets anywhere near the press coverage and conversation it deserves.
Brent, I assume living in South Dakota, you've seen this?

And I want to throw in a great quote (sort of, since I don't now remember it exactly) by Chris Matthews tonight, paraphrasing, "Why do conservatives believe that the way to get rich people to work harder is by giving them money but the best way to make poor people work harder is by making things more difficult." 

It's not about team

Watching the first of the Presidential debates, at the same time seeing my Facebook wall plastered with status updates from my conservative friends along the lines of "Obviously Romney/Ryan are right," thus the President isn't, coming from people who would gladly take George Bush back today if it were possible, rooting for their team because it's their team.  No way on earth will you ever convince me that a single one of them has any idea what the President has done, what he will do and what he stands for.  They don't care because he's on the other team.
I guarantee you that if I put the President's positions in front of them but put a picture of a man, preferably white, with a Republican label on him, they'd lap it up.  How else can you explain them being for a guy, Romney, who stands for nothing except for everything when it's convenient depending upon who he's talking to at the moment?  They blame the President for the very things his predecessor, that Bush guy again, did, while they stood back and did nothing but applaud.  Many, many of the things the President has put forth and done were previously supported by Republicans, even originated with Republicans, before a Democrat decided to do some of them.
So I'll say again, if you switched the labels in front of these guys and somehow made them both unknown to conservatives, they'd pick the guy they don't want to pick.

POST DEBATE UPDATE:  First, let me say that I'm very disappointed in the President's performance tonight.  Not once did he really in some way, shape or form call Romney the liar that he is or take him to task for sounding like a Democrat tonight -- yet another reincarnation from the Supreme Flipflopper.  Now he's for things the President and liberals are for and I can still see my conservative friends lapping it up.  They truly are not paying attention.  Color me scared that this is even possible.

Hope On!

This Democratic convention thus far has had a few firebrand speaches thus far, though none better than this one by Democratic Representative Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri.  Hope on!

Caption Contest

This photo of yours truly lugging off the remains of one side of my mother's old clothes line turned out even better than I thought it would when she suggested it.  (Side note:  First time she's ever used a smartphone)

 

So I thought I'd share it with all of you and let you post your caption suggestions in the comments to this blog.  You're allowed to have more than one suggestion if they're good ones.   Mine, of course, is "The burden of being an atheist."

Fact

A lot of people know most of this, even those who chose to act like they don't but I dare say very few realize that first one.  Just try running for any public office in this country, even dog catcher, after you've said you're an atheist.  You'd have no chance.  People are allowed to not vote for you because you're an atheist but they think they have a right to demand it.  I'm not optimistic that'll every change.  Think about how much better this country would be if we truly were upholding the intent of The Constitution.

Why you hate him so

I'm not saying Barrack Obama will go down as one of the greatest Presidents of all time but history likely, especially if he wins reelection, will remember him way above your beloved George W. Bush, that folksy, self-made Texas oilman from Yale and Kennebunkport.  You know as well as I do what an abject failure and fraud he was; that he and your bought-and-paid-for Republican Party wiped their asses with the Constitution, handed out favors of key government positions to former industry execs like handing out crack to addicts (who in turn neutered the powers of those branches that worked for our best interests), lied us into an unnecessary war in Iraq (Valerie Plame, etc) and oversaw the worst financial collapse in this country in generations -- that's the very condensed version.
But you all act like he never existed.  Better to blame all the current ills of this country and society on the current Democrat (the fact that he's black doesn't help -- or hurt, depending on your perspective) than ever have to admit that your team was at fault.  You'd rather be obstructive now, to the point of running us to the edge of the cliff, if not off it, than admit your part in supporting the real train wreck. 
So you'd rather elect a phony like Mitt Romney -- someone who'd say anything (AND HAS) to get elected and never take responsibility, someone who'd rather gut a company for its millions than actually work at saving and growing the company, someone who'd rather not pay his fair share, someone who routinely bets against the United States (again, the short version of his failings) -- than support the current President, who, albeit has made mistakes, is on OUR side.  You'd rather continue to support the prostituting of our governmental system than dig in and help and fix it.  Why?  Just so your team can win?
Who really loves this country anyway?

While not exactly on point, I like this quote from the above-linked Vanity Fair article so much that I've returned to add it here.  It is illustrative of the big picture:
"The term “financialization” describes two interlocking processes: a disproportionate growth in a country’s deregulated financial sector, relative to the rest of the economy, and the rising importance of financial activities with a focus on financial returns among industrial and other non-financial corporations, often at the expense of real innovation and productivity.
Some see the rising influence of finance and financial models in epochal terms. Author of Financialization and the U.S. Economy Özgür Orhangazi summarizes academic literature that sees financialization “as one of the indicators of the decline of the heg­e­mon­ic power”: imperial Venice, Genoa, Holland, and Britain all saw their power rise on the back of productive industrial capitalism, followed by domination by the financial sector, which eventually began to cannibalize the productive sector in pursuit of financial returns—a process that ended in weakness and collapse."

Rest In Peace, Chief Maloney

It isn't just black teenagers in hoodies who get shot when everyone and his uncle has a gun (or a personal armory.)  I'm so f'ing spitting mad right now on this subject that I'm just going to post the link to this story about the murder of a small town New Hampshire Police Chief and the wounds to four other officers in the line of duty.
I also, of course, want to "send" condolences to Chief Maloney's family and the families of the other officers who were shot in this incident.
UPDATE:
A suspect in Cicopee, MA was found dead of a gunshot wound after he had sprayed automatic weapon fire at a State Trooper, who was shot in the leg.  You can read that developing story here at New England Cable News and I want to say get well soon and thank you for your service, Trooper Vasquez. 
Below is an excellent clip from NECN regarding the incident that left Chief Maloney dead.

Best Bleeping Screed Ever

Thanks to my friend, LadyA, who shared this screed by MinistryOfTruth on the Daily Kos.  You'll have to read it for yourself but I think you'll agree it is the best screed regarding what it is about the ever-moving-further-to-the-right Republican Party that worries and angers us in the middle and on the left so much.  The name of the article says quite a bit, "An Open Letter by the People Who Hate Obama More Than They Love America."  And here's a little taste:

You like war. You like torture. You like Jesus. I don't know how in the hell any of that is compatible, but no one ever accused you haters of being over-committed to ideological consistency. You like people who look like you or at least hate most of the things that you hate. You hate everything else.

Sliding Scale

There's a reason why the the political and media right attack Rachel Maddow more than any of the other political show hosts on MSNBC.  Yes, she's the most liberal -- with the possible exception of Dylan Ratigan, they're all liberal obviously -- but the reason why they choose her as the poster child of the liberal media is because she's the one who most has her facts and her act together.  The right has always been very successful at holding someone up and demonizing them, labeling them as something to fear in a successful effort to keep their readers, listeners and partisans from even finding out for themselves what someone stands for.
Many times I've watched her show and felt, like I have with the others, that she's dead right but the difference with her is that she takes you to school and backs it up with lots of facts, evidence and proof.  Watching her first segment two nights ago was a textbook example of this, even more so than usual; but the reason I'm sharing this is because it's a wakeup call.  More often than not her topics of illustration bring to light something even the most informed hadn't thought of or noticed.  Also, there's an excellent interview at the end of the following clip with Maine's Democratic Representative Chellie Pingree regarding this issue and whether she's likely to run for Senator Olympia Snowe's seat.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Many of us moderate liberals have felt this going on for some time now.  Now is the time to put a stop to this and, if any, start dragging the center back to the left.
Cross-posted on For Consideration

From the woods to Orwell and Dickens

Call this a musing or a ramble, whatever.  I went for a long walk in the woods with my dog, Todd, which ought to mean, since it was in the woods in Maine, that I then read Thoreau; but after our walk I was initially interrupted by a partial journey through Pink Floyd's "The Final Cut" (with an interlude to eat my very first cara cara orange, which I highly recommend) and a full viewing of "Interstellar Overdrive."  


Then on to read Christopher Hitchens' last essay, which was on G.K. Chesterton, which I confess to not really understand since I'm not very aware of Chesterton and only marginally more so of T.S. Eliot, who is also quoted often in that piece.  But then on to an article in The Atlantic regarding the writing of Hitch's final essay, which then lead me on to something that would not be surprising if you knew Hitch and again not surprising if you know me.  What is it?  Orwell's essay on Dickens, of course.  But before you read the link to the essay, I want to share this gem of a quote from Orwell:

“One is prepared in the end to be defeated and broken up by life, which is the inevitable price of fastening one’s love upon other human individuals.”

 Since Hitchens is what truly sparked me to write this personal piece, I will likely end my day with a little of Mr. Walker's amber restorative.

Now back to the Orwell essay to put in a teaser quote:

In OLIVER TWIST, HARD TIMES, BLEAK HOUSE, LITTLE DORRIT, Dickens
attacked English institutions with a ferocity that has never since been
approached. Yet he managed to do it without making himself hated, and,
more than this, the very people he attacked have swallowed him so
completely that he has become a national institution himself. In its
attitude towards Dickens the English public has always been a little like
the elephant which feels a blow with a walking-stick as a delightful tickling.

And then one more, which I hope will help to tie some of these themes together, at least what it was about Orwell that Hitchens admired.  In this quote you see Orwell's pragmatic outlook on society as he explains Dickens' similar view:

Whatever else Dickens may have been, he was not a hole-and-corner
soul-saver, the kind of well-meaning idiot who thinks that the world will
be perfect if you amend a few bylaws and abolish a few anomalies. It is
worth comparing him with Charles Reade, for instance. Reade was a much
better-informed man than Dickens, and in some ways more public-spirited.
He really hated the abuses he could understand, he showed them up in a
series of novels which for all their absurdity are extremely readable,
and he probably helped to alter public opinion on a few minor but
important points. But it was quite beyond him to grasp that, given the
existing form of society, certain evils CANNOT be remedied. Fasten upon
this or that minor abuse, expose it, drag it into the open, bring it
before a British jury, and all will be well that is how he sees it.
Dickens at any rate never imagined that you can cure pimples by cutting
them off. In every page of his work one can see a consciousness that
society is wrong somewhere at the root. It is when one asks 'Which root?'
that one begins to grasp his position.

Are you lost yet?

Anti-American

Carl Rove is offended -- not upset, offended -- by the Chrysler Corporation ad with Clint Eastwood that aired during the Super Bowl.  First, let me step back.  Hey Carl, who the fuck are you anyway?  On what basis do you have a right to be offended by anything anyone does, unless it was directed at you?  Get your fat, egotistical head out of your selfish ass.
The other point I'd like to make loud and clear is this:  Ask yourself what response the Carl Roves of the world would have if someone of liberal leanings were to ever be so bold as to disagree, say nothing about being offended by, with anything Clint Eastwood said or did?  That's right, they would've called you a pinko, commie, liberal, unAmerican so-and-so, and ask that you leave their country at once.  (The same crowd, by the way, that places bumper stickers on their trucks saying "If you don't love America, leave it" right next to their rebel flag bumper sticker)
So I have to say, not for the first time either, that Carl Rove is unAmerican and his umbrage is anti-American.  What other response is there to someone who takes offense at something done by arguably the most iconic of American symbols?
Here's the ad, if you haven't seen it.  Tell me what could possibly be offensive about asking us all to unite and knock off the partisan horseshit?



And for the sake of full disclosure: I am a liberal, a proud American who served his country, a huge Clint Eastwood fan and a Mopar guy. So this commercial is pure love for me. I guarantee The Greaseman had a boner when he saw the commercial.

UPDATE:  Here is a link to article regarding Clint's response to the uproar about the ad, as well as at the top you'll now find a link that contains Rove's comment, which I forgot to include.

The Lamestream Media?

The "moral majority" is always raving that the mainstream liberal media is biased and lies, at least when the right doesn't like what that media reports.  You would think if they didn't trust and believe what is printed in the liberal media, they wouldn't be so easily fooled by the likes of The Onion, which they perceive to be part of the liberal media.  In my opinion this is a very good insight into what the right truly believes regarding the veracity of the liberal media.  They may say the media is not to be trusted as a tool to control their nodding masses but it's pretty obvious they know the liberal media is usually spot on regarding most issues.
The Onion, if you didn't know, is a parody online news source.  Today's headline there is basically that Eli Manning, after winning his second Super Bowl yesterday, is asking his dad if he can now finally quit playing football.  Being fooled by The Onion is the modern equivalent of being fooled in the old days by Mad Magazine.  So what does it say that Louisiana Republican Representative John Fleming was fooled by an article in The Onion claiming that Planned Parenthood (ooooh, evil) was readying to open a billion dollar abortion factory.  From Huffington Post this morning: 

Fleming shared a link on Facebook to an article from the satirical newspaper headlined "Planned Parenthood Opens $8 Billion Abortionplex."
"More on Planned Parenthood, abortion by the wholesale," he wrote.

 Unfortunately, you're more likely to get accurate information regarding Planned Parenthood from The Onion than you are by getting your information from the GOP.


(Planned Parenthood) 

I got this chart from an excellent article by Ezra Klein in the Washington Post. 

Drug Test Them Instead

The constant, constant chatter from the right regarding drug testing anyone who receives support from the taxpayers prompts this brief post.  Why is it always so easy to blame the defenseless for something that isn't occurring to veil your contempt for the unfortunate?  Why don't you just come out and say that you don't want to pay taxes for any reasons but most especially for the disadvantaged?
The people who should be drug tested are those who constantly ring this false alarm because they're ignoring the data that repeatedly shows that the incidence of welfare recipients who use drugs is far, far below the percentage of people applying for state and federal jobs who pop on piss tests.  Florida is learning that right now, where I believe the percentage of welfare recipients who've tested positive is 2% and the percentage of people drug tested for other reasons is 7 to 9%.  Welfare recipients want to feed and house their family, and want to get back on their feet and be self sufficient.  There are those wanting to scam the system wherever you look but getting rid of subsidies to Monsanto or getting GE to pay taxes of any kind is much more worth the effort than this old boondoggle.  And don't even get me started on the fact that in Florida the company running the drug tests is a company "formerly" owned by the same Governor who pushed the legislation.
These cries come from the same side of the aisle who claim they want less government, less government intrusion into the rights of citizens and a reduction in government spending.  More money is spent implementing, carrying out and analyzing these programs than the money saved by catching the rare welfare recipient smoking pot.
Cross posted on For Consideration

Mass Exit to the Cayman Islands

 What follows is a guest blog from a long-time friend who's just getting into this blogging thing.  Her pen name is OCBananaGirl and you can see another post of hers on BoSox Tavern.  Below she offers what I think is a very unique and accurate perspective regarding what the 1% value about America versus what the rest of us value about America.

"All day I have been wondering, what if 99% of us only paid a 13% tax rate, would the 1% still want to live in this country? If half of the taxes that pay for roads, bridges, prisons, security, judges, police officers, fire departments, zoos, parks, snow plows, beach replenishment, catastrophe help, flood insurance, social security, medicare, insurance backing our banks, FDA, EPA, medical research, space programs, education, medical research, and wars -- I am sure I have missed so much as I am accustomed to my regular life -- but what if we as US citizens had to live without nearly 1/2 the funding and many of the programs that make us love our country were not available, would we still be so in love with our country?

My thought is, yes, 99% of us would still love our county and the 99% would somehow come together to make the country better, the 99% would find the ingenuity and the get-down-dirty effort to bring this country back. But the real question lies with the 1%.  Would they be able to live with decrepit roads, pot holes, no snow plows, no trash pickup, long lines at hospitals, no flood insurance for the beach front homes, no beaches, no parks to visit on family vacations, no police to protect their property?  And when I wondered about this, I realized that the 1% need the 99% more than the 99% need the 1%. Maybe it is time to realize that the 1% should act on their threats and move their assets to the Cayman Islands because they already have and 99% of us still continue to struggle and yet are proud to call ourselves Americans."

He Went to a Tea Party Instead

I am very disappointed in Tim Thomas' decision to make a political statement by not attending the Boston Bruins' championship visit to the White House.  I find it specious at the very least that he picks this moment, this event, to come out of the closet.  I'm a pretty avid Bruin fan and this is the first I've heard of his political leanings, and to choose a non-political event to make a statement to me smacks of politics.
Oh, I know, you'll say since I'm on the opposite side of the fence from TT that that's biasing my thoughts on this.  Hardly.  I would say the same thing if an apparent liberal athlete had turned down a visit to the White House to see President George W. Bush.  This isn't a political event -- it is a celebration, a reward, an honor to get to visit the President of the United States; and Tim Thomas, being one of only two American-born players on the team, should know this.  In fact, he does know this and, thus, my point.

Here's Tim's statement from his Facebook page:

"I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People. This is being done at the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial level. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision for the Federal government. Because I believe this, today I exercised my right as a Free Citizen, and did not visit the White House. This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country. This was about a choice I had to make as an INDIVIDUAL." – Boston Bruins goalie Tim Thomas, on his Facebook page, January 23, 2012"

 Don't get me wrong, TT has every right to his views and every right to make this statement -- just don't insult our intelligence.  Also, he needs to understand that what he did was a selfish act, drawing attention to himself and his cause regarding a nonpolitical event, that does nothing but embarrass himself and most importantly the Bruin organization and his teammates.  His teammates and the Bruin brass have been having to deal with the questions regarding Tim's absence for two days now.  And as an avid Bruin fan who happens to be a liberal, I don't appreciate being put in the position of having to either defend or disagree with this stunt.  I know the following will sound foreign to a conservative but, "Hey Tim, if you don't like it, leave it.."  That's the very same thing conservatives say when liberals complain about government; the difference is we have a lot more class regarding picking our moments.
This stunt should not affect the decision the Bruins will have to make in the off season regarding TT's age and contract vis-a-vis Tuukka Rask's age and contract; but if the Bruins decide they don't want to pay two #1 goaltenders #1 goaltender money in long-term contracts and decide to trade Thomas, I hope they trade him to a Canadian team.
My position on this is no different than it was when NASCAR fans in Florida booed First Lady Michelle Obama.  It's a nonpolitical event; she's there for the troops and I would've defended Laura Bush with the same passion.  Tell me, Tim, with a straight face that you wouldn't have gone to the White House to shake the hand of a Republican President?
Give the President his props, he made a couple of zingers at the Bruins' expense.  He rattled off the names of all four New England sports teams, that they'd all won championships lately and that "that's enough Boston."  He also picked on Brad Marchand by calling him the "little ball of hate."

Tebow and Maher

This is in response to an article in the Washington Post that was posted by a friend on Facebook in support of Tebow and my comment trying to explain how a moderate atheist feels about this issue.  So I'll paste in the bulk of that comment and then add another thought to help illuminate my point.

I read the first page and I don't think she gets it either. Maher is to be ignored. I find him funny sometimes but even when he says something that needs to be said that others won't, he says it in such a way to have nothing but a negative impact. I think Tebow's a genuinely good kid and his praising for me, as an atheist, is not over the top. I have no trouble ignoring it. The issue is that an atheist DOES NOT have the equal right to do something similar. Can you imagine someone as famous as him saying at the end of a win "I don't believe in God?" And what it is about praising that atheists have trouble with is the idea of doing it only when there's success involved and the idea that a higher power would have any involvement in choosing sides in a football game. So while I don't agree with all the anger and venom from "my side" on this issue, I can understand it. Just being that angry and nasty does nothing but make people think less of you and make them not willing to listen or care about you or what you think. 

 Let's look at it another way.  Let's suppose the famous athlete who's proselytizing is a fine, upstanding young black man who faces Mecca each time he scores a touchdown and praises Allah when interviewed.  I can assure you those folks coming to the rescue of Tim Tebow would not be coming to this gentleman's defense nor, I believe, would the likes of Bill Maher be making over-the-top critical comments of him.
I obviously feel that Tim Tebow has every right to express his views and I don't feel in this instance that he's trying to judge me or mine or is overtly on a recruiting mission; I just don't feel like everyone is afforded in reality the same rights he's expressing.
Can't we all just get along?  Maybe not.