Our state capitol in Madison has a Christmas tree (I am using last year's term), a menorah for Hanukkah, and I think something for Kwanza too. I am fine with that. They are holidays celebrated in December by people of various religions and cultures in our state.

Last year I heard they also included a Winter Solstice plaque. They have it this year too.

The Winter Solstice is Dec. 22. It is marks the point in earth's orbit that we have the longest period of night time hours and shortest period of daylight hours in our year (because of the earth's tilt on its axis.) It is a fact in our astronomical calendar. (Southern hemisphere has the summer solstice at this same time.)

It is also the day for many ancient pagan celebrations. The Romans would celebrate Saturnalia during the solstice. The Druids and Celts also had celebrations; many groups did and still do. Today, those in the earth goddess movement or atheists often acknowledge or celebrate the solstice.

OK, put up a display at the Capitol. But does it have to be this?

At this season of the Winter Solstice may reason prevail.  There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell.  There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.

I could go along with the 1st and 3rd sentence. It is their opinion and they have the right to it. That doesn't mean I believe it is true, but we still do have the right to free speech.

But that 2nd and last statement? That to me is negative and hate speech. There is no reason to insult those of other beliefs. I don't think this should be allowed--certainly not in a display of holiday celebration. Holiday displays should be positive.

This is a classical example of the bias against Christianity and religion in government and the media. Have you heard anything about this? I only heard about it last year and this because of talk show host Vicki McKenna. She describes herself as not particularly religious, but this hateful statement must have violated her sensibilities too.

Christians could post a Bible verse stating how those who reject God are destined for eternal separation from Him (and I believe it is true), but this would not be appropriate for a holiday celebration display. They might even post a positive verse about Jesus' birth, that He would save the people from their sins. 

But posting anything from the Bible would probably not be allowed. Why, we cannot even call what is obviously a Christmas tree a Christmas tree, and there is nothing religious about it except its adjective!

Yet the atheists can post this? "Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

Christians, in case you haven't been paying attention, your rights are quickly slipping away. If you don't bother to start speaking up for yourselves, expect to see more of this blatant bias against your beliefs.

Contact page for Gov. Doyle  (I asked the Governor to restore the term, "Christmas tree" and remove the Solstice plaque until a more positive statement was crafted.)

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

"From: Paul Olsen
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 7:43 AM

Subject: State Sen. Olsen drops role in pushing

alternative fuel mandate

Renewable fuels...
creates jobs $$$$
clean environment $$$$$
supports local economy $$$$$$$
keeps our dollars home $$$$$$$$$$$
its the future $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
a flip flop senator who doesn't defend reality

WORTHLESS !!!"

Now for the conflict of interest issue.

We know that Senate Bill 380 sponsor Senator Olsen removed his name from the bill and will abstain from voting for it due to a perceived conflict of interest. That article from the Oshkosh Northwestern paper stated: (Emphasis added)

Olsen came under fire shortly after the bill was introduced in early January because he has family ties to the ethanol industry and is a part owner of a grain mill that sells corn for ethanol production. Olsen was a co-sponsor of Senate Bill 380, which would require vehicle fuel distributors to make renewable fuels 25 percent of their total sales volume by 2025.

On Wednesday, Wisconsin Government Accountability Board Director Kevin Kennedy indicating Olsen's support of the bill would not violate conflict of interest statutes even though Olsen has a one-third ownership stake in Olsen's Mill, a family business that sells corn to Olsen's brother's ethanol plant, Utica Energy LLC...

...The Wisconsin Government Accountability Board's Standards of Conduct for elected officials generally requires legislators to step away from discussions, votes or support for legislation that will have a benefit for the legislator, a member of the official's immediate family or any organizations with which the legislator is associated...

...Kennedy's decision indicates "immediate family" applies to a spouse or children, but not to brothers or sisters. He said the actual impact of the legislation on Olsen's Mill, in which Luther Olsen has a financial interest, would be "unspecific and speculative."

"Thus, based the facts you have provided, in my view you may participate in the sponsorship, consideration and vote on legislative proposals that increase incentives for manufacturing and using ethanol and renewable fuels without violating laws administered by the Government Accountability Board," Kennedy's letter reads.

So, according to the Government Accountability Board, there was no real conflict of interest.

But here is another tidbit from Jay Webber that I was unaware of. (My alarm is set to WISN so I catch a bit of his radio show each morning.) According to Jay this morning, ethanol producers cannot purchase corn from just anyone--it is not like just any Farmer John Doe can take his load of corn to Senator Luther Olsen's brother's Utica Energy LLC ethanol factory. No, Jay said it had to come from a licensed grain mill, such as Olsen Mill, the one Senator Luther Olsen is a co-owner of!  To me, that really crowds that perceived conflict of interest line.

Jay also told about a very interesting email Charlie Sykes spoke about on his radio show. It was from Senator Luther Olsen's Chief of Staff Heather Smith. It evidently is a response to an email sent by Luther's brother Paul. Pretty interesting stuff. The complete email is at the bottom of the Charlie Sykes link. Here are just a few excerpts:

Why? [does Luther have a target on his back over this issue] Because of you [brother Paul]. They know that you are the c h i n k in Luther's armor. It doesn't matter what any ethics board says about if it's ok or not. Anyone who is not completely retarded running a political campaign knows how to make a perceived ethical problem look just as bad as a real one.

So, in other words, she does not think there is any real conflict of interest! 

I also found it interesting that Ms. Smith noted there was not one call from a constituent in favor of ethanol--after all, their calls would be from Luther Olsen's district, presumably a more favorable district toward ethanol considering the potential for new jobs.

There were not a hundred calls, or ten, or EVEN ONE CALL from a constituent who wanted to tell Luther, "Heck yeah, vote for this, it's great!" We got a memo from a "special interest group" and the DNR, and heaven knows the DNR should always be listened to.

 

Is it any wonder we need to watch all of our politicians regardless of their party? 

Let Governor Doyle know if you agree with his assessment of ethanol in Wisconsin. 

608-266-1212, 414-227-4344

Blogs: Brookfield7, Fairlyconservative

Links: Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna