Everyone should read both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.

This blog is about my love for evolution, the evidence for evolution, the religious implications of evolution, and anything else I want to write about.

This post is an example of "anything else I want to write about." I have lots of ideas about lots of things, so occasionally I will write about something that has nothing to do with evolution or the religious implications of evolution.

I used to have a subscription to the Wall Street Journal, but now I only have a subscription to the New York Times. However, recently I have been scoring a free Wall Street Journal every day (it's a long story) so for a few weeks I've been reading both newspapers. And that's a good thing because everyone should hear both sides of some things which many people disagree about.

There's exceptions to the "hear both sides" idea. For example, it would be child abuse to teach the alternative to evolution which is supernatural magic, except to point out that only uneducated morons believe in religious myths. Also, evolution is not an opinion. It's a basic scientific fact and denying its established truth is a mental illness.

But usually it's a good idea to read a newspaper that has opinions completely different from the paper you usually read. That's why Republicans should be reading the New York Times and Democrats should be reading the Wall Street Journal, and everybody should be reading both newspapers.

The New York Times gets most things right, but in my opinion they are on the wrong side of what should be done to get America out of its worst recession since the 1930's. The Wall Street Journal gets most things wrong, but they're on the right side of what should be done to fix our broken economy. The Wall Street Journal is also as pro-science as the New York Times. Most people who read the Wall Street Journal are creationists, also known as uneducated morons, but the Wall Street Journal loves evolution, they have articles about it, and they even published an article by Richard Dawkins which you can read here.

If you're a wealthy person, you already know this stuff. If you're a looney liberal (as probably are most of my readers and I hope they aren't too sensitive), then you need to read the Wall Street Journal more often (they probably never read it).

President Obama, who I voted for and who I will vote for again no matter what, gets the economy wrong. He inherited a mess, and he did a lot of correct things to stop it from getting worse. But now he's doing the right thing on taxes only because the Republicans won big in the last election.

President Obama, if the Democrats had their old majority, you would have raised taxes on rich people, also known as successful people. You would have punished success as if being successful is a bad thing that deserves punishment.

The problem with the soak-the-rich idea is guess who does all the hiring. And guess what our worst problem is right now. Our problem is millions of Americans who are desperately searching for work but are making no progress. Their lives are being ruined. The only people who could hire them, the wealthy owners of businesses, are worried about you President Obama. They notice you want to steal their money, and they consider this fact when deciding whether or not to expand their businesses. You are getting in the way of success Mr. President when you threaten to punish success.

If you want to balance the federal budget, Mr. President, instead of soaking the Filthy Rich, you might want to consider getting us out of our two religious wars now instead of later, saving the taxpayers countless billions of dollars, and saving thousands of lives (our youngest and bravest citizens).

Only one letter to the editor in today's 12/8/2010 New York Times got it right:

"Obstructionism" is what Democrats charged Republicans with when they wouldn't go along with the Democrats' spending. Now the same charge is made about Republicans' refusal to raise taxes. What will it take for Democrats to understand that "obstructing" excessive spending and tax increases is exactly what a majority of American voters voted for in the recent election?

Andrea Economos

Scarsdale, N.Y., Dec. 7,2010

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE 3/31/2012: Atheism means "not theism". That's it. Atheism doesn't mean anything else.

Some people might think most atheists are liberals but that's only because liberal crybabies make a lot of noise. There are atheists who are liberal loons and there are atheists who are economic conservatives.

Please see http://www.theatheistconservative.com/2012/03/31/how-not-to-keep-the-poor/.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------