A punk-rock style, trendy tight fit and affordable price have made Cheap Monday jeans a hot commodity among young Swedes, but what has people talking is the brand's ungodly logo: a skull with a cross turned upside down on its forehead.
"It is an active statement against Christianity," Bjorn Atldax told The Associated Press. "I'm not a Satanist myself, but I have a great dislike for organized religion."
Atldax insists he has a purpose beyond selling denim: to make young people question Christianity, which he called a "force of evil" that had sparked wars throughout history.
This could be my long lost Swedish son. Boy is that you?
Okay I have no long lost Swedish son. But after reading this next part I might be headed there anyway.
Such a remark might incite outrage or prompt retailers to drop the brand in more religious countries.
But not in Sweden, a secular nation which cherishes its free speech and where churchgoing has been declining for decades.
See? Finally a place where people are free and non-judgemental! And I believe the women are tall and blonde. So many good things!
Saturday, December 31, 2005
Why I think that Creationists are dangerous.
Creationists prey on the weak. They use the superstitious fears of the uneducated to buoy up their cause. The whole point of creationism, and its slicker half-brother Intelligent Design, is not to introduce a competing theory to explain how everything came to be. The whole point of Creationism is to protect Christianity. The abiding fear of these crackpots is the too much knowledge places their faith in danger. And they create a pretend conflict of scientific theories to create doubt.
But they start the debate with a lie.
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence, the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars,the facts are all the same.
The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events. Go to this site for more
That sounds reasonable doesn't it? But it is wrong! Science does not start with a presupposition. Science starts with a question. Not an answer.
Science looks around to find evidence. When a scientist finds something, he struggles to make sense of it. He gathers more evidence and compares it to the original evidence. He asks colleagues for their input. He publishes his findings in scientific journals which are read by other scientists. These other scientists look for more evidence that either supports the first scientists conclusions or contradicts them. If the scientists find evidence to support the first scientist they share it. If their evidence contradicts it, they publish it, and gain fame and more money to do further research.
Now the above paragraph is pretty simple but if you need help maybe your mommy can read it to you. Now let's look at Creationism.
Creationists start with a book. The Bible. They believe that the Bible is the source of all truth. The Bible is not a scientific textbook. Its findings have not been vetted by other scientists. The Creationists believe that the information in the Bible came from God. Therefore they are not allowed to question its veracity. Or they will go to hell!
Now the Creationists do not look for evidence. They take the findings of the scientists and they look for inconsistencies, or things that they cannot accept because it does not match the information from the Bible. They use other science from geology, or physics, or mathematics to attack the conclusions of the scientists who they do not agree with. They misrepresent the definitions in science and attempt to impugn the honor of the men who do the research. They accuse these men of creating their own religion called "Secular Humanism". This is a trick to level the playing field. Now instead of a battle between science and faith, it becomes a battle between competing faiths. This is very disingenuous.
What they rarely tell their followers is that there are scientists from a variety of faiths, including Christianity, who find no conflict between their faith and science. Creationists continue to attack science and restrict their adherents access to the information to the detriment of us all. Knowledge is power in our modern world, and the more our children learn the more advances we will enjoy.
I personally hope that we will answer some of the most important questions of our origins in my lifetime. But with these science haters in the world it helps to slow down our progress toward reaching those answers. Which, by the way, is their goal.
But they start the debate with a lie.
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence, the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars,the facts are all the same.
The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events. Go to this site for more
That sounds reasonable doesn't it? But it is wrong! Science does not start with a presupposition. Science starts with a question. Not an answer.
Science looks around to find evidence. When a scientist finds something, he struggles to make sense of it. He gathers more evidence and compares it to the original evidence. He asks colleagues for their input. He publishes his findings in scientific journals which are read by other scientists. These other scientists look for more evidence that either supports the first scientists conclusions or contradicts them. If the scientists find evidence to support the first scientist they share it. If their evidence contradicts it, they publish it, and gain fame and more money to do further research.
Now the above paragraph is pretty simple but if you need help maybe your mommy can read it to you. Now let's look at Creationism.
Creationists start with a book. The Bible. They believe that the Bible is the source of all truth. The Bible is not a scientific textbook. Its findings have not been vetted by other scientists. The Creationists believe that the information in the Bible came from God. Therefore they are not allowed to question its veracity. Or they will go to hell!
Now the Creationists do not look for evidence. They take the findings of the scientists and they look for inconsistencies, or things that they cannot accept because it does not match the information from the Bible. They use other science from geology, or physics, or mathematics to attack the conclusions of the scientists who they do not agree with. They misrepresent the definitions in science and attempt to impugn the honor of the men who do the research. They accuse these men of creating their own religion called "Secular Humanism". This is a trick to level the playing field. Now instead of a battle between science and faith, it becomes a battle between competing faiths. This is very disingenuous.
What they rarely tell their followers is that there are scientists from a variety of faiths, including Christianity, who find no conflict between their faith and science. Creationists continue to attack science and restrict their adherents access to the information to the detriment of us all. Knowledge is power in our modern world, and the more our children learn the more advances we will enjoy.
I personally hope that we will answer some of the most important questions of our origins in my lifetime. But with these science haters in the world it helps to slow down our progress toward reaching those answers. Which, by the way, is their goal.
U.S. Prepares to bomb Iran! Now you tell me again why Impeachment is not an option?
But the respected German weekly Der Spiegel notes "What is new here is that Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to prepare its allies for a possible attack rather than merely implying the possibility as it has repeatedly done during the past year."
I know that the Right wingers will deny that this is accurate just like they denied that they wanted to invade Iraq when they asked for the vote to give the President the option of using military force if necessary.
Out foreign policy is now entering the realm of insanity. We cannot afford to divert our attention or resources to Iran with a war in Iraq and Afghanistan still going strong. George Bush's ADHD is becoming a national crisis! He starts a war in Afghanistan and then gets distracted by the shiny new opportunity in Iraq, now he is bored and wants to attack a brand new country. Where is his mother? Oh yeah his mother!
Usually I would just assume that calmer heads will prevail but that never seems to happen with this administration! The White House does not seem to have any grown ups in it!
Even if I supported the idea of airstrikes against Iran, we just don't have the resources! We cannot do it! And what does that do to our fight against terrorism? You don't think that bombing them isn't going to create thousands of potential suicide bombers? Just look at Iraq!
It is time to stop screwing around and get this dumb son of a bitch out of our White House!
I know that the Right wingers will deny that this is accurate just like they denied that they wanted to invade Iraq when they asked for the vote to give the President the option of using military force if necessary.
Out foreign policy is now entering the realm of insanity. We cannot afford to divert our attention or resources to Iran with a war in Iraq and Afghanistan still going strong. George Bush's ADHD is becoming a national crisis! He starts a war in Afghanistan and then gets distracted by the shiny new opportunity in Iraq, now he is bored and wants to attack a brand new country. Where is his mother? Oh yeah his mother!
Usually I would just assume that calmer heads will prevail but that never seems to happen with this administration! The White House does not seem to have any grown ups in it!
Even if I supported the idea of airstrikes against Iran, we just don't have the resources! We cannot do it! And what does that do to our fight against terrorism? You don't think that bombing them isn't going to create thousands of potential suicide bombers? Just look at Iraq!
It is time to stop screwing around and get this dumb son of a bitch out of our White House!
In Alaska where we don't have the luxury of ignoring Global warming.
Warming temperatures could melt the top 11 feet of permafrost in Alaska by the end of the century -- damaging roads and buildings with sinkholes, transforming forest and tundra into swamps, and releasing vast amounts of greenhouse gases into the air.
This meltdown forecast comes amid other signals that Arctic climate has been changing fast: shrinking sea ice cover, warmer temperatures and shifting vegetation.
I have personally had some feelings of guilt concerning global warming. In Alaska, so far, the results have been pleasant. We have milder winters, much warmer summers, and more tourism dollars.
Oh sure we had substantially more wildfires and they cancelled selling fireworks for the Fourth of July. We also had a number of electrical storms right here in Anchorage. (To put that is perspective, last summer was only the second time I have ever seen lightning up here in my entire life!)
But it's sunny! Alaskans can barely function in the sun. We all want to go outside and work on our tans.
But I am an informed person and I know that global warming is bad for the rest of the country and we need to do something. But maybe we could fix it where everybody else is and still let us have these great summer days! No? Damn!
This meltdown forecast comes amid other signals that Arctic climate has been changing fast: shrinking sea ice cover, warmer temperatures and shifting vegetation.
I have personally had some feelings of guilt concerning global warming. In Alaska, so far, the results have been pleasant. We have milder winters, much warmer summers, and more tourism dollars.
Oh sure we had substantially more wildfires and they cancelled selling fireworks for the Fourth of July. We also had a number of electrical storms right here in Anchorage. (To put that is perspective, last summer was only the second time I have ever seen lightning up here in my entire life!)
But it's sunny! Alaskans can barely function in the sun. We all want to go outside and work on our tans.
But I am an informed person and I know that global warming is bad for the rest of the country and we need to do something. But maybe we could fix it where everybody else is and still let us have these great summer days! No? Damn!
Friday, December 30, 2005
Ann Coulter dons her white sheet and embarrasses the entire Republican party.
I am not going to cut and paste any of this garbage onto my delicate little webpage because I don't want to irreparably damage its mojo. If you are so inclined to click the link above I will warn you that it is filled with the kind of virulent, hate filled language which makes me embarrassed to be a Caucasian.
And if I may I would like to go on record as saying that I do not for a moment think that Ms. Coulter speaks for the majority of the Republicans. If I believed that then I would never deign to speak to any of them again. But you guys might want to take her out and leave her in the woods someplace. I mean damn!
And if I may I would like to go on record as saying that I do not for a moment think that Ms. Coulter speaks for the majority of the Republicans. If I believed that then I would never deign to speak to any of them again. But you guys might want to take her out and leave her in the woods someplace. I mean damn!
The Cia's covert spying extravaganza or "How we stopped worrying about civil rights and learned to love wiretaps".
The effort President Bush authorized shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, to fight al Qaeda has grown into the largest CIA covert action program since the height of the Cold War, expanding in size and ambition despite a growing outcry at home and abroad over its clandestine tactics, according to former and current intelligence officials and congressional and administration sources.
The lesson here is to strike when everybody is hiding under their beds.
Bush has never publicly confirmed the existence of a covert program, but he was recently forced to defend the approach in general terms, citing his wartime responsibilities to protect the nation. In November, responding to questions about the CIA's clandestine prisons, he said the nation must defend against an enemy that "lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again."
Here let me translate, "The terrorists are coming! The terrorists are coming! Run! Flee! Only I can keep you safe! You must never question me or the terrorists will kill you in your sleep!"
But just what has our cuddly little spy agency been up to all of this time?
Working behind the scenes, the CIA has gained approval from foreign governments to whisk terrorism suspects off the streets or out of police custody into a clandestine prison system that includes the CIA's black sites and facilities run by intelligence agencies in other countries.
The presidential finding also permitted the CIA to create paramilitary teams to hunt and kill designated individuals anywhere in the world, according to a dozen current and former intelligence officials and congressional and executive branch sources.
In four years, the GST has become larger than the CIA's covert action programs in Afghanistan and Central America in the 1980s, according to current and former intelligence officials. Indeed, the CIA, working with foreign counterparts, has been responsible for virtually all of the success the United States has had in capturing or killing al Qaeda leaders since Sept. 11, 2001.
Well that is good right? We killed some bad guys, awesome! So where is the bad?
One way the White House limited debate over its program was to virtually shut out Congress during the early years. Congress, for its part, raised only weak and sporadic protests. The administration sometimes refused to give the committees charged with overseeing intelligence agencies the details they requested. It also cut the number of members of Congress routinely briefed on these matters, usually to four members -- the chairmen and ranking Democratic members of the House and Senate intelligence panels.
John D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va.), ranking Democrat on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, complained in a 2003 letter to Vice President Cheney that his briefing on the NSA eavesdropping was unsatisfactory. "Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse, these activities," he wrote.
Rockefeller made similar complaints about the CIA's refusal to allow the full committee to see the backup material supporting a skeptical report by the CIA inspector general in 2004 on detentions and interrogations that questioned the legal basis for renditions.
Well wait a minute! Why would the Administration not want to inform congress fully about what they were doing? Does the White House assume that Congress does not support fighting terror? What other reason can there be? Unless the White House knew it was overstepping its authority. Is that a cynical thought?
But a former CIA officer said the agency "lost its way" after Sept. 11, rarely refusing or questioning an administration request. The unorthodox measures "have got to be flushed out of the system," the former officer said. "That's how it works in this country."
I guess it is not so cynical.
The lesson here is to strike when everybody is hiding under their beds.
Bush has never publicly confirmed the existence of a covert program, but he was recently forced to defend the approach in general terms, citing his wartime responsibilities to protect the nation. In November, responding to questions about the CIA's clandestine prisons, he said the nation must defend against an enemy that "lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again."
Here let me translate, "The terrorists are coming! The terrorists are coming! Run! Flee! Only I can keep you safe! You must never question me or the terrorists will kill you in your sleep!"
But just what has our cuddly little spy agency been up to all of this time?
Working behind the scenes, the CIA has gained approval from foreign governments to whisk terrorism suspects off the streets or out of police custody into a clandestine prison system that includes the CIA's black sites and facilities run by intelligence agencies in other countries.
The presidential finding also permitted the CIA to create paramilitary teams to hunt and kill designated individuals anywhere in the world, according to a dozen current and former intelligence officials and congressional and executive branch sources.
In four years, the GST has become larger than the CIA's covert action programs in Afghanistan and Central America in the 1980s, according to current and former intelligence officials. Indeed, the CIA, working with foreign counterparts, has been responsible for virtually all of the success the United States has had in capturing or killing al Qaeda leaders since Sept. 11, 2001.
Well that is good right? We killed some bad guys, awesome! So where is the bad?
One way the White House limited debate over its program was to virtually shut out Congress during the early years. Congress, for its part, raised only weak and sporadic protests. The administration sometimes refused to give the committees charged with overseeing intelligence agencies the details they requested. It also cut the number of members of Congress routinely briefed on these matters, usually to four members -- the chairmen and ranking Democratic members of the House and Senate intelligence panels.
John D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va.), ranking Democrat on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, complained in a 2003 letter to Vice President Cheney that his briefing on the NSA eavesdropping was unsatisfactory. "Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse, these activities," he wrote.
Rockefeller made similar complaints about the CIA's refusal to allow the full committee to see the backup material supporting a skeptical report by the CIA inspector general in 2004 on detentions and interrogations that questioned the legal basis for renditions.
Well wait a minute! Why would the Administration not want to inform congress fully about what they were doing? Does the White House assume that Congress does not support fighting terror? What other reason can there be? Unless the White House knew it was overstepping its authority. Is that a cynical thought?
But a former CIA officer said the agency "lost its way" after Sept. 11, rarely refusing or questioning an administration request. The unorthodox measures "have got to be flushed out of the system," the former officer said. "That's how it works in this country."
I guess it is not so cynical.
Somebody challenged me to support my assertion that Bush is just like Nixon. I will let former White House counsel John Dean do that for me.
And to the question of whether illegal wiretapping is an impeacheable offense Dean offers this;
There can be no serious question that warrantless wiretapping, in violation of the law, is impeachable. After all, Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with illegal wiretapping for what he, too, claimed were national security reasons.
With a hat tip to The Smirking Chimp.
There can be no serious question that warrantless wiretapping, in violation of the law, is impeachable. After all, Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with illegal wiretapping for what he, too, claimed were national security reasons.
With a hat tip to The Smirking Chimp.
Another story that I hope is true. Jesus was a Cannabis user.
%20-%20Simon%20Dewey.JPG)
"Oh these are very pretty plants but I would like to turn you onto another kind of plant. A plant that will take all of your troubles away."Jesus w as almost certainly a cannabis user and an early proponent of the medicinal properties of the drug, according to a study of scriptural texts published this month. The study suggests that Jesus and his disciples used the drug to carry out miraculous healings.
The anointing oil used by Jesus and his disciples contained an ingredient called kaneh-bosem which has since been identified as cannabis extract, according to an article by Chris Bennett in the drugs magazine, High Times, entitled Was Jesus a Stoner? The incense used by Jesus in ceremonies also contained a cannabis extract, suggests Mr Bennett, who quotes scholars to back his claims.
Really who is surprised by this? I mean look at him! He is clearly a freaking hippie!
I wonder if my seat in hell will have a back on it?
The best Bushisms of 2005
This is my personal favorite of the year.
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda," Bush said in explaining his communications strategy last May.
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda," Bush said in explaining his communications strategy last May.
Comics!
I love comics! I just felt like putting a lighter touch on the old website today. The above link will take you to a place that includes more right leaning illustrations as well. We aim to please here at TIM.
America is about to go broke. Look for Brooklyn bridge sale on E-bay.
"The administration now projects that the statutory debt limit, currently $8.184 trillion, will be reached in mid-February 2006," Snow said in a letter to 21 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate released by Treasury after financial markets had closed.
Snow said that Treasury, if the debt limit was not raised by then, would have to take "extraordinary actions" to keep paying its bills for everything from
Social Security to national defense spending.
Even if Treasury took "all available prudent and legal actions to avoid breaching the statutory debt limit, we anticipate that we can finance government operations no longer than mid-March."
This is the point that many right wingers do not seem to understand when they talk about the big picture and how important it is to be successful in Iraq and Afghanistan. This president does not understand money! He continues to spend like one of Donald Trumps martini swilling ex-wives and then refuses to raise taxes, choosing instead to borrow from countries all over the world, many of which are fairly poor themselves.
I cannot help but ask where are the fiscally conservative Republicans? I have heard talk of condemnation from the Right concerning spending in the past from the Clinton administration, but clearly Clinton never came anywhere close to spending at this level! And don't throw out that old argument about a war going on and different circumstances.
We have waged wars in the past. But those presidents knew that they had to pay for it! They raised taxes and sold war bonds and Americans were asked to make sacrifices here at home. Either George Bush is completely out of touch with reality or he just does not care about the monstrous debt he is leaving to our children! Could it be that he really does expect the Rapture to arrive and remove him from this mortal coil? Admittedly that seems extreme but so does our situation.
Snow said that Treasury, if the debt limit was not raised by then, would have to take "extraordinary actions" to keep paying its bills for everything from
Social Security to national defense spending.
Even if Treasury took "all available prudent and legal actions to avoid breaching the statutory debt limit, we anticipate that we can finance government operations no longer than mid-March."
This is the point that many right wingers do not seem to understand when they talk about the big picture and how important it is to be successful in Iraq and Afghanistan. This president does not understand money! He continues to spend like one of Donald Trumps martini swilling ex-wives and then refuses to raise taxes, choosing instead to borrow from countries all over the world, many of which are fairly poor themselves.
I cannot help but ask where are the fiscally conservative Republicans? I have heard talk of condemnation from the Right concerning spending in the past from the Clinton administration, but clearly Clinton never came anywhere close to spending at this level! And don't throw out that old argument about a war going on and different circumstances.
We have waged wars in the past. But those presidents knew that they had to pay for it! They raised taxes and sold war bonds and Americans were asked to make sacrifices here at home. Either George Bush is completely out of touch with reality or he just does not care about the monstrous debt he is leaving to our children! Could it be that he really does expect the Rapture to arrive and remove him from this mortal coil? Admittedly that seems extreme but so does our situation.
Catholic Church which had just recently arrived in the 21st century suddenly stumbles backward and lands in the 16th century.
A Roman Catholic diocese in Southern California has put a former priest on trial on charges of heresy. The San Bernardino Diocese says Father Ned Reidy is leading Catholics astray with his breakaway parish near Palm Springs.
Did you get that? He is on trial for heresy! What did he do, encourage his parishioneers to accept Satan as their true God?
"We're involved in ministry here: women's ordination and calling men who are married and who've all their lives wanted to be priests," Reidy tells Steven Cuevas of member station KPCC. "I'm involved with priests who've left, who are just floating around. We're involved in preaching a good news that a lot of people have never heard before."
Oh the bastard! He wants to recruit woman and married men to help spread the word of God. What was he thinking? He is trying to be reasonable! The church cannot allow that!
You know I am not a theologian but I suggest that if the Catholic church does not want to go the way of the other dinosaurs it might want to try and embrace some hipper points of view. How many priests do they have under sixty these days?
Did you get that? He is on trial for heresy! What did he do, encourage his parishioneers to accept Satan as their true God?
"We're involved in ministry here: women's ordination and calling men who are married and who've all their lives wanted to be priests," Reidy tells Steven Cuevas of member station KPCC. "I'm involved with priests who've left, who are just floating around. We're involved in preaching a good news that a lot of people have never heard before."
Oh the bastard! He wants to recruit woman and married men to help spread the word of God. What was he thinking? He is trying to be reasonable! The church cannot allow that!
You know I am not a theologian but I suggest that if the Catholic church does not want to go the way of the other dinosaurs it might want to try and embrace some hipper points of view. How many priests do they have under sixty these days?
Thursday, December 29, 2005
A return to the story that started it all.
Ahhh the "little red book story" that started my strange odyssey is back in the press.
The story, first reported by the newspaper on Dec. 17, was picked up by other news outlets, triggered screeds on left-wing and right-wing blogs, spurred a flurry of concerned e-mails among UMass faculty, and appeared in a Globe op-ed piece written by Senator Edward M. Kennedy.
What? When did all this happen where was I?
It is true what they say, "everything that goes around, comes around".
Catholic Church says there is no Limbo! "No we don't care how low you can go! Now put away the stick and go home!"
Unlike purgatory, a sort of waiting room to heaven for those with some venial faults, the theory of limbo consigned children outside of heaven on account of original sin alone. As a concept, limbo has long been out of favour, as theologically questionable and unnecessarily harsh. It is hard to imagine depriving innocents of heaven. These days it prompts more snickers than anything.
Well on behalf of the rest of the 21st century I would just like to say welcome!
I hear that next year they are doing away with Hell. They better hang on to Heaven or they are never going to fill those pews with fannies.
Well on behalf of the rest of the 21st century I would just like to say welcome!
I hear that next year they are doing away with Hell. They better hang on to Heaven or they are never going to fill those pews with fannies.
Finally! We now know who outed Valerie Plame! It was.....her son?
The Washington couple at the heart of the CIA leak investigation had their cover blown by their small son as they tried to sneak away on vacation on Thursday.
"My daddy's famous, my mommy's a secret spy," declared the 5-year-old of his parents, former diplomat Joe Wilson and retired CIA operative Valerie Plame.
I cannot tell you how anti-climatic this is for me.
"My daddy's famous, my mommy's a secret spy," declared the 5-year-old of his parents, former diplomat Joe Wilson and retired CIA operative Valerie Plame.
I cannot tell you how anti-climatic this is for me.
Here is an article which might be helpful for all of us.
Close behind the news headlines lurk abstract puzzles. Freedom and democracy are offered up as justifications for war, yet they themselves are rarely explained or justified. People argue passionately about abortion, uncertain where law and morals meet or what anchors moral convictions. A judge in Dover, Pennsylvania, faced by Christian zealots claiming that evolution is "just a theory", asks experts to explain what makes theories scientific.
This is sort of the point I have been trying to make. The "why" of our beliefs. If we can acknowledge that it is not lack of intelligence that makes people think or believe differently then we lose our easy out. We are forced to assess why we think the way that we do and whether our opinion is based on fact, fiction, prejudice, or the lack of information.
Who wants to go through all of that trouble? Well I had some time on my hands so I did. I have been forced to recognize that my opinions are based on fact, fiction, and prejudice.
Fact: The things that I have learned from various news agencies and trusted political websites.
Fiction: Things which I do not believe completely but I secretly hope is true, and which help to color my perceptions.
Prejudice: These are my long held distrust of government, my memory of Watergate and the Republican roles in it, my frustration at the way that George Bush became president in the first place, and my dislike for war in general.
It is through this prism that I view information. Whether it be news shows, websites, posts on the comments section, or discussion with friend and family. I remember asking a Christian friend what would he do if an alien came here and said that they were our creators and that they had even written our Bible. He looked at me and asked why he should believe and alien instead of trusting his own faith. (Is it any wonder I never get invited to church?) There was no way he was leaving the safety of his beliefs.
Okay nowI know that there are those on the right who are thinking "I knew it!". Hold on guys.
It is also my observation that I am not alone in having these limitations in perception. I think that it is in all of us. Whether a" left wing tree hugger" or a "right wing warmonger" we all have our baggage. We can only get so far from our comfort zone before we start to feel adrift. We race back to those sources of information which support our point of view. How we get these points of view has more to do with our life experiences and the people whose opinions we respected. It is not intelligence! Or lack of!
Having said that I am still a liberal in many respects. I don't tolerate liars.
War should be the last resort and then fought against combatants and not against civilians.
The law is the law. You break it you get punished. (My daughter can tell you of the time I called the police on her and her brother after they broke into a car. She was five!)
We should be judged by our character and not by our religion, skin color, or sexual orientation.
The mentally ill should be helped not punished.
Being the strongest means you should be the most gentle. Carelessly hurting those around you because they cannot hurt you back is wrong. Whether you are a person or a country.
Before engaging in a decision which will impact millions of lives you have an obligation to entertain dissenting viewpoints before proceeding.
Bad people should be punished! But that does not mean that you have carte blanche to destroy entire communities to get at them!
Those are my values and I stand by them.
This is sort of the point I have been trying to make. The "why" of our beliefs. If we can acknowledge that it is not lack of intelligence that makes people think or believe differently then we lose our easy out. We are forced to assess why we think the way that we do and whether our opinion is based on fact, fiction, prejudice, or the lack of information.
Who wants to go through all of that trouble? Well I had some time on my hands so I did. I have been forced to recognize that my opinions are based on fact, fiction, and prejudice.
Fact: The things that I have learned from various news agencies and trusted political websites.
Fiction: Things which I do not believe completely but I secretly hope is true, and which help to color my perceptions.
Prejudice: These are my long held distrust of government, my memory of Watergate and the Republican roles in it, my frustration at the way that George Bush became president in the first place, and my dislike for war in general.
It is through this prism that I view information. Whether it be news shows, websites, posts on the comments section, or discussion with friend and family. I remember asking a Christian friend what would he do if an alien came here and said that they were our creators and that they had even written our Bible. He looked at me and asked why he should believe and alien instead of trusting his own faith. (Is it any wonder I never get invited to church?) There was no way he was leaving the safety of his beliefs.
Okay nowI know that there are those on the right who are thinking "I knew it!". Hold on guys.
It is also my observation that I am not alone in having these limitations in perception. I think that it is in all of us. Whether a" left wing tree hugger" or a "right wing warmonger" we all have our baggage. We can only get so far from our comfort zone before we start to feel adrift. We race back to those sources of information which support our point of view. How we get these points of view has more to do with our life experiences and the people whose opinions we respected. It is not intelligence! Or lack of!
Having said that I am still a liberal in many respects. I don't tolerate liars.
War should be the last resort and then fought against combatants and not against civilians.
The law is the law. You break it you get punished. (My daughter can tell you of the time I called the police on her and her brother after they broke into a car. She was five!)
We should be judged by our character and not by our religion, skin color, or sexual orientation.
The mentally ill should be helped not punished.
Being the strongest means you should be the most gentle. Carelessly hurting those around you because they cannot hurt you back is wrong. Whether you are a person or a country.
Before engaging in a decision which will impact millions of lives you have an obligation to entertain dissenting viewpoints before proceeding.
Bad people should be punished! But that does not mean that you have carte blanche to destroy entire communities to get at them!
Those are my values and I stand by them.
10 science facts that you will not be able to stop thinking about today.
Here are my favorites.
You can have an erection once dead
Well duh! Oh you mean everyone!
Don't laugh too much, it can kill you
No more "Will and Grace" marathons for me!
A weapon could make you Gay
Please tell me this is called the "Gay Bomb"!
You can have an erection once dead
Well duh! Oh you mean everyone!
Don't laugh too much, it can kill you
No more "Will and Grace" marathons for me!
A weapon could make you Gay
Please tell me this is called the "Gay Bomb"!
This article sort of slaps my point of view around a little bit concerning the Impeachment issue.
Anybody who has visited this site in the past is probably aware that I loves me some impeachment talk. They may also be aware that I am conflicted about the possibility of it happening in real life.
I want Bush gone. No equivocation on that one. But I don't want Cheney, Hastert or even our own Ted Stevens to take over the reigns of power. Once again, no happy ending for me and my ilk.
But clearly there is going to be some punishment headed the direction of the White House. What if Fitzgerald's investigation takes him to Cheney, or Bush? Both sat before the investigators and denied any culpability. If Clinton can get busted for lying about semen then Bush can get worked over for lying about outing a CIA agent. I mean fair is fair.
And if it is proven that Bush lied to Congress about the intelligence leading up to this war then the punishment must be severe. No simple slap on the wrist will do.
I want Bush gone. No equivocation on that one. But I don't want Cheney, Hastert or even our own Ted Stevens to take over the reigns of power. Once again, no happy ending for me and my ilk.
But clearly there is going to be some punishment headed the direction of the White House. What if Fitzgerald's investigation takes him to Cheney, or Bush? Both sat before the investigators and denied any culpability. If Clinton can get busted for lying about semen then Bush can get worked over for lying about outing a CIA agent. I mean fair is fair.
And if it is proven that Bush lied to Congress about the intelligence leading up to this war then the punishment must be severe. No simple slap on the wrist will do.
NSA broke the law again by installing "cookies" on visitors computers to track their web surfing habits.
Oh! Well that is just disturbing!
You know I only visited those other websites for strictly educational purposes. Okay?
You know I only visited those other websites for strictly educational purposes. Okay?
This is so wrong! Why are my people so oppressed!
The Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution (Article I, Section 4) allows people to be excluded from holding office on religious grounds. An official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."
This would specifically exclude all Atheists and Agnostics from holding public office. It would also exclude:
Most Buddhists, who do not believe in a personal deity.
Members of the Church of Satan; they are typically agnostics.
Some Unitarian Universalists.
Some followers of the New Age who do not believe in the existence of a personal deity
However, Wiccans and Zoroastrians are acceptable, as they believe in two deities -- twice as many as Section 4 requires. Hindus would also be good enough because they generally acknowledge the existence of millions of deities. The number, gender, shape, size and other attributes do not matter, as long as you believe that a Supreme Being of some sort exists.
Okay just to be clear here. If I don't believe in an invisible man in the sky who is watching everything I do and waiting to judge whether or not I can stay with him after I die, then I am the one who is not fit to hold a responsible public office?
My favorite part of this is that I get grouped with the Satanists, who are grouped with the Buddhists. Really about the only thing that Satanists and Buddhists have in common is that they are not Christians. Oh wait, maybe that's the point.
Now I am not a lawyer, (Sorry Mom) but it seems to me that this would have no hope of holding up in a court of law. I mean how can you insist that somebody believe in a deity in order to help decide whether the city needs a new park or not. You know I would never ask somebody that I was going to hire what their religious views happened to be. Well, you know unless they wanted to sacrifice poultry in the breakroom. But that is really more of a health code concern.
I have worked with Baptists, Mormons (very odd religion. What is with the underwear?), Wiccans (interesting jewelry), Presbyterians, Buddhists, Jehovah's witnesses, Hindus, and many more of which I was probably not even aware. I cannot remember ever really caring. No one group seemed any more responsible or reliable then any other. They were just people.
We often talk about our free society. But, really that is just talk.
This would specifically exclude all Atheists and Agnostics from holding public office. It would also exclude:
Most Buddhists, who do not believe in a personal deity.
Members of the Church of Satan; they are typically agnostics.
Some Unitarian Universalists.
Some followers of the New Age who do not believe in the existence of a personal deity
However, Wiccans and Zoroastrians are acceptable, as they believe in two deities -- twice as many as Section 4 requires. Hindus would also be good enough because they generally acknowledge the existence of millions of deities. The number, gender, shape, size and other attributes do not matter, as long as you believe that a Supreme Being of some sort exists.
Okay just to be clear here. If I don't believe in an invisible man in the sky who is watching everything I do and waiting to judge whether or not I can stay with him after I die, then I am the one who is not fit to hold a responsible public office?
My favorite part of this is that I get grouped with the Satanists, who are grouped with the Buddhists. Really about the only thing that Satanists and Buddhists have in common is that they are not Christians. Oh wait, maybe that's the point.
Now I am not a lawyer, (Sorry Mom) but it seems to me that this would have no hope of holding up in a court of law. I mean how can you insist that somebody believe in a deity in order to help decide whether the city needs a new park or not. You know I would never ask somebody that I was going to hire what their religious views happened to be. Well, you know unless they wanted to sacrifice poultry in the breakroom. But that is really more of a health code concern.
I have worked with Baptists, Mormons (very odd religion. What is with the underwear?), Wiccans (interesting jewelry), Presbyterians, Buddhists, Jehovah's witnesses, Hindus, and many more of which I was probably not even aware. I cannot remember ever really caring. No one group seemed any more responsible or reliable then any other. They were just people.
We often talk about our free society. But, really that is just talk.
No matter how often Bush tries to compare himself to F.D.R. the Nixon comparison will not stop following him.
Just like two peas in a pod. I still think that Bush is channeling Nixon's ghost.
The question is will they leave office in the same manner?
U.S. led Coalition is losing members. But we still have Poland! Don't forget Poland!
The "coalition of the willing," as the Bush administration had dubbed it, has dwindled from a peak of 38 nations and 50,000 troops in mid-2003 to 26 countries and about 23,000 troops, according to a State Department tally. Most of the remaining countries have announced that they will end their participation in 2006.
Time is running out for this administration. If theye are going to pull a rabbit out of the hat, it better be soon. The audience is leaving, the lights are dimming, and the rabbit has the mange.
The idea that this war is anything less then an solo American/British endeavor is laughable. The number of troops from these other countries is not enough to do the laundry for the American forces.
The 26 countries with troops still serving in Iraq are: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, Slovakia, South Korea, and the United Kingdom.
(Isn't Latvia where Dr. Doom lives?)
By the way Poland is pulling some of its troops as well. Now you know we are screwed!
Time is running out for this administration. If theye are going to pull a rabbit out of the hat, it better be soon. The audience is leaving, the lights are dimming, and the rabbit has the mange.
The idea that this war is anything less then an solo American/British endeavor is laughable. The number of troops from these other countries is not enough to do the laundry for the American forces.
The 26 countries with troops still serving in Iraq are: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, Slovakia, South Korea, and the United Kingdom.
(Isn't Latvia where Dr. Doom lives?)
By the way Poland is pulling some of its troops as well. Now you know we are screwed!
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Could the illegal wiretaps jeopardize the case against terrorists?
This is why we follow the rules boys and girls.
Don't you wonder who is leaking all of this secret information to the press? This White House has more leaks then the Titanic. And down she goes!
Don't you wonder who is leaking all of this secret information to the press? This White House has more leaks then the Titanic. And down she goes!
A real life Professor takes on the "top ten myths" of the Iraq war.
This should have appeal to more then just my liberal visitors as he points out a number of details that are in conflict with much of our thinking. So I am afraid you are going to have to open your mind to read it. Sorry.
Like here where Professor Cole identifies why we should not leave Iraq hastily.
8. Iraq is already in a civil war, so it does not matter if the US simply withdraws precipitately, since the situation is as bad as it can get. No, it isn't. During the course of the guerrilla war, the daily number of dead has fluctuated, between about 20 and about 60. But in a real civil war, it could easily be 10 times that. Some estimates of the number of Afghans killed during their long set of civil wars put the number at 2.5 million, along with 5 million displaced abroad and more millions displaced internally. Iraq is Malibu Beach compared to Afghanistan in its darkest hours. The US has a responsibility to get out of Iraq responsibly and to not allow it to fall into that kind of genocidal civil conflict.
Admittedly that is a good point. I am just concerned whether or not this administratin will be able to recognize when that right time becomes apparent.
Here, this quote is more my speed.
10. The Bush administration wanted free elections in Iraq. This allegation is simply not true, as I and others pointed out last January. I said then, and it is still true:
' Moreover, as Swopa rightly reminds us all, the Bush administration opposed one-person, one-vote elections of this sort. First they were going to turn Iraq over to Chalabi within six months. Then Bremer was going to be MacArthur in Baghdad for years. Then on November 15, 2003, Bremer announced a plan to have council-based elections in May of 2004. The US and the UK had somehow massaged into being provincial and municipal governing councils, the members of which were pro-American. Bremer was going to restrict the electorate to this small, elite group.
Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani immediately gave a fatwa denouncing this plan and demanding free elections mandated by a UN Security Council resolution. Bush was reportedly "extremely offended" at these two demands and opposed Sistani. Bremer got his appointed Interim Governing Council to go along in fighting Sistani. Sistani then brought thousands of protesters into the streets in January of 2004, demanding free elections. Soon thereafter, Bush caved and gave the ayatollah everything he demanded. Except that he was apparently afraid that open, non-manipulated elections in Iraq might become a factor in the US presidential campaign, so he got the elections postponed to January 2005. This enormous delay allowed the country to fall into much worse chaos, and Sistani is still bitter that the Americans didn't hold the elections last May. The US objected that they couldn't use UN food ration cards for registration, as Sistani suggested. But in the end that is exactly what they did. '
See? Now that is some good blogging. Anyhow it has a little something for everyone.
Like here where Professor Cole identifies why we should not leave Iraq hastily.
8. Iraq is already in a civil war, so it does not matter if the US simply withdraws precipitately, since the situation is as bad as it can get. No, it isn't. During the course of the guerrilla war, the daily number of dead has fluctuated, between about 20 and about 60. But in a real civil war, it could easily be 10 times that. Some estimates of the number of Afghans killed during their long set of civil wars put the number at 2.5 million, along with 5 million displaced abroad and more millions displaced internally. Iraq is Malibu Beach compared to Afghanistan in its darkest hours. The US has a responsibility to get out of Iraq responsibly and to not allow it to fall into that kind of genocidal civil conflict.
Admittedly that is a good point. I am just concerned whether or not this administratin will be able to recognize when that right time becomes apparent.
Here, this quote is more my speed.
10. The Bush administration wanted free elections in Iraq. This allegation is simply not true, as I and others pointed out last January. I said then, and it is still true:
' Moreover, as Swopa rightly reminds us all, the Bush administration opposed one-person, one-vote elections of this sort. First they were going to turn Iraq over to Chalabi within six months. Then Bremer was going to be MacArthur in Baghdad for years. Then on November 15, 2003, Bremer announced a plan to have council-based elections in May of 2004. The US and the UK had somehow massaged into being provincial and municipal governing councils, the members of which were pro-American. Bremer was going to restrict the electorate to this small, elite group.
Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani immediately gave a fatwa denouncing this plan and demanding free elections mandated by a UN Security Council resolution. Bush was reportedly "extremely offended" at these two demands and opposed Sistani. Bremer got his appointed Interim Governing Council to go along in fighting Sistani. Sistani then brought thousands of protesters into the streets in January of 2004, demanding free elections. Soon thereafter, Bush caved and gave the ayatollah everything he demanded. Except that he was apparently afraid that open, non-manipulated elections in Iraq might become a factor in the US presidential campaign, so he got the elections postponed to January 2005. This enormous delay allowed the country to fall into much worse chaos, and Sistani is still bitter that the Americans didn't hold the elections last May. The US objected that they couldn't use UN food ration cards for registration, as Sistani suggested. But in the end that is exactly what they did. '
See? Now that is some good blogging. Anyhow it has a little something for everyone.
How many of the visitors here would really welcome the addition of a third political party? And what would it look like?
I cannot tell you the number of times that I have found myself underwhelmed by the offerings of both parties. I have never been much of a joiner and only reluctantly joined the Democrats in time for the 2004 election.
I am very liberal on some issues and then fairly conservative on others. I am not an advocate for legalizing drugs and I never give spare change to the homeless who line some of our streets in the summer. I would bend myself in half to create more programs to help our children in schools and in the community but am repulsed by religious based charity programs. (That speaks to my own personal prejudice, I am afraid)
I would welcome a party that was far more fiscally responsible then either party has proven to be.
I would like to maintain a strong military but would make sure that they focused more on our own security rather then racing off to stick their nose into the business of other countries unless the needs were extraordinary.
I want the national debt paid down and for us to not find ourselves making policy decisions based on who we are beholden to rather then what is in the best interest of the country long term.
I want our education system revamped to provide more money for teachers who can deliver the goods in the classroom. Not just the academic scores but also the ability to help the troubled student, and student suffering abuse at home, and the child whose skills are in a different arena like art or music.
I want a party who sees itself as setting an example of democracy for the rest of the world. Not one that preaches freedom and then imposes its will on weaker nations.
I want a party that values honesty above all else. I have pointed out my frustration with our less then honest politicians. I don't want to hear that those are the rules of politics. Change the rules! It would be nice if our kids could once again look to the president as a beacon of honesty and integrity in this country.
I am sure I have more but I cannot think of any more right now. What do you think? What would you add or change?
P.S. My fantasy third party would also not wiretap the U.N.!
I am very liberal on some issues and then fairly conservative on others. I am not an advocate for legalizing drugs and I never give spare change to the homeless who line some of our streets in the summer. I would bend myself in half to create more programs to help our children in schools and in the community but am repulsed by religious based charity programs. (That speaks to my own personal prejudice, I am afraid)
I would welcome a party that was far more fiscally responsible then either party has proven to be.
I would like to maintain a strong military but would make sure that they focused more on our own security rather then racing off to stick their nose into the business of other countries unless the needs were extraordinary.
I want the national debt paid down and for us to not find ourselves making policy decisions based on who we are beholden to rather then what is in the best interest of the country long term.
I want our education system revamped to provide more money for teachers who can deliver the goods in the classroom. Not just the academic scores but also the ability to help the troubled student, and student suffering abuse at home, and the child whose skills are in a different arena like art or music.
I want a party who sees itself as setting an example of democracy for the rest of the world. Not one that preaches freedom and then imposes its will on weaker nations.
I want a party that values honesty above all else. I have pointed out my frustration with our less then honest politicians. I don't want to hear that those are the rules of politics. Change the rules! It would be nice if our kids could once again look to the president as a beacon of honesty and integrity in this country.
I am sure I have more but I cannot think of any more right now. What do you think? What would you add or change?
P.S. My fantasy third party would also not wiretap the U.N.!
Jeb Bush demonstrates his own ignorance in a direct competition with his brothers stupidity. Sibling rivalries can be so ugly!
Bush said last week he did not think Darwin's theory of evolution needed to be part of the state's public school science standards, according to an account in the Miami Herald."I think people have different points of view and they can be discussed in school," Bush said. "They don't need to be in the curriculum."
Why yes there are two points of view. One says that the theory of evolution is the underpinning for all of the biological breakthroughs in he last 100 years and the other is from a bunch of fire and brimstone preachers terrified that "too much thinkin" will destroy their religion.
And now we know which side of the uncomplicated issue the Governor of Florida is on. Good information to know.
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Bush had the NSA wiretap the U.N. Security Council in the run up to war. Does this protect my freedom too?
President Bush and other top officials in his administration used the National Security Agency to secretly wiretap the home and office telephones and monitor private email accounts of members of the United Nations Security Council in early 2003 to determine how foreign delegates would vote on a U.N. resolution that paved the way for the U.S.-led war in Iraq, NSA documents show.
Two former NSA officials familiar with the agency's campaign to spy on U.N. members say then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice authorized the plan at the request of President Bush, who wanted to know how delegates were going to vote.
I can hardly wait to hear what the defense of this is going to be. Do you think they will use the tactic of total denial or that 9-11 changed everything and that the old rules no longer apply?
How can we possibly go to these people and ask them to support our national policies when we betray their trust by wiretapping them? Who is advising this president? Perhaps he has a medium in the White House who keeps Richard Nixon on tap for Georgie to go to for advice.
I have to believe that the rift between he and his father will be irreperable after this. I thought that I could not be surprised anymore but I am absolutely amazed!
Two former NSA officials familiar with the agency's campaign to spy on U.N. members say then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice authorized the plan at the request of President Bush, who wanted to know how delegates were going to vote.
I can hardly wait to hear what the defense of this is going to be. Do you think they will use the tactic of total denial or that 9-11 changed everything and that the old rules no longer apply?
How can we possibly go to these people and ask them to support our national policies when we betray their trust by wiretapping them? Who is advising this president? Perhaps he has a medium in the White House who keeps Richard Nixon on tap for Georgie to go to for advice.
I have to believe that the rift between he and his father will be irreperable after this. I thought that I could not be surprised anymore but I am absolutely amazed!
Okay I have a challenge.
Since there now so many visitors coming here with a different ideological viewpoint then mine, I have a challenge for you and my liberal visitors.
Who, on your side of the fence, do you wish would just shut up! And why?
Now remember many of my more conservative visitors have bragged about being intellectually more honest then us liberals so I expect you to back that assertion up.
I will go first. I wish that James Carville would just shut up! The "Ragin Cajun" has always irritated the hell out of me! Even when I agree with him his voice and his scrunched up face grate all over my nerves. Half of the time I cannot even understand what the hell he is saying!
Okay that is mine. I have more but I will not volunteer them until I get some feedback in the comments section from some of you. I am curious as to whether we have any, from either the left or right, in common.
Who, on your side of the fence, do you wish would just shut up! And why?
Now remember many of my more conservative visitors have bragged about being intellectually more honest then us liberals so I expect you to back that assertion up.
I will go first. I wish that James Carville would just shut up! The "Ragin Cajun" has always irritated the hell out of me! Even when I agree with him his voice and his scrunched up face grate all over my nerves. Half of the time I cannot even understand what the hell he is saying!
Okay that is mine. I have more but I will not volunteer them until I get some feedback in the comments section from some of you. I am curious as to whether we have any, from either the left or right, in common.
It's a frosty day in Hell as I find myself in agreement with conservative commentator Cal Thomas.
Yeah I know, how the hell did that happen? I was pretty surprised myself as I usually find Mr. Thomas insufferably right wing. But he made good points and I must give, if you'll pardon the pun, the devil his due. Here is what I agreed with.
The decision by U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III to bar the teaching of "intelligent design" in the Dover, Pennsylvania public school district on grounds it is a thinly veiled effort to introduce a religious view of the world's origins is welcome for at least two reasons.
First, it exposes the sham attempt to take through the back door what proponents have no chance of getting through the front door. Judge Jones rebuked advocates of "intelligent design," saying they repeatedly lied about their true intentions. He noted many of them had said publicly that their intent was to introduce into the schools a biblical account of creation. Judge Jones properly wondered how people who claim to have such strong religious convictions could lie, thus violating prohibitions in the Book they proclaim as their source of truth and standard for living.
Culture has long passed by advocates of intelligent design, school prayer and numerous other beliefs and practices that were once tolerated, even promoted, in public education. People who think they can reclaim the past have been watching too many repeats of "Leave it to Beaver" on cable television. Those days are not coming back anytime soon, if at all.
And then he just starts to babble.
Religious parents should exercise the opportunity that has always been theirs. They should remove their children from state schools with their "instruction manuals" for turning them into secular liberals, and place them in private schools - or home school them - where they will be taught the truth, according to their parents' beliefs. Too many parents who would never send their children to a church on Sunday that taught doctrines they believed to be wrong, have had no problem placing them in state schools five days a week where they are taught conflicting doctrines and ideas.
I am one of those individauls who is not usually a big fan of home school. Especially when the reason for keeping your kids home is to protect them from hearing opinions different then your own. You see I think that is the purpose of education. To expand your knowledge base. My daughter and I have differing viewpoints on many topics but the only time we argue is when she expresses an uninformed opinion and then refuses to educate herself concerning the other information.
But still this is a red letter day for me. It marks the very first time that I can remember ever agreeing with the honorable Cal Thomas. I kind of dig it when I get surprised.
The decision by U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III to bar the teaching of "intelligent design" in the Dover, Pennsylvania public school district on grounds it is a thinly veiled effort to introduce a religious view of the world's origins is welcome for at least two reasons.
First, it exposes the sham attempt to take through the back door what proponents have no chance of getting through the front door. Judge Jones rebuked advocates of "intelligent design," saying they repeatedly lied about their true intentions. He noted many of them had said publicly that their intent was to introduce into the schools a biblical account of creation. Judge Jones properly wondered how people who claim to have such strong religious convictions could lie, thus violating prohibitions in the Book they proclaim as their source of truth and standard for living.
Culture has long passed by advocates of intelligent design, school prayer and numerous other beliefs and practices that were once tolerated, even promoted, in public education. People who think they can reclaim the past have been watching too many repeats of "Leave it to Beaver" on cable television. Those days are not coming back anytime soon, if at all.
And then he just starts to babble.
Religious parents should exercise the opportunity that has always been theirs. They should remove their children from state schools with their "instruction manuals" for turning them into secular liberals, and place them in private schools - or home school them - where they will be taught the truth, according to their parents' beliefs. Too many parents who would never send their children to a church on Sunday that taught doctrines they believed to be wrong, have had no problem placing them in state schools five days a week where they are taught conflicting doctrines and ideas.
I am one of those individauls who is not usually a big fan of home school. Especially when the reason for keeping your kids home is to protect them from hearing opinions different then your own. You see I think that is the purpose of education. To expand your knowledge base. My daughter and I have differing viewpoints on many topics but the only time we argue is when she expresses an uninformed opinion and then refuses to educate herself concerning the other information.
But still this is a red letter day for me. It marks the very first time that I can remember ever agreeing with the honorable Cal Thomas. I kind of dig it when I get surprised.
Just for fun. Did Saddam really gas his own people?
I keep hearing this from the other side of the fence. I have always sort of assumed it was correct. Now I have reason to wonder. Here is what I have uncovered so far.
In the article, Pelletiere said the only thing known for certain was that "Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds."
The former CIA official revealed that immediately after the battle the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report that said it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds.
The source of this info is here.
Now there is some disagreement with those assertations here. However in this article there is another interesting little nugget.
In 1989 President George Herbert Walker Bush took power and ordered a review of United States policy toward Iraq. According to Power:
The study ... deemed Iraq a potentially helpful ally in containing Iran and nudging the Middle East peace process ahead. The "Guidelines for U.S.-Iraq Policy" swiped at proponents of sanctions on Capital Hill and a few human rights advocates who had begun lobbying within the State Department. The guidelines noted that despite support from the Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, and State Departments for a profitable, stable U.S.-Iraq relationship, "parts of Congress and the Department would scuttle even the most benign and beneficial areas of the relationship, such as agricultural exports." The Bush administration would not shift to a policy of dual containment of both Iraq and Iran. Vocal American businesses were adamant that Iraq was a source of opportunity, not enmity. The White House did all it could to create an opening for these companies"Had we attempted to isolate Iraq," Secretary of State James Baker wrote later, "we would have also isolated American businesses, particularly agricultural interests, from significant commercial opportunities."
I would pay big money to be a fly on the wall at the Bush holiday get togethers. (I am sorry. I , of course mean Christmas.) You must be able to cut the tension with chainsaw.
Now even if this is bullshit I do not believe for an instant that Saddam is not a terrible human being deserving of punishment. I most certainly do. I just don't know if he is the Boogedy-boogedy man that the administration so enjoys painting him as.
To be honest I usually discount just about everything that the administration tells me, they tend to lie you know.
In the article, Pelletiere said the only thing known for certain was that "Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds."
The former CIA official revealed that immediately after the battle the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report that said it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds.
The source of this info is here.
Now there is some disagreement with those assertations here. However in this article there is another interesting little nugget.
In 1989 President George Herbert Walker Bush took power and ordered a review of United States policy toward Iraq. According to Power:
The study ... deemed Iraq a potentially helpful ally in containing Iran and nudging the Middle East peace process ahead. The "Guidelines for U.S.-Iraq Policy" swiped at proponents of sanctions on Capital Hill and a few human rights advocates who had begun lobbying within the State Department. The guidelines noted that despite support from the Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, and State Departments for a profitable, stable U.S.-Iraq relationship, "parts of Congress and the Department would scuttle even the most benign and beneficial areas of the relationship, such as agricultural exports." The Bush administration would not shift to a policy of dual containment of both Iraq and Iran. Vocal American businesses were adamant that Iraq was a source of opportunity, not enmity. The White House did all it could to create an opening for these companies"Had we attempted to isolate Iraq," Secretary of State James Baker wrote later, "we would have also isolated American businesses, particularly agricultural interests, from significant commercial opportunities."
I would pay big money to be a fly on the wall at the Bush holiday get togethers. (I am sorry. I , of course mean Christmas.) You must be able to cut the tension with chainsaw.
Now even if this is bullshit I do not believe for an instant that Saddam is not a terrible human being deserving of punishment. I most certainly do. I just don't know if he is the Boogedy-boogedy man that the administration so enjoys painting him as.
To be honest I usually discount just about everything that the administration tells me, they tend to lie you know.
"Give me an I! Give me an M! Give me a P! Give me an E! Give me an A! You get the idea.
Ooh look! I have a new favorite website! Check this out.
And on the Dec. 20 edition of NPR's Diane Rehm Show, Bruce Fein, former deputy attorney general in the Reagan Administration, said:
FEIN: On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want – I don’t need to consult any other branches – that is an impeachable offense. It’s more dangerous than Clinton’s lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that … would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant.
Damn this just warms the heart of my......uh the cockles of my heart.
So even the Conservatives can't stomach the criminal behavior of this administration. Good to know. I just love it when they use the "I" word!
And on the Dec. 20 edition of NPR's Diane Rehm Show, Bruce Fein, former deputy attorney general in the Reagan Administration, said:
FEIN: On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want – I don’t need to consult any other branches – that is an impeachable offense. It’s more dangerous than Clinton’s lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that … would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant.
Damn this just warms the heart of my......uh the cockles of my heart.
So even the Conservatives can't stomach the criminal behavior of this administration. Good to know. I just love it when they use the "I" word!
History books take on Clinton impeachment.
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Secret Federal Surveillance Court, who almost always okays wiretaps, said no to Bush Administration. Gee, I wonder why?
Government records show that the administration was encountering unprecedented second-guessing by the secret federal surveillance court when President Bush decided to bypass the panel and order surveillance of U.S.-based terror suspects without the court's approval.
"They wanted to expand the number of people they were eavesdropping on, and they didn't think they could get the warrants they needed from the court to monitor those people," said Bamford, author of "Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency" and "The Puzzle Palace: Inside America's Most Secret Intelligence Organization." "The FISA court has shown its displeasure by tinkering with these applications by the Bush administration."
This is just another example of King Georges total rejection of any dissenting opinions. Still lacking the complete understanding of the limitations of the Presidency, he continues to bypass safeguards and legal avenues and just storms ahead with impunity. Who do you imagine he tried to get wiretaps on? Al Qaeda sympathizers? Anti-war protestors? Political enemies? Anti-Bush websites?
His recklessness has already placed more Americans in danger then any terrorist organizatiion in the world. We have been weakened, embarassed, and our limitations have been demonstrated to the world at large. We can no longer go around thumping our chest and proclaiming our superiority because we have demonstrated just how strained our resources are to our enemies.
"They wanted to expand the number of people they were eavesdropping on, and they didn't think they could get the warrants they needed from the court to monitor those people," said Bamford, author of "Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency" and "The Puzzle Palace: Inside America's Most Secret Intelligence Organization." "The FISA court has shown its displeasure by tinkering with these applications by the Bush administration."
This is just another example of King Georges total rejection of any dissenting opinions. Still lacking the complete understanding of the limitations of the Presidency, he continues to bypass safeguards and legal avenues and just storms ahead with impunity. Who do you imagine he tried to get wiretaps on? Al Qaeda sympathizers? Anti-war protestors? Political enemies? Anti-Bush websites?
His recklessness has already placed more Americans in danger then any terrorist organizatiion in the world. We have been weakened, embarassed, and our limitations have been demonstrated to the world at large. We can no longer go around thumping our chest and proclaiming our superiority because we have demonstrated just how strained our resources are to our enemies.
Monday, December 26, 2005
Do not click this link!
I am serious!
If you are at all sensitive you need to just click to another webpage and ignore this website for now!
I almost did not post this but I have been so reasonable lately that I just felt I was losing my immoral edge. So I was naughty. If you are just consumed with curiosity then click away but remember, I warned you!
If you are at all sensitive you need to just click to another webpage and ignore this website for now!
I almost did not post this but I have been so reasonable lately that I just felt I was losing my immoral edge. So I was naughty. If you are just consumed with curiosity then click away but remember, I warned you!
Fear Destroys what Bin Laden could not.
Article by Robert Steinbeck. I agree with most of it.
Had anyone said our president would invade a country and kill 30,000 of its people claiming a threat that never, in fact, existed, then admit he would have invaded even if he had known there was no threat -- and expect America to be pleased by this -- I would have thought our nation's sensibilities and honor had been eviscerated.
If I had been informed that our nation's leaders would embrace torture as a legitimate tool of warfare, hold prisoners for years without charges and operate secret prisons overseas -- and call such procedures necessary for the nation's security -- I would have laughed at the folly of protecting human rights by destroying them.
If someone had predicted the president's staff would out a CIA agent as revenge against a critic, defy a law against domestic propaganda by bankrolling supposedly independent journalists and commentators, and ridicule a 37-year Marie Corps veteran for questioning U.S. military policy -- and that the populace would be more interested in whether Angelina is about to make Brad a daddy -- I would have called the prediction an absurd fantasy.
Many good points in there, many that I have made myself in the past.
Had anyone said our president would invade a country and kill 30,000 of its people claiming a threat that never, in fact, existed, then admit he would have invaded even if he had known there was no threat -- and expect America to be pleased by this -- I would have thought our nation's sensibilities and honor had been eviscerated.
If I had been informed that our nation's leaders would embrace torture as a legitimate tool of warfare, hold prisoners for years without charges and operate secret prisons overseas -- and call such procedures necessary for the nation's security -- I would have laughed at the folly of protecting human rights by destroying them.
If someone had predicted the president's staff would out a CIA agent as revenge against a critic, defy a law against domestic propaganda by bankrolling supposedly independent journalists and commentators, and ridicule a 37-year Marie Corps veteran for questioning U.S. military policy -- and that the populace would be more interested in whether Angelina is about to make Brad a daddy -- I would have called the prediction an absurd fantasy.
Many good points in there, many that I have made myself in the past.
Can America save the World? Does the World want us to?
It seems that much of my recent information concerning my misperceptions on the Iraq war are being filtered through a rather vocal minority.
I am also somewhat surprised to learn that, while the vocalizations are loud and strident, the commitment is somewhat lacking.
The idea that we can run around the world on our white horse defending Human Rights Violations everywhere that we find them is admirable. But is it practical?
Admittedly I am a big softy especially when it comes to children and if I possessed the power or resources I would save as many children, and their parents, as I could. I do try to do my part here at home. When I read about abuses in other countries I want my country to do something. But what is that something? Do I think we should go and depose their leaders and set up our own type of government to ensure the safety of the populace? Not so much.
I am aware that there are people suffering in Darfur and China, as well as many other countries. But I have to ask how much more can the United States give before our own people begin to suffer. We saw with Katrina that there are many holes that exist in our ability to care for the people in this country. We must balance our desire to ensure the safety of people in other countries with our ability to meet our own needs here at home.
George Bush has managed to create a situation where we find ourselves having to make tough choices about not losing face, and maintaining our strength in the world, with our need to care for the least amongst our own community. We cannot continue to spend money that we do not have!
Our national debt stands at an unbelievable $8,179,387,199,380.65. (check my facts here)
We cannot continue to dig ourselves into this giant pit or else we risk losing, not just our ability to care for ourselves, but our ability to defend ourselves in the event of another attack. If George Bush had spent all of the money spent in Iraq on our security could you imagine what might have been accomplished?
I am also somewhat surprised to learn that, while the vocalizations are loud and strident, the commitment is somewhat lacking.
The idea that we can run around the world on our white horse defending Human Rights Violations everywhere that we find them is admirable. But is it practical?
Admittedly I am a big softy especially when it comes to children and if I possessed the power or resources I would save as many children, and their parents, as I could. I do try to do my part here at home. When I read about abuses in other countries I want my country to do something. But what is that something? Do I think we should go and depose their leaders and set up our own type of government to ensure the safety of the populace? Not so much.
I am aware that there are people suffering in Darfur and China, as well as many other countries. But I have to ask how much more can the United States give before our own people begin to suffer. We saw with Katrina that there are many holes that exist in our ability to care for the people in this country. We must balance our desire to ensure the safety of people in other countries with our ability to meet our own needs here at home.
George Bush has managed to create a situation where we find ourselves having to make tough choices about not losing face, and maintaining our strength in the world, with our need to care for the least amongst our own community. We cannot continue to spend money that we do not have!
Our national debt stands at an unbelievable $8,179,387,199,380.65. (check my facts here)
We cannot continue to dig ourselves into this giant pit or else we risk losing, not just our ability to care for ourselves, but our ability to defend ourselves in the event of another attack. If George Bush had spent all of the money spent in Iraq on our security could you imagine what might have been accomplished?
Christians review "Brokeback Mountain". "Great cinematography, above average acting, a little too much penis touching!"
I love to imagine how they chose the guy to go review this movie."Go on Scott. You can do it. Just think of Jesus when they start tongue bathing each other."
"I should think about Jesus tongue bathing me?"
"No Scott damn it! Are you sure that Gay deprogramming camp worked on you?"
"Of course it worked! I am not standing here picturing you naked, and all oiled up or anything! I love the ladies!"
"Maybe we should send somebody else. Hey Fred do we have anybody with a damn family we can send?"
"No, no send me! I promise I will pay very close attention. I will watch it several times if I have too!"
I keep hearing good things about this movie. Might have to rent it.
Generals say most Iraqi's want us out. Okay guys let's pack up! Guys?
Here is where the administrations lies become completely transparent. The President has said numerous times that "we will stand down, when the Iraqi's can stand up". Well who determines when the Iraqi's can "stand up"? It seems that they think that day is imminent, but except for a couple of misleading reports about troop reduction, we don't really look like we are going anywhere do we? And then there is this item;
Two-thirds of those polled said they opposed the presence of US and coalition forces in Iraq, up 14 points from a similar survey taken in February 2004.
Nearly 60 per cent disapproved of the way the United States has operated in Iraq since the war began in March 2003, with most of those expressing "strong disapproval", the poll found.
Do you think that those who express "strong disapproval" might be willing to cause our soldiers harm? Yeah I kind of do too.
We are not going to get the kind of government that we want in Iraq. That just aint going to happen. And the harder we push the further away the Iraqi's will pull. I don't know what the evental outcome of this war will be, but I would be willing to bet that it will not be the shiny American loving democracy that the Bushies wanted.
And here is another evil thought. There is a very real possiblity that Saddam will not be convicted. If you have been watching the trial you must have noticed how he has been able to manipulate the judge and the t.v. coverage. If Saddam is acquitted then we are truly fucked! A free Saddam will be exactly the kind of threat that Bush imagined to justify this war in the first place. He will be bigger! He will be badder! And he will have the support of a number of nations that will make him, finally, the most dangerous man in the world! And it will be all our fault!
Two-thirds of those polled said they opposed the presence of US and coalition forces in Iraq, up 14 points from a similar survey taken in February 2004.
Nearly 60 per cent disapproved of the way the United States has operated in Iraq since the war began in March 2003, with most of those expressing "strong disapproval", the poll found.
Do you think that those who express "strong disapproval" might be willing to cause our soldiers harm? Yeah I kind of do too.
We are not going to get the kind of government that we want in Iraq. That just aint going to happen. And the harder we push the further away the Iraqi's will pull. I don't know what the evental outcome of this war will be, but I would be willing to bet that it will not be the shiny American loving democracy that the Bushies wanted.
And here is another evil thought. There is a very real possiblity that Saddam will not be convicted. If you have been watching the trial you must have noticed how he has been able to manipulate the judge and the t.v. coverage. If Saddam is acquitted then we are truly fucked! A free Saddam will be exactly the kind of threat that Bush imagined to justify this war in the first place. He will be bigger! He will be badder! And he will have the support of a number of nations that will make him, finally, the most dangerous man in the world! And it will be all our fault!
Things that I have learned this holiday season.
I learned that I am even more self-sufficient that I thought I was before. Especially where it concerns preparing Christmas for myself and my family.
I learned that long distance Christmas wishes are very unsatisfying. I need to hug these people!
I learned that there is a large contingent of Bush supporters in Australia! I was completely unaware of their existence! They have been kind enough to set me straight and now I have much research to do to expand my understanding of their causes.
I have learned that there is some real intelligence on the other side of the ideological fence and that I should respect, though not necessarily agree, with their points of view.
I have learned that I am not alone in celebrating Christmas as an atheist. (And some of them are Bush supporters! Go figure!)
I learned that this little site of mine is not just a place for me to vomit forth my frustrations and anger. It is also a place where I can educate others and also learn myself. This internet thing, she be pretty powerful!
I learned that 2006 is something to look forward to even more. (Because that is when the Democrats are going to take back the Senate and the House! Sorry Aussies I could not resist!)
I learned that long distance Christmas wishes are very unsatisfying. I need to hug these people!
I learned that there is a large contingent of Bush supporters in Australia! I was completely unaware of their existence! They have been kind enough to set me straight and now I have much research to do to expand my understanding of their causes.
I have learned that there is some real intelligence on the other side of the ideological fence and that I should respect, though not necessarily agree, with their points of view.
I have learned that I am not alone in celebrating Christmas as an atheist. (And some of them are Bush supporters! Go figure!)
I learned that this little site of mine is not just a place for me to vomit forth my frustrations and anger. It is also a place where I can educate others and also learn myself. This internet thing, she be pretty powerful!
I learned that 2006 is something to look forward to even more. (Because that is when the Democrats are going to take back the Senate and the House! Sorry Aussies I could not resist!)
Those crazy Jewish scholars thought that the story of Genesis was a dry read. They decided to spice it up with a little sex.
You see that cutie? That is Lilith. The early Jewish scholars thought that maybe Adam needed an ex-wife to make him a little more sympathetic. Apparently they broke up because Adam only wanted to do the nasty in the missionary position. I don't blame her.You know they used this legend to explain the vampire origins in some horror books. I can absolutely buy the idea that demonic bloodsuckers were brought to life by a hateful ex-wife.
Don't mind me, I have only had one cup of coffee this morning.
Sunday, December 25, 2005
Quiet please! We are busy digesting.
Well my first Christmas alone went off without a hitch. My turkey was moist and delicious, my potatoes were firm and fluffy, and my kitchen is sparkling clean again! All in all the day has been siezed!
My brother was late but that was not his fault. I am now full of turkey and wine and feeling satisfied and relieved. I hope that everybody out in the Blogiverse had an equally satisfying holiday. Remember every ending is a new beginning. Tomorrow is a bright new shiny day, I wonder what it will hold for me?
I wish you all peace.
My brother was late but that was not his fault. I am now full of turkey and wine and feeling satisfied and relieved. I hope that everybody out in the Blogiverse had an equally satisfying holiday. Remember every ending is a new beginning. Tomorrow is a bright new shiny day, I wonder what it will hold for me?
I wish you all peace.
The Great Red and Blue State Divide. Is there life after George W. Bush?
I have been the recepient of an unusual number of visitors of late. They are coming almost exclusively from a link placed on a right wing bloggers site called Tim Blair. Now I have to say that the few comments I have recieved from these individuals have been polite and respectful. This led me to wonder what is it that really causes our ideological differences?
To be brutally honest I usually assume that there is some intellectual disparity that seperates us. I know that seems sort of nasty to assume that those that do not agree with me are ignorant, but there you have it.
So suppose I am incorrect about that. Maybe there are just as many critical thinkers who support the war and George Bush as there are those who find them both wanting.
Then is it geography? Does living in a more southern clime make one more likely to support Republicans? I am having trouble buying that one, mostly because I notice that the posts have come from both northen and southern states.
Is it a deep Christian faith? I don't beleive so because I know that many of the people who agree with me idealogically are still people of faith.
Which just sort of leaves me confused. You see where I can understand that somebody may not agree with my taste in music, or that pizza is the most perfect food on the planet, or that Bruce Lee is the God of Martial Art movies, I find that I cannot wrap my head around how somebody can support this president. I just can't. For me there is just no gray area left.
So in the interest of enlightenment I ask for your comments. Go ahead and tell me how we can see the same information and come to completely different conclusions. I would only ask that you keep it civil. You know, for the kids.
To be brutally honest I usually assume that there is some intellectual disparity that seperates us. I know that seems sort of nasty to assume that those that do not agree with me are ignorant, but there you have it.
So suppose I am incorrect about that. Maybe there are just as many critical thinkers who support the war and George Bush as there are those who find them both wanting.
Then is it geography? Does living in a more southern clime make one more likely to support Republicans? I am having trouble buying that one, mostly because I notice that the posts have come from both northen and southern states.
Is it a deep Christian faith? I don't beleive so because I know that many of the people who agree with me idealogically are still people of faith.
Which just sort of leaves me confused. You see where I can understand that somebody may not agree with my taste in music, or that pizza is the most perfect food on the planet, or that Bruce Lee is the God of Martial Art movies, I find that I cannot wrap my head around how somebody can support this president. I just can't. For me there is just no gray area left.
So in the interest of enlightenment I ask for your comments. Go ahead and tell me how we can see the same information and come to completely different conclusions. I would only ask that you keep it civil. You know, for the kids.
You knew it was coming. Another popular God that I don't believe in and why.
If you are a very sensitive person with deep religious convictions do not read any further. Also if you are new to your faith and just now enjoying the sense of purpose that it has given you, then I suggest you skip this post and wait for something more political to come along.God, and his representative here on earth, Jesus Christ were my first introduction to the idea of divinity. They were on the television, in songs, on my money, and I was told in the hearts of many of my family members and friends.
I remember having doubts when I was very young. I think I was about eight when I began to question what I was being told in church. There is no loneliness like the loneliness of the unbelievers in church. It is like you can feel a spotlight following you and watching you pass the collection plate without adding money, and keeping your eyes open when asked to pray, and asking too many questions in Sunday school until you are asked to sit in the corner. Though outwardly you appear as everybody else, you feel that you are different. And it sucks.
These were the first steps on my journey. The journey toward what I hoped would be the truth.
I met a fellow from another country who had been raised with a completely different set of values and religious beliefs. I remember how amazed I was to be asked to explain who Jesus was and what our God looked like. The idea that not everybody knew our God was shocking to me. Those conversations altered my perspective forever.
As I grew older I availed myself of numerous resources found in the library within old dusty books. I read them, I compared their origins, I looked for unifying themes , and I looked for what set them apart. I took a college class called "Comparative Religious Studies", which opened my eyes to many things that had not occurred to me before. I read the Torah. I read the New Testament. I read the I-Ching. I read everything I could find.
I studied Philosophy. I studied Socrates, Plato, Nietzsche, Camus, Descartes, Confucius, and many, many more. I was always left with more questions then answers. I filled my head with different theories and points of view until I could barely sort through it all.
Then I stopped. I reached a point of complete saturation. I could take in no more. And I was no closer to the truth then the day I asked the first question. For an intellectually curious being like myself it was unbearably frustrating.
And still I struggled with the idea of God. If you imagine what it must have been like for primitive people, it is easy to understand how comforting it must have been to know that you were being watched over by a being of absolute power. To go into war believing that even if you fall you will be whisked away to a place of beauty and peace. To know, without a doubt, that you are one of the chosen, who's God is the real God, and that all other people are wrong and will suffer for their mistake. How empowering that must be. There were groups of these people all over the world. Each believing with the same certainty that they are correct. Each believing in an entirely different God. It was that understanding that answered my question.
Is the Christian God the right God? Not for me.
It has been my observation that people take more care in choosing the type of peanut butter that they feed their family then the type of religion that they choose to feed their faith. The majority of people join their local church. They attend the services that there friends and family attend. They believe the same as the other members of their community. How often do they stop to think. Not often. That would disrupt their feeling of safety. Safety is really the key. Safety and convenience. The question I always ask is "Would you still have your faith if you were born in a community that had a completely different religious belief then you do now?". If you ask yourself the question honestly then you come to a sobering revelation. Then ask yourself do you think that you were just one of the fortunate few who was born in a place where you had easy access to the truth? How did you get so lucky? Why are other faiths born so unlucky?
The Christian faith itself is really made up of a hodge-podge of different religious beliefs that were popular at the time. The idea of the virgin birth is similar to the one told about Buddha, and Alexander was also reputed to be born of a God and human union. It was not an unusual tactic to imbue your subject with divinity in an effort to get them to be taken more seriously by the common folk. The worshippers of Mithraism seemed to be the group most heavily borrowed from. A skeptic might come to the conclusion that these stories about Jesus were created simply to fool a gullible populace. The unfortunate thing about religious belief is that it cannot stand up against the harsh light of critical thought.
I have been asked why I don't just cover my bases and go to church to make sure that I will go to heaven when I die. Okay, which one? The one in my neighborhood? Should I assume that I am lucky enough to be placed in the vicinity of the correct church? Or am I expected to sift through the choices and come up with the truth by some sort of dumb luck? Perhaps the real religion is deep in the mountains someplace with only a handful of adherents. Or maybe I should just cling to a belief to give my life hope until I die, and then who cares anyway?
No. With all due respect to my friends with deeply held Christian beliefs I fear the Christian God is no more believable then the other Gods I have discussed on this website. Having read so much about early beliefs in spirits, and demons, and families of Gods, and then monotheistic beliefs, you reach a certain understanding. It all follows a particular evolution which eventually leads to the rejection of God in favor of intellect. All that we once attributed to magical beings is slowly revealed to be more complicated and grounded in observable natural phenomena. And then we, ourselves, become able to create life and answer the great questions which puzzled our ancestors so much.
Long winded aren't I? Now you might be tempted to make a couple of character assessments concerning my lack of a religious belief. You might be tempted to assume that I have no rules to live by, wrong! You might assume that I am frightened, wrong! You might believe that I live my life in despair, wrong! You might think that I think I have no purpose, also wrong!
I live my life with both eyes wide open and anxious to learn and experience as much as possible. I see my life as a gift and I have dedicated my life to helping children see that their life is also a gift and to find their true potential. It is very gratifying and it makes me feel necessary. I never inflict my viewpoint concerning religion on these children and allow them their own personal journey toward their religious beliefs. I read with fascination stories about scientific breakthroughs and believe that we have an obligation to discover all that we can about our planet, ourselves, and the universe we live in.
So once again, if Christianity is your religion of choice then I wish you well. I, in no way, wish to diminish your experience or faith. I respect your choices in life as long as they don't negatively impact myself or others. I hope that whatever your choice you have a long and happy life and continue to keep an open mind about the amazing possibilities that exist around us.
May your God bless you.
Rumsfeld prepares for his next job after he and the whole Bush administration are thrown out of office.
It is such a logical fit because he has so much experience shoveling manure for the Bush administration.I think that glass barrier is really there to keep the soldiers from going for his throat.
Saturday, December 24, 2005
The carol 'The Twelve Days of Christmas" isn't about Christmas. It's about sex!
I have no idea if this guy is on the level or not, but I love that headline and I needed another Christmas post.
The original "Embeds" talk about the Iraq War then and now.
Not surprisingly they find that things are much worse now then they were even during the initial fighting.
For Alexandra Zavis of the Associated Press -- who embedded with the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, then later covered Baghdad as a unilateral -- the story is similar. "I certainly didn't think it would be over in six weeks, but I don't think anyone foresaw this," she says. "It surprises me that every time I have gone back, it has gotten worse."
Rex Bowman, who served as the Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch's first war correspondent since the Civil War when he embedded in March 2003, contends that the full picture is being reported if people take the time to look. "I read plenty of stories with good news and plenty of stories with bad news," says Bowman, an Air Force veteran who was embedded with members of the 1st Marine Division. "I don't know how people can complain about that."
For Alexandra Zavis of the Associated Press -- who embedded with the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, then later covered Baghdad as a unilateral -- the story is similar. "I certainly didn't think it would be over in six weeks, but I don't think anyone foresaw this," she says. "It surprises me that every time I have gone back, it has gotten worse."
Rex Bowman, who served as the Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch's first war correspondent since the Civil War when he embedded in March 2003, contends that the full picture is being reported if people take the time to look. "I read plenty of stories with good news and plenty of stories with bad news," says Bowman, an Air Force veteran who was embedded with members of the 1st Marine Division. "I don't know how people can complain about that."
The NSA's own website says it is illegal to spy on Americans.
....how can Americans be sure that the Agency does not invade their privacy?
The 4th Amendment of the Constitution demands it... oversight committees within all three branches of the U.S. government ensure it... and NSA employees, as U.S. citizens, have a vested interest in upholding it. Respecting the law is only a part of gaining Americans' trust.
It is just amazing that the most damning statements come from their own mouths. President Bush has pressured our military, our espionage agencies, and our federal agencies to perform actions which will have a very damaging effect on their reputations for years to come. King George's cavalier attitude about our civil liberties and how we interact with the rest of the world has cost every bit of the good will that the government has had here at home and abroad.
I, and others, have said it before but it bears repeating, George Bush is the worst President in history!
The 4th Amendment of the Constitution demands it... oversight committees within all three branches of the U.S. government ensure it... and NSA employees, as U.S. citizens, have a vested interest in upholding it. Respecting the law is only a part of gaining Americans' trust.
It is just amazing that the most damning statements come from their own mouths. President Bush has pressured our military, our espionage agencies, and our federal agencies to perform actions which will have a very damaging effect on their reputations for years to come. King George's cavalier attitude about our civil liberties and how we interact with the rest of the world has cost every bit of the good will that the government has had here at home and abroad.
I, and others, have said it before but it bears repeating, George Bush is the worst President in history!
Update! Apparently the "Little Red Book" story has proved to be a hoax!
Anybody who read my post yesterday concerning the New Bedford college student who was visited by two federal agents because he had ordered Mao Tse-Tung's communist manifesto, should be made aware that the little prick made it up!
I, and many other sites, were completely sucked in by this story and understandably indignant concerning this attack on our freedom of choice. And while I am still very worried about our personal freedom in this country, apparently we can still sip russian vodka and read Mao Tse-Tung to our little socialists hearts desire.
This was actually brought to my attention when I noticed a number of visitors from a right wing blog called Tim Blair. Mr. Blair made the point that I and other liberal leaning blogs were easily tricked by this story and I would have to concur. I certainly was fooled by the news article, which I found in a number of sites that I trust, and only posted after reading the original news story .
I apologize to the visitors of this site, because though I am not a professional journalist I do try to present facts and informed opinion to the best of my ability. So once again I apologize and would like to thank Tim Blair for bringing this to my attention, although indirectly.
And to any right wingers who visited this site to check out our gullibility I would like to say, welcome! I certainly do not require that everybody who visits here is completely on my side on all issues. I have to imagine that I make most of the people who visit here a little uncomfortable at least once in a while. I am terribly opinionated and that is why I started the blog in the first place. If you do not agree with me that is fine, no hard feelings.
Merry Christmas!
I, and many other sites, were completely sucked in by this story and understandably indignant concerning this attack on our freedom of choice. And while I am still very worried about our personal freedom in this country, apparently we can still sip russian vodka and read Mao Tse-Tung to our little socialists hearts desire.
This was actually brought to my attention when I noticed a number of visitors from a right wing blog called Tim Blair. Mr. Blair made the point that I and other liberal leaning blogs were easily tricked by this story and I would have to concur. I certainly was fooled by the news article, which I found in a number of sites that I trust, and only posted after reading the original news story .
I apologize to the visitors of this site, because though I am not a professional journalist I do try to present facts and informed opinion to the best of my ability. So once again I apologize and would like to thank Tim Blair for bringing this to my attention, although indirectly.
And to any right wingers who visited this site to check out our gullibility I would like to say, welcome! I certainly do not require that everybody who visits here is completely on my side on all issues. I have to imagine that I make most of the people who visit here a little uncomfortable at least once in a while. I am terribly opinionated and that is why I started the blog in the first place. If you do not agree with me that is fine, no hard feelings.
Merry Christmas!
Iran is just tickled pink with the work that we have done in Iraq. Was this the plan? Did I miss a memo or something?
The editorial of Iran’s leading hard-line daily hailed the outcome of Iraq’s parliamentary elections as “the creation of the first Islamist state in the Arab world”, and warned against “American plots” to prevent the formation of the new Iraqi government by Iranian-backed Shiite groups.
“Of the 275 seats in Iraq’s new parliament, 140 will belong to pious Islamists, 60 will be occupied by Kurds with excellent ties with Iran, and 40 will belong to Sunni Arabs, most of whom want a sovereign, Islamist state”, the daily Kayhan’s Saturday editorial noted. “The new government – including the President, the Prime Minister, the cabinet, the armed forces and the judiciary – will emerge from this new assembly”.
Well thank god our soldiers did not die in vain. Their sacrifice will help to ensure that there is another powerful Anti-American Islamic nation in the middle east that will continue to reject our satanic western influences for decades to come. I wonder if they will make a national holiday to honor the dead American soldiers who helped them to achieve their goals.
If you set out to write a movie about an incompetent president waging an ill conceived war with disasterous consequences, how could you improve on the reality of this boondoggle? Some days I cannot decide if I should laugh or cry.
“Of the 275 seats in Iraq’s new parliament, 140 will belong to pious Islamists, 60 will be occupied by Kurds with excellent ties with Iran, and 40 will belong to Sunni Arabs, most of whom want a sovereign, Islamist state”, the daily Kayhan’s Saturday editorial noted. “The new government – including the President, the Prime Minister, the cabinet, the armed forces and the judiciary – will emerge from this new assembly”.
Well thank god our soldiers did not die in vain. Their sacrifice will help to ensure that there is another powerful Anti-American Islamic nation in the middle east that will continue to reject our satanic western influences for decades to come. I wonder if they will make a national holiday to honor the dead American soldiers who helped them to achieve their goals.
If you set out to write a movie about an incompetent president waging an ill conceived war with disasterous consequences, how could you improve on the reality of this boondoggle? Some days I cannot decide if I should laugh or cry.
More civilians die as the U.S. continues to deliver Democracy on the tip of a spear.
U.S. Marine airstrikes targeting insurgents sheltering in Iraqi residential neighborhoods are killing civilians as well as guerrillas along the Euphrates River in far western Iraq, according to Iraqi townspeople and officials and the U.S. military.
Just how many civilians have been killed is strongly disputed by the Marines and, some critics say, too little investigated. But townspeople, tribal leaders, medical workers and accounts from witnesses at the sites of clashes, at hospitals and at graveyards indicated that scores of noncombatants were killed last month in fighting, including airstrikes, in the opening stages of a 17-day U.S.-Iraqi offensive in Anbar province.
"These people died silently, complaining to God of a guilt they did not commit," Zahid Mohammed Rawi, a physician, said in the town of Husaybah. Rawi said that roughly one week into Operation Steel Curtain, which began on Nov. 5, medical workers had recorded 97 civilians killed. At least 38 insurgents were also killed in the offensive's early days, Rawi said.
Regardless of whether you support the decision to go to war or not, I find it mind numbing that anybody can support this. In an honorable war you battle soldiers. You do not kill their children!
The idea that we are going to win allies in these regions is laughable to me. Just ask yourself how cozy you would get with the people who desroyed your home and killed your family. The Bush administration has ensured that we will be hated for several generations to come. I have no doubt that there are many willing suicide bombers in these provinces just waiting to be recruited.
By the way if we were wrong about the WMD's, which was the supposed reason that we went into Iraq, then why are we still killing? The President himself admitted that the reasons we went into war turned out to be wrong. Doesn't that demand that we stop? If we were not justified in going to war then isn't every single death that resulted from that decision murder? And using that same line of logic, are we not still simply murdering these innocent people? Even the ones that are shooting back at us?
I am not a murderer. I do not want my country to engage in murder. The immorality of this is overwhelming to me. I imagine there are those who would say that my thinking is too simplistic and that I am just not being realistic. Okay then educate me. Because as I prepare to celebrate a time of joy and peace in my cozy home I can't stop thinking about the horrible devastation that my country is inflicting on a nation that did not cause me, my family, or my country an ounce of pain. But what we are doing there, that does cause me pain.
Just how many civilians have been killed is strongly disputed by the Marines and, some critics say, too little investigated. But townspeople, tribal leaders, medical workers and accounts from witnesses at the sites of clashes, at hospitals and at graveyards indicated that scores of noncombatants were killed last month in fighting, including airstrikes, in the opening stages of a 17-day U.S.-Iraqi offensive in Anbar province.
"These people died silently, complaining to God of a guilt they did not commit," Zahid Mohammed Rawi, a physician, said in the town of Husaybah. Rawi said that roughly one week into Operation Steel Curtain, which began on Nov. 5, medical workers had recorded 97 civilians killed. At least 38 insurgents were also killed in the offensive's early days, Rawi said.
Regardless of whether you support the decision to go to war or not, I find it mind numbing that anybody can support this. In an honorable war you battle soldiers. You do not kill their children!
The idea that we are going to win allies in these regions is laughable to me. Just ask yourself how cozy you would get with the people who desroyed your home and killed your family. The Bush administration has ensured that we will be hated for several generations to come. I have no doubt that there are many willing suicide bombers in these provinces just waiting to be recruited.
By the way if we were wrong about the WMD's, which was the supposed reason that we went into Iraq, then why are we still killing? The President himself admitted that the reasons we went into war turned out to be wrong. Doesn't that demand that we stop? If we were not justified in going to war then isn't every single death that resulted from that decision murder? And using that same line of logic, are we not still simply murdering these innocent people? Even the ones that are shooting back at us?
I am not a murderer. I do not want my country to engage in murder. The immorality of this is overwhelming to me. I imagine there are those who would say that my thinking is too simplistic and that I am just not being realistic. Okay then educate me. Because as I prepare to celebrate a time of joy and peace in my cozy home I can't stop thinking about the horrible devastation that my country is inflicting on a nation that did not cause me, my family, or my country an ounce of pain. But what we are doing there, that does cause me pain.
Did you make or receive a phone call from oversees? Then you my friend got spied on by your very own government.
This thing is huge! If this does not get Bush impeached then we are all a bunch of spineless idiots.
Friday, December 23, 2005
Hey, you guys were right. He is back!
A Manhattan man's holiday spirits soared to celestial heights Friday when a judge gave him permission to change his name to Jesus Christ. Jose Luis Espinal, 42, of Washington Heights, said he was "happy" and "grateful" that the judge approved the change, effective immediately. Espinal said he was moved to seek the name change about a year ago when it dawned on him, "I am the person that is that name."
Damn this sure going to complicate Christmas! Somebody get out that book and let's see what happens next. I bet that all of the religions unite and we learn to live in peace on this planet. Well I can hardly wait for that.
Damn this sure going to complicate Christmas! Somebody get out that book and let's see what happens next. I bet that all of the religions unite and we learn to live in peace on this planet. Well I can hardly wait for that.
You better sit down this might shock you. Bush lied!
The Bush administration requested, and Congress rejected, war-making authority "in the United States" in negotiations over the joint resolution passed days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to an opinion article by former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) in today's Washington Post.
Daschle's disclosure challenges a central legal argument offered by the White House in defense of the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. It suggests that Congress refused explicitly to grant authority that the Bush administration now asserts is implicit in the resolution.
I swear if this keeps up I am going to completely lose my trust of government.
Daschle's disclosure challenges a central legal argument offered by the White House in defense of the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. It suggests that Congress refused explicitly to grant authority that the Bush administration now asserts is implicit in the resolution.
I swear if this keeps up I am going to completely lose my trust of government.
Ted Stevens is going to go tattle on the other Senators. I believe that Uncle Ted may be revisiting his "Terrible two's".
When the Senate on Wednesday rejected his plan to open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, the 82-year-old senator, undoubtedly one of the nation's most powerful, called it "the saddest day of my life." But he fumed at those who had voted against him: "I'm going to go to every one of your states, and I'm going to tell them what you've done!"
You know just when I think that I could not get any prouder.
"I am going to tell on you poo-poo heads! I am going to tell your constich....uh..constitu....I am going to tell the people who voted for you that you took away my oil! That is my oil! Not the stupid caribou's oil!"
You think maybe his diaper was a little too tight?
You know just when I think that I could not get any prouder.
"I am going to tell on you poo-poo heads! I am going to tell your constich....uh..constitu....I am going to tell the people who voted for you that you took away my oil! That is my oil! Not the stupid caribou's oil!"
You think maybe his diaper was a little too tight?
Substitue teacher tells kids "There is no Santa Claus. And your parents are not really wrestling at night either."
Theresa Farrisi stood in for Schaeffer’s regular music teacher one day last week. One of her assignments was to read Clement C. Moore’s famous poem, “A Visit from Saint Nicholas” to a first-grade class at Lickdale Elementary School.
“The poem has great literary value, but it goes against my conscience to teach something which I know to be false to children, who are impressionable,” said Farrisi, 43, of Myerstown. “It’s a story. I taught it as a story. There’s no real person called Santa Claus living at the North Pole.”
Farrisi doesn’t believe in Santa Claus, and she doesn’t think anyone else should, either. She made her feelings clear to the classroom full of 6- and 7-year-olds, some of whom went home crying.
Whoa! What the hell!
Okay kids listen to your Uncle Gryphen. Santa Claus is real! It is President Bush who is make believe! Okay!
You know I have worked with children my entire adult life and I know what an emotional minefield it can be to work with a room full of children with different beliefs when it comes to Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, whether or not Social Security will be there for them when they retire, etc., etc.. You have to be hyper sensitive to the needs of the children in your care. My basic rule is to never disagree with Mommy and Daddy. No matter how incredibly stupid the parents are you have to back them up.
"Well Johhny I guess if your Daddy told you that babies come from drinking too much beer then he probably knows what he is talking about."
Don't worry about them there are plenty of therapists and mind altering substances to get them through their adult years. You can't save the world. (Did this post just go to a dark place?)
There is no reason to fear the Patriot Act. Unless you want to read a book. Then you are screwed!
A senior at UMass Dartmouth was visited by federal agents two months ago, after he requested a copy of Mao Tse-Tung's tome on Communism called "The Little Red Book." Two history professors at UMass Dartmouth, Brian Glyn Williams and Robert Pontbriand, said the student told them he requested the book through the UMass Dartmouth library's interlibrary loan program.
The student, who was completing a research paper on Communism for Professor Pontbriand's class on fascism and totalitarianism, filled out a form for the request, leaving his name, address, phone number and Social Security number. He was later visited at his parents' home in New Bedford by two agents of the Department of Homeland Security, the professors said.
The professors said the student was told by the agents that the book is on a "watch list," and that his background, which included significant time abroad, triggered them to investigate the student further.
Okay now if that did not make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up then you need to read it again. At the risk of being visited by our own little gang of fascists I will admit to having read some of the "Little Red Book" myself. I remember I got bored and then picked up a copy of "Penthouse letters" so my memories of it might be a little jumbled. Let's see if I remember any of the quotes accurately;
“Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed. Then the doorbell rang, and you answered it not bothering to finish buttoning your blouse. It was the cute pizza guy. He asked, with a sly smile, "Did you order the pizza with extra sausage?"
Or something like that, I am paraphrasing of course.
Now at the risk of alienating the seven visitors that my poor little website attracts I feel I must go on record and ask, what is the big fucking deal about Communism? I know it is the big Capitalistic bug-a-boo and that it has been scaring the living shit out of our government for over fifty years but I just don't understandhow it threatens our open and free society. (Look I said that without a hint of irony!)
If we are all secure in the knowledge that our political system is "all that and a bag of chips", then how can the learning of alternative government philosophies going to threaten us? It shouldn't! The McCarthy hearings tore this country apart in the fifties and destroyed the careers of some of our greatest intellects. And for what? Is our government on such shaky ground that a conflicting viewpoint might tear the foundation right from under it? If that is indeed the case then we better start looking for a better form of government today.
I am fine with a democratic government. And when we actually get one I am going to be thrilled.
So if there are any CIA operatives reading this post I have just one question for you. Where do you guys get those really cool "Men in Black" shades?
The student, who was completing a research paper on Communism for Professor Pontbriand's class on fascism and totalitarianism, filled out a form for the request, leaving his name, address, phone number and Social Security number. He was later visited at his parents' home in New Bedford by two agents of the Department of Homeland Security, the professors said.
The professors said the student was told by the agents that the book is on a "watch list," and that his background, which included significant time abroad, triggered them to investigate the student further.
Okay now if that did not make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up then you need to read it again. At the risk of being visited by our own little gang of fascists I will admit to having read some of the "Little Red Book" myself. I remember I got bored and then picked up a copy of "Penthouse letters" so my memories of it might be a little jumbled. Let's see if I remember any of the quotes accurately;
“Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed. Then the doorbell rang, and you answered it not bothering to finish buttoning your blouse. It was the cute pizza guy. He asked, with a sly smile, "Did you order the pizza with extra sausage?"
Or something like that, I am paraphrasing of course.
Now at the risk of alienating the seven visitors that my poor little website attracts I feel I must go on record and ask, what is the big fucking deal about Communism? I know it is the big Capitalistic bug-a-boo and that it has been scaring the living shit out of our government for over fifty years but I just don't understandhow it threatens our open and free society. (Look I said that without a hint of irony!)
If we are all secure in the knowledge that our political system is "all that and a bag of chips", then how can the learning of alternative government philosophies going to threaten us? It shouldn't! The McCarthy hearings tore this country apart in the fifties and destroyed the careers of some of our greatest intellects. And for what? Is our government on such shaky ground that a conflicting viewpoint might tear the foundation right from under it? If that is indeed the case then we better start looking for a better form of government today.
I am fine with a democratic government. And when we actually get one I am going to be thrilled.
So if there are any CIA operatives reading this post I have just one question for you. Where do you guys get those really cool "Men in Black" shades?
Elementary school bans Christmas trees and songs from "Jesus Christ Superstar". What? No Showtunes? Why the hate for the gay kids?
Some parents are scratching their heads after school administrators insisted students call a Christmas tree a "magical tree," the color red was removed from green and red elf hats, and songs from "Jesus Christ Superstar," were pulled from a winter concert.
As an unofficial, self appointed, pseudo intellect for the other side I would just like to say that this is stupid! Was that too intellectual?
Look I understand the need to be sensitive to the multiple religious beliefs of all of the children attending a public school. I get that! But really what does the freaking Christmas tree have to do with the Jesus? Nothing. Christmas is the most commericalized, capitalist friendly holiday on the planet! There is so little religion left in this thing that the guys at CSI would be hard pressed to identify it.
Isn't that what the Christians are so puckered up about? Look we can call it a magical tree, a holiday tree, santa's present dumping station, but nobody is being fooled! It is a freaking Christmas tree! And red and green are outlawed? If we are going to be forbidding colors then I nominate pink. I fucking hate pink!
And what about "Jesus Christ Superstar"? That is a great musical! I am an athiest and it is still probably my all time favorite. And as for it being too religious, I would like to point out that in almost every venue that the musical is put on that at least one local church finds it necessary to picket the place because of the way that Jesus is portrayed. So clearly this is not embraced by all members of Christianity. Besides it may be the first time for a sexually confused little boy to learn the words to "I don't know how to love him."
So I am on the side of the Christians on this one. Try not to have a seizure.
However, since I agree with you on this I want you to leave Halloween alone. If we can celebrate the birth of your diety then you should leave the Wiccans and Neo-pagans alone as they pay homage to their pantheon of minor dieties. It just seems fair.
In the immortal words of one Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?".
Peace out.
As an unofficial, self appointed, pseudo intellect for the other side I would just like to say that this is stupid! Was that too intellectual?
Look I understand the need to be sensitive to the multiple religious beliefs of all of the children attending a public school. I get that! But really what does the freaking Christmas tree have to do with the Jesus? Nothing. Christmas is the most commericalized, capitalist friendly holiday on the planet! There is so little religion left in this thing that the guys at CSI would be hard pressed to identify it.
Isn't that what the Christians are so puckered up about? Look we can call it a magical tree, a holiday tree, santa's present dumping station, but nobody is being fooled! It is a freaking Christmas tree! And red and green are outlawed? If we are going to be forbidding colors then I nominate pink. I fucking hate pink!
And what about "Jesus Christ Superstar"? That is a great musical! I am an athiest and it is still probably my all time favorite. And as for it being too religious, I would like to point out that in almost every venue that the musical is put on that at least one local church finds it necessary to picket the place because of the way that Jesus is portrayed. So clearly this is not embraced by all members of Christianity. Besides it may be the first time for a sexually confused little boy to learn the words to "I don't know how to love him."
So I am on the side of the Christians on this one. Try not to have a seizure.
However, since I agree with you on this I want you to leave Halloween alone. If we can celebrate the birth of your diety then you should leave the Wiccans and Neo-pagans alone as they pay homage to their pantheon of minor dieties. It just seems fair.
In the immortal words of one Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?".
Peace out.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
If Bush is right, and spying on Americans is perfectly legal, then how come the judges on his secret court are meeting to determine if it was legal?
The presiding judge of a secret court that oversees government surveillance in espionage and terrorism cases is arranging a classified briefing for her fellow judges to address their concerns about the legality of President Bush's domestic spying program, according to several intelligence and government sources.
Several members of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said in interviews that they want to know why the administration believed secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails of U.S. citizens without court authorization was legal. Some of the judges said they are particularly concerned that information gleaned from the president's eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to gain authorized wiretaps from their court.
Well this just keeps getting better and better. When your secret judges from your very own espionage courts are worried that you might have broken the law, then you have to know that the hot water you are in just went up several degrees. (God I love a good run-on sentence!)
Well let's give the President the benefit of the doubt here. Maybe the restrictions of this court were just too stringent to get wiretaps okayed expediently.
One government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the administration complained bitterly that the FISA process demanded too much: to name a target and give a reason to spy on it.
Okay well that doesn't seem like that would be that hard to work around. What could be the other reason? I know you are dying to know what my guess is, aren't you? Okay here it is. I think that whoever they wanted wiretaps against was not somebody that the courts would have agreed with. Now who could that be? I cannot imagine that the courts would not okay a legitimate wiretap against a potential threat to this country. So I would have to imagine that the wiretaps were for the phones of individuals that the administration wanted to listen in on but did not fall into the category of a threat. Like maybe a political adversary? Or an overly zealous news reporter? Or maybe a highly intelligent political blogger? Uh....hold on....I have to...uh check my phones real quick.
Several members of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said in interviews that they want to know why the administration believed secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails of U.S. citizens without court authorization was legal. Some of the judges said they are particularly concerned that information gleaned from the president's eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to gain authorized wiretaps from their court.
Well this just keeps getting better and better. When your secret judges from your very own espionage courts are worried that you might have broken the law, then you have to know that the hot water you are in just went up several degrees. (God I love a good run-on sentence!)
Well let's give the President the benefit of the doubt here. Maybe the restrictions of this court were just too stringent to get wiretaps okayed expediently.
One government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the administration complained bitterly that the FISA process demanded too much: to name a target and give a reason to spy on it.
Okay well that doesn't seem like that would be that hard to work around. What could be the other reason? I know you are dying to know what my guess is, aren't you? Okay here it is. I think that whoever they wanted wiretaps against was not somebody that the courts would have agreed with. Now who could that be? I cannot imagine that the courts would not okay a legitimate wiretap against a potential threat to this country. So I would have to imagine that the wiretaps were for the phones of individuals that the administration wanted to listen in on but did not fall into the category of a threat. Like maybe a political adversary? Or an overly zealous news reporter? Or maybe a highly intelligent political blogger? Uh....hold on....I have to...uh check my phones real quick.
Coming soon to a religious bookstore near you. The Flying Spaghetti Monster Bible.
Though this is not part of my ongoing quest for the perfect God I thought it deserved a mention.
I love this guy!
Senator Ted Stevens quotes. Get your Ted Stevens quotes here!
Look how nice and gentle he looks in this picture. Kind of deceiving isn't it?Weighty policy matters hang in limbo on the eve of a midterm election year. A spending bill containing money for the military and Gulf Coast hurricane recovery also now includes a provision to allow Arctic oil drilling - a recent addition by Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, that has infuriated senators of both parties. The move would force lawmakers to vote for the package or be accused of withholding support for U.S. troops and storm victims.
"
I hope the good lord will help me keep my temper," Stevens, the one wearing the Incredible Hulk necktie, said just before Democrats and two Republicans blocked a vote on the package.
Tossing a glance across the aisle at Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who had denounced the drilling measure, Stevens grumbled, "I asked for his apology once; I wouldn't accept it now."
Stevens then threatened to keep the Senate in session through New Year's Day until the matter is settled. It wouldn't be the first time he rang in a new year on the Senate floor, he said.
Some lawmakers said they were outraged as much by Stevens' procedural hardball as by the prospect of oil and gas exploration in the Arctic.
"Shame!" scolded the dean of the Senate, Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va.
Oh those quotes are just Ted-elicious! So do you think that Uncle Ted is going to get coal in his stocking this Christmas or what?
You know I bet that all he really needs is a hug. Go ahead hug him. Just don't show any fear I hear he bites!
Another Bush success turns to shit!
Dozens of Sunni Arab and secular Shiite groups threatened to boycott
Iraq''s new legislature Thursday if complaints about tainted voting are not reviewed by an international body.
A representative for former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi described the Dec. 15 vote as "fraudulent" and the elected lawmakers "illegitimate."
Uh oh! This does not look good! I mean how could our country not successfully bring democracy to another country when we are so democratic our own darn selves? I mean do we have corruption? Do we have exit polls that do not match election results? Do we have lingering questions about the legality of elections years after the polls have closed? Do we allow religious groups to bully through their single issue candidates and place them on the ticket? Do we?
Do you really need me to answer that?
Iraq''s new legislature Thursday if complaints about tainted voting are not reviewed by an international body.
A representative for former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi described the Dec. 15 vote as "fraudulent" and the elected lawmakers "illegitimate."
Uh oh! This does not look good! I mean how could our country not successfully bring democracy to another country when we are so democratic our own darn selves? I mean do we have corruption? Do we have exit polls that do not match election results? Do we have lingering questions about the legality of elections years after the polls have closed? Do we allow religious groups to bully through their single issue candidates and place them on the ticket? Do we?
Do you really need me to answer that?
The Worm may be turning as Abramoff eyes a Plea Deal. Do you hear that sound? That is Tom Delay's asshole puckering up.
Jack Abramoff, the Republican lobbyist under indictment for fraud in South Florida, is expected to complete a plea agreement in the Miami criminal case, setting the stage for him to become a crucial witness in a broad federal corruption investigation, people with direct knowledge of the case said.
The good news for the White House just keeps on coming doesn't it? I would have to imagine that there is not one Republican Senator who has not discovered religion at this point. They say there are no Athiests in foxholes.
Jingle hell
Jingle hell
Abramoffs going to sing.
Dive in the grass
And cover your ass
Cause in jail it's going to sting.
(My apologies to Christmas carolers everywhere.)
The good news for the White House just keeps on coming doesn't it? I would have to imagine that there is not one Republican Senator who has not discovered religion at this point. They say there are no Athiests in foxholes.
Jingle hell
Jingle hell
Abramoffs going to sing.
Dive in the grass
And cover your ass
Cause in jail it's going to sting.
(My apologies to Christmas carolers everywhere.)
A Christmas Memory.
The little family in the picture is my family.The dark, good looking gentleman is my father.
At the time of the picture we had not seen him for almost two years. After he left that night we did not see him again for another three. He was not so much my father as the face in a picture and an emptiness in my heart.
He passed away one year ago today.
Though I did get to know him a little better as we got older he always remained an enigma to me. The man whose features look back at me in the mirror never really knew his children. I believe he loved us but was unable to show his love. As the years went by he could not speak to us on the phone without sobbing.
His alcoholism ended his life at a much too young sixty three.
Whenever I imagine my father, I think of this picture. This captures exactly how he made us feel when we were children. My brother and sister's sense of abondonment makes them cling to each other in his presence and I stand uncomfortably sorting through my emotions. I wanted to hug him but I guess I knew he was going to break my heart again. And I was right.
As an adult I desperately wanted to get closer and to understand....why? But he could not have answered me. Because he did not know. I wrote him a letter once that asked many questions about those days and why he did not visit us more often. He acted like he never received it. So I just pretended the same.
So good-bye Dad. No hard feelings. In many ways the parent you were not, made me the parent that I am. So I guess I owe you that.
I love you. I wish I could have told you that.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
This is the scariest Santa ever!
Holy Crap!If this doesn't put you off of candy canes I don't know what will.
Who looks to this guy for spiritual advice? Creepy as shit!
The Republican talking point that says both Carter and Clinton signed Executive orders allowing spying on Americans is a LIE!
What Clinton actually signed:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.
What Carter’s executive order actually says:
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” So again, no U.S. persons are involved.
So class are there any questions? I didn't think so.
And to my Republican friends (which admittedly I don't really have many) I ask you this,
Is that all you got! No really, bring it on! Show me how a president that I respected betrayed my trust and threw the Consitiution out of the window. I double dog dare you!
(I had a Ralphie from "The Christmas Story" moment there. Sorry.)
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.
What Carter’s executive order actually says:
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” So again, no U.S. persons are involved.
So class are there any questions? I didn't think so.
And to my Republican friends (which admittedly I don't really have many) I ask you this,
Is that all you got! No really, bring it on! Show me how a president that I respected betrayed my trust and threw the Consitiution out of the window. I double dog dare you!
(I had a Ralphie from "The Christmas Story" moment there. Sorry.)
Plamegate investigation will not stop with Rove, lawyers say. Really, who else could Fitzgerald be after? Could it be....I don't know...Cheney?
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is not expected to shut down his investigation into the leak of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson when he finishes his inquiry of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove's role in the leak, lawyers close to the probe said.Individuals close to the probe say Fitzgerald is still investigating other unnamed White House officials. This part of the investigation, like that of Rove, is focusing on whether these officials committed perjury, obstruction of justice or lied to federal investigators during the early days of the investigation -- as opposed to violating an obscure law which makes it a crime to knowingly leak the name of an undercover CIA operative -- they say.
Hee hee hee! Who do you think the "unnamed White House officials"are? It has got to be Cheney! Or...it could be....dare I say it....Bush! Is that even possible? Could Bush be tried for perjury? No way my life could go that well. Maybe if I asked Santa.
Merry Fitzmas to all!
ANWR remains locked up tight. Uh oh Uncle Ted must be so pissed!
The Senate blocked an attempt to open an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling Wednesday, foiling an attempt by drilling backers to force the measure through Congress as part of a must-have defense spending bill.
It was a stinging defeat for Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, one of the Senate's most powerful members, who had given senators a choice to support the Alaska drilling measure, or risk the political fallout of voting against money for American troops and for victims of Hurricane Katrina.
Democrats accused Stevens, the senior Republican in the Senate, of holding the defense bill hostage to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Gee thanks Ted for making all of us Alaskans look like unsympathetic assholes just looking to take advantage of the misery of others to line our own pockets. I do so appreciate your buffoonish behavior lately. Do us all a favor and just quit okay?
During the vote, Stevens, 82, who had fought to open the refuge to drilling since 1980 and is the most senior Republican in the Senate, sat unsmiling in a chair midway back in the chamber, watching his colleagues vote. When it became apparent that he had lost, he briefly talked with Frist, presumably over what move should be taken next. He briefly shook his head, a signal of his disappointment.
Actually that is fairly restrained for Senator Stevens, he is not known for taking defeat very well. I think he may have another trick up his sleeve. Stay tuned kiddies!
It was a stinging defeat for Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, one of the Senate's most powerful members, who had given senators a choice to support the Alaska drilling measure, or risk the political fallout of voting against money for American troops and for victims of Hurricane Katrina.
Democrats accused Stevens, the senior Republican in the Senate, of holding the defense bill hostage to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Gee thanks Ted for making all of us Alaskans look like unsympathetic assholes just looking to take advantage of the misery of others to line our own pockets. I do so appreciate your buffoonish behavior lately. Do us all a favor and just quit okay?
During the vote, Stevens, 82, who had fought to open the refuge to drilling since 1980 and is the most senior Republican in the Senate, sat unsmiling in a chair midway back in the chamber, watching his colleagues vote. When it became apparent that he had lost, he briefly talked with Frist, presumably over what move should be taken next. He briefly shook his head, a signal of his disappointment.
Actually that is fairly restrained for Senator Stevens, he is not known for taking defeat very well. I think he may have another trick up his sleeve. Stay tuned kiddies!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)