There is paranoia abound lately over Christian fears of secular Atheists' destruction of baby Jesus' manger and "his" holiday of Christmas. Most of these people are like Jerry Falwell, scrapping for headlines and searching for further "proof" of the "war against Christ in America". Of course, he is fat and retarded and has no idea what he is talking about since the conservative religious Republicans hold the White House, the House and the Senate, leaving the liberals little power to "destroy Christmas". People such as Falwell and every Christian blogger from Idaho to Georgia think that Christmas is a Christian holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus and, thus, the start of Christianity, which they assume is the religion to which all Americans belong. As always, they are wrong.
Earliest examples of "Christmas" were practiced as long as 4000 years ago by Babylonians as a celebration of a 12 day New Year festival honoring the god Marduk. Also called Sacaea by the Persians, these celebrations involved holiday feasts, giving gifts, and caroling.
The Roman Pagan celebration of Saturnalia started in the middle of December and lasted until January 1st. This was a celebration of the solstice, marking the Sun's return. The exchange of gifts, decoration of homes with greenery, feasts, and the suspension of private and public business marked this celebration. Once Christianity began to spread throughout the Empire, Pagan and Christian societies began to merge and the prosecution of Christians decreased. During the reign of Constantine (a sun worshiper), Pope Julius I moved Christmas from January 6th (Epiphany) to December 25th, which was the Pagan Deus Sol Invictus, or the birthday of the unconquered Sun god. Sun god. Son of God. Not a huge leap of faith for these early Christians assuming the Latin words for "son" and "sun" sound as similar as they do in English--but really, who speaks Latin? This is where Christmas started to take on some of the traditions and meanings that we see today. Still, these events are not the only things that contribute to Christmas as we know it.
Yule or Yuletide was the Pagan winter solstice celebration which in the Julian calendar was December 25th and Gregorian calendar December 21st. The Scandinavians and Germanic tribes of Northern Europe celebrated this as the return of the sun from the long dark winter nights. Trees were decorated with candles, holly decorated doors, a Yule log was burned, and feasts were prepared along with the sacrifice of a pig, which is where we get the traditional Christmas ham. The mistletoe was used in both Norse and Druid celebrations. Obviously, as Christianity spread in this region, Scandinavian seasonal celebrations merged with the Roman's Pagan/Christian winter solstice holiday. It must also be noted that Odin, the primary figure in Norse mythology, had a hat and a big white beard had a flying 8 legged Horse instead of 8 flying reindeer. Odin at one point also had hung from a tree and had a spear wound not unlike the fate of Jesus.
One other reason that Christmas is not a Christian holiday is that Jesus was not born on December 25th, nor is there really any proof that he was born in Bethlehem in a cold manger. Every Biblical scholar knows that if Jesus was born when "shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night." that this would have to have been between the months of March and November as it would have been too cold for the shepherds to have still been there at night in the cold rainy season. Since we know Jesus was born 6 months after John the Baptist and we know he was born in late March or early April, Jesus had to have been born in late September or early October at the latest.
Christmas has really always been a celebration of winter solstice, it’s just that in our calendar it is 4 days off the mark due to the difference in the Julian and Gregorian calendars. Just as they did with the once secular pledge of allegiance and our currency, Christians stole Christmas and made it their own, adding the nativity scene and Jesus' birthday. Somehow, secular Americans are the assholes when we merely try to take the pledge, our dollar bill, or Christmas back to its original incarnation.
My Father is an Atheist, my Mom is a Christian who doesn't believe Christmas is Jesus' birthday, and I am Agnostic. We all welcome Christmas as a time for sharing and togetherness, not the birth of baby Jesus in his manger. What does a Christmas tree have to do with the birth of your savior? What does getting your kid the new X-box have to do with Christianity? Nothing. And you know who else thought this way? The Puritans.
That’s right, about the time they started burning witches, Puritans in New England outlawed the Christmas celebration. Christmas, The Mass of Christ, was considered to be a Catholic holiday which had nothing to do with the actual birth or birth day of Christ so they therefore outlawed the Pagan traditions of decorating trees and caroling. Since they believed that the Christmas celebration and the birth of Christ was completely separate, Christmas was outlawed in Boston from 1659-1681 and the Colleges in New England didn't even start observing Christmas until about 1847. Christmas was not declared a federal holiday until 1870.
For these right wing nut jobs to say that December 25th, and all that is associated with that day, is purely Christian, is ludicrous. So when they say that the secular Christ-haters are trying to destroy Christianity when we call it the holidays and not Christmas, tell them that you think it's ironic that someone who thinks that America was founded by Puritans is so intent on going against Puritan beliefs, which were anti-Christmas. You can also tell them that you find it ironic that the same people who are trying to censor the internet, cable TV, song lyrics and art are offended when someone tries to censor their 1st amendment rights.
No one wants to destroy Christmas, you are paranoid. Who doesn't want a couple of days off work every year to hang out with family and friends to eat, drink, be merry and get presents?We just realize that roughly 23% of the US is not Christian; you cannot simply bully minorities because you outnumber them. We realize that all the traditions of Christmas, except going to mass, are secular. We realize that like the Pledge of Allegiance and US currency it has been adopted by Christianity, not the other way around.
So if some Jews in your town don't want The Night Christ was Born playing at the town hall manger, get over it. Go home and play your own Christmas music; you are free to do so. You wouldn't like it if you were forced to fast for Ramadan would you?
Sources: Holidays.net, History Channel, Wikipedia, Pantheon.org, World Wide Church of God (wcg.org) , Religioustolerance.org, All about Jesus Christ
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Thursday, December 08, 2005
How Not to Get Shot by Air Marshals
CNN's Anderson Cooper, is going to run a segment tonight asking, "could the shooting have been avoided?", yes of course it could have; here is how:
How to avoid being shot by an air marshal:
1. Don't run towards a bunch of air marshals holding guns while screaming that you have a bomb in your bag.
2. If you are a vaguely foreign looking guy with an accent and you are arriving to the US from another country, don't run towards a bunch of air marshals holding guns while screaming that you have a bomb in your bag.
3. Don't say anything about a bomb on a plane.
4. When a guy with a gun tells you to drop your bag, drop your bag.
5. If you have already declared that you have a bomb, don't reach into the aforementioned bag after you have been told to drop it by guys who are pointing guns at you.
6. Don't strap the above mentioned bag to your stomach like a suicide bomber would do if you don't really plan on blowing yourself up.
7. If your husband is the kind of nut who gets erratic and violent, don't put him on a plane without his medication.
8. Don't even get on an international flight until you have purchased your above mentioned medication if that will cause you or your husband freak out and talk about blowing up planes.
9. Don't marry a crazy person.
10. Just drive to Orlando.
Being a nut doesn't mean you get a free pass to do any of these things. I would also like to point out that most people who blow themselves up are indeed crazy. So, his wife saying that he is crazy is even more of a reason to shoot him if he says he has a bomb.
How to avoid being shot by an air marshal:
1. Don't run towards a bunch of air marshals holding guns while screaming that you have a bomb in your bag.
2. If you are a vaguely foreign looking guy with an accent and you are arriving to the US from another country, don't run towards a bunch of air marshals holding guns while screaming that you have a bomb in your bag.
3. Don't say anything about a bomb on a plane.
4. When a guy with a gun tells you to drop your bag, drop your bag.
5. If you have already declared that you have a bomb, don't reach into the aforementioned bag after you have been told to drop it by guys who are pointing guns at you.
6. Don't strap the above mentioned bag to your stomach like a suicide bomber would do if you don't really plan on blowing yourself up.
7. If your husband is the kind of nut who gets erratic and violent, don't put him on a plane without his medication.
8. Don't even get on an international flight until you have purchased your above mentioned medication if that will cause you or your husband freak out and talk about blowing up planes.
9. Don't marry a crazy person.
10. Just drive to Orlando.
Being a nut doesn't mean you get a free pass to do any of these things. I would also like to point out that most people who blow themselves up are indeed crazy. So, his wife saying that he is crazy is even more of a reason to shoot him if he says he has a bomb.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Conservative Capitalism = Corporate Communism
Communism n: A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
Corporate Communism n (my definition): A system in which the corporation plans and controls the government and economy and a few, often authoritarian companies hold the power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are consumed by the people.
Not much difference between the two is there?
After pointing out the inequalities, greed and exploitation by major corporations, I am often told that all these fat cat document shredders are our salvation and any attempt by the federal government to tax or regulate these corporations is Communism. And of course we all know that Communism is evil and Capitalism is near divine in its purest form and that the only problem that arises from capitalism is the regulation and control placed on it by the Socialist federal government. The common consensus is that they wouldn’t be committing crimes if the government just make their offenses legal. Ironically, these are usually the same people who want the government to control every aspect of our private lives whether it be who we can marry, what we say, what we watch on TV and whether or not a woman can decide what happens to her own body, but as soon as they try to regulate commerce, business and industry they again say it is Satan's version of Communism. Of course there are exceptions. When ADM, GE or Exxon receives federal subsidies, that is pro-capitalism. But, when individuals are allowed to receive federal subsidies for doing nothing, that is merely Socialism.
But I was thinking about Capitalism, freedom and Communism and how they all relate to each other and what the differences between them are. Communism as we know is against private ownership, and is built around the state owning production and controlling the media. So what is the difference between the state owning production and production owning the state? If we lived in a country where there was no regulation of business and we ended up with one oil company, one retailer, one phone company, one insurance company, one health plan, one gas company, one electric company, one media conglomerate and one auto maker, and those companies were so powerful that they got all of our politicians and leaders elected wouldn't that essentially be Communism, especially, if these companies put their own guys in office?
We all know that, due to mergers and acquisitions, that there are now only 3 major oil companies operating in the United States so they are a virtual monopoly. We also know that our President and most of our Republican leadership is supported by oil money. How is that different from Russia having one oil company that was controlled by the state since our oil companies essentially control the state? Companies such as Wal-Mart are clearly against private ownership and competition and has worked with local governments to displace independent owned businesses that operated on private land in order to set up shop and then had the very tax payers they evicted pay for the destruction of their property to make way for a Wal-Mart. How is Wal-Mart any different from Stalin when he revoked private land ownership from the peasants in Russia, forcing them to work the land they once owned? These people and Wal-Mart alike are both anti-union and anti-private entrepreneur, as is Communism. How is that a free society? How are those people any more free than those peasants Stalin evicted from their own land? How is that not Communism in its purest form, other than the fact that the state is now owned by production instead of the other way around? Do you really think that once all of Wal-Mart's competition has been snubbed out that they are going to keep their prices low?
So, I would like to just point out that pure capitalism and zero regulation of commerce by the government eventually leads to a government controlled by these monopolies leaving the consumer with no choices and no way of protesting with their wallet if one company is allowed to set the price for everything we buy. In other words, only they win. At least Communism in theory was power to the people; in corporate communism the people will have no power and no freedom to choose. After all, if I can't be trusted to decide what I want to listen to on the radio or watch on TV then can we really trust a hospital or insurance company to do what's best for the patient or an oil company to do what is best for the environment.
Maybe I am overreacting, even the early Christians were Communists:
ACTS 2:44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
Corporate Communism n (my definition): A system in which the corporation plans and controls the government and economy and a few, often authoritarian companies hold the power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are consumed by the people.
Not much difference between the two is there?
After pointing out the inequalities, greed and exploitation by major corporations, I am often told that all these fat cat document shredders are our salvation and any attempt by the federal government to tax or regulate these corporations is Communism. And of course we all know that Communism is evil and Capitalism is near divine in its purest form and that the only problem that arises from capitalism is the regulation and control placed on it by the Socialist federal government. The common consensus is that they wouldn’t be committing crimes if the government just make their offenses legal. Ironically, these are usually the same people who want the government to control every aspect of our private lives whether it be who we can marry, what we say, what we watch on TV and whether or not a woman can decide what happens to her own body, but as soon as they try to regulate commerce, business and industry they again say it is Satan's version of Communism. Of course there are exceptions. When ADM, GE or Exxon receives federal subsidies, that is pro-capitalism. But, when individuals are allowed to receive federal subsidies for doing nothing, that is merely Socialism.
But I was thinking about Capitalism, freedom and Communism and how they all relate to each other and what the differences between them are. Communism as we know is against private ownership, and is built around the state owning production and controlling the media. So what is the difference between the state owning production and production owning the state? If we lived in a country where there was no regulation of business and we ended up with one oil company, one retailer, one phone company, one insurance company, one health plan, one gas company, one electric company, one media conglomerate and one auto maker, and those companies were so powerful that they got all of our politicians and leaders elected wouldn't that essentially be Communism, especially, if these companies put their own guys in office?
We all know that, due to mergers and acquisitions, that there are now only 3 major oil companies operating in the United States so they are a virtual monopoly. We also know that our President and most of our Republican leadership is supported by oil money. How is that different from Russia having one oil company that was controlled by the state since our oil companies essentially control the state? Companies such as Wal-Mart are clearly against private ownership and competition and has worked with local governments to displace independent owned businesses that operated on private land in order to set up shop and then had the very tax payers they evicted pay for the destruction of their property to make way for a Wal-Mart. How is Wal-Mart any different from Stalin when he revoked private land ownership from the peasants in Russia, forcing them to work the land they once owned? These people and Wal-Mart alike are both anti-union and anti-private entrepreneur, as is Communism. How is that a free society? How are those people any more free than those peasants Stalin evicted from their own land? How is that not Communism in its purest form, other than the fact that the state is now owned by production instead of the other way around? Do you really think that once all of Wal-Mart's competition has been snubbed out that they are going to keep their prices low?
So, I would like to just point out that pure capitalism and zero regulation of commerce by the government eventually leads to a government controlled by these monopolies leaving the consumer with no choices and no way of protesting with their wallet if one company is allowed to set the price for everything we buy. In other words, only they win. At least Communism in theory was power to the people; in corporate communism the people will have no power and no freedom to choose. After all, if I can't be trusted to decide what I want to listen to on the radio or watch on TV then can we really trust a hospital or insurance company to do what's best for the patient or an oil company to do what is best for the environment.
Maybe I am overreacting, even the early Christians were Communists:
ACTS 2:44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Condoms Couldn't Possibly Prevent AIDS or Pregnancies
From CNN November 21st:
LONDON, England (AP) -- The global HIV epidemic continues to expand, with more than 40 million people now estimated to have the AIDS virus, but in some countries prevention efforts are finally starting to pay off, the United Nations says.
So let me get this straight, education, prevention programs and more condoms are attributed to decreasing the spread of AIDS in all these countries but even with all this information and the tools available people still have sex, even if it means their life. Yet there are people in this country who believe that they don't need things like condoms and sex education because the schools should just teach their kids to not have sex and that will solve everything. If the threat of AIDS and death hasn't deterred people then the possibility of having a kid that your parents will raise for you will not prevent our teenagers from having sex. Guess what? Teenagers have sex; that is what they are biologically designed to do and no one is going to be able to stop it. Do you think a teenager who can't be relied on to clean his room, cut the grass, not take guns and drugs to school can be trusted to not have sex with your daughter? Think again. Remember how horny and stupid you was when you were a teenager?
Condoms are not evil and Jesus won't take away your birthday if you provide kids with condoms in order to avoid AIDS and teenage pregnancies. You can teach abstinence all you want as long as you keep condoms available to the large number who will not abstain. It is no coincidence that the Bible Belt, the very people who are against condoms in schools, has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies, children born out of wedlock and poverty, within the United States.
Oh, and in case you forgot how to avoid AIDS, I will again share my AIDS prevention tips with you one more time:
How not to get AIDS:
Don't have sex, stay home and jerk off to skinamax half porn, or get a blow up doll.
Don't have sex with someone who has AIDS, even with a condom.
Don't have sex with someone who is bleeding out of their ass.
If you must have sex with someone, use a condom.
Don't have sex with people you don't know or just met in a mens room, George Michael included.
If you know of someone who has had sex with an AIDS victim, do not have sex with that person.
If you shun condoms because you "dont like the way the feel", ask yourself how a big dose of AIDS would feel.
If you want to have a good (long) sex life, find a committed partner that you can trust that has had an AIDS test.
Don't tag team some other guy's ass with a bunch of leather dudes you just met at a bar.
Don't have sex with someone who has ever been tag teamed.
Don't believe people when they tell you they don't have AIDS.
Don't frequent glory holes, either side.
Don't blow heroin addicts or crack heads in alleys.
Don't share needles with heroin addicts, more specifically, heroin addicts with AIDS.
Don't have sex with prostitutes, or a junkie prostitute with a bad itch.
If you are African, having sex with a virgin does not cure AIDS, it spreads it.
Dont' become "blood brothers" with someone who has AIDS
Don't be born in Africa.
Don't let herpes victims with open sores on their mouth give you a blow job, as these people tend to not be as careful and selective as someone such as me and may also have AIDS, though I will not blow you.
Don't let anyone cum on any open sores, cuts or orifices.
Do not become, or have sex with a porn star, more specifically a gay porn star that has violated my other rules.
If you do any of the above, get an AIDS test every week.
If you are a gay basher, don't make your victims bleed as the flailing blood may stain your Ted Nugent shirt, infect you and later, your fat girlfriend who lives with you in your double-wide.
If you are an NBA player, don't nail every white woman between L.A. and Boston that is trying to get knocked up by someone rich and famous.
If you are a Catholic priest, condoms are evil, fuck little boys who couldn't possibly have AIDS yet.
If you are an altar boy, don't hang out with priests alone.
If you are Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, don't mock God, he will punish you with AIDS.
If you're Bill Frist, a medical doctor and US Senator, don't let anyone sweat or spit on you.
If you are Tom Delay, rules obviously don't apply to you, feel free to do all the above.
P.S. These tips may also be effective in not getting knocked up when you are 14 years old.
LONDON, England (AP) -- The global HIV epidemic continues to expand, with more than 40 million people now estimated to have the AIDS virus, but in some countries prevention efforts are finally starting to pay off, the United Nations says.
For the first time there is solid evidence that increased efforts to combat the disease over the last five years have led to fewer new infections in some places, said UNAIDS chief Peter Piot.
Previously improvements had been seen in places such as Senegal, Uganda and Thailand, but those were rare exceptions.
"Now we have Kenya, several of the Caribbean countries and Zimbabwe with a decline," Piot said, adding that Zimbabwe is the first place in Southern Africa, the hardest-hit area, to show improvement.
These are all countries that have invested heavily in safe-sex campaigns and other prevention programs, with the result that prevalence of HIV among the young has declined.
Previously improvements had been seen in places such as Senegal, Uganda and Thailand, but those were rare exceptions.
"Now we have Kenya, several of the Caribbean countries and Zimbabwe with a decline," Piot said, adding that Zimbabwe is the first place in Southern Africa, the hardest-hit area, to show improvement.
These are all countries that have invested heavily in safe-sex campaigns and other prevention programs, with the result that prevalence of HIV among the young has declined.
"People are starting later with their first sexual intercourse, they are having fewer partners, there's more condom use," Piot said.
So let me get this straight, education, prevention programs and more condoms are attributed to decreasing the spread of AIDS in all these countries but even with all this information and the tools available people still have sex, even if it means their life. Yet there are people in this country who believe that they don't need things like condoms and sex education because the schools should just teach their kids to not have sex and that will solve everything. If the threat of AIDS and death hasn't deterred people then the possibility of having a kid that your parents will raise for you will not prevent our teenagers from having sex. Guess what? Teenagers have sex; that is what they are biologically designed to do and no one is going to be able to stop it. Do you think a teenager who can't be relied on to clean his room, cut the grass, not take guns and drugs to school can be trusted to not have sex with your daughter? Think again. Remember how horny and stupid you was when you were a teenager?
Condoms are not evil and Jesus won't take away your birthday if you provide kids with condoms in order to avoid AIDS and teenage pregnancies. You can teach abstinence all you want as long as you keep condoms available to the large number who will not abstain. It is no coincidence that the Bible Belt, the very people who are against condoms in schools, has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies, children born out of wedlock and poverty, within the United States.
Oh, and in case you forgot how to avoid AIDS, I will again share my AIDS prevention tips with you one more time:
How not to get AIDS:
Don't have sex, stay home and jerk off to skinamax half porn, or get a blow up doll.
Don't have sex with someone who has AIDS, even with a condom.
Don't have sex with someone who is bleeding out of their ass.
If you must have sex with someone, use a condom.
Don't have sex with people you don't know or just met in a mens room, George Michael included.
If you know of someone who has had sex with an AIDS victim, do not have sex with that person.
If you shun condoms because you "dont like the way the feel", ask yourself how a big dose of AIDS would feel.
If you want to have a good (long) sex life, find a committed partner that you can trust that has had an AIDS test.
Don't tag team some other guy's ass with a bunch of leather dudes you just met at a bar.
Don't have sex with someone who has ever been tag teamed.
Don't believe people when they tell you they don't have AIDS.
Don't frequent glory holes, either side.
Don't blow heroin addicts or crack heads in alleys.
Don't share needles with heroin addicts, more specifically, heroin addicts with AIDS.
Don't have sex with prostitutes, or a junkie prostitute with a bad itch.
If you are African, having sex with a virgin does not cure AIDS, it spreads it.
Dont' become "blood brothers" with someone who has AIDS
Don't be born in Africa.
Don't let herpes victims with open sores on their mouth give you a blow job, as these people tend to not be as careful and selective as someone such as me and may also have AIDS, though I will not blow you.
Don't let anyone cum on any open sores, cuts or orifices.
Do not become, or have sex with a porn star, more specifically a gay porn star that has violated my other rules.
If you do any of the above, get an AIDS test every week.
If you are a gay basher, don't make your victims bleed as the flailing blood may stain your Ted Nugent shirt, infect you and later, your fat girlfriend who lives with you in your double-wide.
If you are an NBA player, don't nail every white woman between L.A. and Boston that is trying to get knocked up by someone rich and famous.
If you are a Catholic priest, condoms are evil, fuck little boys who couldn't possibly have AIDS yet.
If you are an altar boy, don't hang out with priests alone.
If you are Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, don't mock God, he will punish you with AIDS.
If you're Bill Frist, a medical doctor and US Senator, don't let anyone sweat or spit on you.
If you are Tom Delay, rules obviously don't apply to you, feel free to do all the above.
P.S. These tips may also be effective in not getting knocked up when you are 14 years old.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Dover, PA Bracing for Hurricanes, Death of First Born
From CNN:
(Reuters) -- Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.
Yes, I know, this is old news now but Pat Robertson, the guy who called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Chavez, blamed 9/11 on the ACLU and abortions, told Orlando, FL to brace for earth quakes and hurricanes if they let people put up rainbow flags, has warned the city of Dover, PA that they will suffer God's wrath because they voted out 8 Republican school board officials who tried to introduce Christianity as science in their public school system.
Parents and the ACLU, defenders of religious liberty and the American way, sued the school board for forcing students to hear a statement saying evolution is just a theory and that intelligent design was another theory that they pulled out of their ass in order to indoctrinate the students with misinformation and replace science with Christianity, thus ignoring the 1st Amendment.
So does this mean that the school board thinks students should hear the same statements before they discuss Einstein and his "Theory" of Relativity, or that the Earth has a liquid core? After all, no one has been able to prove these "theories" 1st hand.
In related news, the Kansas school board voted 6-4 to replace science with creationism. This will probably open the door for critics of astronomy and chemistry to replace these "sciences" with astrology and alchemy respectively.
Message: PA=Smart, KS= Stupid
Steve Abrams at the Kansas State School Board setting fire to the US flag showing his hatred of the American way, loyalty to God but not the tax payers or the outdated ideology of separation of church and state.
(Reuters) -- Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.
Yes, I know, this is old news now but Pat Robertson, the guy who called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Chavez, blamed 9/11 on the ACLU and abortions, told Orlando, FL to brace for earth quakes and hurricanes if they let people put up rainbow flags, has warned the city of Dover, PA that they will suffer God's wrath because they voted out 8 Republican school board officials who tried to introduce Christianity as science in their public school system.
Parents and the ACLU, defenders of religious liberty and the American way, sued the school board for forcing students to hear a statement saying evolution is just a theory and that intelligent design was another theory that they pulled out of their ass in order to indoctrinate the students with misinformation and replace science with Christianity, thus ignoring the 1st Amendment.
So does this mean that the school board thinks students should hear the same statements before they discuss Einstein and his "Theory" of Relativity, or that the Earth has a liquid core? After all, no one has been able to prove these "theories" 1st hand.
In related news, the Kansas school board voted 6-4 to replace science with creationism. This will probably open the door for critics of astronomy and chemistry to replace these "sciences" with astrology and alchemy respectively.
Message: PA=Smart, KS= Stupid
Steve Abrams at the Kansas State School Board setting fire to the US flag showing his hatred of the American way, loyalty to God but not the tax payers or the outdated ideology of separation of church and state.
Monday, November 14, 2005
Bible Quiz
For all of you who like to question my knowledge of the Bible I just want you to know that I got a perfect score on this Bible Quiz:
Bible Quiz!
Check out the Scoreboard!
Let me know how you all did!
P.S. You don't really have to type in a valid email address to see the results.
Bible Quiz!
Check out the Scoreboard!
Let me know how you all did!
P.S. You don't really have to type in a valid email address to see the results.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Why Wal-Mart Sucks
Oct 25th:
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott said he's urging Congress to consider raising the minimum wage so that Wal-Mart customers don't have to struggle paycheck to paycheck.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/25/news/fortune500/walmart_wage/
Basically Wal-Mart is saying that they would like to sell more cheap shit to low wage people. In order to do so, since trade with China eliminated 1.5 Million US jobs, they want the government to raise the minimum wage so these people can spend this extra money at Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart wants the people who would shop at Wal-Mart to have more money to spend then I think they need a good long hard look in the mirror. They could give all their impoverished 1.2 million employees raises, such as Henry Ford did, making it possible for his work force to be able to afford the products they were making. Or if Wal-Mart wants to make more money for the corporation then maybe they should cut the pay of their executives instead of gouging their vendors or taking it from their workers.
Some people would argue that Wal-Mart is forced to buy cheap Chinese goods and pay low wages with few benefits in order to stay competitive, profitable and keep their cheap-shit-buying consumer base coming back for more, but we all know that is a bunch of BS.
In 2004, H. Lee Scott Jr., President and CEO (not the founder) of Wal-Mart, made 22,991,599 dollars from Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart only paid him $991,599 per year (a salary I would kill for), they could take the other $22,000,000 and give 5,288 employees a $2 per hour raise. S. Robson Walton, Chairman of Wal-Mart is worth 17 Billion dollars. If you divided up his net worth and paid it to all the US employees of Wal-Mart they would all get a $4.80 per hour raise which is $9,984 per year. If you gave all of Wal-Mart's 1,200,000 US employees a $2 per hour, or $4160 per year raise it would only account for 1.7% of Wal-Mart's annual sales revenue. Wal-Mart's employees earn 20% less than unionized grocery store employees.
It is estimated that the US government spends up to 1.5 billion dollars subsidizing Wal-Mart employees with public assistance, food stamps and health care as these employees cannot make it on Wal-Mart wages. You could say they don't have to work at Wal-Mart. But, when Wal-Mart is responsible for these people's stores going out of business, or the town bulldozed their store or former place of employment in order to build a Wal-Mart, or their job was lost due to illegal competition from a Chinese manufacturer that Wal-Mart now buys from, then where exactly are they supposed to work, especially if they live in a small town?
More facts about Wal-Mart:
Wal-Mart received 37 million in welfare payments out of the new transportation bill.
They posted approximately 9 Billion dollars in profit last year.
They have collected over 1 Billion in economic development subsidies from state and local governments.
Wal-Mart also receives advanced warning from the federal government about child labor law inspections.
Wal-Mart has been busted for having illegal immigrants working in their store for less than minimum wage which drives down American wages.
Exports to the US from China outnumber US exports to China by 5 to 1.
70% Of Wal-Mart products are made in China.
Wal-Mart accounts for 14% of the United States 126 Billion dollar trade deficit with China.
Trade unions in China are illegal.
A story about how lower earning stores who never received government subsidies are being forced out by a Walmart receiving 10 million in local subsidies under eminent domain.
These guys don't create jobs--they eliminate them. Don't get the two confused.
Don't shop at Wal-Mart. Support Main Street American ma and pa stores when possible. Remember, America is a Democracy before we are capitalists; we the people also have the right to keep Wal-Mart from building in our towns.
"There is one rule for industrialists and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible." -Henry Ford
Sources: Forbes, CNN, Wal-Mart Home Page,Walmartwatch.com, PBS Frontline, AFL-CIO
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott said he's urging Congress to consider raising the minimum wage so that Wal-Mart customers don't have to struggle paycheck to paycheck.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/25/news/fortune500/walmart_wage/
Basically Wal-Mart is saying that they would like to sell more cheap shit to low wage people. In order to do so, since trade with China eliminated 1.5 Million US jobs, they want the government to raise the minimum wage so these people can spend this extra money at Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart wants the people who would shop at Wal-Mart to have more money to spend then I think they need a good long hard look in the mirror. They could give all their impoverished 1.2 million employees raises, such as Henry Ford did, making it possible for his work force to be able to afford the products they were making. Or if Wal-Mart wants to make more money for the corporation then maybe they should cut the pay of their executives instead of gouging their vendors or taking it from their workers.
Some people would argue that Wal-Mart is forced to buy cheap Chinese goods and pay low wages with few benefits in order to stay competitive, profitable and keep their cheap-shit-buying consumer base coming back for more, but we all know that is a bunch of BS.
In 2004, H. Lee Scott Jr., President and CEO (not the founder) of Wal-Mart, made 22,991,599 dollars from Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart only paid him $991,599 per year (a salary I would kill for), they could take the other $22,000,000 and give 5,288 employees a $2 per hour raise. S. Robson Walton, Chairman of Wal-Mart is worth 17 Billion dollars. If you divided up his net worth and paid it to all the US employees of Wal-Mart they would all get a $4.80 per hour raise which is $9,984 per year. If you gave all of Wal-Mart's 1,200,000 US employees a $2 per hour, or $4160 per year raise it would only account for 1.7% of Wal-Mart's annual sales revenue. Wal-Mart's employees earn 20% less than unionized grocery store employees.
It is estimated that the US government spends up to 1.5 billion dollars subsidizing Wal-Mart employees with public assistance, food stamps and health care as these employees cannot make it on Wal-Mart wages. You could say they don't have to work at Wal-Mart. But, when Wal-Mart is responsible for these people's stores going out of business, or the town bulldozed their store or former place of employment in order to build a Wal-Mart, or their job was lost due to illegal competition from a Chinese manufacturer that Wal-Mart now buys from, then where exactly are they supposed to work, especially if they live in a small town?
More facts about Wal-Mart:
Wal-Mart received 37 million in welfare payments out of the new transportation bill.
They posted approximately 9 Billion dollars in profit last year.
They have collected over 1 Billion in economic development subsidies from state and local governments.
Wal-Mart also receives advanced warning from the federal government about child labor law inspections.
Wal-Mart has been busted for having illegal immigrants working in their store for less than minimum wage which drives down American wages.
Exports to the US from China outnumber US exports to China by 5 to 1.
70% Of Wal-Mart products are made in China.
Wal-Mart accounts for 14% of the United States 126 Billion dollar trade deficit with China.
Trade unions in China are illegal.
A story about how lower earning stores who never received government subsidies are being forced out by a Walmart receiving 10 million in local subsidies under eminent domain.
These guys don't create jobs--they eliminate them. Don't get the two confused.
Don't shop at Wal-Mart. Support Main Street American ma and pa stores when possible. Remember, America is a Democracy before we are capitalists; we the people also have the right to keep Wal-Mart from building in our towns.
"There is one rule for industrialists and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible." -Henry Ford
Sources: Forbes, CNN, Wal-Mart Home Page,Walmartwatch.com, PBS Frontline, AFL-CIO
Sunday, October 30, 2005
ACLU: Defenders of Religious Freedom Since 1920
Far right wing organizations such as Stop the ACLU have long contended that the ACLU is a bunch of Christ hating, Christian baby eating, group of communists who would rather defend NAMBLA than a Christian. Anyone with a brain knows that they are simply wrong. The ACLU simply defends the intentions of our forefathers, such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, who wanted to guarantee certain inalienable rights to the people whilst keeping them protected from the fads, beliefs and fears of the majority and or the Federal Government.
Unlike these radical fringe groups such as Stop the ACLU, Focus on the Family, and most Christian organizations in general, the ACLU doesn't set out to just protect the civil liberties of the people they agree with, but to protect everyone's freedoms.
From the ACLU website:
"In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide..."
Unlike these radical fringe groups such as Stop the ACLU, Focus on the Family, and most Christian organizations in general, the ACLU doesn't set out to just protect the civil liberties of the people they agree with, but to protect everyone's freedoms.
From the ACLU website:
"In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide..."
Here is the proof to all these numbnuts that they have nothing to bitch about and are just a bunch of paranoid delusionals:
April 2002: Falwell vs Lynchburg,VA in religious property dispute.
August 2004: Church of the Awesome God vs Lincoln, NE for religious harassment by the city
May 2005: Religious freedom for an asylum seeker regarding head wear
December 2004: Jurors can't be discriminated against for being demonstrative about their religion
July 2004, Catholic sent to jail for not being Pentecostal and refusing to attend their faith based treatment sessions
November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas
July 10, 2004: Indiana Civil Liberties Union defends the rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets
June 2004: ACLU of Nebraska files a lawsuit on behalf of a Muslim woman barred from a public pool because she refused to wear a swimsuit
May 27, 2004: Under pressure from the ACLU of Virginia, officials agree not to prohibit baptisms on public property in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford County
May 11, 2004: After ACLU of Michigan intervened on behalf of a Christian Valedictorian, a public high school agrees to stop censoring religious yearbook entries
March 25, 2004: ACLU of Washington defends an Evangelical minister's right to preach on sidewalks
February 21, 2003: ACLU of Massachusetts defends students punished for distributing candy canes with religious messages
October 28, 2002: ACLU defends Baptist Church in zoning discrimination
July 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school
January 2002: ACLU defends Christian church's right to advertise on public transit
April 29, 2005: ACLU defends two Christian girls who wore anti-abortion shirts to school
Why haven't you ever heard from a Christian group defending rap lyrics, porn publishers or Marilyn Manson? Because they are biased groups who care nothing about our form of government, our way of life, our constitution or the intentions of our founding fathers. The only thing they care about is their rights and their agendas. If laws were passed that forced everyone to convert to their form of Christianity and to live like they do, the majority of them would support it. Why is it so hard for these groups to go both ways and see both sides? Why is the ACLU the only one defending our freedoms and the principals that made this country what it is today? Focus on the Family does not care about your freedoms and your rights unless you are a pro-life, conservative Christian who believes everything the Republicans tell them.
Other things these ACLU Communists would have objected to only to be called anti-American:
Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 which allowed the US to deport anyone of the same nationality as our "enemies", or other "dangerous" people and prohibited anyone from publishing "scandalous" statements about our government.
Lincoln's closures of dissenting news publications and suspension of Habeas Corpus in 1861.
Executive Order 9066 in 1942 sending 110,000 people of Japanese ancestry to isolated internment camps, over half of which were American born.
Anyone that would disagree with any of the above are clearly America hating communists!
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Harriet Sweet Harriet
Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination as the next Supreme Court Justice. Unless Bush has more friends we don't know about, he will be hard pressed to find a qualified replacement. Wait, I heard Jenna is out of college now; maybe if she can brush off her hangover she could be the next justice of the Supreme Court.
Jenna Bush at a party upon learning that she is on the Presidents short list for the supreme court vacancy.
The good thing is that with the Brownie and Miers nominations Bush has come to realize that just because he likes somebody that it doesn't mean they are capable or qualified for any and every available job in Washington.
On a side note, I am sure the neocons are now wetting themselves over the possibility of getting their activist judge that will change the laws and rewrite the constitution to its original form including the sections about how the US was supposed to be a Christian State that discriminates against gay people and gives welfare to rich corporations whilst cutting their taxes. That is what a Supreme Court Justice should be about.
Jenna Bush at a party upon learning that she is on the Presidents short list for the supreme court vacancy.
The good thing is that with the Brownie and Miers nominations Bush has come to realize that just because he likes somebody that it doesn't mean they are capable or qualified for any and every available job in Washington.
On a side note, I am sure the neocons are now wetting themselves over the possibility of getting their activist judge that will change the laws and rewrite the constitution to its original form including the sections about how the US was supposed to be a Christian State that discriminates against gay people and gives welfare to rich corporations whilst cutting their taxes. That is what a Supreme Court Justice should be about.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Worst Organization Ever
The Alliance for the Separation of School and State is one of the dumbest organizations I have ever seen. They don't want schools to be funded by the government and taxpayers, but rather every kid should be home schooled or all schools should be privately run.
These people are a bunch of home schoolers who actually say (with a straight face) that children need an "honest" education that cannot be obtained within the public school system.
"Honest" things they think should be taught in school:
Why am I here? Is there any purpose to my life? Ok this could be in a Humanities class but maybe Socrates and Descartes are a little deep for 2nd graders.
Why is there so much evil in the world? How can I know what is good and what is evil? In which class would this subject be discussed? Math, Science? Again this would fall under Humanities and Philosophy and again I think the Divine Comedy is a bit much for most grade schoolers. Also consider that "evil" is very subjective; I think you would have to define "evil" before you can recognize it and be able to distinguish it from "good". It's hard to measure, test and predict "evil". Math, English, Science, etc. are not subjective and they can prepare you for life, a job and the real world, which is what school is supposed to do. Really, this may be a bit much for even a Humanities class; maybe it's best suited for a Church or your parents, not school.
Is there a Supreme Being? Does he care about us? In case you were wondering, no, and even if there was, he's got a lot more on his mind than what's happening in Fresno. Good thing we got that one settled. Now we can move on.
What is truth? Are there any permanent truths? Ever hear of algebra or economics? What kind of school do they want? There are already schools for these folks. They are called madrasas and you can find them in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. Have fun.
How will this new system of schooling work?
"The top two-thirds of the families will be able to afford tuitions after the $300-billion tax cut, but the poorest third will need financial help. We'll need to raise an additional $20-billion each year for groups like the Children's Scholarship Fund."
You mean all we have to do is cut taxes by 300 billion and raise 20 billion privately for poor children to go to school? Why didn't you just say it was that easy? Yeah, rich people love giving their money to the poor; that's why they continually bitch about paying too much in taxes and supporting welfare moms. Let's not forget that someone would still actually have to teach your kid, so for all you single moms out there, you are just going to have to quit your job and stay home and teach your kids. No, it doesn't matter that you are a high school drop out; only you know how to best teach your kids. How are you going to support your family? Don’t worry, you'll have that tax cut. Oh wait, tax cuts only help people who pay taxes. Sorry, maybe you can get some of that 20 billion dollars rich people are going to decide to give you after they eliminate the estate tax.
Here is what they say about their opposition:
"Who Opposes Separation of School & States the Gateway to Honest Education? Bad People."
Obviously, this is a Christian fundamentalist group that doesn't want science to be taught in schools. They want to replace secular schools with home based fundamentalist madrasas where parents with no teaching degrees, and very often no college degree at all, will teach their own children and grade them fairly. Armed with a Bible and no teaching experience, they think they can better prepare their children for life than a government funded school could.
Another funny thing about their site, and probably one of the reasons they seek "honest" education, is that they have a section documenting all the anti-Christian bias in public school textbooks. The only problem with this section is that there are only two articles. One talking about how a textbook failed to mention that the Pilgrims prayed on Thanksgiving and another one is just a review of a book published in 1986 by some Christian "publishing company" titled Censorship: Evidence of bias in our children's textbooks. It's not even a very good review.
This book exposes the secular liberal media's attempt to exclude religion, "family values", and conservative views from school textbooks. Their review says the author "cites texts that do not feature women as homemakers, lack patriotic spirit, do not promote free enterprise, and ignore movements such as tax revolt." So does this mean our algebra textbooks need to have an American flag on every page, that our history books need to omit evidence that implies America ever did anything wrong, and that they should include an entire chapter on the impact of the female homemakers in the early 20th century? As far as the "tax revolt movement" goes, I would like someone to show me one history book that doesn't talk about the Boston Tea Party and taxation without representation. School isn't supposed to be a propaganda or marketing outlet for capitalism and politics so what is his problem? And would he have the same problem with textbooks that didn't discuss labor unions, the Haymarket Riot, and the inquisition of Communists in the 50s? Why is one part of history ok to leave out and another part not? Is it just because he wants his version of revisionist history taught to young children who were not living during these events and therefore couldn't possibly dispute them?
Why do you think China is upset with Japan for omitting "unpatriotic" events such as the rape of Nanking from their textbooks?
Ok, I admit it, I got off on a tangent and this should have been two separate posts. Sue me!
These people are a bunch of home schoolers who actually say (with a straight face) that children need an "honest" education that cannot be obtained within the public school system.
"Honest" things they think should be taught in school:
Why am I here? Is there any purpose to my life? Ok this could be in a Humanities class but maybe Socrates and Descartes are a little deep for 2nd graders.
Why is there so much evil in the world? How can I know what is good and what is evil? In which class would this subject be discussed? Math, Science? Again this would fall under Humanities and Philosophy and again I think the Divine Comedy is a bit much for most grade schoolers. Also consider that "evil" is very subjective; I think you would have to define "evil" before you can recognize it and be able to distinguish it from "good". It's hard to measure, test and predict "evil". Math, English, Science, etc. are not subjective and they can prepare you for life, a job and the real world, which is what school is supposed to do. Really, this may be a bit much for even a Humanities class; maybe it's best suited for a Church or your parents, not school.
Is there a Supreme Being? Does he care about us? In case you were wondering, no, and even if there was, he's got a lot more on his mind than what's happening in Fresno. Good thing we got that one settled. Now we can move on.
What is truth? Are there any permanent truths? Ever hear of algebra or economics? What kind of school do they want? There are already schools for these folks. They are called madrasas and you can find them in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. Have fun.
How will this new system of schooling work?
"The top two-thirds of the families will be able to afford tuitions after the $300-billion tax cut, but the poorest third will need financial help. We'll need to raise an additional $20-billion each year for groups like the Children's Scholarship Fund."
You mean all we have to do is cut taxes by 300 billion and raise 20 billion privately for poor children to go to school? Why didn't you just say it was that easy? Yeah, rich people love giving their money to the poor; that's why they continually bitch about paying too much in taxes and supporting welfare moms. Let's not forget that someone would still actually have to teach your kid, so for all you single moms out there, you are just going to have to quit your job and stay home and teach your kids. No, it doesn't matter that you are a high school drop out; only you know how to best teach your kids. How are you going to support your family? Don’t worry, you'll have that tax cut. Oh wait, tax cuts only help people who pay taxes. Sorry, maybe you can get some of that 20 billion dollars rich people are going to decide to give you after they eliminate the estate tax.
Here is what they say about their opposition:
"Who Opposes Separation of School & States the Gateway to Honest Education? Bad People."
Obviously, this is a Christian fundamentalist group that doesn't want science to be taught in schools. They want to replace secular schools with home based fundamentalist madrasas where parents with no teaching degrees, and very often no college degree at all, will teach their own children and grade them fairly. Armed with a Bible and no teaching experience, they think they can better prepare their children for life than a government funded school could.
Another funny thing about their site, and probably one of the reasons they seek "honest" education, is that they have a section documenting all the anti-Christian bias in public school textbooks. The only problem with this section is that there are only two articles. One talking about how a textbook failed to mention that the Pilgrims prayed on Thanksgiving and another one is just a review of a book published in 1986 by some Christian "publishing company" titled Censorship: Evidence of bias in our children's textbooks. It's not even a very good review.
This book exposes the secular liberal media's attempt to exclude religion, "family values", and conservative views from school textbooks. Their review says the author "cites texts that do not feature women as homemakers, lack patriotic spirit, do not promote free enterprise, and ignore movements such as tax revolt." So does this mean our algebra textbooks need to have an American flag on every page, that our history books need to omit evidence that implies America ever did anything wrong, and that they should include an entire chapter on the impact of the female homemakers in the early 20th century? As far as the "tax revolt movement" goes, I would like someone to show me one history book that doesn't talk about the Boston Tea Party and taxation without representation. School isn't supposed to be a propaganda or marketing outlet for capitalism and politics so what is his problem? And would he have the same problem with textbooks that didn't discuss labor unions, the Haymarket Riot, and the inquisition of Communists in the 50s? Why is one part of history ok to leave out and another part not? Is it just because he wants his version of revisionist history taught to young children who were not living during these events and therefore couldn't possibly dispute them?
Why do you think China is upset with Japan for omitting "unpatriotic" events such as the rape of Nanking from their textbooks?
Ok, I admit it, I got off on a tangent and this should have been two separate posts. Sue me!
Sunday, October 16, 2005
Another Pitbull Post
After reading a recent article where the author talks about how evil and blood thirsty pitbulls are and how they needed to be banned because they killed a whole 4 people this year, I decided to email her this letter:
42,000 people per year are killed by cars; they are dangerous let’s ban them!
Over 30,000 people in this country are killed by guns every year. Guns are dangerous. Let’s ban them!
9% of the worlds population will die due to tobacco related diseases. That is over 5 million people. Tobacco is dangerous; let’s ban it.
In the US, over 300,000 deaths can be attributed to obesity every year. Food is dangerous; lets ban it!
Every year over 100 people choke to death on ball point pens. Why would we ban a dog that kills 4 people per year and not ban ball point pens that choke and kill 100 people per year?
I must also mention that horses account for over 200 human fatalities per year yet very few people actually own a horse compared to the number who own dogs.
Do bans work?:
Almost 17,000 people per year are killed in alcohol related car crashes. If drunk driving is banned and illegal, why are there still all these deaths?
In Chicago, hand guns are banned yet 79% of all murders are from fire arms.
There are over 20,000 drug overdose deaths every year in our country where drugs are illegal and banned.
I think there are more pressing issues we need to worry about that the 12 deaths per year from dog bites, half of which are actually from rottweilers.
In Chicago, there are roughly 60,000 pitbulls yet how many people die from pitbulls in Chicago every year? Maybe one? Yet in 2003, 599 people were murdered in this city and how many more died due to drug and alcohol? Yet, pitbulls are what people consider dangerous.
Most of those 60,000 pitbulls are bred by gang bangers involved in dog fighting, drug trafficking and murder. Those dogs get tortured and abused and are made to be aggressive by these irresponsible owners. The only other breed that rivals pitbulls in sheer numbers would be Labs, yet Labs are owned by responsible yuppies that care for their dogs and don't purposely starve and beat them to turn them violent. Currently pitbulls just happen to be the dogs these people choose and therefore it's the pitbulls who are turned into violent, vicious, starved monsters. If you ban pitbulls the dog fighters will just choose another breed which will probably end up being bigger, more territorial and less people friendly. If you treat a Golden Retriever in the same manner these pitbulls are treated it will become vicious and start attacking people as well. In fact, the American Temperament Society tests show that a pitbull has the exact same temperament of a Golden Retriever. In another study of dog bites Pitbulls rank 4th from the bottom of all breeds who are likely to bite a person; Cocker spaniels, Akitas, Chows, Pomeranians, Weimaraners, Poodles, German Sheppard’s, Collies and Schnauzers are all more likely to bite someone than a pitbull. Since 1975, over 30 different breeds have been responsible for human fatalities.
Pitbulls were originally bred to be obedient and docile towards humans. Abused, abandoned, starved, wild and pack dogs are the faults of people for treating dogs this way. Any pack animal will be more protective of its territory if it is in an actual pack. Any animal that has been abused and forced to fight by humans all its life will be more violent towards humans; it’s not the dogs fault, it's only natural. It should also be noted that 61% of all dog attacks happen within a home so think twice about beating and abusing your dog; especially if you have children.
Dog fighting is the real crime; dog fighting is the cause of this problem. Until cities can make stricter dog fighting laws with appropriate enforcement and punishment this will continue to happen. Of all the dog fighting and the 60,000 pitbulls in Chicago there are 2 officers (as far as I know) assigned to these cases. Dog fighters are typically gang bangers and drug dealers but in most cities evidence of dog fighting is not enough for a conviction; they must physically be caught in the act; this needs to change.
Kids, as with guns, need to be taught what to do and how to act when they encounter a stray dog. Most people don't know what to do in an encounter with a wild or vicious dog, nor do their children. Most people don't realize that just chaining a dog up in your back yard creates an aggressive, territorial, unsocialized dog. A chained dog is almost 3 times more likely to bite than an unchained dog. Unneutered male dogs are responsible for 70% of all biting incidents. If you want to avoid your dog being involved in an attack don't beat it, fight it or train it to be aggressive, get it spayed or neutered and don't leave it chained up in the back yard. Dogs, especially pitbulls, are social animals that have been living with humans for thousands of years. If you can't take a dog in as a member of your family and treat it as such then don't get a dog.
For every story you can find about a "pitbull" killing a person I can find 10 stories where pitbulls were killed by humans. Humans are dangerous; they should be banned.
http://www.nbc10.com/news/1625377/detail.html
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2002/jun/06/unspeakably_cruel2/
http://www.local10.com/news/1420966/detail.html
http://www.fox21.com/Global/Video/WorldnowASX.asp?os=&vt=&clipid=445158
http://www.furryfriendsfoundation.com/Truth03/drowning.htm
http://www.furryfriendsfoundation.com/Truth03/kidsDogFight.htm
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/3371/NJ/US/
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/3398/CO/US/
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/3277/FL/US/
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/2722/TX/US/
Why would you want to ban dogs who do this:
http://dapbt.org/weela.htm
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/popsicle.html
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/dixie.html
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/thomson.html
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/buddy.html
http://www.furryfriendsfoundation.com/Truth03/pitChildFire.htm
http://www.furryfriendsfoundation.com/Truth03/pitSaveChild.htm
http://www.dogsinthenews.com/issues/0104/articles/010426a.htm
I told you pomeranians were vicious, lets ban them too:
http://www.igorilla.com/2000/baby_los_angeles.html
Rottwielers, lets ban 'em!
http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/animal/2000/dog_attack_report.html
Ferrets are dangerous lets ban them:
http://www.igorilla.com/2000/ferret_attacks_baby.html
Husky mixes are vicious lets ban them:
http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/animal/2000/dog_attack_toronto.html
Gotta ban Dobermans too:
http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/animal/2000/dog_attack.html
Breed Specific Legislation blows!
42,000 people per year are killed by cars; they are dangerous let’s ban them!
Over 30,000 people in this country are killed by guns every year. Guns are dangerous. Let’s ban them!
9% of the worlds population will die due to tobacco related diseases. That is over 5 million people. Tobacco is dangerous; let’s ban it.
In the US, over 300,000 deaths can be attributed to obesity every year. Food is dangerous; lets ban it!
Every year over 100 people choke to death on ball point pens. Why would we ban a dog that kills 4 people per year and not ban ball point pens that choke and kill 100 people per year?
I must also mention that horses account for over 200 human fatalities per year yet very few people actually own a horse compared to the number who own dogs.
Do bans work?:
Almost 17,000 people per year are killed in alcohol related car crashes. If drunk driving is banned and illegal, why are there still all these deaths?
In Chicago, hand guns are banned yet 79% of all murders are from fire arms.
There are over 20,000 drug overdose deaths every year in our country where drugs are illegal and banned.
I think there are more pressing issues we need to worry about that the 12 deaths per year from dog bites, half of which are actually from rottweilers.
In Chicago, there are roughly 60,000 pitbulls yet how many people die from pitbulls in Chicago every year? Maybe one? Yet in 2003, 599 people were murdered in this city and how many more died due to drug and alcohol? Yet, pitbulls are what people consider dangerous.
Most of those 60,000 pitbulls are bred by gang bangers involved in dog fighting, drug trafficking and murder. Those dogs get tortured and abused and are made to be aggressive by these irresponsible owners. The only other breed that rivals pitbulls in sheer numbers would be Labs, yet Labs are owned by responsible yuppies that care for their dogs and don't purposely starve and beat them to turn them violent. Currently pitbulls just happen to be the dogs these people choose and therefore it's the pitbulls who are turned into violent, vicious, starved monsters. If you ban pitbulls the dog fighters will just choose another breed which will probably end up being bigger, more territorial and less people friendly. If you treat a Golden Retriever in the same manner these pitbulls are treated it will become vicious and start attacking people as well. In fact, the American Temperament Society tests show that a pitbull has the exact same temperament of a Golden Retriever. In another study of dog bites Pitbulls rank 4th from the bottom of all breeds who are likely to bite a person; Cocker spaniels, Akitas, Chows, Pomeranians, Weimaraners, Poodles, German Sheppard’s, Collies and Schnauzers are all more likely to bite someone than a pitbull. Since 1975, over 30 different breeds have been responsible for human fatalities.
Pitbulls were originally bred to be obedient and docile towards humans. Abused, abandoned, starved, wild and pack dogs are the faults of people for treating dogs this way. Any pack animal will be more protective of its territory if it is in an actual pack. Any animal that has been abused and forced to fight by humans all its life will be more violent towards humans; it’s not the dogs fault, it's only natural. It should also be noted that 61% of all dog attacks happen within a home so think twice about beating and abusing your dog; especially if you have children.
Dog fighting is the real crime; dog fighting is the cause of this problem. Until cities can make stricter dog fighting laws with appropriate enforcement and punishment this will continue to happen. Of all the dog fighting and the 60,000 pitbulls in Chicago there are 2 officers (as far as I know) assigned to these cases. Dog fighters are typically gang bangers and drug dealers but in most cities evidence of dog fighting is not enough for a conviction; they must physically be caught in the act; this needs to change.
Kids, as with guns, need to be taught what to do and how to act when they encounter a stray dog. Most people don't know what to do in an encounter with a wild or vicious dog, nor do their children. Most people don't realize that just chaining a dog up in your back yard creates an aggressive, territorial, unsocialized dog. A chained dog is almost 3 times more likely to bite than an unchained dog. Unneutered male dogs are responsible for 70% of all biting incidents. If you want to avoid your dog being involved in an attack don't beat it, fight it or train it to be aggressive, get it spayed or neutered and don't leave it chained up in the back yard. Dogs, especially pitbulls, are social animals that have been living with humans for thousands of years. If you can't take a dog in as a member of your family and treat it as such then don't get a dog.
For every story you can find about a "pitbull" killing a person I can find 10 stories where pitbulls were killed by humans. Humans are dangerous; they should be banned.
http://www.nbc10.com/news/1625377/detail.html
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2002/jun/06/unspeakably_cruel2/
http://www.local10.com/news/1420966/detail.html
http://www.fox21.com/Global/Video/WorldnowASX.asp?os=&vt=&clipid=445158
http://www.furryfriendsfoundation.com/Truth03/drowning.htm
http://www.furryfriendsfoundation.com/Truth03/kidsDogFight.htm
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/3371/NJ/US/
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/3398/CO/US/
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/3277/FL/US/
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/2722/TX/US/
Why would you want to ban dogs who do this:
http://dapbt.org/weela.htm
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/popsicle.html
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/dixie.html
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/thomson.html
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/buddy.html
http://www.furryfriendsfoundation.com/Truth03/pitChildFire.htm
http://www.furryfriendsfoundation.com/Truth03/pitSaveChild.htm
http://www.dogsinthenews.com/issues/0104/articles/010426a.htm
I told you pomeranians were vicious, lets ban them too:
http://www.igorilla.com/2000/baby_los_angeles.html
Rottwielers, lets ban 'em!
http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/animal/2000/dog_attack_report.html
Ferrets are dangerous lets ban them:
http://www.igorilla.com/2000/ferret_attacks_baby.html
Husky mixes are vicious lets ban them:
http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/animal/2000/dog_attack_toronto.html
Gotta ban Dobermans too:
http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/animal/2000/dog_attack.html
Breed Specific Legislation blows!
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Back Home Again in Shitiana
Apparently Indiana is, as most other states, trying to cope with an escalating crisis of lesbian hoards that spawn gay love children, who when later abandoned, turn into a class of Godless homosexual Democrats. In response, Indiana Republican State Senator Patricia Miller is proposing new legislation which will dictate who will and will not be permitted to have children through means of assisted reproduction. In short, this new code they want to pass into law will only allow “qualified” married couples to reproduce through other means when they are unable to conceive naturally.
The bottom line here is that they want to prevent lesbians, widows, non-Christians, fat ugly single women who can't get laid, ex-felons and Jodie Foster from having children. I know you think I am jumping to extreme conclusions but the litmus test is all spelled out in the legislation.
The procedures this new legislation would cover are as follows:
"Assisted reproduction", for purposes of IC 31-20, means a method of causing pregnancy other than sexual intercourse. The term includes:
(1) intrauterine insemination;
(2) donation of an egg;
(3) donation of an embryo;
(4) in vitro fertilization and transfer of an embryo; and(5) intracytoplasmic sperm injection.
"Sexual intercourse", for purposes of IC 31-20, means an act that includes any penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ"
Who qualifies for these procedures?
(b) The intended parents must be married to each other, and both spousesmust be parties to the action to establish parentage.
The bottom line here is that they want to prevent lesbians, widows, non-Christians, fat ugly single women who can't get laid, ex-felons and Jodie Foster from having children. I know you think I am jumping to extreme conclusions but the litmus test is all spelled out in the legislation.
The procedures this new legislation would cover are as follows:
"Assisted reproduction", for purposes of IC 31-20, means a method of causing pregnancy other than sexual intercourse. The term includes:
(1) intrauterine insemination;
(2) donation of an egg;
(3) donation of an embryo;
(4) in vitro fertilization and transfer of an embryo; and(5) intracytoplasmic sperm injection.
"Sexual intercourse", for purposes of IC 31-20, means an act that includes any penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ"
Who qualifies for these procedures?
(b) The intended parents must be married to each other, and both spousesmust be parties to the action to establish parentage.
(c) An unmarried person may not be an intended parent.
What is the litmus test?
(b) The assessment must follow the normal practice for assessments in a domestic infant adoption procedure and must include the following information:
Personal information about each intended parent, including the following: (I picked the most controversial and subjective, I can understand them not wanting a convicted “child seller” or molester to have kids):
-Values
-Relationships
-A description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents include a description of individual participation in faith-based or church activities, hobbies, and other interests.
-The intended parents' child rearing expectations and values.
What are values? Do they mean Republican values? Who are the value police that decide which values they want to be passed down? And if the state is asking the question about people's values and the participation in church or "faith-based" activities that must mean that they are looking for particular answers; otherwise, why ask? If that is the case doesn't that violate a separation of church and state, not to mention a thousand other privacy issues? As with the value police, who decides which church and faith based activities are and are not acceptable? Would that be Patricia Miller, a conservative Methodist Republican?
What is the litmus test?
(b) The assessment must follow the normal practice for assessments in a domestic infant adoption procedure and must include the following information:
Personal information about each intended parent, including the following: (I picked the most controversial and subjective, I can understand them not wanting a convicted “child seller” or molester to have kids):
-Values
-Relationships
-A description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents include a description of individual participation in faith-based or church activities, hobbies, and other interests.
-The intended parents' child rearing expectations and values.
What are values? Do they mean Republican values? Who are the value police that decide which values they want to be passed down? And if the state is asking the question about people's values and the participation in church or "faith-based" activities that must mean that they are looking for particular answers; otherwise, why ask? If that is the case doesn't that violate a separation of church and state, not to mention a thousand other privacy issues? As with the value police, who decides which church and faith based activities are and are not acceptable? Would that be Patricia Miller, a conservative Methodist Republican?
Don't get me wrong, I am all for making people take tests in order to be qualified to have children, but all people, no matter how the child would physically be created. Well off, educated, committed lesbians who desperately seek a child are not the people we need to be screening and singling out. The people who need to be subject to this test are the 17 year old, High School drop out, trailer trash meth-heads who got knocked up by their home made tattoo, pencil moustache sporting, jobless, whigger boy friend who is in prison and crack head welfare moms who already have 5 fatherless kids that the government supports. Remember, 50% of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce, 20% of all US children live in poverty, and approximately 1500 children die in this country every year due to child abuse in the home. Are those the "values" they prefer children to grow up with? Why don't you look up the number of all the "unwanted" children in same-sex households who get abused and indoctrinated with the gay agenda and see how bad their lives are compared to the kids I just mentioned. What this bill says to me is that they don't care about all the random assholes with a dick that are qualified to procreate as long as they have some skank to stick it in and they can conceive naturally. God forbid someone who actually wants and can support a child of their own try to pursue what is a right of the general dumb ass public.
One final question for the geniuses who drafted this piece of shit: what happens if the approved couple gets a divorce because the mother decided to become a lesbian? Do you make them give the child back? It would make all of this a big waste of time wouldn’t it?
The America hater I am referring to:
Sponsor: Sen. Patricia Miller (R) (317)232-9489 s32@in.gov
Go tell her what you think when they discuss this issue on October 20th, 10am in the House Chamber of the State House at 200 W. Washington Street in Indianapolis.
Here is a copy of the legislation:
Update 10/7:
Amongst a storm of criticism and outrage they have withdrawn this ridiculous proposal, for now. Miller did say that she will consider introducing it again in January. So, you probably don't need to attend that meeting on October 20th.
Thanks to Indy Girl for pointing out this follow up article:
Friday, September 30, 2005
Republicans Take Stance on Race
Republicans on race:
"If you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose -- you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down."
William Bennett, Former Education Secretary under Reagan, Former Drug Czar under GH Bush and Fox News contributor.
Is this what they mean by compassionate conservative?
www.mediamatters.org/static/audio/bennett-200509280006.mp3
"If you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose -- you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down."
William Bennett, Former Education Secretary under Reagan, Former Drug Czar under GH Bush and Fox News contributor.
Is this what they mean by compassionate conservative?
www.mediamatters.org/static/audio/bennett-200509280006.mp3
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Is There Anyone in Washington with Moral Integrity? What About the Children?
Wednesday, September 28, 2005; Posted: 1:27 p.m. EDT
CNN-A Texas grand jury on Wednesday charged Rep. Tom DeLay and two political associates with conspiracy in a campaign finance scheme, forcing the House majority leader to temporarily relinquish his post.
It is a good day for America! Tom DeLay is stepping down from his leadership position as House Majority leader and will probably not be back. Now maybe we can find someone who has some real morals and values to fill this post. Jesus doesn't like liars and cheaters.
This is not the first time he has been in trouble. Back in 2000 he used the credit card of a registered lobbyist to pay for his golf trip and all his expenses on that trip which is illegal. He was also admonished three times last year by congress for his conduct.
This charge could carry a sentence of up to 2 years where he may be able to catch up with all his Enron friends he has not seen since they were sent to prison for their lack of moral integrity.
You see, Texas law prohibits corporations from making political contributions but rules obviously don't apply to DeLay. DeLay thought he could out smart the law by giving the money a quick wash in the laundry before he took a Sears Roebuck contribution and donated it to the Republican National Committee.
Of course DeGay says that the prosecutor is only pursuing the case for political motives; we all know that only Republicans are allowed to do such a thing. Clinton needed to be made an example of because the Republicans needed the world to know that Democrats are just oversexed perverts who don’t love Jesus, unlike Republicans, thus making the attacks on Clinton legitimate and the attacks on DeLay sleezy partisan politics. Clearly what Clinton did affected a magnitude of people outside of himself and his family.
AP Photo of DeGay being persecuted by Democrats:
CNN-A Texas grand jury on Wednesday charged Rep. Tom DeLay and two political associates with conspiracy in a campaign finance scheme, forcing the House majority leader to temporarily relinquish his post.
It is a good day for America! Tom DeLay is stepping down from his leadership position as House Majority leader and will probably not be back. Now maybe we can find someone who has some real morals and values to fill this post. Jesus doesn't like liars and cheaters.
This is not the first time he has been in trouble. Back in 2000 he used the credit card of a registered lobbyist to pay for his golf trip and all his expenses on that trip which is illegal. He was also admonished three times last year by congress for his conduct.
This charge could carry a sentence of up to 2 years where he may be able to catch up with all his Enron friends he has not seen since they were sent to prison for their lack of moral integrity.
You see, Texas law prohibits corporations from making political contributions but rules obviously don't apply to DeLay. DeLay thought he could out smart the law by giving the money a quick wash in the laundry before he took a Sears Roebuck contribution and donated it to the Republican National Committee.
Of course DeGay says that the prosecutor is only pursuing the case for political motives; we all know that only Republicans are allowed to do such a thing. Clinton needed to be made an example of because the Republicans needed the world to know that Democrats are just oversexed perverts who don’t love Jesus, unlike Republicans, thus making the attacks on Clinton legitimate and the attacks on DeLay sleezy partisan politics. Clearly what Clinton did affected a magnitude of people outside of himself and his family.
AP Photo of DeGay being persecuted by Democrats:
Monday, September 26, 2005
Want to Avoid Being a Victim of Crime? Have an Abortion!
This weekend we (girlfriend and I) were discussing the book Freakonomics written by a professor from the University of Chicago. The author asserts that the fall in crime, which the US experienced starting in the early 90's after Clinton came into office, is related to the Roe v Wade decision that allowed mother's all over the US to terminate unwanted pregnancies. Exactly 20 years after abortion was legal, crime in the US began to fall.
So does this mean anything? Is that 20 number significant? I would say so; according to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics between 1976 and 2002, 18-34 year olds accounted for 64.8% of all murders; the average age of the offender was about 26 years old. In 2002, 62% of all prison inmates were under the age of 35 and 76% of all homicides were committed by people under the age of 35. How different would this country have been if we had all these unwanted 20 year olds running around, especially as they got older and got into their peak crime years? Since 1993, that 20 year mark, violent crime has fallen over 50%, property crime has dropped 63% and the female suicide rate is down over 30% since 1973, the year abortion became legal.
Of course there are a thousand other factors that we must take into account today that we didn't face in the 70's and 80's and those could all be contributors to the decrease in crime. Education levels are higher, the baby-boomers are older, it is harder to obtain a gun, we have more nudity and bad language on TV, we have violent video games, we have a higher divorce rate, we have more violent and satanic music lyrics available to children, we aren't allowed to have prayer's in school, we have internet porn, people are no longer afraid to be openly gay, we have gay cartoon characters, condoms are available to teenagers, etc. So, just the fact that women aren't forced to have unwanted children doesn't necessarily mean that abortion is the only reason that we don't have maladjusted, unwanted, neglected kids turning into criminals when they reach their mid 20's.
Hmm, maybe those "family values" people have it all wrong; maybe their way of life was causing all the crime.
Sources: USA Today, Bureau of Justice Statistics (DOJ), Factcheck.org
So does this mean anything? Is that 20 number significant? I would say so; according to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics between 1976 and 2002, 18-34 year olds accounted for 64.8% of all murders; the average age of the offender was about 26 years old. In 2002, 62% of all prison inmates were under the age of 35 and 76% of all homicides were committed by people under the age of 35. How different would this country have been if we had all these unwanted 20 year olds running around, especially as they got older and got into their peak crime years? Since 1993, that 20 year mark, violent crime has fallen over 50%, property crime has dropped 63% and the female suicide rate is down over 30% since 1973, the year abortion became legal.
Of course there are a thousand other factors that we must take into account today that we didn't face in the 70's and 80's and those could all be contributors to the decrease in crime. Education levels are higher, the baby-boomers are older, it is harder to obtain a gun, we have more nudity and bad language on TV, we have violent video games, we have a higher divorce rate, we have more violent and satanic music lyrics available to children, we aren't allowed to have prayer's in school, we have internet porn, people are no longer afraid to be openly gay, we have gay cartoon characters, condoms are available to teenagers, etc. So, just the fact that women aren't forced to have unwanted children doesn't necessarily mean that abortion is the only reason that we don't have maladjusted, unwanted, neglected kids turning into criminals when they reach their mid 20's.
Hmm, maybe those "family values" people have it all wrong; maybe their way of life was causing all the crime.
Sources: USA Today, Bureau of Justice Statistics (DOJ), Factcheck.org
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Hurricane Rita
From Tom Delay's website:
Washington, Sep 13 - Congressman Tom DeLay (R-Sugar Land) today announced a record grant of homeland security funds for the Houston-Galveston area, with more than $54 million in vital projects coming to the Texas Gulf Coast. The funding, part of the Department of Homeland Security’s port security grant program, will be used to enhance security operations in Houston, Beaumont, Freeport, Port Arthur, and Texas City.
I wonder if Houston, the city in Tom Delay's district, George Bush's home state, Exxon, Conoco Phillip's and Halliburton's corporate headquarters’ will find the resources and get a quicker federal relief response to Hurricane Rita than the state and city with a Democratic Governor, a black Mayor and a whole lot of poor people?
Washington, Sep 13 - Congressman Tom DeLay (R-Sugar Land) today announced a record grant of homeland security funds for the Houston-Galveston area, with more than $54 million in vital projects coming to the Texas Gulf Coast. The funding, part of the Department of Homeland Security’s port security grant program, will be used to enhance security operations in Houston, Beaumont, Freeport, Port Arthur, and Texas City.
I wonder if Houston, the city in Tom Delay's district, George Bush's home state, Exxon, Conoco Phillip's and Halliburton's corporate headquarters’ will find the resources and get a quicker federal relief response to Hurricane Rita than the state and city with a Democratic Governor, a black Mayor and a whole lot of poor people?
Monday, September 19, 2005
Who Would Have Guessed War Could be so Profitable?
I have compiled a comparison of stock prices of mostly Texas based (coincidence?) companies in the oil industry before the Iraq war, and as they are today. Before the war in 2003 oil was under $30 per barrel and it is now over $67 dollars per barrel. And just a couple of years ago in 2002 when the US hit a 20 year oil stock low, prices were hovering around the $26 dollar per barrel range; that's a 157% increase in just 3 years. Higher prices typically mean more room for mark ups and profit margins for sellers and processors.
Exxon Mobil-Irving, Tx
Exxon is #2 on the Forbes Fortune 500 list, the biggest oil company in the US and 2nd in the world. It is the most profitable company in Forbes Fortune 500 list. One month before the war in Iraq started their stock was trading at $33.44 per share. Today Exxon’s stock closed at over $64.33 per share; a 91% increase since the onset of the Iraq war and oil prices have increased more than 160%.
Chevron Corporation-San Ramon, Ca
Chevron, who now owns Texaco, is the 2nd largest oil company in the US. One month prior to the start of the war in Iraq their stock was trading at around $34 per share. Today Chevron Phillips stock price closed at $64.31 per share; an 89% increase since the lead up to the war.
Conoco Phillips- Houston, Tx
Conoco Phillips is the 3rd largest oil company in the US. One month prior to the start of the Iraq war their stock was trading at $24 per share. Today Conoco Phillips stock price closed at $70.18; a 188% increase since just before the Iraq war began.
Halliburton-Houston, Tx
Halliburton, who seized many no bid contracts that had nothing to do with their connection to Vice President Dick Cheney, saw their stock price increase from $19.19 in February of 2003 to a close today of $66.73; a 247% increase. 99% of Halliburton’s political donations go to Republican candidates.
Ok, I know that the DJIA historically goes up over time, not as much when there is a Republican President, but these companies I have mentioned far out paced the Dow Jones industrial average which has grown 40% since the 1st quarter of 2003 before the Iraq war. If you want to compare apples to apples we can look at another Fortune 500 company like Ford who has only seen a 14% increase in their stock price over the same time period.
DJIA:
Is it just a coincidence that Cheney and Bush come from oil industry backgrounds, as does Bush senior? Is it just a coincidence that Iraq, an OPEC nation (not for long), was about ready to switch the sale of their oil from the Dollar to the Euro? Is it just a coincidence that in 2000 the oil and gas industry contributed 7 million dollars to Democratic candidates compared to 26.7 million (78%) that went towards Republican candidates? Was the war in Iraq motivated by money and profit? I report, you decide.
Exxon Mobil-Irving, Tx
Exxon is #2 on the Forbes Fortune 500 list, the biggest oil company in the US and 2nd in the world. It is the most profitable company in Forbes Fortune 500 list. One month before the war in Iraq started their stock was trading at $33.44 per share. Today Exxon’s stock closed at over $64.33 per share; a 91% increase since the onset of the Iraq war and oil prices have increased more than 160%.
Chevron Corporation-San Ramon, Ca
Chevron, who now owns Texaco, is the 2nd largest oil company in the US. One month prior to the start of the war in Iraq their stock was trading at around $34 per share. Today Chevron Phillips stock price closed at $64.31 per share; an 89% increase since the lead up to the war.
Conoco Phillips- Houston, Tx
Conoco Phillips is the 3rd largest oil company in the US. One month prior to the start of the Iraq war their stock was trading at $24 per share. Today Conoco Phillips stock price closed at $70.18; a 188% increase since just before the Iraq war began.
Halliburton-Houston, Tx
Halliburton, who seized many no bid contracts that had nothing to do with their connection to Vice President Dick Cheney, saw their stock price increase from $19.19 in February of 2003 to a close today of $66.73; a 247% increase. 99% of Halliburton’s political donations go to Republican candidates.
Ok, I know that the DJIA historically goes up over time, not as much when there is a Republican President, but these companies I have mentioned far out paced the Dow Jones industrial average which has grown 40% since the 1st quarter of 2003 before the Iraq war. If you want to compare apples to apples we can look at another Fortune 500 company like Ford who has only seen a 14% increase in their stock price over the same time period.
DJIA:
Is it just a coincidence that Cheney and Bush come from oil industry backgrounds, as does Bush senior? Is it just a coincidence that Iraq, an OPEC nation (not for long), was about ready to switch the sale of their oil from the Dollar to the Euro? Is it just a coincidence that in 2000 the oil and gas industry contributed 7 million dollars to Democratic candidates compared to 26.7 million (78%) that went towards Republican candidates? Was the war in Iraq motivated by money and profit? I report, you decide.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Lesbians Caused Hurricane Katrina
This is a quote from Robertson concerning a gay pride parade in Orlando:
"I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you."
Here are some more crazy Christians blaming the Hurricane on "sinners".
From: http://www.repentamerica.com/pr_hurricanekatrina.html
"Just days before "Southern Decadence", an annual homosexual celebration attracting tens of thousands of people to the French Quarters section of New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina destroys the city. "Southern Decadence" has a history of filling the French Quarters section of the city with drunken homosexuals engaging in sex acts in the public streets and bars. Last year, a local pastor sent video footage of sex acts being performed in front of police to the mayor, city council, and the media. City officials simply ignored the footage and continued to welcome and praise the weeklong celebration as being an "exciting event". However, Hurricane Katrina has put an end to the annual celebration of sin. "
"Although the loss of lives is deeply saddening, this act of God destroyed a wicked city," stated Repent America director Michael Marcavage. "From 'Girls Gone Wild' to 'Southern Decadence,' New Orleans was a city that had its doors wide open to the public celebration of sin. From the devastation may a city full of righteousness emerge," he continued. "
Message: If you have sex God will kill you with a Hurricane. God doesn't care about all the murderers, crack heads, crooked lying, greedy politicians in Washington DC, all the child prostitution in Thailand and Moldova or all the drug murders in Colombia; he only punishes chick's who like to chow box.
"I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you."
Here are some more crazy Christians blaming the Hurricane on "sinners".
From: http://www.repentamerica.com/pr_hurricanekatrina.html
"Just days before "Southern Decadence", an annual homosexual celebration attracting tens of thousands of people to the French Quarters section of New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina destroys the city. "Southern Decadence" has a history of filling the French Quarters section of the city with drunken homosexuals engaging in sex acts in the public streets and bars. Last year, a local pastor sent video footage of sex acts being performed in front of police to the mayor, city council, and the media. City officials simply ignored the footage and continued to welcome and praise the weeklong celebration as being an "exciting event". However, Hurricane Katrina has put an end to the annual celebration of sin. "
"Although the loss of lives is deeply saddening, this act of God destroyed a wicked city," stated Repent America director Michael Marcavage. "From 'Girls Gone Wild' to 'Southern Decadence,' New Orleans was a city that had its doors wide open to the public celebration of sin. From the devastation may a city full of righteousness emerge," he continued. "
Message: If you have sex God will kill you with a Hurricane. God doesn't care about all the murderers, crack heads, crooked lying, greedy politicians in Washington DC, all the child prostitution in Thailand and Moldova or all the drug murders in Colombia; he only punishes chick's who like to chow box.
Friday, September 09, 2005
Brownie is Looking for a Heck of a Job
FEMA chief Michael Brown has been removed from the relief effort by the Chief of Homeland Security, the organization which manages FEMA. He will now probably go back to what he is qualified to do which is raising Arabian horses, not unlike Bush who is responsible for raising Arabian oil companies.
Well, this settles who was responsible for evacuation and preparation for natural disasters such as a hurricanes and floods, as the Mayor of New Orleans has yet to be fired.
Well, this settles who was responsible for evacuation and preparation for natural disasters such as a hurricanes and floods, as the Mayor of New Orleans has yet to be fired.
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Pro-Lifers Need to Get Over the Adoption Option
I saw a blog the other day where some bleeding heart neo-con was crying about how she didn't understand how someone could have an abortion when so many families wanted a baby, but couldn't have one of their own. She was under the impression that all these "many families" had all given up taking fertility drugs, had settled on adopting 5-year-old black kids, and were unable to find one that was available.
I went to The Administration for Children and Families website, a division of the US department of Health and Human Services, to find out how many US kids were available to these many families. Feel free to check for yourselves, but here are the approximate numbers on orphans and available children up for adoption:
117,000 kids in the US, at the time of the report (1999), needed homes. 51% of these kids were black, 32% where white, 11% were Hispanic and 6% would qualify as other. 29% of these kids were babies under the age of 1 year old at the time they had been made available for adoption and 42% of them were between the ages of 1 and five. The average amount of time that these children had been waiting for a home was 46 months, almost 4 years. The numbers I am speaking of only include children in the US, so you must also consider the millions of orphans in other countries.
I'm sorry if you had your heart set on a newborn baby with blond hair and blue eyes, but nature already decided you can't have that. This is your next best option. So, until all these kids have homes or the pro-lifers adopt them all themselves, I don't want to hear about how terrible abortion is.
Another thing to consider for poor 16-year-olds who are pregnant is that roughly 17% of all children in the US (13 million) live in poverty. Children born to children are often born into poverty and are more likely to themselves become high school dropouts, teenage mothers and to be poor. So for a 16-year-old, keeping the baby is not a good option and neither is giving it up for adoption as that child will probably never find a home. Come to think of it, none of these options are easy decisions; abortion is not an easy way out as many say it is, and neither is carrying a baby for 9 months and then handing it over to someone else. Both can have serious emotional and /or medical consequences but I say either are better than a 16-year-old trying to raise a kid as a poor, young, uneducated single mother.
One last thing--while all these people are trying to put Jesus in our public schools, they may want to leave a little room for the condoms.
Sources: Deptartment of Health and Human Services, US Census
I went to The Administration for Children and Families website, a division of the US department of Health and Human Services, to find out how many US kids were available to these many families. Feel free to check for yourselves, but here are the approximate numbers on orphans and available children up for adoption:
117,000 kids in the US, at the time of the report (1999), needed homes. 51% of these kids were black, 32% where white, 11% were Hispanic and 6% would qualify as other. 29% of these kids were babies under the age of 1 year old at the time they had been made available for adoption and 42% of them were between the ages of 1 and five. The average amount of time that these children had been waiting for a home was 46 months, almost 4 years. The numbers I am speaking of only include children in the US, so you must also consider the millions of orphans in other countries.
I'm sorry if you had your heart set on a newborn baby with blond hair and blue eyes, but nature already decided you can't have that. This is your next best option. So, until all these kids have homes or the pro-lifers adopt them all themselves, I don't want to hear about how terrible abortion is.
Another thing to consider for poor 16-year-olds who are pregnant is that roughly 17% of all children in the US (13 million) live in poverty. Children born to children are often born into poverty and are more likely to themselves become high school dropouts, teenage mothers and to be poor. So for a 16-year-old, keeping the baby is not a good option and neither is giving it up for adoption as that child will probably never find a home. Come to think of it, none of these options are easy decisions; abortion is not an easy way out as many say it is, and neither is carrying a baby for 9 months and then handing it over to someone else. Both can have serious emotional and /or medical consequences but I say either are better than a 16-year-old trying to raise a kid as a poor, young, uneducated single mother.
One last thing--while all these people are trying to put Jesus in our public schools, they may want to leave a little room for the condoms.
Sources: Deptartment of Health and Human Services, US Census
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Fear Mongering, Profit Driven Drug Companies
The above is an ad I saw in Time Magazine by a drug company trying to enforce its communistic grip of the US drug monopoly that these types of companies have enjoyed for so long. They are using this as a scare tactic to convince you that anything made overseas in some "shady" country could not possibly be trusted. If that is the case, then don't ever shop at Wal-Mart, buy another pair of shoes or buy a car from any American car company ever again.
Why is it that we can trust a place like China to make our baby strollers, safety seats, children's toys and every piece of baby clothing but we can't trust them to make a boner pill? Why is it that this is one area where capitalism and free trade is bad? Why are they so afraid of the competition?
Is it because the top 7 pharmaceutical companies earn 20 billion in annual profits, that the top 12 make more profit than all the top 24 automotive related industries, including GM and Ford, combined? Could it be because a company such as Merck made 6 billion dollars in profits in 2004? Could it be because these companies make an 18.5% return of revenues, which is 8 times higher than the average of other industries? Could it be that the pharmaceutical industry wants to remain one of the most profitable industries in the world? Or could it be that we as Americans are just being taken for a ride since we pay around 45% more for drugs here than they do in other western countries, and we account for nearly half of all world wide drug revenues?
In 1990 Americans spent 37 billion dollars on prescription drugs but by 1997 it was almost 79 billion. In 2001 the top 10 US drug companies increased their profits by 33%. Prescription drugs are the fastest growing portion of health care costs as they typically increase 17% per year and will soon overtake physician compensation as the 2nd biggest expense in medical care.
You may say that they need to keep competition out because they are developing cures for cancer and AIDS and need the revenues for research and development, and to make sure their drugs are safe, right? Wrong. Only 1 out of 5 dollars made in the drug industry goes towards research and development; most companies spend twice as much on marketing and advertising. Most drug research comes from small biotech companies who later get their breakthroughs pushed by the major drug companies. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) states that over 100,000 people in the US die per year due to side effects from their medication; that's almost three times the amount of deaths from automobile accidents. The FDA claims there may have been as many as 28,000 deaths from the drug Vioxx alone.
Now, to address all the bullshit in the ad; I know the thought of buying medicine from the Neanderthals in third world nations such as New Zealand is terrifying so I have come up with some statistics from the CIA to break down the threat.
Greece, Canada, Israel and New Zealand all have longer life expectancies than the US. If these countries can keep their people alive longer than we can, then I want to take the drugs that they are taking; clearly they are working.
The Czech Republic, Greece and New Zealand all have higher literacy rates than the US. Maybe the reason our drugs kill so many people here is because the pharmacist can't read the labels and end up putting the medicine in the wrong bottles.
Here is another thought; half of the countries listed on their map are now or were at one time nuclear powers. So does this mean we trust them with the power to wipe out humanity but we can't trust them to cure humanities menstrual cramps and swollen prostates?
I would also like to point out that the company who made this ad is a British, not American company. China and India both have a larger GDP than the UK (2nd and 4th) and both have plans of going to the moon within the next few years. Oooh, I'm scared; besides, when was the last time you saw a doctor or a pharmacist who wasn't from one of the countries that were mentioned in the ad?
Monday, August 29, 2005
An Open Letter to the People of Indiana
Although I guess I have known this for years my two recent trips to Indiana have led me to believe that they must have done away with their traffic laws. They still have speed limit signs but apparently highway etiquette is beneath them. So for the last time:
The left lane is a passing lane; if you are not passing someone, drive in the right lane.
The left lane is also known as the fast lane; if you are driving slow, or slower than the guy behind you then you need to move into the slow lane, AKA the right lane.
You don't have to try to fight everyone who honks at you or flashes their brights at you trying to get you to move out of the way; you do not own I-65.
When a bigger faster vehicle comes up behind you at a high rate of speed the laws of physics argues that you should move out of the way, not slam on your breaks.
I know it is hard to see out of your rear view mirror with the gun rack hanging in your back window but try using your side view mirrors from time to time if you haven't already knocked them off during your last DUI.
Yes I know there is a speed limit law but I may choose not to obey it and pay the appropriate fines if I am caught.
Just because you think 75 is "fast enough" doesn't mean that I do. Maybe I think you are stupid enough to run off the road.
Just because you think I am driving dangerously doesn't make it any more so than you being a 95 year old blind lady who can't see over the dashboard.
It is not your job to enforce the speed limit. I don't try to pull you over for driving a car that is not safe for highway travel or for not wearing a shirt in public, or your violation of open container laws now do I?
No, being so obese that you exceed the cars weight limit is not an excuse for driving slow in the fast lane.
Just because you have an old car/truck from the early 80's that is spewing black smoke from the back that would make Spy Hunter jealous, doesn't mean that you are exempt from the law due to having a car that is not capable of traveling at those speeds. My advice would be to get a new car or drive on the back-roads where your home is parked.
Apparently NRA, W, and number 8 stickers slow down your vehicle immensely; do not put one of these stickers on your car. Other observations have led me to believe that mustaches have the same affect on vehicle speed.
It's not a race; when I am forced to pass you in the right lane that doesn't mean I want to race so don't bother speeding up while I am trying to get by.
So pretty please, with a cherry on top; get the fuck out of my way!
The left lane is a passing lane; if you are not passing someone, drive in the right lane.
The left lane is also known as the fast lane; if you are driving slow, or slower than the guy behind you then you need to move into the slow lane, AKA the right lane.
You don't have to try to fight everyone who honks at you or flashes their brights at you trying to get you to move out of the way; you do not own I-65.
When a bigger faster vehicle comes up behind you at a high rate of speed the laws of physics argues that you should move out of the way, not slam on your breaks.
I know it is hard to see out of your rear view mirror with the gun rack hanging in your back window but try using your side view mirrors from time to time if you haven't already knocked them off during your last DUI.
Yes I know there is a speed limit law but I may choose not to obey it and pay the appropriate fines if I am caught.
Just because you think 75 is "fast enough" doesn't mean that I do. Maybe I think you are stupid enough to run off the road.
Just because you think I am driving dangerously doesn't make it any more so than you being a 95 year old blind lady who can't see over the dashboard.
It is not your job to enforce the speed limit. I don't try to pull you over for driving a car that is not safe for highway travel or for not wearing a shirt in public, or your violation of open container laws now do I?
No, being so obese that you exceed the cars weight limit is not an excuse for driving slow in the fast lane.
Just because you have an old car/truck from the early 80's that is spewing black smoke from the back that would make Spy Hunter jealous, doesn't mean that you are exempt from the law due to having a car that is not capable of traveling at those speeds. My advice would be to get a new car or drive on the back-roads where your home is parked.
Apparently NRA, W, and number 8 stickers slow down your vehicle immensely; do not put one of these stickers on your car. Other observations have led me to believe that mustaches have the same affect on vehicle speed.
It's not a race; when I am forced to pass you in the right lane that doesn't mean I want to race so don't bother speeding up while I am trying to get by.
So pretty please, with a cherry on top; get the fuck out of my way!
Saturday, August 20, 2005
While I am Away; Some Pictures I like
I will be away for a week or so but I wanted to leave you with some of my favorite Photobucket collections.
Same arguments for intelligent design apply:
How to support our troops Republican style:
Example of the tolerant right wing / loving Christians:
Doesn't anyone see the similarities between the last Star Wars and the our current situation?
Do we have a religious maniac in office?
WWI poster with the American Pitbull Terrier:
What is in Bush's office?
How Neocon Christian Republicans see the world:
The Dawgs:
The aristocratic dawg:
Same arguments for intelligent design apply:
How to support our troops Republican style:
Example of the tolerant right wing / loving Christians:
Doesn't anyone see the similarities between the last Star Wars and the our current situation?
Do we have a religious maniac in office?
WWI poster with the American Pitbull Terrier:
What is in Bush's office?
How Neocon Christian Republicans see the world:
The Dawgs:
The aristocratic dawg:
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Jesus Speaks Out Against Public Prayer
Jesus solves the issue of public prayer:
Matthew 6:5-8:
5: And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6: But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
7: But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
8: Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
Ok, this issue is settled! This is a quote straight from JC's mouth. If you try to pray at a football game, or in school, or shove it down peoples throats anywhere else, not only is it rude, not only do you look ridiculous, not only may you be breaking the law if you're doing it in a public place funded by my tax money, but you will also burn in Hell.
After all, the premise of Christianity is to obey what Jesus says, otherwise...
Matthew 6:5-8:
5: And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6: But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
7: But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
8: Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
Ok, this issue is settled! This is a quote straight from JC's mouth. If you try to pray at a football game, or in school, or shove it down peoples throats anywhere else, not only is it rude, not only do you look ridiculous, not only may you be breaking the law if you're doing it in a public place funded by my tax money, but you will also burn in Hell.
After all, the premise of Christianity is to obey what Jesus says, otherwise...
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Stem Cells Continued
Ok, I have a confession to make. In my last post I showed a picture of a blastocyst which is the early stage of an embryo from which stem cells are derived, and asked people to tell me why they thought this mass of about 100 cells is a human being. Most people agreed that indeed this is just group of cells with no brain, no heart or heartbeat and no nervous system. But then there were several anonymous posters who said that this blastocyst was human because it will one day become human and that it has a soul. No, it doesn't have soul, like James Brown has soul, but it has A soul, that I suppose God implanted into it sometime between ejaculation and fertilization.
Well I have to admit that all of our anonymous posters were wrong, not because of my agnostic religious beliefs say there is no such thing as a soul, but because the picture I displayed was A COW EMBRYO! So no, it doesn't have a soul, it would have never turned into a human and there is really no difference between a bunch of cells in a cow embryo and a bunch of cells at this stage of a human embryo because they look like and essentially are the same thing. It is pretty easy for me to differentiate between a grown cow and a grown person, but not so easy for me to tell when they are only one week into their development. Sure the DNA is different but there really isn't much that sets a human blastocyst apart from that of a cow's. Cow embryos have even been fertilized by human sperm though they have yet to get past the single cell stage. So my point is that these people don't know the difference, they can't see the difference, and they cannot say for sure what these cells will turn into, if they turn into anything at all. Ever hear of a miscarriage?
I guess souls are like invisible ghosts that are stored in a soul closet up in heaven until someone gets it on and it is therefore taken out of heaven, put into an embryo by God (who is watching you have sex so he can insert the soul at exactly the right time) so it can later grow up to follow God, so it can get back to heaven. I say why not just skip the middle man and let the soul stay in heaven. Why take the chance right? If you were chilling in paradise and someone said, "hey do you want to go hang out in Somalia and starve for 45-50 years, or be born to a poor single crack mom who will hate you thus taking a chance of you becoming "evil" and therefore not being allowed to go back to Heaven and instead, burning in Hell for eternity; which would you rather do? I would rather not take the chance and just stay in Heaven, wouldn't you?
It's ironic that the very people who claim that life couldn't have evolved from a single or multi-celled organism are the exact same people who call a clump of cells, such as a blastocyst, human life. Which is it, can a clump of cells evolve into a human or not?
Here's what a guy like me sees:
Here is what the neocons see:
Well I have to admit that all of our anonymous posters were wrong, not because of my agnostic religious beliefs say there is no such thing as a soul, but because the picture I displayed was A COW EMBRYO! So no, it doesn't have a soul, it would have never turned into a human and there is really no difference between a bunch of cells in a cow embryo and a bunch of cells at this stage of a human embryo because they look like and essentially are the same thing. It is pretty easy for me to differentiate between a grown cow and a grown person, but not so easy for me to tell when they are only one week into their development. Sure the DNA is different but there really isn't much that sets a human blastocyst apart from that of a cow's. Cow embryos have even been fertilized by human sperm though they have yet to get past the single cell stage. So my point is that these people don't know the difference, they can't see the difference, and they cannot say for sure what these cells will turn into, if they turn into anything at all. Ever hear of a miscarriage?
I guess souls are like invisible ghosts that are stored in a soul closet up in heaven until someone gets it on and it is therefore taken out of heaven, put into an embryo by God (who is watching you have sex so he can insert the soul at exactly the right time) so it can later grow up to follow God, so it can get back to heaven. I say why not just skip the middle man and let the soul stay in heaven. Why take the chance right? If you were chilling in paradise and someone said, "hey do you want to go hang out in Somalia and starve for 45-50 years, or be born to a poor single crack mom who will hate you thus taking a chance of you becoming "evil" and therefore not being allowed to go back to Heaven and instead, burning in Hell for eternity; which would you rather do? I would rather not take the chance and just stay in Heaven, wouldn't you?
It's ironic that the very people who claim that life couldn't have evolved from a single or multi-celled organism are the exact same people who call a clump of cells, such as a blastocyst, human life. Which is it, can a clump of cells evolve into a human or not?
Here's what a guy like me sees:
Here is what the neocons see:
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Is This Human? / Stem Cell Research
The above photo is of a Blastocyst, which is basically a fertilized egg a few days later with about 100 or so extra cells and a little fluid. At this stage of development, it has yet to even enter the uterus. It is from the inner mass cells of a human Blastocyst where stem cells are obtained.
I know this Blastocyst consists of living cells, as does my sperm and every pathogen that has entered my body. Why is one worth saving and the others are not? Could the people against embryonic stem cell research explain to me what, if anything, makes this human? And what information do you have that would back your claim? How do you know that this embryo will ever indeed be carried to term and result in a person?
With no nervous system, no heart beat, with no brain or anything else one would associate with a fully developed mammal, let alone a human being, how does one try to proclaim that this is indeed a human? Could someone please point out the human characteristics that are represented in this photo? Is this a human being?
Monday, August 01, 2005
ALTV?
Story: Al Gore TV, CNN
Back from his last identity crisis of being a bearded woodsman, Al Gore, along with a group of investors, debuted a new television network Monday called Current TV, and it promises to be as exciting as Al Gore himself. This network will feature short segments called "pods", and each pod will only be around 7 minutes long, as to not loose the attention of the ADD caffeine generation. CNN describes the preview as a "hipper, more irreverent version of traditional TV news magazines", in other words they are ripping off MTV News and the Daily Show all at once. However, they also explained that programming would be covering topics such as jobs, technology and spirituality. I don't know about you but when I think of "hip", jobs and spirituality are the first things that come to mind.
And excuse me for not wanting to watch a network owned by the guy whose wife was the head of the PMRC, the anti free speech organization responsible for warning labels on mainly hip-hop and metal CD's, regardless of their actual content. In other words, this was another organization trying to step in and take the place of parenting. At first glance, I would think that The 700 Club would be more exciting than this gimmick network.
Back from his last identity crisis of being a bearded woodsman, Al Gore, along with a group of investors, debuted a new television network Monday called Current TV, and it promises to be as exciting as Al Gore himself. This network will feature short segments called "pods", and each pod will only be around 7 minutes long, as to not loose the attention of the ADD caffeine generation. CNN describes the preview as a "hipper, more irreverent version of traditional TV news magazines", in other words they are ripping off MTV News and the Daily Show all at once. However, they also explained that programming would be covering topics such as jobs, technology and spirituality. I don't know about you but when I think of "hip", jobs and spirituality are the first things that come to mind.
And excuse me for not wanting to watch a network owned by the guy whose wife was the head of the PMRC, the anti free speech organization responsible for warning labels on mainly hip-hop and metal CD's, regardless of their actual content. In other words, this was another organization trying to step in and take the place of parenting. At first glance, I would think that The 700 Club would be more exciting than this gimmick network.
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Sellouts! CAFTA Blows!
We expect this from big business Republicans (and Bill Clinton) but here are the names of the Democrats who support the loss of US jobs, factories with no environmental regulations and slave labor with no rights. Yes, McDonalds and Kentucky Fried Chicken will be able to open restaurants in Central America putting out of business small family owned restaurants but I don't see how that benefits me. The only good that comes from CAFTA is that Fortune 500 companies stock prices have an oppurtunity to edge up a quarter point. It solves no problems in Central America, it only creates more.
Thanks guys! Now the rest of the country can look like Detroit.
The following Democrats are responsible for the loss of your job:
Melissa Bean, Illinois (8th District): 202-225-3711
Jim Cooper, Tennessee (5th District): 202-225-4311
Norm Dicks, Washington (6th District): 202-225-5916
Henry Cuellar, Texas (28th District): 202-225-1640
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas (15th District): (202) 225-2531
William Jefferson, Louisiana (2nd District): (202) 225-6636
Jim Matheson, Utah (2nd District): (202) 225-3011
Gregory Meeks, New York (6th District): (202) 225-3011
Dennis Moore, Kansas (3rd District): (202) 225-2865
Jim Moran, Virginia (8th District): (202) 225-4376
Solomon Ortiz, Texas (27th District): 202-225-7742
Ike Skelton, Missouri (4th District): 202-225-2876
Vic Snyder, Arkansas (2nd District): 202-225-2506
John Tanner, Tennessee (8th District): (202) 225-4714
Edolphus Towns, New York (10th District: (202) 225-5936
Thanks guys! Now the rest of the country can look like Detroit.
The following Democrats are responsible for the loss of your job:
Melissa Bean, Illinois (8th District): 202-225-3711
Jim Cooper, Tennessee (5th District): 202-225-4311
Norm Dicks, Washington (6th District): 202-225-5916
Henry Cuellar, Texas (28th District): 202-225-1640
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas (15th District): (202) 225-2531
William Jefferson, Louisiana (2nd District): (202) 225-6636
Jim Matheson, Utah (2nd District): (202) 225-3011
Gregory Meeks, New York (6th District): (202) 225-3011
Dennis Moore, Kansas (3rd District): (202) 225-2865
Jim Moran, Virginia (8th District): (202) 225-4376
Solomon Ortiz, Texas (27th District): 202-225-7742
Ike Skelton, Missouri (4th District): 202-225-2876
Vic Snyder, Arkansas (2nd District): 202-225-2506
John Tanner, Tennessee (8th District): (202) 225-4714
Edolphus Towns, New York (10th District: (202) 225-5936
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Tell Your Senators to Keep the Estate Tax!
Do you think the US doesn't need 30 billion dollars in tax revenue per year?
Do you think Paris Hilton deserves to be rich more than someone who works 50 hours per week, just because of her last name?
Did you know that the Estate Tax (AKA Death Tax to Republicans) only affects estates worth over 1.5 million dollars?
Did you know that the Estate Tax never exceeds 50% no matter how rich someone is?
Did you know that the Estate Tax only affects approximately 2% percent of the entire population, but this small percentage accounts for over 45% of the wealth in this country?
Did you know that 8 of the 15 richest people in this country inherited all of their wealth, and never worked a day in their life for it?
Did you know that in 1982 the wealthiest 400 individuals in the "Forbes 400" owned $92 billion? By 2000 their wealth increased to over $1.2 trillion.
Did you know that Bill Gates alone has as much wealth as the bottom 40% of all U.S. households? (He is one of the few who actually worked for it)
Did you know that you will never be this rich and that you personally will never have to pay an Estate Tax?
Would you whine and complain if someone handed you a free check worth over $750,000?
Did you know that because of this country's lax trade policies, its defeat of European Communism, its lenient tax laws, and its welfare system which protects rich people from hordes of poor people roaming the streets looking for their next victim, that rich people in this country get richer every year, and are only allowed to do so because they live in this country to begin with?
Don't you think it's about time they show a little gratitude and realize they owe their success to the United States of America and the American workers?
If so, click this link below and tell your Senators to keep the Estate Tax in place!
http://www.usalone.com/estatetax.htm
The repeal has already passed in the House of Representatives!
Do you think Paris Hilton deserves to be rich more than someone who works 50 hours per week, just because of her last name?
Did you know that the Estate Tax (AKA Death Tax to Republicans) only affects estates worth over 1.5 million dollars?
Did you know that the Estate Tax never exceeds 50% no matter how rich someone is?
Did you know that the Estate Tax only affects approximately 2% percent of the entire population, but this small percentage accounts for over 45% of the wealth in this country?
Did you know that 8 of the 15 richest people in this country inherited all of their wealth, and never worked a day in their life for it?
Did you know that in 1982 the wealthiest 400 individuals in the "Forbes 400" owned $92 billion? By 2000 their wealth increased to over $1.2 trillion.
Did you know that Bill Gates alone has as much wealth as the bottom 40% of all U.S. households? (He is one of the few who actually worked for it)
Did you know that you will never be this rich and that you personally will never have to pay an Estate Tax?
Would you whine and complain if someone handed you a free check worth over $750,000?
Did you know that because of this country's lax trade policies, its defeat of European Communism, its lenient tax laws, and its welfare system which protects rich people from hordes of poor people roaming the streets looking for their next victim, that rich people in this country get richer every year, and are only allowed to do so because they live in this country to begin with?
Don't you think it's about time they show a little gratitude and realize they owe their success to the United States of America and the American workers?
If so, click this link below and tell your Senators to keep the Estate Tax in place!
http://www.usalone.com/estatetax.htm
The repeal has already passed in the House of Representatives!
Monday, July 25, 2005
Guns and Alcohol Should be Tax Exempt too!
According to the Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations, on the IRS' website:
"Congress has enacted special tax laws applicable to churches, religious organizations and ministers in recognition of their unique status in American society and of their rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States."
If religious organizations get tax exempt status based on their protection under the Constitution then guns and alcohol should be Tax Exempt too. What better way to celebrate our freedoms than getting drunk and shooting each other and then going to church the next day to repent.
Although my father was an IRS agent for over 25 years, Sec. 501c of the IRS tax code was not his specialty and he has no good answer as to why churches don't pay taxes and is as just as baffled as I am. So if anyone can help shed some light on this subject I would like to hear your educated view on the actual laws governing tax exempt organizations under the US tax code.
I always thought churches were tax exempt because most of them were "charitable organizations", or at least claimed to be. However, what I gather from the above statement is that because freedom of religion is protected under the constitution, the government doesn't have the right to interfere with its practice and finances. But, if Alcohol is protected under the 21st amendment, doesn't it stand to reason that it would be unconstitutional to tax alcohol, or guns for that matter since they are both protected under amendments in the Constitution? And while we are at it, Time, Newsweek and other forms media should not be taxed since they are also protected under the same amendment as religion. Unless of course a member of the press refuses to give up their source, then that is clearly not protected (<---sarcasm).
Why does one get special exemptions and the others don't? Are they saying that one amendment is more important than any other amendments? If so, who decided this? If not, why the special treatment for religious organizations and charities but not for other thing protected under the Constitution?
And as most people know, tax exempt religious or charitable organizations cannot condemn or support a candidate for political office. I guess that means Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, The NAACP, Westboro Baptist Church (Rev. Phelps), Ronnie Floyd and all the Southern Baptists and Focus on the Family should all start paying taxes.
"Congress has enacted special tax laws applicable to churches, religious organizations and ministers in recognition of their unique status in American society and of their rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States."
If religious organizations get tax exempt status based on their protection under the Constitution then guns and alcohol should be Tax Exempt too. What better way to celebrate our freedoms than getting drunk and shooting each other and then going to church the next day to repent.
Although my father was an IRS agent for over 25 years, Sec. 501c of the IRS tax code was not his specialty and he has no good answer as to why churches don't pay taxes and is as just as baffled as I am. So if anyone can help shed some light on this subject I would like to hear your educated view on the actual laws governing tax exempt organizations under the US tax code.
I always thought churches were tax exempt because most of them were "charitable organizations", or at least claimed to be. However, what I gather from the above statement is that because freedom of religion is protected under the constitution, the government doesn't have the right to interfere with its practice and finances. But, if Alcohol is protected under the 21st amendment, doesn't it stand to reason that it would be unconstitutional to tax alcohol, or guns for that matter since they are both protected under amendments in the Constitution? And while we are at it, Time, Newsweek and other forms media should not be taxed since they are also protected under the same amendment as religion. Unless of course a member of the press refuses to give up their source, then that is clearly not protected (<---sarcasm).
Why does one get special exemptions and the others don't? Are they saying that one amendment is more important than any other amendments? If so, who decided this? If not, why the special treatment for religious organizations and charities but not for other thing protected under the Constitution?
And as most people know, tax exempt religious or charitable organizations cannot condemn or support a candidate for political office. I guess that means Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, The NAACP, Westboro Baptist Church (Rev. Phelps), Ronnie Floyd and all the Southern Baptists and Focus on the Family should all start paying taxes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)