Civil War - noun:
a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country
I know it's just semantics but isn't this the state of Iraq? I know he doesn't read but how long will it take before Bush and Fox News admits that Iraq is in a state of civil war?
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Friday, December 15, 2006
The Christians Who Stole Christmas Redux
This is mostly a repost from last year: http://toadthoughts.blogspot.com/2005/12/christians-who-stole-christmas.html
With the Jew who stole Christmas controversy heavy on the minds of the weary travelers at the Seattle-Tacoma Airport and the Democrats taking control of the House and the Senate there is likely to be a renewed fear that the Liberals want kill the baby Jesus and destroy Christmas. Because killing a holiday on which the economy is dependent and getting this holiday off our work calendar is at the top of the list of every card carrying member of the ACLU. Christians, as it turns out, have typically been their own worst enemies when it comes to destroying religious holidays. They turned All Holy Eve into Halloween and Candlemas into Groundhogs Day. The point is Christmas, and most of its traditions, were never really Christian to begin with.
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 Playstation 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. Other "religious" holidays destroyed not by liberals and Barbara Boxer but by Protestants include: All Holy Eve (Oct 31st), Candlemas (Feb 2nd), Michaelmas (Sept. 29th) and Childermas (Dec 28th).
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 and or pagan. 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, Renewamerica
With the Jew who stole Christmas controversy heavy on the minds of the weary travelers at the Seattle-Tacoma Airport and the Democrats taking control of the House and the Senate there is likely to be a renewed fear that the Liberals want kill the baby Jesus and destroy Christmas. Because killing a holiday on which the economy is dependent and getting this holiday off our work calendar is at the top of the list of every card carrying member of the ACLU. Christians, as it turns out, have typically been their own worst enemies when it comes to destroying religious holidays. They turned All Holy Eve into Halloween and Candlemas into Groundhogs Day. The point is Christmas, and most of its traditions, were never really Christian to begin with.
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 Playstation 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. Other "religious" holidays destroyed not by liberals and Barbara Boxer but by Protestants include: All Holy Eve (Oct 31st), Candlemas (Feb 2nd), Michaelmas (Sept. 29th) and Childermas (Dec 28th).
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 and or pagan. 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, Renewamerica
Monday, December 11, 2006
Homosexuality is a Sin...If you are an Orthodox Jew
This will be the second chain letter I am posting on my site. This one is right along the lines with what I have always argued when it comes to people picking and choosing which part of the Bible they are going to take literally and which parts they are going to ignore. The people who beat queers and speak out against gay marriage say that they are against it only because of God. They say, since it's addressed in the Bible, it's God's law. The first problem with that is obviously we don't live in the United States of God nor do we live in the United States of Jesus so their laws really don't apply to a secular nation with its own form of government and laws. We do not live in a fascist religious state such as Iran or Saudi Arabia. Anyway, the only parts of the Bible which refers to homosexuality are in the Old Testament (Including the affair between David and Jonathan). Christians do not go to Church on Saturdays and they don't follow many other old laws that were addressed in the Old Testament; they are Christians and follow the teachings of Christ who brought the new laws and taught Christianity in the texts of the New Testament. The New Testament is the book which Christianity is founded upon.
Anyway, although I have made many of these points in the past it's nice to see that I am not the only person in this country who has actually read the Bible and can think for myself. If you are a Christian and think you are doing God's work when attacking homosexuality, you need to read this letter. So, here is the chain letter as I received it:
Dr. Laura and Leviticus
Laura Schlesinger is a US radio personality, who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. She recently said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination, according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstances. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura which was posted on the Internet.
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16.
Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
Homer Simpson-Caldwell
Anyway, although I have made many of these points in the past it's nice to see that I am not the only person in this country who has actually read the Bible and can think for myself. If you are a Christian and think you are doing God's work when attacking homosexuality, you need to read this letter. So, here is the chain letter as I received it:
Dr. Laura and Leviticus
Laura Schlesinger is a US radio personality, who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. She recently said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination, according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstances. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura which was posted on the Internet.
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16.
Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
Homer Simpson-Caldwell
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Evil Liberals Want to Pay People What They Deserve!
Do we need a minimum wage increase?
It has only been 10 years since the federal minimum wage has increased. Since 1997, the purchasing power of minimum wage has only decreased by 21%. Our current minimum wage is $5.15 which is equivalent to $3.95 in 1995 which is lower than the minimum wage at that time. This means that minimum wage is at its lowest value since 1955 which isn't even a hundred years. There is talk by the wealth distributing communists in congress to raise the minimum wage to $7.25. The poverty line for a family of three is around $15,500 per year; currently at $5.15 a minimum wage worker would only need to work an extra 13 hours of extra overtime per week to keep their selves above the poverty line. So, by keeping the minimum wage low, we weed out laziness. Two and a half extra hours of overtime a day shouldn't be a problem for a single mom living in the projects as it should be easy to find a qualified babysitter for her kids since there are so many unemployed people living in the projects. And just think, with time and a half, she would actually be able to afford a babysitter for those extra 2.5 hours.
The drawbacks:
True American's who champion the rights and freedoms of the corporation over the rights of the people (the tenet on which this nation was founded) argue that an increase in the minimum wage would result in higher inflation and more unemployment and job loss even though there seems to be no real direct correlation between increased wages and inflation. We usually don't let stuff like facts get in the way of issues such as intelligent design and the war in Iraq so I see no reason to start now. Inflation, as of late, is typically about 3% per year in the US. Using this inflation calculator I looked at December of 1996 to December of 1997, three months after the last minimum wage increase and it shows a rate of inflation of only 1.7% and a 1.57% rate for the following year. In addition, the State Minimum Wages In Small Business study in 2004 concluded that states that already have higher minimum wages than the federal level saw employment growth that was just as favorable or better than states with the federal minimum wage of $5.15. From 1998-2004, states with a higher minimum wage level saw job growth at 6.1% as opposed to 4.1% job growth in states with the federal minimum wage. In the retail industry, payrolls grew 3.7% in the higher paying states as opposed to 2.4% in the federal minimum wage states. They say employers are finding that they can make up for the increase in wages by the decrease in recruiting and training costs, increased morale and therefore decreased absenteeism. The liberal Economic Policy Institute did a study after the 1997 minimum wage increase and concluded that there were no job losses as a result of that wage increase. David Card and Alan Krueger also did a study that stated there are no negative results due to minimum wage increases but they are probably wrong even though there are no studies stating the contrary.
Who would benefit from an increase?
14.9 million workers (only 11% of the workforce) would benefit from a minimum wage increase. 6.6 million workers (a mere 5% of the workforce) are currently earning less than $7.25. But a minimum wage increase really wouldn't be fair to men because 59% of the beneficiaries would be women, most likely women with children.
Where are our priorities and who needs the governments help?
Since 1997, the year minimum wage was last increased, the estate tax exemption has risen 6 times from $600,000 to 2 million. In the same time the minimum wage has remained at 5.15. This is a good thing. Why should CEOs and stock holders surrender their steadily increasing wealth just to pay their employees enough to keep up with the cost of living? Can't these employees just get food stamps and welfare like Wal-Marts employees are instructed to do? Isn't this America? Anything else would be communism. Why would we want to put money in the hands of people who actually spend it and put it back into the economy when we could let a rich guy just put it in the bank and leave it to his kids when he dies? If you started making millions more dollars per year what would you do? Would you lower prices of your goods, increase pay for employees or would you put it in your pocket and find tax loopholes and cook the books to hide all your illegal activities? You're American; of course you pocket the money and run. 8 out of the 15 richest people or 5 out of the 10 top billionaires in this country benefited from this strategy as they have never had to work a day in their life and inherited their wealth. Why should they have to work and earn their own wealth; their parents and grandparents were rich.
Is it fair?
From 1992 to 2005 the pay of CEOs from major corporations grew 186% while the hourly wage workers only grew 7.2% at a time of record productivity. See, this just shows that the elite are willing to share their wealth; they increased worker wages by 7.2% over the last 13 years.
From 2000 to 2005, the US economy grew in size from $9.8 trillion to $11.2 trillion, an increase of 14%. Productivity also grew %16.6 but over the same period of time, the median family's income slid by 2.9%. They must not have been working hard enough.
Ok, so wages have not kept up with productivity but that's exactly the way it should be. It's nice to see that the American worker is now willing to make sacrifices for the sake company. Why should an employer give more time off for a woman just because she has a baby when they could easily give that job to a man (in India). Why should American workers take more time off for vacations? We are not French! Besides, vacationing doesn't help the economy in any way at all. Why should a company give an employee a pay raise just because productivity goes up; they are paid to be productive anyway so if anything, the company should lower their pay if productivity doesn't increase. How else is the CEO going to buy a 3 story winter home in Aspen and a beach front summer mansion in Naples, FL?
Wal-Mart thinks that an increase in the minimum wage would benefit lower end retailers because their customer base would have more money to spend at their stores... What a crock of shit right?
Wages/wages vs productivity
It has only been 10 years since the federal minimum wage has increased. Since 1997, the purchasing power of minimum wage has only decreased by 21%. Our current minimum wage is $5.15 which is equivalent to $3.95 in 1995 which is lower than the minimum wage at that time. This means that minimum wage is at its lowest value since 1955 which isn't even a hundred years. There is talk by the wealth distributing communists in congress to raise the minimum wage to $7.25. The poverty line for a family of three is around $15,500 per year; currently at $5.15 a minimum wage worker would only need to work an extra 13 hours of extra overtime per week to keep their selves above the poverty line. So, by keeping the minimum wage low, we weed out laziness. Two and a half extra hours of overtime a day shouldn't be a problem for a single mom living in the projects as it should be easy to find a qualified babysitter for her kids since there are so many unemployed people living in the projects. And just think, with time and a half, she would actually be able to afford a babysitter for those extra 2.5 hours.
The drawbacks:
True American's who champion the rights and freedoms of the corporation over the rights of the people (the tenet on which this nation was founded) argue that an increase in the minimum wage would result in higher inflation and more unemployment and job loss even though there seems to be no real direct correlation between increased wages and inflation. We usually don't let stuff like facts get in the way of issues such as intelligent design and the war in Iraq so I see no reason to start now. Inflation, as of late, is typically about 3% per year in the US. Using this inflation calculator I looked at December of 1996 to December of 1997, three months after the last minimum wage increase and it shows a rate of inflation of only 1.7% and a 1.57% rate for the following year. In addition, the State Minimum Wages In Small Business study in 2004 concluded that states that already have higher minimum wages than the federal level saw employment growth that was just as favorable or better than states with the federal minimum wage of $5.15. From 1998-2004, states with a higher minimum wage level saw job growth at 6.1% as opposed to 4.1% job growth in states with the federal minimum wage. In the retail industry, payrolls grew 3.7% in the higher paying states as opposed to 2.4% in the federal minimum wage states. They say employers are finding that they can make up for the increase in wages by the decrease in recruiting and training costs, increased morale and therefore decreased absenteeism. The liberal Economic Policy Institute did a study after the 1997 minimum wage increase and concluded that there were no job losses as a result of that wage increase. David Card and Alan Krueger also did a study that stated there are no negative results due to minimum wage increases but they are probably wrong even though there are no studies stating the contrary.
Who would benefit from an increase?
14.9 million workers (only 11% of the workforce) would benefit from a minimum wage increase. 6.6 million workers (a mere 5% of the workforce) are currently earning less than $7.25. But a minimum wage increase really wouldn't be fair to men because 59% of the beneficiaries would be women, most likely women with children.
Where are our priorities and who needs the governments help?
Since 1997, the year minimum wage was last increased, the estate tax exemption has risen 6 times from $600,000 to 2 million. In the same time the minimum wage has remained at 5.15. This is a good thing. Why should CEOs and stock holders surrender their steadily increasing wealth just to pay their employees enough to keep up with the cost of living? Can't these employees just get food stamps and welfare like Wal-Marts employees are instructed to do? Isn't this America? Anything else would be communism. Why would we want to put money in the hands of people who actually spend it and put it back into the economy when we could let a rich guy just put it in the bank and leave it to his kids when he dies? If you started making millions more dollars per year what would you do? Would you lower prices of your goods, increase pay for employees or would you put it in your pocket and find tax loopholes and cook the books to hide all your illegal activities? You're American; of course you pocket the money and run. 8 out of the 15 richest people or 5 out of the 10 top billionaires in this country benefited from this strategy as they have never had to work a day in their life and inherited their wealth. Why should they have to work and earn their own wealth; their parents and grandparents were rich.
Is it fair?
From 1992 to 2005 the pay of CEOs from major corporations grew 186% while the hourly wage workers only grew 7.2% at a time of record productivity. See, this just shows that the elite are willing to share their wealth; they increased worker wages by 7.2% over the last 13 years.
From 2000 to 2005, the US economy grew in size from $9.8 trillion to $11.2 trillion, an increase of 14%. Productivity also grew %16.6 but over the same period of time, the median family's income slid by 2.9%. They must not have been working hard enough.
Ok, so wages have not kept up with productivity but that's exactly the way it should be. It's nice to see that the American worker is now willing to make sacrifices for the sake company. Why should an employer give more time off for a woman just because she has a baby when they could easily give that job to a man (in India). Why should American workers take more time off for vacations? We are not French! Besides, vacationing doesn't help the economy in any way at all. Why should a company give an employee a pay raise just because productivity goes up; they are paid to be productive anyway so if anything, the company should lower their pay if productivity doesn't increase. How else is the CEO going to buy a 3 story winter home in Aspen and a beach front summer mansion in Naples, FL?
Wal-Mart thinks that an increase in the minimum wage would benefit lower end retailers because their customer base would have more money to spend at their stores... What a crock of shit right?
Wages/wages vs productivity
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
We Win!
Hey Republicans, see what happens when you blindly follow a blind man? The people grew tired of it and expressed that with their votes.
Since both the Governor and the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Virginia are Democrats, they will probably allow votes from black precincts to be counted in that Senate race. Typically when Republicans lose elections they throw out the votes from black areas that are typically inclined to vote for the Democrats. If the election stands as is, it appears the Democrats will also take control of the Senate along with the House and then of course the White House two years from now.
Republicans, you did this to yourselves. Jesus never wanted you to invade Iraq, contrary to what your President says.
Since both the Governor and the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Virginia are Democrats, they will probably allow votes from black precincts to be counted in that Senate race. Typically when Republicans lose elections they throw out the votes from black areas that are typically inclined to vote for the Democrats. If the election stands as is, it appears the Democrats will also take control of the Senate along with the House and then of course the White House two years from now.
Republicans, you did this to yourselves. Jesus never wanted you to invade Iraq, contrary to what your President says.
Friday, November 03, 2006
Rev.Ted Haggard Hates Gays...Trust
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/03/haggard.allegations/index.html
"Give it to me big boy. I love taking it on the chin for Jesus."
Sorry Mr.Foley, he's too old for you.
I am starting to see a pattern here. It appears that the people who are most outspoken about homosexuals only act that way in order to cover their tracks and divert attention away from the fact that they are gay. I can't wait to see Fred Phelps dancing to disco on a float in Boystown.
A question for gay men: Would you fuck this guy if given a chance?
"Give it to me big boy. I love taking it on the chin for Jesus."
Sorry Mr.Foley, he's too old for you.
I am starting to see a pattern here. It appears that the people who are most outspoken about homosexuals only act that way in order to cover their tracks and divert attention away from the fact that they are gay. I can't wait to see Fred Phelps dancing to disco on a float in Boystown.
A question for gay men: Would you fuck this guy if given a chance?
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
My Solution to Hanging Chads and Electronic Voting Machines
Ya, how hard is this? With nit-wit Secretary of States who won't count votes for Democrats in black precincts and ES&S and Diebold voting machine manufacturers being run by Republicans and donating money to Republican candidates and voting machines not including Democratic candidates full names, why is it so hard to figure out a sure fire way to vote? If punch cards don't work and voting machines can be hacked or programmed to accept or not accept certain votes, what’s wrong with providing a list of candidates in the voting booths and providing voters with a piece of paper to simply print their choices? I guess it could become a problem if the Democratic nominee for President was named McKain and the Republican candidate was named McCain but other than that, why would this be so hard? Hell, you don't even have to write the name in, you could have the option of just writing Republican or Democrat if you didn't know the candidates by name.
Why spend the money on these voting machines when you could simply supply voters with a single sheet of official paper with a blank space after each political office in contention? You could keep a record of how many voters entered the polling site and compare that to the amount of ballots cast to make sure no one voted twice. Could someone point out how this would be less reliable than the options currently on the table?
The Googles are too Liberal
I'm finding all kinds of good stuff:
He should also look up the term "diminishing returns". That is when you create terrorists faster than you can kill them.
He should also look up the term "diminishing returns". That is when you create terrorists faster than you can kill them.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Chain Letters in Perspective
The following is a chain letter I received in my email box today. I wanted to post it word for word as it was sent to me and have included my responses to the authors points in red.
A HISTORY LESSON
This is a must read which shows how important the world situation today is to America's future. (And why you should vote Democrat in November)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS IS HISTORY THAT HAS BEEN LEFT OUT OF OUR TEXTBOOKS. (As with most events that happened where people who experienced them are still alive today and could possibly dispute them.) MOST OF YOU ARE NOT OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER THAT NEARLY EVERY FAMILY IN AMERICA WAS GROSSLY AFFECTED BY WWII. MOST OF YOU DON'T REMEMBER THE RATIONING OF MEAT, SHOES, GASOLINE, AND SUGAR. NO TIRES FOR OUR AUTOMOBILES, AND A SPEED LIMIT OF 35 MILES AN HOUR ON THE ROAD. NOT TO MENTION, NO NEW AUTOMOBILES. READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT HOW WE WOULD REACT TO BEING TAKEN OVER BY FOREIGNERS IN 2006. (When were we ever taken over by foreigners?)
This is an EXCELLENT essay (you say tomato...) - well thought out and presented.
Historical Significance (Huh?)
Raymond S. Kraft is a writer living in Northern California.
Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat, and had sunk more than four hundred British ships in their convoys between England and America for food and war materials.
At that time the US was in an isolationist, pacifist mood, and most Americans wanted nothing to do with the European or the Asian war. (Commie, anti-American, tree hugging pussies)
Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on Germany, which had not yet attacked us. (But was sinking our ships, attacking our allies and was allied with the country that just attacked us.) It was a dicey thing. We had few allies. (Well, we'll get to that.)
France was not an ally, (Yet another attempt to persuade you to buy Freedom Fries.) as the Vichy government of France quickly aligned itself with its German occupiers. Germany was certainly not an ally, (Really? Thanks for that tidbit.) as Hitler was intent on setting up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. (He would have probably settled for a single lifetime) Japan was not an ally, (What gave that away?) as it was well on its way to owning and controlling all of Asia. Together, Japan and Germany had long-range plans of invading Canada and Mexico, as launching pads to get into the United States over our northern and southern borders, after they finished gaining control of Asia and Europe. (Umm Ok) America's only allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia. That was about it. (He forgot to mention China, New Zealand, South Africa, Mexico, Nepal, Tonga and virtually all of the Caribbean and most of Central and South America along with the exile governments of the Free French Forces, Yugoslavia and Greece among others. But otherwise, yes, we were alone.) All of Europe, from Norway to Italy, except Russia in the East, was already under the Nazi heel. (Except for Spain, Switzerland, Portugal and Sweden)
America was certainly not prepared for war. (Apparently we didn't learn our lesson.) America had drastically downgraded most of its military forces after W.W.I and throughout the depression, so that at the outbreak of WW2, army units were training with broomsticks because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on the doors because they didn't have real tanks. (Like our troops in Iraq today?) And a huge chunk of our navy had just been sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor.
Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England, that was actually the property of Belgium, given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler (a little known fact). (Wow, you should work for the History Channel.) Actually, Belgium surrendered on one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day just to prove they could. (You mean like Panama, Lebanon, Vietnam and Iraq?) Britain had already been holding out for two years in the face of staggering slipping losses and the near-decimation of its air force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later, and first turning his attention to Russia, at a time when England was on the verge of collapse, in the late summer of 1940.
Ironically, Russia saved America's butt by putting up a desperate fight for two years, until the US got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany. (Yahoo America!)
Russia lost something like 24 million people (Something like? Give or take a few million, what's the difference they're all commies.) in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow alone... 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a MILLION soldiers.
Had Russia surrendered, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire war effort against the Brits, then America. And the Nazis could possibly have won the war.
All of this is to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. And now, we find ourselves at another one of those key moments in history.
There is a very dangerous minority in Islam (Wow, he actually refrains from calling all Muslims crazy terrorists.) that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world.
The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs (Well, they do both hate Jews) -- they believe that Islam, a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world. ("Onward Christian soldiers marching as to war"-That's my favorite Christian church hymn.) And that all who do not bow to their will of thinking should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. (Or maybe they just don't want to their world to be ruled but Multinational corporations or Jewish and Christian based theology or be killed, enslaved, subjugated or ruled by outside forces.) as They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel, and purge the world of Jews. (Or at least purge Palestine of Jews.) This is their mantra.
There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East -- for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation, but it is not known yet which will win -- the Inquisitors, or the Reformationists. (Or you could say the corrupt colonial puppet regimes set up by western governments vs. the people or just say that there are a bunch of crazies trying to hijack Islam to the dismay of ordinary Muslims.)
If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, the OPEC oil, and the US, European, and Asian economies. The techno-industrial economies will be at the mercy of OPEC -- not an OPEC dominated by the educated, rational Saudis of today, (He is speaking of the ones who allow madrasas where terrorists are bred and conduct public beheadings of women who allowed themselves to be raped by a man. Ya, real rational.) but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis. You want gas in your car? (No I want corn or hydrogen in my car.) You want heating oil next winter? (Ever hear of solar power and electricity?) You want the dollar to be worth anything? (Sure, let's keep the economy going by inventing new sources of energy and keep our jobs here in the US and become independent from foreign sources of labor and energy.) You better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation (AKA Puppet Regimes who sell us oil and play ball with Exxon and refuses to share their countries oil wealth with its citizens) wins.
If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, (Unlike a lot of Christians) and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, (Then maybe Bush and his neo-cons will do the same) then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away, and a moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.
We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda and the Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. And we can't do it everywhere at once. We have created a focal point for the battle at a time and place of our choosing........in Iraq. (Actually Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahir are in Afghanistan and Al-Zarqawi was virtually a nobody outside Jordan before the US invaded Iraq and gave him a cause where he actually later adopted the name Al-Qaeda of Iraq once he started fighting us but was never really affiliated with that terrorist network which attacked us. Also, the US administration thought this would be and was over within a few months and never anticipated the steady stream of insurgents and terrorists who were created by our invasion. Fighting terrorists in Iraq was never the reason for going there. Saddam being a bad guy who was sitting on top of a fake pile of WMDs and a real pile of oil wealth was the reason. Bush said Saddam had WMD's, not that he was going to draw Al-Qaeda to Iraq so we didn't have to fight them in Vermont or where ever. We knew where they were, they were in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Ok, I knew, I'm not going to give this administration that much credit.)
Not in New York, not in London, or Paris or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we are doing two important things. (You mean besides giving Exxon, Chevron and Halliburton the most profitable year to date?)
(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, (Contrary to what the average Fox News subscriber thinks, he wasn't) it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is a terrorist. (No, he was not technically a terrorist nor did he engage in any terrorists activities directed at the United States. Sure he supported terrorism only in the sense that he gave financial donations to the families of Palestinians whose children killed themselves in suicide bombings. Since when do we have to fight Israel's wars and solve their terrorism problem? They are not solving ours.)
Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass detruction, (I think he means destruction) who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians. (Along with the other people who were weapons of mass destruction such as the Shah of Iran, Pinochet of Chile, Stalin in Russia, Fernando Romeo Lucas Garcia in Guatemala all of whom we either supported or did nothing about.)
(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. (You mean a flash point for Islamic terrorists) We have focused the battle. We are killing bad people (along with plenty of innocent ones) and the ones we get there (were created by us invading Iraq in the first place) we won't have to get here. We also have a good shot (not) at creating a democratic, peaceful (trust) Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed. (That is precisely the last thing they want or need.)
World War II, the war with the German and Japanese Nazis, really began with a "whimper" in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began with the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for fourteen years before America joined it. It officially ended in 1945 -- a 17 year war -- and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again ... a 27 year war. (That is why Bush should have known that "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq would take more than a week. Oh wait; he was coked out of his head when they went over that part in history class.)
World War II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP -- adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars. W.W.II cost America more than 400,000 killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action. ( I think it's safe to say they are dead by now.)
The Iraq war has, so far, cost the US about $160 billion (annually), which is roughly what 9/11 cost New York. It has also cost about 2,200 (Later in this essay he actually says it's 200 less, both of which are wrong.) American lives, which is roughly 2/3 of the 3,000 lives that the Jihad snuffed on 9/11. But the cost of not fighting and winning W.W.II would have been unimaginably greater -- a world dominated by German and Japanese Nazism. (Actually, the Japanese weren't Nazis.)
60 minute TV shows, and 2 hour movies in which everything comes out okay. (Incomplete sentence)
The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly. Always has been, and probably always will be. (So why did we have to stop Saddam from being uncertain, messy and bloody if that's just the way of the real world?)
The bottom line is that we will have to deal with Islamic (and non-Islamic) terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away if we ignore it. (But if we leave them alone and quit funding Israel what reason would they have to fight?)
If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, (which we wont) then we have an "England" in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East (Maybe they don't want to be moderated, maybe, just as you don't want them spreading their theology here, they don't want us spreading ours over there). The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates.(Maybe those barbarians just decided they didn't want to be Romanized or converted and decided to resist the attempt to colonize their lands forcing them to take the fight to Roman soil. It was their right to not be civilized by the Romans. The story of the conquered is written by the conquerors.) The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. (Good, I'm glad you are starting to realize that the war in Iraq is a never-ending war. Thanks W. Bush) And now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. (Are we talking about Korea or Iraq or Iran?) Unless somebody prevents them.
We have four options:
1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.
2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).(Actually, Iran is still approximately 10 years away from being capable of producing a nuclear missile.)
3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East, now, (Well, Islam is dominant over the Middle East but the Jihadists are a very small portion of Islam.) in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.
4. Or, we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany (one neighborhood in Munich) and maybe most of the rest of Europe. (Ya, I just heard the Vatican was going to convert to Islam tomorrow.) It will, of course, be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier.
If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today. (Hmm, and that's somehow worse than living under a country dominated by right wing Christian dogma where women are second class citizens not allowed to choose what to do with their own body and Christian prayer and the Christian God (In God We Trust, One Nation Under God) is forced upon the entire country and they are now gaining control of the media and airwaves censoring what we see, hear and read? Sound familiar?)
The history of the world is the history of civilizational (Is that really a word?) clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win. (And everyone always thinks their ways are right. At least 50% of the time they are wrong.)
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them. (Look at what MLK and Gandhi were able to accomplish with non-violence compared to what the Palestinians have accomplished with violence. Who had more success?)
Remember, perspective is every thing, and America's schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind. (Agreed, they teach too little history like how the US once armed Saddam and has had it's hands in world affairs and been controlling the fate of most of the worlds inhabitants since the end of WWII and some people are a bit tired of it.)
The Cold war lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Forty-two years. Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany. (Actually France and Napoleon III started the fighting against the Germans in the Franco-Prussian war in 1870 and that war only lasted a year. That being said, what's your point?)
World War II began in 1928, (Well, the whole world wasn't involved in 1928 so therefore "World War" II couldn't and wasn't called a world war until much later when it was clear most of the globe had been in a state of war all at the same time.) lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan. (And a thousand other places which have nothing to do with the Second World War.) World War II resulted in the death of more than 50 million people, maybe more than 100 million people, depending on which estimates you accept. (I'll take Fox News' estimates!)
The US has taken more than 2,000 ( Earlier you said 2,200 but its 2,736 to be exact.) killed in action in Iraq. The US took more than 4,000 killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, (Oh, you mean the day we were fighting almost the entire continent of Europe and one of the largest militaries the world has ever seen and not a third world desert?) the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism. In W.W.II the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week -- for four years. Most of the individual battles o f W.W.II lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far. (That was an entire world at war, not us at war with a desert country the size of Texas.)
But the stakes are at least as high ..... A world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms (And you are saying the US represents this side? The Netherlands maybe but not the US) ... or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law). ( If the people choose to live under Islamic law who are we to say they can't? Christians??)
It's difficult to understand why the American left does not grasp this. (Because they can read) They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis. (However you don't favor this homosexuals, women, non-Christians or for Palestinians so what's the difference?)
"Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate here in America, where it's safe. (Yes, thank God we didn't vote for you.)
Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places that really need peace activism the most? (Because they don't need to. Iran, North Korea and Syria haven't been at war in over 30 years. That's more than I can say for the US.)
The liberal mentality (Shit, I thought he was going to talk about the liberal media.) is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, (Or the conservative Christian Right) it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the "liberation" of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy. (Liberated from whom? I don't think I am on your side as you suggest.)
A HISTORY LESSON
This is a must read which shows how important the world situation today is to America's future. (And why you should vote Democrat in November)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS IS HISTORY THAT HAS BEEN LEFT OUT OF OUR TEXTBOOKS. (As with most events that happened where people who experienced them are still alive today and could possibly dispute them.) MOST OF YOU ARE NOT OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER THAT NEARLY EVERY FAMILY IN AMERICA WAS GROSSLY AFFECTED BY WWII. MOST OF YOU DON'T REMEMBER THE RATIONING OF MEAT, SHOES, GASOLINE, AND SUGAR. NO TIRES FOR OUR AUTOMOBILES, AND A SPEED LIMIT OF 35 MILES AN HOUR ON THE ROAD. NOT TO MENTION, NO NEW AUTOMOBILES. READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT HOW WE WOULD REACT TO BEING TAKEN OVER BY FOREIGNERS IN 2006. (When were we ever taken over by foreigners?)
This is an EXCELLENT essay (you say tomato...) - well thought out and presented.
Historical Significance (Huh?)
Raymond S. Kraft is a writer living in Northern California.
Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat, and had sunk more than four hundred British ships in their convoys between England and America for food and war materials.
At that time the US was in an isolationist, pacifist mood, and most Americans wanted nothing to do with the European or the Asian war. (Commie, anti-American, tree hugging pussies)
Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on Germany, which had not yet attacked us. (But was sinking our ships, attacking our allies and was allied with the country that just attacked us.) It was a dicey thing. We had few allies. (Well, we'll get to that.)
France was not an ally, (Yet another attempt to persuade you to buy Freedom Fries.) as the Vichy government of France quickly aligned itself with its German occupiers. Germany was certainly not an ally, (Really? Thanks for that tidbit.) as Hitler was intent on setting up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. (He would have probably settled for a single lifetime) Japan was not an ally, (What gave that away?) as it was well on its way to owning and controlling all of Asia. Together, Japan and Germany had long-range plans of invading Canada and Mexico, as launching pads to get into the United States over our northern and southern borders, after they finished gaining control of Asia and Europe. (Umm Ok) America's only allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia. That was about it. (He forgot to mention China, New Zealand, South Africa, Mexico, Nepal, Tonga and virtually all of the Caribbean and most of Central and South America along with the exile governments of the Free French Forces, Yugoslavia and Greece among others. But otherwise, yes, we were alone.) All of Europe, from Norway to Italy, except Russia in the East, was already under the Nazi heel. (Except for Spain, Switzerland, Portugal and Sweden)
America was certainly not prepared for war. (Apparently we didn't learn our lesson.) America had drastically downgraded most of its military forces after W.W.I and throughout the depression, so that at the outbreak of WW2, army units were training with broomsticks because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on the doors because they didn't have real tanks. (Like our troops in Iraq today?) And a huge chunk of our navy had just been sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor.
Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England, that was actually the property of Belgium, given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler (a little known fact). (Wow, you should work for the History Channel.) Actually, Belgium surrendered on one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day just to prove they could. (You mean like Panama, Lebanon, Vietnam and Iraq?) Britain had already been holding out for two years in the face of staggering slipping losses and the near-decimation of its air force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later, and first turning his attention to Russia, at a time when England was on the verge of collapse, in the late summer of 1940.
Ironically, Russia saved America's butt by putting up a desperate fight for two years, until the US got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany. (Yahoo America!)
Russia lost something like 24 million people (Something like? Give or take a few million, what's the difference they're all commies.) in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow alone... 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a MILLION soldiers.
Had Russia surrendered, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire war effort against the Brits, then America. And the Nazis could possibly have won the war.
All of this is to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. And now, we find ourselves at another one of those key moments in history.
There is a very dangerous minority in Islam (Wow, he actually refrains from calling all Muslims crazy terrorists.) that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world.
The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs (Well, they do both hate Jews) -- they believe that Islam, a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world. ("Onward Christian soldiers marching as to war"-That's my favorite Christian church hymn.) And that all who do not bow to their will of thinking should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. (Or maybe they just don't want to their world to be ruled but Multinational corporations or Jewish and Christian based theology or be killed, enslaved, subjugated or ruled by outside forces.) as They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel, and purge the world of Jews. (Or at least purge Palestine of Jews.) This is their mantra.
There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East -- for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation, but it is not known yet which will win -- the Inquisitors, or the Reformationists. (Or you could say the corrupt colonial puppet regimes set up by western governments vs. the people or just say that there are a bunch of crazies trying to hijack Islam to the dismay of ordinary Muslims.)
If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, the OPEC oil, and the US, European, and Asian economies. The techno-industrial economies will be at the mercy of OPEC -- not an OPEC dominated by the educated, rational Saudis of today, (He is speaking of the ones who allow madrasas where terrorists are bred and conduct public beheadings of women who allowed themselves to be raped by a man. Ya, real rational.) but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis. You want gas in your car? (No I want corn or hydrogen in my car.) You want heating oil next winter? (Ever hear of solar power and electricity?) You want the dollar to be worth anything? (Sure, let's keep the economy going by inventing new sources of energy and keep our jobs here in the US and become independent from foreign sources of labor and energy.) You better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation (AKA Puppet Regimes who sell us oil and play ball with Exxon and refuses to share their countries oil wealth with its citizens) wins.
If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, (Unlike a lot of Christians) and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, (Then maybe Bush and his neo-cons will do the same) then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away, and a moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.
We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda and the Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. And we can't do it everywhere at once. We have created a focal point for the battle at a time and place of our choosing........in Iraq. (Actually Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahir are in Afghanistan and Al-Zarqawi was virtually a nobody outside Jordan before the US invaded Iraq and gave him a cause where he actually later adopted the name Al-Qaeda of Iraq once he started fighting us but was never really affiliated with that terrorist network which attacked us. Also, the US administration thought this would be and was over within a few months and never anticipated the steady stream of insurgents and terrorists who were created by our invasion. Fighting terrorists in Iraq was never the reason for going there. Saddam being a bad guy who was sitting on top of a fake pile of WMDs and a real pile of oil wealth was the reason. Bush said Saddam had WMD's, not that he was going to draw Al-Qaeda to Iraq so we didn't have to fight them in Vermont or where ever. We knew where they were, they were in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Ok, I knew, I'm not going to give this administration that much credit.)
Not in New York, not in London, or Paris or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we are doing two important things. (You mean besides giving Exxon, Chevron and Halliburton the most profitable year to date?)
(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, (Contrary to what the average Fox News subscriber thinks, he wasn't) it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is a terrorist. (No, he was not technically a terrorist nor did he engage in any terrorists activities directed at the United States. Sure he supported terrorism only in the sense that he gave financial donations to the families of Palestinians whose children killed themselves in suicide bombings. Since when do we have to fight Israel's wars and solve their terrorism problem? They are not solving ours.)
Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass detruction, (I think he means destruction) who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians. (Along with the other people who were weapons of mass destruction such as the Shah of Iran, Pinochet of Chile, Stalin in Russia, Fernando Romeo Lucas Garcia in Guatemala all of whom we either supported or did nothing about.)
(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. (You mean a flash point for Islamic terrorists) We have focused the battle. We are killing bad people (along with plenty of innocent ones) and the ones we get there (were created by us invading Iraq in the first place) we won't have to get here. We also have a good shot (not) at creating a democratic, peaceful (trust) Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed. (That is precisely the last thing they want or need.)
World War II, the war with the German and Japanese Nazis, really began with a "whimper" in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began with the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for fourteen years before America joined it. It officially ended in 1945 -- a 17 year war -- and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again ... a 27 year war. (That is why Bush should have known that "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq would take more than a week. Oh wait; he was coked out of his head when they went over that part in history class.)
World War II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP -- adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars. W.W.II cost America more than 400,000 killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action. ( I think it's safe to say they are dead by now.)
The Iraq war has, so far, cost the US about $160 billion (annually), which is roughly what 9/11 cost New York. It has also cost about 2,200 (Later in this essay he actually says it's 200 less, both of which are wrong.) American lives, which is roughly 2/3 of the 3,000 lives that the Jihad snuffed on 9/11. But the cost of not fighting and winning W.W.II would have been unimaginably greater -- a world dominated by German and Japanese Nazism. (Actually, the Japanese weren't Nazis.)
60 minute TV shows, and 2 hour movies in which everything comes out okay. (Incomplete sentence)
The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly. Always has been, and probably always will be. (So why did we have to stop Saddam from being uncertain, messy and bloody if that's just the way of the real world?)
The bottom line is that we will have to deal with Islamic (and non-Islamic) terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away if we ignore it. (But if we leave them alone and quit funding Israel what reason would they have to fight?)
If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, (which we wont) then we have an "England" in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East (Maybe they don't want to be moderated, maybe, just as you don't want them spreading their theology here, they don't want us spreading ours over there). The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates.(Maybe those barbarians just decided they didn't want to be Romanized or converted and decided to resist the attempt to colonize their lands forcing them to take the fight to Roman soil. It was their right to not be civilized by the Romans. The story of the conquered is written by the conquerors.) The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. (Good, I'm glad you are starting to realize that the war in Iraq is a never-ending war. Thanks W. Bush) And now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. (Are we talking about Korea or Iraq or Iran?) Unless somebody prevents them.
We have four options:
1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.
2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).(Actually, Iran is still approximately 10 years away from being capable of producing a nuclear missile.)
3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East, now, (Well, Islam is dominant over the Middle East but the Jihadists are a very small portion of Islam.) in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.
4. Or, we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany (one neighborhood in Munich) and maybe most of the rest of Europe. (Ya, I just heard the Vatican was going to convert to Islam tomorrow.) It will, of course, be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier.
If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today. (Hmm, and that's somehow worse than living under a country dominated by right wing Christian dogma where women are second class citizens not allowed to choose what to do with their own body and Christian prayer and the Christian God (In God We Trust, One Nation Under God) is forced upon the entire country and they are now gaining control of the media and airwaves censoring what we see, hear and read? Sound familiar?)
The history of the world is the history of civilizational (Is that really a word?) clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win. (And everyone always thinks their ways are right. At least 50% of the time they are wrong.)
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them. (Look at what MLK and Gandhi were able to accomplish with non-violence compared to what the Palestinians have accomplished with violence. Who had more success?)
Remember, perspective is every thing, and America's schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind. (Agreed, they teach too little history like how the US once armed Saddam and has had it's hands in world affairs and been controlling the fate of most of the worlds inhabitants since the end of WWII and some people are a bit tired of it.)
The Cold war lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Forty-two years. Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany. (Actually France and Napoleon III started the fighting against the Germans in the Franco-Prussian war in 1870 and that war only lasted a year. That being said, what's your point?)
World War II began in 1928, (Well, the whole world wasn't involved in 1928 so therefore "World War" II couldn't and wasn't called a world war until much later when it was clear most of the globe had been in a state of war all at the same time.) lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan. (And a thousand other places which have nothing to do with the Second World War.) World War II resulted in the death of more than 50 million people, maybe more than 100 million people, depending on which estimates you accept. (I'll take Fox News' estimates!)
The US has taken more than 2,000 ( Earlier you said 2,200 but its 2,736 to be exact.) killed in action in Iraq. The US took more than 4,000 killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, (Oh, you mean the day we were fighting almost the entire continent of Europe and one of the largest militaries the world has ever seen and not a third world desert?) the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism. In W.W.II the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week -- for four years. Most of the individual battles o f W.W.II lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far. (That was an entire world at war, not us at war with a desert country the size of Texas.)
But the stakes are at least as high ..... A world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms (And you are saying the US represents this side? The Netherlands maybe but not the US) ... or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law). ( If the people choose to live under Islamic law who are we to say they can't? Christians??)
It's difficult to understand why the American left does not grasp this. (Because they can read) They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis. (However you don't favor this homosexuals, women, non-Christians or for Palestinians so what's the difference?)
"Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate here in America, where it's safe. (Yes, thank God we didn't vote for you.)
Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places that really need peace activism the most? (Because they don't need to. Iran, North Korea and Syria haven't been at war in over 30 years. That's more than I can say for the US.)
The liberal mentality (Shit, I thought he was going to talk about the liberal media.) is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, (Or the conservative Christian Right) it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the "liberation" of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy. (Liberated from whom? I don't think I am on your side as you suggest.)
Monday, October 02, 2006
I Know What Will Stop These School Shootings; Let's Give the Children Guns!
I have a question for all the NRA gun nuts who claim more guns make everyone safer. If that is your position, does that mean you favor arming all our High School children so the guys who perpetrate these school shootings will think twice about walking into a school?
Or, like rational people, do you think if all these kids had guns it would just be easier for them to shoot their classmates? Sure, maybe someone else may think twice about attacking a High School but what's to keep the High School kids from turning the guns on themselves?
That's why the more guns theory doesn't work. Iraq, Colombia, Somalia and places like that have tons of guns and they are some of the most dangerous places on earth. Look at places like Australia and most of Europe where there are hardly any guns and then compare their murder rates to the countries with all the guns.
Oh, on a side note, it seems like Republicans have taken one more cue from the church and have now started boning underage boys. Maybe it's time for the Republicans to get out of bed with the church; they seem to make for bad bedmates. No pun intended of course.
Or, like rational people, do you think if all these kids had guns it would just be easier for them to shoot their classmates? Sure, maybe someone else may think twice about attacking a High School but what's to keep the High School kids from turning the guns on themselves?
That's why the more guns theory doesn't work. Iraq, Colombia, Somalia and places like that have tons of guns and they are some of the most dangerous places on earth. Look at places like Australia and most of Europe where there are hardly any guns and then compare their murder rates to the countries with all the guns.
Oh, on a side note, it seems like Republicans have taken one more cue from the church and have now started boning underage boys. Maybe it's time for the Republicans to get out of bed with the church; they seem to make for bad bedmates. No pun intended of course.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Why Crime Should be on the Agenda For Politicians This November
The national murder rate increased nearly 5 percent in 2005 - the biggest jump in 15 years, according to FBI statistics. Violent Crime in general was up 2.5%, the largest increase since 1991.
New York City has seen a 6% increase in its murder rate this year and Philadelphia saw a 9% increase this year and 15% increase last year. As of late August, Indianapolis has had a 39% increase from last year, Orlando, FL has already broken its homicide record set back in 1982. Boston Homicides are at a 10 year high. The Mid-West, where the majority of US manufacturing jobs used to be, is seeing the biggest increases. Let me remind you that Bush keeps saying that outsourcing is good for America.
The causes could range from a variety of sources. Of course conservatives will point to violent movies, music and then plain old personal responsibility and liberals will say guns and poverty. I have to say that when Elvis sang about hound-dogs no one started acting like dogs and when Falco sang about Amadeus people didn't start listening to or acting like Mozart, so that seems pretty unlikely. Violent movies such as On the Water Front have been around since the 50's so that can't be it. So let's look at the Liberals side: the national unemployment rate was at a five-month high in July at 4.8 percent, according to the U.S. Labor Department. Cost of living is up and minimum wages remain the same since 1996. In addition, gas prices are up and there is the constant threat of inflation. The Brady Bill has also expired and the NRA has made it harder to keep databases with gun owners. If people are working 40-50 hours a week, have plenty of cash in their wallets and don't have access to military weapons what reasons do they have and how much spare time would they have to go around shooting everyone?
Maybe it's just a lack of Social Programs aimed at helping at risk people and the lack of police presence and law enforcement. The Bush administration proposed to give $102 million for law enforcement for fiscal year 2007 (which begins in October), an 87 percent ($1.1 Billion) decrease from this fiscal year, according to the International Association of Chiefs of Police. This goes along with the Bush strategy of cutting taxes then adding a multi-billion dollar war to the budget. Good thinking, just as crime rates are rising, the threat of terrorism is up, cutting law enforcement budgets seems to be a good idea. It's typical Bush logic. Let me remind you that the London terror ring was exposed by local law enforcement. Also on the cutting board is an 11.5% decrease in funding for HUD and 39 billion dollars in cuts to Medicaid, child support programs, student loads and foster care. The Head Start program will now serve 19,000 fewer children than in 2006. All of this so Bush can push more tax cuts and start more wars. The main people who benefit from these cuts are the tax paying families who earn over $288,800 per year. The people who make over 200k per year aren't typically the ones shooting each other which just proves my point; with jobs, money, education and child support people are less likely to commit crimes such as murder. Under Bush, poor and middle class people have less and therefore resort to crime.
Way to go dick!
"Second, if I am President I will strengthen the capacity of intelligence and law enforcement at home and forge stronger international coalitions to provide better information and the best chance to target and capture terrorists even before they act. "
John Kerry, 2/27/04
New York City has seen a 6% increase in its murder rate this year and Philadelphia saw a 9% increase this year and 15% increase last year. As of late August, Indianapolis has had a 39% increase from last year, Orlando, FL has already broken its homicide record set back in 1982. Boston Homicides are at a 10 year high. The Mid-West, where the majority of US manufacturing jobs used to be, is seeing the biggest increases. Let me remind you that Bush keeps saying that outsourcing is good for America.
The causes could range from a variety of sources. Of course conservatives will point to violent movies, music and then plain old personal responsibility and liberals will say guns and poverty. I have to say that when Elvis sang about hound-dogs no one started acting like dogs and when Falco sang about Amadeus people didn't start listening to or acting like Mozart, so that seems pretty unlikely. Violent movies such as On the Water Front have been around since the 50's so that can't be it. So let's look at the Liberals side: the national unemployment rate was at a five-month high in July at 4.8 percent, according to the U.S. Labor Department. Cost of living is up and minimum wages remain the same since 1996. In addition, gas prices are up and there is the constant threat of inflation. The Brady Bill has also expired and the NRA has made it harder to keep databases with gun owners. If people are working 40-50 hours a week, have plenty of cash in their wallets and don't have access to military weapons what reasons do they have and how much spare time would they have to go around shooting everyone?
Maybe it's just a lack of Social Programs aimed at helping at risk people and the lack of police presence and law enforcement. The Bush administration proposed to give $102 million for law enforcement for fiscal year 2007 (which begins in October), an 87 percent ($1.1 Billion) decrease from this fiscal year, according to the International Association of Chiefs of Police. This goes along with the Bush strategy of cutting taxes then adding a multi-billion dollar war to the budget. Good thinking, just as crime rates are rising, the threat of terrorism is up, cutting law enforcement budgets seems to be a good idea. It's typical Bush logic. Let me remind you that the London terror ring was exposed by local law enforcement. Also on the cutting board is an 11.5% decrease in funding for HUD and 39 billion dollars in cuts to Medicaid, child support programs, student loads and foster care. The Head Start program will now serve 19,000 fewer children than in 2006. All of this so Bush can push more tax cuts and start more wars. The main people who benefit from these cuts are the tax paying families who earn over $288,800 per year. The people who make over 200k per year aren't typically the ones shooting each other which just proves my point; with jobs, money, education and child support people are less likely to commit crimes such as murder. Under Bush, poor and middle class people have less and therefore resort to crime.
Way to go dick!
"Second, if I am President I will strengthen the capacity of intelligence and law enforcement at home and forge stronger international coalitions to provide better information and the best chance to target and capture terrorists even before they act. "
John Kerry, 2/27/04
Monday, August 28, 2006
Why Katherine Harris is an Idiot and Needs to Retire
Katherine Harris, the former Florida Secretary of State who handed Bush the Election in 2000 and whose own party members refuse to endorse for her Senate run, is making headlines again.
In an interview with some God-bob publication she made the statements that separation of church and state is "a lie" and God and the nation's founding fathers did not intend the country be "a nation of secular laws." Of course she couldn't cite any examples of this and since she had no clue as to how elections work, she can't be expected to know history either. Some other statements she made include separating religion and politics is "wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers", and "If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin."
Well Katherine, I thought you would like to know what a few of our founding fathers and other experts had to say about that, not to mention that the words "God", "Jesus" or "Christianity", never once appears in our nations most important document, the U.S. Constitution:
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
“Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
Thomas Jefferson 1802
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth. "
Thomas Jefferson
"I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another."
Thomas Jefferson, 1799
James Madison - "Father of the Constitution" / 4th President of the U.S.
"The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of constitutional principles."
James Madison
“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect.”
James Madison
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
Thomas Paine-Age of Reason
“I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible).Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible).It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible.Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance.The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty.”
Thomas Paine
"as to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of our government to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which the government hath to do therewith."
Thomas Paine
"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him."
John F. Kennedy,1960
"Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?"
Justice Sandra Day O'Conner, 2005
Along with Katherine Harris, there is this:
"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.... We need believing people."
Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933
In an interview with some God-bob publication she made the statements that separation of church and state is "a lie" and God and the nation's founding fathers did not intend the country be "a nation of secular laws." Of course she couldn't cite any examples of this and since she had no clue as to how elections work, she can't be expected to know history either. Some other statements she made include separating religion and politics is "wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers", and "If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin."
Well Katherine, I thought you would like to know what a few of our founding fathers and other experts had to say about that, not to mention that the words "God", "Jesus" or "Christianity", never once appears in our nations most important document, the U.S. Constitution:
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
“Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
Thomas Jefferson 1802
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth. "
Thomas Jefferson
"I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another."
Thomas Jefferson, 1799
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."
John Adams, Lawyer / 2nd President of the U.S.
James Madison - "Father of the Constitution" / 4th President of the U.S.
"The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of constitutional principles."
James Madison
“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect.”
James Madison
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
Thomas Paine-Age of Reason
“I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible).Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible).It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible.Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance.The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty.”
Thomas Paine
"as to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of our government to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which the government hath to do therewith."
Thomas Paine
"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him."
John F. Kennedy,1960
"Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?"
Justice Sandra Day O'Conner, 2005
Along with Katherine Harris, there is this:
"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.... We need believing people."
Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Lesson 2 On How Not to Get Shot by the Police or Authorities
From Chicago Tribune Aug, 9th:
Boy's shooting angers crowd
Cabrini-Green neighbors protest police action, tell of the frustration of gentrification
Cry me a river. The other day Cabrini Green Public Housing residents protested the shooting of an armed robbery suspect who refused to drop his weapon. Ok, so the weapon happened to be a BB gun that looked like a .45 caliber handgun and the suspect happened to be a 14 year old boy.
There was no way the police could know that the gun was a BB gun or that the boy was only 14 years old. Neither of these really matter if you ask me. First of all, it doesn't matter how old you are if you are pointing a gun at someone you are likely to get shot. Second, BB guns are also illegal in the city of Chicago for this very reason and even BB guns can harm or maim another person. Third, what the hell does gentrification have to do with anything?
Gentrification sucks for people whose property taxes skyrocket over a years time and they have to move out to make way for yuppies and their Starbucks laden strip malls but we are talking about people who live in public housing. This means they either have a fixed rent of let’s say $40 per month or they pay nothing at all. If someone is going to give you next to nothing housing don't bitch about it when they say you have to live somewhere else for free. Beggars can't be choosers. So let's just drop the whole gentrification frustrations for now.
If you do not want to get shot by the police, adhere to the following rules:
1.Don't carry illegal weapons such as handguns or BB guns
2.If you do carry one of these weapons and a cop tells you to drop it then do it
3.Don't point your BB gun or any other type of a gun at a cop who is pointing his gun at you
4.Don't commit cribes such as robbing someone at gunpoint, even if it's with a BB gun
5.Don't commit crimes 60 feet away from a brand new police station
6.Don't commit crimes underneath or in the view of CPD surveillance cameras
7.Instead of standing on the corner robbing people, hang out at the library which is a block away and air conditioned
8.If you live in a crime ridden housing project and think cops are racist, don't do things that make them want to shoot you such as robbing people and pointing guns at them.
9. Choose someone positive as a role model; don't choose Tu Pac or 50 cent as they also got shot
10.Parents, don't buy your kids guns and don't raise them to be someone who robs little kids
Most importantly: DON'T BRING A TOY TO A GUN FIGHT!
Neither being 14, complaining about having to move away from your free housing or carrying weapons, will ever keep you from getting shot from the cops; my rules however, will.
The kid is still alive and when he comes out of it I can assure you he will tell you the same things I am telling you. I'll bet the next time a cop tells him to drop his weapon he does it. So there is some silver lining to all this as I am sure he has learned his lesson. I too have learned a lesson; a lesson in Darwinism.
There is no charge for this consultation. I hope it has been helpful and will keep you and your kids from getting shot by the police.
Boy's shooting angers crowd
Cabrini-Green neighbors protest police action, tell of the frustration of gentrification
Cry me a river. The other day Cabrini Green Public Housing residents protested the shooting of an armed robbery suspect who refused to drop his weapon. Ok, so the weapon happened to be a BB gun that looked like a .45 caliber handgun and the suspect happened to be a 14 year old boy.
There was no way the police could know that the gun was a BB gun or that the boy was only 14 years old. Neither of these really matter if you ask me. First of all, it doesn't matter how old you are if you are pointing a gun at someone you are likely to get shot. Second, BB guns are also illegal in the city of Chicago for this very reason and even BB guns can harm or maim another person. Third, what the hell does gentrification have to do with anything?
Gentrification sucks for people whose property taxes skyrocket over a years time and they have to move out to make way for yuppies and their Starbucks laden strip malls but we are talking about people who live in public housing. This means they either have a fixed rent of let’s say $40 per month or they pay nothing at all. If someone is going to give you next to nothing housing don't bitch about it when they say you have to live somewhere else for free. Beggars can't be choosers. So let's just drop the whole gentrification frustrations for now.
If you do not want to get shot by the police, adhere to the following rules:
1.Don't carry illegal weapons such as handguns or BB guns
2.If you do carry one of these weapons and a cop tells you to drop it then do it
3.Don't point your BB gun or any other type of a gun at a cop who is pointing his gun at you
4.Don't commit cribes such as robbing someone at gunpoint, even if it's with a BB gun
5.Don't commit crimes 60 feet away from a brand new police station
6.Don't commit crimes underneath or in the view of CPD surveillance cameras
7.Instead of standing on the corner robbing people, hang out at the library which is a block away and air conditioned
8.If you live in a crime ridden housing project and think cops are racist, don't do things that make them want to shoot you such as robbing people and pointing guns at them.
9. Choose someone positive as a role model; don't choose Tu Pac or 50 cent as they also got shot
10.Parents, don't buy your kids guns and don't raise them to be someone who robs little kids
Most importantly: DON'T BRING A TOY TO A GUN FIGHT!
Neither being 14, complaining about having to move away from your free housing or carrying weapons, will ever keep you from getting shot from the cops; my rules however, will.
The kid is still alive and when he comes out of it I can assure you he will tell you the same things I am telling you. I'll bet the next time a cop tells him to drop his weapon he does it. So there is some silver lining to all this as I am sure he has learned his lesson. I too have learned a lesson; a lesson in Darwinism.
There is no charge for this consultation. I hope it has been helpful and will keep you and your kids from getting shot by the police.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Kansas: Waking Up and Joining the 21st Century
From CNN:Wednesday, August 2, 2006; Posted: 9:21 a.m. EDT
TOPEKA, Kansas (AP) -- Conservative Republicans who pushed anti-evolution standards back into Kansas schools last year have lost control of the state Board of Education once again.
Let me be the first to welcome Kansas into the 21st century. That's right, the cavemen of Kansas' school board who voted to allow "intelligent" design to be taught alongside evolution have been voted out of office. The School Board is now stacked 6-4 in favor of evolution as opposed to 6-4 against evolution as it was before the election.
One of the board members who were replaced was Connie Morris who was once quoted describing evolution as, "an age-old fairy tale" and "a nice bedtime story unsupported by science". That’s funny, that's exactly what I say about I.D. and creationism. In reality, do you know what isn't supported by science? The story that the Earth was created in 6 days 10,000 years ago.
Welcome home Kansas. Now you can move on by giving women and minorities the right to vote or what ever else it was you missed over the last 150 years.
TOPEKA, Kansas (AP) -- Conservative Republicans who pushed anti-evolution standards back into Kansas schools last year have lost control of the state Board of Education once again.
Let me be the first to welcome Kansas into the 21st century. That's right, the cavemen of Kansas' school board who voted to allow "intelligent" design to be taught alongside evolution have been voted out of office. The School Board is now stacked 6-4 in favor of evolution as opposed to 6-4 against evolution as it was before the election.
One of the board members who were replaced was Connie Morris who was once quoted describing evolution as, "an age-old fairy tale" and "a nice bedtime story unsupported by science". That’s funny, that's exactly what I say about I.D. and creationism. In reality, do you know what isn't supported by science? The story that the Earth was created in 6 days 10,000 years ago.
Welcome home Kansas. Now you can move on by giving women and minorities the right to vote or what ever else it was you missed over the last 150 years.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Stupid Doesn’t Necessarily Mean Insane
Unbelievable. Andrea Yates, the housewife who "thought her kids were evil" and therefore killed all 5 of them, has just been found not guilty by reason of insanity in 3 of their murders.
Even if she is a nut bag, she's still guilty, she still killed those kids; who cares why or how? How does that matter. She has killed 5 people and crazy or not, she is capable of having more children and killing them too. Should it really matter if she did it because she's just an asshole, or because she thinks her kids are Satan, or any other reason? Those kids are dead and she is the reason, period. Therefore, she must pay that price. Do you really think a poor, crazy, black, crack-head mother would have gotten off this easy if she did the same? Of course not. I'm not trying to turn this into a race thing I am merely bringing up a point. I guess my main point is that why is no one in our society responsible for their own actions?
Hopefully for the people of Texas, the prosecutors will still charge her in the murders of her other two kids and may actually get a jury with brains the next time around.
I am dumbfounded.
Even if she is a nut bag, she's still guilty, she still killed those kids; who cares why or how? How does that matter. She has killed 5 people and crazy or not, she is capable of having more children and killing them too. Should it really matter if she did it because she's just an asshole, or because she thinks her kids are Satan, or any other reason? Those kids are dead and she is the reason, period. Therefore, she must pay that price. Do you really think a poor, crazy, black, crack-head mother would have gotten off this easy if she did the same? Of course not. I'm not trying to turn this into a race thing I am merely bringing up a point. I guess my main point is that why is no one in our society responsible for their own actions?
Hopefully for the people of Texas, the prosecutors will still charge her in the murders of her other two kids and may actually get a jury with brains the next time around.
I am dumbfounded.
Monday, July 17, 2006
Really? Thanks. And What's With Israel?
Apparently, my paper shredder doesn't recommend sticking hands and ties through its blades. Paper, however, is ok. I suppose that explains why the box it came in had the words "Paper Shredder" written all over it. I wonder if hand and tie shredders have warnings about not putting paper through them. Is this something they have had problems with in the past and really thought needed to be addressed?
That’s all I have for now other than the issue of Israel thinking that a "buffer zone" in Lebanon is a good idea. Ya, it seems to have worked out well for them in the West Bank and in Gaza.
The other things I notice about this conflict is that they always refer to Hezbollah as "funded and armed by Syria and Iran" but they don't ever describe Israel as "funded and armed by the U.S.".
Also, I heard some fellow liberals saying that Israel needed to quit targeting civilians. I would have to agree with them but the statement sounds incomplete without calling for Hezbollah and Hamas to quit targeting civilians as well. Although, one must point out that the last two actions of Hezbollah and Hamas that started all this was the kidnapping of IDF soldiers, not the bombing of Israeli civilians. Maybe that should be viewed as progress. That being said, why does Israel only respond this harshly to attacks against their military and not to the attacks against its civilians? Anyone have any ideas on this?
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Religious Conservatives Want Women to Die of Cancer
Thursday, June 29, 2006; Posted: 12:11 p.m. EDT
From CNN Health:
ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- An influential government advisory committee Thursday recommended the routine vaccination of 11- and 12-year-old girls against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.
The Family Research Council (who also thinks condoms are a bad Idea) has this to say: “Because parents have an inherent right to be the primary educator and decision maker regarding their children’s health, we would oppose any measures to legally require vaccination." Apparently, death and disease is better than pre-marital sex.
Bridget Maher, also from the Family Research Council also had this informative "fact" to share:"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful because they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex." Yes, because no one is afraid of getting pregnant or getting AIDS and Herpes. Most people don't even know what HPV is, especially most teenagers. Hell, I didn't even know what HPV was until I dated a girl who worked for the Society of Gynecological Oncologists and I am a sexually active 32 year old man. I don't think that when they hand out this vaccination there is going to be a prescription with it telling 15 year old girls to fuck as many boys as they can because they are now immune to just one of the ten major STD's. I should also mention that some types of HPV can also be spread through non-sexual contact such as clothing.
Here is what the FDA has to say about it: "The vaccine appears to be 100% effective at protecting against the most prevalent viruses that cause cervical cancer."
Over 50% of all sexually active people in the US will be infected with HPV within their lifetime. According to Planned Parenthood , HPV is present in 93% of all cases of cervical cancer. Cervical cancer is the second most prevalent cancer killer among women in America, affecting nearly 14,000 each year. Twenty-eight percent (4000) of the women affected with cervical cancer die every year. If parents really cared about their children, wouldn't they want to protect them from cancer if they had the chance and there were no known risks in doing so? Protecting a teenager from having sex is like trying to protect a fish from getting wet; that is what their bodies are designed to do. What do you think puberty is all about?
Again, educated and liberal people, doctors and drug companies are not all involved in a conspiracy to get your 16 year old daughter to have sex. That is not liberal doctrine, it's not even Planned Parenthoods doctrine. They simply do not have their heads up their ass and realize that you are a shitty parent and that your 16 year old daughter has probably had more sexual partners than you ever dreamed of having. They also realize that kids who pledge abstinence still have the same rate of unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections, as the ones who don't.
Does the Flu vaccine make people run out into the street kissing homeless men in the middle of winter? No. If we were all given rabies vaccinations do you think people would start attacking raccoons and wild dogs? Of course not.
When it comes to health and science listen to the experts. Don't take medical advice from people who think women come from men's ribs.
From CNN Health:
ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- An influential government advisory committee Thursday recommended the routine vaccination of 11- and 12-year-old girls against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.
The Family Research Council (who also thinks condoms are a bad Idea) has this to say: “Because parents have an inherent right to be the primary educator and decision maker regarding their children’s health, we would oppose any measures to legally require vaccination." Apparently, death and disease is better than pre-marital sex.
Bridget Maher, also from the Family Research Council also had this informative "fact" to share:"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful because they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex." Yes, because no one is afraid of getting pregnant or getting AIDS and Herpes. Most people don't even know what HPV is, especially most teenagers. Hell, I didn't even know what HPV was until I dated a girl who worked for the Society of Gynecological Oncologists and I am a sexually active 32 year old man. I don't think that when they hand out this vaccination there is going to be a prescription with it telling 15 year old girls to fuck as many boys as they can because they are now immune to just one of the ten major STD's. I should also mention that some types of HPV can also be spread through non-sexual contact such as clothing.
Here is what the FDA has to say about it: "The vaccine appears to be 100% effective at protecting against the most prevalent viruses that cause cervical cancer."
Over 50% of all sexually active people in the US will be infected with HPV within their lifetime. According to Planned Parenthood , HPV is present in 93% of all cases of cervical cancer. Cervical cancer is the second most prevalent cancer killer among women in America, affecting nearly 14,000 each year. Twenty-eight percent (4000) of the women affected with cervical cancer die every year. If parents really cared about their children, wouldn't they want to protect them from cancer if they had the chance and there were no known risks in doing so? Protecting a teenager from having sex is like trying to protect a fish from getting wet; that is what their bodies are designed to do. What do you think puberty is all about?
Again, educated and liberal people, doctors and drug companies are not all involved in a conspiracy to get your 16 year old daughter to have sex. That is not liberal doctrine, it's not even Planned Parenthoods doctrine. They simply do not have their heads up their ass and realize that you are a shitty parent and that your 16 year old daughter has probably had more sexual partners than you ever dreamed of having. They also realize that kids who pledge abstinence still have the same rate of unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections, as the ones who don't.
Does the Flu vaccine make people run out into the street kissing homeless men in the middle of winter? No. If we were all given rabies vaccinations do you think people would start attacking raccoons and wild dogs? Of course not.
When it comes to health and science listen to the experts. Don't take medical advice from people who think women come from men's ribs.
Friday, June 02, 2006
My Predictions About "An Inconvenient Truth"
Al Gore is releasing a new movie about global warming and climate change called "An Inconvenient Truth". My guess is that this will be a highly researched endeavor including analysis from the world’s top scientists citing irrefutable facts that the Earth is getting warmer, that man is at least partly responsible for this and that the affects of this could change life on Earth as we know it.
My other guess is that like Fahrenheit 9/11, Conservatives and Republicans will line up talking about all the lies and inaccuracies and all the studies contradicting Gore's findings without actually citing any references. What they won't do, like Fahrenheit 9/11, is address each issue individually until every point is proven wrong in a scientific manner.
My guess is that because the American public is gullible and too stupid to read and research anything on their own, other than how many kids Brangelina are adopting, that this counter hype may just work. People will continue to buy SUV's and act as if melting ice caps wont affect them even though the majority of the worlds population and economies rest largely in coastal areas.
http://www.climatecrisis.net/
My other guess is that like Fahrenheit 9/11, Conservatives and Republicans will line up talking about all the lies and inaccuracies and all the studies contradicting Gore's findings without actually citing any references. What they won't do, like Fahrenheit 9/11, is address each issue individually until every point is proven wrong in a scientific manner.
My guess is that because the American public is gullible and too stupid to read and research anything on their own, other than how many kids Brangelina are adopting, that this counter hype may just work. People will continue to buy SUV's and act as if melting ice caps wont affect them even though the majority of the worlds population and economies rest largely in coastal areas.
http://www.climatecrisis.net/
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
WMD's Found in Iraq!!
This just in, Mikes America has found WMD's in Iraq. Of course he won't tell us what, when, where or how but trust me, he knows they are there because Bush told him so.
Go to the comments section of this post http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/2006/05/left-embraces-christianity-as-basis.html to find out about all the WMD's the liberal media never reported and the Bush administration decided to keep secrete even amongst all the backlash and a record low approval rating.
Ask Mike to show you proof of the Army finding plutonium, uranium, anthrax, mustard gas and of course the nuclear missiles that were sure to doom the U.S.
The mind truly is a powerful thing. If you tell yourself something over and over again before long you actually start to believe it.
Go to the comments section of this post http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/2006/05/left-embraces-christianity-as-basis.html to find out about all the WMD's the liberal media never reported and the Bush administration decided to keep secrete even amongst all the backlash and a record low approval rating.
Ask Mike to show you proof of the Army finding plutonium, uranium, anthrax, mustard gas and of course the nuclear missiles that were sure to doom the U.S.
The mind truly is a powerful thing. If you tell yourself something over and over again before long you actually start to believe it.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
A Paradox for Conservatives
From CNN Tuesday, May 9, 2006; Posted: 12:37 p.m. EDT:
An estimated 2 million babies die within their first 24 hours each year worldwide and the United States has the second worst newborn mortality rate in the developed world, according to a new report.
"American babies are three times more likely to die in their first month as children born in Japan, and newborn mortality is 2.5 times higher in the United States than in Finland, Iceland or Norway, Save the Children researchers found."
Japan offers free health care services for all pregnant women and babies while only the rich and insured get adequate health care in the United States.
This poses a paradox for conservative types who claim they are pro-life yet don't seem to care about life after it has been born. After that point, it seems like if the mother is poor, it's the babies fault and therefore should have to suffer due to the laziness of it's uneducated, unwed, teenage mother. If the United States, due to its stingy conservative capitalist leanings, allows 5 out of every 1000 of it's babies to die within a year after birth, how can that be labeled as pro-life? Why aren't "pro-lifers" out protesting in front of Capital Hill to get equal funding for neo-natal care? Aren't the planned parenthoods the wrong place for these people? Shouldn't they quit worrying about a morning after pill which blocks life before it even begins and start worrying about the babies that are alive now yet dying? Why isn't this issue on the top of the pro-life movements agenda? Why haven't the Republicans told the pro-lifers that they don't care about life after it has been born and if it happens to be poor and or black?
Here is a list of some of the top 10 "Socialist" countries with the lowest infant mortality rates:
Japan
Norway
Finland
Iceland
Czech Republic
Austria
France
Germany
Sweden
Italy
These will also be the same countries you see talked about on conservative blogs as being "Socialist" because they don't have the room for all their people to live in gated suburban sprawl communities and they have low rates of poverty where the rich have to pay a higher rate of taxes than the rich in the U.S.
If you were a baby who had no say in what kind of family you were born into, would you prefer to be born in one of the countries from the list above or in the United States?
An estimated 2 million babies die within their first 24 hours each year worldwide and the United States has the second worst newborn mortality rate in the developed world, according to a new report.
"American babies are three times more likely to die in their first month as children born in Japan, and newborn mortality is 2.5 times higher in the United States than in Finland, Iceland or Norway, Save the Children researchers found."
Japan offers free health care services for all pregnant women and babies while only the rich and insured get adequate health care in the United States.
This poses a paradox for conservative types who claim they are pro-life yet don't seem to care about life after it has been born. After that point, it seems like if the mother is poor, it's the babies fault and therefore should have to suffer due to the laziness of it's uneducated, unwed, teenage mother. If the United States, due to its stingy conservative capitalist leanings, allows 5 out of every 1000 of it's babies to die within a year after birth, how can that be labeled as pro-life? Why aren't "pro-lifers" out protesting in front of Capital Hill to get equal funding for neo-natal care? Aren't the planned parenthoods the wrong place for these people? Shouldn't they quit worrying about a morning after pill which blocks life before it even begins and start worrying about the babies that are alive now yet dying? Why isn't this issue on the top of the pro-life movements agenda? Why haven't the Republicans told the pro-lifers that they don't care about life after it has been born and if it happens to be poor and or black?
Here is a list of some of the top 10 "Socialist" countries with the lowest infant mortality rates:
Japan
Norway
Finland
Iceland
Czech Republic
Austria
France
Germany
Sweden
Italy
These will also be the same countries you see talked about on conservative blogs as being "Socialist" because they don't have the room for all their people to live in gated suburban sprawl communities and they have low rates of poverty where the rich have to pay a higher rate of taxes than the rich in the U.S.
If you were a baby who had no say in what kind of family you were born into, would you prefer to be born in one of the countries from the list above or in the United States?
Monday, May 01, 2006
May Day
Today is May 1st which is also known as May Day. May Day is an observance of the gains made by unions and the labor movement in general which resulted in our 40 hour work week among other things.
The labor movement has always been frowned upon by conservatives and corporations and even a lot of governments. Conservative Republicans and conservative talk show hosts have long blamed unions, along with gays and environmentalists, for all of America's problems.
Once again, here are all the crazy ideas we can blame on those hippie/commie liberals:
The freedom to write this blog
40 hour work weeks
The weekend
Overtime pay
Holidays and Holiday pay (such as Labor Day)
Emancipation of the slaves
Child welfare laws
Child labor laws
Homeless shelters
Clean air
Clean water
National Parks
Forest Preserves
Unemployment benefits
Social Security
Drug treatment centers
Tenant rights
Historical preservation societies
Free Libraries
Food Stamps
Campaign laws
After school programs
Antitrust laws
Desegregation
Equal opportunity
And most importantly the 1st, 4th, 5th,6th,7th,8th,9th,13th,14th,15th,16th,19th,21st and 24th amendments and everything they include such as the abolition of slavery and women’s rights.
What have conservative movements gotten us besides tax breaks for rich people who don't need them and restrictions on our rights and freedoms?
The labor movement has always been frowned upon by conservatives and corporations and even a lot of governments. Conservative Republicans and conservative talk show hosts have long blamed unions, along with gays and environmentalists, for all of America's problems.
Once again, here are all the crazy ideas we can blame on those hippie/commie liberals:
The freedom to write this blog
40 hour work weeks
The weekend
Overtime pay
Holidays and Holiday pay (such as Labor Day)
Emancipation of the slaves
Child welfare laws
Child labor laws
Homeless shelters
Clean air
Clean water
National Parks
Forest Preserves
Unemployment benefits
Social Security
Drug treatment centers
Tenant rights
Historical preservation societies
Free Libraries
Food Stamps
Campaign laws
After school programs
Antitrust laws
Desegregation
Equal opportunity
And most importantly the 1st, 4th, 5th,6th,7th,8th,9th,13th,14th,15th,16th,19th,21st and 24th amendments and everything they include such as the abolition of slavery and women’s rights.
What have conservative movements gotten us besides tax breaks for rich people who don't need them and restrictions on our rights and freedoms?
Friday, April 28, 2006
Why I am a 9/11 Democrat
Ok, so technically I am a registered Independent but that's beside the point.
I was talking to this girl the other day who wasn't overly conservative but called herself a 9/11 Republican. I have heard Dennis Miller and others use this term before but I have always been somewhat confused by this statement. What does 9/11 Republican mean? How do the events of 9/11 make people want to turn Republican since it’s essentially the Republicans who allowed something like 9/11 to happen?
I also heard people after 9/11 saying: "thank God Bush was President and not Gore". Again, what would have Gore done that Bush didn't do other than not invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Do you really think Gore would have turned over the eastern seaboard to Bin Laden and made everyone start praying towards Mecca five times a day? Do you really think he would have just let it all go and done nothing? Or, do you think maybe he would have put a massive amount of troops, whose pay and benefits he wouldn't have cut, into Afghanistan and actually capture Bin Laden, something Bush has yet to accomplish.
Here is why I am a 9/11 Democrat:
1: 9/11 happened on the Republicans watch. They had the warnings, they knew it was coming; they read children’s books and dressed up as cowboys on vacation.
2: The main reason the Arab world hates us is because of our lopsided financial and military support of Israel. Who are the biggest supporters of Zionist settlers and the funding of Israel? Conservative Republicans. George Bush even once advocated moving the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem which is claimed by the Palestinians as their capital and not recognized by the UN as the capital of Israel.
3. The other reason Bin Laden hates us is that we staged troops on Muslim Holy land in efforts to invade another Muslim country. Right or wrong, that was a Republican President who was responsible.
4. The Democrats, as mentioned before, would have never invaded a random country just because they had Muslims. They would have only gone after the real enemy and given the military enough troops and support to complete the mission.
5. We all know 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. We also know that the oil extracted by these companies comes from the Middle East where Muslim Arabs live. We also know that the war in Iraq was motivated by corporate (mostly oil) profits who all have ties to this administration and other Republicans. We all know that before the Iraq war a barrel of oil was under $30 and that now it is at $72 a barrel. We know that because of Republican ties to the oil industry that the Republicans are indirectly responsible for the corruption in the Middle East as well as all the puppet regimes that have been set up there that exploit their people to serve our best interests. These actions create unrest in the Muslim world which incites violence and attacks against the US.
These are the reasons you should cock punch the next person who tells you they are a 9/11 Republican.
I was talking to this girl the other day who wasn't overly conservative but called herself a 9/11 Republican. I have heard Dennis Miller and others use this term before but I have always been somewhat confused by this statement. What does 9/11 Republican mean? How do the events of 9/11 make people want to turn Republican since it’s essentially the Republicans who allowed something like 9/11 to happen?
I also heard people after 9/11 saying: "thank God Bush was President and not Gore". Again, what would have Gore done that Bush didn't do other than not invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Do you really think Gore would have turned over the eastern seaboard to Bin Laden and made everyone start praying towards Mecca five times a day? Do you really think he would have just let it all go and done nothing? Or, do you think maybe he would have put a massive amount of troops, whose pay and benefits he wouldn't have cut, into Afghanistan and actually capture Bin Laden, something Bush has yet to accomplish.
Here is why I am a 9/11 Democrat:
1: 9/11 happened on the Republicans watch. They had the warnings, they knew it was coming; they read children’s books and dressed up as cowboys on vacation.
2: The main reason the Arab world hates us is because of our lopsided financial and military support of Israel. Who are the biggest supporters of Zionist settlers and the funding of Israel? Conservative Republicans. George Bush even once advocated moving the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem which is claimed by the Palestinians as their capital and not recognized by the UN as the capital of Israel.
3. The other reason Bin Laden hates us is that we staged troops on Muslim Holy land in efforts to invade another Muslim country. Right or wrong, that was a Republican President who was responsible.
4. The Democrats, as mentioned before, would have never invaded a random country just because they had Muslims. They would have only gone after the real enemy and given the military enough troops and support to complete the mission.
5. We all know 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. We also know that the oil extracted by these companies comes from the Middle East where Muslim Arabs live. We also know that the war in Iraq was motivated by corporate (mostly oil) profits who all have ties to this administration and other Republicans. We all know that before the Iraq war a barrel of oil was under $30 and that now it is at $72 a barrel. We know that because of Republican ties to the oil industry that the Republicans are indirectly responsible for the corruption in the Middle East as well as all the puppet regimes that have been set up there that exploit their people to serve our best interests. These actions create unrest in the Muslim world which incites violence and attacks against the US.
These are the reasons you should cock punch the next person who tells you they are a 9/11 Republican.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Our (Their) Priorities
By now, I am sure everyone has seen my cost of war in Iraq banner in my sidebar. What you may not have done is click on it to see how the cost of this war stacks up against the budgets of some other efforts for which this money could have been used.
According to nationalpriorities.org we have spent over 272 billion on Operation Iraqi Liberation. The US Department of Education's budget for 2005 was a mere 57.3 Billion dollars.
As of today, according to this website, instead of paying for this war in which only oil executives and Halliburton have benefited from, we could have done the following:
Hired 4,725,229 public school teachers for one year
Paid for 36,113,976 children to attend a year of Head Start
Provided insurance 163,269,509 children for one year
Given full 4 year, public university scholarships for 13,217,988 kids
Built an additional 2,445,054 public housing units
Fully funded global anti-hunger efforts for 11 years
Fully funded world-wide AIDS programs for 27 years
Provided basic immunizations for every child on the planet for the next 90 years
I know, just giving someone money is Socialism, diverting money from the poor and general public so rich people can get richer is Capitalism.
Can anyone give me an example of how this war has made their life better? I know a college scholarship would have made my life better.
Next Post: Why I am a 9/11 Democrat.
According to nationalpriorities.org we have spent over 272 billion on Operation Iraqi Liberation. The US Department of Education's budget for 2005 was a mere 57.3 Billion dollars.
As of today, according to this website, instead of paying for this war in which only oil executives and Halliburton have benefited from, we could have done the following:
Hired 4,725,229 public school teachers for one year
Paid for 36,113,976 children to attend a year of Head Start
Provided insurance 163,269,509 children for one year
Given full 4 year, public university scholarships for 13,217,988 kids
Built an additional 2,445,054 public housing units
Fully funded global anti-hunger efforts for 11 years
Fully funded world-wide AIDS programs for 27 years
Provided basic immunizations for every child on the planet for the next 90 years
I know, just giving someone money is Socialism, diverting money from the poor and general public so rich people can get richer is Capitalism.
Can anyone give me an example of how this war has made their life better? I know a college scholarship would have made my life better.
Next Post: Why I am a 9/11 Democrat.
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Hey Hey Hey Good Bye
Tom DeLay, the corrupt Republican Congressman from Texas, has resigned after his recent scandals and indictments. Of course, this is all liberal Democrats fault for using the system of checks and balances which don't allow Congressmen to do as they please.
What kind of country do we live in where the people in power are held accountable by the same rules as everyone else? I guess this proves that just because the Republicans say something is true, that doesn't necessarily make it so. It kind of reminds me of that whole WMD thing.
P.S.
Oh, and sign this to increase the minimum wage:
http://www.democrats.org/page/petition/fairwage/fugdty
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Lottery Players Suck!
Seriously, how many times have you had to stand in line at 7-11 for an extra hour because some loser is returning his tickets in exchange for his 2 dollars, or making the clerk play specific numbers which are probably the date one which this person last got laid? The state should pay someone to be on site at all times in order to man the lotto machine for these people who coincidentally have already bought their other items with state funded food stamps. All they would have to do is take the money out of the jack pot in order to pay these people; it's pretty simple.
The other thing about these idiots is well, for one, they will never hit the jack pot. The second thing that kills me is that when Powerball is at like 3 million no one cares but as soon as it hits 300 million people are standing in line for the tickets. The problem with this is that your odds of wining the 3 million are a hundred times greater than you wining the 300 million. Are you saying that you aren't interested in 3 million but you are interested in throwing 50 dollars out the window?
Just go to the Casino with all the other losers and let’s keep the time that it takes to buy a frozen pizza under the amount of time that it takes to make one myself.
Yes, I know my blog suck as of late. Bear with me as I am going through some life changes and have had other things on my mind. No, I am not becoming a woman or anything like that.
The other thing about these idiots is well, for one, they will never hit the jack pot. The second thing that kills me is that when Powerball is at like 3 million no one cares but as soon as it hits 300 million people are standing in line for the tickets. The problem with this is that your odds of wining the 3 million are a hundred times greater than you wining the 300 million. Are you saying that you aren't interested in 3 million but you are interested in throwing 50 dollars out the window?
Just go to the Casino with all the other losers and let’s keep the time that it takes to buy a frozen pizza under the amount of time that it takes to make one myself.
Yes, I know my blog suck as of late. Bear with me as I am going through some life changes and have had other things on my mind. No, I am not becoming a woman or anything like that.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
"They Hate Us For Our Freedom"
From CNN Tuesday, March 14, 2006; Posted: 12:36 p.m. EST
SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- The Bush administration is renewing its effort to find out what people have been looking for on Google Inc.'s Internet-leading search engine, continuing a legal showdown over how much of the Web's vast databases should be shared with the government.
If Bush and the United States Government is so concerned with "spreading freedom" (AKA oil profits) in other parts of the world why are they trying to restrict freedoms within the United States?
This one isn't even about terrorism; it's about bad lazy parenting. This is all in efforts to keep children from looking at internet porn. I have a great idea, put a password on you computer and don't let your children use it unless you are in the room with them. If you can't take care of and keep your children safe on your own then you just shouldn’t have kids. It's not the government’s job to raise your kids. Let them focus on keeping us safe from another terrorist attack, not babysitting your kids!
SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- The Bush administration is renewing its effort to find out what people have been looking for on Google Inc.'s Internet-leading search engine, continuing a legal showdown over how much of the Web's vast databases should be shared with the government.
If Bush and the United States Government is so concerned with "spreading freedom" (AKA oil profits) in other parts of the world why are they trying to restrict freedoms within the United States?
This one isn't even about terrorism; it's about bad lazy parenting. This is all in efforts to keep children from looking at internet porn. I have a great idea, put a password on you computer and don't let your children use it unless you are in the room with them. If you can't take care of and keep your children safe on your own then you just shouldn’t have kids. It's not the government’s job to raise your kids. Let them focus on keeping us safe from another terrorist attack, not babysitting your kids!
Thursday, March 02, 2006
New Fundamentalist Town to be Exempt from Constitution and Restrict Freedoms. No, It's not in Saudi Arabia, it's in Florida!
From CNN: Thursday, March 2, 2006; Posted: 11:36 a.m. EST (16:36 GMT)
NAPLES, Florida (AP) -- If Domino's Pizza founder Thomas S. Monaghan has his way, a new town being built in Florida will be governed according to strict Roman Catholic principles, with no place to get an abortion, pornography or birth control.
So does this mean that I can build a town that won't allow anyone to sell Bibles, practice Christianity, go to Church, preach on the streets or protest Planned Parenthoods and adult book stores? Can I build a town that will make guns, free speech and religion illegal? In this town, can I also make prostitution, heroin, same sex marriages, drunk driving, racial discrimination and poll taxes legal? I think my town I will also pass out condoms to elementary school kids and offer free abortions to anyone who had premarital sex. Apparently this town in Florida is already handing out free lobotomies.
Catholics already have their own city, it’s called Vatican City. I would suggest moving there where the laws and the constitution may be a little less intrusive to your ultimate goal.
Of course, Jeb Bush, the Governor of Florida, was at the groundbreaking and lauded Monaghan’s vision. What a jackass! At first, it sounded like they were trying to create a town without bush.
NAPLES, Florida (AP) -- If Domino's Pizza founder Thomas S. Monaghan has his way, a new town being built in Florida will be governed according to strict Roman Catholic principles, with no place to get an abortion, pornography or birth control.
So does this mean that I can build a town that won't allow anyone to sell Bibles, practice Christianity, go to Church, preach on the streets or protest Planned Parenthoods and adult book stores? Can I build a town that will make guns, free speech and religion illegal? In this town, can I also make prostitution, heroin, same sex marriages, drunk driving, racial discrimination and poll taxes legal? I think my town I will also pass out condoms to elementary school kids and offer free abortions to anyone who had premarital sex. Apparently this town in Florida is already handing out free lobotomies.
Catholics already have their own city, it’s called Vatican City. I would suggest moving there where the laws and the constitution may be a little less intrusive to your ultimate goal.
Of course, Jeb Bush, the Governor of Florida, was at the groundbreaking and lauded Monaghan’s vision. What a jackass! At first, it sounded like they were trying to create a town without bush.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Tired of Sex in the Media? Stop Reading the Bible!
The next time you hear someone bitch about condoms being advertised on MTV or some shitty Fox show called "Who Wants to Bang My Dad" and they talk about how things like this should be censored, remind them that if they want to start censoring sexual innuendos out of the media they can't pick and choose what they censor and must censor every thing.
I would like to remind people that the Bible contains as much sex, much more violence and displays more intolerance than most Hollywood blockbusters and nearly all network television shows and even rap music. When I speak of sex, violence, disrespect of women and praises to God, am I talking about a rap video or the Bible?
At least TV shows only imply that someone is about to have pre-marital sex, they don't actually show it or describe the fluids which were transferred. Yes, maybe some network shows don't teach children that they should hate gay people and some of them even depict gay people as people but it's nothing the Bible hasn't already described. Some TV shows depict unfaithful spouses screwing their neighbors but neither of the latter are anything that was new to someone in the Bible such as David.
I have compiled a list of sexual encounters and innuendos in the Bible which, if on TV, most Christians today would like to see banned and censored.
Genesis 38:9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother.
When was the last time fluid transfer was visualized on MTV?
II Samuel 11:2 One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, 3 and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, "Isn't this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite?" 4 Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her. (She had purified herself from her uncleanness.) Then [a] she went back home.
Makes Desperate Housewives not seem so desperate anymore doesn't it? And before you say David was punished for this by the death of his son, I want to point out that Solomon was also his son and ruled Israel and it was his descendents that later spawned Jesus. That sounds more like a reward than a punishment.
Genesis 19:4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
Maybe this would work on prime time but I haven't seen it yet.
Genesis 19:8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them.
If a book or a show came out today that depicted a father offering his daughters to a horny mob there would be an outrage and American Family Association would be in the streets burning TV guides and calling for boycotts.
Genesis 19:33 that night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and lay with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. 34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, "Last night I lay with my father. Let's get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and lie with him so we can preserve our family line through our father." 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went and lay with him.
When incest is the subject of the new episode of the OC I will shut up and go home.
Leviticus 15:1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'When any man has a bodily discharge, the discharge is unclean. 3 Whether it continues flowing from his body or is blocked, it will make him unclean.
Cum play? Are you kidding? That isn't even on the Playboy channel.
I Samuel 18:4: And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
Ok, so now we are getting into Alexander and Broke Back territory.
1 Samuel 18:21: Saul thought, "Let me give her to him, that she may be a snare for him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him." Therefore Saul said to David a second time, "You shall now be my son-in-law."
So, not only is David a polygamist but one of the people he is married to is a man and is now marrying that mans sister. You couldn't find this scenario on the Jerry Springer show if you watched it for 2 years straight.
II Samuel 1:26: I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathon: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.
I have already addressed this; David loved Jonathon more than his own wife, which just happened to be Jonathan’s sister. Kinky.
II Samuel 13:12 And she (Tamar) answered him (Absalom), Nay, my brother, do not force me; for no such thing ought to be done in Israel: do not thou this folly.
13 And I, whither shall I cause my shame to go? And as for thee, thou shalt be as one of the fools in Israel. Now therefore, I pray thee, speak unto the king; for he will not withhold me from thee. 14 Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, forced her, and lay with her.
Ok, some R rated movies show rape but other than that you won’t find it on an episode of the Simpson’s.
Imagine what I could find if I referenced all the bigotry, hate, racism, sexism and violence in the Bible.
I would like to remind people that the Bible contains as much sex, much more violence and displays more intolerance than most Hollywood blockbusters and nearly all network television shows and even rap music. When I speak of sex, violence, disrespect of women and praises to God, am I talking about a rap video or the Bible?
At least TV shows only imply that someone is about to have pre-marital sex, they don't actually show it or describe the fluids which were transferred. Yes, maybe some network shows don't teach children that they should hate gay people and some of them even depict gay people as people but it's nothing the Bible hasn't already described. Some TV shows depict unfaithful spouses screwing their neighbors but neither of the latter are anything that was new to someone in the Bible such as David.
I have compiled a list of sexual encounters and innuendos in the Bible which, if on TV, most Christians today would like to see banned and censored.
Genesis 38:9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother.
When was the last time fluid transfer was visualized on MTV?
II Samuel 11:2 One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, 3 and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, "Isn't this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite?" 4 Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her. (She had purified herself from her uncleanness.) Then [a] she went back home.
Makes Desperate Housewives not seem so desperate anymore doesn't it? And before you say David was punished for this by the death of his son, I want to point out that Solomon was also his son and ruled Israel and it was his descendents that later spawned Jesus. That sounds more like a reward than a punishment.
Genesis 19:4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
Maybe this would work on prime time but I haven't seen it yet.
Genesis 19:8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them.
If a book or a show came out today that depicted a father offering his daughters to a horny mob there would be an outrage and American Family Association would be in the streets burning TV guides and calling for boycotts.
Genesis 19:33 that night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and lay with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. 34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, "Last night I lay with my father. Let's get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and lie with him so we can preserve our family line through our father." 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went and lay with him.
When incest is the subject of the new episode of the OC I will shut up and go home.
Leviticus 15:1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'When any man has a bodily discharge, the discharge is unclean. 3 Whether it continues flowing from his body or is blocked, it will make him unclean.
Cum play? Are you kidding? That isn't even on the Playboy channel.
I Samuel 18:4: And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
Ok, so now we are getting into Alexander and Broke Back territory.
1 Samuel 18:21: Saul thought, "Let me give her to him, that she may be a snare for him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him." Therefore Saul said to David a second time, "You shall now be my son-in-law."
So, not only is David a polygamist but one of the people he is married to is a man and is now marrying that mans sister. You couldn't find this scenario on the Jerry Springer show if you watched it for 2 years straight.
II Samuel 1:26: I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathon: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.
I have already addressed this; David loved Jonathon more than his own wife, which just happened to be Jonathan’s sister. Kinky.
II Samuel 13:12 And she (Tamar) answered him (Absalom), Nay, my brother, do not force me; for no such thing ought to be done in Israel: do not thou this folly.
13 And I, whither shall I cause my shame to go? And as for thee, thou shalt be as one of the fools in Israel. Now therefore, I pray thee, speak unto the king; for he will not withhold me from thee. 14 Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, forced her, and lay with her.
Ok, some R rated movies show rape but other than that you won’t find it on an episode of the Simpson’s.
Imagine what I could find if I referenced all the bigotry, hate, racism, sexism and violence in the Bible.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Why Iraq Will Fail
All of this over some guy in some other country drawing a cartoon, a cartoon which doesn't actually go against any teachings of Islam. No where in the Quran does it say you can't draw a picture of a prophet. This drawing is clearly not idol worship. No where in the Quran does it say that the whole world must live according to Muslim laws which don't even apply here in the first place. Essentially what happened is that their feelings got hurt and now they are taking their toys and going home. How can you justify boycotting Western Civilization by the actions of one person exercising their freedom? I would also like to point out the irony of this situation. When a group of people react violently to a cartoon that was depicting their religion as violent, doesn't that just feed into this stereotype? I realize the people who are blowing up embassies and burning Danish flags represent maybe 1% of Muslims worldwide but where were they when the Saudi papers printed derogatory depictions of Jews? What, it's ok to make fun of one religion and not the other, just because it's not yours? I know, Christians are really good at doing this as well but other than a few abortion clinics here and there, boycotting Procter and Gamble for putting Pagan symbols on their toothpaste, they haven't reacted this way in a couple of hundred years.
I would like to point out that the act of public protest is a form of free speech. Clearly these people aren't allowed to burn their own country’s flag, or speak out against Islam but if they want the freedom to burn Danish and US flags and voice their grievances then they have to allow others to voice their grievances. Speaking of flags, there must be a flag supply store on every corner in Muslim countries. I couldn't produce a Turkish flag if you gave me a $1000 and a week to find one. Maybe I should go to the Middle East and open a flag store. I would also like to point out that maybe if they spent their days at work, instead of in the street burning flags, maybe they wouldn't be so poor.
Based on the reaction of a cartoon, imagine what the Muslim reaction would be in a free country where women could hire and fire men, or where women wore G-string bikinis or Larry Flynt started selling his magazines and homosexuals were free to do what they pleased. This part of the world is not ready for freedom nor do they want it. Bush should have known that before going into Iraq. Iraq will never be a free, secular country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)