So I was watching that Pen and Teller show Bullshit the other night and I saw something on there that has always gotten on my nerves. Don't get me wrong--this is a great show, but they did this whole "College is Bullshit" segment and within that segment, they talk about how colleges are now stamping out freedom of speech for anyone who is not a minority and or a conservative Republican. They had this guy from FIRE.ORG (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), whose name I believe was Alan Charles Kors talking about how colleges today are bastions of liberal, democratic and socialist brainwashing. For those of you who don't know, FIRE is not a group that is concerned with every student’s free speech on campus. They are only concerned for the speech of people whom they agree with, namely conservatives, Republicans and Christians. This is not a group who will defend a student artist who creates nude or controversial art or the rights of a Palestinian student union to show films depicting the suffering of the Palestinian people under occupied rule. This is also not a group that will fight for the rights of war protesters on college campuses. So their name is somewhat misleading, as with all these other "family" and faux free speech and equal rights (for Christians and gun owners) type groups because the title doesn't live up to their intentions. That is probably what the show should have been about; after all, it is called Bullshit.
Anyhow, on this Bullshit episode Alan Kors cited the study of 1000 university professors in the U.S. and found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans 7-1 in the Humanities and Social Science departments and 30-1 in the Anthropology and Sociology departments. At U of C Berkeley and Stanford he found a 9-1 ratio of Democrats to Republicans within the faculty and administration. They also claim that the University of California system and Harvard topped U.S. universities in per capita political contributions to Democratic candidates and that within those two systems, Kerry voters outnumbered Bush voters 19-1. On the FIRE site, they talk about a study conducted in 2000 that stated among the voter registration records of Humanities and Social Science instructors at Cornell University, Democrats outnumbered 166-6 and 151-17 at Stanford. In the Ivy League system, they found that 80% of the professors voted for Gore in 2000 and only 9% voted for Bush. They claim that this is bad and that religious, conservative, Republican and uneducated people need to be represented as well. What they don’t report on is the discrepancy between conservative vs. liberal staff at a place like Liberty University, David Lipscomb, Bob Jones or Regent University. Sure, those aren’t state schools but neither are Harvard or Stanford and they are a lot cheaper than Harvard, Stanford, or Berkeley, so why can’t these conservative students go there if they want to learn about how the dinosaurs never existed?
Of the Universities mentioned with these terribly biased teaching staffs, I would like to point out the following: US News and World Report publishes an annual ranking of the nation's top schools; for 2006, Harvard was ranked number 1, Stanford number 5, and U of C Berkeley ranked 20th in the nation. Clearly, one of the main reasons these schools are ranked so high is because of their qualified and educated faculty. They wouldn’t be ranked this high if they were hiring half-retarded, bible-thumping, gun rack-owning, high school dropouts would they? What this says to me is that when you become educated you leave behind fantasy, myth and dogma and you appear to become what is considered “liberal”. You start to challenge traditions and begin questioning the world from an outside viewpoint and start questioning what you were taught by your parents and Sunday School teachers. Don’t mistake a guy who can analyze strata layers to determine how old they are as liberal if he concludes that the earth has been here for close to 5 billion years with no evidence of human fossils for the first 4 or so billion years. He doesn’t have an agenda, he has data. He has evidence that may or may not go against what you believe. Just because you don't believe that an invisible man created the entire Universe in 6 days doesn't mean you are a liberal socialist, it means you have evidence to the contrary and you know better. Bottom line: don’t confuse educated with liberal if you are not educated enough to know the difference.
Why is higher education the only place Republicans care about the ratio of Democrats to Republicans? At least in an educational setting there are facts that are discussed and independent books to read that weren’t written by these liberal professors. How can something like geography, history, or numbers and math be either liberal or conservative? Teaching kids that Europeans (us) wiped out the Native Americans and owned slaves is not liberal, they are historical facts. What they should be worried about is how the Republicans in Congress out number the Democrats and that 78% of all oil company donations go towards Republican candidates. A Democrat teaching kids about art history or Sigmund Freud is far less damaging than the oil industry running the White House and deciding which countries we invade.
I would also like to point out that if Harvard, the rest of the Ivy league and all these other “liberal” brainwashing institutions are trying to convert our students into liberal socialists they are doing a terrible job. George Bush went to both Yale and Harvard and most of his cabinet has attended other Ivy League schools. These are not people I generally think of when I hear the terms liberal or socialist. The President, Vice President and Secretary of State all having oil ties that affect our foreign policy is an easier connection to make than professors that happen to have voted for Gore, are all brainwashing our youth into becoming tree hugging, Christ hating socialists.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Monday, January 16, 2006
Breaking News! This Just In!
This just in: Doctors say Ariel Sharon twitched his nose!
Can someone explain to me how this is news?
Can someone explain to me how this is news?
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Have A Baby So We Can Make More Money
Has anyone seen those "having a baby changes everything" ads sponsored by Johnson and Johnson? These are a series of commercials that show happy middle class white people with their babies having the time of their life. They start off by pointing out how selfish and shallow you are or were before having a baby and then they end the commercial by saying you can fix this unhealthy lifestyle by having a baby and buying a lot of Johnson and Johnson products. After the commercial they give you a link to baby.com. On baby.com you can find all the reasons you should be a parent, find baby names, get advice on weight gain during pregnancy, get advice on your relationship with your partner and of course get all kinds of offers on Johnson and Johnson products that you will surely need before and after having this little savior. Baby.com also has a link to babycenter.com which is also owned by Johnson and Johnson. On babycenter.com you can buy their books, clothes, strollers, and all kinds of other baby related gear that you will need to make your new family complete.
In other words, forgive me for not wanting to take Johnson and Johnson's advice on why I should be having a baby; I think they have a biased take on the subject. This attitude towards having a child is fairly common in our culture today. The message to single people, couples without children and people who are unable to conceive is essentially that you are not important, your life is not complete and you are not a true American, and thus will pay the price until you have children.
It's bad enough that childless people are already one of the most discriminated against groups in America. How many times have people with kids taken all their sick and vacation days in the first part of the year only to have their kids get sick in the winter and are then allowed to take extra time off? Why can't I get off extra time when I have to take my dog to the vet, or just because I want to be treated as an equal to people with kids? Who gets all the time off from work when they are pregnant or after they have a baby? Who gets all the per-child and child care tax credits? On the other hand, how many times have I been told at work that I am the one who should be going to out of town meetings the most because I have no kids? Who are the ones who have to stay late after work since they don't have to pick anyone up for soccer practice? Who are the ones who have to pay the taxes to support these people's children when they go to school or when they are unable to support their kids financially? Whose insurance premiums increase to allow everyone else to have babies? If you can't afford, or are unwilling to pay the price of having a child then don't have one; it's that simple. Why is one lifestyle rewarded but mine is not? Why don't I get tax credits for rescuing two shelter dogs? Is it because Johnson and Johnson is a bigger company and has more influence than the Nutro dog food company or my local pet store? The only people who should be getting tax breaks for having children are people who adopt.
I have nothing against people who have or want kids so why do they have so much against me? Don't make me pick up the bill or make me feel inferior for not making the same choices you have made. It is a lifestyle choice plain and simple. Forgive me for wanting to watch an entire movie without interruption, for enjoying a night on the town, for enjoying hot meals, for valuing a full night's rest, for not having to save for college and for being able to leave the country whenever I please. Some people choose to stay single, some people can't have kids and some people do have kids so does that make them so special? Why do they get all the breaks?
Why does the term "family values" only apply to people with kids? Does that mean couples who live together or the ones who can't have children have no values because they don't need a parental lock on their TV? Does this mean "family values" is all about free handouts as long as you play ball, and punishment if you don't? Just because you have kids and don't want them to hear the F word why do I have to pay the consequences? Maybe I do want to hear the F word; maybe I want to see naked lesbians making out on Skinemax and maybe I don't want to watch Look Who's Talking 2 and Disney movies over and over and over again. I have the freedom to choose that just as you have the freedom to not have cable or the internet in your child’s bedroom.
Don't force your economic burden and lifestyle on everyone else just because you decided to have kids, it doesn't make you better than the rest of us. Look, I am no Libertarian, I am not saying that my tax money that goes towards public schools doesn't end up benefiting the whole of society but just because you know someone with a penis and something fell out of your uterus doesn't mean that we should hand you a pile of cash or that it puts you on top of the world’s food chain. That's my rant for now; that commercial is dumb!
In other words, forgive me for not wanting to take Johnson and Johnson's advice on why I should be having a baby; I think they have a biased take on the subject. This attitude towards having a child is fairly common in our culture today. The message to single people, couples without children and people who are unable to conceive is essentially that you are not important, your life is not complete and you are not a true American, and thus will pay the price until you have children.
It's bad enough that childless people are already one of the most discriminated against groups in America. How many times have people with kids taken all their sick and vacation days in the first part of the year only to have their kids get sick in the winter and are then allowed to take extra time off? Why can't I get off extra time when I have to take my dog to the vet, or just because I want to be treated as an equal to people with kids? Who gets all the time off from work when they are pregnant or after they have a baby? Who gets all the per-child and child care tax credits? On the other hand, how many times have I been told at work that I am the one who should be going to out of town meetings the most because I have no kids? Who are the ones who have to stay late after work since they don't have to pick anyone up for soccer practice? Who are the ones who have to pay the taxes to support these people's children when they go to school or when they are unable to support their kids financially? Whose insurance premiums increase to allow everyone else to have babies? If you can't afford, or are unwilling to pay the price of having a child then don't have one; it's that simple. Why is one lifestyle rewarded but mine is not? Why don't I get tax credits for rescuing two shelter dogs? Is it because Johnson and Johnson is a bigger company and has more influence than the Nutro dog food company or my local pet store? The only people who should be getting tax breaks for having children are people who adopt.
I have nothing against people who have or want kids so why do they have so much against me? Don't make me pick up the bill or make me feel inferior for not making the same choices you have made. It is a lifestyle choice plain and simple. Forgive me for wanting to watch an entire movie without interruption, for enjoying a night on the town, for enjoying hot meals, for valuing a full night's rest, for not having to save for college and for being able to leave the country whenever I please. Some people choose to stay single, some people can't have kids and some people do have kids so does that make them so special? Why do they get all the breaks?
Why does the term "family values" only apply to people with kids? Does that mean couples who live together or the ones who can't have children have no values because they don't need a parental lock on their TV? Does this mean "family values" is all about free handouts as long as you play ball, and punishment if you don't? Just because you have kids and don't want them to hear the F word why do I have to pay the consequences? Maybe I do want to hear the F word; maybe I want to see naked lesbians making out on Skinemax and maybe I don't want to watch Look Who's Talking 2 and Disney movies over and over and over again. I have the freedom to choose that just as you have the freedom to not have cable or the internet in your child’s bedroom.
Don't force your economic burden and lifestyle on everyone else just because you decided to have kids, it doesn't make you better than the rest of us. Look, I am no Libertarian, I am not saying that my tax money that goes towards public schools doesn't end up benefiting the whole of society but just because you know someone with a penis and something fell out of your uterus doesn't mean that we should hand you a pile of cash or that it puts you on top of the world’s food chain. That's my rant for now; that commercial is dumb!
Thursday, December 15, 2005
The Christians Who Stole Christmas
There is paranoia abound lately over Christian fears of secular Atheists' destruction of baby Jesus' manger and "his" holiday of Christmas. Most of these people are like Jerry Falwell, scrapping for headlines and searching for further "proof" of the "war against Christ in America". Of course, he is fat and retarded and has no idea what he is talking about since the conservative religious Republicans hold the White House, the House and the Senate, leaving the liberals little power to "destroy Christmas". People such as Falwell and every Christian blogger from Idaho to Georgia think that Christmas is a Christian holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus and, thus, the start of Christianity, which they assume is the religion to which all Americans belong. As always, they are wrong.
Earliest examples of "Christmas" were practiced as long as 4000 years ago by Babylonians as a celebration of a 12 day New Year festival honoring the god Marduk. Also called Sacaea by the Persians, these celebrations involved holiday feasts, giving gifts, and caroling.
The Roman Pagan celebration of Saturnalia started in the middle of December and lasted until January 1st. This was a celebration of the solstice, marking the Sun's return. The exchange of gifts, decoration of homes with greenery, feasts, and the suspension of private and public business marked this celebration. Once Christianity began to spread throughout the Empire, Pagan and Christian societies began to merge and the prosecution of Christians decreased. During the reign of Constantine (a sun worshiper), Pope Julius I moved Christmas from January 6th (Epiphany) to December 25th, which was the Pagan Deus Sol Invictus, or the birthday of the unconquered Sun god. Sun god. Son of God. Not a huge leap of faith for these early Christians assuming the Latin words for "son" and "sun" sound as similar as they do in English--but really, who speaks Latin? This is where Christmas started to take on some of the traditions and meanings that we see today. Still, these events are not the only things that contribute to Christmas as we know it.
Yule or Yuletide was the Pagan winter solstice celebration which in the Julian calendar was December 25th and Gregorian calendar December 21st. The Scandinavians and Germanic tribes of Northern Europe celebrated this as the return of the sun from the long dark winter nights. Trees were decorated with candles, holly decorated doors, a Yule log was burned, and feasts were prepared along with the sacrifice of a pig, which is where we get the traditional Christmas ham. The mistletoe was used in both Norse and Druid celebrations. Obviously, as Christianity spread in this region, Scandinavian seasonal celebrations merged with the Roman's Pagan/Christian winter solstice holiday. It must also be noted that Odin, the primary figure in Norse mythology, had a hat and a big white beard had a flying 8 legged Horse instead of 8 flying reindeer. Odin at one point also had hung from a tree and had a spear wound not unlike the fate of Jesus.
One other reason that Christmas is not a Christian holiday is that Jesus was not born on December 25th, nor is there really any proof that he was born in Bethlehem in a cold manger. Every Biblical scholar knows that if Jesus was born when "shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night." that this would have to have been between the months of March and November as it would have been too cold for the shepherds to have still been there at night in the cold rainy season. Since we know Jesus was born 6 months after John the Baptist and we know he was born in late March or early April, Jesus had to have been born in late September or early October at the latest.
Christmas has really always been a celebration of winter solstice, it’s just that in our calendar it is 4 days off the mark due to the difference in the Julian and Gregorian calendars. Just as they did with the once secular pledge of allegiance and our currency, Christians stole Christmas and made it their own, adding the nativity scene and Jesus' birthday. Somehow, secular Americans are the assholes when we merely try to take the pledge, our dollar bill, or Christmas back to its original incarnation.
My Father is an Atheist, my Mom is a Christian who doesn't believe Christmas is Jesus' birthday, and I am Agnostic. We all welcome Christmas as a time for sharing and togetherness, not the birth of baby Jesus in his manger. What does a Christmas tree have to do with the birth of your savior? What does getting your kid the new X-box have to do with Christianity? Nothing. And you know who else thought this way? The Puritans.
That’s right, about the time they started burning witches, Puritans in New England outlawed the Christmas celebration. Christmas, The Mass of Christ, was considered to be a Catholic holiday which had nothing to do with the actual birth or birth day of Christ so they therefore outlawed the Pagan traditions of decorating trees and caroling. Since they believed that the Christmas celebration and the birth of Christ was completely separate, Christmas was outlawed in Boston from 1659-1681 and the Colleges in New England didn't even start observing Christmas until about 1847. Christmas was not declared a federal holiday until 1870.
For these right wing nut jobs to say that December 25th, and all that is associated with that day, is purely Christian, is ludicrous. So when they say that the secular Christ-haters are trying to destroy Christianity when we call it the holidays and not Christmas, tell them that you think it's ironic that someone who thinks that America was founded by Puritans is so intent on going against Puritan beliefs, which were anti-Christmas. You can also tell them that you find it ironic that the same people who are trying to censor the internet, cable TV, song lyrics and art are offended when someone tries to censor their 1st amendment rights.
No one wants to destroy Christmas, you are paranoid. Who doesn't want a couple of days off work every year to hang out with family and friends to eat, drink, be merry and get presents?We just realize that roughly 23% of the US is not Christian; you cannot simply bully minorities because you outnumber them. We realize that all the traditions of Christmas, except going to mass, are secular. We realize that like the Pledge of Allegiance and US currency it has been adopted by Christianity, not the other way around.
So if some Jews in your town don't want The Night Christ was Born playing at the town hall manger, get over it. Go home and play your own Christmas music; you are free to do so. You wouldn't like it if you were forced to fast for Ramadan would you?
Sources: Holidays.net, History Channel, Wikipedia, Pantheon.org, World Wide Church of God (wcg.org) , Religioustolerance.org, All about Jesus Christ
Earliest examples of "Christmas" were practiced as long as 4000 years ago by Babylonians as a celebration of a 12 day New Year festival honoring the god Marduk. Also called Sacaea by the Persians, these celebrations involved holiday feasts, giving gifts, and caroling.
The Roman Pagan celebration of Saturnalia started in the middle of December and lasted until January 1st. This was a celebration of the solstice, marking the Sun's return. The exchange of gifts, decoration of homes with greenery, feasts, and the suspension of private and public business marked this celebration. Once Christianity began to spread throughout the Empire, Pagan and Christian societies began to merge and the prosecution of Christians decreased. During the reign of Constantine (a sun worshiper), Pope Julius I moved Christmas from January 6th (Epiphany) to December 25th, which was the Pagan Deus Sol Invictus, or the birthday of the unconquered Sun god. Sun god. Son of God. Not a huge leap of faith for these early Christians assuming the Latin words for "son" and "sun" sound as similar as they do in English--but really, who speaks Latin? This is where Christmas started to take on some of the traditions and meanings that we see today. Still, these events are not the only things that contribute to Christmas as we know it.
Yule or Yuletide was the Pagan winter solstice celebration which in the Julian calendar was December 25th and Gregorian calendar December 21st. The Scandinavians and Germanic tribes of Northern Europe celebrated this as the return of the sun from the long dark winter nights. Trees were decorated with candles, holly decorated doors, a Yule log was burned, and feasts were prepared along with the sacrifice of a pig, which is where we get the traditional Christmas ham. The mistletoe was used in both Norse and Druid celebrations. Obviously, as Christianity spread in this region, Scandinavian seasonal celebrations merged with the Roman's Pagan/Christian winter solstice holiday. It must also be noted that Odin, the primary figure in Norse mythology, had a hat and a big white beard had a flying 8 legged Horse instead of 8 flying reindeer. Odin at one point also had hung from a tree and had a spear wound not unlike the fate of Jesus.
One other reason that Christmas is not a Christian holiday is that Jesus was not born on December 25th, nor is there really any proof that he was born in Bethlehem in a cold manger. Every Biblical scholar knows that if Jesus was born when "shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night." that this would have to have been between the months of March and November as it would have been too cold for the shepherds to have still been there at night in the cold rainy season. Since we know Jesus was born 6 months after John the Baptist and we know he was born in late March or early April, Jesus had to have been born in late September or early October at the latest.
Christmas has really always been a celebration of winter solstice, it’s just that in our calendar it is 4 days off the mark due to the difference in the Julian and Gregorian calendars. Just as they did with the once secular pledge of allegiance and our currency, Christians stole Christmas and made it their own, adding the nativity scene and Jesus' birthday. Somehow, secular Americans are the assholes when we merely try to take the pledge, our dollar bill, or Christmas back to its original incarnation.
My Father is an Atheist, my Mom is a Christian who doesn't believe Christmas is Jesus' birthday, and I am Agnostic. We all welcome Christmas as a time for sharing and togetherness, not the birth of baby Jesus in his manger. What does a Christmas tree have to do with the birth of your savior? What does getting your kid the new X-box have to do with Christianity? Nothing. And you know who else thought this way? The Puritans.
That’s right, about the time they started burning witches, Puritans in New England outlawed the Christmas celebration. Christmas, The Mass of Christ, was considered to be a Catholic holiday which had nothing to do with the actual birth or birth day of Christ so they therefore outlawed the Pagan traditions of decorating trees and caroling. Since they believed that the Christmas celebration and the birth of Christ was completely separate, Christmas was outlawed in Boston from 1659-1681 and the Colleges in New England didn't even start observing Christmas until about 1847. Christmas was not declared a federal holiday until 1870.
For these right wing nut jobs to say that December 25th, and all that is associated with that day, is purely Christian, is ludicrous. So when they say that the secular Christ-haters are trying to destroy Christianity when we call it the holidays and not Christmas, tell them that you think it's ironic that someone who thinks that America was founded by Puritans is so intent on going against Puritan beliefs, which were anti-Christmas. You can also tell them that you find it ironic that the same people who are trying to censor the internet, cable TV, song lyrics and art are offended when someone tries to censor their 1st amendment rights.
No one wants to destroy Christmas, you are paranoid. Who doesn't want a couple of days off work every year to hang out with family and friends to eat, drink, be merry and get presents?We just realize that roughly 23% of the US is not Christian; you cannot simply bully minorities because you outnumber them. We realize that all the traditions of Christmas, except going to mass, are secular. We realize that like the Pledge of Allegiance and US currency it has been adopted by Christianity, not the other way around.
So if some Jews in your town don't want The Night Christ was Born playing at the town hall manger, get over it. Go home and play your own Christmas music; you are free to do so. You wouldn't like it if you were forced to fast for Ramadan would you?
Sources: Holidays.net, History Channel, Wikipedia, Pantheon.org, World Wide Church of God (wcg.org) , Religioustolerance.org, All about Jesus Christ
Thursday, December 08, 2005
How Not to Get Shot by Air Marshals
CNN's Anderson Cooper, is going to run a segment tonight asking, "could the shooting have been avoided?", yes of course it could have; here is how:
How to avoid being shot by an air marshal:
1. Don't run towards a bunch of air marshals holding guns while screaming that you have a bomb in your bag.
2. If you are a vaguely foreign looking guy with an accent and you are arriving to the US from another country, don't run towards a bunch of air marshals holding guns while screaming that you have a bomb in your bag.
3. Don't say anything about a bomb on a plane.
4. When a guy with a gun tells you to drop your bag, drop your bag.
5. If you have already declared that you have a bomb, don't reach into the aforementioned bag after you have been told to drop it by guys who are pointing guns at you.
6. Don't strap the above mentioned bag to your stomach like a suicide bomber would do if you don't really plan on blowing yourself up.
7. If your husband is the kind of nut who gets erratic and violent, don't put him on a plane without his medication.
8. Don't even get on an international flight until you have purchased your above mentioned medication if that will cause you or your husband freak out and talk about blowing up planes.
9. Don't marry a crazy person.
10. Just drive to Orlando.
Being a nut doesn't mean you get a free pass to do any of these things. I would also like to point out that most people who blow themselves up are indeed crazy. So, his wife saying that he is crazy is even more of a reason to shoot him if he says he has a bomb.
How to avoid being shot by an air marshal:
1. Don't run towards a bunch of air marshals holding guns while screaming that you have a bomb in your bag.
2. If you are a vaguely foreign looking guy with an accent and you are arriving to the US from another country, don't run towards a bunch of air marshals holding guns while screaming that you have a bomb in your bag.
3. Don't say anything about a bomb on a plane.
4. When a guy with a gun tells you to drop your bag, drop your bag.
5. If you have already declared that you have a bomb, don't reach into the aforementioned bag after you have been told to drop it by guys who are pointing guns at you.
6. Don't strap the above mentioned bag to your stomach like a suicide bomber would do if you don't really plan on blowing yourself up.
7. If your husband is the kind of nut who gets erratic and violent, don't put him on a plane without his medication.
8. Don't even get on an international flight until you have purchased your above mentioned medication if that will cause you or your husband freak out and talk about blowing up planes.
9. Don't marry a crazy person.
10. Just drive to Orlando.
Being a nut doesn't mean you get a free pass to do any of these things. I would also like to point out that most people who blow themselves up are indeed crazy. So, his wife saying that he is crazy is even more of a reason to shoot him if he says he has a bomb.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Conservative Capitalism = Corporate Communism
Communism n: A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
Corporate Communism n (my definition): A system in which the corporation plans and controls the government and economy and a few, often authoritarian companies hold the power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are consumed by the people.
Not much difference between the two is there?
After pointing out the inequalities, greed and exploitation by major corporations, I am often told that all these fat cat document shredders are our salvation and any attempt by the federal government to tax or regulate these corporations is Communism. And of course we all know that Communism is evil and Capitalism is near divine in its purest form and that the only problem that arises from capitalism is the regulation and control placed on it by the Socialist federal government. The common consensus is that they wouldn’t be committing crimes if the government just make their offenses legal. Ironically, these are usually the same people who want the government to control every aspect of our private lives whether it be who we can marry, what we say, what we watch on TV and whether or not a woman can decide what happens to her own body, but as soon as they try to regulate commerce, business and industry they again say it is Satan's version of Communism. Of course there are exceptions. When ADM, GE or Exxon receives federal subsidies, that is pro-capitalism. But, when individuals are allowed to receive federal subsidies for doing nothing, that is merely Socialism.
But I was thinking about Capitalism, freedom and Communism and how they all relate to each other and what the differences between them are. Communism as we know is against private ownership, and is built around the state owning production and controlling the media. So what is the difference between the state owning production and production owning the state? If we lived in a country where there was no regulation of business and we ended up with one oil company, one retailer, one phone company, one insurance company, one health plan, one gas company, one electric company, one media conglomerate and one auto maker, and those companies were so powerful that they got all of our politicians and leaders elected wouldn't that essentially be Communism, especially, if these companies put their own guys in office?
We all know that, due to mergers and acquisitions, that there are now only 3 major oil companies operating in the United States so they are a virtual monopoly. We also know that our President and most of our Republican leadership is supported by oil money. How is that different from Russia having one oil company that was controlled by the state since our oil companies essentially control the state? Companies such as Wal-Mart are clearly against private ownership and competition and has worked with local governments to displace independent owned businesses that operated on private land in order to set up shop and then had the very tax payers they evicted pay for the destruction of their property to make way for a Wal-Mart. How is Wal-Mart any different from Stalin when he revoked private land ownership from the peasants in Russia, forcing them to work the land they once owned? These people and Wal-Mart alike are both anti-union and anti-private entrepreneur, as is Communism. How is that a free society? How are those people any more free than those peasants Stalin evicted from their own land? How is that not Communism in its purest form, other than the fact that the state is now owned by production instead of the other way around? Do you really think that once all of Wal-Mart's competition has been snubbed out that they are going to keep their prices low?
So, I would like to just point out that pure capitalism and zero regulation of commerce by the government eventually leads to a government controlled by these monopolies leaving the consumer with no choices and no way of protesting with their wallet if one company is allowed to set the price for everything we buy. In other words, only they win. At least Communism in theory was power to the people; in corporate communism the people will have no power and no freedom to choose. After all, if I can't be trusted to decide what I want to listen to on the radio or watch on TV then can we really trust a hospital or insurance company to do what's best for the patient or an oil company to do what is best for the environment.
Maybe I am overreacting, even the early Christians were Communists:
ACTS 2:44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
Corporate Communism n (my definition): A system in which the corporation plans and controls the government and economy and a few, often authoritarian companies hold the power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are consumed by the people.
Not much difference between the two is there?
After pointing out the inequalities, greed and exploitation by major corporations, I am often told that all these fat cat document shredders are our salvation and any attempt by the federal government to tax or regulate these corporations is Communism. And of course we all know that Communism is evil and Capitalism is near divine in its purest form and that the only problem that arises from capitalism is the regulation and control placed on it by the Socialist federal government. The common consensus is that they wouldn’t be committing crimes if the government just make their offenses legal. Ironically, these are usually the same people who want the government to control every aspect of our private lives whether it be who we can marry, what we say, what we watch on TV and whether or not a woman can decide what happens to her own body, but as soon as they try to regulate commerce, business and industry they again say it is Satan's version of Communism. Of course there are exceptions. When ADM, GE or Exxon receives federal subsidies, that is pro-capitalism. But, when individuals are allowed to receive federal subsidies for doing nothing, that is merely Socialism.
But I was thinking about Capitalism, freedom and Communism and how they all relate to each other and what the differences between them are. Communism as we know is against private ownership, and is built around the state owning production and controlling the media. So what is the difference between the state owning production and production owning the state? If we lived in a country where there was no regulation of business and we ended up with one oil company, one retailer, one phone company, one insurance company, one health plan, one gas company, one electric company, one media conglomerate and one auto maker, and those companies were so powerful that they got all of our politicians and leaders elected wouldn't that essentially be Communism, especially, if these companies put their own guys in office?
We all know that, due to mergers and acquisitions, that there are now only 3 major oil companies operating in the United States so they are a virtual monopoly. We also know that our President and most of our Republican leadership is supported by oil money. How is that different from Russia having one oil company that was controlled by the state since our oil companies essentially control the state? Companies such as Wal-Mart are clearly against private ownership and competition and has worked with local governments to displace independent owned businesses that operated on private land in order to set up shop and then had the very tax payers they evicted pay for the destruction of their property to make way for a Wal-Mart. How is Wal-Mart any different from Stalin when he revoked private land ownership from the peasants in Russia, forcing them to work the land they once owned? These people and Wal-Mart alike are both anti-union and anti-private entrepreneur, as is Communism. How is that a free society? How are those people any more free than those peasants Stalin evicted from their own land? How is that not Communism in its purest form, other than the fact that the state is now owned by production instead of the other way around? Do you really think that once all of Wal-Mart's competition has been snubbed out that they are going to keep their prices low?
So, I would like to just point out that pure capitalism and zero regulation of commerce by the government eventually leads to a government controlled by these monopolies leaving the consumer with no choices and no way of protesting with their wallet if one company is allowed to set the price for everything we buy. In other words, only they win. At least Communism in theory was power to the people; in corporate communism the people will have no power and no freedom to choose. After all, if I can't be trusted to decide what I want to listen to on the radio or watch on TV then can we really trust a hospital or insurance company to do what's best for the patient or an oil company to do what is best for the environment.
Maybe I am overreacting, even the early Christians were Communists:
ACTS 2:44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Condoms Couldn't Possibly Prevent AIDS or Pregnancies
From CNN November 21st:
LONDON, England (AP) -- The global HIV epidemic continues to expand, with more than 40 million people now estimated to have the AIDS virus, but in some countries prevention efforts are finally starting to pay off, the United Nations says.
So let me get this straight, education, prevention programs and more condoms are attributed to decreasing the spread of AIDS in all these countries but even with all this information and the tools available people still have sex, even if it means their life. Yet there are people in this country who believe that they don't need things like condoms and sex education because the schools should just teach their kids to not have sex and that will solve everything. If the threat of AIDS and death hasn't deterred people then the possibility of having a kid that your parents will raise for you will not prevent our teenagers from having sex. Guess what? Teenagers have sex; that is what they are biologically designed to do and no one is going to be able to stop it. Do you think a teenager who can't be relied on to clean his room, cut the grass, not take guns and drugs to school can be trusted to not have sex with your daughter? Think again. Remember how horny and stupid you was when you were a teenager?
Condoms are not evil and Jesus won't take away your birthday if you provide kids with condoms in order to avoid AIDS and teenage pregnancies. You can teach abstinence all you want as long as you keep condoms available to the large number who will not abstain. It is no coincidence that the Bible Belt, the very people who are against condoms in schools, has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies, children born out of wedlock and poverty, within the United States.
Oh, and in case you forgot how to avoid AIDS, I will again share my AIDS prevention tips with you one more time:
How not to get AIDS:
Don't have sex, stay home and jerk off to skinamax half porn, or get a blow up doll.
Don't have sex with someone who has AIDS, even with a condom.
Don't have sex with someone who is bleeding out of their ass.
If you must have sex with someone, use a condom.
Don't have sex with people you don't know or just met in a mens room, George Michael included.
If you know of someone who has had sex with an AIDS victim, do not have sex with that person.
If you shun condoms because you "dont like the way the feel", ask yourself how a big dose of AIDS would feel.
If you want to have a good (long) sex life, find a committed partner that you can trust that has had an AIDS test.
Don't tag team some other guy's ass with a bunch of leather dudes you just met at a bar.
Don't have sex with someone who has ever been tag teamed.
Don't believe people when they tell you they don't have AIDS.
Don't frequent glory holes, either side.
Don't blow heroin addicts or crack heads in alleys.
Don't share needles with heroin addicts, more specifically, heroin addicts with AIDS.
Don't have sex with prostitutes, or a junkie prostitute with a bad itch.
If you are African, having sex with a virgin does not cure AIDS, it spreads it.
Dont' become "blood brothers" with someone who has AIDS
Don't be born in Africa.
Don't let herpes victims with open sores on their mouth give you a blow job, as these people tend to not be as careful and selective as someone such as me and may also have AIDS, though I will not blow you.
Don't let anyone cum on any open sores, cuts or orifices.
Do not become, or have sex with a porn star, more specifically a gay porn star that has violated my other rules.
If you do any of the above, get an AIDS test every week.
If you are a gay basher, don't make your victims bleed as the flailing blood may stain your Ted Nugent shirt, infect you and later, your fat girlfriend who lives with you in your double-wide.
If you are an NBA player, don't nail every white woman between L.A. and Boston that is trying to get knocked up by someone rich and famous.
If you are a Catholic priest, condoms are evil, fuck little boys who couldn't possibly have AIDS yet.
If you are an altar boy, don't hang out with priests alone.
If you are Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, don't mock God, he will punish you with AIDS.
If you're Bill Frist, a medical doctor and US Senator, don't let anyone sweat or spit on you.
If you are Tom Delay, rules obviously don't apply to you, feel free to do all the above.
P.S. These tips may also be effective in not getting knocked up when you are 14 years old.
LONDON, England (AP) -- The global HIV epidemic continues to expand, with more than 40 million people now estimated to have the AIDS virus, but in some countries prevention efforts are finally starting to pay off, the United Nations says.
For the first time there is solid evidence that increased efforts to combat the disease over the last five years have led to fewer new infections in some places, said UNAIDS chief Peter Piot.
Previously improvements had been seen in places such as Senegal, Uganda and Thailand, but those were rare exceptions.
"Now we have Kenya, several of the Caribbean countries and Zimbabwe with a decline," Piot said, adding that Zimbabwe is the first place in Southern Africa, the hardest-hit area, to show improvement.
These are all countries that have invested heavily in safe-sex campaigns and other prevention programs, with the result that prevalence of HIV among the young has declined.
Previously improvements had been seen in places such as Senegal, Uganda and Thailand, but those were rare exceptions.
"Now we have Kenya, several of the Caribbean countries and Zimbabwe with a decline," Piot said, adding that Zimbabwe is the first place in Southern Africa, the hardest-hit area, to show improvement.
These are all countries that have invested heavily in safe-sex campaigns and other prevention programs, with the result that prevalence of HIV among the young has declined.
"People are starting later with their first sexual intercourse, they are having fewer partners, there's more condom use," Piot said.
So let me get this straight, education, prevention programs and more condoms are attributed to decreasing the spread of AIDS in all these countries but even with all this information and the tools available people still have sex, even if it means their life. Yet there are people in this country who believe that they don't need things like condoms and sex education because the schools should just teach their kids to not have sex and that will solve everything. If the threat of AIDS and death hasn't deterred people then the possibility of having a kid that your parents will raise for you will not prevent our teenagers from having sex. Guess what? Teenagers have sex; that is what they are biologically designed to do and no one is going to be able to stop it. Do you think a teenager who can't be relied on to clean his room, cut the grass, not take guns and drugs to school can be trusted to not have sex with your daughter? Think again. Remember how horny and stupid you was when you were a teenager?
Condoms are not evil and Jesus won't take away your birthday if you provide kids with condoms in order to avoid AIDS and teenage pregnancies. You can teach abstinence all you want as long as you keep condoms available to the large number who will not abstain. It is no coincidence that the Bible Belt, the very people who are against condoms in schools, has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies, children born out of wedlock and poverty, within the United States.
Oh, and in case you forgot how to avoid AIDS, I will again share my AIDS prevention tips with you one more time:
How not to get AIDS:
Don't have sex, stay home and jerk off to skinamax half porn, or get a blow up doll.
Don't have sex with someone who has AIDS, even with a condom.
Don't have sex with someone who is bleeding out of their ass.
If you must have sex with someone, use a condom.
Don't have sex with people you don't know or just met in a mens room, George Michael included.
If you know of someone who has had sex with an AIDS victim, do not have sex with that person.
If you shun condoms because you "dont like the way the feel", ask yourself how a big dose of AIDS would feel.
If you want to have a good (long) sex life, find a committed partner that you can trust that has had an AIDS test.
Don't tag team some other guy's ass with a bunch of leather dudes you just met at a bar.
Don't have sex with someone who has ever been tag teamed.
Don't believe people when they tell you they don't have AIDS.
Don't frequent glory holes, either side.
Don't blow heroin addicts or crack heads in alleys.
Don't share needles with heroin addicts, more specifically, heroin addicts with AIDS.
Don't have sex with prostitutes, or a junkie prostitute with a bad itch.
If you are African, having sex with a virgin does not cure AIDS, it spreads it.
Dont' become "blood brothers" with someone who has AIDS
Don't be born in Africa.
Don't let herpes victims with open sores on their mouth give you a blow job, as these people tend to not be as careful and selective as someone such as me and may also have AIDS, though I will not blow you.
Don't let anyone cum on any open sores, cuts or orifices.
Do not become, or have sex with a porn star, more specifically a gay porn star that has violated my other rules.
If you do any of the above, get an AIDS test every week.
If you are a gay basher, don't make your victims bleed as the flailing blood may stain your Ted Nugent shirt, infect you and later, your fat girlfriend who lives with you in your double-wide.
If you are an NBA player, don't nail every white woman between L.A. and Boston that is trying to get knocked up by someone rich and famous.
If you are a Catholic priest, condoms are evil, fuck little boys who couldn't possibly have AIDS yet.
If you are an altar boy, don't hang out with priests alone.
If you are Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, don't mock God, he will punish you with AIDS.
If you're Bill Frist, a medical doctor and US Senator, don't let anyone sweat or spit on you.
If you are Tom Delay, rules obviously don't apply to you, feel free to do all the above.
P.S. These tips may also be effective in not getting knocked up when you are 14 years old.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Dover, PA Bracing for Hurricanes, Death of First Born
From CNN:
(Reuters) -- Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.
Yes, I know, this is old news now but Pat Robertson, the guy who called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Chavez, blamed 9/11 on the ACLU and abortions, told Orlando, FL to brace for earth quakes and hurricanes if they let people put up rainbow flags, has warned the city of Dover, PA that they will suffer God's wrath because they voted out 8 Republican school board officials who tried to introduce Christianity as science in their public school system.
Parents and the ACLU, defenders of religious liberty and the American way, sued the school board for forcing students to hear a statement saying evolution is just a theory and that intelligent design was another theory that they pulled out of their ass in order to indoctrinate the students with misinformation and replace science with Christianity, thus ignoring the 1st Amendment.
So does this mean that the school board thinks students should hear the same statements before they discuss Einstein and his "Theory" of Relativity, or that the Earth has a liquid core? After all, no one has been able to prove these "theories" 1st hand.
In related news, the Kansas school board voted 6-4 to replace science with creationism. This will probably open the door for critics of astronomy and chemistry to replace these "sciences" with astrology and alchemy respectively.
Message: PA=Smart, KS= Stupid
Steve Abrams at the Kansas State School Board setting fire to the US flag showing his hatred of the American way, loyalty to God but not the tax payers or the outdated ideology of separation of church and state.
(Reuters) -- Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.
Yes, I know, this is old news now but Pat Robertson, the guy who called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Chavez, blamed 9/11 on the ACLU and abortions, told Orlando, FL to brace for earth quakes and hurricanes if they let people put up rainbow flags, has warned the city of Dover, PA that they will suffer God's wrath because they voted out 8 Republican school board officials who tried to introduce Christianity as science in their public school system.
Parents and the ACLU, defenders of religious liberty and the American way, sued the school board for forcing students to hear a statement saying evolution is just a theory and that intelligent design was another theory that they pulled out of their ass in order to indoctrinate the students with misinformation and replace science with Christianity, thus ignoring the 1st Amendment.
So does this mean that the school board thinks students should hear the same statements before they discuss Einstein and his "Theory" of Relativity, or that the Earth has a liquid core? After all, no one has been able to prove these "theories" 1st hand.
In related news, the Kansas school board voted 6-4 to replace science with creationism. This will probably open the door for critics of astronomy and chemistry to replace these "sciences" with astrology and alchemy respectively.
Message: PA=Smart, KS= Stupid
Steve Abrams at the Kansas State School Board setting fire to the US flag showing his hatred of the American way, loyalty to God but not the tax payers or the outdated ideology of separation of church and state.
Monday, November 14, 2005
Bible Quiz
For all of you who like to question my knowledge of the Bible I just want you to know that I got a perfect score on this Bible Quiz:
Bible Quiz!
Check out the Scoreboard!
Let me know how you all did!
P.S. You don't really have to type in a valid email address to see the results.
Bible Quiz!
Check out the Scoreboard!
Let me know how you all did!
P.S. You don't really have to type in a valid email address to see the results.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Why Wal-Mart Sucks
Oct 25th:
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott said he's urging Congress to consider raising the minimum wage so that Wal-Mart customers don't have to struggle paycheck to paycheck.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/25/news/fortune500/walmart_wage/
Basically Wal-Mart is saying that they would like to sell more cheap shit to low wage people. In order to do so, since trade with China eliminated 1.5 Million US jobs, they want the government to raise the minimum wage so these people can spend this extra money at Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart wants the people who would shop at Wal-Mart to have more money to spend then I think they need a good long hard look in the mirror. They could give all their impoverished 1.2 million employees raises, such as Henry Ford did, making it possible for his work force to be able to afford the products they were making. Or if Wal-Mart wants to make more money for the corporation then maybe they should cut the pay of their executives instead of gouging their vendors or taking it from their workers.
Some people would argue that Wal-Mart is forced to buy cheap Chinese goods and pay low wages with few benefits in order to stay competitive, profitable and keep their cheap-shit-buying consumer base coming back for more, but we all know that is a bunch of BS.
In 2004, H. Lee Scott Jr., President and CEO (not the founder) of Wal-Mart, made 22,991,599 dollars from Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart only paid him $991,599 per year (a salary I would kill for), they could take the other $22,000,000 and give 5,288 employees a $2 per hour raise. S. Robson Walton, Chairman of Wal-Mart is worth 17 Billion dollars. If you divided up his net worth and paid it to all the US employees of Wal-Mart they would all get a $4.80 per hour raise which is $9,984 per year. If you gave all of Wal-Mart's 1,200,000 US employees a $2 per hour, or $4160 per year raise it would only account for 1.7% of Wal-Mart's annual sales revenue. Wal-Mart's employees earn 20% less than unionized grocery store employees.
It is estimated that the US government spends up to 1.5 billion dollars subsidizing Wal-Mart employees with public assistance, food stamps and health care as these employees cannot make it on Wal-Mart wages. You could say they don't have to work at Wal-Mart. But, when Wal-Mart is responsible for these people's stores going out of business, or the town bulldozed their store or former place of employment in order to build a Wal-Mart, or their job was lost due to illegal competition from a Chinese manufacturer that Wal-Mart now buys from, then where exactly are they supposed to work, especially if they live in a small town?
More facts about Wal-Mart:
Wal-Mart received 37 million in welfare payments out of the new transportation bill.
They posted approximately 9 Billion dollars in profit last year.
They have collected over 1 Billion in economic development subsidies from state and local governments.
Wal-Mart also receives advanced warning from the federal government about child labor law inspections.
Wal-Mart has been busted for having illegal immigrants working in their store for less than minimum wage which drives down American wages.
Exports to the US from China outnumber US exports to China by 5 to 1.
70% Of Wal-Mart products are made in China.
Wal-Mart accounts for 14% of the United States 126 Billion dollar trade deficit with China.
Trade unions in China are illegal.
A story about how lower earning stores who never received government subsidies are being forced out by a Walmart receiving 10 million in local subsidies under eminent domain.
These guys don't create jobs--they eliminate them. Don't get the two confused.
Don't shop at Wal-Mart. Support Main Street American ma and pa stores when possible. Remember, America is a Democracy before we are capitalists; we the people also have the right to keep Wal-Mart from building in our towns.
"There is one rule for industrialists and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible." -Henry Ford
Sources: Forbes, CNN, Wal-Mart Home Page,Walmartwatch.com, PBS Frontline, AFL-CIO
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott said he's urging Congress to consider raising the minimum wage so that Wal-Mart customers don't have to struggle paycheck to paycheck.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/25/news/fortune500/walmart_wage/
Basically Wal-Mart is saying that they would like to sell more cheap shit to low wage people. In order to do so, since trade with China eliminated 1.5 Million US jobs, they want the government to raise the minimum wage so these people can spend this extra money at Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart wants the people who would shop at Wal-Mart to have more money to spend then I think they need a good long hard look in the mirror. They could give all their impoverished 1.2 million employees raises, such as Henry Ford did, making it possible for his work force to be able to afford the products they were making. Or if Wal-Mart wants to make more money for the corporation then maybe they should cut the pay of their executives instead of gouging their vendors or taking it from their workers.
Some people would argue that Wal-Mart is forced to buy cheap Chinese goods and pay low wages with few benefits in order to stay competitive, profitable and keep their cheap-shit-buying consumer base coming back for more, but we all know that is a bunch of BS.
In 2004, H. Lee Scott Jr., President and CEO (not the founder) of Wal-Mart, made 22,991,599 dollars from Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart only paid him $991,599 per year (a salary I would kill for), they could take the other $22,000,000 and give 5,288 employees a $2 per hour raise. S. Robson Walton, Chairman of Wal-Mart is worth 17 Billion dollars. If you divided up his net worth and paid it to all the US employees of Wal-Mart they would all get a $4.80 per hour raise which is $9,984 per year. If you gave all of Wal-Mart's 1,200,000 US employees a $2 per hour, or $4160 per year raise it would only account for 1.7% of Wal-Mart's annual sales revenue. Wal-Mart's employees earn 20% less than unionized grocery store employees.
It is estimated that the US government spends up to 1.5 billion dollars subsidizing Wal-Mart employees with public assistance, food stamps and health care as these employees cannot make it on Wal-Mart wages. You could say they don't have to work at Wal-Mart. But, when Wal-Mart is responsible for these people's stores going out of business, or the town bulldozed their store or former place of employment in order to build a Wal-Mart, or their job was lost due to illegal competition from a Chinese manufacturer that Wal-Mart now buys from, then where exactly are they supposed to work, especially if they live in a small town?
More facts about Wal-Mart:
Wal-Mart received 37 million in welfare payments out of the new transportation bill.
They posted approximately 9 Billion dollars in profit last year.
They have collected over 1 Billion in economic development subsidies from state and local governments.
Wal-Mart also receives advanced warning from the federal government about child labor law inspections.
Wal-Mart has been busted for having illegal immigrants working in their store for less than minimum wage which drives down American wages.
Exports to the US from China outnumber US exports to China by 5 to 1.
70% Of Wal-Mart products are made in China.
Wal-Mart accounts for 14% of the United States 126 Billion dollar trade deficit with China.
Trade unions in China are illegal.
A story about how lower earning stores who never received government subsidies are being forced out by a Walmart receiving 10 million in local subsidies under eminent domain.
These guys don't create jobs--they eliminate them. Don't get the two confused.
Don't shop at Wal-Mart. Support Main Street American ma and pa stores when possible. Remember, America is a Democracy before we are capitalists; we the people also have the right to keep Wal-Mart from building in our towns.
"There is one rule for industrialists and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible." -Henry Ford
Sources: Forbes, CNN, Wal-Mart Home Page,Walmartwatch.com, PBS Frontline, AFL-CIO
Sunday, October 30, 2005
ACLU: Defenders of Religious Freedom Since 1920
Far right wing organizations such as Stop the ACLU have long contended that the ACLU is a bunch of Christ hating, Christian baby eating, group of communists who would rather defend NAMBLA than a Christian. Anyone with a brain knows that they are simply wrong. The ACLU simply defends the intentions of our forefathers, such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, who wanted to guarantee certain inalienable rights to the people whilst keeping them protected from the fads, beliefs and fears of the majority and or the Federal Government.
Unlike these radical fringe groups such as Stop the ACLU, Focus on the Family, and most Christian organizations in general, the ACLU doesn't set out to just protect the civil liberties of the people they agree with, but to protect everyone's freedoms.
From the ACLU website:
"In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide..."
Unlike these radical fringe groups such as Stop the ACLU, Focus on the Family, and most Christian organizations in general, the ACLU doesn't set out to just protect the civil liberties of the people they agree with, but to protect everyone's freedoms.
From the ACLU website:
"In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide..."
Here is the proof to all these numbnuts that they have nothing to bitch about and are just a bunch of paranoid delusionals:
April 2002: Falwell vs Lynchburg,VA in religious property dispute.
August 2004: Church of the Awesome God vs Lincoln, NE for religious harassment by the city
May 2005: Religious freedom for an asylum seeker regarding head wear
December 2004: Jurors can't be discriminated against for being demonstrative about their religion
July 2004, Catholic sent to jail for not being Pentecostal and refusing to attend their faith based treatment sessions
November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas
July 10, 2004: Indiana Civil Liberties Union defends the rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets
June 2004: ACLU of Nebraska files a lawsuit on behalf of a Muslim woman barred from a public pool because she refused to wear a swimsuit
May 27, 2004: Under pressure from the ACLU of Virginia, officials agree not to prohibit baptisms on public property in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford County
May 11, 2004: After ACLU of Michigan intervened on behalf of a Christian Valedictorian, a public high school agrees to stop censoring religious yearbook entries
March 25, 2004: ACLU of Washington defends an Evangelical minister's right to preach on sidewalks
February 21, 2003: ACLU of Massachusetts defends students punished for distributing candy canes with religious messages
October 28, 2002: ACLU defends Baptist Church in zoning discrimination
July 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school
January 2002: ACLU defends Christian church's right to advertise on public transit
April 29, 2005: ACLU defends two Christian girls who wore anti-abortion shirts to school
Why haven't you ever heard from a Christian group defending rap lyrics, porn publishers or Marilyn Manson? Because they are biased groups who care nothing about our form of government, our way of life, our constitution or the intentions of our founding fathers. The only thing they care about is their rights and their agendas. If laws were passed that forced everyone to convert to their form of Christianity and to live like they do, the majority of them would support it. Why is it so hard for these groups to go both ways and see both sides? Why is the ACLU the only one defending our freedoms and the principals that made this country what it is today? Focus on the Family does not care about your freedoms and your rights unless you are a pro-life, conservative Christian who believes everything the Republicans tell them.
Other things these ACLU Communists would have objected to only to be called anti-American:
Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 which allowed the US to deport anyone of the same nationality as our "enemies", or other "dangerous" people and prohibited anyone from publishing "scandalous" statements about our government.
Lincoln's closures of dissenting news publications and suspension of Habeas Corpus in 1861.
Executive Order 9066 in 1942 sending 110,000 people of Japanese ancestry to isolated internment camps, over half of which were American born.
Anyone that would disagree with any of the above are clearly America hating communists!
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Harriet Sweet Harriet
Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination as the next Supreme Court Justice. Unless Bush has more friends we don't know about, he will be hard pressed to find a qualified replacement. Wait, I heard Jenna is out of college now; maybe if she can brush off her hangover she could be the next justice of the Supreme Court.
Jenna Bush at a party upon learning that she is on the Presidents short list for the supreme court vacancy.
The good thing is that with the Brownie and Miers nominations Bush has come to realize that just because he likes somebody that it doesn't mean they are capable or qualified for any and every available job in Washington.
On a side note, I am sure the neocons are now wetting themselves over the possibility of getting their activist judge that will change the laws and rewrite the constitution to its original form including the sections about how the US was supposed to be a Christian State that discriminates against gay people and gives welfare to rich corporations whilst cutting their taxes. That is what a Supreme Court Justice should be about.
Jenna Bush at a party upon learning that she is on the Presidents short list for the supreme court vacancy.
The good thing is that with the Brownie and Miers nominations Bush has come to realize that just because he likes somebody that it doesn't mean they are capable or qualified for any and every available job in Washington.
On a side note, I am sure the neocons are now wetting themselves over the possibility of getting their activist judge that will change the laws and rewrite the constitution to its original form including the sections about how the US was supposed to be a Christian State that discriminates against gay people and gives welfare to rich corporations whilst cutting their taxes. That is what a Supreme Court Justice should be about.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Worst Organization Ever
The Alliance for the Separation of School and State is one of the dumbest organizations I have ever seen. They don't want schools to be funded by the government and taxpayers, but rather every kid should be home schooled or all schools should be privately run.
These people are a bunch of home schoolers who actually say (with a straight face) that children need an "honest" education that cannot be obtained within the public school system.
"Honest" things they think should be taught in school:
Why am I here? Is there any purpose to my life? Ok this could be in a Humanities class but maybe Socrates and Descartes are a little deep for 2nd graders.
Why is there so much evil in the world? How can I know what is good and what is evil? In which class would this subject be discussed? Math, Science? Again this would fall under Humanities and Philosophy and again I think the Divine Comedy is a bit much for most grade schoolers. Also consider that "evil" is very subjective; I think you would have to define "evil" before you can recognize it and be able to distinguish it from "good". It's hard to measure, test and predict "evil". Math, English, Science, etc. are not subjective and they can prepare you for life, a job and the real world, which is what school is supposed to do. Really, this may be a bit much for even a Humanities class; maybe it's best suited for a Church or your parents, not school.
Is there a Supreme Being? Does he care about us? In case you were wondering, no, and even if there was, he's got a lot more on his mind than what's happening in Fresno. Good thing we got that one settled. Now we can move on.
What is truth? Are there any permanent truths? Ever hear of algebra or economics? What kind of school do they want? There are already schools for these folks. They are called madrasas and you can find them in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. Have fun.
How will this new system of schooling work?
"The top two-thirds of the families will be able to afford tuitions after the $300-billion tax cut, but the poorest third will need financial help. We'll need to raise an additional $20-billion each year for groups like the Children's Scholarship Fund."
You mean all we have to do is cut taxes by 300 billion and raise 20 billion privately for poor children to go to school? Why didn't you just say it was that easy? Yeah, rich people love giving their money to the poor; that's why they continually bitch about paying too much in taxes and supporting welfare moms. Let's not forget that someone would still actually have to teach your kid, so for all you single moms out there, you are just going to have to quit your job and stay home and teach your kids. No, it doesn't matter that you are a high school drop out; only you know how to best teach your kids. How are you going to support your family? Don’t worry, you'll have that tax cut. Oh wait, tax cuts only help people who pay taxes. Sorry, maybe you can get some of that 20 billion dollars rich people are going to decide to give you after they eliminate the estate tax.
Here is what they say about their opposition:
"Who Opposes Separation of School & States the Gateway to Honest Education? Bad People."
Obviously, this is a Christian fundamentalist group that doesn't want science to be taught in schools. They want to replace secular schools with home based fundamentalist madrasas where parents with no teaching degrees, and very often no college degree at all, will teach their own children and grade them fairly. Armed with a Bible and no teaching experience, they think they can better prepare their children for life than a government funded school could.
Another funny thing about their site, and probably one of the reasons they seek "honest" education, is that they have a section documenting all the anti-Christian bias in public school textbooks. The only problem with this section is that there are only two articles. One talking about how a textbook failed to mention that the Pilgrims prayed on Thanksgiving and another one is just a review of a book published in 1986 by some Christian "publishing company" titled Censorship: Evidence of bias in our children's textbooks. It's not even a very good review.
This book exposes the secular liberal media's attempt to exclude religion, "family values", and conservative views from school textbooks. Their review says the author "cites texts that do not feature women as homemakers, lack patriotic spirit, do not promote free enterprise, and ignore movements such as tax revolt." So does this mean our algebra textbooks need to have an American flag on every page, that our history books need to omit evidence that implies America ever did anything wrong, and that they should include an entire chapter on the impact of the female homemakers in the early 20th century? As far as the "tax revolt movement" goes, I would like someone to show me one history book that doesn't talk about the Boston Tea Party and taxation without representation. School isn't supposed to be a propaganda or marketing outlet for capitalism and politics so what is his problem? And would he have the same problem with textbooks that didn't discuss labor unions, the Haymarket Riot, and the inquisition of Communists in the 50s? Why is one part of history ok to leave out and another part not? Is it just because he wants his version of revisionist history taught to young children who were not living during these events and therefore couldn't possibly dispute them?
Why do you think China is upset with Japan for omitting "unpatriotic" events such as the rape of Nanking from their textbooks?
Ok, I admit it, I got off on a tangent and this should have been two separate posts. Sue me!
These people are a bunch of home schoolers who actually say (with a straight face) that children need an "honest" education that cannot be obtained within the public school system.
"Honest" things they think should be taught in school:
Why am I here? Is there any purpose to my life? Ok this could be in a Humanities class but maybe Socrates and Descartes are a little deep for 2nd graders.
Why is there so much evil in the world? How can I know what is good and what is evil? In which class would this subject be discussed? Math, Science? Again this would fall under Humanities and Philosophy and again I think the Divine Comedy is a bit much for most grade schoolers. Also consider that "evil" is very subjective; I think you would have to define "evil" before you can recognize it and be able to distinguish it from "good". It's hard to measure, test and predict "evil". Math, English, Science, etc. are not subjective and they can prepare you for life, a job and the real world, which is what school is supposed to do. Really, this may be a bit much for even a Humanities class; maybe it's best suited for a Church or your parents, not school.
Is there a Supreme Being? Does he care about us? In case you were wondering, no, and even if there was, he's got a lot more on his mind than what's happening in Fresno. Good thing we got that one settled. Now we can move on.
What is truth? Are there any permanent truths? Ever hear of algebra or economics? What kind of school do they want? There are already schools for these folks. They are called madrasas and you can find them in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. Have fun.
How will this new system of schooling work?
"The top two-thirds of the families will be able to afford tuitions after the $300-billion tax cut, but the poorest third will need financial help. We'll need to raise an additional $20-billion each year for groups like the Children's Scholarship Fund."
You mean all we have to do is cut taxes by 300 billion and raise 20 billion privately for poor children to go to school? Why didn't you just say it was that easy? Yeah, rich people love giving their money to the poor; that's why they continually bitch about paying too much in taxes and supporting welfare moms. Let's not forget that someone would still actually have to teach your kid, so for all you single moms out there, you are just going to have to quit your job and stay home and teach your kids. No, it doesn't matter that you are a high school drop out; only you know how to best teach your kids. How are you going to support your family? Don’t worry, you'll have that tax cut. Oh wait, tax cuts only help people who pay taxes. Sorry, maybe you can get some of that 20 billion dollars rich people are going to decide to give you after they eliminate the estate tax.
Here is what they say about their opposition:
"Who Opposes Separation of School & States the Gateway to Honest Education? Bad People."
Obviously, this is a Christian fundamentalist group that doesn't want science to be taught in schools. They want to replace secular schools with home based fundamentalist madrasas where parents with no teaching degrees, and very often no college degree at all, will teach their own children and grade them fairly. Armed with a Bible and no teaching experience, they think they can better prepare their children for life than a government funded school could.
Another funny thing about their site, and probably one of the reasons they seek "honest" education, is that they have a section documenting all the anti-Christian bias in public school textbooks. The only problem with this section is that there are only two articles. One talking about how a textbook failed to mention that the Pilgrims prayed on Thanksgiving and another one is just a review of a book published in 1986 by some Christian "publishing company" titled Censorship: Evidence of bias in our children's textbooks. It's not even a very good review.
This book exposes the secular liberal media's attempt to exclude religion, "family values", and conservative views from school textbooks. Their review says the author "cites texts that do not feature women as homemakers, lack patriotic spirit, do not promote free enterprise, and ignore movements such as tax revolt." So does this mean our algebra textbooks need to have an American flag on every page, that our history books need to omit evidence that implies America ever did anything wrong, and that they should include an entire chapter on the impact of the female homemakers in the early 20th century? As far as the "tax revolt movement" goes, I would like someone to show me one history book that doesn't talk about the Boston Tea Party and taxation without representation. School isn't supposed to be a propaganda or marketing outlet for capitalism and politics so what is his problem? And would he have the same problem with textbooks that didn't discuss labor unions, the Haymarket Riot, and the inquisition of Communists in the 50s? Why is one part of history ok to leave out and another part not? Is it just because he wants his version of revisionist history taught to young children who were not living during these events and therefore couldn't possibly dispute them?
Why do you think China is upset with Japan for omitting "unpatriotic" events such as the rape of Nanking from their textbooks?
Ok, I admit it, I got off on a tangent and this should have been two separate posts. Sue me!
Sunday, October 16, 2005
Another Pitbull Post
After reading a recent article where the author talks about how evil and blood thirsty pitbulls are and how they needed to be banned because they killed a whole 4 people this year, I decided to email her this letter:
42,000 people per year are killed by cars; they are dangerous let’s ban them!
Over 30,000 people in this country are killed by guns every year. Guns are dangerous. Let’s ban them!
9% of the worlds population will die due to tobacco related diseases. That is over 5 million people. Tobacco is dangerous; let’s ban it.
In the US, over 300,000 deaths can be attributed to obesity every year. Food is dangerous; lets ban it!
Every year over 100 people choke to death on ball point pens. Why would we ban a dog that kills 4 people per year and not ban ball point pens that choke and kill 100 people per year?
I must also mention that horses account for over 200 human fatalities per year yet very few people actually own a horse compared to the number who own dogs.
Do bans work?:
Almost 17,000 people per year are killed in alcohol related car crashes. If drunk driving is banned and illegal, why are there still all these deaths?
In Chicago, hand guns are banned yet 79% of all murders are from fire arms.
There are over 20,000 drug overdose deaths every year in our country where drugs are illegal and banned.
I think there are more pressing issues we need to worry about that the 12 deaths per year from dog bites, half of which are actually from rottweilers.
In Chicago, there are roughly 60,000 pitbulls yet how many people die from pitbulls in Chicago every year? Maybe one? Yet in 2003, 599 people were murdered in this city and how many more died due to drug and alcohol? Yet, pitbulls are what people consider dangerous.
Most of those 60,000 pitbulls are bred by gang bangers involved in dog fighting, drug trafficking and murder. Those dogs get tortured and abused and are made to be aggressive by these irresponsible owners. The only other breed that rivals pitbulls in sheer numbers would be Labs, yet Labs are owned by responsible yuppies that care for their dogs and don't purposely starve and beat them to turn them violent. Currently pitbulls just happen to be the dogs these people choose and therefore it's the pitbulls who are turned into violent, vicious, starved monsters. If you ban pitbulls the dog fighters will just choose another breed which will probably end up being bigger, more territorial and less people friendly. If you treat a Golden Retriever in the same manner these pitbulls are treated it will become vicious and start attacking people as well. In fact, the American Temperament Society tests show that a pitbull has the exact same temperament of a Golden Retriever. In another study of dog bites Pitbulls rank 4th from the bottom of all breeds who are likely to bite a person; Cocker spaniels, Akitas, Chows, Pomeranians, Weimaraners, Poodles, German Sheppard’s, Collies and Schnauzers are all more likely to bite someone than a pitbull. Since 1975, over 30 different breeds have been responsible for human fatalities.
Pitbulls were originally bred to be obedient and docile towards humans. Abused, abandoned, starved, wild and pack dogs are the faults of people for treating dogs this way. Any pack animal will be more protective of its territory if it is in an actual pack. Any animal that has been abused and forced to fight by humans all its life will be more violent towards humans; it’s not the dogs fault, it's only natural. It should also be noted that 61% of all dog attacks happen within a home so think twice about beating and abusing your dog; especially if you have children.
Dog fighting is the real crime; dog fighting is the cause of this problem. Until cities can make stricter dog fighting laws with appropriate enforcement and punishment this will continue to happen. Of all the dog fighting and the 60,000 pitbulls in Chicago there are 2 officers (as far as I know) assigned to these cases. Dog fighters are typically gang bangers and drug dealers but in most cities evidence of dog fighting is not enough for a conviction; they must physically be caught in the act; this needs to change.
Kids, as with guns, need to be taught what to do and how to act when they encounter a stray dog. Most people don't know what to do in an encounter with a wild or vicious dog, nor do their children. Most people don't realize that just chaining a dog up in your back yard creates an aggressive, territorial, unsocialized dog. A chained dog is almost 3 times more likely to bite than an unchained dog. Unneutered male dogs are responsible for 70% of all biting incidents. If you want to avoid your dog being involved in an attack don't beat it, fight it or train it to be aggressive, get it spayed or neutered and don't leave it chained up in the back yard. Dogs, especially pitbulls, are social animals that have been living with humans for thousands of years. If you can't take a dog in as a member of your family and treat it as such then don't get a dog.
For every story you can find about a "pitbull" killing a person I can find 10 stories where pitbulls were killed by humans. Humans are dangerous; they should be banned.
http://www.nbc10.com/news/1625377/detail.html
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2002/jun/06/unspeakably_cruel2/
http://www.local10.com/news/1420966/detail.html
http://www.fox21.com/Global/Video/WorldnowASX.asp?os=&vt=&clipid=445158
http://www.furryfriendsfoundation.com/Truth03/drowning.htm
http://www.furryfriendsfoundation.com/Truth03/kidsDogFight.htm
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/3371/NJ/US/
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/3398/CO/US/
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/3277/FL/US/
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/2722/TX/US/
Why would you want to ban dogs who do this:
http://dapbt.org/weela.htm
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/popsicle.html
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/dixie.html
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/thomson.html
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/buddy.html
http://www.furryfriendsfoundation.com/Truth03/pitChildFire.htm
http://www.furryfriendsfoundation.com/Truth03/pitSaveChild.htm
http://www.dogsinthenews.com/issues/0104/articles/010426a.htm
I told you pomeranians were vicious, lets ban them too:
http://www.igorilla.com/2000/baby_los_angeles.html
Rottwielers, lets ban 'em!
http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/animal/2000/dog_attack_report.html
Ferrets are dangerous lets ban them:
http://www.igorilla.com/2000/ferret_attacks_baby.html
Husky mixes are vicious lets ban them:
http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/animal/2000/dog_attack_toronto.html
Gotta ban Dobermans too:
http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/animal/2000/dog_attack.html
Breed Specific Legislation blows!
42,000 people per year are killed by cars; they are dangerous let’s ban them!
Over 30,000 people in this country are killed by guns every year. Guns are dangerous. Let’s ban them!
9% of the worlds population will die due to tobacco related diseases. That is over 5 million people. Tobacco is dangerous; let’s ban it.
In the US, over 300,000 deaths can be attributed to obesity every year. Food is dangerous; lets ban it!
Every year over 100 people choke to death on ball point pens. Why would we ban a dog that kills 4 people per year and not ban ball point pens that choke and kill 100 people per year?
I must also mention that horses account for over 200 human fatalities per year yet very few people actually own a horse compared to the number who own dogs.
Do bans work?:
Almost 17,000 people per year are killed in alcohol related car crashes. If drunk driving is banned and illegal, why are there still all these deaths?
In Chicago, hand guns are banned yet 79% of all murders are from fire arms.
There are over 20,000 drug overdose deaths every year in our country where drugs are illegal and banned.
I think there are more pressing issues we need to worry about that the 12 deaths per year from dog bites, half of which are actually from rottweilers.
In Chicago, there are roughly 60,000 pitbulls yet how many people die from pitbulls in Chicago every year? Maybe one? Yet in 2003, 599 people were murdered in this city and how many more died due to drug and alcohol? Yet, pitbulls are what people consider dangerous.
Most of those 60,000 pitbulls are bred by gang bangers involved in dog fighting, drug trafficking and murder. Those dogs get tortured and abused and are made to be aggressive by these irresponsible owners. The only other breed that rivals pitbulls in sheer numbers would be Labs, yet Labs are owned by responsible yuppies that care for their dogs and don't purposely starve and beat them to turn them violent. Currently pitbulls just happen to be the dogs these people choose and therefore it's the pitbulls who are turned into violent, vicious, starved monsters. If you ban pitbulls the dog fighters will just choose another breed which will probably end up being bigger, more territorial and less people friendly. If you treat a Golden Retriever in the same manner these pitbulls are treated it will become vicious and start attacking people as well. In fact, the American Temperament Society tests show that a pitbull has the exact same temperament of a Golden Retriever. In another study of dog bites Pitbulls rank 4th from the bottom of all breeds who are likely to bite a person; Cocker spaniels, Akitas, Chows, Pomeranians, Weimaraners, Poodles, German Sheppard’s, Collies and Schnauzers are all more likely to bite someone than a pitbull. Since 1975, over 30 different breeds have been responsible for human fatalities.
Pitbulls were originally bred to be obedient and docile towards humans. Abused, abandoned, starved, wild and pack dogs are the faults of people for treating dogs this way. Any pack animal will be more protective of its territory if it is in an actual pack. Any animal that has been abused and forced to fight by humans all its life will be more violent towards humans; it’s not the dogs fault, it's only natural. It should also be noted that 61% of all dog attacks happen within a home so think twice about beating and abusing your dog; especially if you have children.
Dog fighting is the real crime; dog fighting is the cause of this problem. Until cities can make stricter dog fighting laws with appropriate enforcement and punishment this will continue to happen. Of all the dog fighting and the 60,000 pitbulls in Chicago there are 2 officers (as far as I know) assigned to these cases. Dog fighters are typically gang bangers and drug dealers but in most cities evidence of dog fighting is not enough for a conviction; they must physically be caught in the act; this needs to change.
Kids, as with guns, need to be taught what to do and how to act when they encounter a stray dog. Most people don't know what to do in an encounter with a wild or vicious dog, nor do their children. Most people don't realize that just chaining a dog up in your back yard creates an aggressive, territorial, unsocialized dog. A chained dog is almost 3 times more likely to bite than an unchained dog. Unneutered male dogs are responsible for 70% of all biting incidents. If you want to avoid your dog being involved in an attack don't beat it, fight it or train it to be aggressive, get it spayed or neutered and don't leave it chained up in the back yard. Dogs, especially pitbulls, are social animals that have been living with humans for thousands of years. If you can't take a dog in as a member of your family and treat it as such then don't get a dog.
For every story you can find about a "pitbull" killing a person I can find 10 stories where pitbulls were killed by humans. Humans are dangerous; they should be banned.
http://www.nbc10.com/news/1625377/detail.html
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2002/jun/06/unspeakably_cruel2/
http://www.local10.com/news/1420966/detail.html
http://www.fox21.com/Global/Video/WorldnowASX.asp?os=&vt=&clipid=445158
http://www.furryfriendsfoundation.com/Truth03/drowning.htm
http://www.furryfriendsfoundation.com/Truth03/kidsDogFight.htm
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/3371/NJ/US/
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/3398/CO/US/
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/3277/FL/US/
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/2722/TX/US/
Why would you want to ban dogs who do this:
http://dapbt.org/weela.htm
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/popsicle.html
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/dixie.html
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/thomson.html
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/buddy.html
http://www.furryfriendsfoundation.com/Truth03/pitChildFire.htm
http://www.furryfriendsfoundation.com/Truth03/pitSaveChild.htm
http://www.dogsinthenews.com/issues/0104/articles/010426a.htm
I told you pomeranians were vicious, lets ban them too:
http://www.igorilla.com/2000/baby_los_angeles.html
Rottwielers, lets ban 'em!
http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/animal/2000/dog_attack_report.html
Ferrets are dangerous lets ban them:
http://www.igorilla.com/2000/ferret_attacks_baby.html
Husky mixes are vicious lets ban them:
http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/animal/2000/dog_attack_toronto.html
Gotta ban Dobermans too:
http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/animal/2000/dog_attack.html
Breed Specific Legislation blows!
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Back Home Again in Shitiana
Apparently Indiana is, as most other states, trying to cope with an escalating crisis of lesbian hoards that spawn gay love children, who when later abandoned, turn into a class of Godless homosexual Democrats. In response, Indiana Republican State Senator Patricia Miller is proposing new legislation which will dictate who will and will not be permitted to have children through means of assisted reproduction. In short, this new code they want to pass into law will only allow “qualified” married couples to reproduce through other means when they are unable to conceive naturally.
The bottom line here is that they want to prevent lesbians, widows, non-Christians, fat ugly single women who can't get laid, ex-felons and Jodie Foster from having children. I know you think I am jumping to extreme conclusions but the litmus test is all spelled out in the legislation.
The procedures this new legislation would cover are as follows:
"Assisted reproduction", for purposes of IC 31-20, means a method of causing pregnancy other than sexual intercourse. The term includes:
(1) intrauterine insemination;
(2) donation of an egg;
(3) donation of an embryo;
(4) in vitro fertilization and transfer of an embryo; and(5) intracytoplasmic sperm injection.
"Sexual intercourse", for purposes of IC 31-20, means an act that includes any penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ"
Who qualifies for these procedures?
(b) The intended parents must be married to each other, and both spousesmust be parties to the action to establish parentage.
The bottom line here is that they want to prevent lesbians, widows, non-Christians, fat ugly single women who can't get laid, ex-felons and Jodie Foster from having children. I know you think I am jumping to extreme conclusions but the litmus test is all spelled out in the legislation.
The procedures this new legislation would cover are as follows:
"Assisted reproduction", for purposes of IC 31-20, means a method of causing pregnancy other than sexual intercourse. The term includes:
(1) intrauterine insemination;
(2) donation of an egg;
(3) donation of an embryo;
(4) in vitro fertilization and transfer of an embryo; and(5) intracytoplasmic sperm injection.
"Sexual intercourse", for purposes of IC 31-20, means an act that includes any penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ"
Who qualifies for these procedures?
(b) The intended parents must be married to each other, and both spousesmust be parties to the action to establish parentage.
(c) An unmarried person may not be an intended parent.
What is the litmus test?
(b) The assessment must follow the normal practice for assessments in a domestic infant adoption procedure and must include the following information:
Personal information about each intended parent, including the following: (I picked the most controversial and subjective, I can understand them not wanting a convicted “child seller” or molester to have kids):
-Values
-Relationships
-A description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents include a description of individual participation in faith-based or church activities, hobbies, and other interests.
-The intended parents' child rearing expectations and values.
What are values? Do they mean Republican values? Who are the value police that decide which values they want to be passed down? And if the state is asking the question about people's values and the participation in church or "faith-based" activities that must mean that they are looking for particular answers; otherwise, why ask? If that is the case doesn't that violate a separation of church and state, not to mention a thousand other privacy issues? As with the value police, who decides which church and faith based activities are and are not acceptable? Would that be Patricia Miller, a conservative Methodist Republican?
What is the litmus test?
(b) The assessment must follow the normal practice for assessments in a domestic infant adoption procedure and must include the following information:
Personal information about each intended parent, including the following: (I picked the most controversial and subjective, I can understand them not wanting a convicted “child seller” or molester to have kids):
-Values
-Relationships
-A description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents include a description of individual participation in faith-based or church activities, hobbies, and other interests.
-The intended parents' child rearing expectations and values.
What are values? Do they mean Republican values? Who are the value police that decide which values they want to be passed down? And if the state is asking the question about people's values and the participation in church or "faith-based" activities that must mean that they are looking for particular answers; otherwise, why ask? If that is the case doesn't that violate a separation of church and state, not to mention a thousand other privacy issues? As with the value police, who decides which church and faith based activities are and are not acceptable? Would that be Patricia Miller, a conservative Methodist Republican?
Don't get me wrong, I am all for making people take tests in order to be qualified to have children, but all people, no matter how the child would physically be created. Well off, educated, committed lesbians who desperately seek a child are not the people we need to be screening and singling out. The people who need to be subject to this test are the 17 year old, High School drop out, trailer trash meth-heads who got knocked up by their home made tattoo, pencil moustache sporting, jobless, whigger boy friend who is in prison and crack head welfare moms who already have 5 fatherless kids that the government supports. Remember, 50% of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce, 20% of all US children live in poverty, and approximately 1500 children die in this country every year due to child abuse in the home. Are those the "values" they prefer children to grow up with? Why don't you look up the number of all the "unwanted" children in same-sex households who get abused and indoctrinated with the gay agenda and see how bad their lives are compared to the kids I just mentioned. What this bill says to me is that they don't care about all the random assholes with a dick that are qualified to procreate as long as they have some skank to stick it in and they can conceive naturally. God forbid someone who actually wants and can support a child of their own try to pursue what is a right of the general dumb ass public.
One final question for the geniuses who drafted this piece of shit: what happens if the approved couple gets a divorce because the mother decided to become a lesbian? Do you make them give the child back? It would make all of this a big waste of time wouldn’t it?
The America hater I am referring to:
Sponsor: Sen. Patricia Miller (R) (317)232-9489 s32@in.gov
Go tell her what you think when they discuss this issue on October 20th, 10am in the House Chamber of the State House at 200 W. Washington Street in Indianapolis.
Here is a copy of the legislation:
Update 10/7:
Amongst a storm of criticism and outrage they have withdrawn this ridiculous proposal, for now. Miller did say that she will consider introducing it again in January. So, you probably don't need to attend that meeting on October 20th.
Thanks to Indy Girl for pointing out this follow up article:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)