Lately, there have been a lot of rumors circulating around about the racist, Islamo-fascist, stuck up, too black, not black enough, inexperienced terrorist Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama. Oh, wait, maybe that isn't really who he is. Let's take a look:
Barack Obama isn't now and never has been a Muslim. Obama's father, who left after he and Barack's mother divorced when Barack was 2, was raised a Muslim but was not practicing. In Obama's 5 year stint in Indonesia as a child, he attended one school run by Muslims (not a madrassa), where Muslims comprised a majority of the student body and for two of those five years attended another School run by Catholics. Essentially his mother was just trying to get him into the best school possible and wasn't concerned about the religion of the students or faculty at these facilities. Barack Obama began his professional career working with Churches as a community organizer and is a Christian. Even so, I don't recall the Constitution requiring a person to pass a religious test in order to be President. I don't recall Muslims being forbidden from running for office? That being said, why doesn't anyone make a big deal about Obama's half sister being a Buddhist or John McCain's adopted daughter being from Bangladesh (Formerly Eastern Pakistan), a Muslim country.
He has no Experience: Barack Obama has spent more time in elected office than Hillary Clinton and also more time than George Bush had spent prior to him becoming President. Although, I will be the first to admit that George Bush's lack of experience is painfully obvious and has had disastrous consequences. Bush had 5 years experience as a State Governor, Hillary has served in the U.S. Senate for 6 1/2 years and Obama served in the Illinois State Senate for 8 years and has been in the US Senate for 3 1/2 years for a total of 11 1/2 years of experience.
Obama is a member of the following committees: Senate Foreign Relations Committee with 30 year Incumbent Richard Lugar of neighboring Indiana, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Hilary would contend that her time as first lady counts as "experience" but I used to date an artist and that doesn't make me a painter.
Racist: One paragraph ago you thought he was a Muslim terrorist but as we all know he attends the Trinity Church of Christ on Chicago's south side. This Church had a preacher who, like many preachers in black churches, gives sermons inspired by current events and issues. He says things like America has historically been racist, that white people have more opportunities than black people, that laws have been put in place which targets blacks and that we have stuck our noses in places where it didn't belong and some people have taken exception to that among other things, none of them false. Again, this was Obama's preacher, who isn't running for President, who said these things, not Obama himself.
Obama is half white. His mother was a white lady from Kansas. From the age of 10, he grew up with his white grandparents in Hawaii. He attended Columbia University and was president of the Harvard Law Review. He eats arugula salads; with the exception of him joining a Polka band, you can't get any whiter than that. To say he is racist against white people is simply ludicrous.
If he was forced to vote yay or nay on the Iraq War, he would have caved in and authorized the attack on Iraq: Yet another fallacy. On October 2, 2002, the day Congress authorized the use of force; Obama spoke at an anti-war rally in Chicago condemning the actions of Congress and his fellow Democrats such as Hilary Clinton who voted for the war. He was against it then and is against it now. How good was McCain's judgment and experience on that issue?
He is an elitist: Being educated and not eating 5 Big Mac's a week doesn't make you an elitist. Eating 5 Big Macs a week and not getting the connection between who is running this country and the price of gas, makes you an idiot. Getting into Yale based on your fathers legacy, dodging Vietnam with your fathers political clout makes you an elitist, declining the offers of over 600 glamorous law firms all over the country offering huge salaries but turning them down for less money to work for a firm dedicated to civil rights, voter rights and helping out the people in poor neighborhoods and registering them to vote does not make you an "elitist".
He won't recite the Pledge of Allegiance: Wrong, he does say the Pledge of Allegiance and places his hand over his heart when doing so. He doesn't put his hands over his heart when saying the national anthem but any third grader or fan in a football stadium will tell you that it isn't required. He also doesn't wear a flag pin but neither does Hillary or McCain. I fail to see how a one inch by one inch flag pin made in China proves your patriotism.
He is related to Saddam Hussein: Barack Obama isn't related to either Saddam Hussein nor the late King Hussein of Jordan, an American ally or anyone with the last name Hussein. His middle name is Hussein which is derived from the Semitic word "hasan" meaning good. "Barack" is also derived from a Semitic word meaning "blessed" which appears often in the Hebrew Bible, 62 times in Genesis for example.
Will raise your taxes: If you make over $200,000 per year, then sure, he may restore your tax rate to what it was in the 1990's, one of the most prosperous times in our history. As an Illinois Senator, Obama was responsible for providing over $100 million in tax cuts to working families while expanding early childhood education programs.
He is Liberal: As opposed to someone who thinks the poor should pay all the taxes, that diplomacy is only a last resort after war fails, that thinks the earth is more than 10,000 years old, that thinks teachers make too much, that this is a nation for the corporation by the corporation as opposed to for the people by the people, that subsidies for corporations who export jobs and avoid taxes is sound fiscal policy, that we should bomb people who don't agree with us, that rich people are having a hard time right now and need tax cuts, that the Iraq war was necessary (for Exxon to obtain record profits), that our trade deficit and weak dollar is a good thing, who thinks only people who wear flag pins are patriotic, that by torturing people you will always get the information you are looking for an it will be accurate and inspire other countries to treat our prisoners with compassion, that eight year olds should be able to buy automatic weapons, that companies who give loans to homeless people need to be baled out by the government but the people who can't pay their mortgages are deadbeats, etc. Then yes, thank Buddha, he is liberal.
Oh, and if Clinton fails to get the Democratic nomination, it's not because of sexism, it's because she didn't get as many votes. Ya, we get it, white, uneducated, rednecks in red states won't vote for a black guy but they aren't going to vote for a Democrat in the general election anyway.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
War With Iran Imminent
From CNN: 6:19 a.m. EDT, Wed April 30, 2008
Iran dumps U.S. dollar for oil trades
If history is any indication, it looks like Iran has just drawn its last straw with the United States. Not a lot of people know this but in 2000 Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer accept US dollars in the oil for food program and that all payments would need to be made in Euros. A couple years later we were invading Iraq and have now switched the sale of Iraq's oil back to the dollar. This was obviously an attempt to convince OPEC and oil producing nations not to do the same. Today, Iran announced that it would stop conducting oil transactions in US dollars. At a Summit last year Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the US dollar a "worthless piece of paper". Iran stopped accepting the dollar for oil transactions in Europe and Asia in 2003. What, you thought the war in Iraq was about spreading freedom and WMD's?
Oil has traditionally been sold in dollars. Since the US is no longer on the gold standard, we only needed to print money to make more dollars in order to buy our oil but this isn't the case for other countries who had to conduct business with the US in the form of loans, in US dollars, in order to buy oil. This guaranteed that the US and the US dollar would always dominate the world economy and profit from nearly every oil transaction world wide. Now that these oil producing countries are getting less for their oil due to the falling value of the dollar, the only thing that is stopping them from switching the sale of their oil to the Euro is fear of a US attack. Guess what, with Bush's massive failure in Iraq and showing the world that we can't really successfully overthrow a country nor can we win a fight against civilians with small arms and improvised explosives, they no longer fear the threat of war. They know the US military is spread too thin to invade another country and install a new puppet government who will sell the US oil and accept US dollars for those transactions.
What this move by Iran will do is either prompt an attack by the US, especially if Republicans remain in power, or it will encourage other countries to switch to Euros as well. If that happens it will further devalue the US dollar and further increase the value of the Euro. The impact it will have in the US financial markets will be devastating if all of OPEC follows suit. Americans would also be forced to pay what the rest of the world as been paying for gas at about $5 per gallon. The bright side is that we will finally have to become energy dependent and look to other sources of power and reduce our oil and gas consumption. We won't have to worry about SUVs blocking our views of traffic or flipping over every time they slam on their breaks when they see a Starbucks. American car companies will have to invest in new technologies as will the energy sector and that could spawn a new industry and create more jobs. China will have to pin its Yuan to the Euro as opposed to the dollar and their imports will become more expensive and no longer mirror the ups and downs of the dollar. Wal-Mart may actually start buying American products again as imports and the cost of transporting those imports will increase and they will have to rely on US Manufacturers to be their main vendors. Or, we could just bomb Iran and keep things as they have always been.
And now for a little nugget of gold:
Iran dumps U.S. dollar for oil trades
If history is any indication, it looks like Iran has just drawn its last straw with the United States. Not a lot of people know this but in 2000 Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer accept US dollars in the oil for food program and that all payments would need to be made in Euros. A couple years later we were invading Iraq and have now switched the sale of Iraq's oil back to the dollar. This was obviously an attempt to convince OPEC and oil producing nations not to do the same. Today, Iran announced that it would stop conducting oil transactions in US dollars. At a Summit last year Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the US dollar a "worthless piece of paper". Iran stopped accepting the dollar for oil transactions in Europe and Asia in 2003. What, you thought the war in Iraq was about spreading freedom and WMD's?
Oil has traditionally been sold in dollars. Since the US is no longer on the gold standard, we only needed to print money to make more dollars in order to buy our oil but this isn't the case for other countries who had to conduct business with the US in the form of loans, in US dollars, in order to buy oil. This guaranteed that the US and the US dollar would always dominate the world economy and profit from nearly every oil transaction world wide. Now that these oil producing countries are getting less for their oil due to the falling value of the dollar, the only thing that is stopping them from switching the sale of their oil to the Euro is fear of a US attack. Guess what, with Bush's massive failure in Iraq and showing the world that we can't really successfully overthrow a country nor can we win a fight against civilians with small arms and improvised explosives, they no longer fear the threat of war. They know the US military is spread too thin to invade another country and install a new puppet government who will sell the US oil and accept US dollars for those transactions.
What this move by Iran will do is either prompt an attack by the US, especially if Republicans remain in power, or it will encourage other countries to switch to Euros as well. If that happens it will further devalue the US dollar and further increase the value of the Euro. The impact it will have in the US financial markets will be devastating if all of OPEC follows suit. Americans would also be forced to pay what the rest of the world as been paying for gas at about $5 per gallon. The bright side is that we will finally have to become energy dependent and look to other sources of power and reduce our oil and gas consumption. We won't have to worry about SUVs blocking our views of traffic or flipping over every time they slam on their breaks when they see a Starbucks. American car companies will have to invest in new technologies as will the energy sector and that could spawn a new industry and create more jobs. China will have to pin its Yuan to the Euro as opposed to the dollar and their imports will become more expensive and no longer mirror the ups and downs of the dollar. Wal-Mart may actually start buying American products again as imports and the cost of transporting those imports will increase and they will have to rely on US Manufacturers to be their main vendors. Or, we could just bomb Iran and keep things as they have always been.
And now for a little nugget of gold:
Thursday, April 24, 2008
The Audacity of Morons / Florida
From CNN: 4/24/08
Florida considers Christian license plate
Why is it that at least once per year I have to do a post about Florida?
So, this God-bob Florida State Rep has proposed a Christian license plate for his state. The plate would include a Christian cross and the words "I Believe" written on it is joined by an "In God We Trust" license plate in the proposal. Of course South Carolina and Indiana already have an "In God We Trust" license plate but at least those don't speak of a Christian God or have any overtly Christian symbols and somehow have remained legal as far as I know.
Thankfully, this proposal has yet to be approved as it is so blatantly a state sanction of one religion over another. If someone wants everyone to know that they believe in Jesus just buy a bumper sticker or paint a picture of the dead guy on the stick on the side of your car. There is no need for the state to sell you, profit from and then take those proceeds and donate them to a Christian cause. Every hillbilly on the planet would be up in arms if someone proposed a plate that said "I Believe" on it yet it showed a crescent moon and a star. If that's not allowed then neither is this. Even the sponsor of this bill, Edward Bullard said that he wouldn't endorse an Atheist version of the plate which would say "I don't believe". Well, that should tell you something but then again, it is Florida.
If you live in Florida, don't re-elect Edward Bullard.
Florida considers Christian license plate
Why is it that at least once per year I have to do a post about Florida?
So, this God-bob Florida State Rep has proposed a Christian license plate for his state. The plate would include a Christian cross and the words "I Believe" written on it is joined by an "In God We Trust" license plate in the proposal. Of course South Carolina and Indiana already have an "In God We Trust" license plate but at least those don't speak of a Christian God or have any overtly Christian symbols and somehow have remained legal as far as I know.
Thankfully, this proposal has yet to be approved as it is so blatantly a state sanction of one religion over another. If someone wants everyone to know that they believe in Jesus just buy a bumper sticker or paint a picture of the dead guy on the stick on the side of your car. There is no need for the state to sell you, profit from and then take those proceeds and donate them to a Christian cause. Every hillbilly on the planet would be up in arms if someone proposed a plate that said "I Believe" on it yet it showed a crescent moon and a star. If that's not allowed then neither is this. Even the sponsor of this bill, Edward Bullard said that he wouldn't endorse an Atheist version of the plate which would say "I don't believe". Well, that should tell you something but then again, it is Florida.
If you live in Florida, don't re-elect Edward Bullard.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Religious People Yet Again Prove They Don't Like Facts
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351758,00.html
Bill Maher has recently stirred up controversy over the facts he presented regarding the Catholic Church, its Pope and the child molestation scandals which were covered up by the Church. Of course Fox News can't shut up about it and are calling for HBO to cancel Real Time, Maher’s comedy based, political themed show. Fox News also reports that 6 US Senators have even written HBO demanding action be taken.
I wish I knew who these Senators were because then we would know who doesn't believe in free speech and we could vote them out of office. Bill Oreilly suggests that if these comments were made about black people or Jews or Muslims there would be outrage from every media outlet and Real Time would be cancelled. What Oreilly and Fox news don't realize is that there was nothing untrue about what Maher said. They also don't realize that when you are in power and you are the majority such as white people or Christians you are always going to be the subject of scrutiny. Saying the Catholic Church has had problems with priests molesting altar boys and then covering it up isn't the same as calling someone "nappy headed ho's". Nappy headed ho's is not a fact, child abuse in the Catholic Church is. The Pope being in the Hitler Youth when he was younger is also a fact. Sure, he called the Catholic Church a cult and maybe that was the only thing he said that could be perceived as an insult as opposed to a fact.
Here is the/a definition of a cult: 1.a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
2. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
Now a definition of religion:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices.
What's the difference?
My advice to Catholics and the Catholic Church is that if you don't want to be called pedophiles, stop covering up the molestation of altar boys. If you wan't for people to not call you Nazi's, don't have a Pope who used to be part of the Hitler Youth.
I would like to say that I am a huge fan of Real Time and always make a point to be home on Fridays to watch it. With maybe the exception of his support of the welfare the US gives to Israel every year I agree with almost everything Bill has said on his show. I will also be writing a letter to HBO telling them that if they cancel Real Time, I will cancel by subscription to HBO. If someone can't speak the truth on TV then we really don't have free speech. Sure we can stand on the street corner with a sign but if we are going to let the media be controlled by religious extremists who don't want to hear anything negative about their CULT, then how free are we? You know, there are several parts of the world that don't allow anyone to question or talk ill of the mainstream, dominant religion and they may even cut the heads off of the people who do. Is that the kind of world you want to live in?
I am not anti-Catholic; I am anti any theistic religion which claims it has the keys to heaven and is willing to let you have them as long as you put money in the plate and do what they say.
Anyway, here is the original comment and his follow up, I don't see what's so bad:
Bill Maher has recently stirred up controversy over the facts he presented regarding the Catholic Church, its Pope and the child molestation scandals which were covered up by the Church. Of course Fox News can't shut up about it and are calling for HBO to cancel Real Time, Maher’s comedy based, political themed show. Fox News also reports that 6 US Senators have even written HBO demanding action be taken.
I wish I knew who these Senators were because then we would know who doesn't believe in free speech and we could vote them out of office. Bill Oreilly suggests that if these comments were made about black people or Jews or Muslims there would be outrage from every media outlet and Real Time would be cancelled. What Oreilly and Fox news don't realize is that there was nothing untrue about what Maher said. They also don't realize that when you are in power and you are the majority such as white people or Christians you are always going to be the subject of scrutiny. Saying the Catholic Church has had problems with priests molesting altar boys and then covering it up isn't the same as calling someone "nappy headed ho's". Nappy headed ho's is not a fact, child abuse in the Catholic Church is. The Pope being in the Hitler Youth when he was younger is also a fact. Sure, he called the Catholic Church a cult and maybe that was the only thing he said that could be perceived as an insult as opposed to a fact.
Here is the/a definition of a cult: 1.a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
2. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
Now a definition of religion:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices.
What's the difference?
My advice to Catholics and the Catholic Church is that if you don't want to be called pedophiles, stop covering up the molestation of altar boys. If you wan't for people to not call you Nazi's, don't have a Pope who used to be part of the Hitler Youth.
I would like to say that I am a huge fan of Real Time and always make a point to be home on Fridays to watch it. With maybe the exception of his support of the welfare the US gives to Israel every year I agree with almost everything Bill has said on his show. I will also be writing a letter to HBO telling them that if they cancel Real Time, I will cancel by subscription to HBO. If someone can't speak the truth on TV then we really don't have free speech. Sure we can stand on the street corner with a sign but if we are going to let the media be controlled by religious extremists who don't want to hear anything negative about their CULT, then how free are we? You know, there are several parts of the world that don't allow anyone to question or talk ill of the mainstream, dominant religion and they may even cut the heads off of the people who do. Is that the kind of world you want to live in?
I am not anti-Catholic; I am anti any theistic religion which claims it has the keys to heaven and is willing to let you have them as long as you put money in the plate and do what they say.
Anyway, here is the original comment and his follow up, I don't see what's so bad:
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Passing the Torch
Or perhaps passing the buck? Hey Olympic Torch protesters, if you want to send a message to China about their violations of civil liberties and human rights, pollution or currency manipulation, stop shopping at Wal-Mart! You can protest the torch all you want but you are still enabling China to do its thing when you buy products made in China. Protesting the torch procession is a waste of time. Put your money where your mouth is.
I guarantee every single one of those protesters were wearing shoes made in China along with probably another garment or two and their Ipods.
You're making about as much difference as the idiots who put the "Support the Troops" magnets on the back of their gas guzzling SUVs.
I guarantee every single one of those protesters were wearing shoes made in China along with probably another garment or two and their Ipods.
You're making about as much difference as the idiots who put the "Support the Troops" magnets on the back of their gas guzzling SUVs.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Crazy Preachers Endorsing Presidential Candidates
No, no, I'm not talking about Pastor Wright and Obama; I'm talking about Pastor Rod Parsley and McCain. Rod Parsley is one of those crazy TV preachers who's always begging for money and has one of those "mega-churches" in Ohio. Here is the profile of McCain's "spiritual advisor":
1.Called Planned Parenthood Nazi's
2.Openly called for prosecution of people who commit adultery which would obviously include Ted Haggard, Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, David Vitter and of course Bill Clinton.
3.On Islam and being a loving Christian: "The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed". So much for Christianity being a peaceful religion.
4.Thinks people should be able to pray in public schools because something is apparently wrong with praying at home and in a church or sending your kids to a Catholic school.
5.On the founding of America he said: "It was to defeat Islam, among other dreams, that Christopher Columbus sailed to the New World in 1492…Columbus dreamed of defeating the armies of Islam with the armies of Europe made mighty by the wealth of the New World. It was this dream that, in part, began America." Aside from being a bigot, he is also apparently a Columbus biographer who doesn't know that Columbus did not set out to discover the "new world" and that he was actually looking for a new route to India.
6.One of his quotes on the validity of the second biggest religion in the world was:"Muhammad received revelations from demons and not from the true God." Really, glad you were there to confirm this for us.
7.Thinks the founding fathers accidentally forgot to add the words: God, Christian, Christ, Christianity, Christian Nation to the Constitution and says they really wanted the US to be a Christian Theocracy even though George Washington and many other founding fathers were Deists. This is what he uses to rationalize his own belief that the US should trade its democracy for a Theocracy which has worked extraordinarily well for other countries.
8. Believes in faith healing. Yes, the guys who dance around and punch cripples in the forehead.
9.Doesn't believe in hate crimes and thinks you should be able to kill gays , Muslims and apparently anyone else for who they are.
10.Tells Christians to ready their weapons and says he condones Christian riots against Muslims and gays.
11. Believes in, or at least tricks people with money into believing in "prayer cloths", which will apparently heal people...or some kind of nonsense.
13. Believes in, or at least tells people who give him money that miracles are real.
14. Was quoted as saying: "I just love to talk about your money. Let me be very clear — I want your money. I deserve it. This church deserves it." He was probably referring to all the lawsuits which have been filed against him.
15. Refuses to divulge how contributions are spent, other than his $800,000 home compound, ranch and his plane and another $800,000 home for his parents.
And McCain’s other former preacher endorsee John Hagee, had this to say:
1. Catholics were a false cult and the Catholic Church was a "Great Whore".
2. Called Harry Potter witchcraft
3. In his book, Predicted that Russia and "Islamic States" will be destroyed by God.
4. Said that China and "The West" will battle over Israel starting Armageddon and the second coming of Christ.
5. Thought Hurricane Katrina was because of Gay parades in New Orleans, not warm ocean temperatures and atmospheric pressure, even though the French Quarter was mainly unaffected as compared to the rest of the city.
It must be noted that Hagee was even too crazy for McCain and McCain has since distanced himself from Hagee and likewise, Hagee no longer endorses McCain.
Oh, and both have been accused of Tax Evasion due to their political campaigning during their tax exempt "church".
The main point here is that Obama didn't say the things that his retired preacher said 10 years ago, his retired preacher did. Likewise, McCain didn't say the things mentioned above but he has only distanced himself from Hagee's comments and Parsley is still his "spiritual guide". So if Obama is now this terrible racist then that makes McCain a gay bashing, Muslim bashing crusader, Planned Parenthood bombing, armed Christian warrior who wants to overthrow the democracy in order to establish a Theocracy, who believes in faith healing. We all know that this isn't the case or else conservative Christians would support him like they did Bush.
In other words, enough with the Obama is a violent racist crap. We all know Obama is as white as you get without having blond hair and driving a VW with a surfboard strapped to the roof.
So, if you're worried about electing someone who is associated with a controversial preacher, don't vote for McCain.
So, does this now at least prove that Obama isn't a Muslim?
1.Called Planned Parenthood Nazi's
2.Openly called for prosecution of people who commit adultery which would obviously include Ted Haggard, Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, David Vitter and of course Bill Clinton.
3.On Islam and being a loving Christian: "The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed". So much for Christianity being a peaceful religion.
4.Thinks people should be able to pray in public schools because something is apparently wrong with praying at home and in a church or sending your kids to a Catholic school.
5.On the founding of America he said: "It was to defeat Islam, among other dreams, that Christopher Columbus sailed to the New World in 1492…Columbus dreamed of defeating the armies of Islam with the armies of Europe made mighty by the wealth of the New World. It was this dream that, in part, began America." Aside from being a bigot, he is also apparently a Columbus biographer who doesn't know that Columbus did not set out to discover the "new world" and that he was actually looking for a new route to India.
6.One of his quotes on the validity of the second biggest religion in the world was:"Muhammad received revelations from demons and not from the true God." Really, glad you were there to confirm this for us.
7.Thinks the founding fathers accidentally forgot to add the words: God, Christian, Christ, Christianity, Christian Nation to the Constitution and says they really wanted the US to be a Christian Theocracy even though George Washington and many other founding fathers were Deists. This is what he uses to rationalize his own belief that the US should trade its democracy for a Theocracy which has worked extraordinarily well for other countries.
8. Believes in faith healing. Yes, the guys who dance around and punch cripples in the forehead.
9.Doesn't believe in hate crimes and thinks you should be able to kill gays , Muslims and apparently anyone else for who they are.
10.Tells Christians to ready their weapons and says he condones Christian riots against Muslims and gays.
11. Believes in, or at least tricks people with money into believing in "prayer cloths", which will apparently heal people...or some kind of nonsense.
13. Believes in, or at least tells people who give him money that miracles are real.
14. Was quoted as saying: "I just love to talk about your money. Let me be very clear — I want your money. I deserve it. This church deserves it." He was probably referring to all the lawsuits which have been filed against him.
15. Refuses to divulge how contributions are spent, other than his $800,000 home compound, ranch and his plane and another $800,000 home for his parents.
And McCain’s other former preacher endorsee John Hagee, had this to say:
1. Catholics were a false cult and the Catholic Church was a "Great Whore".
2. Called Harry Potter witchcraft
3. In his book, Predicted that Russia and "Islamic States" will be destroyed by God.
4. Said that China and "The West" will battle over Israel starting Armageddon and the second coming of Christ.
5. Thought Hurricane Katrina was because of Gay parades in New Orleans, not warm ocean temperatures and atmospheric pressure, even though the French Quarter was mainly unaffected as compared to the rest of the city.
It must be noted that Hagee was even too crazy for McCain and McCain has since distanced himself from Hagee and likewise, Hagee no longer endorses McCain.
Oh, and both have been accused of Tax Evasion due to their political campaigning during their tax exempt "church".
The main point here is that Obama didn't say the things that his retired preacher said 10 years ago, his retired preacher did. Likewise, McCain didn't say the things mentioned above but he has only distanced himself from Hagee's comments and Parsley is still his "spiritual guide". So if Obama is now this terrible racist then that makes McCain a gay bashing, Muslim bashing crusader, Planned Parenthood bombing, armed Christian warrior who wants to overthrow the democracy in order to establish a Theocracy, who believes in faith healing. We all know that this isn't the case or else conservative Christians would support him like they did Bush.
In other words, enough with the Obama is a violent racist crap. We all know Obama is as white as you get without having blond hair and driving a VW with a surfboard strapped to the roof.
So, if you're worried about electing someone who is associated with a controversial preacher, don't vote for McCain.
So, does this now at least prove that Obama isn't a Muslim?
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
What Our World Would Be Like If the Bible Were True
There are a sect of Christians and sects of every major religion called fundamentalists. These are people who believe every word in the Bible (or Quran or Torah) and believe that is the unedited, literal word of God. They say that if you don't follow or believe what the book says, you will go to hell and Satan will ass rape you with his pitch fork for eternity. They also believe that this author, this God, is all knowing, all loving and perfect. The funny thing is I would find it easier for people who don't read the Bible to believe that nonsense than the people who do read the Bible. Even if you read the first few verses of the Bible you will find errors and contradictions that an all knowing perfect God should have been able to at least fact check and submit to his editor.
Since there are people who believe that non-believers should be killed, that homosexuality is an abomination,that the Earth is as old as the Bible says it is and that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to Church every Sunday; here is how absurd the world would be if it was as it is written in the Bible.
The Earth would be flat and square, Columbus would be a heretic and would still be floating around in space and I would get mail on Columbus day. Matthew 4:8, Revelations 7:1, Isaiah 11:12
The Sun would Revolve around the Earth. Joshua 10:13
The Earth would therefore be stationary. 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalms 104:5
The Earth would rest on pillars, not Atlas. 1 Samuel 2:8
The stars would be tiny lights that could be thrown around by dragons. And by the way, there would be dragons. Revelations 12:4, Revelations 6:13, Jeremiah 51:37
Heaven would be a few hundred feet in the sky, when you got on an airplane, that would be heaven, sometimes heaven has bad food and crashes. Genesis 11:4-6
The tallest mountains would only be 20 feet (15 cubits) high. No one would care about Colorado. Genesis 7:20
There would be extra light all day and night long other than the Sun, Moon and stars. Genesis 1:3. (The Sun Moon and stars were created on the fourth day after he created light)
Days would have no basis of measurement or predictable lengths as they clearly don't need the Sun to determine what is a full day. Genesis 1:5
Mustard seeds would come from trees instead of plants and their seeds would be the smallest in the world and would hopefully taste better. Matthew 13:31
When you ate too much, the food would come out of your nose. Numbers 11:20
Rods could be turned into serpents by simply throwing them on the ground. Alice Cooper wouldn't seem as cool. Exodus 7:9-11
Whales would not be mammals, they would have gills and lay eggs. Jonah 1:17
Insects would have 4 legs instead of 6. Leviticus 11:20-21
Camels would not have split hooves, perhaps toes. We would have to come up with a new term to describe "camel toe". Leviticus 11:4, Deuteronomy 14:7
Bats would not be mammals, they would be birds and would lay eggs and poop on your car. Leviticus 11:20
Rabbits would chew their cud and have hooves. Leviticus 11:6
Snakes would talk and eat dirt. Genesis 3:1-14
Donkeys could speak but probably wouldn't eat dirt.. Numbers 22:28-30
Tornados would only kill wicked people not Bible belters in their trailer parks. Jeremiah 30:23
Sinners could make rivers go dry.You wouldn't want to mess with a sinner. Psalms 107:33-35
Sinners could also cause earth quakes just like the gays in San Francisco. Psalms 18:7, Isaiah 13:13
Epilepsy and other diseases could be cured with an exorcism. Matthew 12:22, Matthew 9:32, Mark 5
Doctors would not be needed to cure an illness as all you would have to do is pray. James 5:14-15
The census described at the time of Jesus' birth would have been moved up 10 years earlier than what was described in Roman and Jewish historical texts. Luke 2:1
Evolution would have occurred or perhaps divine intervention from other gods, to create the other people of the world described by Genesis 4:15-18.
Giants would exist and you could have sex with angels to create more giants. This is the world I want to live in as Angels have tight booties. Genesis 6:1-4
Ethiopia would be in Mesopotamia, not Africa and it would share borders with Iraq, Kuwait, Turkey and perhaps Iran and Syria. We would therefore be screwing up Ethiopia right now. Genesis 2:13
It would be impossible for an uncircumcised man to step foot into Jerusalem, or at least get laid in Jerusalem. Isaiah 52:1
You could sell your daughters according to God. Exodus 12:7
You couldn't touch a woman on her period. Leviticus 15:19-24
You could have slaves. Southerners already tried this route. Leviticus 25:24
You could stone your children if they disrespected you...This was not an option. Deuteronomy 21:18-21
You would go to homosexual hell for eating shell fish as they are both abominations. The Bible doesn't describe levels of abomination so they are both just as evil as the other. Leviticus 11:10
Israel would have always been occupied by Jews and they would have always been at peace. Well, they were close on this one. 2 Samuel 7:10-11, 1 Chronicles 17:9-10
So my question to the fundamentalists is if all these things cannot be taken lieterally, can we take anything else the Bible says and apply it to literal interpretation? If so, why?
Since there are people who believe that non-believers should be killed, that homosexuality is an abomination,that the Earth is as old as the Bible says it is and that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to Church every Sunday; here is how absurd the world would be if it was as it is written in the Bible.
The Earth would be flat and square, Columbus would be a heretic and would still be floating around in space and I would get mail on Columbus day. Matthew 4:8, Revelations 7:1, Isaiah 11:12
The Sun would Revolve around the Earth. Joshua 10:13
The Earth would therefore be stationary. 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalms 104:5
The Earth would rest on pillars, not Atlas. 1 Samuel 2:8
The stars would be tiny lights that could be thrown around by dragons. And by the way, there would be dragons. Revelations 12:4, Revelations 6:13, Jeremiah 51:37
Heaven would be a few hundred feet in the sky, when you got on an airplane, that would be heaven, sometimes heaven has bad food and crashes. Genesis 11:4-6
The tallest mountains would only be 20 feet (15 cubits) high. No one would care about Colorado. Genesis 7:20
There would be extra light all day and night long other than the Sun, Moon and stars. Genesis 1:3. (The Sun Moon and stars were created on the fourth day after he created light)
Days would have no basis of measurement or predictable lengths as they clearly don't need the Sun to determine what is a full day. Genesis 1:5
Mustard seeds would come from trees instead of plants and their seeds would be the smallest in the world and would hopefully taste better. Matthew 13:31
When you ate too much, the food would come out of your nose. Numbers 11:20
Rods could be turned into serpents by simply throwing them on the ground. Alice Cooper wouldn't seem as cool. Exodus 7:9-11
Whales would not be mammals, they would have gills and lay eggs. Jonah 1:17
Insects would have 4 legs instead of 6. Leviticus 11:20-21
Camels would not have split hooves, perhaps toes. We would have to come up with a new term to describe "camel toe". Leviticus 11:4, Deuteronomy 14:7
Bats would not be mammals, they would be birds and would lay eggs and poop on your car. Leviticus 11:20
Rabbits would chew their cud and have hooves. Leviticus 11:6
Snakes would talk and eat dirt. Genesis 3:1-14
Donkeys could speak but probably wouldn't eat dirt.. Numbers 22:28-30
Tornados would only kill wicked people not Bible belters in their trailer parks. Jeremiah 30:23
Sinners could make rivers go dry.You wouldn't want to mess with a sinner. Psalms 107:33-35
Sinners could also cause earth quakes just like the gays in San Francisco. Psalms 18:7, Isaiah 13:13
Epilepsy and other diseases could be cured with an exorcism. Matthew 12:22, Matthew 9:32, Mark 5
Doctors would not be needed to cure an illness as all you would have to do is pray. James 5:14-15
The census described at the time of Jesus' birth would have been moved up 10 years earlier than what was described in Roman and Jewish historical texts. Luke 2:1
Evolution would have occurred or perhaps divine intervention from other gods, to create the other people of the world described by Genesis 4:15-18.
Giants would exist and you could have sex with angels to create more giants. This is the world I want to live in as Angels have tight booties. Genesis 6:1-4
Ethiopia would be in Mesopotamia, not Africa and it would share borders with Iraq, Kuwait, Turkey and perhaps Iran and Syria. We would therefore be screwing up Ethiopia right now. Genesis 2:13
It would be impossible for an uncircumcised man to step foot into Jerusalem, or at least get laid in Jerusalem. Isaiah 52:1
You could sell your daughters according to God. Exodus 12:7
You couldn't touch a woman on her period. Leviticus 15:19-24
You could have slaves. Southerners already tried this route. Leviticus 25:24
You could stone your children if they disrespected you...This was not an option. Deuteronomy 21:18-21
You would go to homosexual hell for eating shell fish as they are both abominations. The Bible doesn't describe levels of abomination so they are both just as evil as the other. Leviticus 11:10
Israel would have always been occupied by Jews and they would have always been at peace. Well, they were close on this one. 2 Samuel 7:10-11, 1 Chronicles 17:9-10
So my question to the fundamentalists is if all these things cannot be taken lieterally, can we take anything else the Bible says and apply it to literal interpretation? If so, why?
Monday, March 10, 2008
Creationist Science Fair
Umm, apparently a creationist science fair was held a couple of years ago and this is the link to the results:
http://www.objectiveministries.org/creation/sciencefair.html
Ok, to be honest, I'm not really sure if this is a joke or if it is indeed a real "organization". I haven't seen any punch lines anywhere and by all accounts, these people are serious as a heart attack. I also must note that this science fair took place back in 2001 and it is possible that they have "evolved" past this type of child neglect.
Anyway, this organization actually held a Creationist Science Fair which was open of course to home schooled kids and other kids grade 1-12 who attended private Christian schools and weren't taught the nonsense that man evolved from lower forms of life but rather the rational theory that we were created from dust and that women, our servants, were created from a man's rib.
Without further ado, the awards go to these future Creation Museum janitors:
Elementary School Level: (as if they actually have grades in home schools)
1st Place: Place: "My Uncle Is a Man Named Steve (Not a Monkey)"
Cassidy Turnbull (grade 5) presented her uncle, Steve. She also showed photographs of monkeys and invited fairgoers to note the differences between her uncle and the monkeys. She tried to feed her uncle bananas, but he declined to eat them. Cassidy has conclusively shown that her uncle is no monkey.
Look out Einstein, the Scientific Method is in full effect here. Let's see, she had:
A. A hypotheses which was, "My uncle Steve is NO monkey". Ok, not grammatically correct but she is a home schooled so we will let it slide but it is a hypothesis none the less.
B. She has empirical evidence; Steve has no tail, doesn't fling his poop (at least he didn't in the experiment) and doesn't appear to be a monkey to which I have to agree. Perhaps she is on to something.
C. She has conducted an experiment with measurable evidence; every time she threw a banana at him, the pile of bananas got higher as he was not eating them. Since monkeys eat bananas and Steve isn't eating the bananas, she has proven two things:
1. Uncle Steve is no monkey.
2. Any thing or anyone who eats a banana is a monkey.
Although the evidence is still out with regards to the banana eaters, I would say she has successfully completed this assignment and gets a C+. Of course this doesn't prove that man and apes don't share a common ancestor, but it does prove her hypothesis that her uncle Steve is no monkey. C+
2nd Place: "Pine Cones Are Complicated"
David Block and Trevor Murry (grades 4) showed how specifically complicated pine cones are and how they reveal God's design in nature.
I never really thought of pine cones as being all that complicated. But if they are complicated my question is why? If God wanted more trees, why doesn't he just wave his magic wand and create new ones like he did in the Garden of Eden? Why should a tree go through the effort of producing male and female pine cones, one containing the seed and the other creating the pollen, and waiting for the wind or birds, insects and other animals in order to propagate its species? Now, if they wanted to say that complex compounds can't come from simpler ones that would be one thing but I would then show them a snow flake and the experiment would have failed anyway.
Sorry David and Trevor, no scientific method applied here, you fail. It's why you didn't get first place. F
Middle School Level:
1st Place: "Life Doesn't Come From Non-Life"
Patricia Lewis (grade 8) did an experiment to see if life can evolve from non-life. Patricia placed all the non-living ingredients of life - carbon (a charcoal briquet), purified water, and assorted minerals (a multi-vitamin) - into a sealed glass jar. The jar was left undisturbed, being exposed only to sunlight, for three weeks. (Patricia also prayed to God not to do anything miraculous during the course of the experiment, so as not to disqualify the findings.) No life evolved. This shows that life cannot come from non-life through natural processes.
Oops, she forgot Nitrogen / Ammonia. No big deal, probably wouldn't have made a difference. And of course I assume she figured she could just obtain Nitrogen from the air.
That being said, it's funny you should bring up that topic. Last weekend I sanitized my bathtub scrubbing it thoroughly with bleach and iodine. I was not raising any creatures in there or planting any seeds throughout the week but today I discovered life and it apparently came from non-life. I now have mold, a type of living fungus, in my bathtub. I think you may have just tried too hard, or not. The point is, and I'm not saying this is the case but how does she know life didn't occur? Did she examine it with a microscope or did she just look in the jar and conclude that since she didn't see any fish or people that there was no new life created?
Of course I am ignoring the obvious fact that three weeks is hardly enough time for evolution to occur. Now, if she had a control subject which was left alone for say, 2 billion years in a very hot and sterile environment, free of all other living creatures, like the Miller-Urey experiment which did derive organic compounds from inorganic compounds, her experiment would have held more water. She may have noticed that the Garden of Eden was also absent from her jar. She has also "proved" that God doesn't exist because after all, life can't appear out of nothingness and therefore a higher complex being such as God couldn't have possibly just spontaneously appeared out of nothingness. For that she would receive a B.
But alas, her "scientific" experiment is equivalent to me hypothesizing that mold doesn't form on bread by opening a bag of bread, leaving the room for 5 minutes and finding no mold on the bread upon returning.
For this, she gets a D.
2nd Place: "Women Were Designed For Homemaking"
Jonathan Goode (grade 7) applied findings from many fields of science to support his conclusion that God designed women for homemaking: physics shows that women have a lower center of gravity than men, making them more suited to carrying groceries and laundry baskets; biology shows that women were designed to carry un-born babies in their wombs and to feed born babies milk, making them the natural choice for child rearing; social sciences show that the wages for women workers are lower than for normal workers, meaning that they are unable to work as well and thus earn equal pay; and exegetics shows that God created Eve as a companion for Adam, not as a co-worker.
This is by far the best one. This is the most scientific part of the whole thing: "social sciences show that the wages for women workers are lower than for normal workers, meaning that they are unable to work as well and thus earn equal pay; and exegetics shows that God created Eve as a companion for Adam, not as a co-worker." I am assuming that this future Libertarian was raised by his father who is possibly a minister and was also the judge of this contest. I am led to believe the only effort and scientific research put into this hypothesis was a couple episodes of Archie Bunker. He also failed to realize that Adam and Eve didn't have homes or laundry or groceries which I guess means women were obsolete from the get go.
In disputing evolution he is using social Darwinism which is just the opposite of what he's trying to accomplish.
By applying Darwinism to this non scientific study, he also receives an F.
High School Level:
1st Place: "Using Prayer To Micro evolve Latent Antibiotic Resistance In Bacteria"
Eileen Hyde and Lynda Morgan (grades 10 & 11) did a project showing how the power of prayer can unlock the latent genes in bacteria, allowing them to microevolve antibiotic resistance. Escherichia coli bacteria cultured in agar filled petri dishes were subjected to the antibiotics tetracycline and chlorotetracycline. The bacteria cultures were divided into two groups, one group (A) received prayer while the other (B) didn't. The prayer was as follows: "Dear Lord, please allow the bacteria in Group A to unlock the antibiotic-resistant genes that you saw fit to give them at the time of Creation. Amen." The process was repeated for five generations, with the prayer being given at the start of each generation. In the end, Group A was significantly more resistant than Group B to both antibiotics.
But both created antibiotic resistance? And is "significant" a new scientific unit of measure? Exactly how much is "significantly"? Did they also pray that the control subject develop a little bit of resistance? I get it, its like the teams in the NCAA final 4, one side prays that God will help them make the last second 3 pointer but the other side didn't so they are the ones who always loose. I just wonder why teams like Ozark Christian College don't win the NCAA tournament every year if prayer really works. You know what else ends up working a majority of the time, placebos.
Let me get this straight, the antibiotic strep strain was created by prayer? The poisonous newt developed higher levels of poison to ward off snakes who have become immune to its previous levels of poison through prayer? So was the newt praying to become more toxic or were the more toxic ones able to live long and thus produce more, and more toxic offspring? And what else I find interesting is that they are saying organisms can evolve assuming prayer and God is involved. So does that mean God set evolution into motion but Moses just dropped that tablet on the way to slaughter all the Canaanites and that's why it's not in the Bible?
Some scientific method applied here. We have a control group and the findings weren't based on the conclusions of a single experiment. C-
2nd Place: "Maximal Packing Of Rodentia Kinds: A Feasibility Study"
Jason Spinter's (grade 12) project was to show the feasibility of Noah's Ark using a Rodentia research model (made of a mixture of hamsters and gerbils) as a representative of diluvian life forms. The Rodentia were placed in a cage with dimensions proportional to a section of the Ark. The number of Rodentia used (58) was calculated using available Creation Science research and was based on the median animal size and their volumetric distribution in the Ark. The cage was also fitted with wooden dowels inserted at regular intervals through the cage walls, forming platforms which provided support for the Rodentia. Although there was little room left in the cage, all Rodentia were able to move just enough to ward off muscle atrophy. Food pellets and water were delivered to sub-surface Rodentia via plastic drinking straws inserted into the Rodentia-mass, which also served to allow internal air flow. Once a day, the cage was sprayed with water to cleanse any built-up waste. Additionally, the cage was suspended on bungee cords to simulate the rocking motion of a ship. The study lasted 30 days and 30 nights, with all Rodentia surviving at least long enough afterwards to allow for reproduction. These findings strongly suggest that Noah's Ark could hold and support representatives of all antediluvian animal kinds for the duration of the Flood and subsequent repopulation of the Earth.
1. If Noah had only taken rodents on board the Ark.
2. If the kids would have continued the experiment for another 300 days or so.
3. If Noah had plastic straws and "food pellets"
http://www.objectiveministries.org/creation/sciencefair.html
Ok, to be honest, I'm not really sure if this is a joke or if it is indeed a real "organization". I haven't seen any punch lines anywhere and by all accounts, these people are serious as a heart attack. I also must note that this science fair took place back in 2001 and it is possible that they have "evolved" past this type of child neglect.
Anyway, this organization actually held a Creationist Science Fair which was open of course to home schooled kids and other kids grade 1-12 who attended private Christian schools and weren't taught the nonsense that man evolved from lower forms of life but rather the rational theory that we were created from dust and that women, our servants, were created from a man's rib.
Without further ado, the awards go to these future Creation Museum janitors:
Elementary School Level: (as if they actually have grades in home schools)
1st Place: Place: "My Uncle Is a Man Named Steve (Not a Monkey)"
Cassidy Turnbull (grade 5) presented her uncle, Steve. She also showed photographs of monkeys and invited fairgoers to note the differences between her uncle and the monkeys. She tried to feed her uncle bananas, but he declined to eat them. Cassidy has conclusively shown that her uncle is no monkey.
Look out Einstein, the Scientific Method is in full effect here. Let's see, she had:
A. A hypotheses which was, "My uncle Steve is NO monkey". Ok, not grammatically correct but she is a home schooled so we will let it slide but it is a hypothesis none the less.
B. She has empirical evidence; Steve has no tail, doesn't fling his poop (at least he didn't in the experiment) and doesn't appear to be a monkey to which I have to agree. Perhaps she is on to something.
C. She has conducted an experiment with measurable evidence; every time she threw a banana at him, the pile of bananas got higher as he was not eating them. Since monkeys eat bananas and Steve isn't eating the bananas, she has proven two things:
1. Uncle Steve is no monkey.
2. Any thing or anyone who eats a banana is a monkey.
Although the evidence is still out with regards to the banana eaters, I would say she has successfully completed this assignment and gets a C+. Of course this doesn't prove that man and apes don't share a common ancestor, but it does prove her hypothesis that her uncle Steve is no monkey. C+
2nd Place: "Pine Cones Are Complicated"
David Block and Trevor Murry (grades 4) showed how specifically complicated pine cones are and how they reveal God's design in nature.
I never really thought of pine cones as being all that complicated. But if they are complicated my question is why? If God wanted more trees, why doesn't he just wave his magic wand and create new ones like he did in the Garden of Eden? Why should a tree go through the effort of producing male and female pine cones, one containing the seed and the other creating the pollen, and waiting for the wind or birds, insects and other animals in order to propagate its species? Now, if they wanted to say that complex compounds can't come from simpler ones that would be one thing but I would then show them a snow flake and the experiment would have failed anyway.
Sorry David and Trevor, no scientific method applied here, you fail. It's why you didn't get first place. F
Middle School Level:
1st Place: "Life Doesn't Come From Non-Life"
Patricia Lewis (grade 8) did an experiment to see if life can evolve from non-life. Patricia placed all the non-living ingredients of life - carbon (a charcoal briquet), purified water, and assorted minerals (a multi-vitamin) - into a sealed glass jar. The jar was left undisturbed, being exposed only to sunlight, for three weeks. (Patricia also prayed to God not to do anything miraculous during the course of the experiment, so as not to disqualify the findings.) No life evolved. This shows that life cannot come from non-life through natural processes.
Oops, she forgot Nitrogen / Ammonia. No big deal, probably wouldn't have made a difference. And of course I assume she figured she could just obtain Nitrogen from the air.
That being said, it's funny you should bring up that topic. Last weekend I sanitized my bathtub scrubbing it thoroughly with bleach and iodine. I was not raising any creatures in there or planting any seeds throughout the week but today I discovered life and it apparently came from non-life. I now have mold, a type of living fungus, in my bathtub. I think you may have just tried too hard, or not. The point is, and I'm not saying this is the case but how does she know life didn't occur? Did she examine it with a microscope or did she just look in the jar and conclude that since she didn't see any fish or people that there was no new life created?
Of course I am ignoring the obvious fact that three weeks is hardly enough time for evolution to occur. Now, if she had a control subject which was left alone for say, 2 billion years in a very hot and sterile environment, free of all other living creatures, like the Miller-Urey experiment which did derive organic compounds from inorganic compounds, her experiment would have held more water. She may have noticed that the Garden of Eden was also absent from her jar. She has also "proved" that God doesn't exist because after all, life can't appear out of nothingness and therefore a higher complex being such as God couldn't have possibly just spontaneously appeared out of nothingness. For that she would receive a B.
But alas, her "scientific" experiment is equivalent to me hypothesizing that mold doesn't form on bread by opening a bag of bread, leaving the room for 5 minutes and finding no mold on the bread upon returning.
For this, she gets a D.
2nd Place: "Women Were Designed For Homemaking"
Jonathan Goode (grade 7) applied findings from many fields of science to support his conclusion that God designed women for homemaking: physics shows that women have a lower center of gravity than men, making them more suited to carrying groceries and laundry baskets; biology shows that women were designed to carry un-born babies in their wombs and to feed born babies milk, making them the natural choice for child rearing; social sciences show that the wages for women workers are lower than for normal workers, meaning that they are unable to work as well and thus earn equal pay; and exegetics shows that God created Eve as a companion for Adam, not as a co-worker.
This is by far the best one. This is the most scientific part of the whole thing: "social sciences show that the wages for women workers are lower than for normal workers, meaning that they are unable to work as well and thus earn equal pay; and exegetics shows that God created Eve as a companion for Adam, not as a co-worker." I am assuming that this future Libertarian was raised by his father who is possibly a minister and was also the judge of this contest. I am led to believe the only effort and scientific research put into this hypothesis was a couple episodes of Archie Bunker. He also failed to realize that Adam and Eve didn't have homes or laundry or groceries which I guess means women were obsolete from the get go.
In disputing evolution he is using social Darwinism which is just the opposite of what he's trying to accomplish.
By applying Darwinism to this non scientific study, he also receives an F.
High School Level:
1st Place: "Using Prayer To Micro evolve Latent Antibiotic Resistance In Bacteria"
Eileen Hyde and Lynda Morgan (grades 10 & 11) did a project showing how the power of prayer can unlock the latent genes in bacteria, allowing them to microevolve antibiotic resistance. Escherichia coli bacteria cultured in agar filled petri dishes were subjected to the antibiotics tetracycline and chlorotetracycline. The bacteria cultures were divided into two groups, one group (A) received prayer while the other (B) didn't. The prayer was as follows: "Dear Lord, please allow the bacteria in Group A to unlock the antibiotic-resistant genes that you saw fit to give them at the time of Creation. Amen." The process was repeated for five generations, with the prayer being given at the start of each generation. In the end, Group A was significantly more resistant than Group B to both antibiotics.
But both created antibiotic resistance? And is "significant" a new scientific unit of measure? Exactly how much is "significantly"? Did they also pray that the control subject develop a little bit of resistance? I get it, its like the teams in the NCAA final 4, one side prays that God will help them make the last second 3 pointer but the other side didn't so they are the ones who always loose. I just wonder why teams like Ozark Christian College don't win the NCAA tournament every year if prayer really works. You know what else ends up working a majority of the time, placebos.
Let me get this straight, the antibiotic strep strain was created by prayer? The poisonous newt developed higher levels of poison to ward off snakes who have become immune to its previous levels of poison through prayer? So was the newt praying to become more toxic or were the more toxic ones able to live long and thus produce more, and more toxic offspring? And what else I find interesting is that they are saying organisms can evolve assuming prayer and God is involved. So does that mean God set evolution into motion but Moses just dropped that tablet on the way to slaughter all the Canaanites and that's why it's not in the Bible?
Some scientific method applied here. We have a control group and the findings weren't based on the conclusions of a single experiment. C-
2nd Place: "Maximal Packing Of Rodentia Kinds: A Feasibility Study"
Jason Spinter's (grade 12) project was to show the feasibility of Noah's Ark using a Rodentia research model (made of a mixture of hamsters and gerbils) as a representative of diluvian life forms. The Rodentia were placed in a cage with dimensions proportional to a section of the Ark. The number of Rodentia used (58) was calculated using available Creation Science research and was based on the median animal size and their volumetric distribution in the Ark. The cage was also fitted with wooden dowels inserted at regular intervals through the cage walls, forming platforms which provided support for the Rodentia. Although there was little room left in the cage, all Rodentia were able to move just enough to ward off muscle atrophy. Food pellets and water were delivered to sub-surface Rodentia via plastic drinking straws inserted into the Rodentia-mass, which also served to allow internal air flow. Once a day, the cage was sprayed with water to cleanse any built-up waste. Additionally, the cage was suspended on bungee cords to simulate the rocking motion of a ship. The study lasted 30 days and 30 nights, with all Rodentia surviving at least long enough afterwards to allow for reproduction. These findings strongly suggest that Noah's Ark could hold and support representatives of all antediluvian animal kinds for the duration of the Flood and subsequent repopulation of the Earth.
Wow, picking one of the smallest yet fastest reproducing and most populous mammals on Earth was a bold statement. Next time, try the same experiment with Elephants and see what happens.
I noticed they conducted this experiment for 30 days and night and the main problem with that was that Noah and the Animals were in the Ark much longer than 30 days. In fact, the rains lasted 40 days and nights yet the entire Earth was under water for over 150 days because that's how long it took before the Ark rested on the peak of Mt. Ararat. It then rested on Mt. Ararat for several months. All together Noah, his family, the Brontosauruses, Elephants, Kangaroos, Dodo Birds, Bison and T-Rex's were on the ark for over a year. Here is what it would have taken for this experiment to be valid:1. If Noah had only taken rodents on board the Ark.
2. If the kids would have continued the experiment for another 300 days or so.
3. If Noah had plastic straws and "food pellets"
A better experiment would have been to show how Noah got the Komodo dragon back to Indonesia or the Panda back to China without leaving his home in Turkey. Or better yet, how flood waters of only 15 cubits (22 feet) could cover mountains.
There was an attempt at an actual experiment but with the poor job of recreating the actual conditions of the situation they were emulating, they get a D-.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
The Tax Myth
I am sure you have or will see this chain letter at some point in your life. Its a dumbed down version of how the US tax system supposedly works. Here is the way most people saw it:
Understanding the Tax System:
This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this.
The first four men -- the poorest -- would pay nothing;
The fifth would pay $1:
the sixth would pay $3;
the seventh $7;
the eighth $12;
The ninth $18. >
The tenth man -- the richest -- would pay $59.
That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement -- until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. "So dinner for the ten only cost $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six -- the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fairshare?" The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being *paid* to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so the fifth man paid nothing,
the sixth pitched in $2,
the seventh paid $5,
the eighth paid $9,
the ninth paid $12,
leaving the tenth Man with a of $52 instead of his earlier $59.
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They're $52 short! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.
Here are the problems with this low brow nonsense:
1.The top tax rate is now only 35%, not 59%
2. The guy who paid 59 % of the meal was eating lobster and drinking Chimay, the 4 guys who ate for free had PBR's and a burrito, I'm not saying that isn’t still a good deal but we all know that looking at what everyone paid, the free guys weren’t eating the same stuff as the guy paying $59.
3. The poor guys in this story still pay taxes; They pay sales taxes, gas taxes, cigarette taxes, liquor, real estate(if they own it), phone tax, utility taxes, etc.
4. During WW11 and through the Korean War and into the 60s, the top tax rate was over 90% and the economy didn't collapse (just the opposite), rich people didn't quit the work force and retire or move to Mexico. To say we can't tax rich people because they will stop working or leave the country is ridiculous. Of course, one of the reasons why personal income taxes are so high is because corporations, the ones the 10th guy works for, incorporates their businesses in the UAE and the Cayman Islands. These situations came about when we started taxing corporations less, not more and of course when Reagan made it easier to companies to exploit tax loop holes.
5. The guy who paid 59% also probably paid the owner off under the table, or "invested" in the restaurant (perhaps similar to donating to an election campaign) and therefore expected something in return when he ate at the restaurant which was one of the reasons he got the 20% discount in the first place. Sure other people benefited as well, but who benefited the most?
6. The restaurant who gave that discount probably had a good year and or had a decrease in price of expenses and therefore made a wise decision to reward faithful customers when they could afford to. Due to war and military contractors, no costs have gone down for the US. In fact we have one of the largest deficits in history. Last time we were spending money on a war that lasted for over 3 years that’s when the top 1% paid a 91% tax rate. We actually won those wars.
7. The aforementioned Deficit weakens the value of the US dollar thus making imports from Mexico and other countries more expensive. That expensive produce, the electronics, auto parts etc. don’t affect the bottom line of rich people who buy them (besides maybe French and Italian wines and Bently's) but add up to a family that is scraping by.
8. Tax cuts, or at least Republican tax cuts, don't work like they do in this story. There isn't a number out there which is then divided between us all. First of all, the story should have started with the owner saying I am going to give you a percentage discount, not a dollar amount discount. In that case, if he was using Bush's tax model the middle guys would get a 4% decline (as opposed to a 100% decline) in their price while the richest guy would get a 19% decline in his price instead of the 12% described in the story. That's how taxes really work, it's not an equal decline in everyone's taxes like the story would suggest. The ones who make and paid the most not only save the most money because its a larger number but they also get a bigger percentage discount than the person trying to figure out how to pay for their kids college. That is what isn't fair about the Bush tax cuts, not only is it not an equal dollar amount (which is fine) but it's not even an equal percentage decrease.
9. That being said, the Bush tax cuts don't really work like that either. The story would be more accurate by saying the guy who pays more gets more in tax cut savings but not only that, the owner would have also given the top payer (or anyone who drives a luxury car for instance) free valet parking and desert while the other 9 guys still had to pay for parking and then walk to the rest of the way to the restaurant and only received a mint at the end. Oh, and in order to give the rich guy free valet service, the owner had to take the forks and eating utensils from away from the 4 poorest guys and served their dinners on dirty plates and wouldn't give them a doggy bag for leftovers for their children.
10. Besides, if the 10th guy left, the bill wouldn't be the same for 9 guys eating burritos as it would for 10 guys. In fact, without his lobster, Valet parking, expectations, etc., the bill would be much lower.
Understanding the Tax System:
This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this.
The first four men -- the poorest -- would pay nothing;
The fifth would pay $1:
the sixth would pay $3;
the seventh $7;
the eighth $12;
The ninth $18. >
The tenth man -- the richest -- would pay $59.
That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement -- until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. "So dinner for the ten only cost $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six -- the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fairshare?" The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being *paid* to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so the fifth man paid nothing,
the sixth pitched in $2,
the seventh paid $5,
the eighth paid $9,
the ninth paid $12,
leaving the tenth Man with a of $52 instead of his earlier $59.
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They're $52 short! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.
Here are the problems with this low brow nonsense:
1.The top tax rate is now only 35%, not 59%
2. The guy who paid 59 % of the meal was eating lobster and drinking Chimay, the 4 guys who ate for free had PBR's and a burrito, I'm not saying that isn’t still a good deal but we all know that looking at what everyone paid, the free guys weren’t eating the same stuff as the guy paying $59.
3. The poor guys in this story still pay taxes; They pay sales taxes, gas taxes, cigarette taxes, liquor, real estate(if they own it), phone tax, utility taxes, etc.
4. During WW11 and through the Korean War and into the 60s, the top tax rate was over 90% and the economy didn't collapse (just the opposite), rich people didn't quit the work force and retire or move to Mexico. To say we can't tax rich people because they will stop working or leave the country is ridiculous. Of course, one of the reasons why personal income taxes are so high is because corporations, the ones the 10th guy works for, incorporates their businesses in the UAE and the Cayman Islands. These situations came about when we started taxing corporations less, not more and of course when Reagan made it easier to companies to exploit tax loop holes.
5. The guy who paid 59% also probably paid the owner off under the table, or "invested" in the restaurant (perhaps similar to donating to an election campaign) and therefore expected something in return when he ate at the restaurant which was one of the reasons he got the 20% discount in the first place. Sure other people benefited as well, but who benefited the most?
6. The restaurant who gave that discount probably had a good year and or had a decrease in price of expenses and therefore made a wise decision to reward faithful customers when they could afford to. Due to war and military contractors, no costs have gone down for the US. In fact we have one of the largest deficits in history. Last time we were spending money on a war that lasted for over 3 years that’s when the top 1% paid a 91% tax rate. We actually won those wars.
7. The aforementioned Deficit weakens the value of the US dollar thus making imports from Mexico and other countries more expensive. That expensive produce, the electronics, auto parts etc. don’t affect the bottom line of rich people who buy them (besides maybe French and Italian wines and Bently's) but add up to a family that is scraping by.
8. Tax cuts, or at least Republican tax cuts, don't work like they do in this story. There isn't a number out there which is then divided between us all. First of all, the story should have started with the owner saying I am going to give you a percentage discount, not a dollar amount discount. In that case, if he was using Bush's tax model the middle guys would get a 4% decline (as opposed to a 100% decline) in their price while the richest guy would get a 19% decline in his price instead of the 12% described in the story. That's how taxes really work, it's not an equal decline in everyone's taxes like the story would suggest. The ones who make and paid the most not only save the most money because its a larger number but they also get a bigger percentage discount than the person trying to figure out how to pay for their kids college. That is what isn't fair about the Bush tax cuts, not only is it not an equal dollar amount (which is fine) but it's not even an equal percentage decrease.
9. That being said, the Bush tax cuts don't really work like that either. The story would be more accurate by saying the guy who pays more gets more in tax cut savings but not only that, the owner would have also given the top payer (or anyone who drives a luxury car for instance) free valet parking and desert while the other 9 guys still had to pay for parking and then walk to the rest of the way to the restaurant and only received a mint at the end. Oh, and in order to give the rich guy free valet service, the owner had to take the forks and eating utensils from away from the 4 poorest guys and served their dinners on dirty plates and wouldn't give them a doggy bag for leftovers for their children.
10. Besides, if the 10th guy left, the bill wouldn't be the same for 9 guys eating burritos as it would for 10 guys. In fact, without his lobster, Valet parking, expectations, etc., the bill would be much lower.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Top Ten Signs You Are A Fundamentalist Christian
I didn't write this but found it rather amusing:
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
The Reagan Myth
If you, as I have over the past few months, watched any of the Republican debates or heard any of those candidates speeches, you are probably under the impression that former President Ronald Reagan must have been a 9 foot tall, floating Messiah with a 13" man pump who shit lumps of gold and single handedly took down the Soviet Union, eliminated taxes, forced our enemies into submission and led the US to it's economic pinnacle never to be matched again (until Clinton came into office). That is if you didn't actually live in the eighties and or you have a brain. All I keep hearing Romney and McCain talk about, and the only thing that puts more wood in the pants of the Republican base than water boarding people who don't pray in school, is how they are going to lead us back to the glory years of Reagan. WWRD (What Would Reagan DO), many of them say when they talk about Iraq, keeping the Bush tax cuts in place and national security. As many people have pointed out, Reagan wasn't really all that Reaganesque and where they are getting this load of monkey feces is beyond me.
Here are the issues and here was Reagan's stance:
Taxes: In 1982, the Reagan Whitehouse rescinded most of the Kemper Roth tax cuts of 1981 making it the largest peace time tax increase in America's history. That tax increase, TEFRA, raised taxes 37.5 billion dollars per year and included increases on Cigarette taxes, Federal Unemplyment Taxes on businesses and tripled telephone service taxes. In 1982 he also raised the gasoline tax. In 1983, Social Security taxes (an entitlement) were raised and there were more tax increases in 1984, 85, 86 and 1987.
On War and withdrawal of troops: In 1984,bowing to the demands of the Shi'a Muslim group Amal, Reagan withdrew the troops who had been stationed in Lebanon for over a year, approximately 4 months after the Marine barracks in Lebanon were bombed. That was the highest single day death toll for the American Military since the 1st day of the Tet Offensive in 1968.
On Illegal Immigration: In 1986, The Reagan Administration granted amnesty to 2.7 million illegal immigrants.
On National Security and negotiating with the enemy/terrorists: In 1987, it was discovered that Reagan was selling and trading arms to Iran, a country who just 8 years prior, took 66 Americans hostage and held them for 2 years. This was also just 4 years after the Marine barrack bombing in Lebanon which Iran was suspected to be involved with.
Let's also not forget his funding of the mujahedeen/Taliban in Afghanistan and support of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and funding of the genocidal rebels in Nicaragua.
On The Federal Government overextending its powers: In 1981, Reagan fired over 11,000 air traffic controllers who were striking for safer and better working conditions.
During the 80s arrests for all crimes went up 28% but, arrests for drug offenses rose 126%. From 1980 to 1990 the number of people in American prisons doubled. That doesn't sound like the work of a smaller, less powerful, less intrusive government.
On small government: By the end of Reagans last term military spending was 43% HIGHER than it was at the height of the Vietnam War...That doesn't make for a smaller government that makes for a bigger, stronger central government.
On fiscal responsibility and the economy:
A. The national debt under Reagan tripled.
B. Deregulation of Savings and Loans led to the largest and costliest venture in public misfeasance and larceny of all time.
C. The S&L bailout was subsidized by the Federal Government to the tune of 124.6 Billion dollars and may have encouraged lenders to make high risk, sub-prime loans which affect the housing crisis of today thus exposing the dangers of unregulated capitalism.
On "Trickle Down" wealth: Under Reagan, the number of families living under the poverty line increased by 1/3
On Compassionate Conservatism: The AIDS epidimic started in 1981. Six years later, Ronald Reagan mentions AIDS in public for the first time while talking about how the government should not provide sex education information by saying: "How that information is used must be up to schools and parents, not government. But let's be honest with ourselves, AIDS information can not be what some call 'value neutral.' After all, when it comes to preventing AIDS, don't medicine and morality teach the same lessons." By 1989 there had been over 70,000 AIDS deaths. He was once quoted as saying: "Maybe the Lord brought down this plague," because "illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments."
Other Reagan quotes:
"Unemployment insurance is a pre-paid vacation for freeloaders."
"...a faceless mass, waiting for handouts", when referring to Medicaid recipients.
From what I can tell, if Reagan were running for office today, he would be vilified even more than McCain. At least McCain wouldn't cut and run like Reagan did in Lebanon.
Here are the issues and here was Reagan's stance:
Taxes: In 1982, the Reagan Whitehouse rescinded most of the Kemper Roth tax cuts of 1981 making it the largest peace time tax increase in America's history. That tax increase, TEFRA, raised taxes 37.5 billion dollars per year and included increases on Cigarette taxes, Federal Unemplyment Taxes on businesses and tripled telephone service taxes. In 1982 he also raised the gasoline tax. In 1983, Social Security taxes (an entitlement) were raised and there were more tax increases in 1984, 85, 86 and 1987.
On War and withdrawal of troops: In 1984,bowing to the demands of the Shi'a Muslim group Amal, Reagan withdrew the troops who had been stationed in Lebanon for over a year, approximately 4 months after the Marine barracks in Lebanon were bombed. That was the highest single day death toll for the American Military since the 1st day of the Tet Offensive in 1968.
On Illegal Immigration: In 1986, The Reagan Administration granted amnesty to 2.7 million illegal immigrants.
On National Security and negotiating with the enemy/terrorists: In 1987, it was discovered that Reagan was selling and trading arms to Iran, a country who just 8 years prior, took 66 Americans hostage and held them for 2 years. This was also just 4 years after the Marine barrack bombing in Lebanon which Iran was suspected to be involved with.
Let's also not forget his funding of the mujahedeen/Taliban in Afghanistan and support of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and funding of the genocidal rebels in Nicaragua.
On The Federal Government overextending its powers: In 1981, Reagan fired over 11,000 air traffic controllers who were striking for safer and better working conditions.
During the 80s arrests for all crimes went up 28% but, arrests for drug offenses rose 126%. From 1980 to 1990 the number of people in American prisons doubled. That doesn't sound like the work of a smaller, less powerful, less intrusive government.
On small government: By the end of Reagans last term military spending was 43% HIGHER than it was at the height of the Vietnam War...That doesn't make for a smaller government that makes for a bigger, stronger central government.
On fiscal responsibility and the economy:
A. The national debt under Reagan tripled.
B. Deregulation of Savings and Loans led to the largest and costliest venture in public misfeasance and larceny of all time.
C. The S&L bailout was subsidized by the Federal Government to the tune of 124.6 Billion dollars and may have encouraged lenders to make high risk, sub-prime loans which affect the housing crisis of today thus exposing the dangers of unregulated capitalism.
On "Trickle Down" wealth: Under Reagan, the number of families living under the poverty line increased by 1/3
On Compassionate Conservatism: The AIDS epidimic started in 1981. Six years later, Ronald Reagan mentions AIDS in public for the first time while talking about how the government should not provide sex education information by saying: "How that information is used must be up to schools and parents, not government. But let's be honest with ourselves, AIDS information can not be what some call 'value neutral.' After all, when it comes to preventing AIDS, don't medicine and morality teach the same lessons." By 1989 there had been over 70,000 AIDS deaths. He was once quoted as saying: "Maybe the Lord brought down this plague," because "illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments."
Other Reagan quotes:
"Unemployment insurance is a pre-paid vacation for freeloaders."
"...a faceless mass, waiting for handouts", when referring to Medicaid recipients.
From what I can tell, if Reagan were running for office today, he would be vilified even more than McCain. At least McCain wouldn't cut and run like Reagan did in Lebanon.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Conservatives Don't Like the Flavor of Their Own Medicine
From AOL: Liberal City Takes on Marines
As I am sure everyone has heard, the City of Berkeley California has allowed the organization Code Pink, to commandeer a parking spot once per week in front of a Marines Recruiting center in efforts to protest the Iraq war and keep locals from risking their life in the Marine Corps. The city counsel also sought legal advice on how to oust the recruiting center calling them "uninvited, unwelcome intruders".
This of course has sparked outrage among conservatives and conservative bloggers saying this action prohibits the Marines right of free speech. Of course the Berkeley protesters accuse Marine recruiters of lying to prospects and saying anything to get them to sign on the line which is dotted. Code Pink states they are merely exercising their 1st amendment rights and trying to save the lives of local men and women. Michelle Malkin, Stop The ACLU and every other insignificant blogger with a "support the troops" or bald eagle banner on their site have all started petitions to get the City to allow the Marine's their 1st amendment right to conduct business where they please.
What I am wondering, now that everyone is convinced that the Marine's 1st amendment rights have been violated and a community has no say in which types of organizations can conduct business in that community, is when they will realize what one liberal city is trying to do to a conservative cause, conservatives have been doing to everyone else for years. Is Michelle Malkin now going to sign a petition to get all the protesters spitting on women trying to get a pap smear at Planned Parenthoods to stop protesting and give up their 1st amendment rights? (not that spitting is a first amendment right) Is Michelle Malkin also going to contact the local governments of every dry county in the United States to force them to allow the sell of alcoholic beverages in their communities and allow liquor stores and other establishments to sell liquor or do communities have a right to establish their own standards? Are they also going to fight for the rights of strip clubs to open near elementary schools in any affluent suburban community they wish and operate on Sunday mornings until 8am because hey, anyone can run any type of business anywhere they please, right? Are they also going to petition to allow sex shops, adult bookstores, and porn retailers to do business in places like Mississippi and South Carolina and exercise their 1st amendment rights? Are they also going to petition the protesters of these establishments to not exercise their 1st amendment rights in protesting and create hate filled blogs calling them traitors?
The God-bobs outside of Planned Parenthood (when they aren't bombing them) say they are there to save lives which is exactly what Code Pink and the city of Berkeley would say when they protest a Marines recruiting station. It's not like the city or the protesters wouldn't allow a Marine to set foot in their town, they are just protesting the recruitment and recruitment methods which sends so many bay area residents to their death in a useless, endless war and it's also a way for them to tell the military what they think about it's involvement in Iraq. Sure, their time would be better spent protesting the people who lied and made the decision to send those Marine's to Iraq but after all, why have the Marine's at all if there's no freedom of speech and expression for which to fight?
In otherwords, if you think that a business like a Marines recruitment center has the right to do business where ever they please, no matter the consequences, then you have to also be behind every strip club, porn shop and liquor store who decides to do business in conservative, religious communities. If you say that local communities are free to set their own standards of the type of businesses which will operate in their town then shut the fuck up about Berkeley.
Your morals tell you that granny can't make up her own mind about whether or not to buy a dildo or have a have a glass of wine and their morals tell them that we shouldn't be sending 18 year old kids to their deaths in Iraq. There's no difference!
As I am sure everyone has heard, the City of Berkeley California has allowed the organization Code Pink, to commandeer a parking spot once per week in front of a Marines Recruiting center in efforts to protest the Iraq war and keep locals from risking their life in the Marine Corps. The city counsel also sought legal advice on how to oust the recruiting center calling them "uninvited, unwelcome intruders".
This of course has sparked outrage among conservatives and conservative bloggers saying this action prohibits the Marines right of free speech. Of course the Berkeley protesters accuse Marine recruiters of lying to prospects and saying anything to get them to sign on the line which is dotted. Code Pink states they are merely exercising their 1st amendment rights and trying to save the lives of local men and women. Michelle Malkin, Stop The ACLU and every other insignificant blogger with a "support the troops" or bald eagle banner on their site have all started petitions to get the City to allow the Marine's their 1st amendment right to conduct business where they please.
What I am wondering, now that everyone is convinced that the Marine's 1st amendment rights have been violated and a community has no say in which types of organizations can conduct business in that community, is when they will realize what one liberal city is trying to do to a conservative cause, conservatives have been doing to everyone else for years. Is Michelle Malkin now going to sign a petition to get all the protesters spitting on women trying to get a pap smear at Planned Parenthoods to stop protesting and give up their 1st amendment rights? (not that spitting is a first amendment right) Is Michelle Malkin also going to contact the local governments of every dry county in the United States to force them to allow the sell of alcoholic beverages in their communities and allow liquor stores and other establishments to sell liquor or do communities have a right to establish their own standards? Are they also going to fight for the rights of strip clubs to open near elementary schools in any affluent suburban community they wish and operate on Sunday mornings until 8am because hey, anyone can run any type of business anywhere they please, right? Are they also going to petition to allow sex shops, adult bookstores, and porn retailers to do business in places like Mississippi and South Carolina and exercise their 1st amendment rights? Are they also going to petition the protesters of these establishments to not exercise their 1st amendment rights in protesting and create hate filled blogs calling them traitors?
The God-bobs outside of Planned Parenthood (when they aren't bombing them) say they are there to save lives which is exactly what Code Pink and the city of Berkeley would say when they protest a Marines recruiting station. It's not like the city or the protesters wouldn't allow a Marine to set foot in their town, they are just protesting the recruitment and recruitment methods which sends so many bay area residents to their death in a useless, endless war and it's also a way for them to tell the military what they think about it's involvement in Iraq. Sure, their time would be better spent protesting the people who lied and made the decision to send those Marine's to Iraq but after all, why have the Marine's at all if there's no freedom of speech and expression for which to fight?
In otherwords, if you think that a business like a Marines recruitment center has the right to do business where ever they please, no matter the consequences, then you have to also be behind every strip club, porn shop and liquor store who decides to do business in conservative, religious communities. If you say that local communities are free to set their own standards of the type of businesses which will operate in their town then shut the fuck up about Berkeley.
Your morals tell you that granny can't make up her own mind about whether or not to buy a dildo or have a have a glass of wine and their morals tell them that we shouldn't be sending 18 year old kids to their deaths in Iraq. There's no difference!
More Sins Committed by Christians Who Think Homosexuality is Wrong
In the book of Leviticus in the old testament of the Bible, Christians have found a passage they believe proves that God forbids homosexuality. I have talked about this before and the same book which condemns homosexuality condones slavery, selling your children, sequestering women on their period, but forbids working on Saturday, men shaving their beards, eating pork, etc. but I have recently found a passage that also makes it a sin to eat shrimp and other shell fish:
Leviticus 11:
10: And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.11: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcasses in abomination.
Deuteronomy 14:
9: These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat. 10: And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.
Later in Deuteronomy it also says that eating eagles are a sin. That's because God knew that the eagle is the symbol of America and God loves America and capitalism but hates all the other countries. That's why we were allowed to kill all the Indians and take their land, it was like the whole "chosen people" and the land of grapes and honey was happening all over again except this time, for Protestants instead of Jews. We were the new chosen people, God made a mistake the first time. Good thing the all perfect being has learned his lesson.
I am sure there will be people protesting Heath Ledgers death and saying that it was God's wrath for making out with Jake Gyllenhaal but wouldn't their time be better spent protesting a Red Lobster? There are far more sinners out there who eat shellfish than there are people who bone other dudes. The law of God must not be violated.
Leviticus 11:
10: And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.11: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcasses in abomination.
Deuteronomy 14:
9: These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat. 10: And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.
Later in Deuteronomy it also says that eating eagles are a sin. That's because God knew that the eagle is the symbol of America and God loves America and capitalism but hates all the other countries. That's why we were allowed to kill all the Indians and take their land, it was like the whole "chosen people" and the land of grapes and honey was happening all over again except this time, for Protestants instead of Jews. We were the new chosen people, God made a mistake the first time. Good thing the all perfect being has learned his lesson.
I am sure there will be people protesting Heath Ledgers death and saying that it was God's wrath for making out with Jake Gyllenhaal but wouldn't their time be better spent protesting a Red Lobster? There are far more sinners out there who eat shellfish than there are people who bone other dudes. The law of God must not be violated.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Am I Starting to Sound Like A Republican?
Ok, to be clear about the title, it comes at a time when Republicans start to sound like Democrats.
Maybe I'm just pissed that I won't be getting a tax refund and no, it's not because I didn't work or that I didn't pay taxes either but what's up with our government treating us like we are 6 years old??
Let me get this straight:
-Because of a booming housing market, Wall Street and the big banks tell the mortgage lenders that they will buy the loans generated for sub-prime lenders.
-Mortgage companies decide to give loans to homeless people with no credit, insufficient income and by making this easier than applying for an Office Depot credit card. They don't even require them to have down payments, have any assets and give them a loan that is only somewhat affordable for the next 5 years assuming the value of their home continues to rise.
-The Federal Government does nothing about low rate teasers, predatory lending or the interest rates at all and let the lending rates fall allowing people who, at no other time in history would have legitimately been able to afford a house, buy more than they can afford.
-Dumb ass consumers (and people who were victims of predatory lending who really didn't know what they were getting into) think that home prices will continue to rise at the same rate forever, they will be able to take cash out of their houses annually, pay interest only on their loans, build no equity in the property and assume that when their ARM expires, there's no way their interest rates would change.
-Home builders also think there would be no end to the housing boom and that by building more houses and putting more homes on the market, that couldn't possibly affect the value of future homes they would build, new homes for sell, or homes for resell.
-The U.S. is in the middle of its biggest budget deficit ever.
-Bush and Congress decide they need to wipe everyone's ass for them and bail out the banks, bail out the lenders, bail out the homeowners and thus somehow bailing out the economy by giving someone $600 so they can go buy some shit they don't need made in China?? That's the House plan anyway.
Is that about the gist of it? Is that what's happening?
What ever happened to live and learn, free market economy, fiscal responsibility,survival of the fittest?
Because I was fiscally responsible and didn't buy a house in an area that wouldn't increase in value, didn't buy a house I couldn't afford, took into account that interest rates could change, I don't get a check?? WTF?
As far as the big banks are concerned, cry me a river. If you thought giving loans to the homeless was a good idea, then you deserve to be bankrupt. They shouldn't get a dime or even a break in loan rates from the government. They should put that money into education or pay off dept. If you thin the herd, you make the herd stronger. Why does Bush need to play big brother and bail out bad businesses? What, does he think they will learn their lesson? Remember Junk Bonds, Pyramid schemes, etc.?? Same idea.
As far as consumers are concerned, I understand that predatory lending played a big role in this. I realize that most of the people losing their homes either are not educated, don't speak English or are simply not attorneys and that looking at a closing statement is like trying to read Aramaic. That being said, for those who, on their own accord, decided they wanted a big house like mommy and daddy and didn't do their homework or thought life was a fairytale, wake up and smell the $3.50 coffee that you shouldn't be buying! DON"T BUY A HOUSE YOU CAN'T AFFORD! DON'T BUY A HOUSE WITHOUT LETTING IT BUILD EQUITY!
I like how Republican's, who are supposed to be about personal responsibility and the free market, are now saying we need to hold everyone's hand except for poor people. And the Democrats want to give tax refunds to people who never paid taxes. How is that a tax refund?
I would probably shut up if they would just send me a check, I need a bluray player.
Let me know if I am missing something here. I don't pretend to be an expert on this issue.
Maybe I'm just pissed that I won't be getting a tax refund and no, it's not because I didn't work or that I didn't pay taxes either but what's up with our government treating us like we are 6 years old??
Let me get this straight:
-Because of a booming housing market, Wall Street and the big banks tell the mortgage lenders that they will buy the loans generated for sub-prime lenders.
-Mortgage companies decide to give loans to homeless people with no credit, insufficient income and by making this easier than applying for an Office Depot credit card. They don't even require them to have down payments, have any assets and give them a loan that is only somewhat affordable for the next 5 years assuming the value of their home continues to rise.
-The Federal Government does nothing about low rate teasers, predatory lending or the interest rates at all and let the lending rates fall allowing people who, at no other time in history would have legitimately been able to afford a house, buy more than they can afford.
-Dumb ass consumers (and people who were victims of predatory lending who really didn't know what they were getting into) think that home prices will continue to rise at the same rate forever, they will be able to take cash out of their houses annually, pay interest only on their loans, build no equity in the property and assume that when their ARM expires, there's no way their interest rates would change.
-Home builders also think there would be no end to the housing boom and that by building more houses and putting more homes on the market, that couldn't possibly affect the value of future homes they would build, new homes for sell, or homes for resell.
-The U.S. is in the middle of its biggest budget deficit ever.
-Bush and Congress decide they need to wipe everyone's ass for them and bail out the banks, bail out the lenders, bail out the homeowners and thus somehow bailing out the economy by giving someone $600 so they can go buy some shit they don't need made in China?? That's the House plan anyway.
Is that about the gist of it? Is that what's happening?
What ever happened to live and learn, free market economy, fiscal responsibility,survival of the fittest?
Because I was fiscally responsible and didn't buy a house in an area that wouldn't increase in value, didn't buy a house I couldn't afford, took into account that interest rates could change, I don't get a check?? WTF?
As far as the big banks are concerned, cry me a river. If you thought giving loans to the homeless was a good idea, then you deserve to be bankrupt. They shouldn't get a dime or even a break in loan rates from the government. They should put that money into education or pay off dept. If you thin the herd, you make the herd stronger. Why does Bush need to play big brother and bail out bad businesses? What, does he think they will learn their lesson? Remember Junk Bonds, Pyramid schemes, etc.?? Same idea.
As far as consumers are concerned, I understand that predatory lending played a big role in this. I realize that most of the people losing their homes either are not educated, don't speak English or are simply not attorneys and that looking at a closing statement is like trying to read Aramaic. That being said, for those who, on their own accord, decided they wanted a big house like mommy and daddy and didn't do their homework or thought life was a fairytale, wake up and smell the $3.50 coffee that you shouldn't be buying! DON"T BUY A HOUSE YOU CAN'T AFFORD! DON'T BUY A HOUSE WITHOUT LETTING IT BUILD EQUITY!
I like how Republican's, who are supposed to be about personal responsibility and the free market, are now saying we need to hold everyone's hand except for poor people. And the Democrats want to give tax refunds to people who never paid taxes. How is that a tax refund?
I would probably shut up if they would just send me a check, I need a bluray player.
Let me know if I am missing something here. I don't pretend to be an expert on this issue.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Sound Familiar?
From Barbara Starr
CNN
(CNN) -- Five Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats "harassed and provoked" three U.S. Navy ships early Sunday in international waters, the U.S. military said Monday, calling the encounter a "significant" confrontation.
I'll have the Gulf of Tonkin with a side of WMD's and the yellow cake for dessert.
CNN
(CNN) -- Five Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats "harassed and provoked" three U.S. Navy ships early Sunday in international waters, the U.S. military said Monday, calling the encounter a "significant" confrontation.
I'll have the Gulf of Tonkin with a side of WMD's and the yellow cake for dessert.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)