The great American writer found nothing heroic in hunting the gentle creatures. Rather, he saw their killing as a great tragedy.
By Paul Theroux September 14, 2008
All this talk about moose hunting! It is as though, because of the animal's enormous size and imposing antlers, bringing one down is a heroic feat of marksmanship. Nothing could be further from the truth. As Henry David Thoreau wrote in "The Maine Woods," killing these big, gentle, myopic creatures is more "like going out by night to some woodside pasture and shooting your neighbor's horses."
Thoreau's descriptions of the moose he saw in Maine are inspired and fanciful. "They made me think of great frightened rabbits," he wrote, and he alluded to the moose's "branching and leafy horns -- a sort of fucus or lichen in bone."
In all his descriptions there is affection and awe. The killing of a moose is, in Thoreau's view, always a tragedy. He witnessed one being shot, and "nature looked sternly upon me on account of the murder of the moose." In another passage, Thoreau grudgingly acknowledges that moose are hunted by Indians out of necessity -- for their meat, for their hides, as part of Indian custom and tradition. This was in 1853.
American politicians seldom take notice of American writers, especially the boldest ones, such as Thoreau, whose every word is at odds with their groveling and grandstanding and their sanctimonious cant. Think of the average politician today and then reflect on how Thoreau had no time for organized religion, how he mocked clergymen and jeered at missionaries, warmongers and Bible-thumpers. He was a defender of John Brown and the rebellious spirit in American life, a proponent of human rights.
He hated the thought of the wilderness being opened to development; he wrote scathingly of lumberjacks and logging operations. He would have cheered the demonstrators outside the Republican National Convention in St Paul, Minn. He would have mocked the people inside. He would have denounced the prison at Guantanamo. He wrote against injustice; he despised politicians and hunters.
And yet hunting seems to define a certain species of American politician. It's nothing new. When Teddy Roosevelt left office, he traveled to Africa and -- in the role of evil twin to the biblical Noah -- hunted and killed two (and sometimes 18) of every species of animal that could be found from the Kenyan coast to the swamps of the southern Sudan: total bag, 512 creatures. In his account of the safari, "African Game Trails" (1910), he wrote, "The land teems with beasts of the chase, infinite in number ... ."
"Infinite" is credulous hyperbole -- many of those animals are now extinct or severely endangered. Take the bongo, a large African antelope -- nearly as large as a moose -- now almost gone because of hunters and poachers. In Uganda, where it roamed in sizable numbers when I lived there, it has been wiped out. Maurice Stans, the Nixon administration Commerce secretary and Watergate defendant, helped to eradicate this gentle animal when, in the 1960s, he sicced his dogs on them -- the conventional way to corner a bongo -- then presumably gestured to his gun bearer ("Here is your bunduki, bwana") and shot two of them as trophies. It was not an incidental act: Maurice Stans defined himself politically as a big-game hunter.
You would be forgiven for believing that the Menendez brothers gave Dick Cheney lessons in handling a shotgun -- still, he is by all accounts a keen hunter. But who knew that Justice Antonin Scalia also hunts ducks? Perhaps it is not odd that someone who advocates physical harm to humans would not shrink from blowing a small bird apart. Earlier this year, asked about torture, Scalia said: "It seems to me you have to say, as unlikely as that is, it would be absurd to say you couldn't, I don't know, stick something under the fingernail, smack him in the face. It would be absurd to say you couldn't do that." Cheney agrees, so it is no surprise that these men are hunting buddies, huddled in the same duck blind, torturing animals to death with buckshot.
A lot can be told from the animals that people choose to kill. The French shoot the most melodious larks and turn them into pate. Many English people are still indignant that restrictions have been placed on the hunting of foxes, bongo style, chasing them with dogs, which tear them to pieces.
There is hunting for sport, and hunting for the pot, and of course hunting for votes. The name of Teddy Roosevelt, the hunter, the moose skinner, was invoked just the other day at the Republican National Convention, in Fred Thompson's praise of Gov. Sarah Palin. This mother of five is now celebrated as a moose hunter and, more than that, moose skinner, moose eater and perhaps hanger of moose-head trophies. As Palin was delivering her acceptance speech, an immense photograph of Alaska was projected behind her on the giant screen where, in the foreground, a moose could be seen, placidly staring at its reflection in water. And on the following day, in the video that encapsulated her life, Palin was described as having risen early on cold mornings with her father to go moose hunting.
Moose hunting is now seen as a possible Republican vote-getter, especially as the moose hunter in question is a slightly built and bespectacled mother of five. This casting against type presumably has the same effect on the public imagination as the revelation that defensive tackle Roosevelt Grier found relaxation in needlepoint.
I have no strong views on hunting, only the usual disgust when I see a creature senselessly slaughtered at no risk to the hunter. Thoreau called the moose "a fabulous animal," and in a book Palin probably has not read, he remarked on how moose sometimes weigh 1,000 pounds and how they "can step over a five-foot gate in their ordinary walk.
"While people cheered, Palin was lauded for knowing how to "field-dress" a moose. Thoreau, who watched such an operation, wrote, "Joe [his Penobscot guide] now proceeded to skin the moose with a pocket knife, while I looked on, and a tragical business it was; to see that still warm and palpitating body pierced with a knife, to see the warm milk stream from the rent udder, and the ghastly naked red carcass appearing from within its seemly robe." I read that and somehow am not provoked to cheer.
In one of the great passages, in the chapter "Chesuncook," Thoreau writes how the moose and the pine tree are linked in his mind. "A pine cut down, a dead pine, is no more a pine than a dead human carcass is a man." He continues, "Every creature is better alive than dead, men and moose and pine trees, and he who understands it aright will rather preserve life than destroy it."
Paul Theroux is the author of many books, including "The Great Railway Bazaar," "The Mosquito Coast" and, most recently, "Ghost Train to the Eastern Star."
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Censoring Library Books - Palin like Bush
I can't find the part of the U.S. Constitution that empowers GW Bush and Sarah Palin to censor books in a library. I'm sure, very sure, that I will not find it. Yet, they both feel empowered to censor.
GW Bush has been censoring books for years. The order was issued by the Office of the Inspector General in the Justice Department. The Justice Department took this action to keep prisons from becoming:
“… recruiting grounds for militant Islamic and other religious groups. The Justice Department defended its effort, which it calls the Standardized Chapel Library Project, as a way of barring access to materials that could, in its words, “discriminate, disparage, advocate violence or radicalize. Christian books were not purged.
Sarah Palin has acknowledged that in 1996, while she was the mayor, she asked the librarian how books could be removed from the library. Later, Palin said it was only a rhetorical question but at that same time Palin's church was pushing for the removal of a book titled "Pastor I am Gay" from local bookstores. According to coverage in the local newspaper, the Frontiersman, Palin asked the librarian at a meeting "if she would object to censorship even if people were circling the library in protest about a book." The librarian is reported to have replied, "I will fight anyone who tries to indicate what books can go on the library shelves." Later the same week, Palin fired the librarian, claiming she was not "loyal" to the new administration and had supported Palin's opponent in the election. The good news is that the townspeople came to the support of the librarian and Palin rehired her.
Bush and Palin as with so many of their Evangelical brothers and sisters disregard our First Amendment right to Religious Freedom. They believe that the United States of America was founded by Christians for Christians and given the chance to do so, they both act according to that belief when governing.
Such people will not protect our individual rights and should never hold public office.
GW Bush has been censoring books for years. The order was issued by the Office of the Inspector General in the Justice Department. The Justice Department took this action to keep prisons from becoming:
“… recruiting grounds for militant Islamic and other religious groups. The Justice Department defended its effort, which it calls the Standardized Chapel Library Project, as a way of barring access to materials that could, in its words, “discriminate, disparage, advocate violence or radicalize. Christian books were not purged.
Sarah Palin has acknowledged that in 1996, while she was the mayor, she asked the librarian how books could be removed from the library. Later, Palin said it was only a rhetorical question but at that same time Palin's church was pushing for the removal of a book titled "Pastor I am Gay" from local bookstores. According to coverage in the local newspaper, the Frontiersman, Palin asked the librarian at a meeting "if she would object to censorship even if people were circling the library in protest about a book." The librarian is reported to have replied, "I will fight anyone who tries to indicate what books can go on the library shelves." Later the same week, Palin fired the librarian, claiming she was not "loyal" to the new administration and had supported Palin's opponent in the election. The good news is that the townspeople came to the support of the librarian and Palin rehired her.
Bush and Palin as with so many of their Evangelical brothers and sisters disregard our First Amendment right to Religious Freedom. They believe that the United States of America was founded by Christians for Christians and given the chance to do so, they both act according to that belief when governing.
Such people will not protect our individual rights and should never hold public office.
Palin says that Global Warming is not Man-made
"In an interview for the September issue of the conservative magazine Newsmax, Gov. Sarah Palin, R-Alaska, said she does not believe climate change is caused by human behavior.
“A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made,” Palin said in the interview, which was posted online Friday."
Yet, in May, 2008, Larry Hartig, Alaska's Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation included the following quotation in a presentation on the impact of the warming climate on Alaska.
“Arctic average temperature has risen at almost twice the rate as the rest of the world in the past few decades. Widespread melting of glaciers and sea ice and rising permafrost temperatures present additional evidence of strong arctic warming. These changes in the Arctic provide an early indication of the environmental and societal significance of global warming.”
Larry Hartig, appointed by Sarah Palin, is the Chairman of the Executive Sub-Cabinet on Climate Change whose Climate Change Mitigation Advisory Group is analyzing options for mitigating greenhouse gases in Alaska that contribure to climate change.
Why does Sarah Palin claim that global warming is not man-made while her own administration is trying to identify options for mitigating greenhouse gases which are without question MAN-MADE?
What motive does Palin have for lying about the real cause of global warming?
“A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made,” Palin said in the interview, which was posted online Friday."
Yet, in May, 2008, Larry Hartig, Alaska's Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation included the following quotation in a presentation on the impact of the warming climate on Alaska.
“Arctic average temperature has risen at almost twice the rate as the rest of the world in the past few decades. Widespread melting of glaciers and sea ice and rising permafrost temperatures present additional evidence of strong arctic warming. These changes in the Arctic provide an early indication of the environmental and societal significance of global warming.”
Larry Hartig, appointed by Sarah Palin, is the Chairman of the Executive Sub-Cabinet on Climate Change whose Climate Change Mitigation Advisory Group is analyzing options for mitigating greenhouse gases in Alaska that contribure to climate change.
Why does Sarah Palin claim that global warming is not man-made while her own administration is trying to identify options for mitigating greenhouse gases which are without question MAN-MADE?
What motive does Palin have for lying about the real cause of global warming?
Saturday, September 13, 2008
The News Media is failing to provide relevant information!
I am upset that TV news shows are not providing relevant information to the voters regarding the qualifications of the candidates and their positions on the major issues. Instead they give us a one hour show about Sarah Palin’s life. If she gets elected there will be plenty of time to run the biography with a video of her shooting the winning shot in a high school basketball game. The news media is a willing participant in turning the race for the White House into a personality contest.
I’d like to see the major networks do a detailed impact analysis of each candidate's economic plan. We hear that Obama will raise our taxes and that McCain will not according to McCain’s campaign committee. And from Obama’s campaign committee we hear that Obama will cut taxes for 95% of Americans while McCain will cut taxes only for the richest 5% of Americans. Why doesn’t CNN have both plans analyzed on air – do what Perot did, get out the flip chart and the Excel spreadsheets and show us the impact. Do the same thing with their healthcare plans. Do the same thing with their energy programs. We told that McCain will give the oil industry $29 billion - what does McCain expect them to do with it and how might that effect the taxpayers and the price of gasoline? Analyze their plans for education and every other thing they are promising to do better than their oponent.
Why instead do we have to listen to a biography of Sarah Palin and Barack Obama and John McCain?
I’d like to see the major networks do a detailed impact analysis of each candidate's economic plan. We hear that Obama will raise our taxes and that McCain will not according to McCain’s campaign committee. And from Obama’s campaign committee we hear that Obama will cut taxes for 95% of Americans while McCain will cut taxes only for the richest 5% of Americans. Why doesn’t CNN have both plans analyzed on air – do what Perot did, get out the flip chart and the Excel spreadsheets and show us the impact. Do the same thing with their healthcare plans. Do the same thing with their energy programs. We told that McCain will give the oil industry $29 billion - what does McCain expect them to do with it and how might that effect the taxpayers and the price of gasoline? Analyze their plans for education and every other thing they are promising to do better than their oponent.
Why instead do we have to listen to a biography of Sarah Palin and Barack Obama and John McCain?
Alaska is a Disaster - what is Gov. Sarah Palin doing?
Note that contacts for confirming all the statements in the following article are provided at the end of the article. As always, check everything YOURSELF. For example, when Charles Gibson interviewed Sarah Palin he asked her what the Bush Doctrine is, her answer was incorrect. A Palin supporter who blogs for the LA Times stated that Gibson was wrong since there have been muliple definitions and Gibson only used one definition. The blogger failed to mention that Gibson told Palin, after she guessed wrong, that he was using the definition that existed in September 2002 prior to the Iraq War. In either case Palin guessed and guessed wrong instead of asking Gibson what the Bush Doctrine meant. A candidate's supporters tell lies when the truth will not suffice.
Alaska is a disaster
by Rob Rosenfeld
9/08
Rob Rosenfeld has a Masters Degree in International and Sustainable Development and has lived in Homer, Alaska since 1995, working
primarily with rural communities. He is a long time advocate for human
rights and fair distribution of government resources and opportunities. robrosey@xyz.com
After 11 years working in rural Alaska , I feel obligated to share my observations regarding the Third World living conditions facing more than 200 rural Native communities, and the State of Alaska 's lack of attention to the many inequities they suffer.
While Governor Palin claims "exemplary leadership" and attempts to become Vice President of the United States , the truth is rural Alaska is a disaster in multiple areas: human health, lack of infrastructure, the environment, and the economy are equal to that of Third World countries. Sarah Palin is a single issue governor who fails to effectively address these critical needs.
Alaska has the highest rates of homelessness per capita in the US , overflowing sewage lagoons in dozens of communities, and no running water in more than 150 villages – that’s 25% of the population without running water.
Governor Palin has demonstrated how out of touch she is20with Alaska while she continues to ignore the needs of the homeless, fails to recognize Third World living conditions in her home state, and ignores climate change victims, polluted waters, village health hazards and unattended military contaminate sites.
Alaska is a barometer for climate change. Access to some remote communities has been cut off, villages are flooding, landfill contents and overflowing sewage lagoons are contaminating communities, and several villages are being forced to pack up and move. Governor Palin says she doesn't believe climate change is caused by humans. Regardless of the cause, she remains unresponsive to the needs of climate change refugees and victims in Alaska .
More than 200 landfills in rural Alaska lack liners to prevent seepage and dozens of sewage lagoons receive annual discharge permits to discharge untreated and untested sewage into Alaska ’s salmon bearing rivers.
Alaska has the highest amount of military contaminant sites in the US with more than 500 sites that require extensive resources to assess, monitor and remediate. Alaska also has the highest rates of cancer per capita in the United States . Governor Palin is silent on this issue and is solely focused on the natural gas pipeline and oil drilling in protected and fragile places.
While Palin asserts that20resource extraction can be done responsibly, North Slope oil extraction has resulted in hundreds of spills and leaks monthly. On her watch, polluters have not been brought to justice and environmental regulations have been relaxed by her controversial appointee to head the Department of Environmental Conservation.
Larry Hartig, Palin’s pick for Commissioner, was the lead lawyer defending Red Dog Mine (owned by Teck Cominco) which is rated as the worst mine in the country for discharging contaminants into the environment. Red Dog Mine is number one on the national Toxic Release Inventory.
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has continued to undermine the integrity of the Clean Water Act by ignoring the anti-degradation act, mixing zone laws and making discharge exemptions for oil companies allowing daily oil sludge discharge into the Cook Inlet resulting in
millions of tons of contaminants in Alaska ’s pristine waters.
Palin sued the federal government for trying to protect the polar bear population and, contrary to her rhetoric, she did accept federal dollars for the Bridge to Nowhere.
Alaska has the highest gas prices in the country, exceeding more then $9 per gallon in some villages. Alaska also the highest unemployment in rates in the country as more than 150 villages face 50 to 80 percent rates of unemployment.
Palin does not pay attention to any of the above realities as she fixates on the oil industry and has even created a Renewable Energy Fund that allows for natural gas extraction and coal bed methane; both of which are far from renewable resources and cause considerable environmental degradation.
Beyond the pretty face of Governor Palin rests an unaware, out of touch, rape and pillage resource extractor who is doing the bidding for the leading oil companies in the world while trying to open new areas for oil development.
_________________________________ ______________________________________________
Contacts to confirm information:
Janet Levin, Anchorage Homeless Coalition: Homeless facts - 907-272-0235 ()
Gershon Cohen Ph.D- Department of Environmental Conservation Facts - 907-766-3005
Bob Shavelson, Inlet Keeper 907- 235-4068 - 907-299-3277 (sludge discharge validation in the Cook Inlet and Dept. of Environmental Conservation laws being relaxed)
Unemployment rates: Department of Commerce in Alaska / Anchorage
Sewage / Solid issues / Climate Change: Joe Sarcone / EPA Alaska and Alaska Village Safe Water (907) 271-1316 or 907-677-8705
Discharge Permits: Tim Wingerter - Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation / Fairbanks or Anchorage
Pam Miller, Northern Center for the Environment in Fairbanks- Validation on 100's spills and leaks per month
Pam Miller (different than above) - Alaska Community Action on Toxics - Cancer rates and military site validation and information on Red Dog Mine (907)222-7714
Brian Hir sch Ph.D - Energy issues on renewable energy fund 907-299-0268 or 907-235-7164
Deborah Williams - Alaska Climate Change Solutions - 907- 929-9370 or 907-223-1518
(Polar Bear issues, Climate Change emergencies, flooding, villages having to move and village access facts and information
Alaska is a disaster
by Rob Rosenfeld
9/08
Rob Rosenfeld has a Masters Degree in International and Sustainable Development and has lived in Homer, Alaska since 1995, working
primarily with rural communities. He is a long time advocate for human
rights and fair distribution of government resources and opportunities. robrosey@xyz.com
After 11 years working in rural Alaska , I feel obligated to share my observations regarding the Third World living conditions facing more than 200 rural Native communities, and the State of Alaska 's lack of attention to the many inequities they suffer.
While Governor Palin claims "exemplary leadership" and attempts to become Vice President of the United States , the truth is rural Alaska is a disaster in multiple areas: human health, lack of infrastructure, the environment, and the economy are equal to that of Third World countries. Sarah Palin is a single issue governor who fails to effectively address these critical needs.
Alaska has the highest rates of homelessness per capita in the US , overflowing sewage lagoons in dozens of communities, and no running water in more than 150 villages – that’s 25% of the population without running water.
Governor Palin has demonstrated how out of touch she is20with Alaska while she continues to ignore the needs of the homeless, fails to recognize Third World living conditions in her home state, and ignores climate change victims, polluted waters, village health hazards and unattended military contaminate sites.
Alaska is a barometer for climate change. Access to some remote communities has been cut off, villages are flooding, landfill contents and overflowing sewage lagoons are contaminating communities, and several villages are being forced to pack up and move. Governor Palin says she doesn't believe climate change is caused by humans. Regardless of the cause, she remains unresponsive to the needs of climate change refugees and victims in Alaska .
More than 200 landfills in rural Alaska lack liners to prevent seepage and dozens of sewage lagoons receive annual discharge permits to discharge untreated and untested sewage into Alaska ’s salmon bearing rivers.
Alaska has the highest amount of military contaminant sites in the US with more than 500 sites that require extensive resources to assess, monitor and remediate. Alaska also has the highest rates of cancer per capita in the United States . Governor Palin is silent on this issue and is solely focused on the natural gas pipeline and oil drilling in protected and fragile places.
While Palin asserts that20resource extraction can be done responsibly, North Slope oil extraction has resulted in hundreds of spills and leaks monthly. On her watch, polluters have not been brought to justice and environmental regulations have been relaxed by her controversial appointee to head the Department of Environmental Conservation.
Larry Hartig, Palin’s pick for Commissioner, was the lead lawyer defending Red Dog Mine (owned by Teck Cominco) which is rated as the worst mine in the country for discharging contaminants into the environment. Red Dog Mine is number one on the national Toxic Release Inventory.
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has continued to undermine the integrity of the Clean Water Act by ignoring the anti-degradation act, mixing zone laws and making discharge exemptions for oil companies allowing daily oil sludge discharge into the Cook Inlet resulting in
millions of tons of contaminants in Alaska ’s pristine waters.
Palin sued the federal government for trying to protect the polar bear population and, contrary to her rhetoric, she did accept federal dollars for the Bridge to Nowhere.
Alaska has the highest gas prices in the country, exceeding more then $9 per gallon in some villages. Alaska also the highest unemployment in rates in the country as more than 150 villages face 50 to 80 percent rates of unemployment.
Palin does not pay attention to any of the above realities as she fixates on the oil industry and has even created a Renewable Energy Fund that allows for natural gas extraction and coal bed methane; both of which are far from renewable resources and cause considerable environmental degradation.
Beyond the pretty face of Governor Palin rests an unaware, out of touch, rape and pillage resource extractor who is doing the bidding for the leading oil companies in the world while trying to open new areas for oil development.
_________________________________ ______________________________________________
Contacts to confirm information:
Janet Levin, Anchorage Homeless Coalition: Homeless facts - 907-272-0235 ()
Gershon Cohen Ph.D- Department of Environmental Conservation Facts - 907-766-3005
Bob Shavelson, Inlet Keeper 907- 235-4068 - 907-299-3277 (sludge discharge validation in the Cook Inlet and Dept. of Environmental Conservation laws being relaxed)
Unemployment rates: Department of Commerce in Alaska / Anchorage
Sewage / Solid issues / Climate Change: Joe Sarcone / EPA Alaska and Alaska Village Safe Water (907) 271-1316 or 907-677-8705
Discharge Permits: Tim Wingerter - Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation / Fairbanks or Anchorage
Pam Miller, Northern Center for the Environment in Fairbanks- Validation on 100's spills and leaks per month
Pam Miller (different than above) - Alaska Community Action on Toxics - Cancer rates and military site validation and information on Red Dog Mine (907)222-7714
Brian Hir sch Ph.D - Energy issues on renewable energy fund 907-299-0268 or 907-235-7164
Deborah Williams - Alaska Climate Change Solutions - 907- 929-9370 or 907-223-1518
(Polar Bear issues, Climate Change emergencies, flooding, villages having to move and village access facts and information
Women Against Sarah Palin
I hope everybody is studying the candidates through responsible resources rather than listening to the hype from the candidates, their parties and the political pundits. Responsible resources are indeed harder to find than the BS.
The following blog contains some posts that are well worth reading. These posts are only part of the evidence that Sarah Palin's opinions are not shared by a majority of American women. Being a wife, mother and hockey mom are experiences that are common to many American women but they do not qualify her to be vice president or president nor do they define her position on the issues that she and John McCain will be dealing with if they are elected.
I don't think that either campaign committee wants to address issues only and the news media, which could and should focus only on the candidates' historical position on the issues, fails to do so. Make sure that you study each of them well. Please pick the candidate that you believe will represent all Americans equally and obey our Constitution.
Here's the blog: Women Against Sarah Palin
The following site is what I think comes closest to representing Women For Sarah Palin. Let me know if you know of a better pro Sarah Palin site.
The following blog contains some posts that are well worth reading. These posts are only part of the evidence that Sarah Palin's opinions are not shared by a majority of American women. Being a wife, mother and hockey mom are experiences that are common to many American women but they do not qualify her to be vice president or president nor do they define her position on the issues that she and John McCain will be dealing with if they are elected.
I don't think that either campaign committee wants to address issues only and the news media, which could and should focus only on the candidates' historical position on the issues, fails to do so. Make sure that you study each of them well. Please pick the candidate that you believe will represent all Americans equally and obey our Constitution.
Here's the blog: Women Against Sarah Palin
The following site is what I think comes closest to representing Women For Sarah Palin. Let me know if you know of a better pro Sarah Palin site.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Troop reduction postponed to help McCain and Bush
Gen. Petraeus has recommended to the Joint Chiefs a delay of the large scale shift of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, which he had predicted for this autumn. Troop reduction in Iraq will be delayed until Bush has left office in January. Bush and McCain take credit for the troop surge that has reduced the violence in Iraq and although neither feels that the US can pull out completely at this point they both characterize the was as won.
Bush wants to leave office having achieved victory or at least the appearance of victory. McCain claims that his role in the surge proves that he is qualified to be Commander-in-Chief and that Obama is not qualified because he opposed the troop surge. Victory or the appearance of victory in Iraq, especially due to the troop surge, is critically important to McCain campaign.
Experts feel that a troop reduction at this time and perhaps at any time in the next several years will result in a resumption of violence and a collapse of the Iraqi government. If this were to happen before the November election, McCain could lose the election because of it. If this were to happen before Bush leaves office then his already disasterous presidency would also be remembered for having never caught Bin Laden and losing the war in Iraq. If Bush can leave office while the war appears to be won, the next president will bear the responsibility for the outcome of the war.
A similar manipulation was carried out at the end of Jimmy Carter's presidency. George Bush, #41, GW's daddy, struck an aggreement with the Iranians to release the US Embassy hostages only after Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president. A petty act to be sure, yet not one that cost American lives.
On the other hand, keeping our troops in Iraq has and will continue to cost American lives. Having inadequate troops in Afghanistan also costs American lives. But, Bush is willing to pay that price with the lives of others so that he can claim a victory no matter how brief. And, McCain and the GOP are willing to sacrafice American lives so that they have a chance of winning the presidency. Just a chance. Just a few lives.
Finally, remember that we only invaded Iraq to destroy Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Remember that weapons of mass destruction did not exist. Remember that Bush and the CIP intentionally lied to the American public and the world when they told us that the weapons existed.
Ask yourself if it is important to continue fighting and dying in an unjust war just to be able to say we won. Then cast your vote wisely on November 4th.
Bush wants to leave office having achieved victory or at least the appearance of victory. McCain claims that his role in the surge proves that he is qualified to be Commander-in-Chief and that Obama is not qualified because he opposed the troop surge. Victory or the appearance of victory in Iraq, especially due to the troop surge, is critically important to McCain campaign.
Experts feel that a troop reduction at this time and perhaps at any time in the next several years will result in a resumption of violence and a collapse of the Iraqi government. If this were to happen before the November election, McCain could lose the election because of it. If this were to happen before Bush leaves office then his already disasterous presidency would also be remembered for having never caught Bin Laden and losing the war in Iraq. If Bush can leave office while the war appears to be won, the next president will bear the responsibility for the outcome of the war.
A similar manipulation was carried out at the end of Jimmy Carter's presidency. George Bush, #41, GW's daddy, struck an aggreement with the Iranians to release the US Embassy hostages only after Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president. A petty act to be sure, yet not one that cost American lives.
On the other hand, keeping our troops in Iraq has and will continue to cost American lives. Having inadequate troops in Afghanistan also costs American lives. But, Bush is willing to pay that price with the lives of others so that he can claim a victory no matter how brief. And, McCain and the GOP are willing to sacrafice American lives so that they have a chance of winning the presidency. Just a chance. Just a few lives.
Finally, remember that we only invaded Iraq to destroy Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Remember that weapons of mass destruction did not exist. Remember that Bush and the CIP intentionally lied to the American public and the world when they told us that the weapons existed.
Ask yourself if it is important to continue fighting and dying in an unjust war just to be able to say we won. Then cast your vote wisely on November 4th.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
School Funding and the Separation of Church and State
I found and old but interesting article about the subject of “separation of church and state”. The churches that demanded a constitutional separation of church and state now lead the effort to eliminate it. It’s all a matter of whether it is perceived as a benefit or not. I can understand why parochial schools would like to have their students’ allotment of the funding for the public schools that the parochial school students do not attend. But, I see two reasons why the educational vouchers will have a destruction effect on the public school system.
1. Vouchers were created by GW Bush to subsidize the education of students whose parents choose to transport them into a different school district or to a private school. The voucher is not enough to pay for the transportation of a student to a different school nor is it enough to pay the tuition of a private school. Therefore, most, if not all, of the students that will move to a better school district or to a private school are those whose parents can afford to move their children with or without the voucher. The school that loses the student and the funding associated with their voucher will find it increasingly harder to achieve competitive performance and the students left behind will suffer for it.
2. If the parents of school-aged children can withdraw their child’s share of the school’s funding to do with as they see fit, including home schooling. Then does the taxpayer who has no school-aged children have the right to withhold his share of the school’s funding? Why should the childless taxpayer be obligated to support a school which taxpaying parents will not support?
Schools and the education of our children are a benefit to the entire community rather than only to the students and the parents of the students. Imagine the future condition of our communities and society if we did not provide free public education to all students regardless of economic class. The English realized the need for this a couple hundred years ago when they created what became the public school. But, Bush and his elitist kind do not, in my honest opinion, care about the education of the economic underclass. They don’t care at all about the economic underclass as long as there is more than enough of them to fulfill labor needs. Labor rates, like the price of oil, can be and is manipulated to maximize the cost of oil and minimize the cost of labor. This is not done for the benefit of the masses. It is done only for the benefit of the economic upper class. McCain recently taught us who the upper class is; they earn more than $5,000,000 per year.
1. Vouchers were created by GW Bush to subsidize the education of students whose parents choose to transport them into a different school district or to a private school. The voucher is not enough to pay for the transportation of a student to a different school nor is it enough to pay the tuition of a private school. Therefore, most, if not all, of the students that will move to a better school district or to a private school are those whose parents can afford to move their children with or without the voucher. The school that loses the student and the funding associated with their voucher will find it increasingly harder to achieve competitive performance and the students left behind will suffer for it.
2. If the parents of school-aged children can withdraw their child’s share of the school’s funding to do with as they see fit, including home schooling. Then does the taxpayer who has no school-aged children have the right to withhold his share of the school’s funding? Why should the childless taxpayer be obligated to support a school which taxpaying parents will not support?
Schools and the education of our children are a benefit to the entire community rather than only to the students and the parents of the students. Imagine the future condition of our communities and society if we did not provide free public education to all students regardless of economic class. The English realized the need for this a couple hundred years ago when they created what became the public school. But, Bush and his elitist kind do not, in my honest opinion, care about the education of the economic underclass. They don’t care at all about the economic underclass as long as there is more than enough of them to fulfill labor needs. Labor rates, like the price of oil, can be and is manipulated to maximize the cost of oil and minimize the cost of labor. This is not done for the benefit of the masses. It is done only for the benefit of the economic upper class. McCain recently taught us who the upper class is; they earn more than $5,000,000 per year.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Peace Corps Update
It has been a few months since I last posted. I have been busy and just got out of the habit of making the rounds of my favorite blogs on a daily basis.
I am still in the process of joining the Peace Corps. A couple of weeks ago the NY regional office of the Peace Corps nominated me for an assignment in sub-Saharan Africa that would begin in February 2009. I would be teaching math to secondary school students. There are about 50 countries in sub-Saharan Africa and the Peace Corps serves in about one-half of them.
I just completed all the medical evaluations with my personal doctors. Medical is the last area to be evaluated. The next step is for the Peace Corps office in Washington, DC to either invite me or say "no thanks". I'm told that they could wait until the last minute to make that decision.
I'm hoping, first, that they approve me and, second, that they tell me soon what country I will be serving in so that I will have a few months to begin learning the language of the people that I will serve. I also hope that it is a language that is taught by Rosetta Stone or Berlitz. I've checked each of them; they teach a couple of the African languages but not all of them.
I also plan to prepare for the teaching assignment by volunteering at my local high school as a tutor or teacher's aide in the math department. I haven't been in a math class in more than 30 years. I'm sure that most of it will come back easily but not all of it, and tutoring will be more helpful to me than just studying with books. The course(s) I will be teaching range from General Math to Calculus.
The waiting is going to be painful. I've never been good at waiting to do something after I decide to do it. Once the decision is made I like to start yesterday. However, the Peace Corps, like the government, doesn't work like that - not even close. So, when something else happens - anything else - I'll post another update.
I am still in the process of joining the Peace Corps. A couple of weeks ago the NY regional office of the Peace Corps nominated me for an assignment in sub-Saharan Africa that would begin in February 2009. I would be teaching math to secondary school students. There are about 50 countries in sub-Saharan Africa and the Peace Corps serves in about one-half of them.
I just completed all the medical evaluations with my personal doctors. Medical is the last area to be evaluated. The next step is for the Peace Corps office in Washington, DC to either invite me or say "no thanks". I'm told that they could wait until the last minute to make that decision.
I'm hoping, first, that they approve me and, second, that they tell me soon what country I will be serving in so that I will have a few months to begin learning the language of the people that I will serve. I also hope that it is a language that is taught by Rosetta Stone or Berlitz. I've checked each of them; they teach a couple of the African languages but not all of them.
I also plan to prepare for the teaching assignment by volunteering at my local high school as a tutor or teacher's aide in the math department. I haven't been in a math class in more than 30 years. I'm sure that most of it will come back easily but not all of it, and tutoring will be more helpful to me than just studying with books. The course(s) I will be teaching range from General Math to Calculus.
The waiting is going to be painful. I've never been good at waiting to do something after I decide to do it. Once the decision is made I like to start yesterday. However, the Peace Corps, like the government, doesn't work like that - not even close. So, when something else happens - anything else - I'll post another update.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Peace Corps
I've finally done it!. I have applied to the Peace Corps. I won't know for at least one month whether they will accept me. Most people respond positively to the news; a few think this is further proof that I need a full-time caretaker. I met with my medical doctor yesterday and asked him if he thought that I would be able to handle the challenge. I was glad but surprised that he approved so positively without any qualifiers. I was expecting him to say yes but only if I first lost enough weight to get back inside the normal weight range for my height.
I didn't specify a preferred location so I have no idea where they will send me if they accept me. I won't leave before this fall and perhaps not until next year.
I'm really looking forward to this opportunity to make a meaningful contribution.
I didn't specify a preferred location so I have no idea where they will send me if they accept me. I won't leave before this fall and perhaps not until next year.
I'm really looking forward to this opportunity to make a meaningful contribution.
Monday, March 03, 2008
More B.S. (Ben Stein) on Religion versus Science
I think this will be the first time that I have disagreed with a post at The Sword's Still Out a great blog by a wonderful person and friend. In a recent post she states "I think I'm in love with Ben Stein." I have often enjoyed Ben Stein's unique sense of humor but I generally disagree with his advice. I think Ben checks the breeze for the popular opinion before he wades in with his editorial pen.
This video is nothing more than marketing hype to drum up business for Ben's "movie" that condemns science educators that oppose the teaching of Intelligent Design as a scientific theory. He dares you to see his movie like so many e-mails dare you to forward them to 5, 10 or more friends and loved ones unless you don't believe in God! Ben's argument reminds me of how Bush and other supporters of continuing the war in Iraq condemn anybody that disagrees with them as non-Patriotic. When you lack the facts to defend and promote your opinion then attack the authority and credibility of your opponents. Follow the link to the Ben's video and judge for yourself.
Generally speaking science educators don't have an issue with scientific challenges of Darwin's Theory, after all, it is only a theory based on scientific study not a LAW. However, these science educators do disagree with teaching faith-based beliefs as scientific theory.
Creation or Intelligent Design (the code name for Creation disguised as scientific theory) is not the belief of all faiths. There are many different beliefs regarding the creation of the universe. If the Christian definition of Creation should be taught in schools should the schools teach all the faith-based Creation models? Not all Christians believe in a literal translation of the Book of Genesis and its description of the creation of the universe. How could educators decide which Christian concept of Creation to teach when Christian religions cannot agree on one concept?
I believe that every religious organization has the right to establish its own faith-based beliefs regarding the supernatural realm and the creation and purpose of the universe and mankind. I don't believe that any faith-based beliefs should be taught in schools as scientific theory.
I welcome Ben to dispute all the scientific theories regarding the creation of the universe and the evolution of species with the same scientific processes used to establish these theories. I also welcome him to present his faith-based beliefs regarding the creation of the universe and the evolution of species in the proper context - religion rather than science - and as long as he will recognize the right of all other religions to hold and profess their beliefs no matter how contrary they may be to Ben's beliefs.
This video is nothing more than marketing hype to drum up business for Ben's "movie" that condemns science educators that oppose the teaching of Intelligent Design as a scientific theory. He dares you to see his movie like so many e-mails dare you to forward them to 5, 10 or more friends and loved ones unless you don't believe in God! Ben's argument reminds me of how Bush and other supporters of continuing the war in Iraq condemn anybody that disagrees with them as non-Patriotic. When you lack the facts to defend and promote your opinion then attack the authority and credibility of your opponents. Follow the link to the Ben's video and judge for yourself.
Generally speaking science educators don't have an issue with scientific challenges of Darwin's Theory, after all, it is only a theory based on scientific study not a LAW. However, these science educators do disagree with teaching faith-based beliefs as scientific theory.
Creation or Intelligent Design (the code name for Creation disguised as scientific theory) is not the belief of all faiths. There are many different beliefs regarding the creation of the universe. If the Christian definition of Creation should be taught in schools should the schools teach all the faith-based Creation models? Not all Christians believe in a literal translation of the Book of Genesis and its description of the creation of the universe. How could educators decide which Christian concept of Creation to teach when Christian religions cannot agree on one concept?
I believe that every religious organization has the right to establish its own faith-based beliefs regarding the supernatural realm and the creation and purpose of the universe and mankind. I don't believe that any faith-based beliefs should be taught in schools as scientific theory.
I welcome Ben to dispute all the scientific theories regarding the creation of the universe and the evolution of species with the same scientific processes used to establish these theories. I also welcome him to present his faith-based beliefs regarding the creation of the universe and the evolution of species in the proper context - religion rather than science - and as long as he will recognize the right of all other religions to hold and profess their beliefs no matter how contrary they may be to Ben's beliefs.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Illegal Aliens - A Solution
My wonderful sister-in-law, Sandy, recently forwarded to me an e-mail that compared today's illegal immigrant to the legal immigrants of the early 20th Century. She immediately sent a second e-mail in which she expressed her hope that I was not offended by the first e-mail.
I don't have a problem with the sentiments expressed in Sandy's first e-mail, however, I wrote the following to Sandy to point out that the issue with illegal aliens is not their failure to immediately integrate into the US Culture.
There are, however, a number of issues with illegal aliens
* They entered and stay in the country illegally
* Children born to illegal aliens while in the US are automatically US citizens
* Many illegal aliens do not pay taxes
* 30% of the US prison inmates are illegal aliens
* They can use public education and social programs
* They are willing to work for less money than US citizens
* Many US companies employ illegal aliens because they will work for less and they are unprotected
* Many US consumers employ contractors that use illegal alien labor or patronize businesses that employ illegal alien labor because it costs less
Legal immigrants during the early 20th century did not immediately integrate into the US culture. These immigrants weren’t welcomed to the US by the existing working class citizens. It took a few generations for some to assimilate via the melting pot while many others have yet to integrate (China towns in New York City and San Francisco). It was business that wanted the cheap immigrant labor to offset the cost of increased unionization.
We should be at odds with the companies and contractors and consumers that employ illegal aliens. The illegal alien is only a pawn but nonetheless illegal.
To solve this problem we must begin to punish everybody that employs an illegal alien including the homeowner that hires an illegal day laborer to mow grass, rake leaves or shovel snow. The punishment must far outweigh the financial benefit of employing illegal aliens. The penalty for employing illegal aliens should be significant fines for first time violators and imprisonment for repeat offenders.
The rights of the US citizen are not being stolen by illegal aliens, they are being sold by greedy employers and consumers.
I don't have a problem with the sentiments expressed in Sandy's first e-mail, however, I wrote the following to Sandy to point out that the issue with illegal aliens is not their failure to immediately integrate into the US Culture.
There are, however, a number of issues with illegal aliens
* They entered and stay in the country illegally
* Children born to illegal aliens while in the US are automatically US citizens
* Many illegal aliens do not pay taxes
* 30% of the US prison inmates are illegal aliens
* They can use public education and social programs
* They are willing to work for less money than US citizens
* Many US companies employ illegal aliens because they will work for less and they are unprotected
* Many US consumers employ contractors that use illegal alien labor or patronize businesses that employ illegal alien labor because it costs less
Legal immigrants during the early 20th century did not immediately integrate into the US culture. These immigrants weren’t welcomed to the US by the existing working class citizens. It took a few generations for some to assimilate via the melting pot while many others have yet to integrate (China towns in New York City and San Francisco). It was business that wanted the cheap immigrant labor to offset the cost of increased unionization.
We should be at odds with the companies and contractors and consumers that employ illegal aliens. The illegal alien is only a pawn but nonetheless illegal.
To solve this problem we must begin to punish everybody that employs an illegal alien including the homeowner that hires an illegal day laborer to mow grass, rake leaves or shovel snow. The punishment must far outweigh the financial benefit of employing illegal aliens. The penalty for employing illegal aliens should be significant fines for first time violators and imprisonment for repeat offenders.
The rights of the US citizen are not being stolen by illegal aliens, they are being sold by greedy employers and consumers.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Give the Government back to the People
We have all been gullible about the government and the real objectives behind their acts. I used to think that people like you and me got into high office and THEN they were told the truth and the justification for what was being done secretly or for a purpose other than told to the People. Now I think that is not true. People like you and I don't get anywhere near the high offices of the government and we never will. Our personal egos and drive for power are not like those who ascend to the top of the government. And, it’s probably equally true that most of the people that possess the ego and drive needed to get them in to high office, today, are the type of people that we don’t want in office.
By the time today’s politician gets to a position of power, if not from the beginning, they have a different view on right and wrong on the national and international level. I really believe that they feel separate from the People who they believe can't understand the issues and priorities. At that point, like parents treat children, they see a need to lie to the People to get their cooperation because a full explanation will just confuse the “children”.
This has proven to be a disaster. We have screwed many countries since the Second World War for the purpose of benefiting our Industrial Complex; more trade and insured access to natural resources in other countries especially 3rd world countries and our so-called political enemies.
I used to disagree with strict time limits in political office but I now see it as the only way to put the control of the government back into the hands of the People. Eliminate the career politician. A qualified congressman doesn’t have to have 20, 30 or more years of experience. These people got to where they are not because the voters knew the candidates. The people vote for the candidates selected (not elected) by the political parties – by existing long term politicians that are working for the benefit of their party NOT the people. If you doubt that just look at how well aligned voting is with party agenda. These people don’t ask what their constituents want; they ask what their party wants.
If we restrict politicians to 6-8 years of service at the state level and 6-8 years of service at the federal level, there will soon be no politicians that owe the party and the lobbyist for their office. The elected wouldn’t be in office long enough to make their stay financially beneficial. The power of the party would dissolve because they would not control the elected. Lobbyist would no longer be able to control Congress since the Lobbyist’s power comes from controlling the party and strict term limits will reduce the power of the party.
It doesn’t take a congressman with 30 years of experience to vote the way the majority of the constituents want. The more time in the party and in office, the less likely the congressman is to vote for the People rather than the Party’s agenda.
If we filled Congress with the people that we know and would elect, then Congress would be filled with voters that would oppose continuing the war in Iraq, matter of fact our Congress would not have put us into Iraq and they would oppose immigration reform that would create a low income alien working class that would be underpaid, unprotected by workplace regulations and supported in-part by taxpayers dollars rather than the profits of their employers. How many tax cuts for the rich would your selections to Congress vote for?
By the time today’s politician gets to a position of power, if not from the beginning, they have a different view on right and wrong on the national and international level. I really believe that they feel separate from the People who they believe can't understand the issues and priorities. At that point, like parents treat children, they see a need to lie to the People to get their cooperation because a full explanation will just confuse the “children”.
This has proven to be a disaster. We have screwed many countries since the Second World War for the purpose of benefiting our Industrial Complex; more trade and insured access to natural resources in other countries especially 3rd world countries and our so-called political enemies.
I used to disagree with strict time limits in political office but I now see it as the only way to put the control of the government back into the hands of the People. Eliminate the career politician. A qualified congressman doesn’t have to have 20, 30 or more years of experience. These people got to where they are not because the voters knew the candidates. The people vote for the candidates selected (not elected) by the political parties – by existing long term politicians that are working for the benefit of their party NOT the people. If you doubt that just look at how well aligned voting is with party agenda. These people don’t ask what their constituents want; they ask what their party wants.
If we restrict politicians to 6-8 years of service at the state level and 6-8 years of service at the federal level, there will soon be no politicians that owe the party and the lobbyist for their office. The elected wouldn’t be in office long enough to make their stay financially beneficial. The power of the party would dissolve because they would not control the elected. Lobbyist would no longer be able to control Congress since the Lobbyist’s power comes from controlling the party and strict term limits will reduce the power of the party.
It doesn’t take a congressman with 30 years of experience to vote the way the majority of the constituents want. The more time in the party and in office, the less likely the congressman is to vote for the People rather than the Party’s agenda.
If we filled Congress with the people that we know and would elect, then Congress would be filled with voters that would oppose continuing the war in Iraq, matter of fact our Congress would not have put us into Iraq and they would oppose immigration reform that would create a low income alien working class that would be underpaid, unprotected by workplace regulations and supported in-part by taxpayers dollars rather than the profits of their employers. How many tax cuts for the rich would your selections to Congress vote for?
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Why Some Christians don't believe in the Separation of Church and State
When Evangelical Christians distort the facts so that they can violate the constitutional guarantee of “separation of church and state”, they make the strongest argument for “separation of church and state”. The following are two current examples of such distortions.
The Navy decided not to renew the enlistment contract of one of its Chaplains. Two of the reasons given by the Navy were (1) the Chaplain wore his military uniform while holding a public political protest and (2) the Chaplain repeatedly proselytized at multi-denominational services. Military personnel are allowed to participate in political protests but must not do so while wearing their military uniform. When speaking to a multi-denominational group Chaplains are expected to refrain from proselytizing. Chaplains are expected to provide non-denominational spiritual support to all military personnel regardless of their own personal religious beliefs and those of the military personnel they advise.
All open military religious services shall be inclusive and respectful of all religious beliefs. Chaplains are allowed to encourage personnel to develop spiritually but they are expected to not recommend any one belief over another. A chaplain that can not comply with the regulations is not suitable for being a military chaplain and should instead evangelize as a civilian.
The chaplain who was released at the end of his contract has complained that the Navy tried to prevent him from praying publicly in the name of Jesus. Multiple religious action groups have come to the support of the chaplain. This story has received a lot of coverage in the media and the internet. The statements made by the chaplain and his supporters intentionally misrepresent the military’s reasons for releasing the chaplain.
In another example of distorting the truth, Evangelical Christians are hotly opposing a bill recently approved by the House which expands the definition of a Hate Crime and provides support to non-Federal jurisdictions in their prosecution of a Hate Crime only if an act of violence was committed. The Christian opponents are claiming that the writers of the bill will use it to prosecute Churches if they speak out against homosexuality. In reality, the opponents of the expanded Hate Crime bill want to exclude any law that would protect the rights of a homosexual. For that matter, they want to exclude any law that protects the rights of any person that acts or speaks in a manner that the Christians deem to be immoral. They can’t however make that charge directly because it would not be acceptable to the majority of Americans.
Why do these religious groups misrepresent the facts? They are, in my opinion, trying to change our laws by misrepresenting the Constitution and redefining, for their benefit, the definition of Separation of Church and State. They do not respect other religious beliefs and they intend to redefine our Constitution and our Laws such that it supports and complies only with their interpretation of the Christian Bible. In my opinion the proponents of Separation of Church and State are defending our Constitution not the other way around.
The Evangelical Christians’ objective is a Christian-based Government, Christian-based Laws and the abolishment of “Separation of Church and State”. If they were to succeed, federal, state and local legislators would have to enact laws to enforce Born Again Christian beliefs. Christian prayer would be required at all public functions while all non-Christian religions would be silenced. Laws would be created to enforce Christian morality. The mere existence of other religious groups would not be protected by the law. Schools would no longer teach evolution. Science education would be rewritten to comply with Creation as defined in the Christian Bible. All published writings would have to be approved by the Christian Leadership. Satanic books like the Harry Potter series of children books would no longer be legal. Christian censorship would control the content of television and the movies.
In short order, the United States of America would become a religious state where Evangelical Christianity would be the only legal religion and its beliefs would be the basis of all civil and criminal laws.
The Evangelical Christians exaggerate and misrepresent our current laws because Truth will not benefit their cause. They do not want you to know their true objective. It’s like politics, if you can’t win the constituent’s vote with the truth about your ideas and your performance, then lie about your opponent’s ideas and performance. They encourage us to believe that their opponents are trying to limit our freedoms while they would do more to limit freedom than any threat that America has had to endure.
The Navy decided not to renew the enlistment contract of one of its Chaplains. Two of the reasons given by the Navy were (1) the Chaplain wore his military uniform while holding a public political protest and (2) the Chaplain repeatedly proselytized at multi-denominational services. Military personnel are allowed to participate in political protests but must not do so while wearing their military uniform. When speaking to a multi-denominational group Chaplains are expected to refrain from proselytizing. Chaplains are expected to provide non-denominational spiritual support to all military personnel regardless of their own personal religious beliefs and those of the military personnel they advise.
All open military religious services shall be inclusive and respectful of all religious beliefs. Chaplains are allowed to encourage personnel to develop spiritually but they are expected to not recommend any one belief over another. A chaplain that can not comply with the regulations is not suitable for being a military chaplain and should instead evangelize as a civilian.
The chaplain who was released at the end of his contract has complained that the Navy tried to prevent him from praying publicly in the name of Jesus. Multiple religious action groups have come to the support of the chaplain. This story has received a lot of coverage in the media and the internet. The statements made by the chaplain and his supporters intentionally misrepresent the military’s reasons for releasing the chaplain.
In another example of distorting the truth, Evangelical Christians are hotly opposing a bill recently approved by the House which expands the definition of a Hate Crime and provides support to non-Federal jurisdictions in their prosecution of a Hate Crime only if an act of violence was committed. The Christian opponents are claiming that the writers of the bill will use it to prosecute Churches if they speak out against homosexuality. In reality, the opponents of the expanded Hate Crime bill want to exclude any law that would protect the rights of a homosexual. For that matter, they want to exclude any law that protects the rights of any person that acts or speaks in a manner that the Christians deem to be immoral. They can’t however make that charge directly because it would not be acceptable to the majority of Americans.
Why do these religious groups misrepresent the facts? They are, in my opinion, trying to change our laws by misrepresenting the Constitution and redefining, for their benefit, the definition of Separation of Church and State. They do not respect other religious beliefs and they intend to redefine our Constitution and our Laws such that it supports and complies only with their interpretation of the Christian Bible. In my opinion the proponents of Separation of Church and State are defending our Constitution not the other way around.
The Evangelical Christians’ objective is a Christian-based Government, Christian-based Laws and the abolishment of “Separation of Church and State”. If they were to succeed, federal, state and local legislators would have to enact laws to enforce Born Again Christian beliefs. Christian prayer would be required at all public functions while all non-Christian religions would be silenced. Laws would be created to enforce Christian morality. The mere existence of other religious groups would not be protected by the law. Schools would no longer teach evolution. Science education would be rewritten to comply with Creation as defined in the Christian Bible. All published writings would have to be approved by the Christian Leadership. Satanic books like the Harry Potter series of children books would no longer be legal. Christian censorship would control the content of television and the movies.
In short order, the United States of America would become a religious state where Evangelical Christianity would be the only legal religion and its beliefs would be the basis of all civil and criminal laws.
The Evangelical Christians exaggerate and misrepresent our current laws because Truth will not benefit their cause. They do not want you to know their true objective. It’s like politics, if you can’t win the constituent’s vote with the truth about your ideas and your performance, then lie about your opponent’s ideas and performance. They encourage us to believe that their opponents are trying to limit our freedoms while they would do more to limit freedom than any threat that America has had to endure.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
No longer the Land of the Free
It started when Bush was given the presidency by the Supreme Court, my feeling that the United States of America is not the Land of the Free. The Bush Administration has demonstrated repeatedly that it will do as it pleases regardless of our Constitution and our Laws. Two Republican-appointed federal appeals court judges, in a 2-1 decision, ordered a lower court to dismiss a case brought by plaintiffs that challenged the legality of the wiretapping program. The appeals court did not address the lower court ruling that the spying program was unconstitutional, rather it ruled only that the plaintiffs could not sue since they lacked proof that they were targets of the wiretapping. The Administration claims it is protecting State Secrecy by not revealing their targets thus preventing the plaintiffs from obtaining proof if any exists.
Our Constitution established checks and balances to ensure that no branch of the government could get away with abuses. Bush ignores the check that would protect against illegal wiretapping. The check is the "special surveillance court". Bush has authorized his agencies to wiretap without a warrant from the special surveillance court. Bush's own very conservative Attorney General resigned because he would not sanction the wiretapping. A US District court ruled that secret wiretapping is unconstitutional. But Bush continues to wiretap without oversight while using his appointed judges to prevent us from challenging his conduct in court.
This is what happens all the time in other countries but, "Thank God", I used to say, "that I live in America where this will never happen." Well, live and learn. It also happens here.
Bush abuses human rights. Bush violates our Constitution. Bush started and continues the war in Iraq for the benefit of the Military-Industrial Complex. The war costs us $200 million every day and may exceed a total cost of $1 trillion. Who do you think is being paid that money? How interested are they in seeing the war end sooner than later? I'm pretty sure that they are not anxious to see the war and their hugh profits come to a halt.
Bush stole the presidency and has gone on to rape America. Who thinks otherwise?
Our Constitution established checks and balances to ensure that no branch of the government could get away with abuses. Bush ignores the check that would protect against illegal wiretapping. The check is the "special surveillance court". Bush has authorized his agencies to wiretap without a warrant from the special surveillance court. Bush's own very conservative Attorney General resigned because he would not sanction the wiretapping. A US District court ruled that secret wiretapping is unconstitutional. But Bush continues to wiretap without oversight while using his appointed judges to prevent us from challenging his conduct in court.
This is what happens all the time in other countries but, "Thank God", I used to say, "that I live in America where this will never happen." Well, live and learn. It also happens here.
Bush abuses human rights. Bush violates our Constitution. Bush started and continues the war in Iraq for the benefit of the Military-Industrial Complex. The war costs us $200 million every day and may exceed a total cost of $1 trillion. Who do you think is being paid that money? How interested are they in seeing the war end sooner than later? I'm pretty sure that they are not anxious to see the war and their hugh profits come to a halt.
Bush stole the presidency and has gone on to rape America. Who thinks otherwise?
Friday, July 06, 2007
On Second Thought...
After my post "First Do Unto Yourself The Worst You Would Do Unto Others" I started having second thoughts about the position I took. I was thinking about removing the post until I heard that a group of radical Muslim students in Pakistan, who have by force taken control of a mosque and innocent bystanders, are probably using young school children as human shields. My previous post stays where it is. What are these beings that they would put young children in harms way to protect themselves and further their cause?
Many children have been killed in the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. With the exception of the crimes committed by both sides, children were never used in such a way by a civilized people. There is a difference between an accident and intent. Some will say the child is dead either way but I don't agree that it is the same. As we have seen before these people have absolutely no respect for the lives of others. It's fine with me that they martyr themselves for their cause but they should not delay the inevitable at the cost of innocent lives.
They are evil. Bring on the Kevorkian Express.
Many children have been killed in the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. With the exception of the crimes committed by both sides, children were never used in such a way by a civilized people. There is a difference between an accident and intent. Some will say the child is dead either way but I don't agree that it is the same. As we have seen before these people have absolutely no respect for the lives of others. It's fine with me that they martyr themselves for their cause but they should not delay the inevitable at the cost of innocent lives.
They are evil. Bring on the Kevorkian Express.
Sunday, July 01, 2007
First Do Unto Yourself The Worst You Would Do Unto Others
I've never believed in Capital Punishment. There are several reasons why we should not execute people. The best reason is that our legal system occasionally convicts an innocent person. That is reason enough. Proponents of Capital Punishment argue that it is an effective deterrent. If that was true Texas would not continue to lead the nation in executions.
However, recently I'm tempted to suggest that Capital Punishment is justifiable for a certain group of beings. These are terrorists that are hell bent on killing to further their political or so-called religious agenda. If death is the reward they seek I think it’s high time that we accommodate their wish. Our staying on high moral ground only benefits the terrorist. Our current punishment is not a deterrent. Turn the other cheek to this enemy and he will cut your throat in both directions.
There will be no negotiated settlement, no win-win agreement, with these terrorists. The terrorists’ objective is our destruction. We are not fighting over a piece of this world. We are defending our existence in this world.
The Muslim terrorist is not the only enemy of mankind that is unwilling to share this world with others. For instance, when the Hutus slaughtered 800,000 Tutsis, the Hutu’s objective was more than the political control of Rwanda and not just reclaiming the property that had once been theirs. The objective of the Hutus was the complete destruction of the Tutsis. They intended to kill every Tutsi man, woman and child even though many of them were neighbors, relatives and in-laws. The Hutus would not be satisfied with sharing; there would be no win-win agreement.
I hate to use the term Evil but I can not think of a more appropriate descriptor for these terrorists. The inhabitants of this world don’t have to be of one mind but to coexist peacefully they must have mutual respect. People should be proud of whom they are yet not think they are above other people. I am proud to be an American but I do not believe that I am better than those who are not American. Pride is fine. Arrogance and disrespecting others is not.
Evil is what I call people who wish to destroy other ideas and the people that believe in them. I also believe that evil people will not be reformed. Could Hitler have been reformed? Could those who carried out Hitler’s wishes have been reformed? No. I do not believe that people with the capacity to slaughter innocents can peacefully share this world with others. A Hutu that is willing to kill his neighbors in exchange for a farm of his own will not, in my opinion, be reformed.
There is no room is this world for people that won’t share this world with others. There is no place in this world for ideologies that exclude all others. Such people and ideologies are non-negotiating and beyond reform.
A few years ago following some senseless slaughter of innocents I thought of a solution I called the “Kevorkian Express”. Every person in the world would have to answer one question, “Do you want to kill anybody else in this world?” If their answer is yes, they would die. They would not be killed by others. They would in a sense have killed themselves by expressing a desire to kill another. The Kevorkian Express turns evil upon itself. You can think of it as a minor modification of the Golden Rule. First do unto yourself the worst you would do unto others.
I’m not suggesting that others should be killed or I too would be eliminated by the Kevorkian Express. Rather, I am merely suggesting that each of us should first treat ourselves just as we would mistreat another.
There should be no court of appeal for Evil and there should be no court of appeal for terrorists. Catch them. Give them a ticket to the Kevorkian Express. No arraignment, no trial, no appeal, no probation, no parole, no pardon. Let them answer the Question.
However, recently I'm tempted to suggest that Capital Punishment is justifiable for a certain group of beings. These are terrorists that are hell bent on killing to further their political or so-called religious agenda. If death is the reward they seek I think it’s high time that we accommodate their wish. Our staying on high moral ground only benefits the terrorist. Our current punishment is not a deterrent. Turn the other cheek to this enemy and he will cut your throat in both directions.
There will be no negotiated settlement, no win-win agreement, with these terrorists. The terrorists’ objective is our destruction. We are not fighting over a piece of this world. We are defending our existence in this world.
The Muslim terrorist is not the only enemy of mankind that is unwilling to share this world with others. For instance, when the Hutus slaughtered 800,000 Tutsis, the Hutu’s objective was more than the political control of Rwanda and not just reclaiming the property that had once been theirs. The objective of the Hutus was the complete destruction of the Tutsis. They intended to kill every Tutsi man, woman and child even though many of them were neighbors, relatives and in-laws. The Hutus would not be satisfied with sharing; there would be no win-win agreement.
I hate to use the term Evil but I can not think of a more appropriate descriptor for these terrorists. The inhabitants of this world don’t have to be of one mind but to coexist peacefully they must have mutual respect. People should be proud of whom they are yet not think they are above other people. I am proud to be an American but I do not believe that I am better than those who are not American. Pride is fine. Arrogance and disrespecting others is not.
Evil is what I call people who wish to destroy other ideas and the people that believe in them. I also believe that evil people will not be reformed. Could Hitler have been reformed? Could those who carried out Hitler’s wishes have been reformed? No. I do not believe that people with the capacity to slaughter innocents can peacefully share this world with others. A Hutu that is willing to kill his neighbors in exchange for a farm of his own will not, in my opinion, be reformed.
There is no room is this world for people that won’t share this world with others. There is no place in this world for ideologies that exclude all others. Such people and ideologies are non-negotiating and beyond reform.
A few years ago following some senseless slaughter of innocents I thought of a solution I called the “Kevorkian Express”. Every person in the world would have to answer one question, “Do you want to kill anybody else in this world?” If their answer is yes, they would die. They would not be killed by others. They would in a sense have killed themselves by expressing a desire to kill another. The Kevorkian Express turns evil upon itself. You can think of it as a minor modification of the Golden Rule. First do unto yourself the worst you would do unto others.
I’m not suggesting that others should be killed or I too would be eliminated by the Kevorkian Express. Rather, I am merely suggesting that each of us should first treat ourselves just as we would mistreat another.
There should be no court of appeal for Evil and there should be no court of appeal for terrorists. Catch them. Give them a ticket to the Kevorkian Express. No arraignment, no trial, no appeal, no probation, no parole, no pardon. Let them answer the Question.
Friday, June 08, 2007
Happiness
"The happiest people don't HAVE the best of everything. They just MAKE the best of everything they have."
I have to keep working on this one!
How are you doing?
I have to keep working on this one!
How are you doing?
Monday, March 19, 2007
Ben Stein's last Column for E! Online was BS
One of my best friends recently sent to me a copy of the last column Ben Stein wrote for E! Online in 2003 titled "How Can Someone Who Lives in Insane Luxury Be a Star in Today's World?” Ben's column makes the reader feel good about himself while pointing the finger of blame for the reader's lack of values on Celebrities.
I agree that celebrities are not heroes but Ben has blamed the celebrities instead of the people who idolize them. As part of the news media Ben takes a little blame but the news media only sells what the Public buys. It’s the Public’s moral values and senses of civic and social duty that are lacking. Ben has pointed the finger of blame in the wrong direction.
Ben said, “Real stars are not riding around in the backs of limousines or in Porsches or getting trained in yoga or Pilates and eating only raw fruit while they have Vietnamese girls do their nails”. Are these the only people that are eating up the wealth of the nation and ignoring the “have nots” that eek out a meager living or none at all. BS. We appreciate what Ben wrote because WE are not riding in limos and Porches nor having our nails done by Vietnamese girls and are therefore blameless. Is it only the rich celebrities that are not doing their share? BS.
Ben has made his reader's feel good about themselves, good about their under-appreciated public servants and angry as hell at the rich people that aren’t helping out. I think Ben's last column was just "feeding the monkeys at the zoo". This kind of editorializing only further divides the people of this country. We the People are the problem. We make the celebrities. We made Ben Stein. We accept the mentally ill trying to survive on our streets. We accept the employment of underpaid illegal aliens.
THEY are not the problem. WE are the problem. Jesus said, “And why worry about a speck in your friend’s eye when you have a log in your own? How can you think of saying to your friend, ‘Let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,’ when you can’t see past the log in your own eye? Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend’s eye.
I agree that celebrities are not heroes but Ben has blamed the celebrities instead of the people who idolize them. As part of the news media Ben takes a little blame but the news media only sells what the Public buys. It’s the Public’s moral values and senses of civic and social duty that are lacking. Ben has pointed the finger of blame in the wrong direction.
Ben said, “Real stars are not riding around in the backs of limousines or in Porsches or getting trained in yoga or Pilates and eating only raw fruit while they have Vietnamese girls do their nails”. Are these the only people that are eating up the wealth of the nation and ignoring the “have nots” that eek out a meager living or none at all. BS. We appreciate what Ben wrote because WE are not riding in limos and Porches nor having our nails done by Vietnamese girls and are therefore blameless. Is it only the rich celebrities that are not doing their share? BS.
Ben has made his reader's feel good about themselves, good about their under-appreciated public servants and angry as hell at the rich people that aren’t helping out. I think Ben's last column was just "feeding the monkeys at the zoo". This kind of editorializing only further divides the people of this country. We the People are the problem. We make the celebrities. We made Ben Stein. We accept the mentally ill trying to survive on our streets. We accept the employment of underpaid illegal aliens.
THEY are not the problem. WE are the problem. Jesus said, “And why worry about a speck in your friend’s eye when you have a log in your own? How can you think of saying to your friend, ‘Let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,’ when you can’t see past the log in your own eye? Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend’s eye.
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Quote my nearest book
My wonderful blogger friend Karen of the well read "The Sword's Still Out" posted a suggestion to all to do the following.
1. Grab the nearest book.
2. Open the book to page 123.
3. Find the fifth sentence.
4. Post the text of the next four sentences on your blog, along with these instructions.
And so...
Sun Tzu said:
1. Ground may be classified according to its nature as accessible, entrapping, indecisive, constricted, precipitous, and distant.
2. Ground which both we and the enemy can traverse with equal ease is called accessible. In such ground, he who first takes high sunny positions convenient to his supply routes can fight advantageously.
3. Ground easy to get out of but difficult to return to is entrapping.
"Sun Tzu on The Art of War", 500 B.C., translated from the Chinese by Samuel B. Griffith (1963)
1. Grab the nearest book.
2. Open the book to page 123.
3. Find the fifth sentence.
4. Post the text of the next four sentences on your blog, along with these instructions.
And so...
Sun Tzu said:
1. Ground may be classified according to its nature as accessible, entrapping, indecisive, constricted, precipitous, and distant.
2. Ground which both we and the enemy can traverse with equal ease is called accessible. In such ground, he who first takes high sunny positions convenient to his supply routes can fight advantageously.
3. Ground easy to get out of but difficult to return to is entrapping.
"Sun Tzu on The Art of War", 500 B.C., translated from the Chinese by Samuel B. Griffith (1963)
Friday, November 03, 2006
High School Reunion - Year 42.5
Recently attended a high school mini-reunion. Half way between my 40th and 45th year reunions. I had fun. I always enjoy our reunions. Good people. Seriously.
We met in Branson, MO. Playground of Mid-America's Senior Citizens. Lots of Country music - very tolerable. No Gambling - thank God. Very quite after 10 PM. Plenty of discount shopping at the Super Walmart.
Laura and I with my classmates attended a Dixie Stampede show that is owned by Dolly Parton. It was a dinner show. Dinner was good Southern food but we had to eat with our fingers. Was this typical of the 1800's South?
We had our picture taken when we arrived for the Stampede. I'm kneeling in the lower left. My wife, Laura, is sitting on the stool next to me. One classmate and her husband were in town but not in the picture because he was busy winning the International Country Gospel award for best male vocalist.
Friday, September 01, 2006
New Orleans Video
One member of the group that recently went to New Orleans to rebuild a church is a professional videographer (or something like that). He made an excellent video of the conditions and need for help in New Orleans as well as our group's specific experience.
Please watch it. Think. Feel. Do what you can to help restore the area and the people struck by Katrina.
http://www.bridgecreativegroup.com/video.html
Please watch it. Think. Feel. Do what you can to help restore the area and the people struck by Katrina.
http://www.bridgecreativegroup.com/video.html
Monday, August 07, 2006
Katrina Victims Need Our Help
I have just seen with my own eyes and heard from residents of New Orleans that nothing significant has been done to rebuild much of New Orleans, to bring businesses, jobs and people back. I personally drove around New Orleans this week and saw for myself the state of devastation in which it still remains. Along Orleans Avenue in the mid-city area East of the French Quarter many blocks are completely deserted, no businesses are open and less than one-tenth of the homes are occupied. I participated in the renovation and reopening of the first church in the mid-city area this past week. One year since Katrina and one church is reopened. I went through the lower ninth ward which was so hard hit that many of the houses are damaged structurally and can only be replaced. In one neighborhood of hundreds or thousands of homes, I found only one "home" being occupied but I don't know how since the power company will not provide service to this area. I wonder who has enough grit or desperation to live among so many abandoned homes where for more than one mile in any direction there is no other human life - just broken down homes, immense piles of debris and rats. There were three men in my car, it was about 10 PM and we each worried for our safety. I was reminded of one of the Mad Max movies about the future after worldwide destruction. There was not one sign of recontruction and I don't expect one in the second year since Katrina.
The French Quarter is thriving. St. Charles Avenue and the neighborhoods of the monied look like Katrina had not struck. Only a rare home in that area is not fully repaired. But most of New Orleans does not have the money to make its own repairs. No businesses. No jobs. No people. No insurance checks because the insurance companies claim that the losses were due to flooding rather than the wind damage of a hurricane in spite of the fact that many of the houses that I saw were leaning or laying down. No job. No home. No insurance. No help from the government. FEMA is still making excuses.
After one year everybody has a share of the responsibility for so little being done in the areas struck by Katrina. Some politicians and some of the citizens in that area are now blaming the poor as the crime rate increases. Poverty begets crime. Hopelessness begets crime. After one year and no progress there can be little hope that help will come. Anger and crime are inevitible. Not because of race. Because of poverty and hopelessness.
Don't forget and don't blame the victims of Katrina. Demand that the government do something. Ask what YOU can do and act on it.
The French Quarter is thriving. St. Charles Avenue and the neighborhoods of the monied look like Katrina had not struck. Only a rare home in that area is not fully repaired. But most of New Orleans does not have the money to make its own repairs. No businesses. No jobs. No people. No insurance checks because the insurance companies claim that the losses were due to flooding rather than the wind damage of a hurricane in spite of the fact that many of the houses that I saw were leaning or laying down. No job. No home. No insurance. No help from the government. FEMA is still making excuses.
After one year everybody has a share of the responsibility for so little being done in the areas struck by Katrina. Some politicians and some of the citizens in that area are now blaming the poor as the crime rate increases. Poverty begets crime. Hopelessness begets crime. After one year and no progress there can be little hope that help will come. Anger and crime are inevitible. Not because of race. Because of poverty and hopelessness.
Don't forget and don't blame the victims of Katrina. Demand that the government do something. Ask what YOU can do and act on it.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Pride: A Sin
I'm happy to be a believer and follower of Jesus Christ but I don't care for many of the Christians I meet. Christian belief is not bling-bling. An ostentatious display of one's belief is just as repulsive as an intentionally conspicuous display of wealth. It's an act of pride and in my opinion it's not Christ-like.
I can usually recognize a bling-bling Christian in a matter of seconds, especially if he or she knows that I'm a believer. Out come the merit badges, photos of mission trips and Christian-talk. They won’t waste a second proving that they are more than a common believer. They are chosen. They are on a mission. You are going to hear all about it… now.
This week in New Orleans I’ve also met some Christians whose conduct really impressed me. Several ladies, members of the Bibleway Missionary Baptist Church in New Orleans, have prepared and served all of our meals and laundered all of our clothes. Their gratitude for our help in rebuilding their church is genuine and so rewarding. They are not adorned with Christian bling-bling, yet their belief is obvious. I don’t need to hear their testimony. I can see it for myself in their conduct and treatment of me – their caring words and loving embraces.
I thank God when one of the ladies says Grace before a meal instead of one of our bling-bling Christians. Their prayers are simple, on the point and short. Our bling-bling Christians can and will go on and on. Who said that the longer prayer is a better prayer? Perhaps the bling-bling Christian believes that the longer the prayer, the better the pray-er.
I can usually recognize a bling-bling Christian in a matter of seconds, especially if he or she knows that I'm a believer. Out come the merit badges, photos of mission trips and Christian-talk. They won’t waste a second proving that they are more than a common believer. They are chosen. They are on a mission. You are going to hear all about it… now.
This week in New Orleans I’ve also met some Christians whose conduct really impressed me. Several ladies, members of the Bibleway Missionary Baptist Church in New Orleans, have prepared and served all of our meals and laundered all of our clothes. Their gratitude for our help in rebuilding their church is genuine and so rewarding. They are not adorned with Christian bling-bling, yet their belief is obvious. I don’t need to hear their testimony. I can see it for myself in their conduct and treatment of me – their caring words and loving embraces.
I thank God when one of the ladies says Grace before a meal instead of one of our bling-bling Christians. Their prayers are simple, on the point and short. Our bling-bling Christians can and will go on and on. Who said that the longer prayer is a better prayer? Perhaps the bling-bling Christian believes that the longer the prayer, the better the pray-er.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
New Orleans Mission
I'm in New Orleans with members of two Danbury Churches - Walnut Hill Church (the largest in the Danbury area) and New Hope Baptist Church. I'm not a member of either church but I have been attending New Hope Baptist and prefer it based on my experiences with both.
We came to New Orleans to renovate and reopen the Bibleway Missionary Baptist Church at 3201 Orleans Avenue. This is being called a mission but I don't think it meets the requirement that its purpose is to spread the Word. The membership of Bibleway Missionary that I have met is saved and knows the Word better than I do. I think this is a benevolent project that is no less worthwhile and necessary than a true mission. The project leaders hope that reopening the first church in this area of New Orleans will be a catalyst for more rebuilding projects.
The heat, humidity and some of the work are exhausting me and I have wanted at times to just walk away and rest or go home. I'm disappointed that I can't keep up with the younger members. Age is a factor but probably less a factor than my weight and lack of regular exercise.
The work is progressing very rapidly. Overall the project is not managed very well and people tend to do what they want. Most of us aren't skilled at any of this work and some of us have never used a power tool before. Several of the members are construction tradesmen or contractors that are at least familiar with the work. I would like to see the work done better but there is the practical matter of limited time. The church will be reopened for service next Sunday and for the most part nobody will much notice our shortcuts. Still, I wish there was more time.
Everybody keeps saying that God is making this happen. This may not be the Christian thing to say but I think all of these men and women are making it happen through their desire to serve mankind in God's name. I don't think they are doing it with the Power of God. I think they are energized by their Faith. Is this the wrong way to think?
We came to New Orleans to renovate and reopen the Bibleway Missionary Baptist Church at 3201 Orleans Avenue. This is being called a mission but I don't think it meets the requirement that its purpose is to spread the Word. The membership of Bibleway Missionary that I have met is saved and knows the Word better than I do. I think this is a benevolent project that is no less worthwhile and necessary than a true mission. The project leaders hope that reopening the first church in this area of New Orleans will be a catalyst for more rebuilding projects.
The heat, humidity and some of the work are exhausting me and I have wanted at times to just walk away and rest or go home. I'm disappointed that I can't keep up with the younger members. Age is a factor but probably less a factor than my weight and lack of regular exercise.
The work is progressing very rapidly. Overall the project is not managed very well and people tend to do what they want. Most of us aren't skilled at any of this work and some of us have never used a power tool before. Several of the members are construction tradesmen or contractors that are at least familiar with the work. I would like to see the work done better but there is the practical matter of limited time. The church will be reopened for service next Sunday and for the most part nobody will much notice our shortcuts. Still, I wish there was more time.
Everybody keeps saying that God is making this happen. This may not be the Christian thing to say but I think all of these men and women are making it happen through their desire to serve mankind in God's name. I don't think they are doing it with the Power of God. I think they are energized by their Faith. Is this the wrong way to think?
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
My Talk Soup
| My Linguistic Profile: |
| 50% General American English |
| 25% Yankee |
| 20% Dixie |
| 0% Midwestern |
| 0% Upper Midwestern |
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Hill of Wildflowers
We have a steep hill along our backyard. We've been planting wildflowers on it for the last 3 years. This year two flowers dominate the hill. In the past we've had more of a mix but the Sunflower and the Black-eyed Susan have taken over.
We haven't decided what to do when there are more dead blossums than live blossums. One landscaper recommended that we cut everything back to 12 inches and the flowers will set more blossums. Another landscaper suggested doing nothing but it starts to look pretty poor. If you have dealt with this issue let me know what you think worked best.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
My End is not near!
I’m only 59 years old. I feel like an 18 year-old inside the body of a 45 year-old. Old is a relative thing. When I was really 18, Old Age started somewhere between the ages of 50 and 60. Now that I’m between 50 and 60, albeit barely, Old Age doesn’t start until after 70. I’m not there yet but I am getting closer to it even though it is moving away.
This week I was working with a young woman around 30 years old. While discussing sleeping habits I mentioned that I like to wake up early – between 4 and 5 AM. She said that she was a night person and doesn’t go to bed until after midnight. I added that I am also a night person and I, too, stay up late. I said, “I just don’t sleep long now that I’m older”. She asked me if I didn’t sleep long because I’m thinking about dying soon.
What the …! I haven’t even reached Old Age but this young woman thinks that I’m close to the End. I’ve heard people say, “He died of Old Age”, but he wasn’t 59! Maybe 99 or 89 but not 59!
Do I look like I’m about to expire? I have a nice tan on my face from my convertible sports car. That’s not the look of Near Death!
Since my conversation with this young agent of doom I haven’t been sleeping well. I realized that this was not the first time that somebody has thought that I was near the End.
A few years ago I attended a reunion of sailors that had served on the Navy destroyer USS Braine. I'm one of the younger sailors from one of the last crews. Some of the attendees had served on the Braine in WW2. During one story telling session, one of the older sailors learned from one of my shipmates that I have had hepatitis C for several years. The old sailor was shocked. He told me that he’s known two people that contracted hep C and both died after only a few years. One of them had been married to one of his friends. Since USS Braine reunions were held every other year, this old sailor thought we should meet every year for the next couple of years WHILE I WAS STILL ALIVE!
It was funny the first time but now I’m getting concerned. I'm concerned that these suggestions could shorten my life. I’m only 59! Even my wife is contributing. Since January 1st when I tell somebody that I’m only 59, she says “You’re 60 this year.” Yes, I’ll be 60 in October; however, right now I’m only 59 and I just don’t require a lot of sleep.
This week I was working with a young woman around 30 years old. While discussing sleeping habits I mentioned that I like to wake up early – between 4 and 5 AM. She said that she was a night person and doesn’t go to bed until after midnight. I added that I am also a night person and I, too, stay up late. I said, “I just don’t sleep long now that I’m older”. She asked me if I didn’t sleep long because I’m thinking about dying soon.
What the …! I haven’t even reached Old Age but this young woman thinks that I’m close to the End. I’ve heard people say, “He died of Old Age”, but he wasn’t 59! Maybe 99 or 89 but not 59!
Do I look like I’m about to expire? I have a nice tan on my face from my convertible sports car. That’s not the look of Near Death!
Since my conversation with this young agent of doom I haven’t been sleeping well. I realized that this was not the first time that somebody has thought that I was near the End.
A few years ago I attended a reunion of sailors that had served on the Navy destroyer USS Braine. I'm one of the younger sailors from one of the last crews. Some of the attendees had served on the Braine in WW2. During one story telling session, one of the older sailors learned from one of my shipmates that I have had hepatitis C for several years. The old sailor was shocked. He told me that he’s known two people that contracted hep C and both died after only a few years. One of them had been married to one of his friends. Since USS Braine reunions were held every other year, this old sailor thought we should meet every year for the next couple of years WHILE I WAS STILL ALIVE!
It was funny the first time but now I’m getting concerned. I'm concerned that these suggestions could shorten my life. I’m only 59! Even my wife is contributing. Since January 1st when I tell somebody that I’m only 59, she says “You’re 60 this year.” Yes, I’ll be 60 in October; however, right now I’m only 59 and I just don’t require a lot of sleep.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Believe in Him and Love
Karen’s latest post at The Sword's Still Out addresses the question “If He loves us so much, why is all this bad stuff around…? Why aren't our prayers answered?” I agree with Karen but you’ll have to read her post like I did.
I have no reason to believe that I know what God is doing in this world. As for what I should be doing it seems to me that Jesus is the best if not the only indication of what God expects of me. Believe in Him and Love. If I act out of Love I will also be both good and helpful. I certainly don't know if God is answering my prayers. I really have only two prayers. Help me to Believe. Help me to Love. It's a work in progress.
A lot of people feel that they know in very specific terms what God doesn't approve of. Based on Jesus I know that God disapproves of Not Believing and he disapproves of Not Loving. I don't know anything else.
When anybody says that God wants me to do something other than Believe in Him and Love then I quit listening to that person. When anybody says that God disapproves of something other than Not Believing and Not Loving then I quit listening to that person.
That's it. Believe in Him and Love.
Monday, June 05, 2006
Will America Abandon Goodness?
The Pentagon has omitted a key tenet of the Geneva Convention that bans "humiliating and degrading treatment" in an unpublished revision of the Army Field Manual regarding interrogation. Most of the world is already convinced that the US is torturing detainees. Will this formal change in directive eliminate all doubt? The Pentagon believes that interrogators should be allowed to use harsher methods with detainees than are generally allowed for prisoners of war. If we reduce our standards what treatment can we expect for our soldiers when they are prisoners of war. In the past the US military was required to meet the "spirit and intent" of the Geneva Convention. Now it appears that we are looking for wiggle room within which to expand our definition of acceptable interrogation techniques.
Will America now abandon being Good? Our standard must require absolute Goodness or we are abandoning Goodness altogether. The standards for our conduct should not vary with the application. A detainee is no less human than a prisoner of war. We are no better and can demand no more from others than the worst of our own conduct.
Will America now abandon being Good? Our standard must require absolute Goodness or we are abandoning Goodness altogether. The standards for our conduct should not vary with the application. A detainee is no less human than a prisoner of war. We are no better and can demand no more from others than the worst of our own conduct.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
It's greed and racism, stupid!
The majority of the Mexican nationals that pour into the U.S. illegally are Amerindians (indigenous people of the Americas) or dark skinned Mestizos (a mix of white European and Ameridian). White Europeans are 9% of Mexico’s population. The Ameridians and Mestizos are 90% of the Mexican population. The wealth in Mexico is held by the whites and light skinned Mestizos. In spite of its ample natural resources Mexico does not provide adequate economic opportunity for the majority of its population because of inadequate tax and labor laws. Forty percent of the population is below the poverty line. Thirty percent of the population is underemployed. Mexico receives economic aid or relief from the U.S. via monetary contributions, NAFTA and employment and social programs provided to millions of its non-white population living in the U.S.
Therefore, the Mexican nationals living and working illegally in the U.S. are really “disregarded non-white” Mexican nationals. Vicente Fox is in the U.S. to generate support for Bush’s non-amnesty plan to legalize the current U.S. population of illegal aliens. Vicente Fox and Bush argue that these people are filling jobs that U.S. workers will not fill. Instead I believe the illegal aliens make it possible for U.S. employers to hire workers for less than minimum wage. But, the U.S. consumer is equally guilty because they are willing to hire contractors that employ illegal aliens because some of the labor cost savings are passed on to the consumer. Bush’s plan to legalize the illegal aliens is supported by these employers and consumers because the plan stipulates that these guest workers will not be protected by our labor laws. So, the plan actually creates a pool of legal workers that can be paid less than minimum wage.
This is not what America was supposed to be about. This is really an opportunity for the privileged to legally take advantage of the under-privileged. Equal opportunity would mean equal protection under all the laws but such is not the case according to Bush’s plan. The illegal aliens obviously welcome the “take it or leave it” offer. “Leave it” having a somewhat different meaning in this case. Of course they will take it and so will many more who will flock to the U.S. in greater numbers to take advantage of the plan since it would be their best alternative.
An ideal solution is to create safe, fair and adequate employment in Mexico; however, Vicente and the Mexican government are advocating for a compassionate response from U.S. citizens and the approval of Bush’s plan, instead.
Racial discrimination, which is the root cause of the economic plight of the non-white in Mexico, is still a factor in their existence in the U.S. However, with legalization the discrimination in the U.S. is likely to worsen as more and better jobs are filled by lower paid guest workers.
Send Vicente home to work on a Mexican solution. Pray that the Democratic Revolution Party candidate, Lopez Obrador, beats the National Action Party (Vincente’s party) candidate in Mexico’s upcoming Presidential election. Obrador was the mayor of Mexico City for 5 years. During that time he created public works jobs, funded social programs and left office with an 84% approval rating. As president he vows to enact tax reform – the greatest fear of the wealthy ruling class who consider Mexico a “tax-free enterprise zone for the rich”.
In the U.S. support the enforcement of laws prohibiting the employment of illegal aliens. Don’t hire contractors that employ illegal aliens. Demand that any plan to legalize illegal aliens already living in the U.S. not include any exceptions to or changes in the current labor laws protecting all U.S. workers.
Therefore, the Mexican nationals living and working illegally in the U.S. are really “disregarded non-white” Mexican nationals. Vicente Fox is in the U.S. to generate support for Bush’s non-amnesty plan to legalize the current U.S. population of illegal aliens. Vicente Fox and Bush argue that these people are filling jobs that U.S. workers will not fill. Instead I believe the illegal aliens make it possible for U.S. employers to hire workers for less than minimum wage. But, the U.S. consumer is equally guilty because they are willing to hire contractors that employ illegal aliens because some of the labor cost savings are passed on to the consumer. Bush’s plan to legalize the illegal aliens is supported by these employers and consumers because the plan stipulates that these guest workers will not be protected by our labor laws. So, the plan actually creates a pool of legal workers that can be paid less than minimum wage.
This is not what America was supposed to be about. This is really an opportunity for the privileged to legally take advantage of the under-privileged. Equal opportunity would mean equal protection under all the laws but such is not the case according to Bush’s plan. The illegal aliens obviously welcome the “take it or leave it” offer. “Leave it” having a somewhat different meaning in this case. Of course they will take it and so will many more who will flock to the U.S. in greater numbers to take advantage of the plan since it would be their best alternative.
An ideal solution is to create safe, fair and adequate employment in Mexico; however, Vicente and the Mexican government are advocating for a compassionate response from U.S. citizens and the approval of Bush’s plan, instead.
Racial discrimination, which is the root cause of the economic plight of the non-white in Mexico, is still a factor in their existence in the U.S. However, with legalization the discrimination in the U.S. is likely to worsen as more and better jobs are filled by lower paid guest workers.
Send Vicente home to work on a Mexican solution. Pray that the Democratic Revolution Party candidate, Lopez Obrador, beats the National Action Party (Vincente’s party) candidate in Mexico’s upcoming Presidential election. Obrador was the mayor of Mexico City for 5 years. During that time he created public works jobs, funded social programs and left office with an 84% approval rating. As president he vows to enact tax reform – the greatest fear of the wealthy ruling class who consider Mexico a “tax-free enterprise zone for the rich”.
In the U.S. support the enforcement of laws prohibiting the employment of illegal aliens. Don’t hire contractors that employ illegal aliens. Demand that any plan to legalize illegal aliens already living in the U.S. not include any exceptions to or changes in the current labor laws protecting all U.S. workers.
Friday, March 24, 2006
Can hot water freeze faster than cold water?
The average person can quote more untruths than truths about our physical world - a fact that disappoints me. My disappointment turns into irritation when I can't convince a misinformed person that their "belief" is only an "old wives’ tale". I’m a physicist and engineer, which means that I know a very little bit more than the non-physicist/engineer about the physical laws of our universe. Just enough to know that what fails the common sense test is often untrue. One such belief is that hot water freezes faster than cold water. You wouldn’t believe the number of times that I’ve been told this yet I have NEVER been able to convince one of the believers that the old wives’ tale is not true.
Today, I was searching the internet and one of the results was a paper titled “Can hot water freeze faster than cold water”? (Just my luck!) The author of the paper states that this tale is true but only if certain conditions are met. I find the paper believable but I still disagree with this tale. I can make an equivalent argument that “man can fly”. Under certain conditions. Let the man buy an airline ticket. Ensure that the man has in his possession all the necessary papers to satisfy the applicable security requirements. Let the man board the plane, take his seat and abide by all of the applicable rules of conduct for a passenger. Let the plane in which the man is seated take off successfully and fly (to move in the air with wings without support from the ground). Yep, hot water freezes faster than cold water and man can fly.
If you have the time and interest, I suggest that you read the paper titled “Can hot water freeze faster than cold water?”
If you are interested in checking out a few more “wives’ tales” for some that you like I may believe, take this link to Wikipedia.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Hollywood versus Hollywood
I know I’m about a week late with this post but I’ve been busy finishing my projects at work before my early retirement on March 31st. Hollywood’s uproar over the Best Picture Oscar reminds me of the mad man threatening to shoot himself in the head because he doesn’t agree with himself.
Before the nomination of Brokeback Mountain for Best Picture Oscar it appeared that all of Hollywood considered Brokeback Mountain the Best Picture Oscar winner. After the Oscar Committee nominated Brokeback Mountain for Best Picture Oscar, Hollywood was absolutely sure that Brokeback Mountain had the Best Picture Oscar. Hollywood applauded its film makers and the Oscar committee for having the courage to make and recognize a film that defends and normalizes homosexuality - no little matter considering the near-revival strength of conservative Christian ranks.
But, Brokeback Mountain didn't win the Best Picture Oscar – Crash won – and Hollywood is beside itself with disappointment and anger. Is Hollywood upset because Brokeback Mountain was really the Best Picture? Or, is Hollywood upset because members of their own ranks threw away a big opportunity to make a liberal statement about homosexuality? Is Hollywood liberal enough to nominate Brokeback Mountain yet biased enough to give the Best Picture Oscar to the second best movie? Maybe, but it’s at least equally possible that the Oscar voters, a subset of Hollywood, acted apolitically. Producers, directors, screenwriters and actors have every right to express their opinion – any opinion – through the movie medium. If movie makers were strictly interested in the art and technology of movie making, would the general public be entertained? The movie makers have something to say and often it’s something they have to get off their chest. The viewing audience wants to be entertained. They want to laugh; to cry; to get mad; to fall in love. Most of us were very impressed by the technical artistry of the graphics in “Shrek” but the movie makers really, really touched us when Love proved again that beauty is only skin deep.
So, I give kudos to the movie makers for putting their money where their mouths are and I give the benefit of the doubt and kudos as well to the Oscar voters who remained, I hope, true to their charge.
Before the nomination of Brokeback Mountain for Best Picture Oscar it appeared that all of Hollywood considered Brokeback Mountain the Best Picture Oscar winner. After the Oscar Committee nominated Brokeback Mountain for Best Picture Oscar, Hollywood was absolutely sure that Brokeback Mountain had the Best Picture Oscar. Hollywood applauded its film makers and the Oscar committee for having the courage to make and recognize a film that defends and normalizes homosexuality - no little matter considering the near-revival strength of conservative Christian ranks.
But, Brokeback Mountain didn't win the Best Picture Oscar – Crash won – and Hollywood is beside itself with disappointment and anger. Is Hollywood upset because Brokeback Mountain was really the Best Picture? Or, is Hollywood upset because members of their own ranks threw away a big opportunity to make a liberal statement about homosexuality? Is Hollywood liberal enough to nominate Brokeback Mountain yet biased enough to give the Best Picture Oscar to the second best movie? Maybe, but it’s at least equally possible that the Oscar voters, a subset of Hollywood, acted apolitically. Producers, directors, screenwriters and actors have every right to express their opinion – any opinion – through the movie medium. If movie makers were strictly interested in the art and technology of movie making, would the general public be entertained? The movie makers have something to say and often it’s something they have to get off their chest. The viewing audience wants to be entertained. They want to laugh; to cry; to get mad; to fall in love. Most of us were very impressed by the technical artistry of the graphics in “Shrek” but the movie makers really, really touched us when Love proved again that beauty is only skin deep.
So, I give kudos to the movie makers for putting their money where their mouths are and I give the benefit of the doubt and kudos as well to the Oscar voters who remained, I hope, true to their charge.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
R.I.P: Hope for a Free Iraq
Where are the religious leaders of the Muslims sects? Why are they not united and screaming out against the atrocities being committed by their followers? Are they not as incensed by the murder of 47 Muslim protestors as they are by a political cartoon? Do not the acts of the Muslim murders and the inaction of the Muslim leadership justify the accusations made by the cartoons? I believe they do.
I have supported the war to bring political and religious freedom to Iraq since it began. The BS about the missing Weapons of Mass Destruction means nothing to me. I didn’t care whether they every existed as long as the possibility of their existence allowed us to give Iraq to free Iraqis. That is still important to me but a free Iraq can exist only if all Iraqis and all Muslims are free.
In the last two weeks my optimism has completely disappeared. The political and religious fanatics are not interested in freedom for all Iraqis. The religious leaders are totally incapable of controlling their followers except to incite them to more destruction. It appears that we are only wasting the lives of our children-at-arms for a multi-cultural people who will NOT live together.
Saddam is in jail but his megalomaniacal successor waits for the US and its allies to leave Iraq. I do not know who he is but I do know that he will destroy everything that the Free World has done in Iraq. I have no doubt that the weak-willed Iraqi majority will surrender to him their opportunity for freedom. One political party, one political leader, one Muslim sect will rise up with their new leader while the minority parties and sects crouch back down in fear.
May the Hope of a Free Iraq “rest in peace”; it does not reign in Iraq.
I have supported the war to bring political and religious freedom to Iraq since it began. The BS about the missing Weapons of Mass Destruction means nothing to me. I didn’t care whether they every existed as long as the possibility of their existence allowed us to give Iraq to free Iraqis. That is still important to me but a free Iraq can exist only if all Iraqis and all Muslims are free.
In the last two weeks my optimism has completely disappeared. The political and religious fanatics are not interested in freedom for all Iraqis. The religious leaders are totally incapable of controlling their followers except to incite them to more destruction. It appears that we are only wasting the lives of our children-at-arms for a multi-cultural people who will NOT live together.
Saddam is in jail but his megalomaniacal successor waits for the US and its allies to leave Iraq. I do not know who he is but I do know that he will destroy everything that the Free World has done in Iraq. I have no doubt that the weak-willed Iraqi majority will surrender to him their opportunity for freedom. One political party, one political leader, one Muslim sect will rise up with their new leader while the minority parties and sects crouch back down in fear.
May the Hope of a Free Iraq “rest in peace”; it does not reign in Iraq.
Friday, February 10, 2006
Dressing To Save The Male
As often as I am in town and remember to do so, I attend a prayer and discussion session with a few men from my church. I am the only liberal in this group and one of the few who attend our Pentecostal church. We meet for prayer, bible study and fellowship. I believe that prayer is important but I don't always agree with the others about what to pray for. I believe in studying the bible but I don't take it as literally as the others. We all agree that change is needed. They are committed to changing me. I am committed to changing them. I think they are more confident about succeeding than I am.
This week we talked about men, women and their mutual sexual attraction. One of our group stated that the male is "wired" such that he must respond sexually to a woman. "Wired", in this context, means that the male's response is understandable and acceptable, i.e. natural. I certainly agree that men are so wired. I believe that women have their own wiring but if I were to say more I would only be guessing. Our group was divided on the question of who is responsible when the male's sexual response kicks in and takes charge at inappropriate times. I heard that one or more of our male teens can't look up from their feet when the youth worship team is leading the teen group in singing because some of the girls dress provocatively. Specifically, some of the girls wear low waist pants that expose their midriff. Some in my men's group think that girls should dress modestly or they will stimulate an uncontrollable unwanted sexual response from every male.
I suggested that they might instruct all the girls to wear burkas. The burka has proven to be an excellent way to deal with the provocative female body and the natural sexual response of the male. Putting burkas on all women is a lot easier than making all men act maturely and to treat women with respect. To my great surprise they thought I was serious. Luckily, they also thought that my suggestion was going too far. They thought a less agressive dress code would be sufficient to ensure modesty and protect the males from themselves.
I think women and men should show respect for themselves in their dress, speech and conduct. They should also dress, speak and act with respect for others. In my opinion showing respect for others means dressing, speaking and acting appropriately for the situation. Wearing nothing while swimming in a public pool is inappropriate; however, wearing a swimming suit, even one that doesn’t cover your midriff, to a public pool is appropriate. Wearing a swimming suit to a church service would be inappropriate. Wearing a swimming suit, even one that does cover your midriff, in church does not show respect for the other church goers.
If a swimming suit is not immodest dress for a public pool then it is also not immodest dress for church, a classroom or the workplace. Inappropriate – yes. Disrespectful – yes. But, it’s not immodest in my opinion, whether the midriff is covered or not. If exposing one’s midriff while wearing a swimming suit is not immodest then it is never immodest.
If a male is sexually stimulated by the sight of a woman’s belly button, is the male or female responsible for the male’s response? If the male responds by acting inappropriately, that is, if the male responds to the woman as if she is a sex object, is the male or the female responsible? If you think the female is responsible then you probably think that dressing women in burkas is an appropriate way to prevent women from provoking an uncontrollable male sexual response by displaying their belly buttons, midriff, ankles, knees, arms, neck, face and eyes. And, if so, you may also blame rape on the woman. Okay, maybe that’s a bit strong but do you wonder “what she was wearing or how was she acting” when she got herself raped?
Please… let us all be respectful of ourselves and others and assume responsibility, sole responsibility for our thoughts and our conduct.
This week we talked about men, women and their mutual sexual attraction. One of our group stated that the male is "wired" such that he must respond sexually to a woman. "Wired", in this context, means that the male's response is understandable and acceptable, i.e. natural. I certainly agree that men are so wired. I believe that women have their own wiring but if I were to say more I would only be guessing. Our group was divided on the question of who is responsible when the male's sexual response kicks in and takes charge at inappropriate times. I heard that one or more of our male teens can't look up from their feet when the youth worship team is leading the teen group in singing because some of the girls dress provocatively. Specifically, some of the girls wear low waist pants that expose their midriff. Some in my men's group think that girls should dress modestly or they will stimulate an uncontrollable unwanted sexual response from every male.
I suggested that they might instruct all the girls to wear burkas. The burka has proven to be an excellent way to deal with the provocative female body and the natural sexual response of the male. Putting burkas on all women is a lot easier than making all men act maturely and to treat women with respect. To my great surprise they thought I was serious. Luckily, they also thought that my suggestion was going too far. They thought a less agressive dress code would be sufficient to ensure modesty and protect the males from themselves.
I think women and men should show respect for themselves in their dress, speech and conduct. They should also dress, speak and act with respect for others. In my opinion showing respect for others means dressing, speaking and acting appropriately for the situation. Wearing nothing while swimming in a public pool is inappropriate; however, wearing a swimming suit, even one that doesn’t cover your midriff, to a public pool is appropriate. Wearing a swimming suit to a church service would be inappropriate. Wearing a swimming suit, even one that does cover your midriff, in church does not show respect for the other church goers.
If a swimming suit is not immodest dress for a public pool then it is also not immodest dress for church, a classroom or the workplace. Inappropriate – yes. Disrespectful – yes. But, it’s not immodest in my opinion, whether the midriff is covered or not. If exposing one’s midriff while wearing a swimming suit is not immodest then it is never immodest.
If a male is sexually stimulated by the sight of a woman’s belly button, is the male or female responsible for the male’s response? If the male responds by acting inappropriately, that is, if the male responds to the woman as if she is a sex object, is the male or the female responsible? If you think the female is responsible then you probably think that dressing women in burkas is an appropriate way to prevent women from provoking an uncontrollable male sexual response by displaying their belly buttons, midriff, ankles, knees, arms, neck, face and eyes. And, if so, you may also blame rape on the woman. Okay, maybe that’s a bit strong but do you wonder “what she was wearing or how was she acting” when she got herself raped?
Please… let us all be respectful of ourselves and others and assume responsibility, sole responsibility for our thoughts and our conduct.
Monday, February 06, 2006
How much do Americans know about America?
| I Passed the US Citizenship Test |
 |
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Just Anger but Unjust Revenge
My wife and I have developed a Larry King Show habit. I generally enjoy the content and I usually agree with King's opinion. Last night’s show is a complete exception. Last night King's principal guest was a woman who had shot and killed her father. The woman appeared to be at least 45 years old and the father was probably 70 to 75 years old at the time of his death. Along with the woman were her mother, two sisters and her lawyer. The woman had spent 17 months of a 7 year sentence in prison before she was paroled. The father was about as horrible a person as any could be. He physically and sexually abused his children and, in at least one case, a granddaughter. He abused his wife in every way - he even brought other women to his home. He made no attempt to hide his conduct and many of these acts were committed in front of some or all of the family. He was said to be a very poor provider and an alcoholic. He and his daughters' mother were never separated or divorced. All of his children were married and lived separately in the same area.
At the time of the killing the mother had recently been diagnosed with cancer and the prognosis was very poor. As one would expect the father did not take care of his sick wife and she was finally removed from her home and placed in a hospital. This disregard for her mother angered the woman enough that she decided to kill her father.
At a later date, the woman armed herself and went to her father’s house to shoot him but found the doors locked. She took this as a sign that God did not want her to kill him. However, one month later she returned to the house and ignored the locked doors. She brought wine with which she got her father drunk. She then pointed the gun at her father’s chest and pulled the trigger. It did not fire. She pulled it two more times and still it did not fire. However, it did fire on the fourth attempt. The father fell on his back and said “now you’ve done it”. She told him that she agreed and then shot him a second and third time.
At the trial her lawyer pled for mercy because of the horrible treatment she had suffered as a child. The judge agreed and the charge was reduced to manslaughter from premeditated murder. She received a seven year sentence - the minimum required by law. In the case of family abuse parole is possible after serving one-quarter of the sentence. She was paroled after 17 months.
On King’s show all three daughters were still celebrating their father’s killing. The two that had not shot him admitted with smiles that they had been plotting to kill him together when their sister beat them to it. Although King stated at the closing of his show that he thought the daughter had done the world a favor, he had at least started to challenge why the killing was necessary. Even though the mother had witnessed many of the physical and sexual abuses, she never considered leaving her husband because of her wedding vows and she didn’t know how she would care for herself and her children. None of 4 or 5 children had been living with their father for at least 20 years.
The killing was neither self-defense nor in defense of anybody else. The killing didn’t occur in the heat of an emotional argument or fight. Although the father’s criminal and immoral acts were worse than most people would imagine possible, these acts had been committed more than 20 years ago. None of the children complained of threats by the father or fear of harm to them or their families since they no longer lived with him. Although the mother continued to live with her husband, she was not living with him when he was killed and during the last 20+ years she might have lived with one of her children had she wanted to and was offered the opportunity.
The daughter killed the father because she hated him for what he is and what he had done to her. The other children approved of his killing for the same reasons. The mother accepted the killing and seemed, in my opinion, emotionally uninvolved. She would not have killed him and she would never have asked somebody else to kill him but she accepted his killing.
Several people called into the show and all of them applauded the killing.
The children had more than enough cause to always hate their father. I believe they have plenty of reasons to ask why their mother had never acted responsibly by removing them from their father’s home instead of honoring her marriage vows. Since their father’s family knew of the abuses, why not ask why they did nothing to protect the children. In the last 20+ years while all of the children have been living on their own, did any of them offer their home and financial assistance to their mother?
This was murder - premeditated revenge. It was not a heroic act. It was criminal and immoral. The court has acted irresponsibly and by so doing has sent a message to everybody that in their town such acts will be more than tolerated.
Apparently their state government doesn’t approve of the local court’s decision. They have since modified their laws to ensure that such acts will not be so tolerated. I applaud the state’s response.
At the time of the killing the mother had recently been diagnosed with cancer and the prognosis was very poor. As one would expect the father did not take care of his sick wife and she was finally removed from her home and placed in a hospital. This disregard for her mother angered the woman enough that she decided to kill her father.
At a later date, the woman armed herself and went to her father’s house to shoot him but found the doors locked. She took this as a sign that God did not want her to kill him. However, one month later she returned to the house and ignored the locked doors. She brought wine with which she got her father drunk. She then pointed the gun at her father’s chest and pulled the trigger. It did not fire. She pulled it two more times and still it did not fire. However, it did fire on the fourth attempt. The father fell on his back and said “now you’ve done it”. She told him that she agreed and then shot him a second and third time.
At the trial her lawyer pled for mercy because of the horrible treatment she had suffered as a child. The judge agreed and the charge was reduced to manslaughter from premeditated murder. She received a seven year sentence - the minimum required by law. In the case of family abuse parole is possible after serving one-quarter of the sentence. She was paroled after 17 months.
On King’s show all three daughters were still celebrating their father’s killing. The two that had not shot him admitted with smiles that they had been plotting to kill him together when their sister beat them to it. Although King stated at the closing of his show that he thought the daughter had done the world a favor, he had at least started to challenge why the killing was necessary. Even though the mother had witnessed many of the physical and sexual abuses, she never considered leaving her husband because of her wedding vows and she didn’t know how she would care for herself and her children. None of 4 or 5 children had been living with their father for at least 20 years.
The killing was neither self-defense nor in defense of anybody else. The killing didn’t occur in the heat of an emotional argument or fight. Although the father’s criminal and immoral acts were worse than most people would imagine possible, these acts had been committed more than 20 years ago. None of the children complained of threats by the father or fear of harm to them or their families since they no longer lived with him. Although the mother continued to live with her husband, she was not living with him when he was killed and during the last 20+ years she might have lived with one of her children had she wanted to and was offered the opportunity.
The daughter killed the father because she hated him for what he is and what he had done to her. The other children approved of his killing for the same reasons. The mother accepted the killing and seemed, in my opinion, emotionally uninvolved. She would not have killed him and she would never have asked somebody else to kill him but she accepted his killing.
Several people called into the show and all of them applauded the killing.
The children had more than enough cause to always hate their father. I believe they have plenty of reasons to ask why their mother had never acted responsibly by removing them from their father’s home instead of honoring her marriage vows. Since their father’s family knew of the abuses, why not ask why they did nothing to protect the children. In the last 20+ years while all of the children have been living on their own, did any of them offer their home and financial assistance to their mother?
This was murder - premeditated revenge. It was not a heroic act. It was criminal and immoral. The court has acted irresponsibly and by so doing has sent a message to everybody that in their town such acts will be more than tolerated.
Apparently their state government doesn’t approve of the local court’s decision. They have since modified their laws to ensure that such acts will not be so tolerated. I applaud the state’s response.
Saturday, December 24, 2005
Is your Christmas a warning?
The Christmas season can be the most challenging and telling time of the year. It is an accurate and unavoidable gauge of a person's satisfaction. Whether one wants to know does not matter. Christmas, like dying, is a mandatory self-evaluation of your satisfaction with your life. While dying is the final exam with no retake, Christmas is a practice test - a warning if one is not doing well.
Everybody is familiar with Dickens' story "A Christmas Carol". When it is taken seriously, as Dickens intended, the story is sobering and terrifying. Dickens' Scrooge learns his lesson, takes a good share of the satisfaction that was waiting for him and the story has a happy ending for all. Real life is harsher than this Dickens' tale. Satisfaction for Scrooge was always there for the taking. Scrooge only had to accept it.
In real life, satisfaction is not low hanging fruit. Sometimes Tiny Tim does not recover. Satisfaction is not a goose in a butcher's shop and we are not islands of self-contained satisfaction. Our satisfaction is the product of our relationships with friends and family. It is not who or what we are. It is what we have made with others and of others.
On the day of our final exam, it is another’s hand that we must find in our own – warm and comforting, holding tight with love. On Christmas morning count the people around your tree not the gifts under it. Is your Christmas a warning?
Everybody is familiar with Dickens' story "A Christmas Carol". When it is taken seriously, as Dickens intended, the story is sobering and terrifying. Dickens' Scrooge learns his lesson, takes a good share of the satisfaction that was waiting for him and the story has a happy ending for all. Real life is harsher than this Dickens' tale. Satisfaction for Scrooge was always there for the taking. Scrooge only had to accept it.
In real life, satisfaction is not low hanging fruit. Sometimes Tiny Tim does not recover. Satisfaction is not a goose in a butcher's shop and we are not islands of self-contained satisfaction. Our satisfaction is the product of our relationships with friends and family. It is not who or what we are. It is what we have made with others and of others.
On the day of our final exam, it is another’s hand that we must find in our own – warm and comforting, holding tight with love. On Christmas morning count the people around your tree not the gifts under it. Is your Christmas a warning?
Saturday, December 17, 2005
John Murtha can be wrong without being bad
Last month Congressman John Murtha told the House why he disagreed with Bush's strategy in Iraq. Murtha didn't suggest that the US should walk away from Iraq. He recommended a change in strategy since he believes that our current strategy is not and will not succeed. I’m not qualified to say how the war should be fought in Iraq but I think we were right to go in to remove Saddam. I think the US should continue do whatever is necessary to maintain a democratically elected government in Iraq. I hope they do it in the best way. Murtha believes there is a better way to do it and he might be wrong. However, to disagree with the war and/or our prosecution of it does not make Murtha bad.
Congresswoman Jean Schmidt thinks otherwise. Schmidt considers Murtha unpatriotic and cowardly and said so in congress. Although I support the war in Iraq I don't consider those that disagree with me to be cowardly traitors. It appears that the entire House feels the same way that I do because it came down on Schmidt like a ton of bricks and she deserved it.
In her attack on Murtha, Schmidt quoted a Marine officer's reaction to Murtha's statement. The quotattion was by far the harshest content in Schmidt's statement. The Marine officer is Colonel Danny Bubp, an Ohio state representative in Jean Schmidt’s Ohio Congressional District. During his 30 years of military service Bubp was not involved in a single military engagement yet he felt both qualified and justified to call Murtha, a retired battle-decorated Marine officer and the longest ever continuous serving congressman a coward and traitor.
Jean Schmidt has apologized for her statements. Colonel Bubp has stated that Schmidt made more of his comments than she should have. Bubp also stated “We never discussed anyone by name and there was no intent to disparage the congressman or his distinguished record of service for our nation.”
I’m glad that the US and Britain kicked Saddam and the Bathists out of control in Iraq. I also think that Bush played whatever intelligence he could put his hands on to win support. I suppose that was wrong but I’m tempted to say that it is alright with me. I think the history books will hold that Bush did the right thing. Schmidt and Bubp, on the other hand, are wrong and their attack on Murtha was bad.
Congresswoman Jean Schmidt thinks otherwise. Schmidt considers Murtha unpatriotic and cowardly and said so in congress. Although I support the war in Iraq I don't consider those that disagree with me to be cowardly traitors. It appears that the entire House feels the same way that I do because it came down on Schmidt like a ton of bricks and she deserved it.
In her attack on Murtha, Schmidt quoted a Marine officer's reaction to Murtha's statement. The quotattion was by far the harshest content in Schmidt's statement. The Marine officer is Colonel Danny Bubp, an Ohio state representative in Jean Schmidt’s Ohio Congressional District. During his 30 years of military service Bubp was not involved in a single military engagement yet he felt both qualified and justified to call Murtha, a retired battle-decorated Marine officer and the longest ever continuous serving congressman a coward and traitor.
Jean Schmidt has apologized for her statements. Colonel Bubp has stated that Schmidt made more of his comments than she should have. Bubp also stated “We never discussed anyone by name and there was no intent to disparage the congressman or his distinguished record of service for our nation.”
I’m glad that the US and Britain kicked Saddam and the Bathists out of control in Iraq. I also think that Bush played whatever intelligence he could put his hands on to win support. I suppose that was wrong but I’m tempted to say that it is alright with me. I think the history books will hold that Bush did the right thing. Schmidt and Bubp, on the other hand, are wrong and their attack on Murtha was bad.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Capital Punishment: Remember the Real Issue!
Do you feel better since Stanley Williams was executed this week by the state of California? If so, why do you feel better? Do you feel safer? Is it a feeling of satisfaction? A life for a life?
I watched the pre-game show on CNN hosted by Larry King. Some of Larry's guest were defense attorney Mark Geragos, conservative radio talk show host and the prosecutor for Williams' trial in 1979. The prosecutor was so excited about being on national TV that he rarely quit grinning hugely.
Opponents of the death penalty debated all night and lost. The death penalty is neither a matter of the severity of the crime nor the criminal's conduct after the crime. It should not matter whether there was one victim or 200 victims. It should not matter whether the criminal is or ever will be repentent and rehabilitated.
It doesn't matter. We don't execute criminals because of what they are. We execute criminals because of what WE are. Uncivilized.
I watched the pre-game show on CNN hosted by Larry King. Some of Larry's guest were defense attorney Mark Geragos, conservative radio talk show host and the prosecutor for Williams' trial in 1979. The prosecutor was so excited about being on national TV that he rarely quit grinning hugely.
Opponents of the death penalty debated all night and lost. The death penalty is neither a matter of the severity of the crime nor the criminal's conduct after the crime. It should not matter whether there was one victim or 200 victims. It should not matter whether the criminal is or ever will be repentent and rehabilitated.
It doesn't matter. We don't execute criminals because of what they are. We execute criminals because of what WE are. Uncivilized.
Saturday, December 10, 2005
How The ACLU Didn't Steal Christmas
I was going to address this subject with an e-mail to everybody on my address list including my bible study group, the Thursday morning men's prayer group and my conservative conscience and ex-shipmate. To be fair I'll post it here rather than harassing them directly.
The ACLU is under constant attack from every group that would silence every opinion that is different from their own. I don't mean "every opinion that opposes their own" because that is not always the case. Such groups believe that the principles on which the United States of America and its Constitution are based exclude all opinions except theirs. The evangelical Christians are one of these groups and I am an active member of an evangelical Pentecostal church. I’m also a supporting member of the ACLU.
Now that the Christmas season is here many of the accusations against the ACLU are seasonal. An executive director of the ACLU in Indiana addressed this issue in the following paper appropriately titled “How The ACLU Didn't Steal Christmas”.
How The ACLU Didn't Steal Christmas (12/7/2005) By Fran Quigley
When the angry phone calls and emails started arriving at the office, I knew the holiday season was upon us. A typical message shouted that we at the American Civil Liberties Union are "horrible" and "we should be ashamed of ourselves," and then concluded with an incongruous and agitated "Merry Christmas."
We get this type of correspondence a lot, mostly in reaction to a well-organized attempt by extremist groups to demonize the ACLU, crush religious diversity, and make a few bucks in the process. Sadly, this self-interested effort is being promoted in the guise of defending Christmas.
For example, the Alliance Defense Fund celebrates the season with an "It's OK to say Merry Christmas" campaign, implying that the ACLU has challenged such holiday greetings. (As part of the effort, you can get a pamphlet and two Christmas pins for $29.) The website WorldNetDaily touts a book claiming "a thorough and virulent anti-Christmas campaign is being waged today by liberal activists and ACLU fanatics." The site's magazine has suggested there will be ACLU efforts to remove "In God We Trust" from U.S. currency, fire military chaplains, and expunge all references to God in America's founding documents. (Learn more for just $19.95 . . . ) Of course, there is no "Merry Christmas" lawsuit, nor is there any ACLU litigation about U.S. currency, military chaplains, etc. But the facts are not important to these groups, because their real message is this: By protecting the freedom of Muslims, Jews, and other non-Christians through preventing government entanglement with religion, the ACLU is somehow infringing on the rights of those with majority religious beliefs. In truth, it is these website Christians who are taking the Christ out of the season. Nowhere in the Sermon on the Mount did Jesus Christ ask that we celebrate His birth with narrow-mindedness and intolerance, especially for those who are already marginalized and persecuted. Instead, the New Testament—like the Torah and the Koran and countless other sacred texts—commands us to love our neighbor, and to comfort the sick and the imprisoned. That's what the ACLU does. We live in a country filled with people who are sick and disabled, people who are imprisoned, and people who hunger and thirst for justice. Those people come to our Indiana offices for help, at a rate of several hundred a week, usually because they have nowhere else to turn. The least of our brothers and sisters sure aren't getting any help from the Alliance Defense Fund or WorldNet Daily. So, as often as we can, ACLU secures justice for those folks who Jesus worried for the most. As part of our justice mission, we work hard to protect the rights of free religious expression for all people, including Christians. For example, we recently defended the First Amendment rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets in southern Indiana. The ACLU intervened on behalf of a Christian valedictorian in a Michigan high school, which agreed to stop censoring religious yearbook entries, and supported the rights of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at their school. There are many more examples, because the ACLU is committed to preserving the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom for all. We agree with the U.S. Supreme Court's firm rulings that this freedom means that children who grow up in non-Christian homes should not be made to feel like outsiders in their own community's courthouse, legislature or public schoolhouse. To our "Merry Christmas" correspondents and all other Hoosiers, we wish you happy holidays. Fran Quigley is executive director of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union, http://www.iclu.org/. As of January 1, 2006, the organization is changing its name to ACLU of Indiana.
The ACLU is under constant attack from every group that would silence every opinion that is different from their own. I don't mean "every opinion that opposes their own" because that is not always the case. Such groups believe that the principles on which the United States of America and its Constitution are based exclude all opinions except theirs. The evangelical Christians are one of these groups and I am an active member of an evangelical Pentecostal church. I’m also a supporting member of the ACLU.
Now that the Christmas season is here many of the accusations against the ACLU are seasonal. An executive director of the ACLU in Indiana addressed this issue in the following paper appropriately titled “How The ACLU Didn't Steal Christmas”.
How The ACLU Didn't Steal Christmas (12/7/2005) By Fran Quigley
When the angry phone calls and emails started arriving at the office, I knew the holiday season was upon us. A typical message shouted that we at the American Civil Liberties Union are "horrible" and "we should be ashamed of ourselves," and then concluded with an incongruous and agitated "Merry Christmas."
We get this type of correspondence a lot, mostly in reaction to a well-organized attempt by extremist groups to demonize the ACLU, crush religious diversity, and make a few bucks in the process. Sadly, this self-interested effort is being promoted in the guise of defending Christmas.
For example, the Alliance Defense Fund celebrates the season with an "It's OK to say Merry Christmas" campaign, implying that the ACLU has challenged such holiday greetings. (As part of the effort, you can get a pamphlet and two Christmas pins for $29.) The website WorldNetDaily touts a book claiming "a thorough and virulent anti-Christmas campaign is being waged today by liberal activists and ACLU fanatics." The site's magazine has suggested there will be ACLU efforts to remove "In God We Trust" from U.S. currency, fire military chaplains, and expunge all references to God in America's founding documents. (Learn more for just $19.95 . . . ) Of course, there is no "Merry Christmas" lawsuit, nor is there any ACLU litigation about U.S. currency, military chaplains, etc. But the facts are not important to these groups, because their real message is this: By protecting the freedom of Muslims, Jews, and other non-Christians through preventing government entanglement with religion, the ACLU is somehow infringing on the rights of those with majority religious beliefs. In truth, it is these website Christians who are taking the Christ out of the season. Nowhere in the Sermon on the Mount did Jesus Christ ask that we celebrate His birth with narrow-mindedness and intolerance, especially for those who are already marginalized and persecuted. Instead, the New Testament—like the Torah and the Koran and countless other sacred texts—commands us to love our neighbor, and to comfort the sick and the imprisoned. That's what the ACLU does. We live in a country filled with people who are sick and disabled, people who are imprisoned, and people who hunger and thirst for justice. Those people come to our Indiana offices for help, at a rate of several hundred a week, usually because they have nowhere else to turn. The least of our brothers and sisters sure aren't getting any help from the Alliance Defense Fund or WorldNet Daily. So, as often as we can, ACLU secures justice for those folks who Jesus worried for the most. As part of our justice mission, we work hard to protect the rights of free religious expression for all people, including Christians. For example, we recently defended the First Amendment rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets in southern Indiana. The ACLU intervened on behalf of a Christian valedictorian in a Michigan high school, which agreed to stop censoring religious yearbook entries, and supported the rights of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at their school. There are many more examples, because the ACLU is committed to preserving the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom for all. We agree with the U.S. Supreme Court's firm rulings that this freedom means that children who grow up in non-Christian homes should not be made to feel like outsiders in their own community's courthouse, legislature or public schoolhouse. To our "Merry Christmas" correspondents and all other Hoosiers, we wish you happy holidays. Fran Quigley is executive director of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union, http://www.iclu.org/. As of January 1, 2006, the organization is changing its name to ACLU of Indiana.
Friday, December 02, 2005
Cruel and Unusual
Early this morning we killed a man because he killed two people. He was the one-thousandth person to be executed since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that we have a constitutional right to kill as long as the method is not cruel and unusual. The court should have ruled that we can execute a criminal only if we can prove that our justice system is 100-percent infallible. Had that been the court's primary concern we would not have killed a man this morning or any one of the 999 people before him. And, we would not be preparing to kill the next person at 6 PM today.
We have executed many innocent people and we will continue to execute innocent people because we are not infallible. I remember an execution that was almost stopped too late. The gas chamber was sealed. The pellet was dropped. The man was dying. Then the phone call. He was saved but only by risking the lives of the execution team. Did this man feel the process was neither cruel nor unusual? If he had been Gary Gilmore, we could not have recalled the bullet. Once the trap door is released we can not prevent a broken neck. Once the switch is closed we can not reverse the current’s damage.
Only three countries used capital punishment more than we did in 2004 – China, Iran and Vietnam. How have we been able to demand more Human Rights in these countries while we are executing our citizens? Is there a better example of “the kettle calling the pot black”?
We have executed children. We have executed the retarded. This is not justice. This is hate and convenience. Our own crime statistics prove that capital punishment is not a deterrent. I wouldn’t support capital punishment no matter how much the process might be “sanitized”. Killing is wrong. It is the desperate act of a society that knows neither how to prevent crime nor how to rehabilitate criminals.
At 6 PM Eastern, South Carolina will execute a man. Please pause at 6 PM to pray for this dying man. Pray that he repents his sins and accepts Jesus. If you agree with me then pray that he is the last person we will execute. If you disagree with me then imagine yourself as the executioner standing in the death chamber and at 6 PM Eastern, imagine your hand closing the switch.
We have executed many innocent people and we will continue to execute innocent people because we are not infallible. I remember an execution that was almost stopped too late. The gas chamber was sealed. The pellet was dropped. The man was dying. Then the phone call. He was saved but only by risking the lives of the execution team. Did this man feel the process was neither cruel nor unusual? If he had been Gary Gilmore, we could not have recalled the bullet. Once the trap door is released we can not prevent a broken neck. Once the switch is closed we can not reverse the current’s damage.
Only three countries used capital punishment more than we did in 2004 – China, Iran and Vietnam. How have we been able to demand more Human Rights in these countries while we are executing our citizens? Is there a better example of “the kettle calling the pot black”?
We have executed children. We have executed the retarded. This is not justice. This is hate and convenience. Our own crime statistics prove that capital punishment is not a deterrent. I wouldn’t support capital punishment no matter how much the process might be “sanitized”. Killing is wrong. It is the desperate act of a society that knows neither how to prevent crime nor how to rehabilitate criminals.
At 6 PM Eastern, South Carolina will execute a man. Please pause at 6 PM to pray for this dying man. Pray that he repents his sins and accepts Jesus. If you agree with me then pray that he is the last person we will execute. If you disagree with me then imagine yourself as the executioner standing in the death chamber and at 6 PM Eastern, imagine your hand closing the switch.
Monday, November 07, 2005
One Post, Two Rants
The IRS has threatened to revoke the tax-free status of the All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, CA for antiwar remarks in a sermon that was also published in newspapers. Should the IRS be allowed to decide when a statement is political action rather than social action? Is this action of the IRS politically motivated? If the IRS is not acting politically then we should expect the IRS to admonish the churches responsible for the recent attack on Bush for his Miers nomination. I don’t suggest that anybody hold their breath until this happens. Should we expect the IRS to threaten any of the conservative churches for their pro-war, anti-Kerry rhetoric prior to the 2004 election? If Kerry had been elected would the IRS be threatening the All Saints Episcopal Church? Of course it wouldn’t. However, would the IRS be re-evaluating the tax-free status of equally outspoken conservative, pro-war, anti-Kerry churches. Perhaps. Is not a politician by any other name still a politician?
The speaker, Reverend George F. Regas, a past rector of the church, admonished Bush for the war but did not advise who to vote for in the 2004 election. However, the reverend took the liberty to speak for Jesus in a hypothetical debate with Bush and Kerry. Regas made the following statements, "Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine. Forcibly changing the regime of an enemy that posed no imminent threat has led to disaster" and "I will tell you what I think of your war: The sin at the heart of this war against Iraq is your belief that an American life is of more value than an Iraqi life. That an American child is more precious than an Iraqi baby. God loathes war."
Reverend Regas obviously overlooks the holocaust against the Kurds and the murders of another 300,000 Iraqis that had opposed Saddam throughout his dictatorship. This war is being fought FOR the Iraqi people not AGAINST the Iraqi people.
The question often posed to me is “why should OUR children die in Iraq?” Is an American life worth more than an Iraqi life? Aren’t we fighting against the enslavement and murder of other humans? Aren’t we all equal citizens of this earth?
The speaker, Reverend George F. Regas, a past rector of the church, admonished Bush for the war but did not advise who to vote for in the 2004 election. However, the reverend took the liberty to speak for Jesus in a hypothetical debate with Bush and Kerry. Regas made the following statements, "Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine. Forcibly changing the regime of an enemy that posed no imminent threat has led to disaster" and "I will tell you what I think of your war: The sin at the heart of this war against Iraq is your belief that an American life is of more value than an Iraqi life. That an American child is more precious than an Iraqi baby. God loathes war."
Reverend Regas obviously overlooks the holocaust against the Kurds and the murders of another 300,000 Iraqis that had opposed Saddam throughout his dictatorship. This war is being fought FOR the Iraqi people not AGAINST the Iraqi people.
The question often posed to me is “why should OUR children die in Iraq?” Is an American life worth more than an Iraqi life? Aren’t we fighting against the enslavement and murder of other humans? Aren’t we all equal citizens of this earth?
Saturday, September 10, 2005
Revisited: Justice, though late, is still Sweet
In June of this year Edgar Ray Killen was found guilty of killing three civil rights workers 41 years ago. In August Killen was released on bail pending an appeal process that could have outlived Killen. The judge that released Killen on bail said, at the time, that he did so because he was convinced that Killen was neither a threat to society nor likely to run.
Now Killen has been returned to jail by the same judge, who now claims that he had released Killen on bail because of his deteriorating health. With sickening arrogance Killen, while free on bail, did not hide the fact that he didn't need the wheelchair and oxygen bottle that he used throughout the trial and the bond hearing and, by doing so, provided the proof that his health is not so deteriorating. In fact, Killen was planning to attend a "Killen Appreciation Day" reception proposed by a white supremacist group.
The judge under justified pressure to return Killen to jail claims that Killen lied to the court about his health. I think the judge is worried about losing his job in the next election. The judge showed an outrageous disregard for the justice for which the families of the murder victims had to wait far too long. I pray that good sense will still unseat this judge at the earliest opportunity.
Now Killen has been returned to jail by the same judge, who now claims that he had released Killen on bail because of his deteriorating health. With sickening arrogance Killen, while free on bail, did not hide the fact that he didn't need the wheelchair and oxygen bottle that he used throughout the trial and the bond hearing and, by doing so, provided the proof that his health is not so deteriorating. In fact, Killen was planning to attend a "Killen Appreciation Day" reception proposed by a white supremacist group.
The judge under justified pressure to return Killen to jail claims that Killen lied to the court about his health. I think the judge is worried about losing his job in the next election. The judge showed an outrageous disregard for the justice for which the families of the murder victims had to wait far too long. I pray that good sense will still unseat this judge at the earliest opportunity.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Photo Upgrade
Ever since I posted a photo of my wife on my blog she has asked me to remove it or replace it with a picture that she won't mind. She's not going to like any photo but she might accept this new one.The earlier picture, now removed, was taken after a day of painting and she had white paint in her hair. I liked the photo. She may think the paint looks like gray hair.
Whatever. Here's another picture (I must have one of her on my blog) taken in front of a B&B in Newport, RI. We've stayed at this place on a couple of our anniversaries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)