General Interest
A Holiday Wish To Me - To You
18-Dec-09 09:15 AM
I was such a good, little anti-American socialist this year that President Obama sent me a Personalized Holiday Greeting Card!! I guess this is because of all the long letters I sent to him this year telling him what I thought on various topics of interest. I probably sent more letters to Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, but so far I haven't received any special holiday wishes from them yet. Lord knows I told them what I thought a time or two. I'm sure they won't forget to send me a happy holidays card and warm wishes for the new year, will they? Of course, I'm not really anti-American or a socialist; that's what you call sarcastic humor - even if it isn't funny.
Happy Holidays to all who land here on my blog and peruse these pages. Heres wishing a better, brighter year for the world and for everyone in 2010. Regardless of your political or religious persuasions, your nationality, ethnicity or culture, may you find peace, happiness and fulfillment and hope for the coming year and the challenges that await. I continue to remain hopeful that goodness will prevail.
Happy Holidays to all who land here on my blog and peruse these pages. Heres wishing a better, brighter year for the world and for everyone in 2010. Regardless of your political or religious persuasions, your nationality, ethnicity or culture, may you find peace, happiness and fulfillment and hope for the coming year and the challenges that await. I continue to remain hopeful that goodness will prevail.
Rate this blog post:
|
Hate Crimes Legislation
03-Nov-09 11:22 AM
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
- Congress makes the following findings:
- (1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem.
- (2) Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive.
- (3) State and local authorities are now and will continue to be responsible for prosecuting the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the United States, including violent crimes motivated by bias. These authorities can carry out their responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal assistance.
- (4) Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem.
- (5) A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected.
- (6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways, including the following:
- (7) For generations, the institutions of slavery and involuntary servitude were defined by the race, color, and ancestry of those held in bondage. Slavery and involuntary servitude were enforced, both prior to and after the adoption of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, through widespread public and private violence directed at persons because of their race, color, or ancestry, or perceived race, color, or ancestry. Accordingly, eliminating racially motivated violence is an important means of eliminating, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude.
- (8) Both at the time when the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States were adopted, and continuing to date, members of certain religious and national origin groups were and are perceived to be distinct `races'. Thus, in order to eliminate, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery, it is necessary to prohibit assaults on the basis of real or perceived religions or national origins, at least to the extent such religions or national origins were regarded as races at the time of the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
- (9) Federal jurisdiction over certain violent crimes motivated by bias enables Federal, State, and local authorities to work together as partners in the investigation and prosecution of such crimes.
- (10) The problem of crimes motivated by bias is sufficiently serious, widespread, and interstate in nature as to warrant Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes.
- (a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
- (2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-
- (A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B) or paragraph (3), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person--
- (i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
- (ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
- title, or both, and shall be subject to the penalty of death in accordance with chapter 228 (if death results from the offense), if--
- (i) death results from the offense; or
- (ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
- Nothing in this division, or an amendment made by this division, shall be construed or applied in a manner that infringes on any rights under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or substantially burdens any exercise of religion (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), speech, expression, association, if such exercise of religion, speech, expression, or association was not intended to--
- (1) plan or prepare for an act of physical violence; or
- (2) incite an imminent act of physical violence against another.
- (3) FREE EXPRESSION- Nothing in this division shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual's expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual's membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.
- (4) FIRST AMENDMENT- Nothing in this division, or an amendment made by this division, shall be construed to diminish any rights under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
- (5) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS- Nothing in this division shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States and peaceful picketing or demonstration.
Rate this blog post:
The Second Bill of Rights
19-Oct-09 08:33 PM
Excerpt from President Roosevelt's January 11, 1944 message to the Congress of the United States on the State of the Union:
"It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.
This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made. In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
*The right of every family to a decent home;
*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
*The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being. America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens."
Rate this blog post:
The Rape Amendment
16-Oct-09 10:20 AM
If there was ever an indicator that the republican party is indeed the party of "no" and has literally lost it's collective ability to reason and use sound judgement, then it has to be the recent vote on the Franken amendment in the Senate. All 30 republican senators voted against this amendment which was a simple, straight forward, honest, and morally correct amendment that would prevent the US government from doing business with any contractor that requires it's employees to sign a waiver preventing them to sue if they get raped while on the job. One cannot help but wonder why anyone would oppose and vote against such a common sense amendment. The answer, of course, is for political ideology. Politicians who vote for an ideology over common sense has already checked their brains at the door and has resigned their duty of doing their job. Enough said by me - watch the video to get the full story and Jon Stewart's humorous take on the matter.
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c Rape-Nuts Daily Show
Full EpisodesPolitical Humor Ron Paul Interview
Rate this blog post:
Ambigrams
14-Oct-09 11:32 PM
Ever since watching the movie "Angels & Demons" based on the Dan Brown novel, I've become interested in the art of "ambigrams". These were featured in the movie and on the cover of the novel by the same name. For a more precise definition for what an ambigram is I will turn to Wiki for assistance:
"An ambigram is a typographical design or artform that may be read as one or more words not only in its form as presented, but also from another viewpoint, direction, or orientation. The words readable in the other viewpoint, direction or orientation may be the same or different from the original words. Douglas R. Hofstadter describes an ambigram as a "calligraphic design that manages to squeeze two different readings into the selfsame set of curves." Different ambigramists may create completely different ambigrams from the same word or words, differing in both style and form."
Amused with the whole concept and wanting to attempt my own ambigram, I turned to a website called "Wordplay" by John Langdon to learn a bit more about the technique and constructing an ambigram. After getting familiar with the concepts I began sketching out my first attempt and I'm fairly happy with the results of my first endeavor at "ambigramology". Here it is:
"An ambigram is a typographical design or artform that may be read as one or more words not only in its form as presented, but also from another viewpoint, direction, or orientation. The words readable in the other viewpoint, direction or orientation may be the same or different from the original words. Douglas R. Hofstadter describes an ambigram as a "calligraphic design that manages to squeeze two different readings into the selfsame set of curves." Different ambigramists may create completely different ambigrams from the same word or words, differing in both style and form."
Amused with the whole concept and wanting to attempt my own ambigram, I turned to a website called "Wordplay" by John Langdon to learn a bit more about the technique and constructing an ambigram. After getting familiar with the concepts I began sketching out my first attempt and I'm fairly happy with the results of my first endeavor at "ambigramology". Here it is:
This ambigram reads the same positioned now or upside down. I based it off a friend's pen name he is using for writing a book. In case you're having difficulty focusing in on it, the name is "A. Raven". This was a lot of fun and it came together realitively quick. I hope to produce some more ambigrams as time permits. If you'd like to give it a go, the Wordplay website is a great place to start.
Rate this blog post:
CEO's Have No Intentions of Hiring
29-Sep-09 06:32 PM
Yet another article today outlining the fact that some of America's CEO's have no plans to increase hiring despite the fact that the economy appears to be on the upswing. No, they say that even if their sales increase that it will be at least a 12 to 18 months lag before they would make any comittments to start hiring people. CEO's of companies and corporations can just increase the work load on their already under-staffed employees and get them to produce more output without the expense of re-hiring displaced workers.
Personally, I have just about lost all faith in our current system. CEO's are charged with keeping their companies healthy, turning profits, and providing ever increasing wealth for their stockholders and investors. People and employees are only a means to an end to achieve this and they are as expendable and worthless as a loose collection of nuts and bolts and odds and ends needed to temporarily patch something together. The problem, and I am generalizing, is that CEO's of major corporations and businesses today have lost sight of the human factor and have no sight of a moral compass whatsoever. They've lost sight of the fact that one of the main reasons their businesses are not growing and have slow sales is because their customers (their employees) have been kicked to the gutter so they can maintain their ever increasing profit margins with as little discomfort to them as possible. How do they expect sales to begin growing again if people continue to get laid off? Do they not understand that by providing a job to those out of work that it will in turn provide increased sales and activity to their own businesses? Has our society and our culture become so corrupt and greedy that we have now rationalized and accepted the costs of the human suffering and despair as simply the means to an end of keeping our capitalist empires in place? For what gain or purpose does this serve except for the very privileged, wealthy few? What more do businesses want in terms of incentives and perks from the government to encourage them to do business? No taxes at all? Free reign with no regulations or rules of any kind to make an extra dollar by any means possible regardless of the moral or legal ramifications trampled in the process?
As a hard working American professional who has worked my entire life and have strived for the American dream and the desire to provide for my family and my retirement, I am truly disgusted by what I currently see in this country in the form of corporate America. Their inability and unwillingness to do the right thing for the country and the people is disturbing. They rail and complain against any moves by the government to control their actions as unfair and as socialist, yet they are the first ones in line seeking "socialist" handouts for themselves when they fail. They are hypocritical and their only interest is making more money for themselves- at any cost or expense - no matter what they might have to do to obtain it. They have kicked the American worker to the gutter one too many times and many of us are being forced to survive outside the walls of their gleaming ivory towers and I am beginning to care less if those towers crumble. We have truly lost our way if we can't see that there is something wrong with this picture.
Rate this blog post:
Evil (c)ommunism
07-Sep-09 11:27 AM
As the health care reform debates have heated in this country, I have heard repeated usages of both the words "socialist/socialism" and "communist/communism" to describe the health care reform that President Obama is trying to enact. As if socialism and communism were somehow inherently evil systems but capitalism is completely pure and good. I have also heard those denouncing the plan saying it is "forcing" them to help people against their will and that it is unfair because it increases the tax burden on those who work and redistributes it to those who don't (i.e. lazy people is what is implied). And then I see comments by those who are religious and attempt to use scripture to denounce the health care reform legislation. Namely, the one that I've seen used is 2 Thessolonias 3:3-14 which instructs Christians not to associate themselves with people who are "idle" (i.e. lazy people who refuse to work is implied by those who use this scripture).
You have to be careful when you start trying to use scriptures to back one particular theory. I suppose there is a scripture somewhere that can be pulled to represent almost any ideology or principle you can think of. I do find it interesting that quite often those who protest the loudest against socialist or communist ideals are also the ones who claim to be either religious or Christian. They seem to make such claims as though they are totally unaware of the principles and values that founders of the Christian religion embraced. These values were practiced by the apostles and the early church. According to the book of Acts, the early Christian church clearly practiced a form of communism (that is with a small "c" not a capital "C" - there is a big difference between the two). The apostles established a system whereby all early Christians sold their possessions and wealth and gave it to them for redistribution to the community for the common good of everyone. This was also consistent with the teachings of Jesus and the examples he used to suggest followers should give up their personal wealth and give it to the poor. This was obviously not a Marxist form of Communism which promoted class warfare, but it was an economic form of communism that was based on communal and equal ownership of those in society for the common good of every man - not just the poor.
Acts 2:42, 44, and 45:
And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (King James Version)
The theme is reiterated in Acts 4:32-37:
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, the son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet. (King James Version)
I find it peculiar how people tend to conveniently overlook this bit of history and are so quick to label the idea of programs designed to use tax money for the common good of society as something that is evil and should be abhorred. I am not trying to promote communism. Neither am I trying to blur the lines between separation of church and state by suggesting that government should engage in health care reform because it is a Christian principle. I am only pointing out the fact that communistic, socialistic and capitalistic principles are not inherently evil in and of themselves. They become evil when people begin to abuse the power and allow corruption to dictate the policies. Corruption happens in all systems and occurs with the abuse and misuse of power. But the idea of everyone giving generously to help the whole community is clearly a value and a principle that was practiced by the early Christian church. I would also note that even though our Constitution requires a separation of church and state, this only applies to sectarian considerations. That is to say, it is to prevent the government from showing favortism to one particular sect of religion over another. It in no way requires a divorce of morality from government. A government must be moral if it is to do good, but it does not have to promote a particular religion in order to be moral. The US is the only industrialized rich nation in the world that does not have a system in place to provide for and take care of it's people's health care system. To me that speaks volumes of where our priorities have been misplaced.
Rate this blog post:
You have to be careful when you start trying to use scriptures to back one particular theory. I suppose there is a scripture somewhere that can be pulled to represent almost any ideology or principle you can think of. I do find it interesting that quite often those who protest the loudest against socialist or communist ideals are also the ones who claim to be either religious or Christian. They seem to make such claims as though they are totally unaware of the principles and values that founders of the Christian religion embraced. These values were practiced by the apostles and the early church. According to the book of Acts, the early Christian church clearly practiced a form of communism (that is with a small "c" not a capital "C" - there is a big difference between the two). The apostles established a system whereby all early Christians sold their possessions and wealth and gave it to them for redistribution to the community for the common good of everyone. This was also consistent with the teachings of Jesus and the examples he used to suggest followers should give up their personal wealth and give it to the poor. This was obviously not a Marxist form of Communism which promoted class warfare, but it was an economic form of communism that was based on communal and equal ownership of those in society for the common good of every man - not just the poor.
Acts 2:42, 44, and 45:
And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (King James Version)
The theme is reiterated in Acts 4:32-37:
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, the son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet. (King James Version)
I find it peculiar how people tend to conveniently overlook this bit of history and are so quick to label the idea of programs designed to use tax money for the common good of society as something that is evil and should be abhorred. I am not trying to promote communism. Neither am I trying to blur the lines between separation of church and state by suggesting that government should engage in health care reform because it is a Christian principle. I am only pointing out the fact that communistic, socialistic and capitalistic principles are not inherently evil in and of themselves. They become evil when people begin to abuse the power and allow corruption to dictate the policies. Corruption happens in all systems and occurs with the abuse and misuse of power. But the idea of everyone giving generously to help the whole community is clearly a value and a principle that was practiced by the early Christian church. I would also note that even though our Constitution requires a separation of church and state, this only applies to sectarian considerations. That is to say, it is to prevent the government from showing favortism to one particular sect of religion over another. It in no way requires a divorce of morality from government. A government must be moral if it is to do good, but it does not have to promote a particular religion in order to be moral. The US is the only industrialized rich nation in the world that does not have a system in place to provide for and take care of it's people's health care system. To me that speaks volumes of where our priorities have been misplaced.
Rate this blog post:
My Letter To President Obama
22-Aug-09 10:39 AM
A recent Newsweek article reveals that at least half of Americans are misinformed on health care reform and actually believe in the lies and misrepresentations that have been propagated by those opposed to the legislation. Here is some of the findings as quoted in the article:
Dear President Obama,
I am immensely proud as an American to have supported your campaign and now your administration as you tackle some of the biggest challenges facing our country in over fifty years. I appreciate the hard work and effort you are putting into the work of moving the country forward on vital issues concerning economic recovery and health care reform. I am especially thankful to finally have a President to whom I can write and I know will listen and appreciate my words.
I will keep this as brief as possible. I am writing to you today concerning the recent announcements by yourself and key members of your administration that the public option in the current health care reform debate may be up for negotiation or removal from the final bill. I realize that it is still early into the discussions and a lot of work remains on any final consensus on a bill, but please note that I am strongly in favor of the inclusion of the public option in the final version of the bill. Quite honestly, I believe that the public option is itself already a compromise to the much better single payer system that this country desperately needs and as such should not be offered up for negotiation or removal. To lose the public option out of the health care reform bill would result in a bill not worthy of your signature. The public option is the only element of the bill that will bring any change of force to the current system and I trust you will not barter or exchange this for some lesser, weaker system (such as health exchange co-ops) that I believe will leave the status quo firmly in place.
While I certainly understand that politics and Washington is all about negotiation and compromise, I cannot stress strongly enough that in this instance, for this historic piece of legislation, this is not primarily about politics. Those who are attempting to make this a political power grab are those who wish nothing more than an opportunity to score big with special interests and lobbyists in the health care industry. As you know, these special interests are exerting every influence imaginable to derail the possibility of any type of government involvement in the health care industry. Mr. President, please do not allow this debate on health care reform become only about politics. This is the opportunity to bring the CHANGE that we not only can believe in but that we desperately need. This is an issue of life and death, and the very quality of life for millions and millions of Americans. The simple fact of the matter is that without the strength and influence of our government via a public option provision to ensure the standards and rules by which the industry must be run, then I do not believe we will see true reform to our health care insurance system. I appreciate and admire your efforts to reach bipartisan support on a bill that will affect all Americans, but the importance of bipartisan support must remain secondary to the primary importance of a meaningful bill that actually has the power and the strength to affect change.
As a professional who is currently unemployed and on COBRA I can assure you that this legislation is not about politics for me. Due to my own personal health care needs I am deeply concerned for my family and the quality of care that will be available in the future. I am greatly disheartened by those in our country who have been so vocal and disrespectful in their angry and hateful opposition to the health care reform legislation. I can only think that the majority of them probably enjoy good health and do not fully realize the profound problems and inequities in our current health care system. I have no reason to believe that the health care insurance industry will ever do the right thing on their own accord and they will receive yet another pass by Washington if this important legislation does not have the fire power to enforce the changes necessary. The only change I can believe in at this stage are the principles that we must stand up and protect from being removed from this bill. Please, do not give away the public option of the health care reform bill in it’s final version that you sign into law.
Thank you for your hard work and for your extraordinary leadership in bringing these crucially important issues forward. True health care reform has been forgotten and ignored for far too long and we are too close now to give in to those who had the opportunity to fix it but chose to ignore it for the past eight years.
Sincerely yours,
TD3k
Rate this blog post:
- 46 percent of Americans believe reform will result in health-care coverage for all illegal immigrants
- Half of us think the federal government will become directly involved in making personal health-care decisions.
- 53 percent of Republicans believe “death panels” will exist in some form, that the government will require the elderly to make decisions about how and when they want to die.(The real meaning of "end-of-life consultation" is actually something that, in practice, gives most people comfort and hope.) The number does drop to 30 percent when you look at the entire population, which still means a third of America thinks Barack Obama wants to kill your grandmother.
- Some people believe that pregnancies involving babies with Down syndrome will be forced to have an abortion or risk losing their health insurance
- This combined with the onslaught of recent attempts by those crashing town hall meetings and using bullying tactics to disrupt and interrupt the people trying to discuss the health care reform legislation, stories are now appearing that those in Congress may be attempting to scale back the legislation when they return in September after the break. This in an attempt to calm the hysteria that seems to be spreading by those who are fueled and energized by these wildly false bits of information regarding health care reform. As a result of all of this, I felt compelled to write to President Obama to share my feelings. Here is the letter I sent:
Dear President Obama,
I am immensely proud as an American to have supported your campaign and now your administration as you tackle some of the biggest challenges facing our country in over fifty years. I appreciate the hard work and effort you are putting into the work of moving the country forward on vital issues concerning economic recovery and health care reform. I am especially thankful to finally have a President to whom I can write and I know will listen and appreciate my words.
I will keep this as brief as possible. I am writing to you today concerning the recent announcements by yourself and key members of your administration that the public option in the current health care reform debate may be up for negotiation or removal from the final bill. I realize that it is still early into the discussions and a lot of work remains on any final consensus on a bill, but please note that I am strongly in favor of the inclusion of the public option in the final version of the bill. Quite honestly, I believe that the public option is itself already a compromise to the much better single payer system that this country desperately needs and as such should not be offered up for negotiation or removal. To lose the public option out of the health care reform bill would result in a bill not worthy of your signature. The public option is the only element of the bill that will bring any change of force to the current system and I trust you will not barter or exchange this for some lesser, weaker system (such as health exchange co-ops) that I believe will leave the status quo firmly in place.
While I certainly understand that politics and Washington is all about negotiation and compromise, I cannot stress strongly enough that in this instance, for this historic piece of legislation, this is not primarily about politics. Those who are attempting to make this a political power grab are those who wish nothing more than an opportunity to score big with special interests and lobbyists in the health care industry. As you know, these special interests are exerting every influence imaginable to derail the possibility of any type of government involvement in the health care industry. Mr. President, please do not allow this debate on health care reform become only about politics. This is the opportunity to bring the CHANGE that we not only can believe in but that we desperately need. This is an issue of life and death, and the very quality of life for millions and millions of Americans. The simple fact of the matter is that without the strength and influence of our government via a public option provision to ensure the standards and rules by which the industry must be run, then I do not believe we will see true reform to our health care insurance system. I appreciate and admire your efforts to reach bipartisan support on a bill that will affect all Americans, but the importance of bipartisan support must remain secondary to the primary importance of a meaningful bill that actually has the power and the strength to affect change.
As a professional who is currently unemployed and on COBRA I can assure you that this legislation is not about politics for me. Due to my own personal health care needs I am deeply concerned for my family and the quality of care that will be available in the future. I am greatly disheartened by those in our country who have been so vocal and disrespectful in their angry and hateful opposition to the health care reform legislation. I can only think that the majority of them probably enjoy good health and do not fully realize the profound problems and inequities in our current health care system. I have no reason to believe that the health care insurance industry will ever do the right thing on their own accord and they will receive yet another pass by Washington if this important legislation does not have the fire power to enforce the changes necessary. The only change I can believe in at this stage are the principles that we must stand up and protect from being removed from this bill. Please, do not give away the public option of the health care reform bill in it’s final version that you sign into law.
Thank you for your hard work and for your extraordinary leadership in bringing these crucially important issues forward. True health care reform has been forgotten and ignored for far too long and we are too close now to give in to those who had the opportunity to fix it but chose to ignore it for the past eight years.
Sincerely yours,
TD3k
Rate this blog post:
The Mojave Cross Memorial
18-Aug-09 06:00 PM
In 2001 the ACLU and an Oregon resident filed a lawsuit claiming that the cross is a religious symbol on government property and thus is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the first amendment. This set off a chain of events and legal maneuvering. In 2002 Congress designated the cross and the surrounding property as a "national memorial" to honor the fallen dead of World War I and ordered the land to be given to the Veteran's of Foreign War. The District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court sided with the ACLU that the symbol was unconstitutional and ordered the cross to be covered. The case will now come before the Supreme Court in October 2009 for a final hearing.
The main argument presented by those who wish to keep the cross in place is that the latin cross is not a religious symbol. Instead they claim that it is an international symbol that represents loss and sacrifice. They further argue that groups such as the ACLU and American's United are only interested in removing the symbol out of religious hatred for Christianity and to dishonor war veterans. They have also stated that the cross is innocuous and does not violate the first amendment in that it does not force anyone to participate in any religious ceremony. They do not believe there is any harm in having this symbol representative of ALL the veterans who died during World War I.
Here are some counter points worthy of consideration:
- The Latin cross is a religious symbol and should be treated as such. It is a central symbol of Christianity and for those who are Christian it is offensive to strip away it's sacred meaning by saying it has no religious meaning.
- Veteran Memorials should honor all of our country's veterans, not just those of a particular belief system. According to the U.S. Department of Defense, 29% of those currently serving in the U.S. military are not Christian. Our veterans come from Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu and Muslim backgrounds, while some choose to follow other belief systems or profess no faith at all.
- The Constitution mandates separation of church and state. Our country's founders wanted religion and government to remain separate, which is why our Constitution requires the government to remain neutral on the subject of religion. One of the freedoms our veterans sought to protect is the right for all to practice their belief system of choice. This cross on government property goes against that principle.
- The government, in maintaining this cross, is discriminating against veterans of other faiths and those who choose no faith at all. The Mojave National Preserve in California denied a request in 1999 to erect a Buddhist shrine near the cross. This clearly shows the government's favoritism, and makes those who are not Christian feel like second-class citizens.
- The courts should remain open to lawsuits objecting to church-state violations. Some will argue that just because someone is offended by a religious symbol, he or she does not have the right to sue the government and demand it be removed. If we followed this interpretation of the Constitution, the government could display any religious symbols it wants anywhere it wants - on license plates, in public buildings, maybe even in public schools - and those forced to view these displays could do nothing about it. That's not what this country stands for and the government must be held accountable when it strips away our freedoms.
Health Care Reform - The Facts
14-Aug-09 12:44 AM
Find below the e-mail sent by David Axelrod, Senior Advisor to President Obama, outlining some specific issues regarding the current debate over Health Care Reform. The White House has also published a website that contains FAQs and additional information regarding the current Health Care Reform legislation. As I've mentioned in my previous post, this is very important legislation that will affect all of us and it is imperative that the real facts of the legislation be known. The lies, the misinformation, and the fear mongering must be checked if we want to have a serious debate on these important issues.
---------------------
Dear Friend,
This is probably one of the longest emails I’ve ever sent, but it could be the most important.
Across the country we are seeing vigorous debate about health insurance reform.
Unfortunately, some of the old tactics we know so well are back — even the viral emails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions.
As President Obama said at the town hall in New Hampshire, "where we do disagree, let's disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that's actually been proposed."
So let’s start a chain email of our own. At the end of my email, you’ll find a lot of information about health insurance reform, distilled into 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about reform and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now.
Right now, someone you know probably has a question about reform that could be answered by what’s below. So what are you waiting for? Forward this email.
Thanks,
David
David Axelrod
Senior Adviser to the President
8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage
8 common myths about health insurance reform
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq
8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now
---------------------
Dear Friend,
This is probably one of the longest emails I’ve ever sent, but it could be the most important.
Across the country we are seeing vigorous debate about health insurance reform.
Unfortunately, some of the old tactics we know so well are back — even the viral emails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions.
As President Obama said at the town hall in New Hampshire, "where we do disagree, let's disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that's actually been proposed."
So let’s start a chain email of our own. At the end of my email, you’ll find a lot of information about health insurance reform, distilled into 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about reform and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now.
Right now, someone you know probably has a question about reform that could be answered by what’s below. So what are you waiting for? Forward this email.
Thanks,
David
David Axelrod
Senior Adviser to the President
8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage
- Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
- Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
- Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
- Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
- Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
- Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
- Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
- Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.
8 common myths about health insurance reform
- Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.
- We can’t afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.
- Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.
- Vets' health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.
- Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.
- Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.
- You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.
- No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq
8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now
- Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill. Learn more:http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html
- Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job. Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage. Learn more:http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hiddencosts/index.html
- Roadblocks to Care for Women: Women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/women/index.html
- Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hardtimes
- Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured – 13 million people – are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spouse. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/helpbottomline
- The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone. Learn more:http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction
- Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people - one in every three Americans under the age of 65 - were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families. Learn more:http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction/diminishing/index.html
- The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance - projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. Learn more:http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf
- Rate this blog post:
Health Care Reform - My Letter
10-Aug-09 12:42 PM
We are in the midst of a national debate that is of immense importance to this country, our economy, and our general well being. It is unfortunately a divisive one and one that elicits strong emotion and opinion. It is a complex issue and it affects every single one of us and it is health care reform. There has been an inordinate amount of false information, misinformation, and outright lies circulating in the media and on the internet regarding the current bills before Congress. During the month of August a battle is going to be waged by both sides that will determine the fate in the near future of what we do with our health care system. To that end I have written to my Senators and Congressman outlining to them some key points that I feel are important to this discussion. Here is my letter:
Dear Senator/Congressman,
I am writing to you today to make known my concerns and wishes regarding the current health care reform bill(s) that are currently under consideration in the US Congress. First let me state that I believe that this one particular issue is one of the most urgent, pressing needs facing our country today and I place great value and importance on it. To that end, allow me to make a few key points.
I am in support of health care reform legislation. I want to see a bill passed this year addressing the urgent needs concerning this subject. As an individual who has to deal with health insurance companies on a regular basis, I know the problems and the inequalities that exist in the current system. These must be addressed and corrected immediately. While I appreciate the complexity dealing with such an issue, you must resolve to work through this issue in a bi-partisan fashion with the Democratic leaders in both the House and the Senate to clear these hurdles. Not just any bill will do; it must contain and address the following:
Thank you for your time and I appreciate the hard work ahead. In closing I would also like to add that the recent attempts by certain groups to disrupt town hall meetings across the country should be admonished and condemned. Not because they are in opposition, but because they are attempting to derail the democratic process of government leaders communicating with their respective constituents. Open debates and forums allowing questions should be encouraged in lieu of the mindless, immature antics of those who would shout over and drown out others who wish to speak. Please speak out against this unruly and unhelpful practice that only further divides people along party lines.
Sincerely yours,
TD3k
Rate this blog post:
Dear Senator/Congressman,
I am writing to you today to make known my concerns and wishes regarding the current health care reform bill(s) that are currently under consideration in the US Congress. First let me state that I believe that this one particular issue is one of the most urgent, pressing needs facing our country today and I place great value and importance on it. To that end, allow me to make a few key points.
I am in support of health care reform legislation. I want to see a bill passed this year addressing the urgent needs concerning this subject. As an individual who has to deal with health insurance companies on a regular basis, I know the problems and the inequalities that exist in the current system. These must be addressed and corrected immediately. While I appreciate the complexity dealing with such an issue, you must resolve to work through this issue in a bi-partisan fashion with the Democratic leaders in both the House and the Senate to clear these hurdles. Not just any bill will do; it must contain and address the following:
- A public option providing for health insurance coverage for those who cannot afford coverage, lose their jobs, or work for an employer that does not provide coverage. The public option should be designed so as to provide competition in the private markets to encourage lower pricing, competition and set the framework for the basic rules and regulations that all insurance providers must adhere to.
- No longer allow health insurance companies to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, or to rescind coverage due to onset of a severe illness. In short, this insurance must model exactly the same type of coverage that members of the US Congress enjoy as administered by the federal office of personnel management. The American citizens should be able to get coverage with no physicals, no testing, no applications, no refusals by the provider to pay for treatments or services prescribed by the doctor, and as I said earlier, no rescissions or dropping of coverage due to severe health conditions or expense. Nothing less will do.
- Complete choice of personal doctors and hospitals without restrictions or interference of insurance companies dictating or rationing care in any manner. Americans want choices and I am prepared to pay for them if they are fair, equitable, reasonable, and just.
Thank you for your time and I appreciate the hard work ahead. In closing I would also like to add that the recent attempts by certain groups to disrupt town hall meetings across the country should be admonished and condemned. Not because they are in opposition, but because they are attempting to derail the democratic process of government leaders communicating with their respective constituents. Open debates and forums allowing questions should be encouraged in lieu of the mindless, immature antics of those who would shout over and drown out others who wish to speak. Please speak out against this unruly and unhelpful practice that only further divides people along party lines.
Sincerely yours,
TD3k
Rate this blog post:
What's Up With That?
27-Jul-09 01:11 PM
There are so many things happening these days in the world of politics, religion and technology that it is becoming increasingly difficult for the part time blogger to keep the bases covered. To that end, I am introducing a segment that I will call "What's Up With That?" that will appear in a recurring format and will attempt to address a handful of issues that bear comment, but perhaps not worthy of a full article. I hope to cover a wider range of topics in a shorter amount of time in this manner. So, here we go:
Windows 7
I have been testing Windows 7 on my Mac Pro desktop for a couple of months now and overall like what I see. It does appear to have a slight speed increase over Vista and other welcome enhancements and tweaks that really should've been included in Vista. But will I upgrade to Windows 7 when it comes out? No way. What's up with Microsoft on their insane pricing policy for their OS anyway? They continue to stick with their confusing assortment of OS packages for people to have to choose from, but there is no significant discount for those (like me) who had purchased Vista to upgrade to 7. I will not spend another $200 on an OS that is not that much different in appearance or functionality from Vista. Where is the $30 upgrade option like Apple is doing for Leopard users to Snow Leopard? I would've gladly gone that route. If Microsoft is hoping for an onslaught of people migrating to Windows 7 I will go ahead and make a prediction right now that it's not going to happen due to their pricing alone.
Iran Diplomacy
The Obama administration is attempting to make diplomatic connections with Iran in a hope to maybe bridge some of the differences between our governments, cultures, and world views. This is something that is long overdue and should be attempted whether you think it will work or not. I certainly have my doubts, but think it is imperative that we try. So, what's up with Secretary of Defense Gates going to Israel this week and appearing on national TV to tell the world that the US will continue to supply Israel with the latest state of the art weaponry and technology to defend itself from attack? Was there ever any question about the US severing it's ally status with Israel? Israel then turns around and says all options are on the table in dealing with Iran. Call me ignorant, but that is a guaranteed move to foil any diplomatic discussions with Iran before they even begin. I am not suggesting we sever our ties with Israel, but at the very least we have to give the appearance of being neutral and willing to engage in meaningful discussions or why bother?
Rate this blog post:
New Hampshire Law Exempts Religious Groups...
16-Jul-09 12:46 AM
The following article is taken directly from the American's United Church & State publication for July/August 2009. It is presented here in it's entirety and unedited. Here is the link to the original article.
---------------------------------------------------
For years, Religious Right organizations have claimed that if same-sex marriage is legalized, conservative churches will be forced to perform such unions or accommodate same-sex couples in other ways.
That’s certainly not the case in New Hampshire, where a recently passed law legalizing same-sex marriage contains a host of exemptions for religious groups.
HB 73 was signed into law by Gov. John Lynch June 3 after Lynch requested a series of modifications to the bill to make it clear that many of its provisions will not affect the rights of religious bodies.
The law states that religious organizations and their employees may refuse to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies and reiterates the point that religious organizations retain exclusive control over their doctrine and beliefs.
The New Hampshire House of Representatives had at first balked at Lynch’s request for changes to the bill, but several members changed their minds to get the bill passed.
“Let’s vote this one last time,” said Rep. Anthony DiFruscia, a Republican from Windham. “Church and state should be separate.” In the Senate, Deborah Reynolds, a Democrat representing Plymouth, said the compromise language provides “equal rights for all and the right to religious freedom.”
Although the new language helped get the bill passed, it probably was not necessary. Most legal scholars agree that the Constitution’s First Amendment ensures that no houses of worship or ministers could be compelled to perform a same-sex ceremony, just as pastors may refuse to perform marriages for heterosexual couples who do not meet certain theological standards.
In California, advocates of same-sex marriage suffered a setback when the state supreme court upheld a ban on gay marriage passed narrowly by the voters in 2008. By a 6-1 vote, the California high court said Proposition 8 was not an unlawful “revision” to the state constitution. Such a “revision” would have required action by the legislature. Prop. 8 passed after a heavy lobbying campaign and infusion of cash from religious groups, including fundamentalist Christian bodies, the Mormon Church and the Roman Catholic hierarchy.
Americans United, the Anti-Defamation League and 30 other civil rights and civil liberties groups joined the effort to overturn the same-sex marriage ban, filing a friend-of-the-court brief asserting that a bare majority of voters should not be permitted to remove fundamental rights from a minority group.
AU asserts that civil governments have no business writing theological definitions of marriage into civil law. “If Proposition 8 can strip fundamental rights from gay and lesbian people by a 52 percent majority, future amendments can strip away fundamental rights from other disfavored groups based on race, national origin, gender or religion,” read the brief.
Although the California Supreme Court upheld the Prop. 8 vote, it approved the 18,000 same-sex unions that were performed during the period gay marriage was legal.
That part of the ruling angered Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “The court’s recognition of these ‘marriages’ clearly seeds the ground for a possible legal battle before the U.S. Supreme Court,” Perkins said in a statement.
-------------------------
TD3k Commentary:
I think it is clear that the New Hampshire Law sets a precedent in the application of same sex marriage laws by clearly stating that the matter is a civil matter and does not bear on any religious organizations, nor requires them to conform to the civil statues outlined by the government. Even though it is clearly implied in the first amendment to the US Constitution, a specific exemption being included should help to quell some of the fear and anxiety expressed by so many people who felt that such a law was a trampling of their religious rights and freedoms. Clearly, this matter can be resolved in such a manner that should prove to be equitable and fair for all involved. These types of exemptions allow religious groups to maintain their doctrines and beliefs without fear of being overridden by laws designed to promote fair treatment under the law.
Rate this blog post:
---------------------------------------------------
For years, Religious Right organizations have claimed that if same-sex marriage is legalized, conservative churches will be forced to perform such unions or accommodate same-sex couples in other ways.
That’s certainly not the case in New Hampshire, where a recently passed law legalizing same-sex marriage contains a host of exemptions for religious groups.
HB 73 was signed into law by Gov. John Lynch June 3 after Lynch requested a series of modifications to the bill to make it clear that many of its provisions will not affect the rights of religious bodies.
The law states that religious organizations and their employees may refuse to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies and reiterates the point that religious organizations retain exclusive control over their doctrine and beliefs.
The New Hampshire House of Representatives had at first balked at Lynch’s request for changes to the bill, but several members changed their minds to get the bill passed.
“Let’s vote this one last time,” said Rep. Anthony DiFruscia, a Republican from Windham. “Church and state should be separate.” In the Senate, Deborah Reynolds, a Democrat representing Plymouth, said the compromise language provides “equal rights for all and the right to religious freedom.”
Although the new language helped get the bill passed, it probably was not necessary. Most legal scholars agree that the Constitution’s First Amendment ensures that no houses of worship or ministers could be compelled to perform a same-sex ceremony, just as pastors may refuse to perform marriages for heterosexual couples who do not meet certain theological standards.
In California, advocates of same-sex marriage suffered a setback when the state supreme court upheld a ban on gay marriage passed narrowly by the voters in 2008. By a 6-1 vote, the California high court said Proposition 8 was not an unlawful “revision” to the state constitution. Such a “revision” would have required action by the legislature. Prop. 8 passed after a heavy lobbying campaign and infusion of cash from religious groups, including fundamentalist Christian bodies, the Mormon Church and the Roman Catholic hierarchy.
Americans United, the Anti-Defamation League and 30 other civil rights and civil liberties groups joined the effort to overturn the same-sex marriage ban, filing a friend-of-the-court brief asserting that a bare majority of voters should not be permitted to remove fundamental rights from a minority group.
AU asserts that civil governments have no business writing theological definitions of marriage into civil law. “If Proposition 8 can strip fundamental rights from gay and lesbian people by a 52 percent majority, future amendments can strip away fundamental rights from other disfavored groups based on race, national origin, gender or religion,” read the brief.
Although the California Supreme Court upheld the Prop. 8 vote, it approved the 18,000 same-sex unions that were performed during the period gay marriage was legal.
That part of the ruling angered Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “The court’s recognition of these ‘marriages’ clearly seeds the ground for a possible legal battle before the U.S. Supreme Court,” Perkins said in a statement.
-------------------------
TD3k Commentary:
I think it is clear that the New Hampshire Law sets a precedent in the application of same sex marriage laws by clearly stating that the matter is a civil matter and does not bear on any religious organizations, nor requires them to conform to the civil statues outlined by the government. Even though it is clearly implied in the first amendment to the US Constitution, a specific exemption being included should help to quell some of the fear and anxiety expressed by so many people who felt that such a law was a trampling of their religious rights and freedoms. Clearly, this matter can be resolved in such a manner that should prove to be equitable and fair for all involved. These types of exemptions allow religious groups to maintain their doctrines and beliefs without fear of being overridden by laws designed to promote fair treatment under the law.
Rate this blog post:
Heard It On The Newsvine
07-Jul-09 08:36 PM
As I mentioned in the previous article I have been spending some time in the Newsvine discussion forums over at MSNBC. For each story published to their website they provide a discussion forum so that everyday folks like you and I can join in and add our two cents on any given subject or article. I think it's a great idea and really allows for some dynamic interchange of thoughts and ideas on current and breaking news events. Since I don't get that many comments here on TD3k Speaks, it has been a bit more interesting over there with people leaving comments on your comments. Blogging is more fun when people interact and leave opinions, regardless if they agree with you or not.
However, I have to say, there is also a large number of people in the discussion forums that are there for the express purpose of trolling and slandering anyone who disagrees with their opinion. Such juvenile behavior is nothing new, but it can be very irritating and even disturbing. There are some truly mean and hateful people in this world I am sad to say. I have seen hate filled rants and comments on subjects ranging from the health care debate, politics, and of course religion. I have been particularly discouraged by those who feel that the health care system in the US is just fine and think it should be left alone. They have their coverage and they don't really care whether anyone else does or not. There are those who are so partisan and biased in their comments as to be completely illogical and almost impossible to comprehend. These comments occur on both sides of the political fence, but the Obama-haters are particularly vocal at the moment. And then you have comments from people who just like to make a comment or leave an opinion on the topic at hand. It is always interesting reading if you can get past those who are insisting that everyone agree with them or those who proclaim without discretion that if you disagree with them then you are an idiot.
I've added some links in the sidebar for the RSS feeds on the articles and the comments that I have posted. Check those out and join in the conversation if you like or start your own newsvine account and join in the fun. It is free and rather entertaining. As you contribute by adding comments to various articles, you increase your "Vineacity" rating which is a graphical icon representing your earned reputation. I just recently earned the rank of "Fruitfulness" (see diagram below).
However, I have to say, there is also a large number of people in the discussion forums that are there for the express purpose of trolling and slandering anyone who disagrees with their opinion. Such juvenile behavior is nothing new, but it can be very irritating and even disturbing. There are some truly mean and hateful people in this world I am sad to say. I have seen hate filled rants and comments on subjects ranging from the health care debate, politics, and of course religion. I have been particularly discouraged by those who feel that the health care system in the US is just fine and think it should be left alone. They have their coverage and they don't really care whether anyone else does or not. There are those who are so partisan and biased in their comments as to be completely illogical and almost impossible to comprehend. These comments occur on both sides of the political fence, but the Obama-haters are particularly vocal at the moment. And then you have comments from people who just like to make a comment or leave an opinion on the topic at hand. It is always interesting reading if you can get past those who are insisting that everyone agree with them or those who proclaim without discretion that if you disagree with them then you are an idiot.
I've added some links in the sidebar for the RSS feeds on the articles and the comments that I have posted. Check those out and join in the conversation if you like or start your own newsvine account and join in the fun. It is free and rather entertaining. As you contribute by adding comments to various articles, you increase your "Vineacity" rating which is a graphical icon representing your earned reputation. I just recently earned the rank of "Fruitfulness" (see diagram below).
Rate this blog post:
Never Lost Again
24-Jun-09 01:41 AM
I've been spending a lot of time over at MSNBC.com lately entrenched in the discussion forums. They have recently added a discussion forum to every single article published and it provides for some really interesting, and time consuming conversations. To the point that I have been neglecting my writing here. Not to worry, it at least has provided me with some new and interesting hot topics of discussion for future posts.
But there will be no political talk today. Instead, I want to talk about a new feature in the recently released iPhone 3.0 OS software called "Find My iPhone". The feature is only available to Mobile Me users (like myself) and it is really slick. This one new feature alone almost makes the $99/year Mobile Me fee worth the price - but of coure you get a lot of other goodies for the $99 as well. Oh, and it's available for both Mac and Windows PC users as well.
Let's say you're out and about town running errands and taking care of business, only to get back home and maybe a few hours later realize that you cannot find your cell phone (in this case your iPhone). You begin a frantic search through your pockets, purse, car, any place you think you might have had it last, and then you realize that it is gone. You pick up a near by telephone and dial your cell phone number and keep your fingers crossed that you will hear the ring of your iPhone so you can audibly pin point it's exact location. Your heart sinks when you never hear the phone ring and you finally realize your phone is lost. Happens all the time and happens to the best of us.
Enter the new feature from Apple called "Find My iPhone". From any computer, Mac or PC, with an internet connection, go to the Mobile Me Site and log into your personal account with your user name and password. Go to the account settings tab, and click on the icon that says "Find My iPhone" and wait for about a minute or less while Apple scans with GPS and WiFi triangulation to find your phone. A street map appears on the screen and shows you the exact location of your phone. This works with all iPhones including the first version phones that did not have GPS functionality built into the phones. But it gets even better.
But there will be no political talk today. Instead, I want to talk about a new feature in the recently released iPhone 3.0 OS software called "Find My iPhone". The feature is only available to Mobile Me users (like myself) and it is really slick. This one new feature alone almost makes the $99/year Mobile Me fee worth the price - but of coure you get a lot of other goodies for the $99 as well. Oh, and it's available for both Mac and Windows PC users as well.
Let's say you're out and about town running errands and taking care of business, only to get back home and maybe a few hours later realize that you cannot find your cell phone (in this case your iPhone). You begin a frantic search through your pockets, purse, car, any place you think you might have had it last, and then you realize that it is gone. You pick up a near by telephone and dial your cell phone number and keep your fingers crossed that you will hear the ring of your iPhone so you can audibly pin point it's exact location. Your heart sinks when you never hear the phone ring and you finally realize your phone is lost. Happens all the time and happens to the best of us.
Enter the new feature from Apple called "Find My iPhone". From any computer, Mac or PC, with an internet connection, go to the Mobile Me Site and log into your personal account with your user name and password. Go to the account settings tab, and click on the icon that says "Find My iPhone" and wait for about a minute or less while Apple scans with GPS and WiFi triangulation to find your phone. A street map appears on the screen and shows you the exact location of your phone. This works with all iPhones including the first version phones that did not have GPS functionality built into the phones. But it gets even better.
You can also send a remote message to your phone and have it play an audible alarm signal for 2 minutes. This alarm works even if the phone is turned off and the ringer has been turned off. As the phone beeps a message of your own choosing will be displayed on the screen so that if anyone finds the phone they will be able to read your message. You can give your name and a contact phone number whereby someone can contact you to make arrangements to return your phone. Your message can say anything you like. If you feel that no one is responding to your message and alarm signals on the phone, you also have the last ditch option to send a remote wipe to the phone and have all of it's data and information wiped out. This is perfect if you think someone may have latched on to your phone and are planning on using it to steal information or make unauthorized phone calls. It is always highly recommended that you set a password lock on your iPhone so that if your phone is lost or stolen that the thief cannot gain access to making phone calls or personal data without your four digit password to unlock the device. The Find My iPhone feature even works with the password lock activated.
This is an awesome feature for an awesome cell phone and provides that extra peace of mind that you still can maintain control of your phone even if you forget and leave it behind somewhere. If you're in the market for a cell phone, check out the iPhone and also consider a monthly subscription to Mobile Me to take advantage of the best insurance policy to protect your mobile investment.
The Battle Continues...
28-May-09 11:27 AM
As the battle wears on in California over the ban on same sex marriage, as upheld by the California Supreme Court yesterday, a couple of thoughts on the subject. To begin with, it is completely clear that the two opposing sides of this argument will probably never reach a consensus or a compromise. Whether you are for it or against it, you are probably very unlikely to change your mind or your opinions, although polls are showing that some people are doing just that. Regardless of the slight shift in poll numbers, it is clear that it is an issue that has the country split down the middle with only the smallest of percentages separating the two camps.
I have stated my views numerous times on this blog on this subject and they have not changed. I believe the ruling yesterday by the Supreme Court was not so much a true question on the civil liberty aspects of gay marriage as much as it was a ruling against the argument that Proposition 8 revised the California Constitution as opposed to just amending it. Opponents of Proposition 8 unsuccessfully argued that the voter initiative went beyond a constitutional amendment and represented a revision to the state constitution. The California Supreme Court did not agree. Only one Justice dissented: Justice Moreno in his lone dissenting opinion stated, "[T]he aim of Proposition 8 and all similar initiative measures that seek to alter the California Constitution to deny a fundamental right to a group that has historically been subject to discrimination on the basis of a suspect classification, violates the essence of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and fundamentally alters its scope and meaning. Such a change cannot be accomplished through the initiative process by a simple amendment to our Constitution enacted by a bare majority of the voters; it must be accomplished, if at all, by a constitutional revision to modify the equal protection clause to protect some, rather than all, similarly situated persons. I would therefore hold that Proposition 8 is not a lawful amendment of the California Constitution."
I agree with him 100%. Also, the very notion of voters being able to vote on initiatives which at the very heart attempt to limit or restrict basic rights and freedoms of specific groups of people is not only insulting, but it is morally wrong. It is especially insensitive when only the narrowest margins of a majority are then allowed to impose their restrictions based on such a majority vote thus establishing a simple majority tyranny. At the absolute minimum, any such votes whereby specific rights and freedoms are at risk, there should be required a super majority vote, that is more than just a simple majority, in order for any such restrictions be allowed, (i.e. 2/3 minimum required). The idea of a super majority vote is very common in all types of voting processes to prevent a simple majority tyranny by only very slight margins. Even still, I personally believe it is wrong to ever apply a majority vote model when any type of restrictions of civil liberties are at stake for any group. No majority should ever be allowed to trample on or deny the rights of a minority...ever.
So, as the battle continues and opponents prepare to go to the ballot box again in early 2010, two high profile lawyers just filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of two gay men and two gay women in California and many believe this will go straight to the US Supreme Court. Lawyers Theodore Olson and David Boies have joined forces and are planning on taking this argument ultimately to the US Supreme Court, in spite of the ACLU and some other LGBT Organizations objecting saying that such a move is premature. Theodore Olson was quoted as saying at a news conference in Los Angeles :
"There will be many people who will think this is not the time to go to federal. Both David and I have studied the court for more years than probably either one of us would like to admit. We think we know what we are doing." David Boies agreed: "Reasonable minds can differ, but when you have people being denied civil rights today, I think it is impossible as lawyers and as an American to say 'No, you have to wait, now is not the right time.' I think if we had done that in prior civil rights battles, we would not be where we are."
The two lawyers became household names during the 2000 Presidential Elections when Theodore Olson represented the Bush campaign and David Boies represented the Al Gore campaign to argue before the Supreme Court about the election results. The two have now joined forces and are of the same mind on the matter regarding same sex marriage. It is unfortunate that such actions have to be taken in order to secure the rights of the minority, but that has always been the case through out history and we never seem to learn our lessons very well. I still maintain that nobody on the opposing side has adequately been able to demonstrate in any believable fashion how allowing the LGBT community to enjoy the legal and civil liberties offered by marriage will result in any harm or injustice to anyone else. Quite simply put, it does not. It is only an argument based on religious views and principles and nothing else. Such arguments may not be allowed to be the reason to restrict civil rights and freedoms for any group of people in this country.
I have stated my views numerous times on this blog on this subject and they have not changed. I believe the ruling yesterday by the Supreme Court was not so much a true question on the civil liberty aspects of gay marriage as much as it was a ruling against the argument that Proposition 8 revised the California Constitution as opposed to just amending it. Opponents of Proposition 8 unsuccessfully argued that the voter initiative went beyond a constitutional amendment and represented a revision to the state constitution. The California Supreme Court did not agree. Only one Justice dissented: Justice Moreno in his lone dissenting opinion stated, "[T]he aim of Proposition 8 and all similar initiative measures that seek to alter the California Constitution to deny a fundamental right to a group that has historically been subject to discrimination on the basis of a suspect classification, violates the essence of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and fundamentally alters its scope and meaning. Such a change cannot be accomplished through the initiative process by a simple amendment to our Constitution enacted by a bare majority of the voters; it must be accomplished, if at all, by a constitutional revision to modify the equal protection clause to protect some, rather than all, similarly situated persons. I would therefore hold that Proposition 8 is not a lawful amendment of the California Constitution."
I agree with him 100%. Also, the very notion of voters being able to vote on initiatives which at the very heart attempt to limit or restrict basic rights and freedoms of specific groups of people is not only insulting, but it is morally wrong. It is especially insensitive when only the narrowest margins of a majority are then allowed to impose their restrictions based on such a majority vote thus establishing a simple majority tyranny. At the absolute minimum, any such votes whereby specific rights and freedoms are at risk, there should be required a super majority vote, that is more than just a simple majority, in order for any such restrictions be allowed, (i.e. 2/3 minimum required). The idea of a super majority vote is very common in all types of voting processes to prevent a simple majority tyranny by only very slight margins. Even still, I personally believe it is wrong to ever apply a majority vote model when any type of restrictions of civil liberties are at stake for any group. No majority should ever be allowed to trample on or deny the rights of a minority...ever.
So, as the battle continues and opponents prepare to go to the ballot box again in early 2010, two high profile lawyers just filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of two gay men and two gay women in California and many believe this will go straight to the US Supreme Court. Lawyers Theodore Olson and David Boies have joined forces and are planning on taking this argument ultimately to the US Supreme Court, in spite of the ACLU and some other LGBT Organizations objecting saying that such a move is premature. Theodore Olson was quoted as saying at a news conference in Los Angeles :
"There will be many people who will think this is not the time to go to federal. Both David and I have studied the court for more years than probably either one of us would like to admit. We think we know what we are doing." David Boies agreed: "Reasonable minds can differ, but when you have people being denied civil rights today, I think it is impossible as lawyers and as an American to say 'No, you have to wait, now is not the right time.' I think if we had done that in prior civil rights battles, we would not be where we are."
The two lawyers became household names during the 2000 Presidential Elections when Theodore Olson represented the Bush campaign and David Boies represented the Al Gore campaign to argue before the Supreme Court about the election results. The two have now joined forces and are of the same mind on the matter regarding same sex marriage. It is unfortunate that such actions have to be taken in order to secure the rights of the minority, but that has always been the case through out history and we never seem to learn our lessons very well. I still maintain that nobody on the opposing side has adequately been able to demonstrate in any believable fashion how allowing the LGBT community to enjoy the legal and civil liberties offered by marriage will result in any harm or injustice to anyone else. Quite simply put, it does not. It is only an argument based on religious views and principles and nothing else. Such arguments may not be allowed to be the reason to restrict civil rights and freedoms for any group of people in this country.
Get Your Vote On
21-May-09 12:50 PM
Do you love the articles on this blog? Do you hate them? Could you really care less either way? Well, you can now vote your approval or disapproval on each article posted. I've added a new star rating system to all existing articles in the TD3k Speaks archives. All new articles will feature the ranking system as well. "Why" you ask? "Why not" is my rhetorical answer. Seriously, everyone loves to give an opinion, but some of us are just too lazy to actually type a comment. And then there are some of us who prefer to remain anonymous but still like to register a vote of support or a mark of rejection. This system covers both bases - anonymous and effortless. Stars are at the bottom left of each article and are rather unnoticeable until someone leaves a vote. The rating system automatically records each vote and shows the resultant average in stars and the number of votes left. So please, mark your votes today! If you want to add ratings to your blog, go download the free code from the guys over at JS-Kit and have fun.
The Holy War
19-May-09 11:26 AM
A recent article found on the CBS News Political Hotsheet blog speaks of an article published by GQ magazine which details an in depth revelation of behind the scenes activities in the Bush administration during the Iraq war. Below is an abbreviated transcript from that blog. (Note, the image below is NOT from the CBS blog):
Critics often accused the Bush administration of waging a crusade against Iraq. Turns out those critics may have been correct, according to a profile of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in GQ this month.
In what appears to be a callous effort by Rumsfeld to cater to President George W. Bush's religious fervor, the fiery Pentagon leader sent the president daily briefings on the war's progress headlined Worldwide Intelligence Update, which often included Bible passages on the cover paired with striking images.
In one report, a brilliant orange sun beams down on a U.S. tank in the desert beneath a passage from the Book of Ephesians reading, "Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand."
Rumsfeld "was cynically playing the religious angle to seduce and manipulate a president who frequently quoted the Bible," said liberal commentator Frank Rich in the New York Times in response to the story. "But the secretary’s actions were not just oily; he was also taking a risk with national security. If these official daily collages of Crusade-like messaging and war imagery had been leaked, they would have reinforced the Muslim world’s apocalyptic fear that America was waging a religious war."
To read the full article (in GQ) by Robert Draper, click here.
As additional details emerge about what happened behind the closed doors of the Bush administration, it causes one to question the real mindset of these politicians. Was this type of religious overtones in top secret reports just for the the religious edification of the President, or was there truly a belief by those at the top that we were waging a holy war and that God was on our side? Possibly both, but regardless of their personal beliefs, to officially mix these two together in the form of an official governmental document only speaks to the complete and utter disregard to the fallout that could result if and when it was ever made public. It undoubtedly sends a confusing message that this administration may have believed it's justification for waging war in Iraq was religious in nature; even though President Bush said that it wasn't. Or, was it?
State Constitution Preambles
11-May-09 11:03 AM
I came across a somewhat interesting e-mail the other day that focused on the content of the separate states constitutional preambles. The body of the message goes on to list all fifty states opening lines from their preambles and the dates of ratification ranging from 1776 through 1959. The e-mail makes the assertion that all fifty of the US states constitutions’ preambles make reference to either ‘God’, the “Supreme Ruler/Being’, ‘Divine Guidance’, or ‘Creator’ and that because of this then therefore the ACLU and the “out-of-control federal courts just maybe wrong”.
Of course we all know that e-mail messages such as this one are in wide circulation on the internet and many of them are nothing more than someone’s subjective opinion on any given subject. Quite often, snippets of facts and documentation are included to give a sense of authority and worthiness to the argument being proffered. This e-mail in question is no different. It seems to me that the purpose of this message is to assert the notion that since all of the state constitutions openly acknowledge God in their preambles that it is a good thing to interject religious ideals into the realm of government. While it is true that all fifty of the US states do make mention of God or a Supreme Being, or Divine Guidance in each of their respective preambles, I think it is important to point out a few other facts that are equally, if not more, relevant.
To begin with, a preamble is nothing more than an introductory statement that usually states the intent of the authors and the document. All state preambles, as well as the US constitution preamble, are very limited in scope and really carry no legal significance. In other words, they are typically never used as proofs of arguments in court cases since they are only introductory statements and make no claim to power of authority for governance.
Secondly, the e-mail fails to note or acknowledge the fact that all fifty of the state constitutions are subject to and must conform with the precepts and articles of the US constitution. If there is anything in the state constitutions that violates the US constitution then it could effectively be rendered without legal merit in a federal court of law. Also, it fails to note that there is no mention of ‘God’ or anything of the divine anywhere in the US constitution. This does not imply that the men who penned the US constitution were ‘godless’, for we know that many of them were indeed religious. It only further illustrates the concept of the importance of not mixing religious ideologies with governmental authority. I did not examine all fifty states constitutions, but I will cite the Texas constitution as an example since I am more familiar with it. In Article 4 of the Texas constitution it states that no religious test will ever be administered as a requirement for anyone to hold office in the state of Texas with the exception that the candidate must at least acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being. This clause in the Texas constitution has never been upheld or applied in modern times as it is in direct conflict with the establishment clause of the first amendment and Article 6 of the US constitution. State courts do not attempt to enforce article 4, but it is interesting to point out that it is highly doubtful if anyone in the state of Texas has ever been elected to public office who did not profess a belief or a faith in God. That is a different topic of discussion, but it does illustrate the over-importance and emphasis that some people in a given electorate may place on religion. A person’s religious views have nothing whatsoever to do with their ability or their qualifications to hold office in a seat of government.
And finally, the question must be asked “what” exactly is the ACLU and the federal courts wrong about? The statement that “they may be wrong” is broad and unspecific. I would guess that the charge is aimed at the idea that the ACLU and the federal courts are interested in removing all mention of God out of government and in so doing are violating the religious freedoms of people who are religious. This of course is a tired, old argument without any merit whatsoever as long as the ACLU and the federal courts do not attempt to regulate and control the teachings and functions of the individual churches. I am quite certain that they are not doing that at all but are instead limiting their scope to governmental institutions. It is important to remember that governments are established by men for the governance of the secular and legal affairs of men. Our state and federal governments are thankfully not in the business of administering and ruling on divine laws within our court systems. By government remaining neutral in the field of religious affiliations and sectarian beliefs, the government assures without bias an even playing field for peoples of all faiths and all religions to receive fair and equitable treatment by the government in matters of secular law. It is only when people try to insert their own sectarian religious ideals into government that religious freedoms are truly jeopardized and that is what the ACLU and the federal courts are attempting to stop.
Not All Texans Are Malcontents
16-Apr-09 08:32 PM
Note: This article has been edited from it’s original content.*
There’s no polite way to say this, no way to make it pretty and neat, so here it goes: In my opinion, Governor Rick Perry is a malcontent and political agitator. He is quite possibly the biggest demagogue to ever stand up in front of a crowd of right-wing, anti-tax cry babies and proclaim that Texas may secede from the United States of America. Actually, I think he is the only one who has ever done that in the history of the state and the nation. I am still in shock at the absolutely incomprehensible magnitude of such an irresponsible statement coming from the mouth of the chief executive of the state. It is so utterly pretentious and devoid of any common sense principles, that it can only be described as demagoguery of the cheapest kind. A mind-melting lapse of intelligence that suggests that the Governor is out to score political points with those on the very edge of the far right. He even exclaimed that he was “with the right-wing extremists” while making his secession comments on Wednesday. I wonder if Governor Perry had the presence of mind to remove his American flag lapel pin from his collar (the one that he never took off for the past 8 years) before making such a bold and unpatriotic statement of dissidence? There are not enough adjectives in the English language (and believe me I am leaving a lot of the ones I really want to use out) to adequately describe the ineptitude necessary to formulate such a statement as made by Governor Perry.
Governor Perry does not speak for me and he does not represent me as a Texan. Contrary to popular belief, not all Texans are right wing fanatics and ultra conservative. As a Texan, the Governor should know that it is legally impossible for Texas to secede from the United States. It is possible for the state to break up into four smaller states, but Texas is NOT leaving the Union. To make such a rabble-rousing remark does nothing but make the state look like a collection of right-wing extremist wack-jobs who like to talk tough and act mean. This kind of rhetoric reveals just how low the GOP has sunk with the loss of the last Presidential election. It also shows just how low Governor Perry is willing to go to draw attention and support as he prepares for his bid to win the Governorship again in 2010. Unfortunately, there are a lot of Texans who do agree with the Governor and who see fit to keep re-electing him and people who think like him. My hope is that this kind of senseless talk will result in people waking up and replacing the Governor with a sensible, intelligent person who is able to serve the common good of the people of the state without blind duty to partisan politics.
In case Mr. Perry and the anti-tax tea dumpers haven’t noticed, the work that the Obama administration and Congress is doing to correct the economy is starting to work as the stimulus money begins making it’s way into the system. For the first time in a very long time there are signs of hope and improvement in the economy and this is the best response that the GOP can come up with? Crying about taxes and the government spending too much money? Where were the pity parties when one trillion dollars was spent on the misguided and unnecessary war in Iraq? Didn’t hear anything about that one did you? If Governor Perry and the GOP insist on throwing temper tantrums to get attention, then please just go away. Try to make some constructive noise for a change and maybe somebody will listen and take you seriously.
(*My apologies to anyone offended by my frankness in the original article. I have attempted to tone the language down here to be less incendiary and insulting. While I can always respect those with differing views and opinions, and welcome debate and opportunities to explore both sides of an issue, I think that it is always important to differentiate between constructive criticisms and comments versus demagoguery fueled by political rabble-rousing. There is nothing logical or constructive about the latter and it does not fall into the same category. While I can appreciate the concern many have expressed over the recent stimulus bills and the extraordinary amount of monies invested into these programs, it is pretty easy to again argue the necessity of such actions given the crucial and fragile condition of the US economy.)
There’s no polite way to say this, no way to make it pretty and neat, so here it goes: In my opinion, Governor Rick Perry is a malcontent and political agitator. He is quite possibly the biggest demagogue to ever stand up in front of a crowd of right-wing, anti-tax cry babies and proclaim that Texas may secede from the United States of America. Actually, I think he is the only one who has ever done that in the history of the state and the nation. I am still in shock at the absolutely incomprehensible magnitude of such an irresponsible statement coming from the mouth of the chief executive of the state. It is so utterly pretentious and devoid of any common sense principles, that it can only be described as demagoguery of the cheapest kind. A mind-melting lapse of intelligence that suggests that the Governor is out to score political points with those on the very edge of the far right. He even exclaimed that he was “with the right-wing extremists” while making his secession comments on Wednesday. I wonder if Governor Perry had the presence of mind to remove his American flag lapel pin from his collar (the one that he never took off for the past 8 years) before making such a bold and unpatriotic statement of dissidence? There are not enough adjectives in the English language (and believe me I am leaving a lot of the ones I really want to use out) to adequately describe the ineptitude necessary to formulate such a statement as made by Governor Perry.
Governor Perry does not speak for me and he does not represent me as a Texan. Contrary to popular belief, not all Texans are right wing fanatics and ultra conservative. As a Texan, the Governor should know that it is legally impossible for Texas to secede from the United States. It is possible for the state to break up into four smaller states, but Texas is NOT leaving the Union. To make such a rabble-rousing remark does nothing but make the state look like a collection of right-wing extremist wack-jobs who like to talk tough and act mean. This kind of rhetoric reveals just how low the GOP has sunk with the loss of the last Presidential election. It also shows just how low Governor Perry is willing to go to draw attention and support as he prepares for his bid to win the Governorship again in 2010. Unfortunately, there are a lot of Texans who do agree with the Governor and who see fit to keep re-electing him and people who think like him. My hope is that this kind of senseless talk will result in people waking up and replacing the Governor with a sensible, intelligent person who is able to serve the common good of the people of the state without blind duty to partisan politics.
In case Mr. Perry and the anti-tax tea dumpers haven’t noticed, the work that the Obama administration and Congress is doing to correct the economy is starting to work as the stimulus money begins making it’s way into the system. For the first time in a very long time there are signs of hope and improvement in the economy and this is the best response that the GOP can come up with? Crying about taxes and the government spending too much money? Where were the pity parties when one trillion dollars was spent on the misguided and unnecessary war in Iraq? Didn’t hear anything about that one did you? If Governor Perry and the GOP insist on throwing temper tantrums to get attention, then please just go away. Try to make some constructive noise for a change and maybe somebody will listen and take you seriously.
(*My apologies to anyone offended by my frankness in the original article. I have attempted to tone the language down here to be less incendiary and insulting. While I can always respect those with differing views and opinions, and welcome debate and opportunities to explore both sides of an issue, I think that it is always important to differentiate between constructive criticisms and comments versus demagoguery fueled by political rabble-rousing. There is nothing logical or constructive about the latter and it does not fall into the same category. While I can appreciate the concern many have expressed over the recent stimulus bills and the extraordinary amount of monies invested into these programs, it is pretty easy to again argue the necessity of such actions given the crucial and fragile condition of the US economy.)
GOP Wrong About Government Spending
27-Mar-09 09:37 AM
An interesting story appeared on NPR today regarding the new Obama administration budget and the Republican response that has been generated. The full article can be read here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102410826
Here are some excerpts from the article that I would like to comment on:
“While President Obama's proposed budget rolls through the House and Senate, Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan is one of the key lawmakers putting together an alternative plan.
As the top Republican on the House Budget Committee, he will be the one to deliver that plan to the House floor next week. On Thursday, House Republicans released an 18-page pamphlet, "The Republican Road to Recovery," which outlines their break with the president's budget goals.
"We don't think it's right to impose a $1.9 trillion tax increase on our economy during a recession, so we're not going to raise taxes," Ryan tells NPR's Renee Montagne. "No. 2, we don't think it's right to have a huge slew of borrowing — they're doubling our national debt in five and half years, tripling it in just over 10 years. So we think we need to focus on controlling spending and reforming government...
Ryan has referred to the budget plan as "the third and great final wave of government expansion, building on the Great Society and the New Deal." He says there's "probably truth" to the idea that some Americans might think comparisons to the New Deal are good thing — "because that's what President Obama is saying about his budget — that's what the administration is saying is that this is the most sweeping and transformative budget since the New Deal. They probably believe that that's what people want."
But Ryan says unemployment during the New Deal ranged from 12 to 25 percent. "Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Treasury secretary, came to the Ways and Means Committee at the end of that period and said, 'This was a disaster.' It didn't work. We borrowed so much money; we ran up the debt. We didn't get out of the Depression until World War II came along."...”
First of all, I commend the Republican Congressman for at least taking the time to come up with a proposal for consideration as opposed to just objecting and not offering anything in return. This is how government is supposed to work. We can all agree that we don't always agree, but if you are going to be in opposition to the majority then offer a viable plan that offers a different solution. The majority must also be willing to allow the minority to speak and to hear their ideas. If they do not, then that is just as bad.
That said, however, the information Mr. Ryan presents regarding the Great Depression is not completely accurate. Based upon my own research of the subject here is what I've learned.
Unemployment hit a high of 25% before the New Deal was implemented by the FDR administration. Looking at the historical economic data of the period, right after the implementation of the New Deal, unemployment rates began to fall and the Gross National Product of the Country immediately went from a steep downward trend to spiking upward. Unemployment was reduced down to around 12%, or was cut in half. While 12% is still very high, how can anyone say that cutting unemployment in half is not successful? How can growth in GDP not be considered successful? Unemployment leveled up to around 12% at the start of World War II and by the end of the war the country was out of the depression and unemployment was around 3%.
I always laugh when I hear fiscal conservatives like Ryan dismiss the idea of the government spending money during hard economic times as "not necessary" and that it "doesn't work" and then proceed to try and use the example of the New Deal program and the start of the war as proof. Both instances prove the exact opposite. Whether you are talking about the New Deal program or whether you are talking about the onset of World War II, the net result of both of these events was INCREASED government spending and that's what ended the depression. Whether the government is spending money building dams, roads or buildings to put people to work, or whether they are building tanks, airplanes and munitions and training millions of soldiers to fight a war, is completely irrelevant; it is still government spending and that is what ended the Great Depression. So, there is absolutely no logic to the argument to say the New Deal didn't end the depression - World War II did. What's the difference?
Also, most economists agree that the New Deal would've been even more successful if not for one interesting point. FDR's treasury secretary would not allow the funding for the New Deal programs in the regular budget. Instead, the spending came out of an emergency spending budget and during the entire implementation of the New Deal the FDR administration was attempting to also balance the budget at the behest of the Treasury Secretary. Instead of focusing 100% on the current need, others were forcing pressure that helped negate some of the effects of the programs. Morgenthau was opposed to the New Deal from the very beginning and so it is not surprising that he would say negative things about it, even in the light of the economic data that showed something entirely different. Had Morgenthau not been involved, it is possible the New Deal might have ended the Depression before the start of the war.
For Ryan and the GOP to stand up now and oppose the idea of raising much needed revenues by modest tax increases on the wealthiest people in the country is beyond reasonable and is irresponsible. The fact is, regardless of your politics, it was the government that came to the rescue to save our stock market from this current financial meltdown. It will be the strength of our government that will continue to help pull us out and it will be the strength of our government that will formulate the much needed regulatory checks and balances to keep things in sync. We must reject as false the ideology that the markets can regulate themselves and that the government should be continually reduced and downsized. This has been the GOP plan all along and is the primary basis of their continued insistence of permanent tax cuts and the gutting of our regulatory systems. Given the current wars, the continued financial involvement needed due to the corruption on Wall Street, and the immediate need for health care reform (data now shows that 4 in 5 people without health care insurance either have jobs or in families who have jobs - yet they are still uninsured), the idea of asking the wealthiest among us to contribute more to the common good for the country and to their fellow citizen is not asking too much. People will still be wealthy and very well off even after the modest tax increases. No matter what alternative plan the GOP comes up with, I doubt that it can muster the necessary resources needed to keep this ship afloat. I think we can all agree that some spending will have to be curtailed, but we must also wake up and realize that additional monies will also need to be raised. Those are the harsh realities we need to come to understand. It is time to leave strict ideologies behind and to embrace pragmatic solutions that will keep our country and it’s people strong.
Here are some excerpts from the article that I would like to comment on:
“While President Obama's proposed budget rolls through the House and Senate, Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan is one of the key lawmakers putting together an alternative plan.
As the top Republican on the House Budget Committee, he will be the one to deliver that plan to the House floor next week. On Thursday, House Republicans released an 18-page pamphlet, "The Republican Road to Recovery," which outlines their break with the president's budget goals.
"We don't think it's right to impose a $1.9 trillion tax increase on our economy during a recession, so we're not going to raise taxes," Ryan tells NPR's Renee Montagne. "No. 2, we don't think it's right to have a huge slew of borrowing — they're doubling our national debt in five and half years, tripling it in just over 10 years. So we think we need to focus on controlling spending and reforming government...
Ryan has referred to the budget plan as "the third and great final wave of government expansion, building on the Great Society and the New Deal." He says there's "probably truth" to the idea that some Americans might think comparisons to the New Deal are good thing — "because that's what President Obama is saying about his budget — that's what the administration is saying is that this is the most sweeping and transformative budget since the New Deal. They probably believe that that's what people want."
But Ryan says unemployment during the New Deal ranged from 12 to 25 percent. "Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Treasury secretary, came to the Ways and Means Committee at the end of that period and said, 'This was a disaster.' It didn't work. We borrowed so much money; we ran up the debt. We didn't get out of the Depression until World War II came along."...”
First of all, I commend the Republican Congressman for at least taking the time to come up with a proposal for consideration as opposed to just objecting and not offering anything in return. This is how government is supposed to work. We can all agree that we don't always agree, but if you are going to be in opposition to the majority then offer a viable plan that offers a different solution. The majority must also be willing to allow the minority to speak and to hear their ideas. If they do not, then that is just as bad.
That said, however, the information Mr. Ryan presents regarding the Great Depression is not completely accurate. Based upon my own research of the subject here is what I've learned.
Unemployment hit a high of 25% before the New Deal was implemented by the FDR administration. Looking at the historical economic data of the period, right after the implementation of the New Deal, unemployment rates began to fall and the Gross National Product of the Country immediately went from a steep downward trend to spiking upward. Unemployment was reduced down to around 12%, or was cut in half. While 12% is still very high, how can anyone say that cutting unemployment in half is not successful? How can growth in GDP not be considered successful? Unemployment leveled up to around 12% at the start of World War II and by the end of the war the country was out of the depression and unemployment was around 3%.
I always laugh when I hear fiscal conservatives like Ryan dismiss the idea of the government spending money during hard economic times as "not necessary" and that it "doesn't work" and then proceed to try and use the example of the New Deal program and the start of the war as proof. Both instances prove the exact opposite. Whether you are talking about the New Deal program or whether you are talking about the onset of World War II, the net result of both of these events was INCREASED government spending and that's what ended the depression. Whether the government is spending money building dams, roads or buildings to put people to work, or whether they are building tanks, airplanes and munitions and training millions of soldiers to fight a war, is completely irrelevant; it is still government spending and that is what ended the Great Depression. So, there is absolutely no logic to the argument to say the New Deal didn't end the depression - World War II did. What's the difference?
Also, most economists agree that the New Deal would've been even more successful if not for one interesting point. FDR's treasury secretary would not allow the funding for the New Deal programs in the regular budget. Instead, the spending came out of an emergency spending budget and during the entire implementation of the New Deal the FDR administration was attempting to also balance the budget at the behest of the Treasury Secretary. Instead of focusing 100% on the current need, others were forcing pressure that helped negate some of the effects of the programs. Morgenthau was opposed to the New Deal from the very beginning and so it is not surprising that he would say negative things about it, even in the light of the economic data that showed something entirely different. Had Morgenthau not been involved, it is possible the New Deal might have ended the Depression before the start of the war.
For Ryan and the GOP to stand up now and oppose the idea of raising much needed revenues by modest tax increases on the wealthiest people in the country is beyond reasonable and is irresponsible. The fact is, regardless of your politics, it was the government that came to the rescue to save our stock market from this current financial meltdown. It will be the strength of our government that will continue to help pull us out and it will be the strength of our government that will formulate the much needed regulatory checks and balances to keep things in sync. We must reject as false the ideology that the markets can regulate themselves and that the government should be continually reduced and downsized. This has been the GOP plan all along and is the primary basis of their continued insistence of permanent tax cuts and the gutting of our regulatory systems. Given the current wars, the continued financial involvement needed due to the corruption on Wall Street, and the immediate need for health care reform (data now shows that 4 in 5 people without health care insurance either have jobs or in families who have jobs - yet they are still uninsured), the idea of asking the wealthiest among us to contribute more to the common good for the country and to their fellow citizen is not asking too much. People will still be wealthy and very well off even after the modest tax increases. No matter what alternative plan the GOP comes up with, I doubt that it can muster the necessary resources needed to keep this ship afloat. I think we can all agree that some spending will have to be curtailed, but we must also wake up and realize that additional monies will also need to be raised. Those are the harsh realities we need to come to understand. It is time to leave strict ideologies behind and to embrace pragmatic solutions that will keep our country and it’s people strong.
My Letter To President Obama
15-Mar-09 09:10 PM
As many of you will know, AIG announced this weekend that they were going to go ahead and payout hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds as bonuses to some of their employees. They are doing this in-spite of the tremendous outcry from the public and their demands that these bonuses not be paid. AIG has chosen to ignore the will of the people who have given this money and are continuing ahead with no regard to the outcry against this behavior. As a result, I have written to President Obama urging him to take whatever actions he may legally take to curtail this abuse of tax payer money. I encourage each of you to do the same. If you are currently doing business with AIG I would encourage you to cancel your business dealings with them. America should completely boycott this greedy, unethical and immoral corporation until it bleeds to death. We should also demand full repayment of ALL of the federal bail out money to be paid back to the US government where the money can be used to help those who are in desperate need of help. Please, do your part - this is important. You can write to President Obama at this link.
-----------------------
President Obama:
I am writing to express my complete disgust and disapproval of how AIG is continuing with their plans to use the federal bailout money to pay their nefarious bonuses. I will keep this very brief and to the point. This angers me greatly and I fully expect you and Congress to do everything within your power to stop this misuse of our tax dollars. We are not idiots and we know that the funds that were given out were for the primary purpose of keeping people employed and getting the markets functioning again.
There is no way I can believe for a second the stories being proffered by AIG as the justification for this breach of trust. These are extraordinarily difficult times for millions of Americans who are struggling to survive. It is inexcusable and unconscionable for this kind of activity to be happening in front of our very eyes; not to mention what may be happening behind closed doors and unreported. Please, Mr. President, address this issue openly and publicly and do anything within your power to stop this abuse and misuse of the public funds that were given in good faith, but which are now being recklessly abused.
The change we seek will not be born easily and will not be wrested from the hands who desperately cling to the manacles of corruption. I am but one voice but I speak for tens of thousands who agree with me - please do what you can and please continue to address this issue with all other corporations and businesses who would seek to destroy the good will and the prosperity of the American people. Thank you for your time and thank you for having the courage and the decency to call these unethical actions shameful and wrong.
With all my support.
-TD3k
-----------------------
President Obama:
I am writing to express my complete disgust and disapproval of how AIG is continuing with their plans to use the federal bailout money to pay their nefarious bonuses. I will keep this very brief and to the point. This angers me greatly and I fully expect you and Congress to do everything within your power to stop this misuse of our tax dollars. We are not idiots and we know that the funds that were given out were for the primary purpose of keeping people employed and getting the markets functioning again.
There is no way I can believe for a second the stories being proffered by AIG as the justification for this breach of trust. These are extraordinarily difficult times for millions of Americans who are struggling to survive. It is inexcusable and unconscionable for this kind of activity to be happening in front of our very eyes; not to mention what may be happening behind closed doors and unreported. Please, Mr. President, address this issue openly and publicly and do anything within your power to stop this abuse and misuse of the public funds that were given in good faith, but which are now being recklessly abused.
The change we seek will not be born easily and will not be wrested from the hands who desperately cling to the manacles of corruption. I am but one voice but I speak for tens of thousands who agree with me - please do what you can and please continue to address this issue with all other corporations and businesses who would seek to destroy the good will and the prosperity of the American people. Thank you for your time and thank you for having the courage and the decency to call these unethical actions shameful and wrong.
With all my support.
-TD3k
Letter To The Texas Governor
13-Mar-09 01:06 AM
Texas Governor Rick Perry announced on Thursday, March 12, 2009 that he would reject $555 million in federal stimulus money that would go to assist Texans who are unemployed and who had reached the end of their unemployment coverage. Perry said that such a move would require him to raise taxes on businesses to provide for additional funds when the stimulus money ran out. Perry is an outspoken critic of President Obama's economic recovery plan for the country and many feel that this move has more to do with political posturing than with any real threats posed to businesses. As I enter into my 17th week of unemployment, I was compelled to send an e-mail letter to Mr. Perry to share my thoughts with him and I now share with you. If you live in Texas and are as mad as I am, I encourage you to let your voice be heard. You can contact the Governor's office and leave your comments here.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gov. Perry:
I deeply condemn your unconscionable decision to reject the $555 million in federal stimulus money to help Texans with unemployment coverage. At such an extraordinarily difficult time for thousands of Texans who are struggling to deal with the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression, you have clearly shown that your interest in helping those who need assistance is secondary to your desire to score political points with your party and your narrow social conservative views. While I am sure you feel quite justified in your decision, I can tell you that the majority of Texans will disapprove of your selfish, uncaring actions. Given the fact that the TWC faces deficits as early as October and then possible insolvency, it is unethical and immoral for you to ignore such a pressing need for the sake of political expediency on your part. While you are trying to protect businesses from any additional expenditures, you seem to forget that the businesses have already protected themselves by letting their employees go and now no one is looking out for the working man. How convenient that the corporations and big businesses have such a champion as you to hold their hand and protect them from the threat of evil taxes. Quite honestly sir, you have no soul and no capacity for honest reasoning. Please, hear the appeal of the people and change course on this decision while you still can.
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gov. Perry:
I deeply condemn your unconscionable decision to reject the $555 million in federal stimulus money to help Texans with unemployment coverage. At such an extraordinarily difficult time for thousands of Texans who are struggling to deal with the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression, you have clearly shown that your interest in helping those who need assistance is secondary to your desire to score political points with your party and your narrow social conservative views. While I am sure you feel quite justified in your decision, I can tell you that the majority of Texans will disapprove of your selfish, uncaring actions. Given the fact that the TWC faces deficits as early as October and then possible insolvency, it is unethical and immoral for you to ignore such a pressing need for the sake of political expediency on your part. While you are trying to protect businesses from any additional expenditures, you seem to forget that the businesses have already protected themselves by letting their employees go and now no one is looking out for the working man. How convenient that the corporations and big businesses have such a champion as you to hold their hand and protect them from the threat of evil taxes. Quite honestly sir, you have no soul and no capacity for honest reasoning. Please, hear the appeal of the people and change course on this decision while you still can.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Barack Obama's Inaugural Address
20-Jan-09 01:56 PM
-----------------
"My fellow citizens: I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors.
I thank President Bush for his service to our nation..... as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.
Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.
So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.
That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.
Homes have been lost, jobs shed, businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly, our schools fail too many, and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.
These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable, but no less profound, is a sapping of confidence across our land; a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, that the next generation must lower its sights.
Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real, they are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this America: They will be met.
On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.
We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.
In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less.
It has not been the path for the faint-hearted, for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame.
Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things -- some celebrated, but more often men and women obscure in their labor -- who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.
For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life. For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West, endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.
For us, they fought and died in places Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.
Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.
This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions -- that time has surely passed.
Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.
For everywhere we look, there is work to be done.
The state of our economy calls for action: bold and swift. And we will act not only to create new jobs but to lay a new foundation for growth.
We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.
We will restore science to its rightful place and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality.... and lower its costs.
We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.
All this we can do. All this we will do.
Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short, for they have forgotten what this country has already done, what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose and necessity to courage.
What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long, no longer apply.
The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works, whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.
Where the answer is "yes", we intend to move forward. Where the answer is "no", programs will end.
And those of us who manage the public's knowledge will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.
Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched.
But this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control. The nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.
The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on the ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart -- not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.
Our founding fathers faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations.
Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.
And so, to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more.
Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with the sturdy alliances and enduring convictions.
They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use. Our security emanates from the justness of our cause; the force of our example; the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.
We are the keepers of this legacy, guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort, even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We'll begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people and forge a hard- earned peace in Afghanistan.
With old friends and former foes, we'll work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat and roll back the specter of a warming planet.
We will not apologize for our way of life nor will we waver in its defense.
And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that, "Our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken. You cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you."
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness.
We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth.
And because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.
To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.
To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict or blame their society's ills on the West, know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.
To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.
To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds.
And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders, nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.
As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages.
We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service: a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves.
And yet, at this moment, a moment that will define a generation, it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.
For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies.
It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break; the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours.
It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.
Our challenges may be new, the instruments with which we meet them may be new, but those values upon which our success depends, honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism -- these things are old.
These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history.
What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility -- a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character than giving our all to a difficult task.
This is the price and the promise of citizenship.
This is the source of our confidence: the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.
This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed, why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall. And why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.
So let us mark this day in remembrance of who we are and how far we have traveled.
In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by nine campfires on the shores of an icy river.
The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood.
At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:
"Let it be told to the future world that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive, that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet it."
America, in the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words; with hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come; let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.
Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America."
8 Years Never Seemed So Long
15-Jan-09 08:53 PM
Tonight, President Bush bid farewell to the nation via a short televised appearance from the White House. It was a quintessential Bush moment, complete with the familiar smirk and smiles while talking about serious subjects while he attempted to play one last jedi mind trick on the nation with his paltry list of accomplishments while in office. In his now familiar attempt to remind the nation of 9/11 (in case we had forgotten), Bush began to list his achievements over the last 8 years. Noticeably glossing over the extraordinary bad economy and rough financial times that he is leaving the nation in, Bush at least was gracious in talking about his successor and his ever triumphant, up beat outlook for the future of the country.
He did acknowledge briefly the economic downturn and noted that all Americans were in this mess together. And while that is true enough, it's just that some of us are in over our eyebrows while others can still afford to buy two mansions in Dallas and maintain another large, sprawling ranch in central Texas. Hard to imagine how a person on a president's salary can afford so much, especially during such "tough" economic times. He went on to note other hallmarks of his administration by citing his mixing of federal tax monies with faith based organizations as a "good" thing that helps needy families. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams would be shocked and outraged to see such a program. Not that faith based charities are bad, for they are not bad - they do very good works; it is the mixing of federal tax monies with religious organizations that is the odiferous and constitutionally ignorant offense here. Bush seems completely oblivious to these facts and claims this gem proudly; always failing to see the uncomfortable and tenuous connections this places on a government that according to the constitution must remain neutral on the subject of religion.
Another one of particular interest that he specifically lay claim to were his achievements in reducing the advance of stem cell research to fight the prevention of deadly human disease. Of course he didn't word it that way, but merely made reference to the protection of the unborn saying that it is always evil to kill the innocent for any reason. Another policy that was clearly guided solely on religious principle without regard for any scientific or true humanitarian advancements for mankind. He then noted particular pleasure in having selected two ultra conservative judges to the supreme court as another important hallmark of his legacy. Thankfully Bush is leaving office before he could've nominated another conservative to the high bench that would've shifted the court in a disastrous keel to the right thereby setting up the potential unraveling of years and years of advances in civil liberties and freedoms for many millions of Americans. As long as you are middle class and higher, then you need not worry about such issues unless you have any sort of a social conscious about fairness and equality for all.
Any regular reader of this blog will know that I am not, nor ever have been a fan of Mr. Bush. I make no bones about it, I am glad to see him and his entire collection of cronies and crooks leave with him. I've been counting down the days on this blog marking his departure for a very long time now. My aversion to this president is not simply because of political affiliations, but because of his 8 year string of mind numbingly horrible and irrevocable decisions he has made while leading this country. That is not to say that he has never done anything good, or that he has never made a single good decision, because he has on a few selected subjects (i.e. support for stopping the spread of AIDS in Africa, etc). But let’s just say that the bad decisions, errors and mistakes, far outweigh any good he may have done. And that is how history will remember this president I am quite certain.
Goodbye 2008
31-Dec-08 05:15 PM
As 2008 comes to a thankful close, it is good to stop and recap the more memorable events of the year. “Good” is a relative term when speaking of 2008 as very few good things occurred during the year. if you are the type that counts “still breathing” and “wearing pants that have been washed within at least the past 3 days” as “good” then you might not consider that 2008 was really all that bad. Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but from my view point it was a rough year. Not just for me in particular - but for a lot of people. Besides, my pants were put on fresh this morning but that doesn’t change the verdict on 2008.
Simply put, 2008 was a doozy. No, actually it was a blood letting. Some made it all the way through and retained both their jobs and their home and for that you can truly be thankful. Others are not so lucky. Many millions have lost their jobs and many millions have lost their homes - and many have also lost both. It seems that as the year progressed things got progressively worse; especially here at home. Even though it’s not particularly pleasant, here is a brief recap of the events of 2008 by month. Click on the links of each month for greater detail and even more events that occurred during that month. This is just to put the year in perspective; I intend to look forward to 2009 and the uncertain promises that it holds. 2009 could continue the trend for awhile yet - but here’s hoping for better and happier times ahead.
January
U.S. Attorney General Opens Investigation into Destroyed Tapes (Jan. 2)
California Sues EPA (Jan. 2)
Markets Plunge Around the World (Jan. 21)
February
Economy Loses Jobs for the First Time in 52 Months (Feb. 1)
Senate Votes to Ban Severe Interrogation Techniques (Feb. 13)
Castro Resigns as President of Cuba (Feb. 19)
March
Bush Vetoes Bill That Would Ban Severe Interrogation Techniques (March 8)
Government Intervenes to Avert Financial Crises (March 11)
Bush Acknowledges Toll of War on Anniversary of War (March 19)
April
Senate Passes Housing Relief Bill (April 10)
Dozens Are Killed in Suicide Attacks in Iraq (April 15)
Pope Denounces Pedophile Priests (April 15)
May
State Department Renews Deal with Controversial Contractor (May 9)
Polar Bear Designated as Threatened (May 14)
California Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage (May 15)
June
Five-Year Inquiry Finds Bush Exaggerated Evidence on Iraq (June 5)
Unemployment Rate Spikes To 5.5% (June 6)
North Korea Takes Steps Toward Denuclearization (June 26)
July
Treasury Department Proposes Rescue Plan for Mortgage Companies (July 13)
U.S. Envoy Participates in Talks with Iran (July 19)
Judge Rules that Bush's Advisers Must Comply with Subpoenas (July 31)
August
The Summer Games Open with a Spectacular Ceremony and Tragedy (Aug. 8)
Al-Qaeda Increases Its Strength and Threat (Aug.12 )
McCain Chooses Outsider as Running Mate (Aug. 29)
September
Report Finds That Former Attorney General Mishandled Sensitive Documents (Sept. 2)
Unemployment Rate Reaches Highest Level in Five Years at 6.1% (Sept. 5)
U.S. Financial Markets Roiled by Turmoil (Sept. 7)
Russia Agrees to Withdraw from Georgia (Sept. 8)
October
Connecticut Legalizes Gay Marriage (Oct. 10)
Investigation Concludes That Palin Abused Power (Oct. 10)
Bush Administration Memorandum Asserts Federal Money Can Fund Groups That Discriminate Based on Faith (Oct. 18)
Economy Shrinks for First Time in Years (Oct. 30)
November
Barack Obama Is Elected President (Nov. 4)
California Votes to Outlaw Same-Sex Marriage (Nov. 4)
Economy Stumbles Further (Nov. 7)
China Announces Enormous Stimulus Package (Nov. 9)
Stock Market Tumbles Again (Nov. 19)
December
Dow Plunges Amid Report That Economy Is in Recession (Dec. 1)
Unemployment Rate Increases Again to 6.7% (Dec. 5)
Journalist Throws Shoes at Bush (Dec. 14)
Bush Unveils $17.4 Billion Rescue of Auto Industry (Dec. 19)
Simply put, 2008 was a doozy. No, actually it was a blood letting. Some made it all the way through and retained both their jobs and their home and for that you can truly be thankful. Others are not so lucky. Many millions have lost their jobs and many millions have lost their homes - and many have also lost both. It seems that as the year progressed things got progressively worse; especially here at home. Even though it’s not particularly pleasant, here is a brief recap of the events of 2008 by month. Click on the links of each month for greater detail and even more events that occurred during that month. This is just to put the year in perspective; I intend to look forward to 2009 and the uncertain promises that it holds. 2009 could continue the trend for awhile yet - but here’s hoping for better and happier times ahead.
January
U.S. Attorney General Opens Investigation into Destroyed Tapes (Jan. 2)
California Sues EPA (Jan. 2)
Markets Plunge Around the World (Jan. 21)
February
Economy Loses Jobs for the First Time in 52 Months (Feb. 1)
Senate Votes to Ban Severe Interrogation Techniques (Feb. 13)
Castro Resigns as President of Cuba (Feb. 19)
March
Bush Vetoes Bill That Would Ban Severe Interrogation Techniques (March 8)
Government Intervenes to Avert Financial Crises (March 11)
Bush Acknowledges Toll of War on Anniversary of War (March 19)
April
Senate Passes Housing Relief Bill (April 10)
Dozens Are Killed in Suicide Attacks in Iraq (April 15)
Pope Denounces Pedophile Priests (April 15)
May
State Department Renews Deal with Controversial Contractor (May 9)
Polar Bear Designated as Threatened (May 14)
California Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage (May 15)
June
Five-Year Inquiry Finds Bush Exaggerated Evidence on Iraq (June 5)
Unemployment Rate Spikes To 5.5% (June 6)
North Korea Takes Steps Toward Denuclearization (June 26)
July
Treasury Department Proposes Rescue Plan for Mortgage Companies (July 13)
U.S. Envoy Participates in Talks with Iran (July 19)
Judge Rules that Bush's Advisers Must Comply with Subpoenas (July 31)
August
The Summer Games Open with a Spectacular Ceremony and Tragedy (Aug. 8)
Al-Qaeda Increases Its Strength and Threat (Aug.12 )
McCain Chooses Outsider as Running Mate (Aug. 29)
September
Report Finds That Former Attorney General Mishandled Sensitive Documents (Sept. 2)
Unemployment Rate Reaches Highest Level in Five Years at 6.1% (Sept. 5)
U.S. Financial Markets Roiled by Turmoil (Sept. 7)
Russia Agrees to Withdraw from Georgia (Sept. 8)
October
Connecticut Legalizes Gay Marriage (Oct. 10)
Investigation Concludes That Palin Abused Power (Oct. 10)
Bush Administration Memorandum Asserts Federal Money Can Fund Groups That Discriminate Based on Faith (Oct. 18)
Economy Shrinks for First Time in Years (Oct. 30)
November
Barack Obama Is Elected President (Nov. 4)
California Votes to Outlaw Same-Sex Marriage (Nov. 4)
Economy Stumbles Further (Nov. 7)
China Announces Enormous Stimulus Package (Nov. 9)
Stock Market Tumbles Again (Nov. 19)
December
Dow Plunges Amid Report That Economy Is in Recession (Dec. 1)
Unemployment Rate Increases Again to 6.7% (Dec. 5)
Journalist Throws Shoes at Bush (Dec. 14)
Bush Unveils $17.4 Billion Rescue of Auto Industry (Dec. 19)
No Wonder This Blog Is So Boring...
10-Aug-08 01:41 PM
Here is proof positive that I am just an old-fuddy-duddy. Many of you suspected it by the contents of my blog page and my unrelenting pursuit of dry, boring, topics. Since I am really only 46 years old, I guess by the time I can actually retire, I will already be brain dead - something to look forward to.
 | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Protecting Church State Separation
04-Aug-08 11:55 PM
A subject of increasing importance these days is the principle of the separation of church and state. It is an important topic and one that should be discussed and understood by all. Believe it or not, there are those in the United States who do not understand the role of this important principle, and there are even those who think it is a myth and that it does not exist in our Constitution. As a proud member of First Freedom First, I am posting here verbatim a very concise and informative synopsis that deals with this important topic.
Church-state separation is an historic principle and is supported by countless Americans. But just how these values impact everyday life, or how they are under attack, is not always clear. The following eight issues highlight today’s most pressing concerns:
1. The First Amendment requires government to remain neutral on matters of religion. This basic tenet not only protects religious institutions from the influence of politics, but ensures that the religious beliefs of lawmakers do not infiltrate our laws.
2. End of life decisions are among the most personal of all, and should be based on what’s right for you and your family. Church-state separation restricts interference with end of life care in order to further a political or religious agenda.
3. The choices one makes about reproductive health are choices of individual conscience. Church-state separation ensures that religious doctrine doesn’t take precedence over the laws that allow individual control of reproductive issues.
4. Every American enjoys the right to practice, or not practice, any religion. Maintaining church-state separation means that we are not subjected to government-supported religion and that tax dollars are not allowed to fund any initiatives grounded in faith.
5. Public Education must be free of religious bias. Church-state separation restricts the government from promoting religion or religious views in the classroom.
6. Advancement and innovation, especially in the medical field, require research rooted in science. By maintaining the separation between church and state, we guarantee that the narrow religious beliefs of some lawmakers do not limit the research that saves lives.
7. Private houses of worship have the right to promote specific marriage and family traditions, but the government does not. Church-state separation is critical to ensure that our nation’s laws do not limit the definition of marriage or family, resulting in blatant discrimination.
8. This country is rooted in the traditions of religious freedom, the freedom to practice when and how you want and the freedom to refrain from religious practice. Lawmakers are constantly trying to infiltrate the public sector with tactics like prayer in school and forced devotions during the meetings of government organizations. Protect the separation between church and state and no citizen will feel the pressure to conform to anyone else’s religious beliefs.
First Freedom First was created to inform citizens about church-state issues and to create a platform for those who need to speak out against the violations that threatens church-state separation. For more information on these issues, please visit the websites of American’s United and First Freedom First.
Church-state separation is an historic principle and is supported by countless Americans. But just how these values impact everyday life, or how they are under attack, is not always clear. The following eight issues highlight today’s most pressing concerns:
1. The First Amendment requires government to remain neutral on matters of religion. This basic tenet not only protects religious institutions from the influence of politics, but ensures that the religious beliefs of lawmakers do not infiltrate our laws.
2. End of life decisions are among the most personal of all, and should be based on what’s right for you and your family. Church-state separation restricts interference with end of life care in order to further a political or religious agenda.
3. The choices one makes about reproductive health are choices of individual conscience. Church-state separation ensures that religious doctrine doesn’t take precedence over the laws that allow individual control of reproductive issues.
4. Every American enjoys the right to practice, or not practice, any religion. Maintaining church-state separation means that we are not subjected to government-supported religion and that tax dollars are not allowed to fund any initiatives grounded in faith.
5. Public Education must be free of religious bias. Church-state separation restricts the government from promoting religion or religious views in the classroom.
6. Advancement and innovation, especially in the medical field, require research rooted in science. By maintaining the separation between church and state, we guarantee that the narrow religious beliefs of some lawmakers do not limit the research that saves lives.
7. Private houses of worship have the right to promote specific marriage and family traditions, but the government does not. Church-state separation is critical to ensure that our nation’s laws do not limit the definition of marriage or family, resulting in blatant discrimination.
8. This country is rooted in the traditions of religious freedom, the freedom to practice when and how you want and the freedom to refrain from religious practice. Lawmakers are constantly trying to infiltrate the public sector with tactics like prayer in school and forced devotions during the meetings of government organizations. Protect the separation between church and state and no citizen will feel the pressure to conform to anyone else’s religious beliefs.
First Freedom First was created to inform citizens about church-state issues and to create a platform for those who need to speak out against the violations that threatens church-state separation. For more information on these issues, please visit the websites of American’s United and First Freedom First.
I Am, I Said...
14-Jul-08 11:10 PM
In my previous post, I listed a series of principles and beliefs that came directly from "The Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles." As I mentioned in the previous post, slight alterations were made to the list in order to disguise the word "humanist". Why, you may ask, did I dedicate a post to this list? And the answer, simply put, is to clarify a point - namely, that the words "humanist" and "humanism" are words that have been sabotaged by those who have attempted to alter the general perception and the meaning of the words. We find that the true meaning and nature of these words, and those who claim the label of "humanist", are not the demons and monsters that they've been portrayed to be. Just as "liberals" are not the vile, cruel and insufferable creatures that they have been portrayed to be; the subject of previous posts here on TD3k Speaks. The purpose of this article is to open up for discussion and understanding the true meaning of these words and what the people stand for who subscribe to the views and principles of liberal, secular humanism. Wow - three of the ugliest words ever created since the dawn of man, and here I’ve gone and used them in one sentence!! I hope some of you have not passed out from horror. The fact is, there is no better way to cut through the misinformation and understand something, than to go directly to the source and read for yourself the ideas and principles that are central to the existence of that thing. Thus I presented the list.
Except for only the most religious people who will no doubt take extreme exception to the unthinkable notion that somebody could actually not believe in the supernatural nor in the concept of a supreme being, I cannot fathom any of the other items that would serve as a point of contention, or that would cause anyone undue alarm or dismay in the concepts of the ideals and principles laid out by Humanism. While many humanists may in fact be either athiests or agnostics from a religious viewpoint, it can be seen that lack of a belief in the supernatural does not automatically negate the belief in the need for morality, ethics and responsible living. And that is really the main point I would like to make clear, and to quash the notion that only people who aspire to a religious doctrine, or profess a belief in a supernatural being, can be considered morally upright and honorable. That is simply not true - and it never has been true. There are many examples of people through out history who were stalwarts of morality and sound character and who never professed a particular religious dogma. While there are certainly many people who are religious, and who profess a belief in faith and the supernatural, and who live fine examples of moral fidelity and are of strong personal character, the virtues of morality are not mutually exclusive to them. It seems to exist at the core of every man, those who are driven by faith as well as those who are focused by reason. But no one will argue that there are prime examples of people on both sides who do not live moral lives - such is the complexity of human behavior.
It is my earnest hope and desire to expose some light on the issues that have been such points of contention in our society, and hopefully some will begin to understand and reject the narrow and hateful definitions sometimes applied by those who seek to alter the reality of the human experience because of differing viewpoints and opinions. I do not advocate that we all need to agree with every idea and principle out there for the sake of getting along, but rather to examine what the principles in question really are and to analyze them based on sound logic and reason, and not on hyperbole. I believe that debate and discussions on ideas and principles are healthy and productive so long as they are done with respect and dignity by all parties. Just because you disagree does not mean the other person is necessairly wrong.
For those who may have held a negative viewpoint of "humanists" and "humanism", I ask you to read through their Affirmations and Statement of Principles if you have not done so, and examine them closely. Other than the clearly stated objections to accepting any explanations that lie beyond the natural world and focuses on explanations that exist in the mysteries of the supernatural, what concepts and principles in the list could be attributed to vile and repulsive ideals? The point is, once you examine the facts and understand the real reasons that define a concept or a principle, you may well be surprised that the true content of the facts are entirely different from the preconceived perceptions that had been assigned to it by others. I would love to hear any opposing views or thoughts on this one - to me, it is a clear cut case of examining the evidence based on facts, and not on somebody else’s opinion.
Except for only the most religious people who will no doubt take extreme exception to the unthinkable notion that somebody could actually not believe in the supernatural nor in the concept of a supreme being, I cannot fathom any of the other items that would serve as a point of contention, or that would cause anyone undue alarm or dismay in the concepts of the ideals and principles laid out by Humanism. While many humanists may in fact be either athiests or agnostics from a religious viewpoint, it can be seen that lack of a belief in the supernatural does not automatically negate the belief in the need for morality, ethics and responsible living. And that is really the main point I would like to make clear, and to quash the notion that only people who aspire to a religious doctrine, or profess a belief in a supernatural being, can be considered morally upright and honorable. That is simply not true - and it never has been true. There are many examples of people through out history who were stalwarts of morality and sound character and who never professed a particular religious dogma. While there are certainly many people who are religious, and who profess a belief in faith and the supernatural, and who live fine examples of moral fidelity and are of strong personal character, the virtues of morality are not mutually exclusive to them. It seems to exist at the core of every man, those who are driven by faith as well as those who are focused by reason. But no one will argue that there are prime examples of people on both sides who do not live moral lives - such is the complexity of human behavior.
It is my earnest hope and desire to expose some light on the issues that have been such points of contention in our society, and hopefully some will begin to understand and reject the narrow and hateful definitions sometimes applied by those who seek to alter the reality of the human experience because of differing viewpoints and opinions. I do not advocate that we all need to agree with every idea and principle out there for the sake of getting along, but rather to examine what the principles in question really are and to analyze them based on sound logic and reason, and not on hyperbole. I believe that debate and discussions on ideas and principles are healthy and productive so long as they are done with respect and dignity by all parties. Just because you disagree does not mean the other person is necessairly wrong.
For those who may have held a negative viewpoint of "humanists" and "humanism", I ask you to read through their Affirmations and Statement of Principles if you have not done so, and examine them closely. Other than the clearly stated objections to accepting any explanations that lie beyond the natural world and focuses on explanations that exist in the mysteries of the supernatural, what concepts and principles in the list could be attributed to vile and repulsive ideals? The point is, once you examine the facts and understand the real reasons that define a concept or a principle, you may well be surprised that the true content of the facts are entirely different from the preconceived perceptions that had been assigned to it by others. I would love to hear any opposing views or thoughts on this one - to me, it is a clear cut case of examining the evidence based on facts, and not on somebody else’s opinion.
Who Am I?
09-Jul-08 05:56 PM
I am going to list the affirmations and principles associated with a certain group of people and see if you can guess which group of people I am describing. I am going to slightly edit and alter the wording of the list so as not to give the answer away within the list. Please refrain from using Google or any other web search tool until you've read through the list and have given it an honest guess just based on the list. The answer will follow in the next post and it should be obvious - no need to google this one. Here it goes:
- We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.
- We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.
- We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life.
- We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.
- We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state.
- We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.
- We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.
- We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.
- We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.
- We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.
- We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our creative talents to their fullest.
- We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.
- We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.
- We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. * ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.
- We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.
- We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.
- We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to be made in the cosmos.
- We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.
- We affirm there is a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.
- We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.
- We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.
Stars & Stripes Forever!!
04-Jul-08 09:31 AM
Telecom Immunity
02-Jul-08 10:16 AM
The Senate will be voting soon on legislation regarding the Bush Administration’s illegal wiretapping program. It’s important that the bill not contain any immunity for the telecom companies that helped the President break the law.
The Senate is planning on voting on the measure on July 8 and as it stands right now, it appears that they are prepared to sweep this under the rug and look the other way. If you are concerned about this cover up and believe that the rule of law should be upheld and that the principles and rules of the Constitution should be upheld and protected, then please contact your Senators to let them know. There is nothing patriotic about breaking the law and snubbing the principles of our most important document that created this country. Have a Happy July 4th celebration!!
- Let a judge sort it out. If what the telecom companies did was legal, why shouldn’t we let the cases go to court? If it was illegal, that’s all the more reason not to grant immunity.
- This is about fundamental rights. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution explicitly states that the government needs a warrant to conduct a search — that includes wiretapping. Congress should err on the side of our Constitution and not bow to political pressure by signing off on telecom immunity. Americans deserve nothing less.
- When people break the law, they should be held accountable. When companies break the law, they should be too. Passing a bill that lets companies off the hook for spying on their customers isn’t fair and it doesn’t uphold the rule of law.
- The Bush Administration is trying to cover up its own illegal behavior. The President shouldn’t be able to hide the full extent of an illegal program by shutting down lawsuits. And Congress certainly shouldn’t help him to do it.
- This affects countless Americans. Telecoms need to testify in a court of law about exactly what happened and why. If telecom immunity passes, we may never know how big the scandal really was.
The Senate is planning on voting on the measure on July 8 and as it stands right now, it appears that they are prepared to sweep this under the rug and look the other way. If you are concerned about this cover up and believe that the rule of law should be upheld and that the principles and rules of the Constitution should be upheld and protected, then please contact your Senators to let them know. There is nothing patriotic about breaking the law and snubbing the principles of our most important document that created this country. Have a Happy July 4th celebration!!
Collection of Random Topics
21-Jun-08 09:38 AM
There are many topics worthy of discussion, but not really worthy of a dedicated post by themselves. Some of these topics have been building up in my brain lately, so allow me to release the pressure valve and spew some of them forth herewith. I reserve the right to come back at a later date and embellish any of these topics further as warranted by current events or stupid actions by people who should know better. So, in no particular order of importance or interest:
Gay Marriage Rights
Conservative and religious right leaders in California are chomping at the bit to try and pass a state constitutional amendment this November to nullify the recently acquired rights of gay couples from marrying in the state. They are spreading false information about marriage statistics and trying to convince everyone that by allowing gay couples to marry that the very institution of heteosexual marriage is somehow jeopardized and in danger of being eradicated off the face of the earth. Normally, this topic alone is worth an entire post by itself, but i have neither the energy nor the will to further debate this topic as it is so completely juvenille and senseless that it is exasperating to even try to and expend brain cells to debate it. Other than all of the arguments I have already posted on this blog about this topic, suffice it to say that the misinformation about marriage and the alarmist concerns of the destruction of heterosexual marriage is completely senseless and unwarranted. I stop short of calling it stupid (although it is) but I maintain that nobody but nobody can adequately explain how by allowing a group of people (gays and lesbians) to enjoy the same legal protections of marriage that that is going to jeopardize heterosexual marriage. It is a myth and one without any merit. Next topic.
Apple Goodies - iPhone 3G and Mobile Me
There is a wealth of techno goodies about to shower forth from the techno gods in Cupertino in early July, now only a few short weeks away. You’d have to be living in a hole in the sewers of London not to have already heard this news by now. Twice the features and half the price of the original iPhone, faster speeds, more third party applications, GPS, Microsoft Exchange support for enterprises and business users, and the best user interface ever designed for a mobile device make this a must have techno gadget for the masses. Notwithstanding all the goodness, to keep this journalistically pure, I will point out that there is much concern over the pricing plans with AT&T and who will be eligible for the lower prices. The $199 and $299 prices quoted during the WWDC Keynote address will not be available to everyone, depending upon existing cell phone contracts. This is nothing really new in the industry, but I can see a lot of people being disappointed to find out that they don’t qualify for the lower prices. But, like a good Republican, I know I qualify for the rates so I don’t really care if anybody else does or not. Tough luck.
Mobile Me is the replacement of the Dot Mac web service from Apple of which I have been a member for a few years now. While I have generally been pleased with Dot Mac, I am looking forward to the new push email, contacts and calendar capabilities that will be offered by the new service. As billed during the WWDC, this is exchange service for the rest of us. Dot Mac did have a few bugs and quirks in it and I am hoping that this new service will resolve some of those annoying glitches that would creep up from time to time. It is going to be so nice to be able to add calendar events or contacts to my laptop or Mac and then have that automatically sync up to my iPhone. This service also debuts in early July and I am ready for it.
Eletrical Loadbanks and Short Circuits
DId you know that the quasi-technical definition of an eletrical short is when electrical current flows unintentionally and uncontrolled between two conductors? In other words, it is when electricity goes where it’s not supposed to go and the consequential results are usually fried or charred electrical equipment.
An electrical loadbank is a piece of electrical equipment that simulates electrical load generated by equipment when the equipment is not present. It is used for testing such things as uninterrupted power supplies (UPS) and battery back up systems. With a loadbank apparatus you can simulate all different kinds of electrical events for the express purpose of testing out your emergency back up plans to deal with such emergencies.
Now you may wonder what is so important or interesting about this last bit of information and the answer is absolutely nothing. I said this would be a post on random topics and that’s what I just delivered.
Gay Marriage Rights
Conservative and religious right leaders in California are chomping at the bit to try and pass a state constitutional amendment this November to nullify the recently acquired rights of gay couples from marrying in the state. They are spreading false information about marriage statistics and trying to convince everyone that by allowing gay couples to marry that the very institution of heteosexual marriage is somehow jeopardized and in danger of being eradicated off the face of the earth. Normally, this topic alone is worth an entire post by itself, but i have neither the energy nor the will to further debate this topic as it is so completely juvenille and senseless that it is exasperating to even try to and expend brain cells to debate it. Other than all of the arguments I have already posted on this blog about this topic, suffice it to say that the misinformation about marriage and the alarmist concerns of the destruction of heterosexual marriage is completely senseless and unwarranted. I stop short of calling it stupid (although it is) but I maintain that nobody but nobody can adequately explain how by allowing a group of people (gays and lesbians) to enjoy the same legal protections of marriage that that is going to jeopardize heterosexual marriage. It is a myth and one without any merit. Next topic.
Apple Goodies - iPhone 3G and Mobile Me
There is a wealth of techno goodies about to shower forth from the techno gods in Cupertino in early July, now only a few short weeks away. You’d have to be living in a hole in the sewers of London not to have already heard this news by now. Twice the features and half the price of the original iPhone, faster speeds, more third party applications, GPS, Microsoft Exchange support for enterprises and business users, and the best user interface ever designed for a mobile device make this a must have techno gadget for the masses. Notwithstanding all the goodness, to keep this journalistically pure, I will point out that there is much concern over the pricing plans with AT&T and who will be eligible for the lower prices. The $199 and $299 prices quoted during the WWDC Keynote address will not be available to everyone, depending upon existing cell phone contracts. This is nothing really new in the industry, but I can see a lot of people being disappointed to find out that they don’t qualify for the lower prices. But, like a good Republican, I know I qualify for the rates so I don’t really care if anybody else does or not. Tough luck.
Mobile Me is the replacement of the Dot Mac web service from Apple of which I have been a member for a few years now. While I have generally been pleased with Dot Mac, I am looking forward to the new push email, contacts and calendar capabilities that will be offered by the new service. As billed during the WWDC, this is exchange service for the rest of us. Dot Mac did have a few bugs and quirks in it and I am hoping that this new service will resolve some of those annoying glitches that would creep up from time to time. It is going to be so nice to be able to add calendar events or contacts to my laptop or Mac and then have that automatically sync up to my iPhone. This service also debuts in early July and I am ready for it.
Eletrical Loadbanks and Short Circuits
DId you know that the quasi-technical definition of an eletrical short is when electrical current flows unintentionally and uncontrolled between two conductors? In other words, it is when electricity goes where it’s not supposed to go and the consequential results are usually fried or charred electrical equipment.
An electrical loadbank is a piece of electrical equipment that simulates electrical load generated by equipment when the equipment is not present. It is used for testing such things as uninterrupted power supplies (UPS) and battery back up systems. With a loadbank apparatus you can simulate all different kinds of electrical events for the express purpose of testing out your emergency back up plans to deal with such emergencies.
Now you may wonder what is so important or interesting about this last bit of information and the answer is absolutely nothing. I said this would be a post on random topics and that’s what I just delivered.
2008 Election Prediction
09-Jun-08 10:20 PM
I will admit that I am voting for Obama and I am hoping he will win. I realize this may persuade my prediction making abilities slightly, but I can also state that I am happy that John McCain is the Republican candidate out of all of the other people who were running against him. Should my prediction flounder and McCain is able to get elected, I will be at least happy it is him and not the likes of Huckabee or Tancredo or some of the other far-right ultra conservatives. McCain is by far the most liberal (or moderate) of the bunch that was running and I think it may be why he won. There is an expectancy of change in the air and people are instinctively rejecting the failed policies of the Bush administration and are looking for new leadership. The only way Senator McCain could possibly win in November is if he were to completely reject the current Bush policies and present a solid, unified, well thought out strategy that addresses the dire probelms facing the country today. Any semblance of serving up the same old hash that has been served for the last seven years will send McCain to the back of the line and Obama will be the man.
Just remember, you read it here first on TD3k Speaks. I have already established a precedent by making a reasonably accurate prediction with my earlier announcement of 2008 being a sucky year. $5 per gallon gas will probably be here by the end of the year, and that my friends, sucks!! So, let’s put the conservative agenda away for awhile and let’s break out some good old progressive, forward thinking ideas and let’s plan on some big improvements starting in 2009!!
Pump Wars
28-May-08 12:18 AM
While our troops patrol Iraqi gas stations in Baghdad, it looks like we are now going to need to send them back home so they can guard the pumps at home. If gasoline continues to rise in price above the $4 per gallon mark (and it appears that it probably will), it may very well take proactive intervention from either police or military forces to keep law and order at the pumps. If not, people may eventually be forced into vigilante style methods of self protection when topping off the tank; complete with body armor, hand guns, and rocket launchers affixed to the sides of armor plated SUVs and pick up trucks. All kidding aside, if crime levels are already starting to escalate across the country at the $4 level, what can we expect if the prices climb even higher?
I can honestly say that in all of my 46 years of living in this country, I cannot recall a more bleak, desperate sense of foreboding and uncertainty that currently hangs in the atmosphere today. I don't think we have anyone to blame but ourselves for our current predicament and lack of any kind of a game plan to move us forward in the right direction. Leave the oil in the ground and let's move forward with new fuel technologies that will provide cleaner and more abundant resources that will leave us free of the dependence on foreign oil. Oil is probably still the cheapest option available, but if the prices continue to rise at their current rates, that may no longer be true and the wheels of industry are not going to be well greased on oil that is grossly too expensive. Meanwhile, I'm going to break out my Mad Max outfit and rig my car for defensive deployment conditions.
"I Am Iron Man"
04-May-08 09:09 AM
A Single Word Says A Lot...
21-Mar-08 07:34 PM
If there were ever any doubts by anyone who hasn't been living under a rock for the past seven years, this adequately sums up the Bush Administration's attitude towards the majority of the American population and anyone else who disagrees with them. This little two letter word "So", very accurately portrays the sum total of the entire thought processes and intellectual reasoning that drives the decisions and the policies of the current administration. It doesn't matter what the topic is, whether it is the war in Iraq and the fact that 2/3 of the American people strongly believe that the cost of the war is not worth the astronomical costs to our nation, or whether you are talking about the far ranging dissenting opinions on the use of torture, domestic spying, invasion of privacy or civil liberty violations, The response to all dissenters, to all those who have a differing view, to those who dare not go along with the half baked policies of the megalomaniacs of executive power, is "so?" It's an abbreviated way of saying, "who cares?" Or another way of saying, "policies and decisions can't be based on the will of the people, unless they agree with us."
"Don't go to war in Iraq - they had nothing to do with 9/11" - 'SO"
"The cost of this war is going to be astronomically expensive" - "SO"
"It is against federal and international law to torture people" - "SO"
"Three years after the fact, many people in New Orleans are still suffering from Katrina" - "SO"
"Stem cell research offers the promise of finding medical cures for some of the most deadly diseases known to man" - "SO"
"Forty six million Americans are without health care insurance and stand to lose everything they own should their health fail" - "SO"
And the list goes on and on. Pick your topic, any topic, and the response from this administration is always the same.
This is arrogance completely out of control and it has to stop.
You Damn Dirty Liberal...
16-Mar-08 11:30 PM
I am quite often amused at how some people throw around the word "liberal" as though it were a branding iron of death. To hear some people describe it, a liberal or liberalism is akin to the plague, leprosy, or any other vile type of repugnant disease which should be avoided and abhorred at all costs. Just recently I've seen writings circulating on the internet decrying the evils of Barack Obama by alerting everyone to the fact that he was a disciple of the evil practice of liberalism - a person that is so scary and radical that he should not be trusted lest he should become President and drag the entire nation down to the bowels of hell. Indeed - "liberals" have been given a bad name by a lot of people over the years, but I'm here to set the record straight.
To begin with, the purpose of this post is not to attempt a grandiose definition of the complexities of liberalism versus conservatism with all of it's various sub-sets and branch ideologies for that would be more the subject of a book than a simple post. Rather, I intend to keep this discussion short and very basic. I would maintain that there are a lot of folks out there who are misusing the word "liberal" and that they don't fully understand the meaning of the word. Therefore, I would like to present a simple definition from both the dictionary and the thesaurus on the word "liberal" and what that word truly means. Feel free to look it up in your own dictionary and thesaurus if you doubt anything you read here. But, if it is true that conservatives are indeed the opposite of liberals in practice, then it would stand to reason that the definitions of the two words would be opposite as well. I present only the word "liberal" as it appears in my copy of the dictionary and thesaurus. I trust that the next time you read or hear someone using the word "liberal" in a negative connotation that you will understand how the word is being misused today.
Dictionary:
liberal |ˈlib(ə)rəl|
adjective
1 open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values
• favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms : liberal citizenship laws.
• (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform
• Theology regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.
2 [ attrib. ] (of education) concerned mainly with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training.
3 (esp. of an interpretation of a law) broadly construed or understood; not strictly literal or exact
4 given, used, or occurring in generous amounts : liberal amounts of wine had been consumed.
• (of a person) giving generously
Thesaurus:
liberal
adjective
1 the values of a liberal society tolerant, unprejudiced, unbigoted, broad-minded, open-minded, enlightened; permissive, free, free and easy, easygoing, libertarian, indulgent, lenient. antonym narrow-minded, bigoted.
2 a liberal social agenda progressive, advanced, modern, forward-looking, forward-thinking, progressivist, enlightened, reformist, radical. antonym reactionary, conservative.
3 a liberal education wide-ranging, broad-based, general.
4 a liberal interpretation of divorce laws flexible, broad, loose, rough, free, general, nonliteral, nonspecific, imprecise, vague, indefinite. antonym strict, to the letter.
5 a liberal coating of paint abundant, copious, ample, plentiful, generous, lavish, luxuriant, profuse, considerable, prolific, rich; literary plenteous. antonym scant.
6 they were liberal with their cash generous, openhanded, unsparing, unstinting, ungrudging, lavish, free, munificent, bountiful, beneficent, benevolent, bighearted, philanthropic, charitable, altruistic, unselfish; literary bounteous. antonym careful, miserly.
To begin with, the purpose of this post is not to attempt a grandiose definition of the complexities of liberalism versus conservatism with all of it's various sub-sets and branch ideologies for that would be more the subject of a book than a simple post. Rather, I intend to keep this discussion short and very basic. I would maintain that there are a lot of folks out there who are misusing the word "liberal" and that they don't fully understand the meaning of the word. Therefore, I would like to present a simple definition from both the dictionary and the thesaurus on the word "liberal" and what that word truly means. Feel free to look it up in your own dictionary and thesaurus if you doubt anything you read here. But, if it is true that conservatives are indeed the opposite of liberals in practice, then it would stand to reason that the definitions of the two words would be opposite as well. I present only the word "liberal" as it appears in my copy of the dictionary and thesaurus. I trust that the next time you read or hear someone using the word "liberal" in a negative connotation that you will understand how the word is being misused today.
Dictionary:
liberal |ˈlib(ə)rəl|
adjective
1 open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values
• favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms : liberal citizenship laws.
• (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform
• Theology regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.
2 [ attrib. ] (of education) concerned mainly with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training.
3 (esp. of an interpretation of a law) broadly construed or understood; not strictly literal or exact
4 given, used, or occurring in generous amounts : liberal amounts of wine had been consumed.
• (of a person) giving generously
Thesaurus:
liberal
adjective
1 the values of a liberal society tolerant, unprejudiced, unbigoted, broad-minded, open-minded, enlightened; permissive, free, free and easy, easygoing, libertarian, indulgent, lenient. antonym narrow-minded, bigoted.
2 a liberal social agenda progressive, advanced, modern, forward-looking, forward-thinking, progressivist, enlightened, reformist, radical. antonym reactionary, conservative.
3 a liberal education wide-ranging, broad-based, general.
4 a liberal interpretation of divorce laws flexible, broad, loose, rough, free, general, nonliteral, nonspecific, imprecise, vague, indefinite. antonym strict, to the letter.
5 a liberal coating of paint abundant, copious, ample, plentiful, generous, lavish, luxuriant, profuse, considerable, prolific, rich; literary plenteous. antonym scant.
6 they were liberal with their cash generous, openhanded, unsparing, unstinting, ungrudging, lavish, free, munificent, bountiful, beneficent, benevolent, bighearted, philanthropic, charitable, altruistic, unselfish; literary bounteous. antonym careful, miserly.
Irrelevant
29-Feb-08 12:40 AM
The word for today is "irrelevant". It's a word that's been on my mind quite a bit in recent days. The potency of it's meaning and the reality of it's truth are hard to ignore. In fact, we all must come to terms with the meaning of it lest we end up as a footnote beneath the definition.
I'm not a psychologist or a behavioral scientist, but I think it is safe to say that at some point in our lives we all come face to face with the prospect of irrelevancy. That is to say, the feeling that somehow our lives no longer connect to the bigger picture and that our existence is really quite meaningless in the larger perspective of life. This can be a sobering reality to try and come to grips with and it can lead to depression. As life progresses and deals to each of us it's random shots of luck and fate, misery and joy, prosperity and despair, we each as human beings have to strive to cope and overcome and in the process maintain some sense of mental stability and self worth through it all. But, is irrelevancy more than just an attitude? What factors come into play and what power do we each really exercise when it comes to the significance our lives play in the world? Do we chose to be irrelevant or can we become irrelevant despite our best efforts to make a difference in the world?
Such are the musings of the mind of a 46 year old who has been thinking a lot lately that self worth and importance cannot be realized only on our own actions. They must be reinforced by a recognition and awareness of those around us - those we come into contact with on a daily basis. Relevancy must ultimately be affirmed through the collective conscience of the community at large in which we exist. If it does not, then we have arrived at a state of irrelevant existence. And to that bit of revelation, all I can muster in response is "well, shit!"
I'm not a psychologist or a behavioral scientist, but I think it is safe to say that at some point in our lives we all come face to face with the prospect of irrelevancy. That is to say, the feeling that somehow our lives no longer connect to the bigger picture and that our existence is really quite meaningless in the larger perspective of life. This can be a sobering reality to try and come to grips with and it can lead to depression. As life progresses and deals to each of us it's random shots of luck and fate, misery and joy, prosperity and despair, we each as human beings have to strive to cope and overcome and in the process maintain some sense of mental stability and self worth through it all. But, is irrelevancy more than just an attitude? What factors come into play and what power do we each really exercise when it comes to the significance our lives play in the world? Do we chose to be irrelevant or can we become irrelevant despite our best efforts to make a difference in the world?
Such are the musings of the mind of a 46 year old who has been thinking a lot lately that self worth and importance cannot be realized only on our own actions. They must be reinforced by a recognition and awareness of those around us - those we come into contact with on a daily basis. Relevancy must ultimately be affirmed through the collective conscience of the community at large in which we exist. If it does not, then we have arrived at a state of irrelevant existence. And to that bit of revelation, all I can muster in response is "well, shit!"
My Answers To The Questions
13-Feb-08 07:02 PM
Here are my answers to a series of ten questions that were recently compiled by First Freedom First as a discussion starter on the issue of separation of church and state. Of course, these are just my opinions, but the idea is to induce people into thinking about these questions and examining their stance on these very important issues. I welcome any and all comments, especially those who may have a differing view than mine:
1. Leaders on the religious right often say that America is a “Christian Nation.” Do you agree with this statement?
Absolutely not. There are more Christians than any other religion in this nation, but the nation was not founded on a theocracy or on Christian doctrine.
2. Do you think Houses of Worship should be allowed to endorse political candidates and retain their tax exempt status?
No. Tax exempt status is one of the benefits churches enjoy as a result of the wall between government and religion. If a church feels compelled to intermix politics in with it's teachings and openly endorses political candidates from the pulpit, they should lose their tax exempt status and pay taxes.
3. Do you think public schools should sponsor school prayer or, as a parent, should this choice be left to me?
Public schools have no business dealing in the realm of religion. Since their funding comes from taxes and the government, the public school should remain neutral on the subject of religion out of respect for all faiths. Prayer may be practiced at any time by any student, but should never be sponsored as a school program where students are coerced into participating.
4. Would you support a law that mandates teaching creationism in my child’s public school science classes?
No. The only thing that should be taught in science class is science. Creationism and intelligent design are concepts that do not adhere to the scientific method and are untestable - they therefore should not be presented as science.
5. Do you think my pharmacist should be allowed to deny me doctor-prescribed medications based on his or her religious beliefs?
No. The pharmacist has a duty to dispense doctor authorized medications to patients - it has no bearing on his personal opinions, beliefs or convictions. If a pharmacist is not able to morally comply with the requirements of the job he should seek some other form of employment.
6. Will you respect the rights of those in our diverse communities of faith who deem same-gender marriage to be consistent with their religious creed?
Absolutely. I happen to believe that sexual orientation is not a choice anymore than your genetics or your nationality are a choice. To allow people the right and dignity to be who they are without discrimination is the right of all humans.
7. Should “faith-based” charities that receive public funds be allowed to discriminate against employees or applicants based on religious beliefs?
This is why public funds given to faith based charities is a bad idea. Tax money should never be used by a business or entity that discriminates against anyone as the tax money is a collective representation of everyone from the community. Churches are free to discriminate along these lines as their money is all freely donated by people of like convictions. Faith based charities may do what they like unless they take government money, then they may not discriminate for any reason.
8. Do you think one's right to disbelieve in God is protected by the same laws that protect someone else's right to believe?
Absolutely. The first amendment protects all people of all faiths, or people of no faith. No one is compelled to believe anything against their will.
9. Do you think everyone’s religious freedom needs to be protected by what Thomas Jefferson called “a wall of separation” between church and state?
Yes. Without the separation between church and state the two entities become entangled and poison each other. Religion takes on the mantle of state power and can coerce people into matters of faith - and the state can take on the pious nature and deception of divine right and lose sight of secular law by pretending to enforce God's law on narrow and subjective interpretations of doctrine.
10. What should guide our policies on public health and medical research: science or religion?
Public health and medical research should be based purely on science and fact. Ehtical and moral questions can be left up to the individual based on their own unique beliefs and code of moral conduct.
If anyone thinks I'm fit for public office and would like to see "TD3k robot-extraordinaire" run in future elections, please leave your comments or e-mail for instructions on sending cash donations to my presidential campaign. Or, better yet, please make sure you vote for your candidate of choice in the primaries and in the general election this November. Vote your conscience and make a difference.
1. Leaders on the religious right often say that America is a “Christian Nation.” Do you agree with this statement?
Absolutely not. There are more Christians than any other religion in this nation, but the nation was not founded on a theocracy or on Christian doctrine.
2. Do you think Houses of Worship should be allowed to endorse political candidates and retain their tax exempt status?
No. Tax exempt status is one of the benefits churches enjoy as a result of the wall between government and religion. If a church feels compelled to intermix politics in with it's teachings and openly endorses political candidates from the pulpit, they should lose their tax exempt status and pay taxes.
3. Do you think public schools should sponsor school prayer or, as a parent, should this choice be left to me?
Public schools have no business dealing in the realm of religion. Since their funding comes from taxes and the government, the public school should remain neutral on the subject of religion out of respect for all faiths. Prayer may be practiced at any time by any student, but should never be sponsored as a school program where students are coerced into participating.
4. Would you support a law that mandates teaching creationism in my child’s public school science classes?
No. The only thing that should be taught in science class is science. Creationism and intelligent design are concepts that do not adhere to the scientific method and are untestable - they therefore should not be presented as science.
5. Do you think my pharmacist should be allowed to deny me doctor-prescribed medications based on his or her religious beliefs?
No. The pharmacist has a duty to dispense doctor authorized medications to patients - it has no bearing on his personal opinions, beliefs or convictions. If a pharmacist is not able to morally comply with the requirements of the job he should seek some other form of employment.
6. Will you respect the rights of those in our diverse communities of faith who deem same-gender marriage to be consistent with their religious creed?
Absolutely. I happen to believe that sexual orientation is not a choice anymore than your genetics or your nationality are a choice. To allow people the right and dignity to be who they are without discrimination is the right of all humans.
7. Should “faith-based” charities that receive public funds be allowed to discriminate against employees or applicants based on religious beliefs?
This is why public funds given to faith based charities is a bad idea. Tax money should never be used by a business or entity that discriminates against anyone as the tax money is a collective representation of everyone from the community. Churches are free to discriminate along these lines as their money is all freely donated by people of like convictions. Faith based charities may do what they like unless they take government money, then they may not discriminate for any reason.
8. Do you think one's right to disbelieve in God is protected by the same laws that protect someone else's right to believe?
Absolutely. The first amendment protects all people of all faiths, or people of no faith. No one is compelled to believe anything against their will.
9. Do you think everyone’s religious freedom needs to be protected by what Thomas Jefferson called “a wall of separation” between church and state?
Yes. Without the separation between church and state the two entities become entangled and poison each other. Religion takes on the mantle of state power and can coerce people into matters of faith - and the state can take on the pious nature and deception of divine right and lose sight of secular law by pretending to enforce God's law on narrow and subjective interpretations of doctrine.
10. What should guide our policies on public health and medical research: science or religion?
Public health and medical research should be based purely on science and fact. Ehtical and moral questions can be left up to the individual based on their own unique beliefs and code of moral conduct.
If anyone thinks I'm fit for public office and would like to see "TD3k robot-extraordinaire" run in future elections, please leave your comments or e-mail for instructions on sending cash donations to my presidential campaign. Or, better yet, please make sure you vote for your candidate of choice in the primaries and in the general election this November. Vote your conscience and make a difference.
Demotivational Posters
08-Feb-08 12:40 AM
If you are like me and tend to gravitate toward the cynical and dark edge of comedy, then you will probably find humor and inspiration in the idea of the "Demotivional Poster". An idea whose time has come that can be further explored at a unique web site called Despair, Inc. In their own words, a site that offers "motivational products and posters for pessimists, underachievers, and the chronically unsuccessful."
Not that I consider myself a member of any of the afore-mentioned groups, but I am definitely a cynic - a group that should be added to the list. Their “inspiration” for the website is best summed up, again, in their own words:
"For over two decades, the multi-billion dollar motivation industry has unleashed untold suffering upon the workplaces, schools and civil institutions of the world- in the insidious form of the motivational poster. By the millions they have been sold and displayed- these dark instruments of corporate propaganda. While promising to stimulate "Hope", "Success" and "Teamwork", instead these tools of coercion and intimidation have inspired only grief, anger and nausea."
To that end they offer a really fun D.I.Y. tool that allows you to create your own demotivational posters using your own photos and slogans. I've posted two of my own below just to give a quick idea of the creative fun awaiting your inner-cynic. They also have an on-line store where you can find all kinds of fun and interesting gifts to share with the unmotivated in your life. Hats off to my bro over at Artificially Intelligent for locating the site and drawing my attention to it. Check it out and create some uninspiring posters for your family and friends - or enemies.
Not that I consider myself a member of any of the afore-mentioned groups, but I am definitely a cynic - a group that should be added to the list. Their “inspiration” for the website is best summed up, again, in their own words:
"For over two decades, the multi-billion dollar motivation industry has unleashed untold suffering upon the workplaces, schools and civil institutions of the world- in the insidious form of the motivational poster. By the millions they have been sold and displayed- these dark instruments of corporate propaganda. While promising to stimulate "Hope", "Success" and "Teamwork", instead these tools of coercion and intimidation have inspired only grief, anger and nausea."
To that end they offer a really fun D.I.Y. tool that allows you to create your own demotivational posters using your own photos and slogans. I've posted two of my own below just to give a quick idea of the creative fun awaiting your inner-cynic. They also have an on-line store where you can find all kinds of fun and interesting gifts to share with the unmotivated in your life. Hats off to my bro over at Artificially Intelligent for locating the site and drawing my attention to it. Check it out and create some uninspiring posters for your family and friends - or enemies.
The Fate of the Union - Hooah!!
30-Jan-08 12:26 AM
As the curtain came down on the 2008 State of the Union speech this past Monday night, I couldn't help but think that it was really the "fate" of the Union. I will refrain from saying "told ya so" (see earlier post "2008 To Suck"), but at least we can be thankful that this was the last speech to be endured by the worst President this country has ever had. As we once again heard more sugar coated rhetoric and agonizingly arrogant threats towards Congress, the American people was left slack jawed and eyes glazed over at their TV sets as the unmistakeable truth slowly seeped into our minds. We have nothing new to hope for except the faint possibility that by the end of this year a new president will be elected to take on the enormous task of cleaning up the mess that they will inherit from the current administration. Oh, and did I mention that if by some ill fated fortune we do end up with another Republican President, I will be committing Japanese hari-kari on You Tube with a dull butter knife?
While we all try to contemplate just exactly where the $150 billion economic stimulus money is going to come from (perhaps the treasury will print more money, or some unneeded Pentagon weapons program will be nixed, perhaps it will be rained from the sky like manna from heaven, but God forbid it sure as hell will not come from any vile, evil, corrupt taxes - for if it does it would be the complete and total ruin of the nation!! No, I suspect it will probably just be borrowed like everything else), take a view at this 75 year old citizen's response to President Bush's unremarkable state of the union address.
While we all try to contemplate just exactly where the $150 billion economic stimulus money is going to come from (perhaps the treasury will print more money, or some unneeded Pentagon weapons program will be nixed, perhaps it will be rained from the sky like manna from heaven, but God forbid it sure as hell will not come from any vile, evil, corrupt taxes - for if it does it would be the complete and total ruin of the nation!! No, I suspect it will probably just be borrowed like everything else), take a view at this 75 year old citizen's response to President Bush's unremarkable state of the union address.
2(007) In Review
01-Jan-08 11:53 PM
2007 is now complete and marks it's place in the history books. If you survived, congratulations. Hopefully you will also survive 2008. As we prepare for yet another year of fun and adventure, I thought it would be interesting to look back at 2007 and briefly recap some of the highlights from the year just past. What a great way to reflect on the misadventures and unforgettable moments of our fellow human counter-parts while at the same time helping us to stave off the icy grip of Alzheimer's from our cerebral cortexes. Here's my short list....Please note, this short list will probably not include much of anything that was really important in your life in 2007; you will have to supply your on list for that stuff.
January 2007
Jan. 4 - Nancy Pelosi becomes the first female speaker of the US House of Representatives
Jan. 17 - The Doomsday Clock is set to 5 minutes before midnight
Jan. 30 - Microsoft releases Vista and Office 2007
February 2007
Feb. 2 - An unseasonal tornado in central Florida kills at least 20 people
Feb. 2 - The IPCC publishes it's 4th assessment report, having concluded that global climate change is "very likely" to have a predominantly human cause.
Feb. 13 - North Korea agrees to shut down its nuclear facilities in Yongbyon by April 14 as a first step towards complete denuclearization, receiving in return energy aid equivalent to 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil.
March 2007
March 6 - Mega Millions sets a new world record for the highest lottery jackpot of US $370 million.
March 12 - Van Halen is inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
March 31 - Sydney, Australia, turns off its lights for 1 hour between 7:30PM and 8:30PM as a political statement for Global Climate Change.
April 2007
April 12 - Don Imus is fired by CBS for making controversial comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team.
April 24 - Abortion is legalized in Mexico.
April 25 - The Dow Jones Industrial Average gains 135.95 points to close at 13,089.89; it's first close above 13,000 in its history.
May 2007
May 4 - Tornado strikes Greensburg, Kansas, killing at least 12 and destroying about 90% of the town.
May 9 - Subtropical storm Andrea forms off the coast of Florida, the earliest subtropical storm since Subtropical storm Ana in 2003.
May 10 - Tony Blair announces he will resign as British Prime Minister on June 27 triggering a Labour Party leadership election.
June 2007
June 11 - US Senator Larry Craig, a long-time opponent of gay rights, was arrested for lewd conduct in a men's restroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport and pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of disorderly conduct on August 8.
June 15 - Bob Barker airs his last episode of The Price is Right.
June 29 - Apple's new iPhone is released in the US.
July 2007
July 4 - The 50-star U.S. flag becomes the longest-flying American flag, replacing the 48-star flag that flew from 1912 to 1959.
July 17 - Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick and three other men are charged with alleged operation of dogfighting ring at one of Vick's properties in southeastern Virginia.
July 21 - U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney serves as Acting President for two and a half hours while President George W. Bush undergoes a colonoscopy procedure.
August 2007
Aug. 1 - The I-35W Mississippi River Bridge on I-35W over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis, Minnesota between University Avenue and Washington Avenue collapses at 6:05PM CST during the later part of rush hour, killing 13 people.
Aug. 22 - The Texas Rangers score thirty runs in one game, setting the modern (post 1900) MLB record for most runs by one team in a single game, in a 30 - 3 victory over the Baltimore Orioles.
Aug. 30 - U.S. Air Force nuclear wepaons incident in which a B-52 flew from Minot AFB, ND cross country to Barksdale AFB, LA carrying 6 nuclear warheads.
September 2007
Sept. 3 - British troops withdraw from the Basra region of Iraq.
Sept. 6 - Luciano Pavarotti, Italian tenor dies (b. 1935)
Sept. 26 - First confirmed deaths resulting from the Myanmar military's crackdown on weeks long anti-government protests. Buddhist monks are arrested and Internet access is cut from the public.
October 2007
Oct. 20 - Wildfires in Southern California result in the evacuation of more than 1 million people and destroying over 1,600 homes and businesses.
Oct. 26 - Apple Inc. launch the sixth major release of their Mac OS X operating system entitled, Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard.
Oct. 28 - The Boston Red Sox win the 2007 World Series in a four game sweep against the Colorado Rockies.
November 2007
Nov. 3 - President Pervez Musharraf declares state of emergency in Pakistan.
Nov. 5 - The Writers Guild of America goes on strike.
Nov. 30 - Evel Knievel, American motorcycle daredevil dies (b. 1938)
December 2007
Dec. 10 - Led Zeppelin reunites in London, England, for the Ahmet Ertegun tribute.
Dec. 16 - Dan Fogelberg, American singer and songwriter dies (b. 1951)
Dec. 27 - Benazir Bhutto, Pakistani politician assassinated (b. 1953)
And if you really want to know a whole lot more about what happened and who died in 2007, you can find a comprehensive list located right here.
January 2007
Jan. 4 - Nancy Pelosi becomes the first female speaker of the US House of Representatives
Jan. 17 - The Doomsday Clock is set to 5 minutes before midnight
Jan. 30 - Microsoft releases Vista and Office 2007
February 2007
Feb. 2 - An unseasonal tornado in central Florida kills at least 20 people
Feb. 2 - The IPCC publishes it's 4th assessment report, having concluded that global climate change is "very likely" to have a predominantly human cause.
Feb. 13 - North Korea agrees to shut down its nuclear facilities in Yongbyon by April 14 as a first step towards complete denuclearization, receiving in return energy aid equivalent to 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil.
March 2007
March 6 - Mega Millions sets a new world record for the highest lottery jackpot of US $370 million.
March 12 - Van Halen is inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
March 31 - Sydney, Australia, turns off its lights for 1 hour between 7:30PM and 8:30PM as a political statement for Global Climate Change.
April 2007
April 12 - Don Imus is fired by CBS for making controversial comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team.
April 24 - Abortion is legalized in Mexico.
April 25 - The Dow Jones Industrial Average gains 135.95 points to close at 13,089.89; it's first close above 13,000 in its history.
May 2007
May 4 - Tornado strikes Greensburg, Kansas, killing at least 12 and destroying about 90% of the town.
May 9 - Subtropical storm Andrea forms off the coast of Florida, the earliest subtropical storm since Subtropical storm Ana in 2003.
May 10 - Tony Blair announces he will resign as British Prime Minister on June 27 triggering a Labour Party leadership election.
June 2007
June 11 - US Senator Larry Craig, a long-time opponent of gay rights, was arrested for lewd conduct in a men's restroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport and pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of disorderly conduct on August 8.
June 15 - Bob Barker airs his last episode of The Price is Right.
June 29 - Apple's new iPhone is released in the US.
July 2007
July 4 - The 50-star U.S. flag becomes the longest-flying American flag, replacing the 48-star flag that flew from 1912 to 1959.
July 17 - Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick and three other men are charged with alleged operation of dogfighting ring at one of Vick's properties in southeastern Virginia.
July 21 - U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney serves as Acting President for two and a half hours while President George W. Bush undergoes a colonoscopy procedure.
August 2007
Aug. 1 - The I-35W Mississippi River Bridge on I-35W over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis, Minnesota between University Avenue and Washington Avenue collapses at 6:05PM CST during the later part of rush hour, killing 13 people.
Aug. 22 - The Texas Rangers score thirty runs in one game, setting the modern (post 1900) MLB record for most runs by one team in a single game, in a 30 - 3 victory over the Baltimore Orioles.
Aug. 30 - U.S. Air Force nuclear wepaons incident in which a B-52 flew from Minot AFB, ND cross country to Barksdale AFB, LA carrying 6 nuclear warheads.
September 2007
Sept. 3 - British troops withdraw from the Basra region of Iraq.
Sept. 6 - Luciano Pavarotti, Italian tenor dies (b. 1935)
Sept. 26 - First confirmed deaths resulting from the Myanmar military's crackdown on weeks long anti-government protests. Buddhist monks are arrested and Internet access is cut from the public.
October 2007
Oct. 20 - Wildfires in Southern California result in the evacuation of more than 1 million people and destroying over 1,600 homes and businesses.
Oct. 26 - Apple Inc. launch the sixth major release of their Mac OS X operating system entitled, Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard.
Oct. 28 - The Boston Red Sox win the 2007 World Series in a four game sweep against the Colorado Rockies.
November 2007
Nov. 3 - President Pervez Musharraf declares state of emergency in Pakistan.
Nov. 5 - The Writers Guild of America goes on strike.
Nov. 30 - Evel Knievel, American motorcycle daredevil dies (b. 1938)
December 2007
Dec. 10 - Led Zeppelin reunites in London, England, for the Ahmet Ertegun tribute.
Dec. 16 - Dan Fogelberg, American singer and songwriter dies (b. 1951)
Dec. 27 - Benazir Bhutto, Pakistani politician assassinated (b. 1953)
And if you really want to know a whole lot more about what happened and who died in 2007, you can find a comprehensive list located right here.
Time Magazine's Top Gadget of 2007
12-Dec-07 03:26 PM
#1. Apple iPhone
The iPhone changed the way we think about how mobile media devices should look, feel and perform. The design is exceptional inside and out: It's got a slick glass-and-stainless steel case and an elegant touch screen loaded with eye candy. It's an iPod and a 2-megapixel camera. Images and video clips display vertically or horizontally — they reorient themselves depending on how you hold the thing. When the phone detects a wireless network within range — your own home wi-fi set up or somebody else's — it lets you tap once to connect, and then proceed with your Web surfing, Google mapping, emailing and other activities that can otherwise be painfully slow over AT&T's cellular network — the only one, unfortunately, that carries iPhone calls.
See the entire list of top 50 gadgets for 2007 here.
Movie Wisdom
09-Dec-07 10:36 AM
The mark of a truly great movie can be measured in a number of different ways, but one that is of particular interest is in the clever manipulation of dialogue. Words spoken by the characters that have a profound meaning beyond the simple context of the movie that can reveal wit, logic, wisdom and truth applicable across a broad spectrum. There are many numerous examples of such dialogue all through out movie history, but one that is particularly well written and executed is performed by Matt Damon in this scene from 1997's "Good Will Hunting". With a bit of sarcasm, Will has figured out why he should be wary of accepting a government job that would allow him to utilize his keen intellect.
My Answer To A Question Of Ethics
03-Dec-07 11:33 PM
The previous post, "A Question Of Ethics", was born out of a conversation that I had with a friend about four years ago. Believe it or not, at the time I was a registered Republican voter and was well heeled in the conservative mind set of political and social ideology. It was the result of the outcome of this conversation that caused me to stop and ponder my whole perspective and general outlook on life. It was the result of asking myself this same very question, and looking deep inside for an honest answer, that began the process of my rethinking my entire political, ethical and social outlook on life. This conversation began the process - it wasn't the only impetus that eventually caused me to re-chart my attitude regarding welfare. As I slowly realized what the answer to this question was for me, I realized that in my zeal to protect against the cheats and liars who abuse the welfare system that the restrictions and limitations I supported also hurt those who truly needed assistance.
For me, I ultimately had to realize that as much as I despised waste and selfishness by some, that that was not the most important issue. The most important issue is to have a system that offers true help and hope to the needy and destitute; that should be the first and foremost priority. There will always be those in the world who will take what doesn't rightfully belong to them, but that does not mean we should stop caring for those who need it because some will abuse it. We may be able to weed out some of the most obvious and egregious abusers, but you will never be able to eliminate all waste unless you completely cut off all aid and in so doing hurt those who need it. It is not the lesser of two evils, but it is the greatest good that we can do as humans to willingly help those amongst us according to their needs; to give willingly a helping hand even though we know that there will be those who will abuse it.
The answer is different for different people. I do not pretend to suggest that my answer is the only correct answer. I am not trying to take the moral high ground and suggest that those who differ from my answer are any less compassionate or caring than I. Nor do I propose that we remove all restrictions on welfare assistance. But I want to err on the side of generosity and not on the side of restrictions. I want to be sure that those who need help get it, even at the cost of those who don't need it get it as well. For me, it was an epiphany born out of a conversation with a friend that simply started as a debate on welfare. The issue is meeting the need and not prohibiting the greed.
For me, I ultimately had to realize that as much as I despised waste and selfishness by some, that that was not the most important issue. The most important issue is to have a system that offers true help and hope to the needy and destitute; that should be the first and foremost priority. There will always be those in the world who will take what doesn't rightfully belong to them, but that does not mean we should stop caring for those who need it because some will abuse it. We may be able to weed out some of the most obvious and egregious abusers, but you will never be able to eliminate all waste unless you completely cut off all aid and in so doing hurt those who need it. It is not the lesser of two evils, but it is the greatest good that we can do as humans to willingly help those amongst us according to their needs; to give willingly a helping hand even though we know that there will be those who will abuse it.
The answer is different for different people. I do not pretend to suggest that my answer is the only correct answer. I am not trying to take the moral high ground and suggest that those who differ from my answer are any less compassionate or caring than I. Nor do I propose that we remove all restrictions on welfare assistance. But I want to err on the side of generosity and not on the side of restrictions. I want to be sure that those who need help get it, even at the cost of those who don't need it get it as well. For me, it was an epiphany born out of a conversation with a friend that simply started as a debate on welfare. The issue is meeting the need and not prohibiting the greed.
A Question of Ethics
28-Nov-07 12:23 AM
Hypothetically speaking, suppose you were to encounter a person on the street who was completely destitute, poverty stricken and severely hungry. This person is in dire need of help: money, clothing, food, medical, etc. This is a person who truly is in need of care and cannot attend to their own needs by themselves. However, you also know that if you render any aid to this individual that due to powers beyond your control, a portion of the aid that you give to this person will also be transmitted to a group of individuals who are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves, but they have chosen to enrich themselves off the generosity and good will of others who seek to help the truly needy. You only have two options and no more: either render aid to the needy and by so doing also help the lazy, or do nothing and allow the needy to go without so that those unworthy of help are incapable of getting a free ride. What is the right thing to do? What is the moral thing to do? What would you do?
Stem Cell Politics
22-Nov-07 08:55 AM
With the recent announcement of the stem cell research break through via the use of human skin cells, many people formerly opposed to stem cell research are now jumping on to the band wagon and proclaiming that this is a great day and that the ethical questions of using embryonic stem cells can be put behind us. While it is indeed an important break through, many politicians such as Sam Brownback and other's, who are ardently opposed to embryonic stem cell research, are issuing statements that are simply inaccurate. This new discovery in cellular biology is important to be sure, but all of the major scientists and researches involved in the process have clearly stated that this break through was made possible in the first place by research performed with embryonic stem cells and that it will be crucial to continue research using embryonic stem cells to move the process forward. We have NOT reached a point where we can simply forget about using embryonic stem cells. It is either disingenuous or uninformed that these political leaders continue to attempt to mislead people with such erroneous statements. Let's keep the science with the scientists and the politics with the politicians. Unless you happen to be a person who is hoping for a cure for yourself or a dear loved one, it may be easy to adopt the politicians view point and not see the serious implications of every road block that they continuously throw into the process. With that in mind, I found the following excerpt from an article that is very interesting and something everyone should know. Even the slightest delays created by politicians on the movement forward on this important scientific research translates into years lost for potential patient treatment applications.
---------------------------------------------------------
Worrisome for stem cell pioneer
Suddenly, it's the embryonic stem cell proponents who are being cast as the scientifically backward fuddy-duddies. And that's extremely worrisome to Robert Lanza, chief scientific officer for Advanced Cell Technology. Lanza has been working with human embryonic stem cells for years.
"We have cells right now, human cells, that could prevent heart attacks or repair the damage, or restore the flow of blood to limbs that might otherwise be amputated," he told me.
He can't promise exactly when those cells will be turned into approved therapies - but the first human clinical trials involving embryonic stem cells could come as early as next year.
Lanza has even bigger ideas for an embryonic cell bank that would do for tissue regeneration what blood banks have done for transfusions.
"One hundred tissue types will give you a complete match for 50 percent of the population," he said. "We could literally in a few months, using somatic cell nuclear transfer [also known as therapeutic cloning], create these embryonic stem cell lines. ... I'd really hate to see all this get wiped out like a tidal wave."
Lanza is the first to acknowledge that the newly published research holds great promise in the long term. He's the guy who has been comparing the research to the Wright brothers' first airplane flights or the alchemists' dream of turning lead into gold.
But he's also wary about shifting the focus to an unproven approach that won't be available to patients until years from now. After all, human embryonic stem cells were first isolated nine years ago, and researchers are just now at the point where they are beginning to test potential therapies.
"We've been fooled many times before," he said. "A delay of 10 years would mean writing off half a generation. ... Just a few years makes an incredible difference."
At this point, it's hard to predict exactly when the first treatments will be available to the public, using either embryonic stem cells or these newly developed pluripotent cells. But Lanza's larger point is this: If embryo-based research is somehow stopped in its tracks - as some would like to do - diseases that could soon be treatable using embryonic stem cells would have to wait until pluripotent cell therapies go through their entire development cycle. And patients who already have been waiting for years would be in for an even longer wait...
Full article here.
---------------------------------------------------------
Worrisome for stem cell pioneer
Suddenly, it's the embryonic stem cell proponents who are being cast as the scientifically backward fuddy-duddies. And that's extremely worrisome to Robert Lanza, chief scientific officer for Advanced Cell Technology. Lanza has been working with human embryonic stem cells for years.
"We have cells right now, human cells, that could prevent heart attacks or repair the damage, or restore the flow of blood to limbs that might otherwise be amputated," he told me.
He can't promise exactly when those cells will be turned into approved therapies - but the first human clinical trials involving embryonic stem cells could come as early as next year.
Lanza has even bigger ideas for an embryonic cell bank that would do for tissue regeneration what blood banks have done for transfusions.
"One hundred tissue types will give you a complete match for 50 percent of the population," he said. "We could literally in a few months, using somatic cell nuclear transfer [also known as therapeutic cloning], create these embryonic stem cell lines. ... I'd really hate to see all this get wiped out like a tidal wave."
Lanza is the first to acknowledge that the newly published research holds great promise in the long term. He's the guy who has been comparing the research to the Wright brothers' first airplane flights or the alchemists' dream of turning lead into gold.
But he's also wary about shifting the focus to an unproven approach that won't be available to patients until years from now. After all, human embryonic stem cells were first isolated nine years ago, and researchers are just now at the point where they are beginning to test potential therapies.
"We've been fooled many times before," he said. "A delay of 10 years would mean writing off half a generation. ... Just a few years makes an incredible difference."
At this point, it's hard to predict exactly when the first treatments will be available to the public, using either embryonic stem cells or these newly developed pluripotent cells. But Lanza's larger point is this: If embryo-based research is somehow stopped in its tracks - as some would like to do - diseases that could soon be treatable using embryonic stem cells would have to wait until pluripotent cell therapies go through their entire development cycle. And patients who already have been waiting for years would be in for an even longer wait...
Full article here.
Living Color
19-Oct-07 03:04 PM
This Blog is brought to you in LIVING COLOR by the miracle of the Internet, your computer, and electricity - not to mention a sophisticated choice of color selections and CSS style sheets optimized for Safari. If you're using Internet Explorer this Blog will look like crap because it is designed for Safari or Firefox.
HDR Photography
09-Oct-07 07:29 PM
The image above is my very first HDR photograph, and while it is not the most interesting composition, it does illustrate the wide dynamic range of tones that HDR photography can produce. To pull of an HDR photo it requires some special software which you can download and try for free. I am using software called Photomatix Pro 2.5.3, and until you actually purchase the software license, it will leave a watermark on the image and that is the writing you see on this image. The cost at the time of this posting is only $30 so the cost isn't prohibitive.
Here is a brief description of creating an HDR photograph:
You compose your shot and take an automatic camera exposure reading, or you can manually set it if you wish to control the depth of field. Using this initial setting as your base, you then take a total of seven images (3 minimum) of the same shot bracketing the exposure. If your camera offers Auto-Exposure Bracketing (AEB), select the continuous shooting mode and make sure the camera is set to Aperture Priority, and select an exposure increment of +/- 2. The camera will automatically vary the shutter speed each time the shutter button is pressed taking several exposures spaced by two f-stops.
The camera should be placed on a tripod so that the same exact shot is taken each time with no movement. I used a completely manual set up for my image. After taking the first shot, I held the aperture setting (so that the depth of field does not change) and then took 3 more shots using 3 faster shutter speeds above the base shot, and then 3 slower shutter speeds below the base shot. The base shot setting for this photo was f5.0 @ 125. The six subsequent shots were held to f5.0 with shutter speeds of 60, 80, 100, (125), 150, 160, 200.
The seven photos werre downloaded to the computer and loaded into a program called Photomatix Pro 2.5.3. All seven images are loaded and you then generate an HDR image. The resulting image does not look very good. It is a two step process and the second step is then called "Tone Mapping". At this point you can control color saturation, contrast, brightness, gamma, and a whole host of other photographic settings using a preview of the final image to tweak to your liking. When you are done with the settings you click on the "generate" button and the final HDR image is composed.
The software takes the tonal values of each exposure, mapps the tonal qualities of each, and then combines everything into a well balanced mix in the final image. The resulting image is a high definition resolution image that a normal camera cannot capture in one shot. This is pretty amazing and as you can see from the images on Interface LIFT, some really amazing images can be generated. Anyone can do this as long as you have a camera that has manual control override or the AEB continuous shooting capability, a tripod, and of course a computer. Give it a shot and happy HDR shooting.
I Want This Watch
13-Jul-07 01:55 AM
Recognize it? This is the watch from the Steven Spielberg movie Minority Report starring Tom Cruise. I have searched the internet everywhere for this watch and I can't find anything about it. In fact, this image is one I made myself from a DVD rip I made recently. This watch is featured quite prominently through out the movie and I can't believe there isn't more information about it floating out there on the web.
Now, being the iPhone-toting, techno-gadget-junkie that I am, I simply must have this watch - or one very similar to it. How come they don't make any real watches that look or function this cool? The face on the watch indicates that it is made by watch maker Bulgari (can you say $$$) but a quick trip to their website reveals no information about it - in fact it isn't even mentioned. I even searched on the bonus materials second DVD disc that came with the movie and there's not one word mentioned about it. What gives? If anyone can find more info about this watch (perhaps even on eBay), please let me know. I am very much a connoisseur of fine watches and this one would be a real treasure to any collection. One thing is for sure, I'll bet Steven Spielberg has one at home right now.
Captain America Dead
10-Mar-07 09:54 AM
Brought into existence in 1941 to do battle with Adolf Hitler, the Marvel hero has officially been killed off. Gunned down on the steps of a court house where he was to appear to answer charges brought against him for his involvment in the underground movement that was resisting the "Superhuman Registration Act", a law which required all super heros to register their true identity with the federal government. Captain America was without his shield and sporting dress slacks and his spandex flag shirt when he took a bullet to the chest on the steps of the court house. All the allegories are there to current events and current laws and there is no mistaking their meaning. Captain America has always been, well, somewhat politicized through out his entire existence and it appears he holds true to character not only when America is doing well, but when she is struggling as well. He was a character who possessed no real super powers - he was just an honest, good hearted person who obviously was addicted to steroids, but who wanted to do what was right, and fought injustices everywhere. True, he is only a fictional character, and this isn't the first time he's been "removed" from the scene. Apparantley he was buried inside a glacier for quite some time before he was revivied back in the 1960's only to find his beloved America in the grips of the cultural wars with those nasty hippies and flower children smoking pot and proclaiming free love. I've no doubt that he will be back again some day, but probably not until America has found her way out of the current darkness in which she is currently stumbling. Let's all hope so. We need the Captain now to help her find her way.
Eulogy of the Dog
19-Dec-06 09:36 PM
Gentlemen of the jury, a man’s dog stands by him in prosperity and in poverty, in health and in sickness. He will sleep on the cold ground, where the wintry winds blow and the snow drives fiercely, if only he can be near his master’s side. He will kiss the hand that had no food to offer, he will lick the wounds and sores that come in encounter with the roughness of the world. He guards the sleep of his pauper master as if he were a prince. When all other friends desert, he remains. When riches take wings and reputation falls to pieces he is as constant in his love as the sun in its journey through the heavens. If fortune drives the master forth an outcast in the world, friendless and homeless, the faithful dog asks no higher privilege than that of accompanying him to guard against danger, to fight against his enemies. And when the last scene of all comes, and death takes the master in its embrace, and his body is laid away in the cold ground, no matter if all other friends pursue their way, there by his graveside will the noble dog be found, his head between his paws, his eyes sad but open in alert watchfulness, faithful and true even to death.
GEORGE GRAHAM VEST, “Eulogy on the Dog,” speech during lawsuit, 1870.—Congressional Record, October 16, 1914, vol. 51, Appendix, pp. 1235–36.
A foxhound named Drum “was known far and near as one of the fastest and least uncertain of hunting dogs.” He was shot and his owner sued for damages, $150 being the maximum allowed. The case started before a Justice of the Peace, was appealed to another court and transferred to another. It was in the final trial, in the State Circuit Court at Warrensburg, Missouri, that Vest made his speech, the peroration of which is above.
According to the recollection of Thomas T. Crittenden, counsel for the defendant and later governor of Missouri, Vest made no reference to the evidence but confined himself to a tribute to canine affection and fidelity. “He seemed to recall from history all the instances where dogs had displayed intelligence and fidelity to man. He quoted more lines of history and poetry about them than I had supposed had been written … It was as perfect a piece of oratory as ever was heard from pulpit or bar. Court, jury, lawyers, and audience were entranced. I looked at the jury and saw all were in tears.”—Gustav Kobbe, A Tribute to the Dog, pp. 9–18 (1911).
According to John F. Phillips, former law partner of Vest and a member of the House of Representatives, whose comments appear in the Congressional Record with the eulogy on the dog, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $500, far more than the sum sued for. The excess was remitted. Vest was elected to the Senate eight years later and served 1879–1904.
Copied from Bartleby.com
The Cure of Singultus
18-Sep-06 07:57 PM
Today is a double header bonus with two minor posts to the blogosphere. This post, I am proud to say, might actually prove useful to you some day, therefore, I suggest you clip and snip (after you print) or book mark for future reference. Instead of boring you with more of my liberal, communistic views on politics, religion, and all things arcane, I proudly present (for a change) some useful information.
I have found the sure-fire cure to hiccups. Yes, hiccups. Those nasty, spasmodic diaphram convulsions that leave you looking and feeling like a carnival side-show and begging for mercy. We all get them from time to time, and now I will share with you the secret to eliminating them the next time they attack. This cure was shared to me by a friend several years ago and since that time, every time I succumb to the devilish affliction, this method has worked every single time without fail. I have also shared this method with family and friends, and to my knowledge, it has worked for each of them as well.
Here it is. Stand and bend forward horizontally at the waist so that your torso is parallel to the level ground. Extend your head up so that your line of sight is also horizontal to the ground. While maintaining this position, take one or two swallows of cool water from a cup and then slowly stand upright bending from the waist back. That's it. If performed correctly, as I have just described, your hiccups will be gone. This will not prevent you from getting hiccups in the future, but this method will certainly cure them once you have contracted them. Dr. TD3k at your service.
I have found the sure-fire cure to hiccups. Yes, hiccups. Those nasty, spasmodic diaphram convulsions that leave you looking and feeling like a carnival side-show and begging for mercy. We all get them from time to time, and now I will share with you the secret to eliminating them the next time they attack. This cure was shared to me by a friend several years ago and since that time, every time I succumb to the devilish affliction, this method has worked every single time without fail. I have also shared this method with family and friends, and to my knowledge, it has worked for each of them as well.
Here it is. Stand and bend forward horizontally at the waist so that your torso is parallel to the level ground. Extend your head up so that your line of sight is also horizontal to the ground. While maintaining this position, take one or two swallows of cool water from a cup and then slowly stand upright bending from the waist back. That's it. If performed correctly, as I have just described, your hiccups will be gone. This will not prevent you from getting hiccups in the future, but this method will certainly cure them once you have contracted them. Dr. TD3k at your service.
Sir Elton Speaks
18-Sep-06 06:04 PM
From MSNBC
Elton John says he’s glad he got hitched to long-time partner David Furnish. Just don’t call him “married.”
“I hate people saying I’m married,” John told the London Mirror. “Marriage is a heterosexual term for men and women. We’ve got a civil partnership. It’s not a religious ceremony and I didn’t want to get married. I just wanted a lifetime commitment.”
He says he expected an outpouring of hatred from the public, but it never happened. “I thought I might get the odd flour bomb but there was no negative reaction,” he said. “It was the nicest day of my life, with all the people I love most.”
I have never completely understood the furor over the use of the term "married" or "civil partnerships" as it relates to gay couples. I do know that both sides apparently have very strong feelings about the use of the terminology with many pro gay groups arguing for the right to "marry". On the other hand, many conservative groups don't want gays to be allowed to be "married", but they are OK with the idea of civil partnerships. I can't help but think that they're basically the same thing regardless of what you call it - it's just a game of semantics. I am glad that Sir Elton has found happiness and did not receive an out pouring of hate. That probably has more to do with his star status than anything else. Whether gays are married or partnered or whatever you want to call it, I don't see how that affects me, my marriage, or anybody else. The so-called "attack on marriage and the family" used by some conservative groups seems to me to be a weak and an ineffective argument that is designed to keep gays from enjoying the same benefits and rewards of heterosexual partnerships.
Elton John says he’s glad he got hitched to long-time partner David Furnish. Just don’t call him “married.”
“I hate people saying I’m married,” John told the London Mirror. “Marriage is a heterosexual term for men and women. We’ve got a civil partnership. It’s not a religious ceremony and I didn’t want to get married. I just wanted a lifetime commitment.”
He says he expected an outpouring of hatred from the public, but it never happened. “I thought I might get the odd flour bomb but there was no negative reaction,” he said. “It was the nicest day of my life, with all the people I love most.”
I have never completely understood the furor over the use of the term "married" or "civil partnerships" as it relates to gay couples. I do know that both sides apparently have very strong feelings about the use of the terminology with many pro gay groups arguing for the right to "marry". On the other hand, many conservative groups don't want gays to be allowed to be "married", but they are OK with the idea of civil partnerships. I can't help but think that they're basically the same thing regardless of what you call it - it's just a game of semantics. I am glad that Sir Elton has found happiness and did not receive an out pouring of hate. That probably has more to do with his star status than anything else. Whether gays are married or partnered or whatever you want to call it, I don't see how that affects me, my marriage, or anybody else. The so-called "attack on marriage and the family" used by some conservative groups seems to me to be a weak and an ineffective argument that is designed to keep gays from enjoying the same benefits and rewards of heterosexual partnerships.
Living Here in Allentown
02-Aug-06 09:40 PM
The locals call it the "Five Points" area and it describes the junction of several different townships that seamlessly blend together in this peaceful Pennsylvania community located in the Lehigh Valley about sixty miles north of Philadelphia. The towns of Allentown, Bethlehem, Saucon Valley, and Central Valley are all nestled here at the southern foot of the Pocono Mountains.
This is a very scenic place where you still get four distinct seasons each year and where many people live and commute to work in New York City about 90 minutes away. It is an area rich in history with many old historical buildings and covered bridges dating back to the early 1700's. It is also home to one of the oldest steel mills in the country, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, which is now out of business. This is the steel mill that smelted the steel skeletons for the Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building in New York City. The area has not fully recovered economically from these closures and many other industries silently closed their doors when the steel mill failed. Many local workers who had spent their entire lives in the mill awoke one morning to find that they had nothing - no pensions or anything to call their own. Nestle still has a factory in the area but the primary cause for the resurgence in population is the cheap housing. New Yorkers have moved to the area in droves to take advantage of the countryside and the cheap properties while still maintaining their jobs in Manhattan and New Jersey.
On the drive from my hotel to our theater I actually pass right through downtown Bethlehem and it is an amazingly charming, old town that beckons for exploration with it's old stone churches and ancient mansions with turrets and cupolas. As you pass over the two steel bridges that span the Lehigh river you can see off to the east the old rusting hulk of the Bethlehem steel smelters which sit silent and cold like a dormant volcano. I hope to have time to fully explore this place and photograph it during my travels to this area over the next several months. Stay tuned for more. Of course, this entire area can thank singer Billy Joel for engraving onto the collective consciousness of all Americans the name "Allentown" with his popular song by the same name. It's a really great song and I've always loved the lyrics. I never thought that some day I would get to visit. If you haven't heard the song, find it and listen to it - as with most of Joel's songs it tells a story of survival in the real world. You can find the lyrics here.
This is a very scenic place where you still get four distinct seasons each year and where many people live and commute to work in New York City about 90 minutes away. It is an area rich in history with many old historical buildings and covered bridges dating back to the early 1700's. It is also home to one of the oldest steel mills in the country, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, which is now out of business. This is the steel mill that smelted the steel skeletons for the Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building in New York City. The area has not fully recovered economically from these closures and many other industries silently closed their doors when the steel mill failed. Many local workers who had spent their entire lives in the mill awoke one morning to find that they had nothing - no pensions or anything to call their own. Nestle still has a factory in the area but the primary cause for the resurgence in population is the cheap housing. New Yorkers have moved to the area in droves to take advantage of the countryside and the cheap properties while still maintaining their jobs in Manhattan and New Jersey.
On the drive from my hotel to our theater I actually pass right through downtown Bethlehem and it is an amazingly charming, old town that beckons for exploration with it's old stone churches and ancient mansions with turrets and cupolas. As you pass over the two steel bridges that span the Lehigh river you can see off to the east the old rusting hulk of the Bethlehem steel smelters which sit silent and cold like a dormant volcano. I hope to have time to fully explore this place and photograph it during my travels to this area over the next several months. Stay tuned for more. Of course, this entire area can thank singer Billy Joel for engraving onto the collective consciousness of all Americans the name "Allentown" with his popular song by the same name. It's a really great song and I've always loved the lyrics. I never thought that some day I would get to visit. If you haven't heard the song, find it and listen to it - as with most of Joel's songs it tells a story of survival in the real world. You can find the lyrics here.
In Memory of Don Knotts
25-Feb-06 08:59 PM
d: February 24, 2006
Don Knotts has always been and will always be one of my favorite actors and comedians. It was with great sadness that I read of his demise this past Friday night. At 81 years of age, Mr. Knotts leaves behind a legacy of memories and fans that will not soon forget his antics and the laughter that he brought to our TV sets. From his deputy Barney Fife character on the immortal Andy Griffith Show; to his nervous newspaper reporter Luther Heggs in The Ghost and Mr. Chicken; to his vertigo-prone astronaut Royal Fleming in The Reluctant Astronaut, Don Knotts always played the character that most of us could relate to. He was the average ordinary guy who was going nowhere in a hurry. The guy who would make good if he only had a lucky break. Yet, somehow, he always managed to botch things up as his own anxieties, insecurities, or his naiveness would manage each time to derail his good intentions into bone-headed mistakes. His characters were simple, lovable, yet prideful and amazingly real and lifelike. He always represented the average guy that you knew, or in some cases, he represented you, and therein lay the humor and the connection to his lovable characters. And despite his mistakes and goof ups, he always managed to succeed in the end, do the right thing and get his girl - always a happy ending despite the string of embarrassments he would endure each time.
I just recently purchased the entire first five seasons of the Andy Griffith Show on DVD and so I have in my video library every episode with Barney Fife. A truly great DVD set from Paramount Home Video for those who are fans of the Andy Griffith Show. Barney, Andy, and Mayberry and all of it's characters will live forever in our memories and in our DVD players. I also found an interesting link that showcases an old Don Knott's record album that was released back in the early 1960's entitled "An Evening With Me". You can listen to each track and download the tracks if you like. The album has been long out of print so their doesn't seem to be any copyright infringements. I have never heard these tracks and they are quite funny and typical Don Knotts style humor. Check it out here if you are interested. I would like to offer one last "thanks" to Don Knotts for all the joy and laughter he has brought to the world and for allowing us to laugh at him as well as ourselves. Let us all join hands and declare for the last time: "Hail, Cosmic Chief!! Taro - Karo - Solomon!!"
Book Review: Robert G. Ingersoll
16-Jan-06 12:20 AM
Mark Twain expressed it best when he wrote the following lines to his wife in 1879:
"I've just come to my room, Livy darling, I guess this was the memorable night of my life. By George, I never was so stirred since I was born. I heard [a speech] by that splendid old soul, Col. Bob Ingersoll,--oh, it was just the supremest combination of English words that was ever put together since the world began."
Mark Twain embodied the hearts and minds of many American's with these words, for indeed, Robert Ingersoll was very well known and was a mangificent orator and politician. People travelled for miles to hear his speeches, where attendance was standing room only. Quite often, Col. Ingersoll's speeches ran for three hours or more (which he committed to memory and recited without use of notes), yet people would stay for the entire presentation, totally enthralled and hanging on his words. The time was the late 1800's and it was the pinnacle of the Golden Age of Freethought in America.
Now, it isn't surprising, really, why the name Robert Ingersoll has slipped quietly into the history books with most people today having never heard of his name. Robert Ingersoll was an agnostic and quite often spoke on the subjects of religion and God. His views were considered offensive and heretic by many, but to many others his words rang with clear reason and logic and commanded the attention of all who heard his words. Quite often, the press would ridicule him and paint him in an unfavorable light, often citing the religious ire and condemnation of those who could not answer the questions he presented, but wished his voice to be silenced nonetheless. But Robert Ingersoll was also a rationalist, a free thinker, and he advocated and preached the doctrine of reason, logic and science. He implored that all men should think for themselves and not fall victim to the mindless banter of tradition or religious dogma. Clearly, he was offensive to some, but to many he was the voice of reason and clear thought.
Ingersoll was a visionary and was ahead of his time on many subjects. He was an abolitionist who was opposed to all forms of human slavery and who was a very ardent supporter of women's rights and the right for women to vote. And although he held no belief in the supernatural or in God, he was very moral and upstanding and would serve as a fine example today to the politicians who make a mockery of our Constitution and our civil liberties. Ingersoll was a republican and the Attorney General of Illinois and his popularity was so high and his name so well known, he was repeatedly asked to run for Governor of Illinois. Unfortunately, there was one problem. Even though the Constitution states that no man shall be required to profess a belief in any religion to be eligible to hold positions within the government, the church and the influence of religious dogma in this country had grown to a point that any man who would dare say that he was agnostic or atheist would never receive the support of any political party to run for high office. He was asked to publicly recant his beliefs so that he could run for office, to which he adamantly refused by stating:
"Good-by, gentlemen! I am not asking to be Governor of Illinois ... I have in my composition that which I have declared to the world as my views upon religion. My position I would not, under any circumstances, not even for my life, seem to renounce. I would rather refuse to be President of the United States than to do so. My religious belief is my own. It belongs to me, not to the State of Illinois. I would not smother one sentiment of my heart to be the Emperor of the round world."
Many of Ingersoll's views and opinions will be seen as harsh by those who hold dear to a religious faith. But that is not reason enough to silence the words and thoughts of this man. He presents many interesting arguments and reasons worthy of discussion and ponderation. It is sad that just because a man who holds a view outside the norm of the mainstream that he should be forgotten and silenced as an infidel or a heretic. Sadly, even to this very day, any man who openly professes to have no religion or no belief in God is still ostracized and cannot hope to serve in any high political office in the land of the free. Ingersoll quite often pointed out that unless a man uses his mind to think for himself, he will always be a slave to those who tell him what to think and what to believe.
This book provides an interesting insight to our history about a man and a movement that was born not out of superstition, but out of reason and logic and the desire to think. Certainly, this book will not be for everyone, but whether you agree with Ingersoll's opinions or not is irrelevant. The fact remains that this is a page out of our American history books that should be dusted off and looked at again. Ingersoll made some amazing predictions that came true and still offers today some thoughts and ideals that are worthy of discussion that are relevant to our current world and society.
"Churches are becoming political organizations.... It probably will not be long until the churches will divide as sharply upon political, as upon theological questions; and when that day comes, if there are not liberals enough to hold the balance of power, this Government will be destroyed. The liberty of man is not safe in the hands of any church. Wherever the Bible and sword are in partnership, man is a slave. All laws for the purpose of making man worship God, are born of the same spirit that kindled the fires of the auto da fe, and lovingly built the dungeons of the Inquisition..." - Ingersoll
"I've just come to my room, Livy darling, I guess this was the memorable night of my life. By George, I never was so stirred since I was born. I heard [a speech] by that splendid old soul, Col. Bob Ingersoll,--oh, it was just the supremest combination of English words that was ever put together since the world began."
Mark Twain embodied the hearts and minds of many American's with these words, for indeed, Robert Ingersoll was very well known and was a mangificent orator and politician. People travelled for miles to hear his speeches, where attendance was standing room only. Quite often, Col. Ingersoll's speeches ran for three hours or more (which he committed to memory and recited without use of notes), yet people would stay for the entire presentation, totally enthralled and hanging on his words. The time was the late 1800's and it was the pinnacle of the Golden Age of Freethought in America.
Now, it isn't surprising, really, why the name Robert Ingersoll has slipped quietly into the history books with most people today having never heard of his name. Robert Ingersoll was an agnostic and quite often spoke on the subjects of religion and God. His views were considered offensive and heretic by many, but to many others his words rang with clear reason and logic and commanded the attention of all who heard his words. Quite often, the press would ridicule him and paint him in an unfavorable light, often citing the religious ire and condemnation of those who could not answer the questions he presented, but wished his voice to be silenced nonetheless. But Robert Ingersoll was also a rationalist, a free thinker, and he advocated and preached the doctrine of reason, logic and science. He implored that all men should think for themselves and not fall victim to the mindless banter of tradition or religious dogma. Clearly, he was offensive to some, but to many he was the voice of reason and clear thought.
Ingersoll was a visionary and was ahead of his time on many subjects. He was an abolitionist who was opposed to all forms of human slavery and who was a very ardent supporter of women's rights and the right for women to vote. And although he held no belief in the supernatural or in God, he was very moral and upstanding and would serve as a fine example today to the politicians who make a mockery of our Constitution and our civil liberties. Ingersoll was a republican and the Attorney General of Illinois and his popularity was so high and his name so well known, he was repeatedly asked to run for Governor of Illinois. Unfortunately, there was one problem. Even though the Constitution states that no man shall be required to profess a belief in any religion to be eligible to hold positions within the government, the church and the influence of religious dogma in this country had grown to a point that any man who would dare say that he was agnostic or atheist would never receive the support of any political party to run for high office. He was asked to publicly recant his beliefs so that he could run for office, to which he adamantly refused by stating:
"Good-by, gentlemen! I am not asking to be Governor of Illinois ... I have in my composition that which I have declared to the world as my views upon religion. My position I would not, under any circumstances, not even for my life, seem to renounce. I would rather refuse to be President of the United States than to do so. My religious belief is my own. It belongs to me, not to the State of Illinois. I would not smother one sentiment of my heart to be the Emperor of the round world."
Many of Ingersoll's views and opinions will be seen as harsh by those who hold dear to a religious faith. But that is not reason enough to silence the words and thoughts of this man. He presents many interesting arguments and reasons worthy of discussion and ponderation. It is sad that just because a man who holds a view outside the norm of the mainstream that he should be forgotten and silenced as an infidel or a heretic. Sadly, even to this very day, any man who openly professes to have no religion or no belief in God is still ostracized and cannot hope to serve in any high political office in the land of the free. Ingersoll quite often pointed out that unless a man uses his mind to think for himself, he will always be a slave to those who tell him what to think and what to believe.
This book provides an interesting insight to our history about a man and a movement that was born not out of superstition, but out of reason and logic and the desire to think. Certainly, this book will not be for everyone, but whether you agree with Ingersoll's opinions or not is irrelevant. The fact remains that this is a page out of our American history books that should be dusted off and looked at again. Ingersoll made some amazing predictions that came true and still offers today some thoughts and ideals that are worthy of discussion that are relevant to our current world and society.
"Churches are becoming political organizations.... It probably will not be long until the churches will divide as sharply upon political, as upon theological questions; and when that day comes, if there are not liberals enough to hold the balance of power, this Government will be destroyed. The liberty of man is not safe in the hands of any church. Wherever the Bible and sword are in partnership, man is a slave. All laws for the purpose of making man worship God, are born of the same spirit that kindled the fires of the auto da fe, and lovingly built the dungeons of the Inquisition..." - Ingersoll
National Champions!
05-Jan-06 12:35 PM
What Will Stop The Fighting?
01-Jan-06 11:49 PM
Peace and equality for all people is a concept that has been often discussed, debated and studied for a long time on planet earth, and today it seems as elusive as ever. As conflicts around the planet continue into this new year, we also note that the injustices of this life will not diminish for the millions upon our planet who are unfortunate enough to be born into a poor country, a poor neighborhood, or a poor family. While we talk a good talk about peace and equality and the end of poverty and social injustice, that's really all it is - talk. It seems that it is a concept we like to imagine about, but it is something that we are powerless to achieve on our own. We are still too quick to draw the gun and go to war at the first sign of a threat to our well being or our way of life. All that really matters is what is important to us. And while the religions of the world may offer solace and faith to those who have nothing else to cling to but a hope and a prayer, it also continues to fuel the fire of hatred and bigotry against those who hold to a different creed or a different belief. How will man ever come to bridge the gaps that separate us when there is so much that divides us?
The answer could be mother nature. Yellowstone National Park, located in northwestern Wyoming, is a place of stunning beauty and wonder. I myself have been there and can attest to the wonders of nature that are there to behold. While visiting there I noticed a large placard that was posted for all the tourists to read, and what it says is both shocking and amazing. It describes the geology of Yellowstone and explains that the reason there are so many thermal features in the area, such as geysers and hot springs, is due to the fact that the entire region is located in a caldera. A super volcano located miles beneath the surface of the earth where the magma from the center of the earth pushes upwards to a distance less than a mile beneath the surface. The magma heats the natural ground water and is the reason for the geysers and other thermal features found in the area. The shocking part in the description is that scientists believe that the super volcano will erupt again, and the eruption is imminent in geological time spans. In english, that means anytime between now and the next 200,000 years. Most scientists do not believe that this eruption will happen in our lifetime, but there is simply no way to rule the possibility out completely.
If and when this eruption occurs, the consequences of such an event will surely be cataclysmic. The last time a super volcano erupted was approximately 75,000 years ago. Scientists do not believe there were many humans on the planet at that time; but today there is close to six billion people living on earth. Scientists believe that such an event will kill hundreds of thousands if not millions of people around the planet and the ash cloud and debris belched into the stratosphere could block out the sun and drop temperatures around the globe by as much as 30 to 40 degrees below normal. Every country, every nation, every race of people and every individual will be suddendly faced with a stark reality and a struggle for survival. The entire economy of the planet could be disrupted and many people who live comfortably today could be faced with an unimaginable existence. Resources around the globe will be scarce and it will require a tremendous amount of cooperation amongst world governments and countries to work together to survive.
Certainly, these are not pleasant thoughts and we all hope that such an event will never happen. But if it does, I cannot help but wonder if the human race, if faced with such an enormous challenge to it's very survival, will have the ability, the dignity and the grace to come together as one so that we can all live? Will we be able to forget our differences, our arguments, our hate and our anger long enough to realize that we are truly in this thing together? Will we then understand that no matter what divides us, the things that draw us together are still stronger because it is what makes us all human: the will to survive and to live and to enjoy life. I believe we will. I believe we can. We must focus on our commonalities and we must not let our differences divide us or lead us to hate and anger. These things will destroy us long before the forces of nature will.
The answer could be mother nature. Yellowstone National Park, located in northwestern Wyoming, is a place of stunning beauty and wonder. I myself have been there and can attest to the wonders of nature that are there to behold. While visiting there I noticed a large placard that was posted for all the tourists to read, and what it says is both shocking and amazing. It describes the geology of Yellowstone and explains that the reason there are so many thermal features in the area, such as geysers and hot springs, is due to the fact that the entire region is located in a caldera. A super volcano located miles beneath the surface of the earth where the magma from the center of the earth pushes upwards to a distance less than a mile beneath the surface. The magma heats the natural ground water and is the reason for the geysers and other thermal features found in the area. The shocking part in the description is that scientists believe that the super volcano will erupt again, and the eruption is imminent in geological time spans. In english, that means anytime between now and the next 200,000 years. Most scientists do not believe that this eruption will happen in our lifetime, but there is simply no way to rule the possibility out completely.
If and when this eruption occurs, the consequences of such an event will surely be cataclysmic. The last time a super volcano erupted was approximately 75,000 years ago. Scientists do not believe there were many humans on the planet at that time; but today there is close to six billion people living on earth. Scientists believe that such an event will kill hundreds of thousands if not millions of people around the planet and the ash cloud and debris belched into the stratosphere could block out the sun and drop temperatures around the globe by as much as 30 to 40 degrees below normal. Every country, every nation, every race of people and every individual will be suddendly faced with a stark reality and a struggle for survival. The entire economy of the planet could be disrupted and many people who live comfortably today could be faced with an unimaginable existence. Resources around the globe will be scarce and it will require a tremendous amount of cooperation amongst world governments and countries to work together to survive.
Certainly, these are not pleasant thoughts and we all hope that such an event will never happen. But if it does, I cannot help but wonder if the human race, if faced with such an enormous challenge to it's very survival, will have the ability, the dignity and the grace to come together as one so that we can all live? Will we be able to forget our differences, our arguments, our hate and our anger long enough to realize that we are truly in this thing together? Will we then understand that no matter what divides us, the things that draw us together are still stronger because it is what makes us all human: the will to survive and to live and to enjoy life. I believe we will. I believe we can. We must focus on our commonalities and we must not let our differences divide us or lead us to hate and anger. These things will destroy us long before the forces of nature will.
Lives In the Balance
28-Sep-05 10:39 PM
This sums it up as nicely and neatly as it can be said. If you have never heard this song; listen to it. Lyrics are by Jackson Browne.
Lives In The Balance
I’ve been waiting for something to happen
For a week or a month or a year
With the blood in the ink of the headlines
And the sound of the crowd in my ear
You might ask what it takes to remember
When you know that you’ve seen it before
Where a government lies to a people
And a country is drifting to war
And there’s a shadow on the faces
Of the men who send the guns
To the wars that are fought in places
Where their business interest runs
On the radio talk shows and the t.v.
You hear one thing again and again
How the u.s.a. stands for freedom
And we come to the aid of a friend
But who are the ones that we call our friends--
These governments killing their own?
Or the people who finally can’t take any more
And they pick up a gun or a brick or a stone
There are lives in the balance
There are people under fire
There are children at the cannons
And there is blood on the wire
There’s a shadow on the faces
Of the men who fan the flames
Of the wars that are fought in places
Where we can’t even say the names
They sell us the president the same way
They sell us our clothes and our cars
They sell us every thing from youth to religion
The same time they sell us our wars
I want to know who the men in the shadows are
I want to hear somebody asking them why
They can be counted on to tell us who our enemies are
But they’re never the ones to fight or to die
And there are lives in the balance
There are people under fire
There are children at the cannons
And there is blood on the wire
Lives In The Balance
I’ve been waiting for something to happen
For a week or a month or a year
With the blood in the ink of the headlines
And the sound of the crowd in my ear
You might ask what it takes to remember
When you know that you’ve seen it before
Where a government lies to a people
And a country is drifting to war
And there’s a shadow on the faces
Of the men who send the guns
To the wars that are fought in places
Where their business interest runs
On the radio talk shows and the t.v.
You hear one thing again and again
How the u.s.a. stands for freedom
And we come to the aid of a friend
But who are the ones that we call our friends--
These governments killing their own?
Or the people who finally can’t take any more
And they pick up a gun or a brick or a stone
There are lives in the balance
There are people under fire
There are children at the cannons
And there is blood on the wire
There’s a shadow on the faces
Of the men who fan the flames
Of the wars that are fought in places
Where we can’t even say the names
They sell us the president the same way
They sell us our clothes and our cars
They sell us every thing from youth to religion
The same time they sell us our wars
I want to know who the men in the shadows are
I want to hear somebody asking them why
They can be counted on to tell us who our enemies are
But they’re never the ones to fight or to die
And there are lives in the balance
There are people under fire
There are children at the cannons
And there is blood on the wire
Hurricane Alley
22-Sep-05 12:18 AM
At no point in my lifetime have I ever recalled such an active and violent hurricane season as what we are witnessing now. Last year seemed unbelievable enough, but 2005 is proving to be even more catastrophic. I read today in total amazement at how quickly hurricane Rita has intensified in strength. It went from a category 2 to a category 5 storm in less than one day; that is nothing short of phenomenal. The pressure recorded at the center of the eye, as of this writing, makes it the third most powerful hurricane ever recorded. The sobering thought is that it could strengthen further before finally making landfall.
I have also read with much interest how scientists are not necessarily attributing the frequency of the hurricanes to global warming, but, there is definitely a clear connection to the intensity of the storms we are seeing now to global warming. Meteorologists believe that we are now in a ten to twenty year "Atlantic cycle" where we could see an increased number of Atlantic hurricanes for the next ten to twenty years before the cycle subsides. They claim that this cycle has existed before and therefore has nothing to do with global warming. However, scientists have also noted that the ocean water temperature has increased by about one degree in the last fifty years of keeping such records. One degree represents an incredible increase of potential energy to fuel hurricanes as we see evidenced by the dramatic increase in strength in hurricane Rita almost overnight. The scary part is that scientists predict that the ocean temperature could rise by five to ten degrees by the year 2100! Imagine the potential increase in hurricane strength possible with such an influx of potential energy.
The debate is over on global warming. It is here and it is real. So much time has been wasted due to the misleading efforts of politicians and the big businesses that control them. We may already be too late to stop the incredible destruction to come from monster hurricanes, but that does not mean we should continue to sit back and do nothing. It is not too late to reverse course if we are willing to make the necessary adjustments.
I have also read with much interest how scientists are not necessarily attributing the frequency of the hurricanes to global warming, but, there is definitely a clear connection to the intensity of the storms we are seeing now to global warming. Meteorologists believe that we are now in a ten to twenty year "Atlantic cycle" where we could see an increased number of Atlantic hurricanes for the next ten to twenty years before the cycle subsides. They claim that this cycle has existed before and therefore has nothing to do with global warming. However, scientists have also noted that the ocean water temperature has increased by about one degree in the last fifty years of keeping such records. One degree represents an incredible increase of potential energy to fuel hurricanes as we see evidenced by the dramatic increase in strength in hurricane Rita almost overnight. The scary part is that scientists predict that the ocean temperature could rise by five to ten degrees by the year 2100! Imagine the potential increase in hurricane strength possible with such an influx of potential energy.
The debate is over on global warming. It is here and it is real. So much time has been wasted due to the misleading efforts of politicians and the big businesses that control them. We may already be too late to stop the incredible destruction to come from monster hurricanes, but that does not mean we should continue to sit back and do nothing. It is not too late to reverse course if we are willing to make the necessary adjustments.
Buckeye Blackeye
11-Sep-05 12:21 AM
I've been told by a very fanatic and exuberant Ohio State football fan that the Buckeyes have NEVER lost a night game at home in the Horseshoe in Columbus, OH. I don't know whether this was true or not, but it certainly is false now thanks to the Texas Longhorns. The Longhorns beat the Buckeyes at home, at night on Saturday, Sept. 10, 2005 with a score of 25 to 22 in what turned out to be a very exciting and well played football game. Normally, I am pretty ambivalent when it comes to sports and I am by no means what you would consider any kind of a sports fan. But I am compelled to write this article and enjoy this moment in history just because of all of the CRAP and trash talk that I've had to endure from certain Buckeye fans going into this game. In their very first match up ever, the Big 10 and the Big 12 collided head on and the #2 ranked Texas came out on top over the #4 ranked Buckeyes. Victory is so sweet, especially when it shuts down the bragging rights of the over the top, border line crazy football enthusiasts.
As sweet as it is, I will admit that it was a close game and there was one point in the game where I thought the Buckeyes were going to pull it off. But because of some penalties and some critical turn overs late in the game by the Buckeyes, the balance swung back around in Texas favor and they were able to pull off some critical strikes to regain and hold the lead in the final moments of the game. I understand that these two teams will meet up again in 2006 and this time it will be in Austin, TX. Maybe this is the beginning of a new rivalry for these two teams. This was by far one of the most entertaining college games I've ever watched so we will have to wait and see what unfolds. One thing is for sure. The Buckeyes will be out for revenge after such a stinging loss on their home turf AND they will try to recoup the first loss EVER at night handed to them by the Texas Longhorns. Maybe this will give Texas the momentum they need to turn around an embarrasing 8 year consecutive loss to their arch rivals the Oklahoma Sooners. I hope so.
And for my good friend Tom......"OHHOWIHATEOHIOSTATE" (Not really, but this will make him crazy)
As sweet as it is, I will admit that it was a close game and there was one point in the game where I thought the Buckeyes were going to pull it off. But because of some penalties and some critical turn overs late in the game by the Buckeyes, the balance swung back around in Texas favor and they were able to pull off some critical strikes to regain and hold the lead in the final moments of the game. I understand that these two teams will meet up again in 2006 and this time it will be in Austin, TX. Maybe this is the beginning of a new rivalry for these two teams. This was by far one of the most entertaining college games I've ever watched so we will have to wait and see what unfolds. One thing is for sure. The Buckeyes will be out for revenge after such a stinging loss on their home turf AND they will try to recoup the first loss EVER at night handed to them by the Texas Longhorns. Maybe this will give Texas the momentum they need to turn around an embarrasing 8 year consecutive loss to their arch rivals the Oklahoma Sooners. I hope so.
And for my good friend Tom......"OHHOWIHATEOHIOSTATE" (Not really, but this will make him crazy)
What a Joke
23-Jul-05 08:29 AM
This week while driving from Columbus Ohio to Dayton in my rental car, I thought it would be a good idea to find something on the radio to help keep my mind on the road and my car out of the ditch. It's a long, straight stretch of road to Dayton and it's easy to get road hypnosis if you're not careful. It didn't help matters either that my work colleague was sitting next to me sound asleep and snoring his head off.
I turned on the radio and hit the "scan" button, hoping to find something of interest to keep my synapses firing for the duration of the trip. It didn't take long for me to reach the conclusion that in that part of the world, there isn't much to choose from on the radio. I was hoping to find the national public radio channel to catch up on the latest news and world events, but I could never find it so I relegated myself to finding the next "good" classic rock song and I would stop there. After countless country western and rap stations scrolled by, I happened onto a radio talk show.
The subject was terrorism and the speakers were talking about London and some of the more recent terrorist attacks. Nothing really seemed out of the ordinary until I started picking up on what these guys were saying. Their format was that of a news feed then followed by a commentary and discussion on the subject.
Without going into great detail (because I didn't listen very long), suffice it to say that these guys were editorializing the news and were making some pretty amazing statements. One of them was quoting the mayor of London and criticizing him for stating that part of the reason for the terrorist attacks are in part due to the policies of western governments in the Arab world (i.e the US and UK). The radio hosts were appalled that the mayor could make such a critical statement. One of the other speakers went on to say that if terrorist attacks continued, then don't be surprised if the US and the UK make plans to deliver a nuclear attack on Mecca in Saudia Arabia! Such an action would be necessary to guarantee the survival of the western world.
At this point, I hit the scan button again and finally found that classic rock song I was looking for...."The Joker" by Steve Miller. I was fully awake by this point, not because of the music, but just trying to understand the mentality and mind set of the guys on that radio talk show. I never learned the name of the show or who they were affiliated with, but I sure would like to tell them that jingoism and daydreams of an atomic melt down on Mecca are not the answers. If anything, this lack of understanding and the spreading of it over the airwaves only perpetrates the further spread of ignorance that fans the flames of hatred.
I turned on the radio and hit the "scan" button, hoping to find something of interest to keep my synapses firing for the duration of the trip. It didn't take long for me to reach the conclusion that in that part of the world, there isn't much to choose from on the radio. I was hoping to find the national public radio channel to catch up on the latest news and world events, but I could never find it so I relegated myself to finding the next "good" classic rock song and I would stop there. After countless country western and rap stations scrolled by, I happened onto a radio talk show.
The subject was terrorism and the speakers were talking about London and some of the more recent terrorist attacks. Nothing really seemed out of the ordinary until I started picking up on what these guys were saying. Their format was that of a news feed then followed by a commentary and discussion on the subject.
Without going into great detail (because I didn't listen very long), suffice it to say that these guys were editorializing the news and were making some pretty amazing statements. One of them was quoting the mayor of London and criticizing him for stating that part of the reason for the terrorist attacks are in part due to the policies of western governments in the Arab world (i.e the US and UK). The radio hosts were appalled that the mayor could make such a critical statement. One of the other speakers went on to say that if terrorist attacks continued, then don't be surprised if the US and the UK make plans to deliver a nuclear attack on Mecca in Saudia Arabia! Such an action would be necessary to guarantee the survival of the western world.
At this point, I hit the scan button again and finally found that classic rock song I was looking for...."The Joker" by Steve Miller. I was fully awake by this point, not because of the music, but just trying to understand the mentality and mind set of the guys on that radio talk show. I never learned the name of the show or who they were affiliated with, but I sure would like to tell them that jingoism and daydreams of an atomic melt down on Mecca are not the answers. If anything, this lack of understanding and the spreading of it over the airwaves only perpetrates the further spread of ignorance that fans the flames of hatred.