The Water is Poison

Proven Lies from Birthers Part 1

2011-04-14T09:54:00.001-04:00

Amongst the transcripts from the original lawsuit regarding Obama's birth place is an interesting attempt to lie that has spread as fact. The idea that Obama's Grandmother said he was born in Kenya. In fact, here is what Berg tried to push on the courts as fact.

Ron McRae: Amen. I am so thankful. Could I ask her, uh, about his, uh, his actual birthplace? I would like to see his actual birthplace when I, when I come to Kenya in December. Uh, was she present when he was, was she present when he was born in Kenya?.…

Translator: Yes. She says, “Yes she was! She was present when Obama was born.”

McRae: Okay.

Problem is, that is not true. Here is what the ACTUAL transcript of that interview with Obama's Grandmother says that, in fact, Berg had in his possession!

McRae: Okay, uh, when I come in December I would like to go by the, the place, the hospital where he is born. Uh, could you tell me where he was born? Was he born in Mombasa? (Long pause) . . .

Translator: No, no — what? . . . No! Obama was not born in Mombasa. He was born in America.

McRae: Wh-whereabouts, whereabouts was he born? I, I thought he was born in Kenya.

Translator: No he was born in America, not in Mombasa.

McRae: OK. Do you know whereabouts he was born?

Translator: Huh?

McRae: Do you know where he was born? I thought he was born in Kenya. I was gonna go by and see where he was born. . . .

Translator: Sir, she says he was born in Hawaii.

McRae: OK.

Translator: Yeah, in 1960 this was Hawaii, where his father, his father was also marrying there. This was Hawaii.

McRae: OK. . . . I thought you said she was present. Was she, was, was she, was she able to see him being, being born in, in Hawaii? . . .

Translator: No, no! The, the woman was not present. She was uh not, a what — you see, she was here in Kenya, and Obama was born in America. That is, that’s obvious.

Notice that the person interviewing is trying to trip her up and she still understands what is being asked of her. Yet, with this in his possession we see that Berg and the Birthers are deliberately lying at this point to spread deceit and lies.

If you meet a birther, its time to take the gloves off. This is a blatant out right lie. Next time I hear it repeated, I will call it what it is. A lie. And those who push lies are liars.

http://factcheck.org/2011/04/donald-youre-fired/

Its Election Season Again!

2011-04-06T09:10:00.002-04:00

Its that time of the year again, election season. And the first order of business is reelection Barack Obama as President. I know many disaffected liberals and moderate democrats who are not and have not been happy with Obama. However I intend to lay out the reason you should get your ass out there and support him once again.

Reason 1:
The Tea Party - Currently the Tea Party is slowly tea bagging the right to death. Nearly all of their legislation makes massive cuts to the ones that can't afford it, while they back up military spending and tax cuts to the rich. Obama has and will continue to oppose nearly everything the idiotic tea party stands for.

Reason 2:
Iraq and Afghanistan - Like it or not, Obama has withdrawn most of the troops from Iraq and has plans on the table for beginning troop withdrawals from Afghanistan this summer. On top of that, some very keen democrats are crafting a bill that will force him to set a date. If republicans take the Senate and or the White House, we can expect Afghanistan to continue on as is with no change.

Reason 3:
Republican plans for medicare - Rep Paul Ryans plan for medicare is a near carbon copy of current health care as Obama's plan outlines. After calling it socialism, he steals the idea for medicare. Problem is medicare is a social safety net. He would essentially privatize it. No vouchers, a premium required payment from seniors. Abolishing medicare would be disastrous to this countries elderly. Think about your parents before you vote for a single republican.

Reason 4:
Corruption - Florida republicans have now made it legal for companies to walk into a congressional office and hand them a check and tell them what they want. They call it a donation to the "leadership fund". Its legal bribary brought to you by the republican party.

Reason 5:
Workers rights - Republicans are hell bent on destroying workers rights, one union at a time. The governor of Wisconsin plainly said that this was designed to hurt Obama. Destroy the workers to hurt Obama. Republicans are willing to sacrifice middle blue collar america to gain more power.

Reason 6:
The alternative - Consider exactly who the republican party could offer to replace Obama. Can you think of a single person you would be okay getting elected? The GOP is dominated by far right wing Tea Party conservatives right now. Any one of them would be disastrous to this country if they were elected.

These are six but very good reasons to vote for Obama in 2012. This isn't for republicans or conservatives. This is for the democrats. He needs his base to really turn out for him next year. I hope you will all get out and vote and push others to get out and vote for Obama in 2012.

Libya - The Lessons We Won't Learn

2011-03-22T13:02:00.002-04:00

Over the last 10 years, we should have learned that we cannot change the middle east. A decade later, we find ourselves still in Afghanistan, no closer to finding Bin Laden, no closer to ending the Taliban forever, than we were when we started. Iraq is still a mess, though better in many respects than before we invaded. But we shouldn't have invaded either.

Now, we find ourselves in Libya, bombing with the UN, the same way Iraq started. We are being told that we won't be leading this much longer, but that remains to be seen. The question is again, should we be there? What purpose are we going for? This time there is no lie about WMD's, no lies about involvement in 9/11. But under the guise of civilian lives. This is a civil war.

While I am completely with the rebels in Libya, we should support them in other ways besides military action. Why risk our lives, our blood, our treasure, for a war we have no part in starting and no place in?

Dennis Kucinich has called for Obama's impeachment for war crimes. Well this is clearly over kill as Obama has the power to do what he did, he didn't declare war. But Obama was certainly wrong in this. There is definitely a sentiment that we don't belong, and the anti-war left that helped him get in office certainly doesn't believe in another military action.

Obama is just another in a long line of war mongering presidents who seem to believe our nose belong in everyone else's business.

The Land of the Rising Sun sees darkness

2011-03-16T12:22:00.002-04:00

I am a big fan of Japan. I love their animation. I love the culture. I love the heritage and history. I find Japanese women to be exotic and stunning in beauty. So it has pained me greatly to watch events unfolding over the last week. This blog is normally reserve for political vitriol and religious expose', but not today.

After a devastating 8.9 earthquake, Japan was devastated by an epic tsunami that hit not only Japan but was large enough to take a 6 foot wave all the way to Hawaii and beyond. If that was devastating enough, it was followed by the break down of cooling in reactors 1 and 2. Then explosions in reactor 3. Then more failures at reactor 4 and another explosion. We now know that it is feared that reactors 5 and 6 will have an explosion or meltdown as well.

Yesterday, radiation levels got so high workers had to abandon one of the reactors. The radiation is high enough that it is feared the reactor is melting down. This melt down will release significantly higher amounts of radiation into the air compared to the radioactive steam being let off now due to the water boiling straight out into the air.

We can only hope that Japan is able to hold on to a thread of hope as panic begins to set in as the realization that this might be beyond their control takes hold. My thoughts, worries, and concerns rest with Japan and its people right now.

Bigotry and Union Busting

2011-03-10T14:02:00.002-05:00

Bigotry

Republican Representative Peter King has made bigotry a past time. While American Muslims have been helping to uncover and stop 7 out of the last 10 plots, he and the far right republicans are flying off into paranoia. While most of the plots are coming from Americans these days, not foreign Muslims, he is trying to scapegoat and entire group of people.

Its time we call this POS what he and his kind are. Bigots, of the first degree. They hate what they don't understand. They fear what they deem as too different from themselves. It is ignorance that drives bigotry. We as a people need to rise up and qhite frankly give the finger to representatives likes Peter King. Further, we need to ostracize bigots in our society. Stop remaining quiet. Call bigots out when they decide to open their mouth and spew their ignorance. Perhaps if we ridicule, call out, denigrade, and demonize these bigots for what they are, publicly, and loudly, we will be able to silence the evil of bigotry once again.

Union Busting

Well the GOP did it. They effectively busted the public sector unions in Wisconsin. They said FUCK YOU to the majority who is going to attempt to recall them. And why did they do it? Was there no other way? No, there were plenty of ways to cut the budget and even work with the unions who were willing to negotiate. They did it for one reason and one reason only, to hurt Obama and the democrats. Should the 8 republicans get recalled and the governor, and democrats replace all of them, the union will no longer have the power it once had. It will no longer be the driving force for the democrats because it has been massively neutered.

Welcome to Wisconsin, where the working man gets openly, and defiantly beaten into the dirt, all for brazen political gain.

Tryanny at the Gate

2011-03-04T13:04:00.002-05:00

Well, its been a while since I posted. But a fellow poster at www.yourdiscussionforum.com has inspired me to start blogging again. His name is ace, and you can find him in my list of people I follow. His blog is new, so check it out, give him some feed back, and click his adsense link so the man can make a bit o change!

Now, onto why I'm posting today.

Wisconsin has been the countries focus for the last couple weeks because of the Governors incessant desire to squash unions in the public sector. But he recently showed another dark part of his heart that really should show even the most ignorant republican what he is really like. He threatened to lay off 1,500 public sector employees if the democrats don't return and allow a vote which will strip them of their right to collective bargaining and the power of the peoples union will be dead.

Governor Walker has exposed the reality of what the republicans want. The destruction of your rights as a worker. In states all across the union, a similar fight is starting. They got the power in the House and are now attempting to destroy the unions with great zeal. President Obama obliged the big corporations in the auto deal and helped bust the unions for the auto companies, something no democratic president has ever done. But with the loss of the unions, we lose the middle class as well. Before unions there were no middle class workers. There were the working class and the rich. The working class was always at the bottom of the economic ladder.

So what this comes down too is nothing more than the attempted destruction of the middle class so that the rich can walk all over us again. It is class warfare at its most devious and underhanded. They get their tax breaks, they destroy unions, they get tax loop holes, and now their multimillion dollar corporations have no restrictions in political races. They can and will systematically buy up the peoples government and use it as their tool. The process has already begun. The dream of an equal social democracy is dying, being replaced by the reality of a Corporate Fascist regime in which we elect leaders supported by the likes of the uber rich like the Koch Brothers.

If we don't wake up america, we will be back in the 1920's, when people down on their luck stood in soup kitchen lines, and lived in boxes. When people worked long hard hours for little money, just barely able to get by. Charles Dickens reality is our future if we don't wake up to the tyranny at the gate.

I'm Losing Faith in the Country: Part 4 - The Failure of a Country

2010-06-25T11:26:00.001-04:00

In my on going rage that is driving from me the faith I have long held in this country, I am now going to address a subject that is rather vague to describe. So I'll put it in these terms. I am tired of failure. Now, brace yourself because this one is going to go all over the place. Because when I say failure, I mean that I believe that the government is failing me. Personally. I take offense at what has happened and what is going on. But also the people as a whole are failing me and themselves. I'll explain further. This one is going to be tough to write because, discussing it with my wife, I cannot seem to prevent myself from getting worked up and angry by the time I'm half way through. But here goes.

I can just simply go through the list of failures in our current government and indeed the politically active in this country. I'll start on the right, because I'm good with pissing off the right. When I talk of the right, I don't just mean republicans or libertarians in congress. I'm talking about all politically active on the right, whether on a forum or email campaigns or actually working for a candidate. And while these views may not encompass ALL of those on the right, they encompass a large enough part that I feel comfortable characterizing the right in this way. I have extensive contact with them both on this forum, in daily life, and in my own family. I grew up with this mindset.

For six long years, the republican party, and the right, enjoyed a majority in both the house and the senate, with a republican president. Six years of getting what ever you wanted. There was no compromise. There was only the brutality of ramming through what ever you thought was good. During this time, the republican senate threatened to get rid of the filibuster rules in the Senate, because the democrats had filibustered nearly 60 times in one year. Since that six year period, they have gone on to double that amount of filibuster every single year they have been in the minority. It appears that the filibuster is only "abused" when it is used by democrats.

For six years, we saw regulations stripped away. We saw a majority that pushed through imprudent tax cuts focused on the wealthy, an unprecedented two wars at once, and a medicare part D plan that was not paid for. We saw reckless spending like never before. Never in our history had this nation CUT taxes during war time. With the power the right weilded, they created an office of faith based initiatives, an office purely dedicated to giving money to religious groups! We saw the right back and promote a president as he gain and took more power into the executive branch that ever before, including current president Obama.

I experienced the rights assault on free speech nearly every day, as my views on the war were called unpatriotic. I watched as the left was silenced routinely by the right calling them traitors, unpatriotic, and anti-american for disagreeing with two wars that we were lied to about. I felt the anguish of being told I don't support the troops because I thought they should be brought home. I was embarassed for this country as a republican president supported by the right, garnered the anger of most nations in the world by our arrogant and foolish actions. A cowboy in the white house. Only to the right would such a thing be looked on in a good fashion.

We watched regulation after regulation fall, as we paved the way for a massive financial fail. But then, things changed. The economy tanked, and the republicans lost power. Then, they lost the presidency. So what next?

The answer was to completely pretend like they weren't even there for the last 8 years. They filibusterd double the amount they cried about previously. Suddenly, they were conservative. Suddenly, lots of people were conservative! Really? Why then was your mouth shut tight when it was your party and your group doing the spending? Did they think we were mad? Insane? Did they think we wouldn't remember all they had done to get us in this mess? And so for two years I have watched this nonsense as one after the other republicans turn conservative claim they are for small government. The same people who called me unpatriotic and unamerican suddenly tried to act like they disagreed with Bush. Really? You were silent before and now you expect me to believe you are angry at "both parties"? Bullshit! And YOu know its bullshit too! It would be better than you spit at me behind my back than to look me in the eye and lie like this. I remember how many on the right supported Bush. Now, its hard to find a single one who supported Bush. Everyone on the right now suddenly "always believed we were spending to much"! The right double the deficit over and over and nothing was said, Now you want us to believe you are so concerned about our childrens future and always were? We aren't stupid or forgetful!

But enough about what we already know. On to the left. Did you think you were getting out of this? You aren't! But for this, I need to separate the people from the politicians. Why? Because while the right largely walks in lockstep, and the people believe and do as they are told, the sins of the left are not the same. The left is of larger diversity and thus is not so prone to being sheep. Even still, the words coming out of the mouths of the right are nearly identical from the ones coming out of the politicians and talk show hosts mouths. Even still they believe ridiculous email chains, to a massively greater extent than the left.

For the left, politics was about change and hope. After watching the decimation of this country at the hands of Bush, we trust those on the left to make things right. But that isn't what happened, is it? Nearly two years after Barack Obama stood on the podium to the chants of "yes we can", almost nothing has changed. Nothing.

We are still in two wars. The president still fights to keep things private when it comes to their legal manuevering. And the courts are still split on the issue. We still have two massive detention centers that are basically black holes. We still hold people indefinitely without bail or court hearing of any time, and without any official charges. We still support and engage in extraordinary rendition. We are still in two wars. New looser FISA regulations allow americans to be taped. The bill was approved by Candidate Obama. Almost nothing of the power that Bush took has been reigned in by Obama.

On a legislative front, I couldn't be more disappointed. Democrats lacked the cajones to pass REAL health care legislation. Compromising to get republican votes is only acceptable if it gets that vote. Most of the compromises were for republicans who never intended on working with them to make the bill better. A bill they knew would pass, but worked to make it suck instead of make it better. Most of the republican amendments were approved to get votes. And most of those amendments are pointed out as bad. Health care lobby money flowed freely, and many democrats grew fat on it, right next to their republican colleagues getting the same money. And together they worked to destroy the bill. Together they managed to rid the bill of all but a few good protections. No single payer, no public option, no hard premium caps, no regulations on raising rates. The health care companies essentially won.

But there was another chance in the wall street reform bill. It has some FABULOUS amendments for this bill. Yet, again, wall street money flowed, and most of those great amendments were killed. Derivative reform? Watered down after the money whore Blanche Lincoln won her primary. Almost everything else has been stripped out. Something that should have been an easy vote, even for republicans, ended up not getting enough support. 30 democrats, but only 10 republicans, voted to audit the Federal Reserve. What ended up passing was a one time audit. So much for the so called conservatives, and the so called conservadems. Conservative, on both sides of the aisle, stands for "sell out to the banks". And as I will state later, the Fed truly needed to be audited. The bill was nearly salvaged with the consumer protection agency that gets created. Unfortunately, they have exempted the highest bidders. Car dealers will not be subject to the consumer protection rules. As if we all don't know that used car dealers are the sleaziest of the slime. Unbelievable.

While people like to get upset at TARP, that really is a small morsel. The real crime is that the Fed has given out over 4.6 Trillion dollars to the banks. Only the 700B TARP was approved by congress. An audit would be nice. To bad it had bipartisan opposition. The banks get 4.6 Trillion dollars, and they use it to get richer. All the while the conservative democrats and republicans convince the rest of the democrats that a stimulus package for the people is just to much to spend. Every job bill and unemployment extension, including the one that just failed in the senate, don't equal HALF of what the banks got if you combined them all! Yet, were is the protests over the Fed? Used up, thats where. Used up on protesting to much spending to give unemployment money in a recession. To much money to help the states meet the budget. The banks have the fools of this country so easily distracted that they are protesting against the good of the PEOPLE! We would rather sit back and ignorantly believe that somehow giving unemployment to people is ruinging the country. People are now put at the bottom of the pile when it comes to priority. PEOPLE! More of my tax money has gone to banks, yet the right and conservative left draw the line at helping states and helping the unemployed? Its more bullshit!

And all the while the people on the left have become a justification machine. And I'm guilty of it too! But we are in large part forced to because the criticism from the right is so pathetically wrong! If they would get it right and stop believing nonsense and lies then we could focus on what was actually wrong! But still, where are the protests? Where are the anti-war people? It has been three months since I saw anyone at our weekly war protest. Three months. No one cares any more, democrats are in charge after all. None of the Bush abuses went away! We just stopped caring about them! Writing letters? All find and good by they don't give a flying f**k about our letters and we all know it! We have managed to quell our own outrage over things that really matter! We on the left cheered on the health care bill while amongst ourselves talking about what we didn't like about it. What we should have done is protested, not with those idiots in the tea party, but our own protests, against the very real problems with this bill! We should have protested when Obama sent more troops to Afghanistan. We should have protested when Obama put DRONES on the freakin Mexican border! And when far right wing morons say he hasn't tried to secure the border, slap them in the mouth and ask them how many freakin military drones any republican put on the border! I want a secure border, but not in a manner that causes death and destruction and fear! Freakin military drones!!!!

We have failed as a country. We have failed as a people. Our government has failed. And yes, it is both parties. And yes, it is the people too. But all for different reasons. I'm losing faith in this countries ability to handle anything in an age of naive acceptance of email chains. I'm losing faith in a country that only cares about the big problems when it is the party they hate doing it. We cannot continue like this. It will be the death of us all. Contineous war, endless recessions, and ridiculous lawmakers are what we face.

Two more examples of what is wrong. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of corporations, giving them the same rights as an individual. How atrocious is that. Amidst the anger at this, the congress wrote up a new law they are trying to pass. The "DICLOSE ACT" which will force all groups to list who donates to them and all companies that choose to support a candidate must put it forward so all can see. Yet, One group after another seems to be exempt. Companies under 1 million people are exempt. The NRA is exempt. And a number of other broad exceptions, have been written in to ensure that our corporations are not really resticted at all.

In the middle of the largest eco-disaster in our history, the criticism couldn't be more obscene. The right using a disaster to its benefit by first saying government didn't respond fast enough, then saying it responded too much. Circulating emails that are pure lies, that now have senators who should know better, repeating them. When senators are repeating email chains, I lose hope quickly. When senators apologize for forcing a foreign company to pay people who they have harmed, I lose hope quickly. And yet, the President has angered people because hasn't miraculously found a plan that the experts have apparently missed, that will fix the leak in the gulf. How is any of this helping the situation at all?

The government and many of the people have been sucked into a war of propaganda by both sides that has made true change irrelevant and unlikely. I used to laugh at the South Park Addage that voting was like choosing between a sh*t sandwich and a giant douche. I have come to realize that it really is just that. And "voting them all out" is irrelevant as well. The power and money have corrupted them all and will do so to the next generation. There is no stopping it. Debt will swallow us whole eventually. But most people are not smart enough to see that not spending right now will cause greater debt in the future. And I have no hope that it will get better. People will eventually tire of democrats, and vote in republicans. Who will then do what they do best. Say they are conservatives, the continue to ruin the economy. Then the democrats will take over and do what they do best. Bring all kinds of great ideas to the table, the water them down into obscurity.

This is our future, our country, that we have allowed to slip away from us. And the problem and the blame lies with us. The people. We allowed things to get out of hand. We allow ourselves to believe then never follow through. We allow ourselves to be convinced by propaganda and email chains. I am losing faith in a country that seems to have lost all sense of reason.

I'm losing faith in this country: Part 2 - Environmental Rant

2010-06-17T10:46:00.000-04:00

We are the only industrialized nation in the world that has such a huge amount of truth deniers in it. We are the only industrialized nation in which the truth deniers out number the rationalists. We have a rather large number of people who, for some reason, would rather believe three scientists working for BP, than the thousands working for NASA, NOAA and Woods Hole research centers. As one of my favorite posters, Gary, has pointed out, the evidence is so blatantly and obviously overwhelming, that those on the right must do some seriously ridiculous mental gymnastics to ignore the evidence!

Yet, no matter the evidence, people on the whole still listen to Sean Hannity theorize how the extra snow in his yard must disprove modern climate change theory. It would be silly and worth laughing at these morons if it weren't actually dangerous to our childrens future. They are so busy minding our business on the debt, that they don't realize that the biggest threat to this nation is not the debt, but the climate. They are nice and smug in their ignorance, rolling around in it congratulating themselves on their idiocy, like pigs in mud on a hot day! It is obscene to say the least.

I would normally post a bunch of evidence, but it is really pointless. I confront these morons with evidence, and they simply ignore it. One person, on this forum once challenged me to show them the evidence. I posted the top three research sites in the world, and that person never even looked at it. Why? Who knows. The likely answer is that they either did look and ignored, or simply refused to look. It is easier to ignore the evidence and keep things status quo, than to be proven wrong and be forced to change!

Ten years ago the answer was "we need more evidence". Five years ago it was "we are in the middle of greater solar output". Now, in current era, we set another record heat year, followed by the hottest global first quarter on record, ever, during the lowest solar output on record, and their is no answer. Just silence and more smug mocking. Whats worse, they do their damnedest to continue harming the environment with their push to NOT move any environmental legislation forward! While they smugly look at those who have proven the truth, talking about debt, deficit, and our childrens future, they are in reality flushing our childrens future down the toilet!

The evidence is there for all to see. But when you cover your eyes and ears and mouth, like three idiot monkeys, then you not only put the blame for the consequences on your own head, but you multiply it. And passing the buck to later generations is simply unforgivable. This idea of "we need more evidence" is simply stupid. These are the same people who needed almost no evidence to go to war. I guess the right is intent on being the party of the dead and dying. But this effects everyone, the entire world. And truth deniers are going to kill us. I'm losing faith in this country. It is failing on the whole to recognize and act on truth.

I'm Losing Faith in the Country: Part 3 - The American Empire

2010-06-17T10:38:00.002-04:00

The third part in this series focusing on my continued disappointment with my country, I have gone a different path. I am not going to simply "rant" as the very term indicates someone just spouting off. While I state my opinions in a very "matter of fact way", this particular post is far from a rant. It is a disposition that is founded on some very scary and very disturbing facts. I am speaking of course, about the American Empire.

Most people will picture the Romans, or the Greeks, or the Ottomons , perhaps even the Byzantines when they read the word Empire. Some might even site the British Empire. However, these would not compare well to the US in current form. The Empire the US has built is built from bases. Forge under the guise of "nation interests" which this country uses as an excuse to create and keep bases in nearly every country in the world. In fact, of the 194 independent countries listed by the state department, we have military troops and/or operatives in 135 of them. We have troops station in some form or another in 70% of all the countries of the world!

While it is hard to gather a true count of just how many troops are abroad, Pentagon and State Department sources list approximately 1.5 million military personel that are stationed abroad, with over 400,000 of them being troops. They range from deployments as small as 1, in the country of Malawi, to nearly 75,000 in Germany. Germany! Is Germany really so much of a threat that we need 75,000 military personel there?

What essentially happens is that where ever we go, for any reason, we leave behind our own forces to protect our "national interests". Really bad part is that people don't even seem to be aware of it. Just think back to any deployment you can imagine. Every president in recent history has left troops abroad. Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama will share in the blame for the same troops that W Bush sent abroad. Because we aren't ever coming home.

Whats worse, is that this Empire has grown cocky, and evil. George W. Bush began a wide spread practice of Extraordinary Rendition, which is the kidnapping of suspects and taking them to secret prisons. He also started the practice of using torture. And make no mistake, the memo's are mostly out, there were tortures worse than waterboarding going on. He also started the process of holding people, indefinitely, without trial.

President Obama is a unique president in that he ran specifically on taking away such things. Stopping these evil practices devised to use fear as a tactic of control over the world. Yet, nearly two years into his presidency, things have gone awry. The Obama administration defended the act of holding a prisoner without a trial. Extraordinary rendition CONTINUES to this day. And Guantanimo Bay remains open, along with other prisons designed to hold anyone deemd an "enemy combatant".

You can be rest assured that we will NEVER really leave Iraq or Afghanistan. Obama has all but said those exact words. We will eventually end the war, but our troops will remain there indefinitely. Note the careful wording of the promise to leave Iraq. "Combat Troops" is the term used to describe the withdrawal. Combat troops may leave, but we will remain in some capacity until we are forced out. That is the hallmark of Empire. Empire goes where it pleases, takes what it wants, and lets you know when you can have your space back, if you can have your space back.

When you look at the greater picture, you realize that people don't hate us for our "freedom", rather, they don't hate us at all. They hate the American Empire, oppressive and agressive as any in history. Built not on military conquest of the world, but slowly, over time, moving in and never moving out. With over a quarter million troops abroad excluding Iraq, we have the forces to do serious damage in a very short period of time to who ever doesn't do what we want. And there is no one to stop us. The UN showed that when they said no to Iraq, and we did it any way. Because we are bigger and greater than the UN. We are the only nation whose strength GREW because we refused to pay UN dues after Iraq! We pay so much into the UN that our refusal to pay dues nearly forces their hand. Only an Empire could control a world body in such a fashion.

History is a great teacher. It tells us that all Empires fall eventually. Only the people in full force, can slow, stop, and reel in the expansion of Empire. And this is where the problem lies. The people are kept busy and occupied with partisan nonsense. The people are kept busy defending or attacking the opposite party constantly. They use key words to get people riled up. Socialist, fascist, nazi, obstructionists, patriots, unpatriotic, anti-change, pro-oil, pro-big business and numerous other key words designed in their usage to get people angry and upset at the opposing party. This has the effect of turning the eye from the reality at hand.

And just what is the reality at hand? The reality of todays world is the escalation of Empire. The Endless War. Endless war is the process this Empire has worked for, for decades, and we now see the culmination of that process. We saw it starting in Vietnam. We saw attempts to give reason to stay at war with Reagan and his dealings with Iran and the USSR. George H. W. Bush saw the down fall of the USSR creating a vacuum. He immediately turn towards another boogie man, another country to invade, Iraq. But that ended very quickly. We did, however, manage to keep troops in the region to secure our "national interests".

Clinton managed to put us in several more countries we didn't have forces in at the time in the name of stopping genocide. Genocide happening in a very strategic place, happening right where a major natural gas pipeline was being constructed. Of course, with no resources of need and no strategic advantage, Rowanda was left for dead as millions were slaughtered in a racial cleansing genocide while the US and the world looked on and did nothing.

George W. Bush, exercising a principle echoed by the current Administration of never letting a good disaster go to waste, used 9/11 to send troops to Afghanistan. Afghanistan, we are told, refused to hand over Bin Laden. Okay. So why then is Bin Laden still not caught after all this time? Why then was the mission, from the beginning, to unseat the taliban and "rebuild" the nation?

Since Iran has been rather lippy, they had to be dealt with. The best way to do that was strategically place yourself, something the first Bush failed to do. So we created a reason to attack a country that never had the ability to strike us. Not even close. We were lied too. But the damage had been done, and the fact that we were lied too, had not impact on their ultimate goal, even if we knew about it. Yet, the genocide in Darfur went unchallenged as millions died in a religious holocaust that rivals any in history.

But Obama had the chance to start fresh, and end both wars. But the result came as a surprise, even to me. Afghanistan was escalated. Iraq still holds problems. And we aren't going any where. And Darfur? Nearly forgotten in the minds of the people as the media failed to cover it as more than just a side show. We are kept busy worrying about other things. Healthcare, the environment, taxes, and terrorism. Fear is used as a weapon. Fear of terrorism, fear of being over taxed, fear of being called unpatriotic. And we are the conduit that allows this power to flow.

All of this works to keep us unaware the worst danger to this world is the machine that keeps us afraid. And as terms that are all but obsolete in the modern word keep being thrown at the left, like socialism, the majority of the left are kept defending against this absurd claim, while the majority of democrats are sold out to the companies that profit most from endless war. And while the Tea Party crows about taxes and freedoms, they ignorantly work towards allowing corporations more power in the government and over them. Corporations who benefit financially from this endless war.

As time marches on and the people kept distracted, the Empire Grows. While people are worrying about republicans and democrats, people are being taken to secret prisons, tortured, held without charge and without evidence indefinitely, and our children are being sent to die on foreign soil for a purpose that has no connection to our freedom. To die in the name of freedom when freedom is not being defended, is an insult to our soldiers. But don't say that out loud. The Empire will hear you, and deem you unpatriotic. And we can't have that. Can we?

I'm losing faith in this country: Part 1 - Immigration Rant

2010-05-26T16:40:00.001-04:00

Immigration seems like it should be an easy situation to fix. First things first, secure the border. Now, every other country in the world does this with their military. We have a national guard being sent over sees to fight a war of discretion. Bring them home and put them on the border. Next, create and implement a simple straight forward way of becoming a citizen or getting the status to work in this country. Do away with the mountain of bureaucratic trash that they have to go through now. If the object is to monitor who comes in, and to have them pay equal taxes (individually and on a business level) then why make it so difficult? Is it really necessary to make the process go on for years at a time? You are practically encouraging people to cross illegally!
Many people like to argue that we don’t need immigration reform, or parts of it. We don’t need a new process path towards citizenship. We don’t need to secure the border. Fact is there are some very good reasons to do both. We can start with human rights. Many of the people who come up here are brought by Coyotes. These are ruthless vile people who abuse people, take advantage of them, manipulate them, and often times enslave them for periods of time. They hold people for ransom for greater sums of money often. People should not be treated like cattle, smuggled across the border and held till their family can pay for their release. Human trafficking is a human rights issue. Soldiers at the border will help address this.
One thing few people realize is that these paths traveled by illegal’s are very often littered with trash and debris. There are paths that go through private property and national parks alike, that are as trashed as you can possibly imagine. Yes they exist, just google for them. Snopes has verified that this is not a myth. The pictures of the damage and trash I have seen are horrific. How can we allow our own homeland to be treated like a garbage dump by someone from another country? Why on earth would we allow this to continue? If you are going to come to this country, the least you can do is respect it!
Drug violence may be a relatively new aspect brought into this debate, but a prevalent and convincing one. Why should our people have to fear violence from Mexican drug cartels? They shouldn’t. A good healthy dose of National Guard should effectively reduce this problem. Further, it would make Americans living near the border feel safe. And they should. Its our country, not theirs. I applaud Mexico for going after the drug Cartels. But there is no reason it should be allowed to spill onto our soil. We have our own problems with drugs and gangs to deal with.
Now, once in, people have a basic right here to have a minimum wage for their job. We have a right to Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, proper working conditions, proper treatment by our bosses, and kids cannot be made to work. Yet, these are not rights afforded to illegal’s working here. And its not fair to them to have to work that way. Its not right for the employers that participate in such actions to get away with it either. Yet they do. No, not all go through this, but enough of them to make it a problem worth solving.
Yet, every time this issue comes up, the same partisan bullshit gets spewed. Republicans would like you to believe that democrats are trying to let illegal’s flood in to this country unchecked, that they don’t care about border security, that “path to citizenship” is a code word for amnesty. Democrats would have you believe that all republicans are bigots who don’t want anyone to become a citizen, they just don’t want “those brown people” in their country! Neither view is correct! Both views are based on the kind of ridiculous bias that has plagued this issue for years. And it shows no sign of stopping.
President Obama finally sent troops down to the border. 1200 National Guard troops to the border, after republican calls to secure the border. What was the first thing that happened? Complaints by the republicans that Obama isn’t sending enough troops. By whose measure? You finally get what you have been asking for, and the first thing you do is use it as a political tool to score points? Come on! This is not what you were elected to do! John McCain should have applauded the effort, not laud it! We all know this will go on and on, with Democrats watering down legislation in return for more cat calling nonsense from the republicans. When a republican president gets back in office, we can expect every immigration reform bill to be met with calls of xenophobia and bigotry by the right, from the democrats.
Time and time again we see this nonsense play out. And it never gets better, it just gets worse. I am losing faith in this countries government, and its ability to get done what needs to be done. I am losing faith in this countries people for their inability to discern truth and reality, and their constant biting onto the bait by the right and the left. I’m losing faith. Its like a bleeding ulcer that I can’t stop. A myriad of reasons increase this wound. A myriad of reasons increase the blood lose. A myriad of reason why I am losing faith in this country. This is only one.

The Road to American Solvency - The Next 50 Years

2010-05-12T09:06:00.001-04:00

This country has a problem. It is a problem that exists in the rest of the world as well, but one that will get noticeably worse if we don't make changes. That problem is debt. Current debt in this country is around 87% -96% of GDP, depending on who you ask. Thats pretty large. Granted, there are larger debt to gdp ratio's out there. Hungary's debt is 121% of gdp. And if you take the top 20, it only gets bigger.

US - 96%
HUngary - 121%
Australia - 124%
Italy - 147%
Greece - 170%
Germany - 182%
Spain - 186%
Norway - 202%
Finland - 220%
Hong Kong - 223%
Portugal - 235%
France - 248%
Austria - 256%
Sweden - 264%
Denmark - 316%
Belgium - 328%
Netherlands - 376%
Switzerland - 382%
UK - 425%
Ireland - 1312%

And that is at the end of 2009.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/30308959/The_World_s_Biggest_Debtor_Nations?slide=1

Now, a crowning jewel in the rhetoric merry go round of the tea party is to talk about passing debt on to our children. Well lets not be crass, we are already going to pass on massive debt to our children. And lets not be ideologically ignorant either. Most tea partiers supported Bush for eight years while he passed unfunded medicare programs, prosecuted two wars based on lies, all while cutting taxes twice. If you supported an idiot who decided to increase spending while reducing income, you can't suddenly say you are tired of big government spending. At least not if you want to be taken seriously.

So here are the common sense ways to cut and eliminate this debt. And make no mistake, these aren't really that debatable. Not if you are serious about cutting debt and deficits.

1. Medicare and medicaid spending must be cut. Now, there are great ways to do this. But first we must acknowledge that this nonsense of the party out of power claiming that the other party will cut your benefits is only designed to scare you, and is used as a political tool. When the republicans said that the democrats medicare waste reduction amendment was designed to cut grannies benefits, and lots of seniors believed them, we must admit that this was stupid on our part. There are lots of ways to cut spending without cutting benefits. To say it is cutting benefits unilaterally is deceitful and should be called out by the party who does it.
A. Allow bidding for medicare prescriptions and allow imports from canada that are fda approved and scanned. Yes we can, and yes we should.
B. If your net worth is measured in multiples of millions, you don't get it. I'm not paying for some rich man or woman to get free health care when
he/she can fund their own clinic.
C. Like Reagan and Clinton, the medicare/SS taxes must be increased.
D. Actually investigate and crack down on medicare/medicaid fraud.

2. SS must be made solvent. You can do this by increasing SS taxes. And again, if you measure your worth in multiple millions, you don't get SS. And yes, you still have to pay into it. It isn't going to kill millionaires to continue to pay into a fund for the poor and elderly.

3. Bring home the troops. All of them. It is much cheaper to house troops here, that abroad. Couple in the fact that there are hundreds of bases we would no longer have to maintain. Then, you can solve the illegal immigration problem by putting them on the border. Not interested in arguments for immigration reform here. Make a path to citizenship, what ever. But stop the violence at the border the way all other countries do. With your own troops.

4. Once you bring the troops home, you can drastically cut the military budget. Without spending money on housing troops abroad, you can effectively reduce the budget without having to cut any other areas of defense.

5. Taxes must be raised. Don't like it? Sorry. You can't complain about passing on a debt when you aren't willing to pay for it yourself. So either shut it or own up. If you don't want your kids to own it, then guess who has to pay for it? Thats right, you. So, there are several ways of doing this. One is to have the rich pay more. After all, they have benefited more than the rest of the country, from the system we live in. Why must people continue to insist that we lower taxes even more? Federal taxes are very low compared to history. Eisenhower had the top tax bracket at 90%. For goodness sake open your eyes and stop calling taxes socialism!

These five things would lower spending on the top expenses in our budget, and increase revenue. Like anyone who runs a budget, this seems like an obvious answer. Reduce spending, increase revenue. Why is this difficult?

Now, some will say this can't be done in a recession. And I agree, you cannot raise taxes in a recession. However, we can stop the military spending and reduce the waste in medicaid and medicare right? That would take a big chunk out of the yearly budget!

Its time to put up or shut up America. Either suck it up and do what is needed, or stop crying about passing on debt to our children.

The Party of Small Government?

2010-04-20T08:42:00.000-04:00

The Party of Small Government?

One of the huge "selling points" from the right is that the republican party is the party of small government. I always considered this a rather crass argument. After all, they don't seem to act like the party of small government when they are in power. Come to think of it, they don't act like the party of small government when they aren't in power. They like to say they are, but a brief look at what they do and what they stand for shows they clearly aren't. Lets first look at what they have done in the recent past to see if they stand for small government.

Recent accomplishments:
1. Patriot Act which allows domestic spying on US citizens
2. War on Iraq without Iraq attacking us
3. Expansion of government power via creation of Homeland security
4. Expansion of presidential powers via President refusing to allow documentation in a court case because he says so.
5. Expansion of presidential powers to authorize any actions at all in the name of homeland security, even on US soil
6. Unfunded Medicare Part D plan
7. Holding people out charge or trial
8. Torturing people then admitting it despite the US's Geneva convention treaty

These are the actions of a party that is for small government. These are the actions of a party trying to expand their power.

But perhaps what they stand for is small government and extenuating circumstances changed the status quo. Like 9/11. Surely in their hearts they are for small government, right?

So what is on their plattform? Small government actions right?

GOP Plattform:
1. Banning Gay Marriage
2. Banning abortion
3. Banning certain things from TV
4. Banning internet gambling
5. Restrictions on internet content
6. Continued ban on drugs
7. Requiring schools to allow prayer for all school
8. Banning flag burning
9. Using technology to monitor former felons for the rest of their lives

What kind of small government mentality believes in this mass government intervention into peoples lives? The kind of party that does this is the kind of party that believes you are too stupid to notice it, and will lie through their teeth. Words have meaning. You can't just say stuff and do something completely different. The reality is that they are for government intervention in areas they approve of doing it, and against it in things they are against. Oddly enough, they are all for government intervention into your personal life when it comes to moral choices, but against intervention when it comes to providing health care and help for the poor and help for retiring seniors. See the problem here? When you need help, they say no. When you want to live your personal life as you choose, they say no. Small government isn't just small when its convenient.

The odd thing is that they have convinced millions of people that they are the small government party. Never mind the fact that they, when in full control, doubled the debt to have unfunded tax cuts, unfunded medicare part D projects that suck, and two wars at one time. What kind of bullshit is that? Not small government by my last check. Yet millions in this country mindlessly chant the cause of small government and check their ballot for republicans.

Here is the reality. Here is the way things should be. When you need help, the government should help you out. We the people are the government, so we the people should help people in need. We should ensure the education, health, and retirement of our people, as a society, which will make the over all experience of living, better for everyone. When it comes to personal life, people should be free to live as they choose. It is not your decision on who someone can marry. If they are of age, the government should have no say in it. It is not your decisions or the governments, whether a woman gets a medical procedure or not. It is not your decision or the governments whether you can take drugs or not. It is not your decision or the governments whether or not you can gamble online. Within reason, and the law, it is not yours or the governments place to decide what I can look at on the internet or TV.

THAT is productive helpful government. A government that only intervenes to help and do good. A government that leaves life choices to the person living the life. THAT is what government should be. And that is as close to small government as you can get. And the only party that comes close to that is the democratic party.

GOP's New Contract with America

2010-03-15T10:45:00.002-04:00

It is the modern "Contract with America", A Road Map to America's Future.

This atrocity is written up by Republican Senator Paul Ryan. And yes, it is horrible for most of America. Here is his website for the bill.

http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/

This bill would single handedly wipe out years of progressive tax reform and devastate most of America.

The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has this to say:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3114&emailView=1

• The higher one goes up the income scale, the more massive the tax cuts would be. Households with incomes of more than $1 million would receive an average annual tax cut of $502,000.

• The richest one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans — those whose incomes exceed $2.9 million a year — would receive an average tax cut of $1.7 million a year. These tax cuts would be on top of those that high-income households would get from making the Bush tax cuts, which are due to expire at the end of 2010, permanent. ...

• The plan would shift tax burdens so substantially from the wealthy to the middle class that people with incomes over $1 million would face much lower effective tax rates than middle-income families would. That is, they would pay much smaller percentages of their income in federal taxes.

The Tax Policy Center claims:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=2683

Anybody making less than $20,000 a year would get a break of about $100-$300 on their income taxes. Anybody making $20,000 to $200,000 would get taxed more than now. Anybody making $200,000 to $1,000,000 would rake in the dough. Above a million dollars, the average benefit would come in over half-a-million a year .

And the third major tax watch dog group Citizens for Tax Justice have this to say:

It’s difficult to design a tax plan that will lose $2 trillion over a decade even while requiring 90 percent of taxpayers to pay more. But Congressman Paul Ryan has met that daunting challenge. This analysis makes obvious that Congressman Ryan’s budget plan has nothing to do with balancing the budget, but has everything to do with creating a system that takes more from the poor and less from the rich.

The whole article from them is here:
http://ctj.org/pdf/ryanplan2010.pdf

Thats right ladies and gentle men. The conservative wing of the GOP has come up with a bill to tax the middle class into extinction and give it all to the wealthy, all the while adding 2 Trillion dollars to the deficit! AWESOME!

The problem with conservatives is that they aren't. Period. And the ones that are, don't know good policy when it hitting them in the ass.

There is Something Very Wrong with this Country

2010-03-05T08:13:00.003-05:00

This is a subject that I have been meaning to write about again for sometime. You can call it a rant if you like. Because a rant is exactly what I would call it. The longer I think about it, the more things I can think of to add to it. This rant gets longer every time I ponder it. I can more and more angry until I just want to explode! Which of course leads to an angry rant, which is rarely composed well. So I have to sit back and calm down a bit. And by then, I don't feel like writing it. I'm in a rare place this morning. Placid, calm, and clear headed, while thinking about what is wrong with this country. I have written about it before, so some of this will be redundant. But the good thing about having your own blog is that you can write about what ever you want, when you want. So here goes!

There is something very wrong with this country. And it is unique in many aspects to this country. To a far less degree, there is something wrong with the UK and Australia I imagine, but mostly, the United States has something dearly wrong with it. We have become a people who no longer value education. Let me elaborate. The founding of this country saw people like Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and James Madison come to prominence. These were thinkers, people of great intellect who were able to see things as they really were, then. Thomas Paine was one of the great enlightenment intellectuals, as was Thomas Jefferson. Benjamin Franklin was an astute politician AND inventor, and James Madison was one of the finest political and legal minds in this countries history. And they were valued for their intelligence.

Through the years, we have seen great thinkers who were able to come up with practical solutions to difficult problems. From John Jay, who wrote many Federalist Papers and became the first Supreme Court Chief Justice, to John Marshall who helped define the way the Supreme Court Works, our Supreme Court has had a myriad of brilliant legal minds. From Thomas Jefferson, who ended the Sedition Act, to Franklin D. Roosevelt who had the courage to do what had never been done in this country, securing us financially for nearly 6 decades before his regulations were largely removed in the late 90's and early 2000's, our Presidents have been intelligent and courageous. Many a Senator and Representative have stood in the halls of congress and stood up for what they believed in and what was best for the country. From John Quincy Adams who served even after he was president, to Ron Paul, we have had a plethora of good congressmen who had the courage to speak up and say the truth. Agree or disagree with Ron Paul, he understands, truly, the effect of spreading our military around the world has on our economy, security, and national perception. And finally, the people, who have chosen these leaders, have in large part made wise decisions through out the year. The extremists and anti-intellectuals have not one in large part. Until now.

We have a problem in this country. A raging sweeping torrent of ignorance and anti-intellectualism is dragging us down to the depths. It is frightening to know and understand that Fox News is the largest cable news network in this country. In large part, its watchers have exchanged learning and knowledge, for the opinion of Shawn Hannity and Glenn Beck. On nearly every issue, the opinion of a few crackpots and a news opinion show have garnered more support than scientists and experts in various areas. From Global Warming and evolution, to separation of church and state and corruption, the view of others has become the fact. The entire evening is completely monopolized by opinion shows. Whether its Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann, the entire cable news evening is dominated by opinionated individuals.

It would be one thing if people did their fact checking. I enjoy Keith Olbermann allot, but when ever he says something that is outrageous, my wife and I break out the laptop to find out if its true. Unfortunately, this is not the case with most Americans. Nothing is more disheartening to me than to watch Hannity or Beck with my parents and watch them get angry and upset over things Hannity and Beck say without backing anything up. They simply accept it to be true. My wife is known for asking "I wonder if thats true" when Olbermann makes a new claim. But not most Hannity and Beck watchers. They accept their largely unsupported claims as fact.

Online, many of these same viewers enjoy believing they are fact checking by visiting World Net Daily and Newsmax. Unfortunately both of these sites have gotten in trouble for simply making things up to back up their claims! The main source of information for World Net Daily's Obama birth certificate story was a blog in which the person later said it was always intended to be a joke! Newsmax has been sued twice and lost for printing lies and false stories. Yet they remain a bastion of conservative respect!

I once did not believe in Evolution. However, I have been studying the actual evidence for evolution for over five years now. I had no clue the vast amount of evidence for evolution. I will go so far as to say that evolution can be proven fact is not a single fossil was ever found. The evidence is strong enough that you could throw out fossil evidence completely and still prove it easily! Yet, how many people believe in their hearts that there is no evidence for evolution? MILLIONS! Whats worse, almost all of them have steadfastly refused to even look at the evidence for evolution. Someone tells them its not true, so they believe it. The worst claims are that if they saw evolution happening in front of them, they would believe it. The problem is, if they looked at the evidence, there are many proven cases of seen and observed evolution NOW! It CAN be seen in real life happening! Yet, they refused to study before having an opinion!

Global Warming is another. There are only a few classes of scientists that actually study climate change and the environment. These scientists are nearly 100% in agreement that global warming is happening and is caused by humans. The evidence is enormous for this. Yet most people are content to sit back and believe someones opinion, or a scientist who doesn't work in this field, and believe its not happening or isn't our fault. Some even go so far as to believe its a hoax! Considering who benefits and who doesn't, that claim doesn't even make logical sense! Further, the evidence for global warming is right in front of our eyes and easily accessible to people to go read it. Yet, people simply refuse to go study the evidence. They CHOOSE to remain ignorant on the issue!

There are some who believe this country was founded to be a christian nation. Never mind the fact that the writer of the Declaration of Independence was a Deist, that the writer of the Constitution also wrote the Separation of Church and state laws in Virginia, and never mind that our first president is quoted saying that he carries a bible to stop people from questioning him but that he detests christianity, they believe it must be a christian nation! Deliberate and calculated ignorance for their own personal gain!

Today, one of the big problems in politics is that we have people who agree with tons of views, yet vote against those views constantly. The people vote in favor of the corporations and against their own best interests repeatedly. Further, the politicians blatantly campaign for their highest bidder lobbyist in everything from health care reform to bank bailouts, but people still believe them! When Mitch McConnell gets up and tells us that Health Care reform is bad for America, shouldn't hte people be asking why he is saying that and why he is getting out there to oppose it, and ask if it could be because he is the second or third largest recipient of health insurance lobby money? Yet, many people trust him and others of his party to tell the truth about health care reform! They have money at stake to see this fail!!!

But the nasty underside of this is that the people who know and understand and study and follow the evidence are being demonized in this country. If you believe in anything that is inconvenient to someones world you are labeled as someone trying to push an agenda, or trying to destroy america, or destroy families, or destroy faith yadda yadda yadda!

Unfortunately, the group of people MOST responsible for this type of behavior currently are conservatives and the christian right wing. Conservative christians being the worst. They seem to fight with all their heart and soul against anything intellectual. Evolution and global warming are fact. To deny so is to remain deliberately ignorant. When I got home yesterday, one of my family members was on the phone arguing about evolution. "I have never seen any evidence to make me believe evolution is true". Well lucky I walked in. I piped right up. "What was the last book or article or paper you read on evolution and about evidence for evolution". The answer? Crickets. None. Nadda. She had made up her mind that evolution was false, and convinced her self of her own correctness to the point of actually arguing against it without ever picking up a single book discussing the evidence for it. She had read plenty of apologetics against evolution, because that backed up her own ignorant views of science. She pulled out the "its only a theory" nonsense, so I asked her to define a scientific theory and how it is used in science and regarded in science. She didn't know. How can you make a claim about what something IS if you don't know what that think really IS? So I began to enlighten her until she cut me off. "Don't start with all the intellectual garbage". Intellectual garbage.

I was discussing global warming on a forum recently and came to the odd conclusion that some people just don't want to know the truth. At one point I listed the top three or four research sites in the world that had websites. People whose entire life is studying the environment. The answer? A site with a physics scientists signing a petition against global warming. Another site with another scientist not in the field of climatology or the environment stating it was a hoax. Not a single scientist that studies the environment listed among them. Whats worse, none of my sites were even ocmmented on, and the person just continued to believe the nonsense they wanted to believe. It was deliberately choosing to remain ignorant.

On another forum I used to frequent, I went round and round with one person about this being a christian nation. Their favorite tactic was to take a smidgen of a quote to back up their claim. It is unfortunate for them that every quote was completely out of context once I gave the rest of the letter or statement being given. I completely destroyed every claim made! Easily! Yet, they choose to remain willfully ignorant despite the evidence. Call me one of "those intellectual idiots". Intellectual idiots.

And here we come to the problem this country has. This country, by en large, simply ignores or demonizes that which challenges its world view. Whether it is the completely misguided and false view that we have the best health care policy in the world, or that evolution is a fact. Most people demonize the intelligencia and praise the fools who believe despite the evidence. It has become something of a national past time for people to ridicule the really smart people in favor of the now "useful idiots" who give their opinions on tv. This countries problem is that it no longer values intelligence. It values loyalty above all. Remain loyal, keep the faith, don't let your mind be changed.

This mindset comes directly from the countries main religion, christianity. Religion, as can be shown over and over, is a poison to a society, and the poison is reaching critical mass in the united states. From useful idiots hold socialism signs who can't define socialism properly, to people arguing in favor of Walmart over their own best interest, this country is suffering from a rash of anti-intellectualism that has not been seen before. When you can't win with the facts, kill the messenger. Don't like what someone is saying? Demonize them as unamerican, unpatriotic, or hating god and religion. Its much easier to do that then address the fact that what you believe is factually inaccurate. Its much easier to NOT read any information and keep your opinion that you know is approved by your group of fools, than to challenge the status quo.

This country has a problem. And that problem is stupidity and the vilification of intelligence.

A Former Christians View on Christians Today

2010-03-01T08:24:00.002-05:00

I have neighbors, as most of us do. And my neighbors happen to be very strict and literalist fundamentalist Christians. We have had issues with them, but not for the reasons you might think. We had an issue some time back with their pet cat causing damage to our property and peeing under our house. So, after many attempts to get them to keep the cat inside, we called the neighborhood property manager. And this is where it gets ugly. From that time on, they have shown their true colors, well at least all but the Husband has. See, the wife lied to him about what the property manager said so that they had to get rid of the cat. See, she didn't like the cat and she also holds personal grudges. This is where it gets good.

From that point, the war has been waged, on their end, against our kids, through their kids. Spitting on our kids, name calling and insults, throwing ice balls at them, telling them they are going to hell, are all things my kids have gone through. I tried to talk to the dad after hearing some of it myself, but his kids lied and he believes them and thinks I'm just a lying atheist. Typical oblivious moron.

This is not the only time when a small issue has turned into a big issue with christians. It seems they like to find a small reason to justify their hatred of me and my family and have no problems using my kids to get to me. The hatred christians have for me is stunning in its openness. Their ability and desire to lie to continue their hatred is appalling. But the idea of allowing that hatred and anger to be directed at children, all under the age of ten, is unfathomable. Its heart wrenching and makes me want to harm them for their actions. However, unlike them, I have morals and standards and ethics that guide my life.

Now, spare me the ridiculous claims that "not all christians are like that". Yes yes I know they aren't all like that. But the problem is, given the right situation where no other christians will know about it, christians in general seem to show this startlingly similar behavior pattern. A friend of my mothers thought I was my dad, who is a christian, and sent me an email about how atheists are trying to ruin america and asked me to donate to this organization to fight atheists and their attempts to tear down america. I informed her that this was his son. She knows I'm an atheist. So her email back was an apology saying she knows that I'm not trying to tear down america, that this is just about those few that are.

BULLSHIT! Two faced lying christian sack of shit! You can't even be bothered to be honest with me about how you feel?

This type of lying behavior is not just common, it is endemic. When christians don't believe anyone is watching them or see's them, they are worse than the worst liar you can find. Is it everyone? No, duh, obviously not. But, I would say from my experience, that there is a good amount that are. And because my parents are christians, and my wife can back this up, I try and give christians the benefit of the doubt. Try to come up with a good reason for their behavior. Yet it always returns to lies to justify their seething hatred of those who don't believe like them. Like the gay movement of "hate the sin, love the sinner", the actions speak louder than words. In their mind, behind the lies and quips they use to build themselves up, the reality is this. "Hate the sin, hate the sinner". And their actions betray this.

If there is a god, and the bible is true, I would bet my very soul that less than 1% of professed christians would actually go to heaven. Perhaps less of the so called fundamentalist christians, as they are more self righteous and more prone to lying and hate speak towards those unlike them.

Whats worse, its is detrimental to their cause. You know what? My oldest son nearly hates christians. Why? Because every christian child who has found out he comes from a free thinking family turns on him and is mean and cruel to him. Nine years old and he has learned what christians are like when you aren't like them. How can teach him religious tolerance when his foundation is one of cruelty and hatred from this religion? Yesterday we had a little knowledge session in which I was teaching him about the good things that different religions bring to the table of humanity. When we got to christianity, he object to my suggestion that Jesus taught some good moral values. He said this "I see what the bible says, but christians don't act like that. So if they believe in Jesus, then Jesus must have been mean". Good boy, you see the contradiction at such a young age. Shame on christians for forcing my child to understand the cruelty of religion at such a young age. And fuck you for the heart break you have brought upon my children.

But unlike you, I don't wish you ill. I don't hope there is a hell that you will go to. Unlike you, I believe in true goodness and kindness for the sake of making humanity a better species and this planet a better place to live. Unlike you I have true morals and ethics developed from society and life experience that speaks to a better life that I can see and feel myself by following them.

If Jesus really existed and really was moral, then christians are a disgrace to his memory. A disgustingly dark mirror image of how ugly humanity can be. Christianity as a whole, has become a stain on this earth. Are all christians like this? No, of course not. But I would wager a fair amount that when no one is around, or they think they can get away with it, their Alter Ego fades and what lies beneath is truly ugly.

Republicans and Conservatives: Out of their minds and losing control

2010-02-03T15:51:00.000-05:00

Okay, by now I have railed on this for several days and you might be getting tired of it.....if you are a conservative or a republican. For those of us liberals, thats not the case. We don't tire of making them own up to the reality they tried to push on us. Three issues have caught my attention today. One is one I already pointed out but haVe new details on. Another was one that I missed the last few years. I'll start with that.

John McCain. Republican moderate for President. Are you sad that he didn't get in? Sad that such a man of integrity didn't make office? Lets review a few things he has said about the military.

He has said that he will listen to the commanders on the ground. You know, the people who are actually in charge that deal with the troops. These people know best for our military.

http://www.america.gov/st/elections08-english/2008/September/20080905163810hmnietsua0.4309961.html

He has said that he would go with what the military says they need for advice on Gays in the military. But then changes his tune four years later (now) to saying they need to consult congress!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/02/mccain-the-day-military-l_n_446541.html

And again here, rely on the military people to make the decision, even though he believe DADT is working.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPLTNoUGPC4

So we have John McCain simply saying what ever is politically expedient depending on the atmosphere in his party.

Same with allowing gay marriage.

Discriminating is wrong, but not allowing gay marriage is the way to go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u2LSWF6d1M

But, maybe he wasn't sure?

Here is shows his flip flops all over the place. Legal? Yes and no. Civil unions? Yes and no.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeBw28tX5Nw

This is what the "conservative" wing of the republican party has fostered, insane flip flopping from the party that once called John Kerry a flip flopper. THey are out of their mind!

But no where is this more evidence than in the bill to create a budget deficit commission.

Bill was created and announced by Democrat Kent Conrad and Republican Judd Gregg. It was added on to the bill to increase the US debt ceiling, which by the way, passed. 17 Republican senators joined with democrats in a letter urging President Obama to sign this bill when it passed the Congress. Here is the letter and the people who signed it.

http://www.bignews.biz/?id=831381&pg=1&keys=Senator-Kent-Conrad-Fiscal

So what happened?

What happened is that the bill failed by 7 votes. And 7 republicans who endorsed the bill turned around and voted against it. Enough voted for it to say they were for the commission if need be in the future, but just enough voted against it so Obama couldn't get credit for a budget deficit commission.

http://www.whereistheoutrage.net/wordpress/2010/02/01/why-vote-against-your-own-bill/

It was a completely political move. Which brings us back to McCain and my final situation to bring up. Pay as you go economics. Paygo economics is the idea that you cannot introduce new spending without cutting something else so that it is deficit neutral. It was introduced by republicans and conservatives in 1990. It has been a staple of republicans fiscal policy when they are not in full control. They only want it when it can't happen. In reality, they aren't fiscal conservatives and have no intention of restricting their own spending in such a fashion. No time is this more evident by the recent rejection of a DEMOCRATIC pay as you go initiative by John McCain and several other republicans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/28/mccain-three-other-gopers_n_440745.html

In fact, the party that houses nearly all fiscal conservatives, voted 40-0 in the senate AGAINST pay as you go economics! They voted against the principle that you have to pay for programs you want!

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00012

Every damn one of them voted against it! Why? You know why! It was fiscal responsibility proposed by a democrat, and they can't have that! They cannot allow President Obama to get credit for a position they are desperately trying to lie their way onto the high ground!

Republicans have lost their mind and are out of control. Their partisan ship is so ridiculous at this point that they cannot be trusted to make sound judgements on anything. They simply vote based on whether or not Obama is for it or against it. They have gone from obstructionist to actually working against things beneficial to this country in order to hurt the democrats. This is what you voted for Massasschussetts! Idiocy and partisan actions that harm this country! Wake up America! Through out these punks who obstruct for the sake of obstructing! It is now literally causing harm!

Conservatives and Republicans have a problem with Sincerity

2010-02-01T11:14:00.002-05:00

Conservatives and Republicans in this country have a problem. No, I'm not talking about the obvious problem with reconciling the dichotomy that is the Conservative movement. I'm talking about sincerity. The GOP and the Conservative movement have a problem with sincerity in that they never seem sincere. Confused? Well, if you are a conservative or a republican, then your head is likely in the sand and you are very confused. But if you are a liberal or independent, then you are shaking your head in agreement.

Republicans continue to use phrases that get their base lit, yet they don't really mean it. Now, I know, you want specifics, and we will get to them soon, but just think about it for a moment. When you make statements about fiscal conservatism, shouldn't you expect them to act like it? Sure, you would. When you make comments about the deficit, then your actions should belay that deep concern, right?

But there is the problem. Lets start with recent history shall we? The President, a democrat if you have been paying attention, decide that the deficit is out of hand. And he is right. So he wanted to create a bi-partisan commission to decide what could and couldn't reasonably be cut. This sounds like a great idea and a great time to force the president to listen to their ideas. After all, they would have an automatic seat at the table! But did they? NO!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/26/senate-rejects-deficit-co_n_437113.html

The amendment would have created a group to come up with a combination of tax cuts and spending curbs to be passed by mid term elections. But the republicans all said no, as did a few blue dog democrats. But without fail, every single republican and conservative in the senate voted no. Okay, so thats the Senate. But surely conservatives everywhere were outraged that this did not get passed right? WRONG! There was almost no conservative response to it! Apparently, trying to curb deficit spending is not a big issue to the conservative movement unless it is the democrats NOT doing what they say!

But this continues from previous experience as the general norm! As we have seen in my previous post, they pretty much spend away no matter how many taxes get cut. In the past 30 years, they have the highest deficits of any president. They hold the record for deficits and deficit increases. Yet, they are content to sit by and just complain about the deficit!

One can only come to the conclusion that Republicans and Conservatives are only concerned with the deficit when Democrats are in power. Other wise, they would have been blowing off steam for the last 30 years, not just during democrat terms! Which leads us to the premise of this post. Republicans and conservatives are not sincere about cutting the deficit, or lowering the national debt. If they were, then they would have jumped right in with the President and his council and demanded a seat at the table. Instead they voted it down. See, when people are sincere, their actions show their sincerity. If it were reversed, then every media outlet would be screaming this about the democrats. But the democrats are at least sincere. They ran on health care, stimulus, and environment, and they are working on bills for all of them currently, whether republicans like it or not. Which shows that they are at least sincere, if not misguided by some peoples view.

The "Conservative" response to the health care bill? Same price, covered less, and gave bigger quirks to the health care industry. Sincere about health care? No. Sincere about giving breaks to big corporations? Absolutely. But did they say that to the American public? No. Just the opposite. Because the GOP and the conservative movement are not sincere about what they want to do. They just want power. Which leads me to my third point.

Every single government expansion of power into the lives of the individual in the last 30 years has been under Republican rule. The last and biggest one being the Patriot Act. A "Conservative" President with a Republican majority passed the most intrusive governmental power bill ever. And what did conservatives do? Nothing. Mr. and Mrs. Small Government did most of the justification to the country on why they needed the power to spy on US citizens. Why? Because "big government" is only a term they use to try and win votes against democrats. They aren't sincere about having a smaller government.

Conservative voters all over this country get ramped up when democrats are in power, but are silent as death when it is a republican in power. Where are these "tea party" favorites when republicans have power? MIA. Because even they aren't sincere in their views. They are sincere as far as wanting republicans and so called conservatives in office, but after that, they don't care. Which is why there where no cries for fiscal restraint for 8 years while Bush was in office. Thats why there were no cries for smaller government for 8 years while Bush was in office. And thats why there were no calls for lowering of spending until the Democrats took power. Because they have a problem. And that problem is sincerity. They lack it because they, as a whole, hate democrats and liberals more than they care about this country. Their actions belay their intent. Watch their actions to judge their intent, not their words.

These people are out lying again. They are out making up stuff and their constituents who believe themselves to be conservatives are eating it up. All they while they know they will never attempt to lower the deficit or the debt or government control, because they never have before. Everyone needs a talking point I suppose.

The Republican Conservative Dichotomy

2010-01-29T13:33:00.004-05:00

It has long been my joy to witness that pure dichotomy that is the Republican party and the Conservative movement. For those unfamiliar with the term, is refers to the splitting of a whole into two parts. In this case, I'm using it metaphorically in a mutually exclusive sense to refer to Republican Speech versus Republican actions. Two parts of the whole in which nothing can belong simultaneously to both parts. That is to say, their actions cannot match their words. In case you are wondering, this is not a good thing. Now, I'm sure this has not always been the case, but at least since Reagan, the Republicans and Conservatives have had a nasty problem combining the two parts of Conservative politics, what they say, and what they do. We should examine my claim critically, because it is revealing.

Fiscal Conservatism. This is one of my favorites because it has long been held that the Republican party and Conservatives in general are the ones that are fiscally conservative. But what is fiscal conservatism? Fiscal conservatism generally encompasses three major talking points. Lower government spending, decrease and eliminate deficit spending, and lower the national debt. Now, in keeping with that principle, we should see all three of these principles working over time in the last thirty years since we have had three republicans presidents and a republican majority for most of that time. They should have made changes that permanently decreased all three. So how did they do?

Not to well I'm afraid.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1982.html

See, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush all ran budget deficits the entire time they were in office. All three are Republicans who ran on and got elected on Conservative principles and values, including fiscal conservatism. Bill Clinton was a democrat and he managed to work from a deficit to a surplus. And before you say it, no, he didn't take from Social Security or anything else. How did he do it? Well, its easy really. Fiscal Conservatism, outside of the political realm, means making sound financial decisions. In other words, the way to reduce your deficit is to take in more than you spend. What these three Republican conservative presidents didn't understand, and what many conservatives don't understand still, is that you cannot lower taxes without increasing the deficit without drastic spending cuts. And they never made drastic spending cuts. So what did they have to spend money on that was so important that they needed to sacrifice the deficit of this nation? They clearly didn't decrease government spending. And, if you look at the history of the national debt as a percentage of the GDP (and thats really what matters) we can see that it went down every year after the Great Depression until Ronald Reagan. It then went up every year until the changes enacted by Bill Clinton, and then it started going down. When George W. Bush took office, it started going up again.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

So again we see that conservative Republicans are clearly NOT fiscally conservative in any sense of the word. They don't reduce spending, they have increased deficit spending more than democrats/liberals, and have increased the national debt more than democrats/liberals. So how is it that they can claim the title of the fiscally conservative party? It simply isn't true. They say one thing, but their actions are those of someone who spend more, illogically cuts taxes at the same time causing sky rocketing deficits, and politicians who increase the debt. So next time you vote, do yourself and everyone else justice and don't vote for a party that claims fiscal conservatism and responsibility when they clearly are not.

Capitalism. This one should be easy. Be all for free market and make only laws which protect that free market from becoming a corporatist fascist entity that runs the country. If you were a dyed in the wool capitalist, you would make laws and tax laws designed to better assist the small business owner and entrepreneur and NOT the big corporations. You would make laws and enforce laws that make sure that Corporations cannot run rough shod over small business and the American consumer by cornering markets and unethical business practices. So, how do they do?

Horribly I'm afraid. Never was this more evident when the Graham-Leach-Bliley act was passed in 2000. This act removed the restrictions that prevented investment banks and regular banks from intertwining. Why? Because if the stock market crashed, like during the great depression, the congress and the country didn't want it to be able to take down the entire financial system, like it did recently. Their foolishness nearly caused another great depression when the stock market crashed in 2008. Very little is more dangerous to capitalism than a full blown financial collapse. But this isn't the only one.

As any good, well informed, well read capitalist would know, monopoly is the enemy of capitalism. It is the enemy of competition! Adam Smith, author of "The Wealth of Nations" (founding principles of capitalism no less!) had this to say about monopolies.

Monopoly...is a great enemy to good management. The Wealth of Nations, Book 1 Chapter 11 Part 1

The monopolists, by keeping the market constantly under stocked, by never fully supplying the effectual demand, sell their commodities much above the natural price. The Wealth of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 6

So, what company does this remind us of? Well, lots of them. For starters, Wal-Mart. They buy products for pennies on the dollar overseas, under stock popular items then sell them for a thousand percent profit all the while still selling them less than everyone else based on where they buy them. They make so much money they can buy more at one time as well. It is market abuse and they are bad for market competition with their deliberate supply manipulation. But they aren't the only ones and they certainly aren't the Republicans or Conservatives fault. Even though they have been in power most of the last thirty years and could have done something about it, they cannot be directly blamed. But what about Health Care? Costs are out of control, and in most states, one company controls 80-90% of market in that state. This is a true monopoly. So why haven't they been taken to court and broken up? Well, its a long story that I will try to shorten. In 1945, the Supreme Court ruled that insurance was indeed commerce and could be regulated by the Federal Government. So the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 was passed give that power to the states, which almost never enforce monopoly laws due to the cost of such a battle. It effectively made the insurance companies regulation free unless there is a law written specifically towards them.

Well, it wasn't until recently that this became a problem. Health care insurance companies have become so big that they simply do what they want, including deny coverage after years of paid dues and coverage, or deny payment when its due, or announce that they will raise prices if certain laws are passed. So, being that this is anti-competitive you would think Republicans and Conservatives would be lining up to get this changed right? Well, no. They aren't. In fact, numerous times during the last 30 years, attempts to repeal this have been attempted by democrats, only to find that the Republicans majority simply ignores it and it never makes it out of committee. Or they filibuster its passage and the bill gets set aside. Even when there was a bi-partisan bill with Trent Lott and Patrick Leheay, it still couldn't pass the Republican majority congress. And now, currently, Patrick Leahey is again trying to get it repealed and what is the response? Silence. Nothing at all. And when asked about it, the only thing I ever hear is about not wanting to harm business. And that encompasses the total of their problem with capitalism. When all you care about is the Corporations, laws you make cannot make capitalism thrive. Capitalism requires a strong middle class and the reality that you can truly come from nothing to be rich. The Republicans and Conservatives are clearly not on the side of that little man trying to come up in the world. They constantly side with big Corporations. Even now, the SCOTUS rules in a fashion that the conservatives like, in the Citizens United case. It was a conservative "watch dog" group that was run by regular citizens but funded by massive corporations who put out the movie Hillary during a campaign season. Republicans have backed this group the entire way and still do. They are in essence backing the corporations ability to dump millions into campaigns. This is not capitalism, it is corporate fascism.

Family Values and small government. This one is a problem. Why? Because in supporting "family values" you are necessarily stating that you are the purveyor of all knowledge of what is a family value. This arrogance has led them to make some hideously poor choices and decisions. From blocking gay marriage (based on another conservative platform of religion) to violating their own views of small government by trying to stop a family member from pulling the plug on their own comatose wife! Republicans and conservatives have long held the ridiculous dichotomy of SAYING they want smaller government, while simultaneously advocating for government intervention into the every day morality of Americans. Gay marriage and abortion are two of the biggest, but not the only ones. Gays in the military, reducing the rights of children, these are things that clearly should not be on their agenda, but are. They want to tell you who can and can't get married. They want to tell you what medical procedure you can and can't have. They want to dictate who can die for this country based on sexuality. They want to make sure parents have maximum control over their children by shooting down child rights laws. They want all sex education to be abstinence only, with no disease education or real sex ed involved at all, and they fund it fully! All the while the conservatives and republicans of this movement are usually having affairs (like Newt Gingrich) or have gay sex with meth head, prostitutes in airports, and congressional pages (Teg Haggard and several senators). These are the keepers of family values? No!

American Exceptionalism. Well, this is less a dichotomy than a simple delusion. The idea that America is simply better than everyone else is just arrogant and ignorant. Any fool can look up the states and see we aren't even in the top ten in health care. We aren't the top ten in quality of life globally. And quality if life rankings for just the America's? Nope, not a single US city in the top five. In fact, for cities globally, the highest ranked US city in the world is Honolulu, at number 28. That’s pretty sad. We aren't the best country in the world. Our citizens aren't the happiest, the healthiest, live the highest quality, or enjoy their lives the most. The arrogance of conservatives and republicans has led to ignorance and a refusal to make changes to better American. It is, in fact, dragging us down every year they are in power, even for a moment!

I have simply picked a few key conservative republican platform generalities to show that what REAL conservative Americans vote for, is not happening in the republican party or the conservative movement. Now, I know the response to this already. Dems are the same way. Well, hold on there. Fiscal liberalism says you spend more encourage growth, then when growth occurs, you raise taxes to cover your deficit and recover the debt. Is that not what the democrat party has done and does? Isn't tax and spend what they are accused of? So yes, they do what they say financially. Dems have led the way and will finally lead the way to make insurance companies, and hopefully banks, accountable and keep them regulated. Good for capitalism, unlike what the conservatives do. Family values? Well, pushing for children’s rights, equal rights for all including gays, seems like a great value to have to me. And most do not feel that America is better than the world, but want to improve America via the entity that is best equipped to do that, the government.

So no, its not the same for dems. That dichotomy simply doesn't exist within the democrat party or liberal movement. It doesn't. Now, I'm willing to discuss anything, but if you come to the table with that weak argument, you better have some examples that back it up.

The simply truth is this. If you are really a fiscal conservative, you can't vote republican. In fact, you should be voting democrat. Why? Because democrats have lowered the debt and decreased and eliminated the deficit when republicans have only raised both. The democratic party is more fiscally conservative than the conservative party. If you want a party that consistently says one thing but its actions clearly do something different, all the while being told that this is conservatism, then vote for the republicans. Go ahead. We all know that what conservatives and republicans really want is to just keep believing they are right, despite the evidence.

Taxes are Bullshit!

2009-11-23T09:47:00.001-05:00

Taxes are Bullshit!

Don't get me wrong, I understand taxes are necessary. In fact, I believe current income taxes should be a bit higher for people like myself and those who make more money. But it isn't federal income taxes that are bullshit, though there is a good argument against them as well. Despite the insane rantings of Teabaggers who some how believe their federal taxes, which are lower than they were during Reagan and Bush W, are some how to high, it isn't federal taxes that we need reprieve from. Its every thing else, all the other little taxes that conspire to fuck us over.

I get taxed when I buy a car. I get taxed every year on that same car. And I lose it if I don't. In other words, I pay to buy, own, and keep a car. If I don't, I don't get one. That tax restricts my freedom. I pay for the privilege of buying stuff. I pay for the privilege of buying food. I pay for the privilege of winning a drawing, contest, or lottery. I pay if I win in gambling. I pay taxes to buy gas. I pay taxes to use electricity, natural gas, phone service, cable services, cell phone services, internet services. In fact, there isn't a single thing in my house that I didn't either pay taxes to buy, pay taxes to use, or pay taxes to continue to own. It is complete bullshit.

Yet, most of these taxes are state, city, and county taxes, not federal taxes. All these damn taxes and for what? Every year, some tax goes up. Yet every year, in all three states I have lived in, they complain of not having enough money. Now, I haven't the time or desire to study the economies of these states, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say there is a good amount of crap that the states are spending money on that doesn't have to do with education, keeping up the infrastructure, or helping those falling on hard times. Why aren't people up in arms about the taxes levied by the states? Nearly all the taxes I pay are paid at the state, local, and county leve, not at the federal level. Whats worse, while I end up paying all these other taxes to the state/local/county, I still get state/local/county taxes taken out of my pay checks. Which means I'm getting doubled taxed. My money is taxed on four levels (fed, state, local, county)and yet, the last three of those levels continue to tax me on everything else I buy and own, which I have no choice but to pay for with money that has already been taxed by them. In fact, if you consider car purchase, you get double, triple, and quadruple wammied on taxes! Paycheck pays state and local and county taxes, then I pay state taxes on the purchase, then I pay county taxes on the property tax every year and the licensing taxes. Taxes upon taxes upon taxes, and Indiana happens to have very low taxes compared to other states!

Yet, the stupid teabaggers STILL protest FEDERAL taxes! Either these people are stupid or they are ignorant! Either way, you should consider knowing what you are talking about before you protest it. Why aren't we demanding less spending on the state level? Why aren't we demanding less taxes at the state level? I will tell you why. Because federal taxes are an easy target. You can easily see how many taxes you pay on your federal taxes. Now, there are more taxes than your income tax that goes federal. However, having tracked this for several months now, I can see that most of my money in taxes doesn't go to the federal government, it goes to everyone else in between. And that is why taxes are bullshit!

The Bible - What's in a story?

2009-11-13T10:21:00.002-05:00

Today I was reading the Book of Matthew, and an interesting revelation was revealed to me from the education in High School English. I don't want to give it away so I'll just give some examples FIRST before explaining the point I'm getting at.

Legend tells us that Matthew was written by the disciple called Matthew. So lets see how his version of Jesus life unfolds.

Matthew 1
Joseph's dream about Jesus are quoted word for word.
Matthew 2
Prophecies told to herod by magi word for word.
Another dream of Joseph word for word.
Matthew 3
Words of John the Baptist word for word
Matthew 4
Jesus led into desert alone, conversation word for word with devil.
Words of jesus preaching and calling of first disciples.
Matthew 5-9
Continues to quote entire speeches word for word, specific events in different downs, even quotes others responses.
Matthew 9
Matthew finally called. Not traveling with him, but sitting at tax collector booth.
Matthew 17
Quotes word for word event in which only Peter, James, and John were with Jesus.
Matthew 26
Judas and the priests quoted word for word.
Jesus in Gethsemane, Jesus goes away with Peter James john, but they fall asleep, but Jesus prayer gets quoted word for word.
Jesus speaks with Sanhedrin and quoted word for word.
Matthew 27
Judas conversation with priests and priests words amongst themselves.
Jesus comments with Pilot quoted word for word.
Pilots discussion with priests after crucifixion.

Now, I sited some very specific examples that all have something in common. Have you already figured it out? Thats right, all these stories are told in the third person. But not just in the third person, an all knowing all seeing third person. In English and Literature this is called "narrative mode". That is when you tell the story as an omniscient call knowing narrator of a story. It is used to convey the plot to an audience. In narrative mode, the author can move the story along and fill in every point and close the gap to anyone reading the story. This is a much easier way to fill in the reader without complex plots that slowly show the reader whats going on.

This, however, is not the way people convey real events that they experienced. But there are some other problems here. Matthew details conversations that he himself admits he couldn't know. How could he possibly know the words used in Josephs dream? How could he know of any of the events before he was called to be a disciple, never mind know the conversations word for word. How would he know, word for word, the conversation between Jesus and the Devil? He quotes word for word what happened between only three other disciples and Jesus. He quotes conversations between jesus and pilot, Jesus and the Sanhedrin, and Jesus and the priests when Jesus is the only one there. Matthew quotes the conversation Judas has with the priests, on two different occasions!

Perhaps the most ridiculous part of the book is when Matthew describes Jesus prayer in the garden. He goes to great lengths to let us know that only three disciples were invited, and they fell asleep. So no one is with Jesus, yet Matthew quotes his prayer? This type of story telling happens in all three gospels. Not a one escapes the ridiculous proposition of the all seeing omniscient narrator.

But we know this type of story. The type of story in which every single word spoken, every dream, every silent prayer, thought, and conversation is known to the narrator. It is called a fairy tale. A work of fiction in which the entire plot is laid out line by line, with every dark corner of thought and dream are known and laid bare.

Matthew is laid out like any good piece of fiction, complete with good guys, bad guys, negative plot turn, and finally, the happy ending. We know this format, we call it fiction, or fairy tale. Because there is absolutely no way Matthew could have known most of the events I listed above. The very fact that events where recorded that no one could have known about, and done word for word, should tip us off to the fact that this is nothing more than a good story. Whether a real Jesus figure ever existed is made moot by the fact that this story that describes his life is clearly a work of fiction.

Any one familiar with fiction should be able to spot this work of fiction. In fact, all of the gospels are written in the same fashion, all of them claiming an all knowing third person who is able to see peoples dreams and hear words spoken when no one is around. But then, thats what happens when you take stories handed down orally, grandly embellished over many decades, then try to make a cohesive story. And there is nothing wrong with that if you just like to read great stories, like that of Odessius. But this is what people are living their life by. You might as well take the moral teachings from a Strawberry Shortcake book as read the new testament for guidance!

Cursing, Swearing, using Bad Words, NO BIG DEAL! REALY!

2009-10-28T12:56:00.000-04:00

Cursing, Swearing, using Bad words, no big deal! Really!

I have always held that there are no such things as bad words. As such, I will use many of them in this post. If you get offended by such words, then please, stay, because this is for you. I will address the use of swear words in as many forms as I can remember and show why they are no big deal.

There are three ways in which swears words are considered bad.

1. Words are socially unacceptable
2. Words are hijacked from original meanings to mean something deragatory
3. And most commonly, they are "bad" words because of ones faith or religion

All three purposes are simply not valid and I will show why. And for number three, I will show why it is not valid to say one particular word is bad, biblically. Oh yes, I can argue from the bible as well.

1. Some words are bad because they are socially acceptable.

I have to admit, this is possibly the worst argument I have ever heard. When I was a christian, I still had a major problem with this. Why? Because words have meaning, and meaning is what is important, no particular word. If I were to call you a mother fucker, you would likely be highly offended. But what if I said "you enjoy intimate relations with your mom"? Now, you would likely think about it for a moment then be upset, but it doesn't have the same power as "mother fucker" because you believe that some how "mother fucker" is a bad word.

If I say "fuck you", you will inherently get more upset than if I were to say "screw you" or "violate you" or "do you in the rear". The last two are likely to illicit a law instead of anger. But why? They mean the same thing, and have the same linguistic value as "fuck you" does. When you give words more power based on the sound it makes coming out of someones mouth, you denigrad the meaning and value of words by making one word better or worse than another. You wouldn't the term "they" is better than "them" would you? They mean virtually the same thing. We should apply the same logic to all words. Instead of specific sounds being offensive, we need to look at the meaning of a word. I assure you I can say much more offensive things without the so called "bad words". There is nothing more ridiculous than completely insulting someone without one cuss word then having them get upset at "fuck you". We get upset at these particular words and not others because we UNDERSTAND what they mean. Other language is often not fully understood and doesn't convey the feelings to people any more, like cuss words do.

Thus, in society, we decided that, since we don't like these feelings being conveyed, that we can demonize the words that convey them. Whats worse, words in a society, and in meaning, change over time. If you went back 200 years ago and told King George "Fuck You" he wouldn't have the slightest idea what you were talking about. Phrases that have to universal meaning cannot be held as bad. In 100 years, we won't know what the phrase means either. So what you are doing is picking one set of words that convey a specific meaning in any given society time table, and deciding they are bad. That simply is not acceptable. Meaning is important. Meaning and the feelings conveyed are more important than the actual words used. Which leads me to point number 2.

2. Some words are bad even though they have valid definitions of use.

Bitch, bastard, ass hole. All these types of words have valid meanings associated with them. A bitch is a female dog. A bastard is a son born whose father is not known, and ass is an animal. But they have been hijacked, once again, for the feelings they convey, and by consequence, making them "bad words". Not long ago, I did a random test on some people I knew. I didn't tell them at first, but I did after words. I told one of the women she was a bitch. She immediately got upset at me. Didn't slap me, but she wanted to. I told another woman separately that she was acting like a female dog. She laughed and said she supposed she was. (she happens to be one that thinks swearing is wrong). I did the same with some male co-workers with "bastard". The one called bastard felt hurt and got upset, the one who I used the definition on, said he had no father, didn't even blink. And finally, I called one of my friends an ass hole in anger, and the other a butt hole in anger. You guessed it, the one who I called butt hole just apologize (he didn't need to, I set him up) and the one I called ass hole immediately got defensive and angry.

Words have meaning. That meaning is why we get upset. But in place of discerning what someone is saying, we have put in a set of words that are considered "bad words" so that we know what feelings are being conveyed and know when to properly get upset or offended. The problem is that now the words themself are offensive separate from their meanings. If I call you a donkeys butt, or a butt hole, or an ass hole, all three should illicit the same response, but that simply doesn't happen. The demonizing of specific words has, in a way dumbed down our society. Or perhaps, it is just a symtom of that dumbing down. Either way, in the case of these type of words, they cannot be bad words because they are still valid in use of very real things. If I say bitch, why should that get someone more angry than a female dog? They are the same thing, and bitch is still used in dog shows and by dog trainers today. Another word, hell, is sometimes demonize, like when someone says "what the hell" or "go to hell". How can a word be a "bad word" when that word is in the bible? The bible is the most widely read book among those of faith in our country today. Yet most who read it would list "hell" as a bad word. That doesn't even make sense. It is the feelings conveyed, the idea conveyed, that should be what gets to people, not specific words, and especially not words that have actual common uses.

3. Swear words are bad because the bible says so.

Now, this one is one of my favorites because it is simply a misunderstanding or lack of knowledge that causes this belief. Now, I could go into the myriad of ways in which "using gods name in vain" is specifically bad in the bible. I could go on about how "in vain" doesn't mean the same thing it does now, and that "in vain" is not as good a translation as "in a falsehood" according to the direct hebrew translation bible. This would mean that swearing in gods name, that is, making an oath in gods name, is what it is prohibiting. But thats not nearly as relevant. Why? Because, GOD is a generic term not used in the bible. God and Lord are not the names of God. In the Old Testament, God is given the name El half of the time, and Yahweh the other half of the time. Those of the Yahweh persuasion deemed his name so holy that it couldn't be written or spoken. Thus, in the original OT text, YHWH is written, not Yahweh. These are the names of god, and those are what you should not say in falsehood. God damn it, could mean any god or gods. God is a generic term used for any and every other deity. In english, we capitalize the word to mean THE god, by which we mean the christian god. This capitalization in no way indicates that this is the name of god. It is ignorant to say so! Thus god damn it cannot be taking "the name of the lord your god in vain" because you aren't using "the name of the lord your god in vain".

Moving to the new testament, christians like to quote Ephesians 4:29 "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.".
Now, to many, this means, no swearing. However, we have already discussed the problem with that. I can say something so foul and insulting that you should be left embarassed with out ever saying a "swear" word. So, is it okay to say something nasty as long as I don't swear? I have met many christians who seem to think so. They never swear but they sure say some mean things about people and too them. Surely you can't think that the christian god is so lame and shallow as to think that only words deemed socially bad are things you can't say? No, that is a ridiculous premise. And until christians stop saying bad things about people in a nice or non-swear word laden way, they cannot claim this scripture for anything, especially swear words. The simple reality about this is this. If I say you are the best damn piano player in the whole fuckin world, that is a nice thing I just said about you. Nothing unwholesome was said of you. Yet if you are a christian, you are likely going to be offended. But I clearly didn't violate any religious principles in the bible. What I violated was your self installed, socially generated sense of what particular words are acceptable. And that is not enough to decide that one particular word, rather than what the words mean, is bad or offensive.

Conclusion:

In the conclusion I want to address one further complaint about swearing. It is usually given by people who consider them selves intellectuals or intelligent. They like to say swear words are only used by those who aren't smart enough to articulate their feelings. That intelligent people don't need to use swear words. Well, I call them like I see them. And that is bull shit. As long as society views specific words as "bad" then they will continue to have a bigger impact on people than spelling out the actually feeling or action you wish to convey. If I say "I am very angry and am not going to do what you say no matter what you tell me so just leave me alone" it doesn't have the power that "kiss my ass!" does. As well, it shortens the discourse considerably when using swear words to convey feelings either in anger or in jest. Simply using one word over another, as long as it is in proper usage, does not make on inferior or less intelligent. Fact is, if I don't use swear words, many people simply don't understand what I just said. So in some ways, it is easier to communicate with people using swear words.

If we want to advance in our society, we must learn to get past such pettying labeling as "bad words". Words are just words. What I am MEANING is much more important than the actual words used. Words are a tool that, in and of themselves, cannot be inherently bad or good, they simply are. They are there to use when we need them to convey actions, requests, feelings, desires, pain, pleasure and so much more. The sooner we learn thes, the sooner we can move on to actually discussing issues that really matter, and give a big FUCK YOU to people whose only recourse in a discussion is to demonize the actual words you use, in place of real discussion.

God in the Garden: The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil

2009-09-17T09:30:00.003-04:00

This is a new series I'm starting that will examine curious parts about the book of Genesis, specifically the beginnings of mankind before, during, and shortly after the Garden of Eden.

For the first post in this series I would like to discuss the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Lets read the verse referring to this to begin with.

Genesis 2 15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Lets ignore the last part for this moment as I'm sure that "surely die" can be interpreted different ways. But rather, lets take a look at the actual command and circumstances around that command. What do we know from previous verses about the situation?

1. Adam was newly created.
2. Adam was just put in the garden.
3. Eve was not yet created. She was created in verse 18.

Taking the first bit of knowledge listed. Adam was newly created. Now assuming he was created as an adult, which the bible doesn't say, but for the sake of argument, lets say he was an adult out right. He was still a child of mind. He had not experienced anything at all up to this point. The bible is clear. He was created, but into the garden god created, and told not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. He would have been completely naive. Some things we take for granted would be foreign to him. Death, disobedience, right and wrong, sin, suffering. As a child, these terms would have no meaning to someone who has not experienced them. A child is not born knowing he must obey his parents, he learns it.

Being just put in the Garden, he would likely have been curious. Having never seen trees, or animals or anything before. Like a child, he would not have a concept of punishment or discipline. Curiosity would likely over come commands to not do something, as often is the case in children. If you have children then you understand that when you tell a child to NOT do something or NOT touch something for their own good, you can't just leave them to their own devices. If you tell them NOT to touch something, they will likely feel the need to touch it. You must constantly supervise them. There is no reason to believe that Adam would have been any different as his situation was just a like a childs newly brought into the world.

Eve was in an even worse situation. She was created AFTER this command, and thus was given the command second hand. She would also have been naive and unaware of the concept of right and wrong. As we move to Chapter 3, we can see that Eve is not just naive, but, likely any gullible child, easily confused.

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Now, Eve, being child like, would not have been able to defend against this argument. Why? Because god gave no reason, and her information was second hand any way. So like any child, when the fruit was dangled before her, with the promise of being good and that she would learn and know more, she fell for the trick. A child falling for a trick? Today, we call that child exploitation, because we understand that children are not adults, they don't have the capacity or experience to sort through such things on their own. For Eve it was even worse as she would not have any concept of good and evil, right or wrong.

She ate the fruit, gave it to Adam, and he ate as well. Now their eyes were opened. It is only now that we see them realize they did something wrong, AFTER they ate the fruit. We see not hesitation on their part BEFORE eating it. Why? Because they didn't know it was wrong, because they had no knowledge of right and wrong. But after eating the fruit, they did. They grew up essentially.

So, like any good parent, god took them aside, chastised them and made sure this was a learning moment in which they learned a valuable lesson and they moved on right? After all, they are just children. Right? Wrong.

God punishes them by putting them out of the garden, introducing them to pain, suffering, death, and turmoil. I'm sure they learned a valuable lesson that way.

God put two children in a garden, put temptation right in front of them, allowed the "father of lies" (satan by most christians beliefs) to go into the garden to tempt them, then punished them vilely for falling for it. What? In the real world, we call this setting someone up to fail. God is supposedly all knowing. So he put them in the garden, and put temptation in the garden, and allow the master deceiver in the gardern, when he absolutely knew the outcome. What kind of parent would put a bowl of pudding on a table, tell the kids not to eat it, leave the room, send someone in that room to coax them into eating the pudding, then storm in and punish them for eating it?

Sound cruel and awful? It is. But that is exactly what god did. He set them up to fail. How can someone claim love of another when they set them up to fail, KNOWING they will fail, then punish them? Can you name another human being you would love or respect if they did such a thing?

The lesson we can learn from this is a hard one. If god exists, he is not a nice being. He is cruel, spiteful, and will punish even the most naive of persons for just about anything. He will set you up to fail marvelously because he knows exactly what it takes to make you fail.

This is one of the first lessons we learn about God in Genesis. If he exists, watch out, because he is looking for ways to trip you up, and he has the upper hand.

Keith Olbermann - Special Comment on Health Care

2009-08-04T11:09:00.002-04:00

Naming names and kicking ass! Way to go KO!

Chris Mattews flays 'Birther' G. Gordon Liddy - Chew on that evidence Birther idiots!

2009-07-24T11:21:00.003-04:00

Okay okay okay, so I originally just wanted to have the video up. But this is to much. This guy is a complete fool. He REPRESENTS what is wrong with the entire birther movement. Ignorance. Plan and simple. This evidence was easily researchable, and many people have gotten it just by asking. Yet some how, the birthers don't ever seem to get to the relevant data. They lie and say that the records are sealed, that they aren't allowed to see it, what ever. Its clearly NOT TRUE as the media has all the evidence they seem to be asking for! Its ignorance and deception, and its a hallmark of the far right wing nut establishment! These looney bins are the same ones that gave up the "Tea Parties". What a crock! How can you be taken seriously when you lie about stuff and get caught on national television lying about it?

Liddy said that you can't use the BC that Obama showed to get a passport. It was a straight up made up lie. Its not true. In fact, that is EXACTLY what you use to get your passport! Is he a liar or just ignorant?

In fact, if you are a birther, answer me that question. Are you a liar or just a ignorant fuck? The evidence you asked for and claim has been denied you was presented in this video. All the evidence and people like you birthers simply revert back to some old kenyan ladies comment? Really? So tell me, are you stupid or a liar? The evidence you asked for is there, in plain view, so which is it? Are you just to stupid to get it, or are you a lying sack of crap trying to destroy someone?

Which is?

Stupid or Liar?

Taking Freedom to the World

2009-06-10T16:04:00.002-04:00

Taking freedom to the world. What a grand claim. What a grand desire. What a ridiculous premise.

We have heard over and over that it is our job to spread freedom and democracy to the world. To bring an end to tyranny. To free the oppressed. But I have come to realize that it is simply not possible to do.

Freedom is not a gift. It cannot be given. It cannot be gained FOR you. It is a right. A right that must be seized and held by the strength of your resolve. Freedom must be purchased in blood if necessary. If it is just given to you, with no sacrifice, you will never appreciate it, never value it, never jealously protect it. If freedom is not taken, it will not be worth dying to keep. Unless you are willing to die to taken it, it means nothing to you, you will take it for granted.

In the dark depths of our history, in the waning day light in Philadelphia over 200 years ago, our forefathers committed the people of this land to war. The desire for freedom and independence burst from is shell and lashed out violently at the oppressive british empire. It the fire and blood of the revolution, freedom was born, strengthened, and taken by the force of our collective will! Thousands were willing to die to earn the freedom they so desperately desired. And because of that genesis in blood, because that freedom was taken, demanded, not given, we have remained a free people.

Freedom cannot be given. If people are not willing to die to gain freedom, if the light of freedom doesn't burn so brightly that it burns away the chaff, then there can be no freedom. Tyranny only exists because the people allow it to exist. Take Iraq as an example. Why did they live under tyranny so long? Why didn't the people rise up and annihilate tyranny? Because it wasn't so important to them as it is to us. They didn't desire freedom so much as to rise up and fight the tyranny. They don't desire freedom so much that it burns in their hearts and struggles to break free!

Spreading democracy and freedom is a pipe dream! Freedom only comes to those willing to have it at any cost. Freedom is the right of all human beings. Yet, it only belongs to those willing to seize it in a death grip and claim their right! What will be the ultimate out come of the nations we "bring democracy and freedom too" when we leave? Are we naive enough to believe that we can "enforce" freedom and democracy on a people unwilling to hold onto it themselves?

No. We must no longer partake in "spreading democracy and freedom". We can no longer hold on to childish idealistic views that we even have the power to "bring freedom" to any one. Rather, stoke the fires of freedom through our actions in the world. Stoke the desire to be free, and stand ready to hold out a hand when the peoples of the world throw themselves into the fire and purchase their freedom with their own blood. Until that happens, our soldiers will die for the "freedom and democracy" of absolutely nothing.

The Essence of Christianity

2009-06-08T12:03:00.001-04:00

I had allot of time to think while unplugged for several days. I got to thinking about what was really at the center of my former belief, my former religion, christianity. The conclusion that I came to was a revelation to me. The extreme simplicity of it all left me contemplating it over and over. Surely it was more than this. Surely it was more complex in its core meaning. The finality of what I thought of was this. No, its not. It is very simple.

The essence of christianity is this. You worship a tribal god that requires human and animal blood sacrifice to appease him. Period. Now, I'll expound on that opinion.

The essence of christianity can be made very simple. But its more fun to draw it out. See, in the beginning, god specifically said that he is jealous, and like wise by his actions upon that jealousy, petty and insolent. He has no problem killing anyone for nearly any reason. And then killing all their family and friends and anyone who stood next to them. The christian/jewish god is a jealous petty god. But he is just a tribal god. The bible talks clearly about there being other gods, or else he would have nothing to be jealous about. It goes through great lengths to make sure his tribal followers make him the top god, not the only god, just the top god. Notice the command "thou shalt have no other gods before me". See, you could have other gods, just make him the top god. So god is a petty jealous god, wanting to be king of the gods. Got it. That is fairly typical of tribal gods.

My second claim is that he craves animal blood to satisfy him. Yes, he is a god of animal sacrifice. There are strict laws in the old testament on how to sacorifice many different animals for different things. This all powerful tribal petty jealous god not only is not powerful enough at this point to forgive sins, but he requires others living creatures to die for those perceived wrongs that he makes up in his jealous state of mind. So he REQUIRES animals to die to get over himself. Any all powerful god could forgive or just make people ask to be forgiven. The only reason animal sacrifice was required, was because he made it so. His own living creatures mean nothing. His own creation nothing better than fodder to satisfy his petty jealously and anger. The slaughter of innocent animals to appease the tribal god.

But in the New Testament and the advent of christianity, this petty, jealous, tribal, animal sacrificing god takes it up a notch. While he has shown the propensity for this type of sadistic cruelty in the past, it has never reached this heights more than the one time it is recorded in Judges 11:1-11, 29-33. Jephthah promises to sacrifice what ever comes out of his house if god lets him win a battle. Of course, ole J slaughters the enemy (gods hallmark) and his daughter comes out of his house. So he sacrifices his daughter and god accepts it as good. But that was just a prelude to insanity.

The christian god steps up the insanity by REQUIRING a HUMAN sacrifice to not burn you in hell for ever. Take that in for a minute, think about it, the christian god is a god of human sacrifice. An all powerful god could surely simply forgive sins, just ask right? Nope. He wants blood. Innocent blood at that. Not just anyone. Someone who doesn't deserve it needs to die a torturous death. The tribal blood god steps it up a notch and requires human sacrifice, Jesus. Now sure, christians believe he is god, but who cares right? We are talking about the requirement of blood, human blood, just to be forgiven of what? Some perceived sin? No, you are BORN sinful by nature. Your very birth requires human sacrifice to avoid hell. What a nice blood god he turned out to be.

For the very crime of being born with a sinful nature, the christian god REQUIRES a HUMAN sacrifice. This is tribal to the extreme, not at all what a loving caring god would be like. After all, wouldn't he just make it easier to get to heaven, just ask for forgiveness and you get it? But no, he MADE the requirement of blood. Didn't have to, but chose to make blood necessary. A petty, jealous, tribal blood god, that is ultimately powerless. So powerless and so sadistic, that he has to require humans and animals to bleed for his pleasure. That is the essence of the christian god. If you are a christian, the essence of your faith is that you worship a sadistic tribal blood god obssessed with making his creatures bleed and die for his pleasure. This is the god you serve. One that isn't powerful enough to just forgive your sins, or one that just likes to see people bleed. Sick.

Prop 8 Redux

2009-05-28T12:57:00.002-04:00

It has been but a couple days since the California Supreme Court put forth their verdict that Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment to strip Gay couples of their right to be married, was in fact an amendment, and not a fundamental change to the constitution. In other words, prop 8 stands.

After unleashing a string of vitriolic posts on twitter, I needed to take a day or so to really contemplate this issue. I needed to calm down before blogging on it. I have calmed enough to give a redux on the issue.

There are several reasons why republicans and right wing nuts come out as the nasty idiotic hypocrites of this debate.

1. Most of them claim to be small government, saying the government should just stay out of their lives. Yet, they have no problems believing the government should interfere with someone elses lives that they disagree with.

2. Most of them are right wing christians. Perhaps they should listen to their own nonsense once in a while. When you try to talk to them about the ridiculous old testament laws, like stoning your rebellious son, they claim Jesus got rid of the old law. Yet, it is that very same Old Testament law that these hypocrites use to condem gays! Maybe "What Would Jesus Do?" should be more of a way to live than just a bracelet!

I have more, but don't want to dwell on that. I would rather just blast people on a moral basis. Because the idea that gay marriage is some how your problem or can effect your personal life is stupid and wrong. It is nothing more that the desire to control someone else who doesn't believe as you do. To shackle the one who would dare do something that goes against what you personally believe. It is only sheer arrogance that allows these half wits to continue to believe they have the right to dictate the laws governing someones marriage between another consenting adult! The sheer nerve is infuriating!

Further, the California Supreme Court really dropped the ball. How is taking away an existing right NOT a fundamental change to the constitution? No, they balked because they were threatened by the church with and impeachment campaign. God fearing ass holes dictating the terms of someone elses life. Fuck you christians who side with this! You are foul creatures with the morals of a demon! Your hate and disgust for those different than you will no longer be tolerated! We will rise up in this country and strike you down! We will have equality in this nation whether your bigoted backwards faith allows for it or not!

To my gay brothers and sisters, atheists and believers alike, I tell you that you are not alone! I and others like me stand with you in this fight! We will see justice served on the bigots of this country, I promise you that!

How To Talk Like a Republican

2009-05-14T09:08:00.004-04:00

Alright, I ganked this from Daily Kos, but I'm giving them props and a link to the story, this one is classic!

Daily Kos - Cheers and Jeers: Thursday

Cheers and Jeers: Thursday Hotlist
by Bill in Portland Maine
Digg this! Share this on Twitter - Cheers and Jeers: ThursdayTweet this submit to reddit Share This
Thu May 14, 2009 at 08:03:25 AM EST

From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE...

Republican Mad Libs

No doubt about it---the GOP knows how to scream "Danger!!!" better than anyone. But how do they do it so effectively? It's simple, really, and you, too, can convince people they should be scared of their own shadow. Just pick a phrase from List A, another from List B, and one from List C. Here...try it:
List A
A public option in health care reform
Curbing CO2 emissions
Gay marriage
Public funding of stem cell research
Immigration reform that doesn’t include mass deportations
Talking with our adversaries
Releasing the report/study/memo/photos
Restoring Clinton-era tax rates on multi-millionaires
Enacting tighter regulations in the financial sector
Investigating "enhanced interrogation techniques"
Closing down offshore tax loopholes
Actually listening to ordinary Americans
Anything President Obama does

will...
List B
Tear at the fabric of
Have a chilling effect on
Ignite a firestorm of woe upon
Erode the foundation of
Wreak incalculable havoc on
Lead us down a dark and dangerous path toward destroying
Lead us down a slippery slope on the way to bankrupting
Plunge a dagger into the very heart of
Unleash destruction on
Tear a giant hole in
Break the back of
Have devastating consequences on
Forever doom

List C
Our society
This great nation
The family structure
Small businesses
Democracy as we know it
Our children!
Our children's children!
Our children's children's children! (etc.)
The Judeo Christian values on which this country was founded
The Homeland/Fatherland/Motherland
Everything we hold sacred
Our ability to prevent the socialists from taking over
Our vital institutions
My chances of getting re-elected

And, if you're feeling frisky, you can add a rhetorical flourish:
List D
Just wait---you'll see! And then you'll come crawling back to me!
I weep for my country!
My people don't want to secede from the U.S., but...we may have no choice.
This is the worst thing that's happened in the history of the world!
It's time to start stocking up on food and water. And gunnnnns.
Gosh darn it!

See? It's easy! And with a little practice you, too, can put yourself on a dark and dangerous slippery slope of woe as a Republican doomsayer. Not sure why you'd want to, but it's always nice to have options.

Cheers and Jeers starts in There's Moreville... [Swoosh!!] RIGHTNOW! [Gong!!]

Atheist Hell

2009-05-12T11:40:00.000-04:00

This is very funny!
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blog/the_9_circles_of_atheist_hell/

Underdown’s Hell for Atheists

Circle #1

An American Buddhist temple overlooking the ocean somewhere. "American" means there are Saabs in the parking lot and you won’t find anyone inside who’s prostrated himself 300 miles to get there. You can show up when you like, but you are sentenced to meditate, and do some kind of whacked out yoga that only a car crash could twist me into. But you can still make happy hour if you let go of wanting to…

Circle #2

A Unitarian Universalist Church on Sunday morning. It’s not a hard-core service with a lot of pushy beliefs, but your Sunday’s still ruined and you still had to get up, shower and shave. Here you’re sentenced to drinking see-through coffee and manning the syrup and butter table at a never-ending pancake breakfast meant to raise money to fix the leaky roof.

Circle #3

A small synagogue somewhere in the bible-belt. You are sentenced to attend a Passover meal which the local Rabbi insists on being a full-blown traditional Seder. (You have to sneak to over to it for fear of being seen by one of your redneck customers.) A late afternoon argument about whether God prefers doctors or lawyers ends when the pre-dinner singing begins. (Huh? I thought we were going to eat?)You’re starving, and when the food finally comes, you are served pickled herring and a big gelatinous slab of Gefilte fish. Oy vey!

Circle #4

A run-down mosque in Detroit. You are sentenced to come here 5 times a day to face Mecca and pray on mostly musty, paper-thin prayer mats that never quite dried out after the last rain. The only dry mats are from a craft project from the neighboring madrasah and are made from old pencils. The vocals coming over the tinny sound system sounds like a goat being run over by a snowmobile. You are overweight and have bad knees.

Circle #5

Any Catholic church in August in Chicago. You are sentenced to a perpetual wedding mass which includes taking communion, doing all the Stations of the Cross, and having gone to confession beforehand. You were at the groom’s bachelor party last night where you timed each other drinking juice glasses full of warm Southern Comfort. In church you notice grass stains on your suit. You don’t know whether to puke or pass out.

Circle #6

The L. Ron Hubbard Life Exhibit on Hollywood Blvd. You are sentenced to an eternity of talking tourists from Des Moines into forsaking the religion they grew up with by trying to convince them that aliens landed on earth 75 million years ago on modified DC 9 airplanes. When Tom Cruise arrives to inspire the workers, you are punished for laughing at his height.

Circle #7

An Evangelical mega-church in Colorado Springs. Your punishment is for all eternity to procure methamphetamine and gay sex for Ted Haggard. He grabs your neck and gives you two creepy squeezes to thank you.

Circle #8

A Pentecostal revival tent just outside of Tulsa. You just left a Drinking Skeptically gathering and you have to piss like an incontinent at a kegger. You keep asking where the bathroom is, but the whole goddamn church is speaking in tongues and you can’t understand a word they’re saying. You finally figure out where the can is only to find it guarded by one of the rattlesnakes they used in the service. You decide to piss on the rattlesnake and it bites your penis.

Circle #9

The real Hell. Shit! Lake of fire, guys in hoofs,gnashing of teeth - the whole shot. God’s there with (red, horned) Satan and they’re both shaking their heads with raised eyebrows saying, "We tried to warn you…"

What a nightmare…

Something Wrong with the White House Correspondance Dinner

2009-05-11T11:02:00.002-04:00

Markos once again hits it head on. Something is not right about this dinner. For 8 years we watches as the media essentially disintegrated and failed to report the tough stories on Bush. Sure, there were lots of commentaries, but where were the hard hitting stories? There were few. Largely because reporters were being spied on and feared for their job or their safety or both. They went to these dinners and yucked it up with the White House making no attempt to cover the fact that they were kissing up to the President.

But now, the same thing is still happening. How can you be a check on the government when the White House is your best friend? Sure, its all fun and games when they are making fun of Rush and Steele and Palin. But what about when Obama doesn't fly straight on an issue? What about the prosecution of torture issue? Can they truly be the government check at this stage in the game?

http://snipr.com/hstqk [www_dailykos_com]

Obama was brilliant on Saturday. No denying that.

But there was something unseemly about the White House press corps yucking it up with George Bush and Karl Rove, and it's still unseemly seeing them yucking it up with Obama and his crew.

For an industry that has spent the last few months whining about its poor lot in life, and how it's essential to our democracy as a check on government, all I saw on Saturday was those media types trying to be cool by sucking up to the government, just like they had during the Bush years.

Here's a thought -- if you hold yourself out to be a check on government, then don't pretend they are your best friends and party together into the night. At its best, that relationship should be antagonistic, not friendly.

But the media clearly hasn't learned its lesson from the Bush years, as it continues to make the same stupid mistakes today.

As a partisan, sure, I liked that they were laughing at jokes about Republicans, Michael Steele, and Rush Limbaugh. As a media critic, I cringed.

Markos is right. They haven't learned a damn thing. And sure, we liberals love watching the republicans get theirs, but this street runs two ways. What about when the republicans are in power, or a third party? Do we really want to see them yucking it up with a Bush or someone else in the future? But that is what will happen. We, as the party in power will relish this moment and say little. But we will scream when its the other party. The republicans are doing it now. Saying Obama is the darling and they hated Bush. But thats simply not the case. Each party has their "Fox News", and that, is what is wrong with the Media. Decidedly, Fox News is one of the worst when it comes to over all bias. Even their regular news is seething with disgust for Obama. But what about the afternoon line up on MSNBC? It is every bit as bias as the Fox News afternoon/nightly line up. The Ed Show, Hardball, Countdown, and The Rachel Maddow Show are the liberal equivelant of the Glenn Beck Show, The Factor, Hannity, and the other show whose name I cannot remember.

Now again, Hannity gets caught lying very frequently and making claims he won't back up. And O'Reilly tends to not get all his facts straight when stalking people. But the premise is the same. News from a slant.

A democracy cannot survive without a non-biased media source. If Obama knows he has a safer haven with MSNBC than with Fox, then he can be allowed to get away with things as much as Fox allowed Bush to get away with things.

The Sovereignty of the State

2009-05-06T12:36:00.003-04:00

Most of us who took civics class understand that the governments power to make laws regarding banks and, well, anything that has to do with commerce in general from jobs to regulations to bailouts falls under the Federal Governments power from the Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) in the Constitution. It gives the government power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

Since the time of John Marshall, the Supreme Court has continually backed the power of the Federal Government to do such activities that are being done today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

This site lists and links to some land mark cases which back up that claim.

Pretty much anything that has to do with commerce is and has been the domain of the Federal Government. The Supreme Court has upheld more and more power under this clause for many years. It is constitutional.

yet, many states including Texas and Oklahoma want to declare themselves Sovereign over the Federal Government. This is not new, its happened before, you remember the Civil War right? But the fact is that time and time again the states "right" to remain sovereign and separate from the federal government has been struck down. Jefferson was a grand states rights advocate, but he was continually dogged in the supreme court over this issue. Continually the largely Federalist Supreme Court held the power of the Federal Government over the states in matters of commerce. Such things like descrimination of pay based on race and sex were also deemed states rights until they got to the Supreme Court.

But I have an idea. Instead of arguing with some of these ridiculously far right states who are basically throwing a hissy fit because their party is not in power now, we should give them what they want. Let the Federal Government say "you are right, you are sovereign, now chose if you want federal money or not, yes or no". And make it a whole deal package. Either you want our help or you don't.

That would include but is not limited too:

Assistance for unemployment insurance
Assistance for medicare and medicaid
Disaster relief funding
Road and Bridge construction money
Federal IRS buildings including employees and city taxes paid
Education assistance for schools
Pell Grants and Student Loans for state colleges
Federal dollars for the national guard controlled by the states
Federal money for prisons and prison rehabilitation
Federal loans for small business's
Federal grants to cities for important projects
Federal grants to states for projects

These are just a few areas in which, according to the definitions and reasons given by republicans in these "sovereign" states, that they would no longer get funding for. After all, funding for disaster clean up isn't in the constitution according to them either. Texas and Louisiana are particularly big recipients of disaster money. Oklahoma as well during tornado season.

But, if they don't want federal money, then don't give them any. And on a side note, lets not include their unemployment rates in with the federal ones either, after all, if they get no federal money due to their own choice, then its their problem, not the feds.

What they are doing now is nothing more than posturing and hypocrisy at its worst. If they really cared about federal spending, most states could stop all federal dollars coming to their state in all the above areas. Sure, it would put people out of work, but hey, at least they would have no government "interference". They could just do it all on their own without government help at all. Manage and pay for their entire medicaid and medicare programs and unemployment insurance programs instead of taking anything to help make sure people are covered. They could have no part of the "federal governments" welfare program or SS programs, put those people out of work, and watch poverty soar and the elderly get kicked to the street. Unless they want to pay for it themselves. But that would require big tax increases, which is also bad.

The option is clear, so stop dicking around Texas and Oklahoma. Either put your money where your mouth is and reject all Federal money of any kind, or shut up and stop posturing and using PEOPLE as a shill to run for reelection. These are peoples lives we are talking about. Either put up or shut up, but stop trying to hold it over the President head.

We Are a Nation of Laws

2009-04-24T10:58:00.002-04:00

I have been recently very disturbed at the tone in which the debate on torture has become more political. It has been made political purposefully by the republicans in this case. It is the idea that prosecuting people responsible for creating torture policy and responsible for enforcing torture policy would some how be only political and set a "dangerous precedent". Why?

Lets review. Torture is illegal. Why is it illegal? Because it was made illegal by the Geneva Convention. So let us review the Geneva Convention.

The adoption of the first convention followed the foundation of the International Red Cross, the agency charged and authorized to determine if torture has been used, in 1863. The conventions are as followed.
1. for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field - adopted 1864
2. for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea - adopted 1906
3. relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War - adopted 1929
4. relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War - adopted 1949

The United States ratified the first convention in 1882. By 1977 the United States had ratified all four of the Geneva Conventions with the exception of two protocols regarding the use of riot control agents and herbicide use.

By ratification, the US made the Geneva Convention a part of United States Law.

So, the question now becomes not whether US law prohibits torture, it does, under US ratified and signed Geneva Convention. So, was the law broken? This is fairly easy to determine as we know from memos what was done.

We know of waterboarding, sleep deprivation, confinement in a small box with insects in it, beatings, swinging people around by their necks into walls, hanging from the ceiling for extended periods of time, lengthy exposure to extreme cold, starvation and use of dogs to bite and scare inmates. So, since the memos authorize such things, are they torture? Well, what does the geneva convention say about it?

Article 13 under the Third Convention regarding the treatment of prisoners of war.

Article 13

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

Acts of violence, intimidation, insults, and public curiosity (humiliation).

Article 14

Article 14

Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour. Women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex and shall in all cases benefit by treatment as favourable as that granted to men. Prisoners of war shall retain the full civil capacity which they enjoyed at the time of their capture. The Detaining Power may not restrict the exercise, either within or without its own territory, of the rights such capacity confers except in so far as the captivity requires.

Article 16

Article 16

Taking into consideration the provisions of the present Convention relating to rank and sex, and subject to any privileged treatment which may be accorded to them by reason of their state of health, age or professional qualifications, all prisoners of war shall be treated alike by the Detaining Power, without any adverse distinction based on race, nationality, religious belief or political opinions, or any other distinction founded on similar criteria.

Article 17

Article 17

Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status.

Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him.

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

Prisoners of war who, owing to their physical or mental condition, are unable to state their identity, shall be handed over to the medical service. The identity of such prisoners shall be established by all possible means, subject to the provisions of the preceding paragraph.

The questioning of prisoners of war shall be carried out in a language which they understand.

Article 26

Article 26

The basic daily food rations shall be sufficient in quantity, quality and variety to keep prisoners of war in good health and to prevent loss of weight or the development of nutritional deficiencies. Account shall also be taken of the habitual diet of the prisoners.

The Detaining Power shall supply prisoners of war who work with such additional rations as are necessary for the labour on which they are employed.

Sufficient drinking water shall be supplied to prisoners of war. The use of tobacco shall be permitted.

Prisoners of war shall, as far as possible, be associated with the preparation of their meals; they may be employed for that purpose in the kitchens. Furthermore, they shall be given the means of preparing, themselves, the additional food in their possession.

Adequate premises shall be provided for messing.

Collective disciplinary measures affecting food are prohibited.

Article 27

Article 27

Clothing, underwear and footwear shall be supplied to prisoners of war in sufficient quantities by the Detaining Power, which shall make allowance for the climate of the region where the prisoners are detained. Uniforms of enemy armed forces captured by the Detaining Power should, if suitable for the climate, be made available to clothe prisoners of war.

The regular replacement and repair of the above articles shall be assured by the Detaining Power. In addition, prisoners of war who work shall receive appropriate clothing, wherever the nature of the work demands.

Article 34

Article 34

Prisoners of war shall enjoy complete latitude in the exercise of their religious duties, including attendance at the service of their faith, on condition that they comply with the disciplinary routine prescribed by the military authorities.

Adequate premises shall be provided where religious services may be held.

Other interesting articles in the convention that relate to people detained with out any contact with the outside world.

Article 71

Article 71

Prisoners of war shall be allowed to send and receive letters and cards. If the Detaining Power deems it necessary to limit the number of letters and cards sent by each prisoner of war, the said number shall not be less than two letters and four cards monthly, exclusive of the capture cards provided for in Article 70, and conforming as closely as possible to the models annexed to the present Convention. Further limitations may be imposed only if the Protecting Power is satisfied that it would be in the interests of the prisoners of war concerned to do so owing to difficulties of translation caused by the Detaining Power's inability to find sufficient qualified linguists to carry out the necessary censorship. If limitations must be placed on the correspondence addressed to prisoners of war, they may be ordered only by the Power on which the prisoners depend, possibly at the request of the Detaining Power. Such letters and cards must be conveyed by the most rapid method at the disposal of the Detaining Power; they may not be delayed or retained for disciplinary reasons.

Prisoners of war who have been without news for a long period, or who are unable to receive news from their next of kin or to give them news by the ordinary postal route, as well as those who are at a great distance from their homes, shall be permitted to send telegrams, the fees being charged against the prisoners of war's accounts with the Detaining Power or paid in the currency at their disposal. They shall likewise benefit by this measure in cases of urgency.

As a general rule, the correspondence of prisoners of war shall be written in their native language. The Parties to the conflict may allow correspondence in other languages.

Sacks containing prisoner of war mail must be securely sealed and labelled so as clearly to indicate their contents, and must be addressed to offices of destination.

Article 72

Article 72

Prisoners of war shall be allowed to receive by post or by any other means individual parcels or collective shipments containing, in particular, foodstuffs, clothing, medical supplies and articles of a religious, educational or recreational character which may meet their needs, including books, devotional articles, scientific equipment, examination papers, musical instruments, sports outfits and materials allowing prisoners of war to pursue their studies or their cultural activities.

Such shipments shall in no way free the Detaining Power from the obligations imposed upon it by virtue of the present Convention.

The only limits which may be placed on these shipments shall be those proposed by the Protecting Power in the interest of the prisoners themselves, or by the International Committee of the Red Cross or any other organization giving assistance to the prisoners, in respect of their own shipments only, on account of exceptional strain on transport or communications.

The conditions for the sending of individual parcels and collective relief shall, if necessary, be the subject of special agreements between the Powers concerned, which may in no case delay the receipt by the prisoners of relief supplies. Books may not be included in parcels of clothing and foodstuffs. Medical supplies shall, as a rule, be sent in collective parcels.

Article 78

Article 78

Prisoners of war shall have the right to make known to the military authorities in whose power they are, their requests regarding the conditions of captivity to which they are subjected.

They shall also have the unrestricted right to apply to the representatives of the Protecting Powers either through their prisoners' representative or, if they consider it necessary, direct, in order to draw their attention to any points on which they may have complaints to make regarding their conditions of captivity.

These requests and complaints shall not be limited nor considered to be a part of the correspondence quota referred to in Article 71. They must be transmitted immediately. Even if they are recognized to be unfounded, they may not give rise to any punishment.

Prisoners' representatives may send periodic reports on the situation in the camps and the needs of the prisoners of war to the representatives of the Protecting Powers.

Article 84

Article 84

A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.

In no circumstances whatever shall a prisoner of war be tried by a court of any kind which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality as generally recognized, and, in particular, the procedure of which does not afford the accused the rights and means of defence provided for in Article 105.

Wait, a provided defense? Hmm.

Article 87

Article 87

Prisoners of war may not be sentenced by the military authorities and courts of the Detaining Power to any penalties except those provided for in respect of members of the armed forces of the said Power who have committed the same acts.

When fixing the penalty, the courts or authorities of the Detaining Power shall take into consideration, to the widest extent possible, the fact that the accused, not being a national of the Detaining Power, is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance, and that he is in its power as the result of circumstances independent of his own will. The said courts or authorities shall be at liberty to reduce the penalty provided for the violation of which the prisoner of war is accused, and shall therefore not be bound to apply the minimum penalty prescribed.

Collective punishment for individual acts, corporal punishments, imprisonment in premises without daylight and, in general, any form of torture or cruelty, are forbidden.

No prisoner of war may be deprived of his rank by the Detaining Power, or prevented from wearing his badges.

Article 89

Article 89

The disciplinary punishments applicable to prisoners of war are the following:

1. A fine which shall not exceed 50 per cent of the advances of pay and working pay which the prisoner of war would otherwise receive under the provisions of Articles 60 and 62 during a period of not more than thirty days.

2. Discontinuance of privileges granted over and above the treatment provided for by the present Convention.

3. Fatigue duties not exceeding two hours daily.

4. Confinement.

The punishment referred to under (3) shall not be applied to officers.

In no case shall disciplinary punishments be inhuman, brutal or dangerous to the health of prisoners of war.

Article 90

Article 90

The duration of any single punishment shall in no case exceed thirty days. Any period of confinement awaiting the hearing of a disciplinary offence or the award of disciplinary punishment shall be deducted from an award pronounced against a prisoner of war.

The maximum of thirty days provided above may not be exceeded, even if the prisoner of war is answerable for several acts at the same time when he is awarded punishment, whether such acts are related or not.

The period between the pronouncing of an award of disciplinary punishment and its execution shall not exceed one month.

When a prisoner of war is awarded a further disciplinary punishment, a period of at least three days shall elapse between the execution of any two of the punishments, if the duration of one of these is ten days or more.

Article 99

Article 99

No prisoner of war may be tried or sentenced for an act which is not forbidden by the law of the Detaining Power or by international law, in force at the time the said act was committed.

No moral or physical coercion may be exerted on a prisoner of war in order to induce him to admit himself guilty of the act of which he is accused.

No prisoner of war may be convicted without having had an opportunity to present his defense and the assistance of a qualified advocate or counsel.

All of the Articles can be read here: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

As you can see, most of what was listed in the memo's clearly qualify as torture and are clearly against the law. AGAINST THE LAW. In other words, President George W. Bush authorized something that was clearly against the law.

Now, to water boarding specifically. Have we ever prosecuted someone for water boarding? Do we consider it torture as a matter of precedence? Well, lets take a look at what water boarding is, then the effects it has on people. Then lets look at the US reaction to other people water boarding.

This is how the CIA described it in a 2002 memo.

In this procedure, the individual is bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet. The individual's feet are generally elevated. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. As this is done, the cloth is lowered until it covers both the nose and mouth. Once the cloth is saturated and completely covers the mouth and nose, air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds due to the presence of the cloth… During those 20 to 40 seconds, water is continuously applied from a height of twelve to twenty-four inches. After this period, the cloth is lifted, and the individual is allowed to breathe unimpeded for three or four full breaths… The procedure may then be repeated. The water is usually applied from a canteen cup or small watering can with a spout

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bybee_memo

Water boarding creates the feeling of drowning according to human rights watch, and several other people including Christopher Hitchens who allowed himself to be water boarderd.

He later told the BBC: "There is a common misconception that water boarding simulates the sensation of drowning, but you are to all intents and purposes actually drowning". He said that although he was somewhat prepared for his ordeal, he had not been prepared for what came later: "I have been waking up with sensations of being smothered". Hitchens concluded, "if water boarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture. Believe me. It's torture".

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/video/2008/hitchens_video200808
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Radio_3

Historical use of water boarding include but is not limited to:

The Spanish Inquisition - toca

The Dutch East India Company - during the Amboyna massacre of 1623

Sing Sing Prison - Henry Hagan - When it came out, it was called torture -
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9A06E0DE1531E13BBC4951DFB2668389649FDE
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9802E3D71331E234BC4E53DFB2668389649FDE

Spanish American War - 1898 - Major Edwin F. Glenn argued that it was a necessary use of force. He was court marshaled, tried, and found guilty of torture.

German and Japanese soldiers after WWII were tried for torture for water boarding.

Chase J. Nielsen, one of the U.S. airmen who flew in the Doolittle raid following the attack on Pearl Harbor, was subjected to water boarding by his Japanese captors. At their trial for war crimes following the war, he testified "Well, I was put on my back on the floor with my arms and legs stretched out, one guard holding each limb. The towel was wrapped around my face and put across my face and water poured on. They poured water on this towel until I was almost unconscious from strangulation, then they would let up until I'd get my breath, then they'd start over again… I felt more or less like I was drowning, just gasping between life and death."

Algerian War - 1954 - High incidence of prisoners dying from waterboarding.

Chili - Dictator Pinochet water boarded over 35,000 people based on testimony.
Khmer Rouge - 1975 - Common torture method used on military and civilians.

Texas - 1983 - Texas sheriff James Parker and three of his deputies were convicted for conspiring to force confession via water boarding.

So lets recap. Per US law, torture is outlawed and well defined. Water boarding has always been considered torture. It has usually been down by outlaw regimes and horrible dictators during reigns of terror and inquisitions. When it has been done by US citizens, they have been prosecuted and sentenced to jail for torture. History shows us water boarding is torture. KSM was water boarded 183 times in one month.

We are a nation of laws. There is nothing political about the law being enforced. If we are a nation that respects law, then the Bush administration and those involved in pursuing these policies must be prosecuted under our laws and made accountable for their crimes. If a president is not accountable under the law, then we are not a nation of laws and the president is above the law.

Fairy Tales in the Bible: Unicorns

2009-04-14T10:26:00.004-04:00

The bible is full of fairy tales that simply cannot be true. Some of them are more incredulous than others. But perhaps one of the most silly and ridiculous ones is that of the unicorn. After all, unicorns are just pagan mythology right? Or are they? If we are to believe the bible, they were/are real despite the fact that we have never found a single shred of evidence than anything like a unicorn ever existed. Take these verses.

Job 39:9-12 (King James Version)

9.Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
10.Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
11.Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?
12.Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?

Yep, god is talking to Job about a unicorn.

Isaiah 34:7 (King James Version)

7.And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.

See, according to the superstitious hebrews of the day, unicorns were every bit as real as a bull.

Psalm 29:6 (King James Version)

6.He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.

They were real enough to the superstitious tribal people that they could compare a calf to a unicorn.

In context, it is clear that these references are not in some mythical non-existing fashion, but that they really believed this singled horned magic creature of legend was real. Not something made up, but real and really existed. For the bible to be real and perfect, that means that we have to accept that unicorns are real and exist.

Or, we can acknowledge that unicorns didn't exist and are fairy tales. Just like the whole of the bible itself. Fairy tale myths born from a superstitious people in a time of superstition before science existed.

For your pleasure, here are some other scriptures that mention unicorns.

Numbers 23:22 (King James Version)

22.God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

Deuteronomy 33:17 (King James Version)

17.His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.

Psalm 22:21 (King James Version)

21.Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.

Psalm 92:10 (King James Version)

10.But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.

As we can see, the tribal peoples were very much believers in these mythical creatures. And apparently, so was god.

Glenn Beck, - Maximum Dumbshittery

2009-04-06T14:56:00.003-04:00

Alright, in this video, Glenn "Blissful Idiot" Beck trys to say that Rome invented fascism and that its symbol has wiggled into our society. Of course he ignores that fact that the symbol was created by Rome, the LATER used by the fascists. In other words, its a roman symbol not a fascists symbol. You know what, ever mind, just watch yourself. This foo is a moron.

Maximum Dumbshittery!

Now, the person who put this up might be putting more up, so I may have to make this a standing series!

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for standing against fascism. But Glenn Beck doesn't know the first damn thing about fascism. If he did, he would have noticed that everything that Bush did leaned towards fascism. He isn't a person warning about real fascism, he is an idiot spreading idiocy like a virus.

Ten Steps to Fascist America

2009-03-31T15:43:00.000-04:00

Ten Steps to Fascist America

This blog is based on an article I read on alternet but really wanted to put my own comments in. So if you want to read the whole article without my input, visit alternet.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51150/

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy

After 9/11, we were told that we were under attack by a terrible terrorist enemy bent on destroying civilization. It is the first step, but not a new one.
Hitler told of the coming dangerous communist infiltrators.
Stalin warned of Sleeper Cells of capitalist bent on over throwing the government.
Pinochet warned of the armed insurgents and hyped it up with fake documents showing the link between real insurgents and made up danger.

2. Create a gulag

Guantanamo Bay was created by President Bush whom was quoted as saying he wanted it to exist in "legal outer space". This is the second step, create a secret prison in which you can torture people, out side the law. It was already deemed that GB did not fall under the laws of the US.

At first, the public sees these secret sites and extra-legal sites as necessary for taking out the trash that is part of the threat.

But soon, these gulags get used for political dissidents and any number of other people who may speak out against the country. Torture is deemed necessary and the morality of torture is blurred as to allow it smooth transition into normal us. Torture is deemed necessary to protect its citizens. However it always eventually gets used on the people.

Here is a challenge question:
Name a single nation who used secret prisons and gulags, and/or a country that tortured people who didn't ultimately end up using it on its own people.

This moral acceptance of torture and gulags as necessary is a big step towards fascism without violence.

3. Develop a thug caste

Hitler had the Brown Shirts. Mussonlini had the Black Shirts. Stalin had the KGB.

currently, the paramilitary mercenary group Blackwater has a contract with our government and can be deployed during a national emergency like a natural disaster. AS well, they are not subject to US laws when serving the government. Even their grounds in the US is not subject to local law enforcement.

In florida, during the 2000 recount, groups of young men dressed exactly alike stormed into the recounting area on several events, past security, and caused a problem until the recount had to stop for the day.

As of four years ago, the president can now control the state national guard despite objections of the governor. Troops were deployed across this country right before the last presidential elections "just in case". Troops are not supposed to be deployed on US soil.

4. Set up an internal surveillance system

Cast in the mold of national security, the people are told that they are being spied on for their own good. Encourage neighbors to watch each other to keep us safe. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and China all employed a secret police.

The FBI and CIA have both been exposed as groups who have been spying on average citizens. They have secret watch lists in which you cannot be taken off of and they have the ability to search your place without warrant or ever telling you about it.

5. Harass citizens' groups

The ACLU reports thousands of environmental groups, anti-war groups, and other groups have been infiltrated by government agents from the CIA and FBI. They have successfully sued under the freedom of information act, the information on a database that holds data on hundreds of activist groups, and data collected on meetings and plans for the group. All being documented and watched by your government.

6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release

Thousands of activists have been subject to being detained and searched for being on supposed "terrorist watch lists" especially at airports. Professor at Princeton Walter F Murphy was one such detained persons. After being detained twice, he asked how he could get on that list. He was asked if he was an anti-war marcher. Well, not exactly, he has given a lecture on the unconstitutionality of the Iraq war. It was enough to get him on the list. He was told there is no way to get your name off the list. All for protesting the war.

Regularly detaining people for no real crime, you create fear.

7. Target key individuals

This is a direct attempt to silence dissidents. Take out the vocal opposition to stop the rally against the crimes of government. They are threatened and fired and made to regret speaking out. Both a military Lawyer and a CIA worker who spoke out that water boarding is torture were fired for their talk.

In the famous US Attorney scandal, all of the US Attorneys who were fired were fired for not being sufficiently politically loyal. Each of them worked in swing states, and each would not file charges against activists and liberals who the administration saw as a danger to them.

8. Control the press

All powerful dictatorships must control the press. They have all managed to control the news to keep it favorable about the government. The Committee to Protect Journalists says arrests of US Journalist are at an all time high. A blogger in San Francisco was put in jail over a year for not turning over an anti-war video. Journalist Greg Palast had a criminal complaint launched against him for "threatening critical infrastructure". This was after he wrote a best seller critical of the Bush administration.

When Joe Wilson broke the story in the NYTimes that the Bush administration knew that the Yellow cake uranium purchase in Niger by Saddam Hussien was completely false, they outed his wife as a CIA agent. She was home on sabbatical, but in a nasty twist of irony, was an undercover spy investigating and tracking underground nuclear materials.

Once the press can be contained, the rest is elementary.

9. Dissent equals treason

When Bill keller, publisher of the NYTimes ran the Lichtblau/Risen Stories, the republicans in congress called for him to be charged with treason. Commentator Conason noted that the penalty for treason was death. Amazingly, many people agree that this reporting that didn't back up what Bush was saying, deserved death! In closed societies, political dissidents are the enemy.

In 2006, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 gave the president to call any US citizen an enemy combatant. He even has the ability to define what an enemy combatant is, or even change the very terms used to define said enemy combatants. He may also delegate anyone he chooses to have the right to name enemy combatants.

We should remember that it has already been decided that enemy combatants do not have any rights. Even the right of habeus corpus. Courts already proved that enemy combatants do not have the right of habeus corpus. That was before 2006 and was a ground laying ruling. Once the courts deemed that "enemy combatants" don't have any rights, all they had to do is make sure they could call anyone an enemy combatant. By simply speaking out, the president can call you an enemy combatant, and you can now be held without charge in a secret prison, without any communication as to why or your family even knowing. You can be tortured and never released. All at the presidents whim.

10. Suspend the rule of law

The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 gives the president power over the national guard instead of the states. He can take control over local militia's or mercenary groups to enforce law in the state of emergency. It gave the president the power to use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, disease outbreak, terrorist attack or "other conditions". This is a direct violation of the Posse Comitatus Act that prevents the use of our military on our soil. Yet, the law stands.

In this country, we have watched the rule of law and the foundation of our republic be eroded away in the name of patriotism and safety. This is the exact thing that our fore fathers feared. When Benjamin Franklin said that a nation that is willing to trade a little liberty for a little safety deserves neither liberty or safety, surely had something like this in mind. When Samuel Johnson said that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels, surely this is what he meant. The usage of patriotism so quickly becomes a tool to manipulate the public!

Whats Wrong With America Today: Part 3: Contradictions

2009-03-30T10:40:00.004-04:00

There is something deeply wrong with our country today. As I have said twice before, I think I know what it is. In part 3 of this series, I examine what I call, Contradictions. Lets take each imbalance on its own.

1. Healthcare
A national health care system would lower business costs dramatically, improve the health of the nation, and allow for its restructure to be more efficient and bring it into the new century technology wise.

Instead, we spend our time arguing on small petty and yes, quaint antiquated arguments on whether or not it is socialism. Lets face it, socialism as it was envisioned is dead. Just like capitalism as it was envisioned. Its time to move on to just "what works". And every industrialized nation besides the US says national healthcare works.

What we have is a contradiction in needs. We all agree we need healthcare reform. It is a contradiction to say that this reform can come within the system we have now. Private health care exists to make a profit. Relying on these same private insurance groups to change health care for our betterment is ridiculous. They will always make changes to benefit themselves. Thus, we need to cease this endless contradiction and say and do what needs to be done. National health care. Health care reform must be different from what it is today. Not the same.

So why aren't we putting this at top priority?

2. Energy.
We should be pushing for clean energy like there is no tomorrow. Because there might not be a tomorrow if we don't. We have the technology, the know how, and the space to make clean energy be the sole power in this country everywhere. We have enough desert to put up solar panels to power the country. We have enough grass land to power it through wind. And enough ocean and empty oil wells for wave power and thermo power.

Instead, we focus on where else we can drill oil in this country. Despite the known fact that even in a best case scenario, we won't have enough to power ourselves for even ten years, and that won't be in effect for nearly ten years, people still obsess over oil on our soil. We constantly here talk and see commercials about how great it will to drill off shore. It is a lame argument at best. So when we say we need to be energy independent, it is a complete contradiction to then say we need to drill more at home, because the two don't mix. Drilling at home can't make us energy independent.

3. Blue Collar Vs. Wall Street
This one really pisses me off. Over the last several weeks we have heard the Obama administration talk about how it doesn't have the power to tear up contracts or force a company to tear up contracts. I'm speaking of course about the AIG bailouts. The government didn't have the power to tear up the contracts of these bonuses.

Oh really? Was it not just five months ago when the government ordered union workers to tear up their contracts, which were lawful and binding, and make new contracts more beneficial to the companies? And did the Obama administration not just force GM CEO Wagoner to step down despite his contract of hire? This is complete contradictory bullshit!

Either you can or you can't ask someone to tear up a contract. Plain and simple. It is a contradiction to say you can't then turn around and force someone to tear up their contract. Not to mention a lie. The Obama administration is supposed to be on the side of labor. So what gives? MORE strong arming of the blue collar companies? Its complete bullshit hypocrisy!

4. Voting in your own best insterest.
This country is badly lacking in people who understand and know how to vote in their own best interest. There isn't a single working class person who should vote republican. Seriously. Nothing in the republican stance and history of the last three decades indicates they should vote republican. Republicans consistently leave office with higher deficits, higher national debt, and higher unemployment than democrats. Reagan to W, all higher unemployment rates than Carter and Clinton. Yet repubs keep voting for them.

Taxes? Nonsense, middle classes taxes have gone down less than 7% total in 3 decades while upper class taxes have gone down nearly 40%. There is a glaring contradiction between the party the blue collars vote for and what is in their own best interest. It simply cannot be reconciled. They have been convinced that some how republicans stand for family values like, well, the family, anti-abortion, and anti-gay rights. Yet, since reagan, Republicans have rolled back restrictions on companies that benefitted the family. W even restricted the ability of working folks to take leave on the FMLA by saying employers could force the person to work unpaid even when they have vacation time to use! They haven't rolled back or made one serious restriction on abortion. The one major rule change was done by Clinton who banned partial birth abortion. They haven't done a thing on gay marriage. Clinton did the biggest law changes with his defense of marriage act and don't ask don't tell, both horrible to any thinking libertarian. Yet, these are laws you would expect out of a republican.

Thus, not even the family issues are in most working class republicans benefit. They have been brainwashed to accept this false hood and accept this contradiction.

It is perhaps the biggest lie and contradiction in politics today. Name any issue, any issue at all, then look at the actual laws and rule made by each party in the last 3 decades. Almost none of them benefit any working class group. Not a one. Because the republican party doesn't work for the middle class. It works for the upper class. And that is the nasty lie, the nasty contradiction they have nearly half of american believing.

Single Payer Universal Health Care

2009-03-27T10:28:00.002-04:00

Sorry everyone, I have been sick off and on the last week, so I haven't continued my series about what is wrong with America. Instead, today, I have great news. Bernie Sanders, Senator from Vermont, has introduced the first Single Payer Universal Health care plan to the senate!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/3/26/713517/-Single-payer-health-reform-bill-introduced-in-Senate

Some highlights include:

Highlights of the bill include the following:

1. Patients go to any doctor or hospital of their choice.

2. The program is paid for by combining current sources of government health spending into a single fund with modest new taxes amounting to less than what people now pay for insurance premiums and out-of-pocket expenses.

3. Comprehensive benefits, including coverage for dental, mental health, and prescription drugs.

4. While federally funded, the program is to be administered by the states.

5. By eliminating the high overhead and profits of the private, investor-owned insurance industry, along with the burdensome paperwork imposed on physicians, hospitals and other providers, the plan saves at least $400 billion annually - enough money to provide comprehensive, quality care to all.

6. Community health centers are fully funded, giving the 60 million Americans now living in rural and underserved areas access to care.

7. To address the critical shortage of primary care physicians and dentists, the bill provides resources for the National Health Service Corps to train an additional 24,000 health professionals.

Wow. Our time has come for national health care fellow dems, left leaning independents and moders, and national health care supporting republicans. We need to really push our representatives and senators to vote for this! The time is now, the choice is clear, lets get it done people!!!!

Whats Wrong With America Today: Part 2 - The Commodity of Need

2009-03-24T09:51:00.002-04:00

Part 2 of this series covers the problem of privatizing ones needs. So we should start off by citing what are our basic needs.

1. Food
2. Water
3. Shelter
4. Heat (in the winter)
5. Cold (in the summer)
6. Clothing
7. Energy
8. Health care

What covers these needs? Farming covers most of your food. Livestock and vegetables and fruits are all functions of farms. Water companies cover the purification of your water that you must have to live. Shelter, well, thats covered by who ever you rent or buy from. Heat and cold and energy all come from private companies mostly. And clothing is covered by stores. Of course health care is mostly covered by private enterprise.

People die from lack of food, lack of water, lack of shelter, of over heating, of freezing to death, lack of clothing, and no energy. It is hard to argue that these are not needs in todays modern world. Its hard to argue that one doesn't need electricity to have their basic needs met. Its hard to argue that you can live a healthy productive life without good health care.

These things are basic needs. I would contend that all needs are in fact rights! In todays modern world, in the richest country in the world, built on the backs of our fore fathers and ancestors, has the obligation to provide for the needs of its population. We have a right to live in such a way. Our fathers and grandfathers broke their backs to make the top 1% in this country extremely wealthy with almost nothing to show for it. Entitlement? Hell yes!

It is the right of the people to benefit from the fruits of their labor. But what do we get? What do we get as a result of our labor? The "right" to pay for what we NEED, what we MUST have, to the great profit of someone else. Our country has effectively made our NEEDS, what we MUST have have, a commodity, an industry for making profit off the people.

They can and do raise their prices for what we needed based on that very need! They raise prices on food because they know we MUST have it. They raise energy prices every single year simply because they know we must have it. Health insurance goes up every year, and we must pay it or we will remain sick and even die! And if we don't have money for it, they we are out of luck. Sure, we have to be treated at the emergency room, but then they can indebt you for life, and even force you to go somewhere else after stabilization, and you don't have to be hospitalized if they can stabilize you.

There is something fundamentally wrong with a system that allowed rampant profit off of what you must have to live. There is something fundamentally wrong with a country that glorifies the man who finds a way to charge you for the gas to heat your house, then demonizes the man who gets upset because he can't afford his gas bill and gets his heat shut off. The people on the right are fond of blaming the victim for such things!

When you make the needs of the people a commodity, you necessarily set up a system that WILL drive the majority into the ground. You will necessarily create a poverty class that will always be behind, that will always be just to poor to pay for all their basic needs. These people are not people who are simply lazy or simply won't pull themselves up by their boot straps. They are people that have been charged into a permanent poverty class by spending all their money on their basic needs until they have nothing left, then they are constantly using every last bit of money to catch up with their bills to keep water or heat or electricity or food on the table until they finally collapse.

Making the provision of basic needs a profit industry, we have created a permanent poverty class, a permanent lower middle class and poor class. Having been poor and known many poor people, I can say that the ability to get out of the poverty situation is extremely difficult and most definitely not promised by hard work. Its not like the majority of those impoverished can get out of their situation by hard work. Why? Because we aren't guaranteed higher education. We aren't even guaranteed our basic needs in life. With basic needs and education guaranteed, the average person would be able to pull themselves out of the gutter and make a decent living for themselves.

But instead, we have created a situation in which people simply cannot work their way up. And all the while, people are forced to continue to work under near slave conditions simply so they can provide SOME of their basic needs. The money they get from slaving away all day goes to fund the fat cats making themselves extremely wealthy by charging you exorbitant prices for what you must have to survive! Do these blue collar poor worker less hard than you? Are they less important than anyone else? Is their value or even the value of their work any less? If you cannot do without them in your business, then the answer is no, its not worthless than you. If your business cannot survive without a specific position, then they are much more valuable than you likely pay them.

The striving goal of the wealthy is not to benefit society but to take advantage of it. By under paying people, paying them less than the value to the over all company. They make sure to transfer wealth from the lower classes to themselves. Example. The value of a worker is the value of the product he makes. But that is not what happens. A worker makes 15 20 even 30 dollars per hour making a good. A good that he will likely buy. So he is paid his wages, buys the product, thus putting his wages back into the company. So while he is making wages per hour dollars, someone else, or many someone elses, are making the equivalent of thousands per hour. The real value of the labor is chronically and deliberately understated as to make the wage worker believe he is getting paid well when in reality, in relation to the wealth received for the product, he is well under paid to the benefit of a few upper classmen.

For those unfortunate to make even less money, they are taken advantage of even worse. Consider the example of McDonalds. You say someone flipping burgers gets the pay they deserve. Do they? The value of ones labor is the value of the product they produce or the service they give. If a store makes 5,000 dollars in sales during one lunch period, not uncommon for McDonalds, then you must consider that the value of the wage associates during that period must be worth 5,000 dollars. Yet, during that lunch hour, that one hour pay comes out to likely less than 50 total dollars in labor for the store. Their value has thus been reduced, in total, to 1% of the value of the product they produce or the service they provide.

Which brings me to closing. Where ever the wages or pay of a person do not equal in total, the value of the product or the service they provide, then that person is under paid. Combine this with charging them to much for the product they produce, and charging them for basic things they need to survive, you create a class of people that cannot and will not ever get to the point where they can move up in live or class. This is by design to prevent any threat of wealth distribution from those who horde it to those who produce it!

What is wrong with this country? Needs being made into an industry for profit. Your basic needs be sold off to you at what ever price they can squeeze out of you. And there isn't a thing you can do about it. To make things worse, they convince you that you some how have a grand deal while your labor earns a few millions, and you barely enough to buy back the products you made from them. Thus giving them even more of your earnings. Until this problem can be addressed, life will never resemble the equality it should in this country.

What is Wrong With America Today: Part 1 - Deregulation

2009-03-23T10:32:00.002-04:00

This is the beginning of a multi-part series in which I give my take on what is wrong with this country.

The first part is entitled deregulation. Now, this is some what controversial in that it is the single biggest contributor to what has happened in the markets today. But before I get about actually pointing out a couple specific deregulatory measures and why they hurt, I need to address the Community Reinvestment Act. Republicans are big fans of saying that this is what caused the housing crash in 2008. But it is simply ridiculous and its easy to show why.

1. Only 1 in 4 first loans were made through the CRA
2. No where in the CRA does it tell or require or suggest that someone who can't afford to repay a loan, be loaned money.
3. The rate of delinquency for subprime FIXED loans is only 1/3 of those delinquent subprime ADJUSTABLE loans. In other words, fixed loans are more often paid back than adjustable rate loans.
4. The rate of delinquency for loans under CRA is the same or lower than loans NOT under the CRA.

So stop the ridiculous claim that the CRA is responsible for this mess. A little investigation proves every point in that argument wrong.

Now, on to deregulation.

Deregulation isn't always bad. The problem is not that deregulation happened, but rather WHAT was deregulated that matters. So I will start with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. http://banking.senate.gov/conf/

What did the GLBA of 1999 do? It repealed the wall of separation created during the Great Depression that kept regular banks, investment banks, and insurance groups separate. This particular act of deregulation allowed the likes of AIG and Citigroup to exist in their current hybrid forms. Before this bill, AIG would not have been allowed to be both an insurer of investment banks while itself making risky investment. Before this bill, Citi would not have been able to be both an investment bank, depositors banks, and buy up travellers insurance group. This alone would have allowed both of them to be able to be nationalized and parcelled with out having to be kept afloat. In other words, they wouldn't have been "to big to fail". For that matter, AIG would NOT have failed as its biggest problem is not what it originally did, provide insurance to investment banks, but rather the fact that it ALSO participated in the same risky investments that it insured! Citi can be counted in the same boat. Had the GLBA never been passed, this country would not have had to bail out AIG or CITI. They are THE direct result of this law deregulating them.

The second and possibly most dangerous of these deregulatory measures was the Commodity Futures Modernization act of 2000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000
This repealed the ban on single-stock futures and worse still, insured that banking institutions would not be regulated as futures contracts. In other words, futures traders were regulated, unless they became a bank as well, which was now allowed as of 1999 after passage of the GLBA. Futures have always been a risky business that needed to be regulated to prevent your money from being spent horribly on, essentially, bets. But that was now completely possible. Unregulated gambling with your investment money by super banks who now invested your money, took your deposits, and insured the investments. One stop shopping, with a single point of failure. This one thing alone made Enron's disaster possible and should have been shut down after Enron. But it wasn't. And now here we are in 2008 still dealing with the same problem.

You may be wondering about Credit Default swaps and how they play into all this. Well, credit default swaps were a creation of JPMorgan Chase. Or at least they were one of the earliest adopters. They bundled 9 billion in loans, sliced them up, and sold them. Problem was, this was never a regulated industry. There was no way to properly track the value of the loans in the bundles. The JPMorgan Chase credit default swap used this to get bad loans and bad debt off their books and pawned off on someone else without them knowing. The JPMC credit default swap desk became known as the Morgan Mafia. But despite the knowledge that these practices were likely dangerous, other companies, like AIG and CITI began adopting this completely unregulated market.

The lack of regulation mixed with deregulation, allowed for everyone of the nasty situations we see developing in front of us today. Had credit swaps been illegal or regulated properly, this wouldn't have happened. Had the GLBA of 1999 not been passed, CITI and AIG would not exist in their current form and not be a huge problem. Had the CFMA of 2000 not been signed, these new super banks would not be able to make these massively risky futures bets with your money with out regulation.

This idea that smaller government is better has proven a failure. In an unregulated market, short term greed wins out over common sense. And in the end, the CEO's still made millions, while the rest of us foot the bill for their mistakes. Deregulation has become a fundamental flaw in America today. Its time we stop believing in the invisible hand of the markets ability to keep its investors in line. It is a false belief that has proven catastrophic. Its time to start fixing America again!

Torture - The "New" American Way

2009-03-18T09:18:00.002-04:00

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090316/ts_nm/us_usa_torture_redcross_2

The ICRC report gave uniform accounts of abuse that included beatings, sleep deprivation, extreme temperatures and, in some cases, waterboarding, or simulating drowning, the Post said.

The Washington Post said at least five copies of the report were shared with the CIA and top White House officials in 2007.

The newspaper said a copy of the report was obtained by Mark Danner, a journalism professor who published extensive excerpts in the April 9 edition of the New York Review of Books, released on Sunday.

"The ill-treatment to which they were subjected while held in the CIA program, either singly or in combination, constituted torture," Danner quoted the report as saying.

It is the story I have been expecting to break for years now. The Red Cross, our designated group for deciding what is torture or violating the geneva convention for other nations, finally giving a report on our country. The news last night was more graphic than the posted story above. A man interviewed that was imprisoned gave nasty details. Things like putting him in a box only big enough to crouch in for days on end, coffin like boxes that restricted air, hanging by his wrists for days, beatings, having a towel wrapped around his neck and being swung around into walls, waterboarding, and other simulated drowning activities.

The sheer horror of this happening is enough to make you cry. The fact that it was our country, the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, that did these horrible acts is almost unfathomable. Yet, here it sits, in evidence for all to see, that our president, our government, treated people worse than dogs. They tortured them brutally. In many cases, they weren't ever even charged with a crime, they were let go.

The insane horrific and evil nature of these acts cannot be allow to stand unchallenged. We, as a nation, need to rise up and DEMAND accountability, and yes, even prosecution of the people involve. Obama is fond of saying that he wants to look forward no backwards.

I'm sorry Mr. President, but you could not be more wrong in this situation. By not prosecuting these crimes, you, me, and all of America become complicit in these crimes! Guilty by reason that we knew about them and said nothing. That we knew of these evil crimes, committed by fellow Americans, yet we did nothing! NO! It cannot be this way! We must prosecute for these crimes! Let the law do its job. If someone isn't guilty, then so be it. But if they are, the full extent of our American Justice system, fought for and bled for by our forefathers, should be release upon them and exact the price required by said law for their crimes!

We should DEMAND this action now!

United Nations Bill Attempts to Criminalize Religious Defamation!

2009-03-17T13:34:00.002-04:00

http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1289203/apps/s/content.asp?ct=6831061

Geneva, March 11, 2009 — A new U.N. resolution circulated today by Islamic states would define any questioning of Islamic dogma as a human rights violation, intimidate dissenting voices, and encourage the forced imposition of Sharia law. (See full U.N. text below.)

UN Watch obtained a copy of the Pakistani-authored proposal after it was distributed today among Geneva diplomats attending the current session of the UN Human Rights Council. Entitled "Combating defamation of religions," it mentions only Islam.

While non-binding, the resolution constitutes a dangerous threat to free speech everywhere. It would ban any perceived offense to Islamic sensitivities as a "serious affront to human dignity" and a violation of religious freedom, and would pressure U.N. member states -- at the "local, national, regional and international levels" -- to erode free speech guarantees in their "legal and constitutional systems."

It's an Orwellian text that distorts the meaning of human rights, free speech, and religious freedom, and marks a giant step backwards for liberty and democracy worldwide.

The first to suffer will be moderate Muslims in the countries that are behind this resolution, like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan, who seek international legitimacy for state-sanctioned blasphemy laws that stifle religious freedom and outlaw conversions from Islam to other faiths.

Next to suffer from this U.N.-sanctioned McCarthyism will be writers and journalists in the democratic West, with the resolution targeting the media for the "deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons."

Ultimately, it is the very notion of individual human rights at stake, because the sponsors of this resolution seek not to protect individuals from harm, but rather to shield a specific set of beliefs from any question, debate, or critical inquiry.

The resolution's core premise -- that "defamation of religion" exists as legal concept -- is a distortion. The law on defamation protects the reputations of individuals, not beliefs. It also requires an examination of the truth or falsity of the challenged remarks -- a determination that no one, especially not the UN, is capable of undertaking concerning any religion.

Tragically, given that Islamic states completely dominate the Human Rights Council, with the support of non-democratic members like Russia, China, and Cuba, adoption of the regressive resolution is a forgone conclusion. E.U. diplomats hope at best to win over a handful of wavering Latin American states to the dissenting side.

On this site you can read the whole text of the bill itself.

This is a serious threat to free speech around the world. This cannot go unchallenged. Even though it is not binding, it is a first step towards suffocating the ability to speak out against religion. Understand that while atheists like myself are wholly fighting this, it also effects religion. If you are a christian, imagine being called a criminal and going to jail for saying your religion is the only way? For a Muslim, imagine going to jail for saying that Jesus wasn't god, just a man? Imagine being an atheist and having to keep your mouth shut about your feelings on religion. This is an afront to freedom, period!

Did Obama Pledge to End Earmarks?

2009-03-16T15:16:00.002-04:00

The answer is clearly NO!

http://mediamatters.org/items/200903150011?f=h_top
As mediamatters.org points out, Obama OPPOSED the outright elimination of earmarks. So why are republicans and even media outlets like Fox continuing to spew out these lies?

OBAMA [video clip]: Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts. And that's why I've opposed their outright elimination.

ASMAN: Well, he once pledged to ban all earmarks. Now the president says, eh, they're not so bad. And someone here says the president is right. Hi, everybody, I'm David Asman, welcome to Forbes on Fox. Let's get to our "Flipside" with Steve Forbes, Victoria Barrett, and Bill Baldwin, along with Neil Weinberg, Elizabeth MacDonald, and Jack Gage. Jack, of all the people in the world, I would not have expected you to defend earmarks.

JACK GAGE (Forbes magazine associate editor): Look, I think we have to separate two things. One, Barack Obama's contradiction of what he said before about how he feels about earmarks. But the second thing, I believe there's a fundamental case to be made for earmarks as part of the fabric of representative government.

But see, thats not true.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Barack_Obama_Government_Reform.htm

Obama, during the campaign, wanted to reform ear marks and go line by line through the budget and eliminate wasteful spending and unbeneficial ear marks. I challenge one person to find a quote in which Obama said he was for the banning of earmarks. Can't find it? Neither can I. And neither can the right. Because if they did, they would be quoting it from here to timbucktoo.

What they want is something to hang Obama on. They can't find it, so they make something up that sounds relatively true. But one thing Obama was quoted on during the campaign rings true. Republicans continue to focus on the tiniest part of the over all bill. The Omnibus Spending bill had allot of earmarks. But they still totaled less than 1 to 2 percent of the total bill. In other words, looking at the big picture, there wasn't allot of the money going towards ear marks. And even if there was, the Republicans only had 40% of the total NUMBER of earmarks in the bill, they spend just as much as the democrats, nearly 50% of the earmark money was for republican ear marks. And in fact, 6 out of the top ten ear markers were republicans.

All that racket for nothing. In other words, as usual, another big racket in which the republicans were being hypocrites. AGAIN! At some point, the republicans must realize that they have to come through on what they say. You can't just say stuff then do the opposite. They aren't the majority any more, they aren't getting their agenda through. If they ever want to get votes back, they MUST stop the hypocrisy! They can start with ear marks. Why don't people like Michelle Buckman of Minnesota, who scream about ear marks this year, stop requesting ear marks. While she was throwing a fit about ear marks, she quietly put three in herself. THAT is the hypocrisy people vote out in the last two elections.

President Obama's New Budget

2009-03-16T10:26:00.002-04:00

Time for the budget fight of a lifetime as Republicans decide that NOW they are budget conservatives! Thats right, the party that gave you one spending bill after another to send our troops to die in a foreign land, now isn't willing to spend any money on YOU. Attack a country? Sure! Run up the debt and triple the deficit! Get our own people a better energy policy, start on healthcare, and raise taxes on the richest? No way!

So lets go over what is in this new budget plan shall we?

1. Obama's new budget proposes more money for the sciences, including NASA, Energy Department, and the EPA. Its time to turn back the clock on the republicans War on Science. Listen, we cannot continue to go at the pace we are going with the environment. Either we start fixing it now, or we pay much more later. We have business men already waiting to fill in the gaps for clean energy! People who know how to make a buck are chomping at the bit to introduce clean energy like wind power at a colossal level! Its time we had a president that acts responsibly and gives science the ammo it needs to make the kinds of advance that took us from skid row to the moon in just a few decades.

2. The new budget cuts war funding. A stunning and clear cut message that we are leaving Iraq.

3. New budget actually CUTS general government spending and keeps deficit at around a trillion for the next two years, then will begin to cut it. Why and how is this? After all the budget is at record level for 2010 and 2011. But he can do this because he has shown IMMENSE transparency in the budget! What I mean to say is that the stimulus packages AND the war funding are being put into the budget this time around. That means that while it is higher over all, it only appears so because he has put in the other spending that our previous president left out. So now ALL the spending is "on the books" unlike before. But if you compare the spending of the previous administration and make it apples for apples, Obama's budget spending is either lower or the same. He is just being honest with our spending now so it looks bigger.

4. Billions are being put back for our future health care plan. This is a great step in the right direction and getting us ready for national healthcare in the next couple years. This must be the biggest and best thing our country has seen since the New Deal. THIS is huge! I personally can't wait for national health care! I am willing to up my taxes to pay for it.

5. Taxes on the rich will be raised to what they were during Reagan and Clinton's era. Last I checked, the last 20 years have been fabulous for the rich. They have seen their median income go up while the rest of the country has remained stagnant. Wages for them go up for them but not us. Its time to pay the piper and give your fair share. When you benefit most from our system, you should pay more into it.

Over all, this budget is great. I love nearly every aspect of it. All of these things are things I have been speaking out for, for a long time! We need these things and its nice to FINALLY have a president pushing a budget that works for us! The republicans insist on being the party of no. Of course, over all spending is up 8% for the military. But they of course whine about that too saying its not being raised enough! Listen republicans! You can't have it both ways! You can't cry out for more spending cuts while crying for more spending! So shut it! You are a bunch of hypocrites who have earned my scorn! Stuff a sock in it republicans, until you can learn what works and understand that you lost in November for a good reason! Figure out what that reason was, and you might gain a seat or two in the future. Or maybe not.

Obama Birth Certificate Conspiracy based on Conservative Satire!

2009-03-16T09:48:00.001-04:00

http://liberalsmash.blogspot.com/2008/03/obama-is-kenyan-but-not-really-or-is-he.html

Much has been said in the New York Times about the legality of John Sidney McCain III being able to assume the Presidency of the United States because he was not actually born in this country. What the Democrats want you to believe is there is a legitimate problem created by his being born in the Panama Canal zone on a United States military installation. His father was active-duty Navy and was sent to the canal zone by the United States government. There is no problem at all with McCain's bid. The one glaring thing that they overlook is that Barry Obama is not the offspring of American citizens. Let's look at the real problem.

Barry's father was Kenyan. Was he even legally in this country? He was NEVER a citizen. Did Ann Dunham become a citizen of Kenya when she married the Kenyan? Granted, it has become law of the land that if two criminals make it into this country and spawn, their offspring by right becomes a ward of the Fed. Yes, a ward of the Fed because from that point on, we pick up the tab for everything that child needs.

This comes from the basic premise that two negatives equal a positive. In math, that's great, but in this social experiment we call the United States, is that right? Two criminals make a legal citizen? Folks, that is crazy.

I have it from a pretty good source that Ann Dunham, Barry's white mother, renounced her citizenship. She married her second foreign student, Lolo Soetoro, in 1967 and moved to Indonesia. Did Barry's mother ever become legal after her return to the states? Is Barry actually Indonesian? This is actually a REAL citizenship problem for a Presidential candidate, can a person who is born an American citizen, renounce their citizenship, become a citizen of another country, and then become a "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" again? It seems farfetched to me.

I think that we need to actually challenge Barry's candidacy and eligibility to run for President. It seems that our government is just going to look the other way as an attempt to gain more power over our lives.

Please take the time to comment.

UPDATE: You know, I THOUGHT that most people could make the assumption that this post was written in response to the idiotic drivel by the New York Times about McCains' eligibility. I was wrong. This is pointing out the stupidity of the lies printed by the Times. And it is lying stupidity.

But then lets read the comments.

Are you joking us with this here buddy? It would be an interesting argument except for a couple-a things.

1. Arguments make sense.
2. Holes you could drive a bus, make that an airbus, through.

First question I got for you is what's your source for the allegation that Ann Dunham renounced her citizenship? Is it one a them "unnamed sources" you've got to protect, just like real news folk have?

Second, marrying someone from another country would not mean you were no longer an American. Ever heard of dual-citizenship?

Third, just how would Ann's renouncing of her citizenship, after Barack Obama is born and moving to Indonesia affect his citizenship? He was already born a citizen and was a minor.

Just an FYI, children born of parents who come here undocumented are citizens because regardless of what their parents did, they did not come here illegally. Since when do we punish children for what their parents did? The purpose is to afford children, who are innocent and born on our soil, the protections of our constitution and laws.

Or am I wasting my time here expecting most bloggers, some of us do, but very many don't, to make sense?

Yes, I am joking. That SHOULD be obvious.

1. Thank you. I do realize that my argument makes sense. The same amount of sense that the New York Times article made.

2. There are no holes because this is satire.

My source is the exact same as the New York Times source that said McCain's staffers tried to talk to him about his lobbyist problem.

There is no such thing as dual-citizenship for a citizen of the United States. That is the law, sir and also a fact.

If his mother renounced her citizenship, she would do so for her minor child, that is the law, sir and also a fact.

I do understand the point of your argument about children born here, it is in my post, sir. Read it again.

And finally, my post makes the exact same amount of sense as the New York Times opinion piece on John McCain's eligibility for the Presidency. Push aside what appears to be your glaring political bias and look at facts.

If you read on, you get the impression that this guy started to believe his own Satire. The point is that Obama released his birth certificate MONTHS ago. What birthers are "requiring" is the original long form in the hospital vault. The copy you get when you request a copy is the short form. And MOST hospitals will not release the long form because it contains information that can easily be used to steal ones identity. If fact, I would wager most have never even SEEN their OWN long form Birth Certificate from the "vault". I sure haven't.

Fundamentalist Heroes: Michael Savage

2009-03-13T14:34:00.002-04:00

Michael Savage isn't just any old whack job. He is an especially dangerous whack job. During Katrina, a 75 year old women told people what she saw inside the Dome in New Orleans. She told of horrible conditions. Michael Savage laughed at her story and questioned whether or not she had an "agenda" and what liberal organization she must work for. What a shit head!

But recently, Michael Savage has crossed the line from Crazy, to dangerous. Michael Savage, on a recent radio broadcast, talked about his insane idea that the people Obama is going to have weatherizing houses, are actually part of an elite paramilitary group that will start turning this nation into a Nazi type dictatorship. You can listen to it here:
http://jeffrey-feldman.typepad.com/frameshop/2009/03/calling-john-stewart-get-savage.html

But his insanity isn't new, just more dangerous.

Quotes from his book, Savage Nation:

When ultraliberalism takes over the mind of a city, streets are no longer safe, people are defenseless, and wackos with weapons get free handouts. (P. 14)

Back when America was still moral and whole, our meatballs were big, soft, and tasty. Today, thanks mainly to the Demoncats, the libs, and the Commu-Nazis who rule the courts, America's meatballs are small, hard, and tasteless. In other words, we have replicated the Swedish meatball, which is what socialism brings. (P. 17)

Liberalism is unraveling the very fabric of this great nation. And the sooner you understand that liberalism is a dangerous mental disorder, the sooner you can break free from this insanity that attacks the way you live, how you conduct your business, the way you worship, the choice of SUV you drive, the food you eat, and the very freedoms you enjoy. (P. 19)

As for the clipped-haired, mean-faced Demoncats who tell me I'm hateful and intolerant because I oppose the tidal wave of Turd World immigration, I say, Go find another country. Who are you to judge me? You may think unlawful immigrants sucking the nipple of taxpayer subsidized healthcare is a good thing, but you're wrong, and I'll prove it. (P. 23)

I stare at the pages of the "Old York Times" wondering what new game the liberal terrorists, with the aid of the government-media complex, are inflicting on us. Every time I read the paper, I have to decode. I'm sickened by watching the politicians, the femi-fascists, the Commu-Nazis, and the RDDBs rip apart the land I inherited. (P. 27)

Yes, he is an idiot.

Savage also hates MSNBC and women reporters.

Turn on MSNBC and you'll find the mind-slut with a big pair of glasses that they sent to Afghanistan. She looks like she went from porno into reporting. See, when they get over forty they go into news. (p. 48)

Yeah, don't think he has watched Fox News.

He hates female politicians.

Had Mr. Bush gone along with Feinstein's request, you can be sure Barbara "Babs" Boxer would demand to be in the loop-in the interest of fairness. I guarantee it, two seconds after Babs put her hands on these national secrets, she'd be on a cell phone to someone in Brooklyn:

You know what I just heard. Let me tell you, they're going to launch in two minutes. Oh yeah, it'll be over Afghanistan... No, I don't want you to tell anybody, it's just between you and me, and by the way, I had my nails done this morning. Oh, I had them done in pink, and yeah, were launching three B3 bombers in exactly twelve minutes but I tell you the truth, the jewelry I bought on QVC, it really doesn't hold up when I go on C-SPIN, you know, it looks a little cheap... (P. 50)

He also believes in racial profiling, hates all immigrants (says koreans shouldn't be allowed over here because they like to grill dog in his backyard), and believes liberals and the democrats are the party of tyranny. Yeah, go figure! Idiot!

Michael Savage is an idiot with a microphone, which makes him dangerous. He has a fairly large following of other idiots who spout his same crap too. Whats worse, he has gotten worse since his party was removed from power. This is a man to watch for. A man to fight against. A dangerous, unreasonable, man.

What Happens if China STOPS Buying US Treasuries?

2009-03-13T13:11:00.001-04:00

MSNBC Story

BEIJING - China’s premier expressed concern Friday about its holdings of Treasuries and other U.S. debt, appealing to Washington to safeguard their value, and said Beijing is ready to expand its stimulus if economic conditions worsen.

Premier Wen Jiabao noted that Beijing is the biggest foreign creditor to the United States and called on Washington to see that its response to the global slowdown does not damage the value of Chinese holdings.

Serious question. What happens to the US economy, in which they hold massive amounts of our debt, ceases to get those loans we have been borrowing? It is a terrifying prospect. It truly is. They have us over a barrel.

The Future of Electric Cars is Here!

2009-03-13T10:13:00.003-04:00

Source Article

A revolutionary mobile phone battery that recharges in 10 seconds instead of several hours has been created by scientists.

The new device charges 100 times as fast as a conventional battery and could also be used in phones, laptops, iPods and digital cameras within just two or three years, they say.

The same technology could even allow an electric car to be charged up in the same time that it takes to fill a conventional car with petrol - removing one of the biggest obstacles to green, clean motoring.

The quick-charge battery is the brainchild of engineers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The MIT team say their invention uses materials already available to battery manufacturers and would be simple to mass produce.

The invention is based on conventional lithium ion rechargeable batteries found in most cameras, phones and portable computers.

Lithium ion batteries are used in portable gadgets because they store a large amount of energy in a small space.

However, they are also relatively slow at recharging - which can be a nuisance for anyone who forgets to charge up their phone overnight.

Dr Gerbrand Cedar, who devised the new battery, said: 'Electric car batteries have a lot of energy so you can drive at 55mph for a long time, but the power is low. You can't accelerate quickly.'

Dr Cedar and colleagues have now found a way of speeding up this process, the science journal Nature reports.

Conventional lithium ion batteries contain two electrodes - one made from lithium and one from carbon - submerged in a liquid or paste called an electrolyte.

When a battery is being charged up, ions - or positively charged atoms - flow from the lithium electrode to the carbon one. When a battery is discharging, the ions flow the other way.

The new battery could also work with rechargeable cars

Charging up or discharging a battery is slow because it takes time to 'detach' the ions from one electrode and absorb them into the other.

The researchers took a conventional electrode made from lithium iron phosphate and altered its surface structure so that ions were released and absorbed 100 times more quickly than normal.

A prototype made using the new technique could be fully charged or discharged in just 10 to 20 seconds. A similar sized ordinary battery takes six minutes to charge.

Unlike other battery materials, the new material does not degrade when repeatedly charged and recharged. That could lead to faster batteries lasting between two or three years, they said.

'The ability to charge and discharge batteries in a matter of seconds rather than hours may open up new technological applications and induce lifestyle changes,' Dr Ceder said.

The technology could also usher in a new generation of smaller, lighter batteries that allow phones and handheld batteries to be the size of credit cards.

Although the invention will be popular with owners of electronic portable gadgets - who will no longer need to remember to keep them charged up overnight - it could also usher in a new era of electric cars.

Bigger batteries for plug in electric cars could charge in just five minutes - compared with about eight hours for existing batteries.

Owners of electric cars would be free to drive long distances, safe in the knowledge that they could top up their battery in a few minutes at a service station - just like the owner of a petrol or diesel car.

Let the Electric Car Revolution Begin!!!

Fundamentalist Heroes: Alan Keyes

2009-03-12T13:03:00.002-04:00

Alan Keyes is a class a Whack-Nut. But the far right extremists LOVE him! He believes in a Constitutional Theocracy, and believes that is what our fore fathers wanted. Not a "christian nation", a freaking theocracy. He judges every single issue on the bible, no exceptions.

I frankly don't care if you agree with my stand on abortion. I take that stand because no other stand is consistent with decent principles, and no other standard is consistent with the will of God.

Notice that he points out gods will? As if he can actually know it himself. Keyes believes himself special, that some how god talks to him personally. He believes that anything that is not in the bible is nothing less that the destruction of our country. Take homosexuality. He believes they have a RADICAL agenda. Yeah, like equal rights. Pretty radical to want the same things you have a right too. But read what he says about it. It is completely off the charts ridiculous.

It's about time we all faced up to the truth. If we accept the radical homosexual agenda, be it in the military or in marriage or in other areas of our lives, we are utterly destroying the concept of family.

Utterly destroyed? By letting gay people marry or serve in the military? Idiot! He considers taxes socialist, and wants to limit the governments spending and revenue to force spending cuts. If Keyes had his way, government would spend on taxes and helping out the church and nothing else.

But perhaps the most psychotic issue Keyes has is his psychotic belief that Obama is not a natural born citizen simply because Obama has not forced the Hawaii government to release his long form birth certificate. Not only that, he believes Obama to be a Kenyan usurper and believes Obama being president means the end of our world as we know it! Just watch him.

Fundamentalist hero Alan Keyes is on the fringe of the Right wing. But make no mistake, he has more followers than he should in a country as advanced as ours!

The Right Wing Has Crossed the Line from Crazy to Treasonous!

2009-03-11T12:49:00.003-04:00

Source Article

The call by some right wing leaders for rebellion and for the military to refuse the commander in chief’s orders is joined by Chuck Norris who claims that thousands of right wing cell groups have organized and are ready for a second American Revolution. During an appearance on the Glen Beck radio show he promised that if things get any worse from his point of view he may “run for president of Texas.” The martial artist/actor/activist claims that Texas was never formally a part of the United States in the first place and that if rebellion is to come through secession Texas would lead the way.

Today in his syndicated column on WorldNetDaily Norris reiterates the point: “That need may be a reality sooner than we think. If not me, someone someday may again be running for president of the Lone Star state, if the state of the union continues to turn into the enemy of the state.”

He continues; calling on a second American Revolution; “…we've bastardized the First Amendment, reinterpreted America's religious history and secularized our society until we ooze skepticism and circumvent religion on every level of public and private life.

How much more will Americans take? When will enough be enough? And, when that time comes, will our leaders finally listen or will history need to record a second American Revolution? We the people have the authority according to America's Declaration of Independence, which states: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”

Norris claims that; “Thousands of cell groups will be united around the country in solidarity over the concerns for our nation.” The right wing cells will meet during a live telecast, "We Surround Them," on Friday March 13 at 5 p.m.

He closes with the words of Sam Houston followed by a plug for his next martial arts event.

“We view ourselves on the eve of battle."

This man and his right wing nuts are dangerous! They have stepped over the line from crazy, to dangerous. This is tantamount to treason if you ask me! Lock him, and Alan Keyes, and Sean Hannity up for treason and planning to assassinate the president! Take em down and round em up! You can do it under the Patriot Act they wanted so much. And you can imprison them without charges by calling them "Domestic Terrorists", just like they wanted. And we can water board them since they don't believe it is torture.

Or we can just show them how the law works. And lock them up for treason.

Fundamentalist Heroes: Chuck Norris

2009-03-11T12:22:00.003-04:00

Chuck Norris is a recent addition to the list of fundamentalist heroes. He is very possibly the most dangerous. Why you may ask? Because of his recent comments. Chuck norris has recently advocated the over throw of our government, due to who our president is.

“Thousands of cell groups will be united around the country in solidarity over the concerns for our nation.” The right wing cells will meet during a live telecast, "We Surround Them," on Friday March 13 at 5 p.m.

Cell groups? Like terrorist groups? This man is dangerous. Him and Alan Keyes. I'm sure he also believes Obama isn't a real citizen or is a Manchurian Candidate. He quotes Sam Houston to describe him and his ilk's current state of mind.

“We view ourselves on the eve of battle."

On the eve of battle? This is nothing more than plotting the over throw of the government! This is tantamount to treason in my book! Thousands of people to "battle"? What else could he be talking about?

And that is why the fundies like him. We now see the fruits of allowing these fundamentalist nut jobs to grow in power and influence. Much like radical Islam, allowing them a place with special rights and such, has allowed them to get to a dangerous level of power in this country, and Chuck Norris and his kind are their leaders. People with power and influence over these idiots.

Whats worse, Chuch Norris believes he is led by god. That god is on his side. That the end times are soon. Word to the wise, the USA is not mentioned in revelations. Being as such, there are many US fundamentalist nut jobs the believe the US will not be a factor due to civil war or nuclear attack when the end comes. Don't put it past these nut jobs to try and bring down this country to bring the end times on! These people are dangerous and need to be stopped.

A Purpose Driven Agenda - Is Obama Taking on To Much?

2009-03-10T09:39:00.002-04:00

President Obama is nothing if not ambitious. Taking a look at what he has accomplished so far and what he has stated he will accomplish in the next year or too, it is a smorgasbord of reform and dynamic change for America.

Childrens Health Care
Fair Pay for Women
Ban lifted on federal funding for stemcell research
Order to close Quantanimo within a year
Orders CIA black sites closed
Stopped torture
Begun pulling troops out of Iraq
Bank stimulus money usage changed
Stimulus bill passed
Tax cuts for middle and lower class Americans
Put wars and stimulus packages back on the budget so we can see the costs
Put stimulus bill money usage on website for tracking
Release former presidents illegally secret transcripts
Announced health care summit
Put cap and trade in the budget
Announced education plan today (will soon)
Is trying to get Card Check passed

In other words, he has made policies regarding the economy, the wars, the budget, health care, labor, and education. In response to that, the GOP is split. Half of them saying he isn't doing any thing to help the economy, which is obviously a lie, and the other half, curiously, saying he is taking on too much. Heck, even Warren Buffet chimed in against how much he is doing.

But to me, this baffles the mind. What choice does he have? Policies from the last two decades have left Healthcare in shambles, costs rising dramatically, education in horrible shape, children left uncovered by medicaid, women not allowed to contest their own discrimination, research set back by a decade, progress on the enviroment set back a decade, america's reputation demolished, deficit sky rocketed by a war based on lies, and economic policies that created the largest transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthy, ever seen in our lifetime.

None of these problems are small. They all demand immediate attention. Yet some how he is doing to much at once? Damn it, he doesn't have a choice. Had we had a President who resembled either or:
A. A Human being
B. An intelligent rational person
C. An honest person

Then perhaps the last eight years wouldn't have put us in this situation. In fact, he is going to add more to his plate. Soon he will start putting regulations back into place that have been taken out the last two presidencies. Does he have a choice in doing so much at once? Does he REALLY have a choice? Which of these can wait until a year or two has passed? Education? Healthcare? How about stopping torture or war? What about research? Any of these that can honestly just sit as is and not cause further damage?

The answer is no, they can't. He is taking these projects on, not just because he is ambitious, which he is, but because they cannot wait for him to solve on problem then move to the next. Rumor has it that he will be attempting to pass national healthcare at the end of this year. Wow, what a huge undertaking that will be. Fact of the matter is that our countries businesses NEED a national healthcare plan to help them compete in the global economy. No other country has to deal with the healthcare costs our companies have to deal with. In fact, no other population in an industrialized modern country has to deal with paying for the massively high prices of healthcare that we have too. For this country to recover and compete, we must have national healthcare. Our future depends on it.

In other words, President Obama is doing all these things at once because all these things are pressing problems that came at him, all at once. He has no choice but to suck it up and step up to the plate, one pitch at a time. Even if those pitches are coming at him all at once.

President Obama to Lift the Ban on Federal Funding of Stem Cell Research

2009-03-09T11:59:00.002-04:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/06/AR2009030602285.html

President Obama's decision to lift restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research, scheduled to be announced Monday, is expected to provide a major boost to one of the most promising but controversial fields of biomedical research in generations.

The signing of an executive order voiding the restrictions will allow thousands of scientists to study hundreds of lines of cells that have been developed since the limitations were put in place eight years ago. It will also allow them to dismantle cumbersome bureaucracies constructed to work around the constraints and let them exchange scientific ideas more easily.

Because stem cells obtained from very early embryos are believed to be capable of morphing into any tissue in the body, scientists think that they will yield fundamental insights into the underlying causes of many diseases and that they could be used to repair damage caused by diabetes, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries and other conditions.

Finally, a president who puts science first! The argument against this is ridiculous. The embryo's that are harvested are those that would other wise be destroyed at the envirtro holding lab they come from. We cannot allow the religious right to destroy science any more. Stop making it religious and realize this is science. Make public policy a matter of science, and not of faith. Haven't we suffered long enough at the hands of faith based federal policy making? Good for you Mr. President. Its a step in the right direct. Or should I say "left" direction?

Religulous

2009-03-09T09:16:00.003-04:00

I just bought this movie by Bill Maher and watched it, and boy am I glad I did. What a riot! This documentary doesn't just question one religion, or even just major religions, but all religions. He even puts the screws to a person whose essential religion is smoking pot all day. In the deleted seens he talks with the railians(sp?) and Ickes (believe in reptilians taking over the planet). He makes some extremely good points in the movie.

I think the biggest concept in the movie is that there is no such thing as moderate religion. As long as religion exists, there will be extremists. Is the cost too high? After all, if there is a god, is this something he wants and is willing to live with? Not likely in my book. Rarely, even in moderate religious circles, do people follow Jesus teaching any way. In Islam, the problem is the people who DO follow the teachings of Mohammad. In Catholicism, they accept that one man is infallible.

The point being made is that the amount of people who use religion to do good is a small minority compared to the people who simply do nothing with it other than let it influence them in areas of science and public policy, or even use religion in a harmful way. Is it worth it to have religion around when by enlarge is does either no good or is harmful? I of course say no. This isn't to say that believing in god is the same. Anyone can simply believe what they believe. But I worry, personally, that the people in high places making decisions often put more faith in the unseen than in empirical evidence. It worries me that a president can get elected on his faith alone. And that we can have a president that believe honestly that god is telling him to go to war.

These things exist because of religion, not out side of them and surely on the fringe. The fringe has become the here and now. And its about time skeptics stop being quiet. The extremists aren't. And why should we be quiet? Why is religion in a special class all its own? Why can't any religion be questioned and even challenged?

Rihanna - Singer to Hero to Zero

2009-03-06T09:47:00.002-05:00

In the news lately has been the tragic story of the popular singer Rhianna. While on her way to the grammys with boy friend Chris Brown, an argument ensued. She was then beaten senseless by this man. She was beaten until she was unconscious. The pictures of her injuries are gruesome. Eyes, cheeks, and lips swollen and bloody along with several cuts on her face.

Chris Brown was arrested and was set to be arraigned yesterday. Rhianna was set to become the virtual spokesperson for abused women. Showing the triumph of a battered woman and her comeback to the music industry. But it was never to be.

It was reported after the trial that the arraignment was being held off until next month. Why? Not enough evidence. And if that wasn't enough, it looks as though Rhianna and Chris Brown are getting back together. Yes, she is going back to the man who beat her senseless. Back to the man who said he would kill her. Back to the man who choked her until she was unconscious. Back to a man who has no respect for her.

I cannot begin to contemplate the damage this turn of events will cause to young women. Young impressionable girls who should have learned from Rhianna that no woman has to take abuse from any man. That no woman should have to take that kind of abuse. But instead, the example she set is one of returning to victimhood. Little girls who man one day be abused now have the role model of Rhianna going back to her abuser to guide them through this situation. Young boys now have the role model of Chris Brown to look at and realize that hitting a woman, even beating them up, doesn't always send you to jail.

This situation, in such high profile, now paves the way for a whole new generation of abusers and victims. Somewhere, some girls mind is being damaged into thinking that sometimes she might just deserve her man hitting her, so in a few years, when she is hit, she will forgive him and come back to him.

Chris Brown, you are a pathetic piece of horse crap.

Rhianna, shame on you for going back to him.

Congrats to both of you. You have managed to be a negative influence on likely thousands of young black people. You had the chance to be a hero Rhianna, and you chose to remain a victim.

Why is Islam Special?

2009-03-05T13:19:00.002-05:00

This is a personal take on one of the fastest growing religions in the world. Islam.
But religion is part of our culture, part of who we are, what we are. And like any religion, there are psychopaths that decide to take their faith to the extreme. But, unlike most in main stream religion, Islam has failed, as a whole, to evolve with society. Christianity and other main stream religions, have all had their harsh times of expansion in the past, but for the most part, they are tame and slowly becoming less and less a threat to the progress of the human race, and in many forms, like some of my christian friends, even beneficial to society. Of course, there are the fundies, but they are not the rule, they are the exception as I am finding out.

Why is it that Islam thinks its special? Why is it that we are expected to "not offend" Muslims? Muslim cartoons, books about Islam, comments about Islam, all are being increasingly censored so as to not "offend" muslims. Why? It is nothing but fear. Fear that they will retaliate violently against the "offender". Yet, the only way to get past this is to STOP respecting their "feelings". After all, who cares? If the truth hurts, then the onus is on you to get over it and not be a little trog about it!

And after all, I don't and should not be forced to respect any religion. I don't respect the ridiculous idea that someone was born of a virgin, died, the was resurrected after 3 days. I don't respect the idea some man, who was likely schizophrenic, sat in a cave and an angel supposedly came down and gave him a holy book. I don't respect the idea that anyone should follow a self proclaimed prophet who at the age of 53 had sex with a 9 year old girl, then slaughtered an entire village of Jews simply because they wouldn't follow him. I don't respect the idea that just because you can blow someone up, that you are right. I don't respect any religion in which a sadistic idiot like Bin Laden can gain popularity because your tiny mind, retarded by teachings from a stupid story fairy tale, believes that some how killing yourself ends in your reward! No, its not respectful to say that, but its true! YOUR INABILITY TO ARTICULATE YOUR BELIEF OR GET OTHERS TO BELIEVE YOUR INSANITY DO NOT ENTITLE YOUR TINY MIND TO KILL ME!

Nor does your unintelligent rambling or over bloated threats of violence hold any sway over my speech. Nor should it. Your feelings have nothing to do with it. And your over sensitive religious sensibilities will not be "respected" to protect your "feelings".

Tell you what Muslims. Why don't you do this. Listen closely. GET OVER YOURSELF! Evolve already! Get past your Neanderthalic representation of religion and come out of the cave you dwell in and stop taking literally the word of a man who doesn't find anything wrong with raping a child. Your prophet is a child rapist. At least follow something moral if you want to claim the moral outrage you so ridiculously chant in the streets while burning effigies of who knows what or who. So no, you aren't special. Your religion isn't special, your prophet isn't special, and your feelings will not be taken into account any more than any other faith. Don't like the picture of your prophet with his towel wrap made into a bomb? Then stop blowing up stuff. Its funny. Its funny because you are a people who refuse to speak out against idiots who blow themselves up. So either evolve, or learn to deal with the ridicule you bring on yourself.

And by the way, this picture is hilarious!

The Conceptual Guerilla

2009-03-04T13:30:00.002-05:00

This guy is good! If you are on the left, or center left, or a right winger who needs some truth added into your life, then check out Joe Lyles, the Conceptual Guerilla! Start with his Limbaugh Lie of the Day, then listen to his "Pressure Points" program. It is worth your time to download and listen too!

Stop the Looting of Social Security BEFORE it Happens!

2009-02-27T11:56:00.002-05:00

I got this article off the Nation Magazine. We need to do something about this before it happens! I have gone to www.whitehouse.gov/contact and sent President Obama and email about how I feel on this subject! Just say no Mr. President!

Governing elites in Washington and Wall Street have devised a fiendishly clever "grand bargain" they want President Obama to embrace in the name of "fiscal responsibility." The government, they argue, having spent billions on bailing out the banks, can recover its costs by looting the Social Security system. They are also targeting Medicare and Medicaid. The pitch sounds preposterous to millions of ordinary working people anxious about their economic security and worried about their retirement years. But an impressive armada is lined up to push the idea--Washington's leading think tanks, the prestige media, tax-exempt foundations, skillful propagandists posing as economic experts and a self-righteous billionaire spending his fortune to save the nation from the elderly.

These players are promoting a tricky way to whack Social Security benefits, but to do it behind closed doors so the public cannot see what's happening or figure out which politicians to blame. The essential transaction would amount to misappropriating the trillions in Social Security taxes that workers have paid to finance their retirement benefits. This swindle is portrayed as "fiscal reform." In fact, it's the political equivalent of bait-and-switch fraud.

Defending Social Security sounds like yesterday's issue--the fight people won when they defeated George W. Bush's attempt to privatize the system in 2005. But the financial establishment has pushed it back on the table, claiming that the current crisis requires "responsible" leaders to take action. Will Obama take the bait? Surely not. The new president has been clear and consistent about Social Security, as a candidate and since his election. The program's financing is basically sound, he has explained, and can be assured far into the future by making only modest adjustments.

But Obama is also playing footsie with the conservative advocates of "entitlement reform" (their euphemism for cutting benefits). The president wants the corporate establishment's support on many other important matters, and he recently promised to hold a "fiscal responsibility summit" to examine the long-term costs of entitlements. That forum could set the trap for a "bipartisan compromise" that may become difficult for Obama to resist, given the burgeoning deficit. If he resists, he will be denounced as an old-fashioned free-spending liberal. The advocates are urging both parties to hold hands and take the leap together, authorizing big benefits cuts in a circuitous way that allows them to dodge the public's blame. In my new book, Come Home, America, I make the point: "When official America talks of 'bipartisan compromise,' it usually means the people are about to get screwed."

The Social Security fight could become a defining test for "new politics" in the Obama era. Will Americans at large step up and make themselves heard, not to attack Obama but to protect his presidency from the political forces aligned with Wall Street interests? This fight can be won if people everywhere raise a mighty din--hands off our Social Security money!--and do it now, before the deal gains momentum. Popular outrage can overwhelm the insiders and put members of Congress on notice: a vote to gut Social Security will kill your career. By organizing and agitating, people blocked Bush's attempt to privatize Social Security. Imagine if he had succeeded--their retirement money would have disappeared in the collapsing stock market.

To understand the mechanics of this attempted swindle, you have to roll back twenty-five years, to the time the game of bait and switch began, under Ronald Reagan. The Gipper's great legislative victory in 1981--enacting massive tax cuts for corporations and upper-income ranks--launched the era of swollen federal budget deficits. But their economic impact was offset by the huge tax increase that Congress imposed on working people in 1983: the payroll tax rate supporting Social Security--the weekly FICA deduction--was raised substantially, supposedly to create a nest egg for when the baby boom generation reached retirement age. A blue-ribbon commission chaired by Alan Greenspan worked out the terms, then both parties signed on. Since there was no partisan fight, the press portrayed the massive tax increase as a noncontroversial "good government" reform.

Ever since, working Americans have paid higher taxes on their labor wages--12.4 percent, split between employees and employers. As a result, the Social Security system has accumulated a vast surplus--now around $2.5 trillion and growing. This is the money pot the establishment wants to grab, claiming the government can no longer afford to keep the promise it made to workers twenty-five years ago.

Actually, the government has already spent their money. Every year the Treasury has borrowed the surplus revenue collected by Social Security and spent the money on other purposes--whatever presidents and Congress decide, including more tax cuts for monied interests. The Social Security surplus thus makes the federal deficits seem smaller than they are--around $200 billion a year smaller. Each time the government dipped into the Social Security trust fund this way, it issued a legal obligation to pay back the money with interest whenever Social Security needed it to pay benefits.

That moment of reckoning is approaching. Uncle Sam owes these trillions to Social Security retirees and has to pay it back or look like just another deadbeat. That risk is the only "crisis" facing Social Security. It is the real reason powerful interests are so anxious to cut benefits. Social Security is not broke--not even close. It can sustain its obligations for roughly forty years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, even if nothing is changed. Even reports by the system's conservative trustees say it has no problem until 2041 (that report is signed by former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, the guy who bailed out the bankers). During the coming decade, however, the system will need to start drawing on its reserve surpluses to pay for benefits as boomers retire in greater numbers.
But if the government cuts the benefits first, it can push off repayment far into the future, and possibly forever. Otherwise, government has to borrow the money by selling government bonds or extend the Social Security tax to cover incomes above the current $107,000 ceiling. Obama endorses the latter option.

Follow the bouncing ball: Washington first cuts taxes on the well-to-do, then offsets the revenue loss by raising taxes on the working class and tells folks it is saving their money for future retirement. But Washington spends the money on other stuff, so when workers need it for their retirement, they are told, Sorry, we can't afford it.

Federal budget analysts try to brush aside these facts by claiming the government is merely "borrowing from itself" when it dips into Social Security. But that is a substantive falsehood. Government doesn't own this money. It essentially acts as the fiduciary, holding this wealth in trust for the "beneficial owners," the people who paid the taxes. This is the bait and switch the establishment intends to execute.

Peter Peterson, a Republican financier who made a fortune doing corporate takeover deals at Wall Street's Blackstone Group, is the Daddy Warbucks of the "fiscal responsibility" crusade. He has campaigned for decades against the dangers that old folks pose to the Republic. Now 82 and retired, Peterson claims he will spend nearly one-third of his $2.8 billion in wealth--he ranks 147 on the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans--alerting the public to this threat (leave aside the fact that old people have already paid for their retirement or that Social Security's modest benefits are equivalent to minimum-wage income). The major media treat him adoringly. Most reporters are too lazy (or dim) to check out the facts for themselves, so they simply repeat what Peterson tells them about Social Security.

It is a frightful message. Peterson describes a "$53 trillion hole" in America's fiscal condition--but the claim assumes numerous artful fallacies. His most blatant distortion is lumping Social Security, which is self-funded and sound, with other entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid. Those programs do face financial crisis--not because the elderly and poor are greedily gaming the system but because the medical-industrial complex has the profit incentive to drive healthcare costs higher and higher. Healthcare reform can solve the financing problem only if it imposes cost controls on private players like the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

Peterson is financing a media blitz. His tendentious documentary--I.O.U.S.A.--opened in 400 theaters and was broadcast on CNN with appropriate solemnity. Last September Peterson bought two full pages in the New York Times to urge the next president to create a "bipartisan fiscal responsibility commission" once he was in office (Peterson was for John McCain). This group of so-called experts would be authorized to design the reforms for Congress to enact. But Peterson does not want Congress to have a full, freewheeling debate on the particulars. The reform package, he suggests, should be submitted to a single "up-or-down vote by Congress, as is done with military base closings." That's one of the gimmicks intended to give politicians cover and protect them from their constituents. It is profoundly antidemocratic. But that's the idea--save the government from the unruly passions of citizens. Peterson's proposal also resembles the notorious fast-track provision, which for years enabled presidents to steamroll Congress on trade agreements, no amendments allowed.

Peterson's proposal would essentially dismantle the Social Security entitlement enacted in the New Deal, much as Bill Clinton repealed the right to welfare. Peterson has assembled influential allies for this radical step. They include a coalition of six major think tanks and four tax-exempt foundations.

Their report--Taking Back Our Fiscal Future, issued jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Heritage Foundation--recommends that Congress put long-term budget caps on Social Security and other entitlement spending, which would automatically trigger benefits cuts if needed to stay within the prescribed limits. The same antidemocratic mechanisms--a commission of technocrats and limited Congressional discretion--would shield politicians from popular blowback.

The authors of this plan are sixteen economists from Brookings and Heritage, joined by the American Enterprise Institute, the Concord Coalition, the New America Foundation, the Progressive Policy Institute and the Urban Institute. "Our group covers the ideological spectrum," they claim. This too is a falsehood. All these organizations are corporate-friendly and dependent on big-money contributors. No liberal or labor thinkers need apply, though the group includes some formerly liberal economists like Robert Reischauer, Alice Rivlin and Isabel Sawhill.

The ugliest ploy in their campaign is the effort to provoke conflict between the generations. "The automatic funding of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid impedes explicit consideration of competing priorities and threatens to squeeze out spending for young people," these economists declared. Children, it is suggested, are being shortchanged by their grandparents. This line of argument has attracted financial support from some leading foundations usually associated with liberal social concerns--Annie E. Casey, Charles Stewart Mott, William and Flora Hewlett. Peterson has teamed up with the Pew Trust and has also created front groups of "concerned youth."

Trouble is, most young people did not buy this pitch when George W. Bush used it to sell Social Security privatization. Most kids seem to think Grandma is entitled to a decent retirement. In fact, whacking Social Security benefits, not to mention Medicaid, directly harms poor children. More poor children live in families dependent on Social Security checks than on welfare, economist Dean Baker points out. If you cut Grandma's Social Security benefits, you are directly making life worse for the poor kids who live with her.

The assault sounds outrageous and bound to fail, but the conservative interests may have Obama in a neat trap. Their fog of scary propaganda makes it easier to distort the president's position and blame him for any fiscal disorders driven by the current financial collapse. He will be urged to "do the right thing" for the country and make the hard choices, regardless of petty political grievances (words and phrases he has used himself). Obama's fate may depend on informing the public--now, not later--so that people are inoculated against these artful lies.

The real crisis, in any case, is not Social Security but the colossal failure of the private pension system. Most people know this, either because their 401(k) account is pitifully inadequate, or their company dumped its pension plan, or the plummeting stock market devoured their savings. Obama can protect himself with the public by speaking candidly about this reality and proposing a forceful, long-term solution. He should expand the guarantees that ordinary people need to get their families through these adverse times. Instead of taking away old promises to people, the president should make some new ones. Healthcare reform is obviously an important imperative, but so is retirement security.

The solution to retirement insecurity is the creation of a national pension, alongside Social Security, that would be the bedrock social insurance. Improving Social Security benefits is one step, but it cannot possibly restore what so many middle-class families have lost. Tinkering with the 401(k) would be doomed, because it is basically a tax subsidy for the middle and upper classes, another way to avoid taxes that failed utterly to produce real savings [see Greider, "Riding Into the Sunset," June 27, 2005].

The new universal pension would be mainly self-financing--that is, funded by mandatory savings--but the system would operate as a government-supervised nonprofit, not manipulated by corporate executives or Wall Street firms. A national pension would combine the best qualities of defined-benefit plans and individual accounts. Each worker's pension would be individualized and portable, moving with job changes, but the savings would be pooled with others for diversified investment.

There is nothing radical about this approach. It follows the form of the government's thrift savings plan for civil servants and members of Congress, TIAA-CREF for college professors or other union pension plans jointly managed by labor and management trustees. The crucial difference is that since the new universal pension would be nonprofit, nobody would get to play self-interested games with the money that employees are storing in it for retirement. People could check their accumulated balance at any time.

Washington would set the performance standards and enforce proper behavior, but the operations of retirement programs could be widely decentralized among many private organizations or sector by sector. Other nations, like Australia, have proved this can be both democratic and reliable. Economist Teresa Ghilarducci of the New School has designed a promising and plausible plan (available at the Economic Policy Institute's website, epi.org, or in her book When I'm Sixty-Four: The Plot Against Pensions and the Plan to Save Them). With payroll savings of 5 percent and government-guaranteed returns on investment, average workers could count on pensions that would replace 70 percent of pre-retirement earnings when combined with Social Security. Low-wage earners could be subsidized by government to make up for inadequate pay. Private retirement plans that collect a higher percentage of pay and provide higher benefits could continue, so long as they exceed the federal standard. One great virtue of this approach is that nobody gets left behind, dependent on charity, the predatory instincts of the financial system or the magic of the marketplace.

Another great virtue is that a national pension would confront the country's glaring economic weakness--the collapse of national savings. As the economy digs out of its hole, restoring household savings will be crucial for ultimate recovery and for reduction of our dangerous dependence on foreign capital. Obviously, any system that adds a new payroll tax cannot be introduced at the depth of a recession, but the work of constructing it can begin right now, with the new system phased in gradually, as economic conditions permit. Instead of second-guessing the past and destroying its accomplishments, this reform would look forward and create conditions for a more promising future. Nobody gets a free lunch, and everybody has to take personal responsibility. But unlike what the governing elites are attempting, nobody gets thrown over the side.

Shawn Hannity - Ass Hole Revolutionary

2009-02-27T11:17:00.001-05:00

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1326121&page=11

This is a poll in which he asks which type of revolution you support. What? That should be close to treason in my view! What a douche bag!

Ban on Military Coffin Images Lifted!

2009-02-26T15:16:00.002-05:00

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29410258/

Bobby Jindal: Disasterpiece Theatre in Motion

2009-02-25T12:44:00.002-05:00

Here, I'll let you watch him if you like.

Now, this speech bordered on the clownish side. Going beyond Jindals comments about "magnetic levitation" and "volcano monitoring" which I will address in a bit, he simply sounded childish. He talked as though he was reading a book to a childrens class, making sure to put child like emphasis on most of his points. Did he really think he was talking down to children and needed to change his pitch to sound like a story teller? I couldn't understand why he was doing that. Why would you talk to the country like you were talking to a childrens story group?

He mentions a railway with "magnetic levitation". Well, I don't recall anything in the bill besides more railways, and as far as I know, there are no plans for "magnetic levitation". But even if there was, doesn't he realize that buying and putting in high technology goods like high speed rail create hundreds if not thousands of good paying jobs? Unless that train will create it own raw goods, ship them, build its own rails, build itself, operate itself, maintain itself, clean itself, clean its own stations, operate its own stations, and maintain its own stations and the rails, then the project would create hundreds of jobs. And don't forget the shipping.

Volcano monitoring? Having read a good amount of the bill, I don't recall seeing that. But then again, the problem is still that republicans don't know what creates jobs or saves jobs. The places that do volcano monitoring, are ready to law off nearly 100 scientists and engineers. All good paying jobs. A stimulus that saves 100 good paying college educated jobs is a good thing Mr. Jindal. Perhaps he simply doesn't understand how jobs and tax revenue are created.

Before tonight, I had considered Jindal to be a dangerous candidate. One that could seriously run in 2012. But now, he isn't any better than Sara Palin. Whats worse, republicans of the far right are the only ones that don't understand why the dems aren't scared of Palin or Jindal. They go right along and have no clue as to how dumb each of them sounds. And that is why they will lose in 2010 and 2012. They can't do anything about it.

President Obama's First Address to a Joint Session of Congress

2009-02-25T11:30:00.001-05:00

The Great Republican Challenge!

2009-02-19T12:43:00.002-05:00

I have some interesting data to share with you. It is from presidentialdata.com and shows the comparisons on GOP and Democrat presidents. Everything from GDP growth to unemployment. I challenge a republican to explain why, in wake of these numbers, they can possibly say they are are better for the economy.

http://www.presidentialdata.org/presidential_comparisons.htm

I have a feeling that republicans will be very quiet at this point. As usual, they have talking points, not facts.

Aggregate data from 1960 and 1980 to present (5-05)

1) Deficit (On Budget)

1961-present

Total Democratic Budget Deficits: $1283.8 billion
Total Republican Budget Deficits: $5487.4 billion
Democratic Presidents’ deficits averaged 1.77% of GDP
Republican Presidents’ deficits averaged 3.42% of GDP

1981-present

Total Democratic Budget Deficits: $1004.4 billion
Total Republican Budget Deficits: $5280.1 billion
Democratic Presidents’ deficits averaged 2.06% of GDP
Republican Presidents’ deficits averaged 4.09% of GDP

1a) Deficit (total)

Since World War II

Total Democratic Budget Deficits: $625.1 billion
Total Republican Budget Deficits: $4040.7 billion
Democratic Presidents’ deficits averaged 1.2% of GDP
Republican Presidents’ deficits averaged 2% of GDP

1961-present

Total Democratic Budget Deficits: $608.2 billion
Total Republican Budget Deficits: $4013.2 billion
Democratic Presidents’ deficits averaged 1.21% of GDP
Republican Presidents’ deficits averaged 2.37% of GDP

1981-present

Total Democratic Budget Deficits: $320.3 billion
Total Republican Budget Deficits: $3819.3 billion
Democratic Presidents’ deficits averaged 0.76% of GDP
Republican Presidents’ deficits averaged 2.67% of GDP

2) GDP Growth

Since World War II

Average GDP growth per year under Democratic Presidents: 4.05%
Average GDP growth per year under Republican Presidents: 2.88%

1961-present

Average GDP growth per year under Democratic Presidents: 4.09%
Average GDP growth per year under Republican Presidents: 2.81%

1981-present

Average GDP growth per year under Democratic Presidents: 3.7%
Average GDP growth per year under Republican Presidents: 2.81%

3) Business Investment Growth

Since World War II

Average growth per year under Democratic Presidents: 7.08%
Average growth per year under Republican Presidents: 2.94%

1961-present

Average growth per year under Democratic Presidents: 7.2%
Average growth per year under Republican Presidents: 2.95%

1981-present

Average growth per year under Democratic Presidents: 9.85%
Average growth per year under Republican Presidents: 2.29%

4) Unemployment

Since World War II

Average unemployment per year during Democratic Presidents: 5.03%
Average unemployment per year during Republican Presidents: 5.93%

1961-present

Average unemployment per year during Democratic Presidents: 5.33%
Average unemployment per year during Republican Presidents: 6.24%

1981-present

Average unemployment per year during Democratic Presidents: 5.20%
Average unemployment per year during Republican Presidents: 6.41%

5) Growth in Jobs

Since World War II

Average yearly growth in jobs under Democratic Presidents: 2,082,000
Average yearly growth in jobs under Republican Presidents: 1,167,000
Average yearly percent growth in jobs under Democratic Presidents: 2.67%
Average yearly percent growth in jobs under Republican Presidents: 1.36%

1961-present

Average yearly growth in jobs under Democratic Presidents: 2,391,000
Average yearly growth in jobs under Republican Presidents: 1,307,000
Average yearly percent growth in jobs under Democratic Presidents: 2.69%
Average yearly percent growth in jobs under Republican Presidents: 1.39%

1981-present

Average yearly growth in jobs under Democratic Presidents: 2,884,000
Average yearly growth in jobs under Republican Presidents: 1,253,000
Average yearly percent growth in jobs under Democratic Presidents: 2.37%
Average yearly percent growth in jobs under Republican Presidents: 1.17%

6) Growth in Pay

Since World War II

Average yearly growth in weekly earnings under Democratic Presidents: 0.83%
Average yearly growth in weekly earnings under Republican Presidents: 0.408%

1961-present

Average yearly growth in weekly earnings under Democratic Presidents: 0.48%
Average yearly growth in weekly earnings under Republican Presidents: -0.30%

1981-present

Average yearly growth in weekly earnings under Democratic Presidents: 0.84%
Average yearly growth in weekly earnings under Republican Presidents: -0.34%

Change Has Truly Come! Track The Stimulus!

2009-02-18T10:45:00.001-05:00

http://www.recovery.gov/

You have never seen participatory democracy work this well. You can now track the stimulus bill usage online! Read the entire text of the bill, ONLINE! Its open and transparent to everyone. Track the timeline of events, watch your tax money at work!

This is the dawning of a new era of politics people. The days of politics as usual are being shut down by force.

New Deal, Kenyesian Economics, and the Republican ReWrite

2009-02-10T12:28:00.002-05:00

Lately it has been fun to watch republicans "state for a fact" that FDR's new Deal economics simply didn't work then and it won't work now. So lets explore some of those myths shall we? Now, all these statistics can be found on the BEA National Economic Accounts web page Here: http://bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp

But I have borrowed from at least one other person who put it into table form.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm

I took this table out of his time line because I can't find all the files I saved after doing my research on this.

Never the less, the information is verifiable on the website I listed first if you like data and tables and such.

It clearly shows that Hoovers time spiked up our unemployment rate from 3.2% to nearly 25% by the time FDR took office. And when FDR took office, he inherited a very small GDP to work with. We can see that the New Deal brought lower unemployment and higher GDP. New Deal spending was working.

In 1937, FDR caved into Republican calls to pull back spending, and it sent the country into another recession for about a 1 and a half. What was the fix this time? A $5 Billion spending package which quickly brought us out of the recession.

       Tax       Federal    GNP       Unemp.
Year   Receipts  Spending   Growth    Rate
-------------------------------------------------
1929      --       --         --      3.2%  < Hoover era, Great Depression begins
1930     4.2%     3.4%     - 9.4%     8.7
1931     3.7      4.3      - 8.5     15.9
1932     2.9      7.0      -13.4     23.6
1933     3.5      8.1      - 2.1     24.9   < FDR, New Deal begins; contraction ends March
1934     4.9     10.8      + 7.7     21.7
1935     5.3      9.3      + 8.1     20.1
1936     5.1     10.6      +14.1     16.9
1937     6.2      8.7      + 5.0     14.3   < recession begins, May
1938     7.7      7.8      - 4.5     19.0   < recession ends, June
1939     7.2     10.4      + 7.9     17.2
1940     6.9      9.9  
1941     7.7     12.1  
1942    10.3     24.8   
1943    13.7     44.8   
1944    21.7     45.3   
1945    21.3     43.7

Now here is the tricky part. After the recession ended, the spending quickly lowered unemployment by 2%. However, republicans will not that unemployment was still at 15% before World War 2. And they would right. Thats still a 10% reduction in less than 8 years. Thats fabulous!

But here is where they go wrong and the myth begins. They like to claim that it wasn't spending, but WWII that got us over the final hump, despite the fact that unemployment was still continuing to slowly go down. But, what they don't understand is that it truly doesn't matter. The principle behind New Deal and Keynesian economics was still in full force.

Why would WWII have brought us out of the depression? SPENDING! We must understand that we didn't have the war machine we have today. Our military was under built, underfunded, and under outfitted for a war of that magnitude. Right now, we have more tanks, planes, artillery, and vehicles than we have men. But that wasn't the case. WWII created a MASSIVE spending project to fuel the economy. It wasn't the war itself, it was the SPENDING on the war that created the jobs!

In the end, SPENDING was STILL the key to getting out of the depression. If we learned anything from FDR it is that we cannot spend to little. Spending to little will simply not help us. We need to go big or go home.

This stimulus bill will work, if its big enough. Its time republicans stop their lying! Their partisan lying is going to cost this country big time.

Jobless Rate hits 7.6% - PASS THE STIMULUS!

2009-02-06T10:39:00.000-05:00

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29050656/

Anyone want to argue that building a new homeland security building isn't stimulus, that buying and installing new computers for schools won't create jobs? Anyone? Didn't think so.

Republican obstructionists, get out of the way!

Congress - PASS THIS STIMULUS!

2009-02-06T10:32:00.003-05:00

Alright, times up, game over, pass the damn stimulus! Republicans, either be part of the problem or part of the solution. Right now, you are obstructionists in a pointless destructive behavior! I have looked at the parts of this bill that the republicans say aren't stimulus, and I have to say, they are idiots. What part of spending don't you realize is stimulus?

They keep parroting the same stupid false statements. "Its just a spending bill, its not stimulus". WTF? What do you think Kensyian stimulus is? ITS SPENDING! Almost every single project on this bill needs PEOPLE to design, build, and maintain it! Designers, engineers, raw material harvest, shipping, building, renovating, and other such jobs! More teachers, tech jobs, and other good paying jobs as well! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

You lost, get over it! This country needs to you be bi-partisan and you continue the same failed crap! Yet now, the only one giving in the bi-partisan give and take, is Obama and the dems, giving up projects one at a time, and adding tax cuts! BS! You lost, we have rejected your failed policies! VOTE FOR THE DAMN STIMULUS!

As of right now, I can say I voted for some republicans this last time around. Any republican who doesn't vote for this will earn my vote against them next time on this issue alone. Stop getting in the way of recovery and either lying or being idiots about what is in this bill! Get out of the way republicans, turn off your god, Rush Limbaugh, and stop the republican noise machine and help this nation!

The Bush Legacy in 8 Minutes

2009-01-26T10:44:00.003-05:00

Good stuff for all you liberals out there, and all you republicans not brainwashed by Rush Limbaugh.

If Abortion were Illegal....

2009-01-21T14:27:00.002-05:00

As a question of personal morality, I am against abortion. As a question of suffering I am against abortion. As a matter of principle, moral decisions are up to the individual. Thus women have an individual choice to make, not the courts.

But this asks a good question. If abortion is really "murder" then what should the punishment be for women who get abortions? Anti-abortion activists get asked this very question. Amazing how they fluff the question of the punishment considering they consider it "murder".

GOP Exposed!

2009-01-13T15:08:00.002-05:00

http://www.gopexposed.com/

If you are a liberal like me, but find that people on the left tend to be a little wimpy, you will love this guy! He gives no last name. He goes only by the name "Jeff" and he hits hard. How many other people will come out and say "The Iraq War is the violent rape of a woman. And we are waiting for her forced orgasm to justify the violence". Damn! Thats some serious stuff right there! This guy tells it like it is. I love this guy!

Down load his podcast and listen to it. As well, feel free to mosey on over to the itunes store and subscribe to it and give him some stars.

He is a bit heavy on the Jesus stuff, and simply doesn't get it when it comes to Atheists against Christmas. But I can forgive that for his brutality when dealing with the GOP.

I'm going to do a few blogs on great progressive radio podcasts for you to listen to and download.

Harry Reid - Getting in the way of Change?

2009-01-08T14:48:00.002-05:00

I read a great article at the Daily Kos today that summarizes my feelings on Reids actions the last few weeks.

Jane gives us the narrative, and it ain't pretty. Harry Reid is hopeless.

But this is my favorite line, from Reid:

"I don't work for Barack Obama."

This from the guy who blamed Obama for his caucus' decision to keep Lieberman as chair of Homeland Security. He was Obama's Employee of the Month back then.

So Reid was out bluffed by Lieberman, then he was outbluffed by McConnell on seating Franken, and now he'll be outbluffed by the guy appointed by the crooked governor.

Meanwhile, while he rants about one crook, he coddles another.

My personal feeling, you guys, I don't know what good [sending former Sen. Ted Stevens to jail would do] ... He was a real war hero too, you know. He's been punished enough.

If Republicans were truly smart, they'd give Reid an electoral pass. He's the best thing Republicans have going for them in the entire Congress.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/1/8/11302/42906/984/681433

My hope is that is not such a punk as to stand in the way of a democratic president. It would be a shame. After all, he sat by and let a republican congress rubber stamp Bush's agenda for six years. Now is not the time to cannibalize your own party. Reid is either part of the problem or part of the solution. Its about time he step up and act like the majority leaders instead of an insipid child who refuses to be told what to do.

Change You Can Believe In - The Change We Need

2009-01-08T12:05:00.002-05:00

For my 200th post I really wanted to focus on one man and the impact he has had on this country so far. That man is Barack Obama. For two months we have watched as the our economy, and indeed the world, have crumbled beneath our feet. We have watched one hair brained scheme after another fail miserably and leave the average American on Main Street wondering if anyone in Washington cares at all about us. But, on Jan. 20th, a new Era begins. Will it be any different? I think so. And here is why.

Never before in our generation has such a diverse and qualified group of people been assembled for a presidents cabinet. He has literally picked the best of the best. He picked all stars. He didn't pick people who were okay and would listen to him, he picked people he knows will do the right thing. He picked people from many different points of view in security and intelligence and the environment. He will have the benefit of hearing many different sides of each issue. Something most presidents never have. Most presidents pick people who think like he does.

And yet, when assembly the all-star team wasn't good enough, he appointed a new position, a "government waste czar". Someone to patrol and eliminate government wasteful spending. When has that EVERY been done? In a time when nearly all economists say the government needs to spend spend spend, he is still working on trimming the fat. And he hasn't even taken office yet.

And then there is religion. He picked exact opposite sides of the spectrum to give the opening and closing invocation. On the leading end, and evangelical. On the lead out edge, a pro-gay marriage pastor. He has, in one fell swoop, given all sides of each issue, a voice in his cabinet, and even at his inauguration. When he takes office, he does so uniting people as never before by giving them all a seat at the table! This in addition to his online town hall meetings in which he people listen to your comments and actually respond!

Has anyone ever united a country in this fashion and this well?

This is the change we need. He is the right man for the job at the right time. America, you finally made a damn good choice.

On that note, here yesterdays presidential address to the media.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Weekly Address of President Elect Obama - Jan. 3rd 2009

2009-01-07T15:10:00.001-05:00

Barack Obama's New World Order

2009-01-05T13:42:00.001-05:00

This is absolutely hysterical!

Get more Videos like this at Get Your War On!

Get the latest news satire and funny videos at 236.com.

14 Defining Characteristics of Fascism

2008-12-30T13:03:00.003-05:00

http://www.bushflash.com/14.html

Great video, yet frightening. Hopefully Obama can turn this around.

Weekly President Elect Address - Dec. 24th 2008

2008-12-29T13:07:00.000-05:00

Blast the Right! - Year End Review - By Jack Clark

2008-12-29T13:03:00.004-05:00

This is absolutely fabulous. Take the time to listen. Its about 25 minutes. And if you like it, subscribe and then rate it on itunes, it will help Jack keep his podcast in view. Its a great podcast for progressives! Need ammo against the right or are from the right and want to know why you aren't "right"? This is one of the best around!

Blast the Right! Year in Review

Rememberance: A recollection of a poem written shortly after I left Christianity

2008-12-29T10:11:00.002-05:00

As we come upon the new year, I find a time to reflect. It has been one year since I became a vegetarian, and things are much different now. The days of being addicted to forums appear on the surface to be at an end as the forum I post to is being shut down in two days. So, as I'm looking through diaries and forum posts, I came across the first poem I ever wrote after my deconversion. It shows, in rare form, the anguish involved with leaving a faith you have had your entire life. It wasn't an easy choice and it left me without answers before I was willing to live with just the questions.

So with out further stalling, the day that started my journey towards atheism. The day I became, The Waiting.

The Waiting

This is my first entry. I write this because I need to
find purpose in life again. Though my heart is filled
with joy, my soul writhes in angst. Be there no Savior,
be there no God, be there nothing to filled the void in my
soul? Who would have thought that a stroll through the
Book would yield itself to untruth, uncertainty, and
fables of the mind. One should never traverse a spiritual
journey and find wanting at its end. Never should the
soul be empty when one seeks to fill it!

From here shall a new chapter be written upon the pages of
my soul, if it is that a soul trully exists. If god
trully exists, I pray that I would be graced enough to
find him. To long have I blindly followed in the steps of
my ancestors, to long have i ridden the waves of untested
belief, to long have i chosen the path of righteousness as
so discerned by men.

Never shall I cling to undying principle without undying
truth. You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set
you free. But perhaps, some bonds shouldnt have been
broken. How I long for the certainty that death would
bring life. How I wish that ultimate truth was still in
my heart and mind. Yet, now being set free, I am
uncertain to where I should travel.

I shall be a chaffe in the wind, blowing through life with
out a reason for existence. I trully shall be strong for
my family, they need me. But I no longer know what I
should teach my son. My father taught me values from the
good book, yet my path lies elsewhere. Yes, my truth
escapes me even to the writing of these words! Universal
truth shall elude me until the day that I shall again
unravel its mysteries.

I wait for universal love to be revealed. I search for
universal truth. I long for a higher power, a higher
calling, a higher love. I long for that which I once held
onto. It now runs from me, and I still chase. Until the
day of revelation comes, I remain, the waiting.

K

Barack Obama Weekly Address 12/20/2008

2008-12-22T11:41:00.000-05:00

Barack Obama on Meet the Press

2008-12-09T16:08:00.000-05:00

Barack Obama Weekly Address Dec. 6th

2008-12-09T09:26:00.000-05:00

Prop 8 Gets the Ridicule it deserves

2008-12-04T16:46:00.002-05:00

Never forget these last 8 years!

2008-12-01T15:31:00.001-05:00

Sage Francis - Makeshift Patriot

President-Elect Obama's Weekly Address: Nov. 29th

2008-12-01T12:53:00.001-05:00

Obama Announces His Economic Advisory Board

2008-11-26T10:56:00.001-05:00

Obama Names Budget Director, indicates budget cuts to come

2008-11-25T14:19:00.002-05:00

Obama's $500 Billion Dollar Stimulus Plan

2008-11-25T10:58:00.000-05:00

Obama Announces his Economic Team

2008-11-24T14:02:00.001-05:00

Barack Obama Weekly Address: Nov 22nd, 2008

2008-11-24T09:44:00.002-05:00

I have much confidence that this man can fix this country.

Michael Savage: Idiot

2008-11-18T14:14:00.002-05:00

Most "Ph.D. experts on children are either gay or crazy ... if they were married, they either tried to kill their wife or were in rehab"

A moron and a douche bag. Congrats MS, you are by far the dumbest person I have heard today.

YES WE CAN!

2008-11-17T16:01:00.001-05:00

Thank you Will i am. Beautiful.

Barack Obama Weekly Address: Nov. 15th

2008-11-16T15:47:00.001-05:00

This man continues to keep me hoping that when he takes office, we can turn this country around and back to the right direction.

Barack Obama - Grant Park: That Fateful Night

2008-11-13T12:09:00.000-05:00

LIke No Other - Be Inspired by HOPE!

2008-10-28T16:55:00.003-04:00

Bear witness to history in the making. Bear witness to someone who is truly worthy to lead this country. Bear witness to the inspiration and the hope that is the Campaign for Change, and Barack Obama!

Seven Long Days.

Lets land this plane! Put this baby to bed! And lets win this election for the Man of the People, Barack Obama!!!!

One man cannot save us. But one man can give us the hope to save ourselves.

(Thanks to DailyKos and Hope Reborns Diary for the pics!)

Sean Hannity Gets PWNED!

2008-10-09T09:16:00.000-04:00

Obama and Acorn: The Truth Instead of Lies

2008-10-07T10:15:00.002-04:00

SOURCE

Barack Obama Never Organized with ACORN

Discredited Republican voter-suppression guru Ken Blackwell is attacking Barack Obama with naked lies about his supposed connection to ACORN.

• Fact: Barack was never an ACORN community organizer.
• Fact: Barack was never an ACORN trainer and never worked for ACORN in any other capacity.
• Fact: ACORN was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive Barack ran in 1992.

In his capacity as an attorney, Barack represented ACORN in a successful lawsuit alongside the U.S. Department of Justice against the state of Illinois to force state compliance with a federal voting access law. For his work helping enforce the law, called “Motor Voter,” Barack received the IVI-IPO Legal Eagle Award in 1995. (For more about Barack’s career, check out our Obama bio.)

Ken Blackwell is best known today for disenfranchising Democratic voters in his dual role as Ohio Secretary of State and chair of George Bush’s Ohio campaign in 2004. To see him shed crocodile tears for the integrity of the vote while making accusations about Barack and ACORN with absolutely no basis in fact is disturbing.

Blackwell’s attacks against ACORN and community organizers continue a vile Republican pattern of mockery and viciousness against this noble profession. Community organizers are the very individuals Republicans should be celebrating for helping people to help themselves rather than depending on the government.
BARACK WAS PRAISED FOR COMPLETING PROJECT VOTE; ACORN WAS NOT INVOLVED

Obama’s Voter Registration Drive Registered 150,000 New Voters, The Highest Number of a Single Local Effort. In 1993, Crain’s Chicago wrote of Obama’s effort to register voters for Bill Clinton’s election, “Last year, Barack Obama galvanized Chicago’s political community, as no seasoned politico had before. The director of Illinois Project Vote orchestrated an unwieldy band of 10 staff members and 700 volunteers to the tune of 150,000 new voters for the general election — the highest number registered in a single local effect. ‘Under Barack’s leadership, we had the most successful, cost-effective and orderly voter registration drive I’ve ever been involved with,’ says Alderman Sam Burrell of the West Side’s 29th Ward.” [Crain’s Chicago Business, 9/27/93]

Chicago Magazine: Obama Headed “Most Effective Minority Voter Registration Drive.” Chicago Magazine reported, “None of this, of course, was accidental. The most effective minority voter registration drive in memory was the result of careful handiwork by Project Vote!, the local chapter of a not-for-profit national organization. "It was the most efficient campaign I have seen in my 20 years in politics," says Sam Burrell, alderman of the West Side’s 29th Ward and a veteran of many registration drives. At the head of this effort was a little-known 31-year-old African-American lawyer, community organizer, and writer: Barack Obama.” [Chicago Magazine, 1/93]

National Project Vote Director Sandy Newman: Obama Did “One Hell of a Job.” Chicago Magazine reported, ““Project Vote! is nonpartisan, strictly nonpartisan. But we do focus our efforts on minority voters, and on states where we can explain to them why their vote will matter. Braun made that easier in Illinois.” So [Sandy] Newman decided to open a Cook County Project Vote! office and went looking for someone to head it. The name Barack Obama surfaced. “I was asking around among community activists in Chicago and around the country, and they kept mentioning him,” Newman says. Obama by then was working with church and community leaders on the West Side, and he was writing a book that the publisher Simon & Schuster had contracted for while he was editor of the law review. He was 30 years old. When Newman called, Obama agreed to put his other work aside. “I’m still not quite sure why,” Newman says. “This was not glamorous, high-paying work. But I am certainly grateful. He did one hell of a job.” [Chicago Magazine, 1/93]

Obama Trained Registrars And Ran Media Saturation Campaign. Chicago Magazine reported, “Within a few months, Obama, a tall, affable workaholic, had recruited staff and volunteers from black churches, community groups, and politicians. He helped train 700 deputy registrars, out of a total of 11,000 citywide. And he began a saturation media campaign with the help of black-owned Brainstorm Communications.” [Chicago Magazine, 1/93]

Close Daley Advisor: “Barack Ran This Superbly.” Chicago Magazine reported, “Some of Daley’s closest advisers are similarly impressed. “In its technical demands, a voter-registration drive is not unlike a mini-political campaign,” says John Schmidt, chairman of the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority and a fundraiser for Project Vote! “Barack ran this superbly. I have no doubt he could run an equally good political campaign if that’s what he decided to do next.”” [Chicago Magazine, 1/93]

Project Vote Credited With Voter Registration Surge. The Wall Street Journal reported, “Voting experts at the Democratic National Committee point to surging registration in several big cities, such as Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia. Most of that work has been done by the nonpartisan Project Vote, a voter participation organization based in Washington, D.C. Its director, Sandy Newman, says his group has helped to register 150,000 new voters, almost all of them black, in Pennsylvania; 110,000 in Chicago; 70,000 in Michigan; 40,000 in Ohio; and 160,000 (with the help of the New York Public Interest Research Group) in New York City. With the exception of New York, where Mr. Clinton holds a big lead, these are all battleground states, and most of these voters will cast their ballots for Mr. Clinton.” [Wall Street Journal, 10/30/92]

Chicago Sun Times Headline: “‘Project Vote’ Brings Power to the People.” The Chicago Sun-Times reported, “Project Vote, a collectivity of 10 church-based community organizations dedicated to black voter registration, is off and running. Project Vote is increasing its rolls at a 7,000-per-week clip. Just last Saturday it registered 2,000 during the Chicago Defender’s annual Bud Billiken Parade.” [Chicago Sun-Times, 8/11/92]

BARACK REPRESENTED ACORN IN A VOTER RIGHTS CASE AS AN ATTORNEY

Obama And Other Attorneys Represented ACORN In Their Suit Against The State Of Illinois To Force It To Implement The 1993 Motor Voter Law. In 2007, the AP reported, “Representing the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), Obama and other attorneys sued the state of Illinois, forcing it to implement federal ‘Motor Voter’ legislation that makes it easier for the poor and minorities to register to vote.” According the U.S. Court Of Appeals, 7th Circuit docket for ACORN v. Edgar, “Appellees, United States and others, sought to force appellant State of Illinois to comply with the provisions of the National Registration Act of 1993 (motor voter law)…The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the United States an injunction that compelled the State of Illinois to enforce the motor voter law. The State of Illinois appealed…On appeal, the State of Illinois argued that Congress could not force state governments to administer a federal program that facilitated the registration of voters in federal elections. The court stated that Congress had the power to regulate federal elections under the powers granted by [the U.S. Constitution] mandated the states to initially set up the system of federal elections within their own jurisdiction, subject to the whims of Congress. The court found that these powers and mandates implicitly extended to voter registration as well. [AP, 2/20/07; ACORN, et al v. Edgar, Nos. 95-1800, 95-1801, 95-1802, 95-1803]

Ø Obama Was One Of Three Miner Barnhill Attorneys To Represent ACORN When The Illinois State Board Of Elections Attempted To Dismiss The U.S. District Court’s Order In ACORN v. Edgar In Late 1995. Miner Barnhill Attorneys Obama, Judson Miner, and Jeffrey Cummings were listed as Counsel for ACORN when the Illinois State Board Of Elections attempted to dismiss the U.S. District Court’s order in ACORN v. Edgar in November 1995. On January 26, 1996, the U.S. Court Of Appeals denied the Board’s motion. According to the court’s opinion, “The court dismissed the appeal of defendant governor and other state officials because the district court had not issued a final order from which an appeal could be brought. [ACORN v. Illinois State Board Of Elections, et al. No. 95-3456, U.S. Court Of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit]

Ø Obama Was Listed As The Lead Attorney For ACORN In Court Proceeding Regarding Illinois Motor Voter Implementation Plans; Deval Patrick Was The Lead Attorney For The U.S. Department Of Justice. “For United States of America: Deval L. Patrick, Assistant Attorney General, James B. Burns, United States Attorney, Elizabeth Johnson, Barry H. Weinberg, Tricia A. Tingle, Peter A. Hernandez, Attorneys, Voting Section, Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC….For Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Barack Obama, Esq., Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, Chicago, Illinois, Steve Bachmann, Esq., ACORN, Granger, Indiana.” [ACORN v. Edgar, United States District Court, Northern District, Illinois, No. 95 C 174]

1995: Obama Received The IVI-IPO Legal Eagle Award For IVI-IPO For His Work In Bringing Illinois Into Compliance With The Motor Voter Law. “In 1993, Obama was named by Crain’s Chicago Business as one of “40 under 40” outstanding young leaders in the city of Chicago. He is the recipient of the 1995 Legal Eagle Award from IVI-IPO for his work in bringing Illinois into compliance with the National Voter Registration Act (Motor-Voter). His commentaries have been heard on National Public Radio and his memoir Dreams of My Father was published by Random House in August 1995.” [IL State Senate Majority Caucus Obama Profile (Archived) available here]

The Angry John McCain Song!

2008-10-06T11:28:00.000-04:00

Earliest References Describe Christ as Magician

2008-10-02T08:28:00.002-04:00

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26972493/

A team of scientists led by renowned French marine archaeologist Franck Goddio recently announced that they have found a bowl, dating to between the late 2nd century B.C. and the early 1st century A.D., that is engraved with what they believe could be the world's first known reference to Christ.

If the word "Christ" refers to the Biblical Jesus Christ, as is speculated, then the discovery may provide evidence that Christianity and paganism at times intertwined in the ancient world.

The full engraving on the bowl reads, "DIA CHRSTOU O GOISTAIS," which has been interpreted by the excavation team to mean either, "by Christ the magician" or, "the magician by Christ."

Well ladies and gents, its been a while since I last blogged, but hey, life gets in the way of life some times. But this is a great place to start.

I have found that this is really bothering some people! They get all upset and say that it is probably not "their" christ who is "the magician". However, the claim has often been that there was only one christ. If there were more than one person called christ back then, then the obvious "myth" scenario comes into play. Which stories are about which Jesus Christ if there was more than one? Where they all true? Where all the christs Messiahs?

The clear answer, in response to this and all the evidence so far compiled by scholars, is that Jesus Christ is less of a man, and more a compilation of stories about many people in a superstitious time period by superstitious people. After all, the stories of Jesus were compiled by people who would have formerly been pagans, and a man calling people to follow the law would not have held up very well. That is why Paul came to a town and claimed the the greek alter to the unknown god, was really Jesus!

But this subject has christians so upset and crying that they have turned to actually insulting me! Me! HAHAHA! Dumbass, if the story offends you, don't read it! But then, as I have already explained, the problem is that this really challenges what they believe. That is why they get upset. If it was nothing, they wouldn't even care. But it isn't "nothing" its something, thats why the vomit out hate and anger towards the likes of me.

Get over it christians. Your faith is a lie. We all know it, some of us just finally stopped lying to ourselves.

Keith Olbermann Special Comment: Hijacking 9/11

2008-09-11T12:37:00.000-04:00

FCC Rules Against Comcast for BitTorrent Blocking

2008-08-04T10:40:00.000-04:00

Strike up the band for the good guys!!!!

The FCC finally made a good choice! Comcast cannot just block traffic because it takes up bandwidth! I pay for bandwidth and I can use it how ever I want. I don't pay for the right to download specific things unless that site charges, so comcast doesn't have a right to block it! Thank you FCC!

Atheist Rant Against Gay Pride Parades

2008-08-01T11:26:00.002-04:00

Well, I never thought I would be writing this. I am very pro-gay. I want gays to be able to marry and adopt and have kids like straight people can. I still feel it is not fair and it is discriminatory to prevent them from having the same rights we have as straight people. I believe people are born gay and that homosexuality is normal and natural in every way. Even if it wasn't, I would still approve of it if my son or daughter is gay. So it is with a heavy heart, and an angry betrayed countenance that I write this piece of pure unadulterated venom against the gay community.

My source of venom are the pictures linked to this BLOG.

Follow the link to Flickr on it to see the pictures from the 2007 gay pride parade. And let it begin.

This is a set of tame pictures. A set of pictures that still includes plenty of men in thongs dancing around. Can you please tell my what the fuck naked men dancing in public has to do with gay pride? Can you please tell me what the fuck about half naked men dancing publically can do to promote gay tolerance and gay acceptance? Are you people (yes, you people, as in people who didn't fucking think before doing this shit!) out of your fucking god damn minds? Straight people have to follow the decency laws about public nudity and you violate it whimsically and label it gay pride? You dipshit fucking moron!

When you should be showing the world that you are just like everyone else, you let idiots in who where bondage clothings and walk people on a leash in diapers, something the is not inherently gay! You let extremists run the show and now prove to the country, in their eyes, that you are in deed nothing but a community of sexual deviants! Could you be any more stupid!? Do you want people to not let you marry or be like everyone else? Do you enjoy being discriminated against? What on earth is wrong with you people? Thats not pride, it should be shame for what you are displaying publically! Being gay isn't about getting naked and having sex in public, or show off your dick, tits, and cunt to the entire world to see! Its about nothing at all! Its about the fact that being gay is nothing at all! Its not different, it is normal and natural and you are fucking up that argument you stupid bitches!

How can I take my child to a gay pride parade when there are half naked people flaunting their nudity in public? How will I explain an grown man in diapers to my 8 year old son huh? Oh there are plenty of normal people in the parade that I want him to see. Two dads with their sons, two moms with their kids. People loving people being like everyone else is what he needs to see! He doesn't need to see a grown man dancing in a thong like at a strip club, which incidentally, he is too young to get into !

By endorsing, allowing, and promoting this kind of behavior, the gay community is fighting a brutal war against itself and the bad side is winning! The recent LA parade was apparently more foul than usual! IDIOTS! There is a constitutional amendment to BAN GAY MARRIAGE coming up and you pull this stunt!? When you need to be reaching out and showing and telling people you are just like everyone else, calming their fears about accepting a sexual deviant, you FEEDING their worst fears!

If you in the gay community are to fucking stupid to stand up and squash this insane disgusting display of over the top sexuality at a family event, then you deserve what you get. If you are not smart enough to understand what you are doing to your cause, then fuck you! I'm not standing up for you any more! Either I see someone with some rational thinking, or I will not stand up for your rights any more! I will not open myself up to ridicule with a yard sign promoting gay marriage just too see gay people make a fool out of me and this god damn sex parade! Get it together or go back in the closet!

If you continue on, then you will never be accepted and you will never have the same rights as everyone else. The way you acted at the parade with embarrassing. It has nothing to do with being gay and you know it! So act like! Act like reasonable human beings in a parade designed to show everyone that being gay is normal and natural. Don't let fucking sadomasochists and hyper sexual large jocked men make this into a sex parade. That gives ammo to the enemy and fuel to the fire.

Some one in the gay community needs to stand up and say what needs to be said and act like a responsible intelligent adults instead of hyper hormonal fucking dick heads!