Que Sarah, Sarah Jul 4, 2009 11:12 pm 320 Views First things first - Happy Birthday America! I know that you all must have heard that Sarah Palin anounced yesterday that she is stepping down as Alaska's governor. Yep, she held a small and hastily put together press conference to announce it. On a Friday afternoon no less, a time when stories usually get released to get buried. Don't know about you but I'm not buying for one minute that Sarah Palin is making the proverbial "old soldier" move and just "fade away." No way! The woman is much too souped up! Way too pumped up. Pumped up, partly because of her mix up with David Letterman a few weeks back. I'm sure that she knows that she won that one... Kinda. I think that she's bought into her own hype. I could only imagine the amount of mail that she received in support of her after Letterman's inept attempt at humor at Bristol's expense. Letterman really should have known better. Should have known that Sarah is an old pro at playing the victim of the media and press. And she'll milk it for whatever its worth too. In that department - she's got game! Letterman knows now though. You betcha! Yeah, Sarah must have seen those bags of mail coming in and said: "THEY LIKE ME, THEY LIKE ME, THEY REALLY, REALLY LIKE ME!!!" Poor thing, must have forgotten that this is a nation of 300 million. So when a public figure gets a couple of million pieces of supportive mail - they had better not get too pumped up! It sure doesn't mean that a couple of million people in your corner makes you Presidential material. Don't know how many of you saw the press conference that she gave. She wore the classic Republican red jacket top that they love to wear. The kind that goes so high up the neck that you could strangle yourself. As for her statements... I've got one word - BAZAAR! She hyperventilated at every sentence. Her statements were filled with the usual Palin ramblings and platitudes. She closed her final set of ramblings with a quote attributed to Douglas MacArthur - "We are not retreating, we are advancing in another direction." The poor darlin' should have fact checked that one because it turns out that MacArthur never said it. I'm wondering if that piece in Vanity Fair could have triggered this. Or could it have been the piece that CBS news did on her? It speaks of angry e-mails and infighting with staff during the McCain campaign. There's no shortage of possibilities. And nobody really understands why or what she's up to. It's actually quite amusing watching and listening to the various pundits try to figure this one out. LOL! There's been Alaskan press that got into how authorities have spent 300 thousand dollars investigating ethics allegations against her. There's a press report that claims that she just signed a seven figure book deal. There are even rumors of an investigation on her for an iceberg scandal. Rumors about embezzlement too. Rumors and rumors of rumors. It's pretty wild and the press is in a feeding frenzy trying to get to the bottom of it. Having a hard time at it too because most of their staff is vacationing right now. Curious if she did this on purpose for just that reason. Sort of a payback for the bad press. I wonder if Tina Fey is brushing up her Palin for tonight's SNL. She's made grumblings about being for "change agents" inside the Republican Party as well as "outside of it." Mmm, perhaps a third-party bid? Never know with ole Sarah. Don't underestimate her now, less than a year ago 98% of America never even heard of her. Some even say that this is a brilliant move on her behalf in order to position herself to run for President. Those people are either delusional, or smoking their sox. I mean really now, who's going to trust this quitter to run a Presidential administration? And can you imagine the commercials that her opponents would run? Sarah Palin, elect her and she's guaranteed to serve you for half of her elected term. Please, don't bother to write and tell me that I'm wrong and being unfair to her - BS!!! This is a woman that ran for the Alaska Governorship because she wanted to "effect change." That's right! That's what she ran on! Now two years into her term she quits!?! She also said that she didn’t want to just “go with the flow,” that “only dead fish go with the flow.” Ahh, and so does dead wood Sarah! And dig this peeps; one of her reasons for stepping down is because she says that she doesn't want to be a "lame duck" governor. What the!?! She's got close to two years left to the end of her term!!! Here she is: "let me use a comfortable analogy for me - and that's sports - basketball - and I use it because you are naive if you don't see a full court press on the national level, picking away right now. A good point guard - Here's what she does - She drives through a full court press, protecting the ball, keeping her head up because she needs to keep her eye on the basket. And she knows exactly when to pass the ball so that the team can win. And that is what I'm doing, keeping our eye on the ball. Representing sound priorities, they include energy independence and smaller government and national security, freedom, and I know when it's time to pass the ball." Is it any clearer to you now? I mean - HUH!?! Is she living in a time warp? Yeah, that's it... She's back in the day when she was Sarahcuda the Wasilla point guard. I mean, what else could it be? Here's another good bite: "I thought about, well how much fun some governors have as a 'lame duck.' They maybe travel around their state, travel the other states. Maybe take an international trade mission tour. So many politicians do that, and then I thought, that's what's wrong! They except that lame duck status and they draw a pay check. I'm not going to put Alaskans thought that. I promised efficiency! That's not how I'm wired! I'm not wired to operate under the same ole politics as usual." Yeah, you know how that ole "politics as usual" works don't you? It's when you get elected to a four year term and you actually serve a four year term! No not Sarah, she's "wired" differently! Honestly now, how are you going to hold the office of President when you can't even hang Governing a state with only two dozen people in it? Personally it wouldn't shock me in the least if she took up residence in the lower 48, say a state like Iowa. Once there she starts pressing the flesh and doing her hockey mom routine. Then comes 2010 and she announces that she's running for President. Wouldn't surprise me in the least. In fact, I expect it! Hoping for it! And you know what? I've never donated to a republican campaign in my life but you better believe that if she decides to run, she can count on me to make a donation. 18 Comments

Dont Rush! Jul 3, 2009 2:28 am 368 Views I'd like to touch on the latest news cycle for a minute. Wall Street confidence man Bernie Madoff got sentenced to 150 years. Imagine having to do a 150 years with an inmate population. Wow, he's going to be a harden criminal by the time he finishes doing that time. He, he, he... No, no I’m not going to talk about Michael Jackson or Mark Sanford. Whew! If your anything like me the non-stop coverage about all of that is enough already! And Mark Sanford, would you please do us all a favor and stop quoting the bible? Hypocrite!!! I will mention Jackson and Sanford as they relate to Rush Windbag. On his radio show on Wednesday he brought up Michael Jackson and pointed out to his sheep that MJ made most of his money during the Reagan administration and died during the Obama administration. What that has to do with anything is beyond me. He also mentioned on his show last week that Sanford’s infidelity was because of the turmoil and frustration posed by the Obama administration. You heard me right peeps, according to Rush Humbug, its Obama’s fault that Sanford cheated on his wife. I'm not shitin' you! This merely confirms what I’ve long known – Rush is quite ill. The man is not well at all. Besides being ill he just makes shit up! He got his bloomers in a wad the other day and started railing against the poor again. He claimed that the poor were fat because they get food stamps and use it to buy beer and candy. You can't buy beer and candy with food stamps! But if you ever speak with the Limbot's (as I have) they take every word that comes out of his mouth as gospel. As Alex Bennett pointed out; if he's so good at what he does, why does he have to lie? *sigh* Somebody get that man some medical attention before the black helicopters start following him. 17 Comments

No worries righty’s, she might be one of yours... (Part I) Jul 2, 2009 11:38 am 294 Views Lest any new readers to my blog believe that it is primarily a blog about religion I’ll turn my attention back to what’s happening now... On Monday Rush Limbaugh said that the Supreme Court decision with respect to the Connecticut fire fighters case proved that Judge Sotomayor is a racist. That even though the decision was a 5\4 decision it was really a nine zip decision. Poor Rush, must have been playing with his magic snake during math class. The funny thing about it is how could he have the nerve to ever call someone a racist when he is clearly the one that is a racist. He once said: “I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.” Tell that to the generations of African Americans that labored and toiled for their masters only to receive the whip as payment. He’s also said: “Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.” Yeah Rush you said it alright! Still, this post is not about Rush. I was reading some of your past comments on some of my older post that I never addressed. Ran across one from my friend Daytime. It was about Judge Sotomayor. So I want to touch on that for a moment. Yes Day I agree with you that her unfortunate comments (made on more than one occasion) were in fact racially insensitive. Still I don’t believe that she is a racist. I’ll expound: The choice of Judge Sotomayor was not a case of the President picking a bonafide liberal. To the contrary! It was a safe pick for him. It is significant in the sense that he picked the first Latina to sit on the Supreme Court in a time when Latinos are the fastest growing voter block in this country. It’s also once again going to bring the number of woman that sit on the court back to two. The right shouldn’t be in such a panic about her because at the worst she won’t change the political balance on the court because she’ll be replacing Justice Souter. At best (for the right) is that she might vote in their favor in a number of cases. Their sniveling about the Connecticut Fire Fighters case was actually pretty silly in that she voted along with the lower court in order to send the case up to be heard by the Supreme Court. A frequent practice in the federal courts I might add. She was a career prosecutor and spent some of her career as a cooperate lawyer. She’s suppose to be “empathetic” but I don’t know how empathetic she’s going to be towards the constitutional rights of criminal defendants. Some might say “the hell with those criminals!” But we still live in a country where one is innocent until proven guilty. In two prominent criminal cases she upheld searches based on invalid warrants and if you look at her record on the court of appeals she has agreed with Republicans 95% of the time. She upheld the Bush global gag rule. She dissented in the TWA case. It was a two to one decision and she voted against giving victim’s families’ money in the TWA crash. Seems kind of right wing thinking to me - you know, the interests of cooperation’s before that of the people. She’s also voted against plaintives in personal injury cases in favor of cooperation’s. She voted against correctional officers who were retaliated against for complaints that they made against management. The woman is a mixed bag! She is not an unabashed liberal. From what I’ve read the right wing attack machine went full throttle against her without really digging through her record. A couple of weeks ago Rush Lardass changed his tune about her one day and told of her virtues. No shit! He emphasized the fact that she is a Catholic and might possibly be sympathetic to the far rights position with respect to a woman right to choose. I suspect that through their whisper campaign they now know much of what I’ve just mentioned. I suspect that on the day of the vote she’ll be confirmed before the senate gets home for dinner! I couldn’t dream of a reason why they wouldn’t confirm her. She’s smart enough and definitely experienced. Yep! Another case of the right jumping to conclusions. So what is it with these folk, folks? Did they stomp their feet like toddlers again because she was an Obama choice? Or might it be due to some underlined racism here? I wonder... 4 Comments

No worries righty’s, she might be one of yours... (Part II) Jul 2, 2009 11:31 am 314 Views Leftys, when the right talks about judicial activism, that is something that we really need to counter, because it’s a bunch of BS! The most activist judging decision ever made was Bush v. Gore. And made by a conservative Supreme Court that just handed the Presidency to George W. Bush with barely any deliberation. Honestly, there’s nothing wrong with judicial activism, everyone does it. In fact if it wasn’t for judicial activism we wouldn’t have had the civil rights movement. Scalia does it all the time when he talks about gun rights and gun control. When they talk about abortion, that’s judicial activism. I mean, how is it any different than the statements that Judge Sotomayor has made, it’s a red herring! It’s ridiculous to think that anyone that goes up there on a senate judicial committee and says my views on abortion and my views on the death penalty will have absolutely nothing to do with my judging, is either lying or their deluding themselves. Look, granted they do their best to follow the law but the law exist in a political context. The law doesn’t fall from the sky, the law represents values that society has decided to codify. So to say that judges make policy, that’s absolutely correct! Judges make policy all the time. Why fear the truth, call a spade a spade! So when Judge Sotomayor got caught on video saying that the court of appeals is “often where policy is made.” Then she corrected herself and said “I’m not advocating it.” Hey guess what peeps, she was being real! Because thats the way it is. I keep telling you folks - the right is behaving more and more like children in a school yard! They look for any itty bitty issue to grasp on to because there on the ropes. Again, not everyone, but enough of the one’s that the American people see and hear all the time. Even with all of her credentials and smarts, by all accounts (from many of her colleagues) Judge Sotomayor is not considered an intellectual heavyweight. Not as some justices on the higher court have been. She’s no William Brennan or a Thurgood Marshall. She’s definitely no Earl Warren either. From what I’ve read it’s doubtful that she will leave an indelible mark on the court. She’s like a David Souter. David Souter was a reliable liberal justice. I’m not at all sure that she will be a reliable liberal justice though. Souter also didn’t leave a mark on the court. I actually think that the Prez missed an opportunity here. Sure I know that politics came into play, the fact that she is a Latina. If I were the one making the choice I would have picked an absolute progressive counterweigh to balance out the conservative heavyweights on the other side. I’d have to say that Scalia is certainly a heavyweight on the other side. Hopefully she will be a liberal. But that remains to be seen... But... Hey, she’s a woman... very powerful creatures we women... we can see thing that guys don’t, seriously! You never know... she might really shake things up! 6 Comments

What good is prayer? (Part I) Jun 30, 2009 11:03 pm 440 Views Today a new reader to my blog mentioned that old adage that I've heard so many times before. You know, that there are no atheists in foxholes. He touched on a great subject - Prayer! As the poker player would say - I'm all in! Gonna point out a few things about what is said in the Bible that is a complete contradiction with reality. Think about it... Prayer! The belief in prayer is nothing more than superstition. I can prove it too. In fact there is nothing more challenging for the Christian than the belief in prayer. All you've got to do to see how perplexing a subject this is for the Christian is to look at a few of the Christian web sites. And you'll find that the question of prayer troubles Christians greatly. For example, one site says of the question of prayer that "few experiences pose a greater challenge to our faith." Another site called unanswered prayer - "one of the biggest questions which those in ministry have to deal with in counseling other Christians." Clearly Christians and their ministries recognize a problem here. The Bible says over and over that if you believe and pray, your prayer will be granted. So does what really happens on earth comport with what the Bible says? I don't think so. Let's take a look... In the New Testament it has Jesus saying quite a bit about the subject of prayer. Across the four Gospels there are literally dozens of references to Jesus and prayer. References to his praying and being on his way to pray or just having return from praying. Often rather lengthy references to him giving instructions about how to pray and what to pray. As well as admonitions about how to pray and what not to pray and so on. The gospel writers have Jesus making some extraordinarily broad statements about what to expect from prayer. For example there's Matthew 21:22 - "And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive." That was said right after Jesus made a fig tree wither and the disciples were like hey, how'd you do that? John 16:23 - "Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask the Farther for anything in my name, he will give it to you." There's no getting around it, it's absolute. Mark 11:24 - "There I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be granted you." Then there's Matthew 7: 7-8 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you... For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened." These are extraordinary and to the point unqualified statements about what to expect from prayer. The 18th chapter of Luke's gospel even has Jesus telling his disciples a parable about how persistent they should be in prayer. Jesus uses the example of a woman who pleads with the judge who doesn't listen to her initially. Jesus pretty much says that people should nag God. Because if they do God will eventually give them what they request. Again and again, Jesus uses broad unqualified language with respect to prayer. "Ask the farther for anything... he will give it to you." "All things you ask in prayer... you will receive." Everyone who asks receives." "All things for which you pray... they will be granted you." The guarantee is outright! If one asks, one receives. The fact that Jesus' prayer related guarantees are outright and unqualified aggravates the problem of unanswered prayer. As one Christian ministries web site put it "the problem wouldn't be so vexing if the biblical promises about prayer weren't so numerous and explicit." In fact the only place in the gospel where Jesus talks about Gods will as a limitation on prayer is when he prays for himself prior to his arrest. The story is a familiar one, and told in each of the synoptic gospels. Marks gospel has it this way - And Jesus said, "Abba, Farther, all things are possible for you. Take this cup from me. Nevertheless, not what I will, but what you will." A little later in the story though Jesus makes a fascinating statement that's quite in keeping with his if one asks one receives approach to prayer. As he's being arrested one of Jesus' disciples draws a sword and injures a member of the arresting party and Jesus scolds him for doing that and he says "don't you know that I could ask my Father, and right away he would send me more than twelve armies of angels" - Matthew 26:53 10 Comments

What good is prayer? (Part II) Jun 30, 2009 10:59 pm 469 Views There's and old Christian hymn that I had to sing at church that celebrated this passage. It's entitled "10,000 Angels". A verse goes "he could have called 10,000 angels to destroy the world and set him free. He could have called 10,000 angels, but he died alone, for you and for me." I'm sure many of you that were made to go to church sang it before. The passages clear implication is that Jesus not only could have asked God to intervene to prevent him from being arrested and subsequently executed, but that if Jesus had asked God, God would have granted the request. The significance of all of this is that the excuse that Christians use that God answers prayers only according to his will cannot be exaggerated. I mean it's all over the bible - there no getting around it! Ask and the believer will receive! So why then is it not so? Goes back to what I said at the onset - The belief in prayer is nothing more than superstition! As is religion and scripture! Think about it. What of the believer that is dying of cancer. What of cancer itself? What would happen if the true believer made a completely unselfish and heartfelt, non-materialistic request of God to cure cancer? Wouldn't God grant it, and if not then why not? This is an important prayer that would glorify God and help millions of people throughout the world. Why wouldn't God grant that true believer's prayer? What's the excuse? Some might say that the prayer too big or that "God wants those people to suffer." "He likes to test people" and so on. The one that they frequently use is - "the lord works in mysterious ways..." What's the odds of that prayer ever getting answered? Look, let's be real here, there aren't special laws of probability for people who pray. The laws of probability are always the same whether you pray or not. And there are no special laws of nature for people who pray. It's just that simple. Otherwise the laws of nature would behave differently for people who pray and none of our scientific equations would work. It's no wonder that believers are disappointed in real life. Jesus says ask the Farther for anything and you'll get it. But things don't happen that way. Prayers go unanswered or the opposite of what one requests ends up happening. Two mothers, both devout believers pray for their gravely ill child. One child survives, the other child dies. It seems that one can't take Jesus seriously when it comes to asking God for anything. The promise dies the death of a thousand qualifications. Instead of asking the Farther for anything and you'll get it. It's more like ask the farther for anything and we'll see how it works out. Nothing more than a crap shoot really. The solution for the problem of unanswered prayer is not found in biblical promises nor does it come from excuses for why those promises fail. That way lays a maze of questions with no answers. The solution ironically is summed up in a saying of Jesus': The rain falls on the just and the unjust. Peeps, God is not watching, listening and making it alright. There is no God! Once one acknowledges this one breaks free from religious questions without answers. Life happens, with its pluses and minuses. It's high points and low points and everything in between. Only you can give it meaning... Think about it... In your heart you know its true... 16 Comments

Just kicking it with friends... Jun 30, 2009 5:14 pm 490 Views Hi guys, it's your Chickypoo again. Guys, I haven't been posting that much of late because there's been a lot going on with me right now. Got to admit that I do feel a little guilty because I haven't been able to keep up with your comments. Still I assure you that I read all of them. Had an interesting exchange via e-mail with a reader from the United Arab Emirates. He took offence to one of the posts that I put up a few weeks ago. You guessed it! It was the post dealing with religion. We went back and forward a few times, didn't mind because it led me to buy a Quran. Gonna commence to picking that violent piece of work apart over the next couple of weekends. Anyway I didn't get what upset him so much. I never mentioned Islam (not that I think that it has any more credibility than the rest of em - I don't!). Had to say that... Well, not really. Over the weekend that ole blogger that I've beefed with called me an anti-Semite in an offsite e-mail. *sigh* Said that my comment about putting our interests first and not supporting everything that Israel does was "telling." Paid him no mind and actually laughed at him. Once again he lost his cool (if he ever had one). Look, I know what's in my heart and besides, he calls everyone that who doesn't think of Israel before anything else an anti-Semite. His blog gives testimony to that. Anyway, it must have been my mention of the God of Abraham that ticked that guy from UAE off. Maybe he should have noted that warning about controversial stuff on my blog header. *sigh* Not that I worry about what folks think about me - I don't. I should mention that if he's one of those fanatics that take the Quran literally. You know, verses like Surah 2:191 (The Cow) "And slay them wherever ye find them... Such is the reward of disbelievers." Then beware because just like Indiana Jones, when you start waving that Shamshir around you'll find me locked & loaded. He, he, he. I'm really not a violent person but then I'm not one to be fooled with either. Again, I'm an alpha female and a pretty feisty bitch when tested. The Brits would call me cheeky. When frustrated I love to go to the range and squeeze off a few. I find it very therapeutic. As a kid I always wanted to be in the Girl Scouts. I loved those neat sashes that they wore. You know, the ones where they would put the badges. But my foster mom told me that I couldn't join because she'd have to let the rest of the girls (my foster sisters) join as well. Uniforms and dues were a little more than she could afford. So when people like that confront me about what I write, I wear it as a badge of honor, just like the scouts do. I notice that my last set of posts still pulled in the readers, Thanks guys. I also noticed that few of those readers posted comments. That post about religion got 562 views but only five comments. Just want you guys to know that I don't write these posts to offend people. I figure that people read what I write because they'd like to know about me and what I have to say. So I'm obliging. And I'm also about fermenting a healthy dose of skepticism. I'm not trying to be mean but people need to understand that the non-believer is constantly inundated with religion. It's all over the place, everywhere and constant. Not only that but I'm for nudging people to grasp reality and things that are verifiable. I also want my readers to think about some of the stuff that they've been force fed since birth. The most evil man that ever walked this earth (Adolf Hitler) once said "he alone, who owns the youth, gains the future." Religion is guilty of that. It twists and manipulates minds from the cradle to the grave. Honestly, it would be nice to get a realistic and logical reason for believing in this stuff. Rather than the usual "the Bible says so" & "it's in the Bible so it must be true!" I've come to the realization that that's not possible when it comes to religion. It enslaves people and closes minds. Hitler also said "By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise." Mmm, I wonder what else has that much power? Anyway, just a taste of what's to come. I've got some time to myself today and I'll be writing a few more blogs post before the evening is out. Gonna write another one about religion too. So, brace yourself. 14 Comments

The meeting of the armchair quarterbacks... Jun 30, 2009 12:58 pm 433 Views Looks like the Prez is confounding the right once again. Their response to the Iranian demonstrators was all over the place. Their off balance and throwing out all kinds of foolish critiques as to what posture he should be taking. However the grownups that are still left in the party and actually know something about foreign policy say that he's taken the right tact. But once again the children, poor little things, are boo-hooing. People like Dick Lugar and Henry Kissinger are actually applauding the President and say that his posture is the right one to take. Not to mention the real journalistic minds on the right as well. I'm talking about George Will and Peggy Noonan who warn that the nay sayers are wrong, "silly" and shouldn't be criticizing what he's doing because he's taking the "right course." I mean really now, what do they want him to do? Bomb, bomb, bomb... bomb, bomb Iran?!? Last week the Prez spoke out in favor of the demonstrators. He also said "the last thing that I want to do is have the US be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the US. What we can do is bear witness and say to the world that the incredible demonstrations that we've seen is a testimony to what Dr. King called 'the ark of the moral universe.' It's long but it bends toward justice." Not only that but if his detractors could see past their venom they would know that Iran has already tried to use his statements to insist that the US is fermenting problems within their county. And that's the last thing that the Iranian demonstrators need. However the wing-nuts on the right feel that nothing that this President does is correct. Congressman Dana Warbacker of California said "I think that if Mr. Obama continues to have this type of attitude we're going to see things get very bad very quickly. Already the North Koreans have challenged him and they realize that he's a cream puff." LOL! John McCain said "on this issue I don't believe that the President is taking the leadership that is incumbent of an American President." Whew! Well what would you have him do Mr. Bomb, Bomb Iran? I mean what should we do? Shall we just bomb the bastards and get it over with? Double Whew!! Mike Pence of Indiana said "when Ronald Reagan went before the Brandenburg gate he did not say Mr. Gorbachev that wall is not any of our business." Ahh, here we go again the Ronald Reagan orgy continues. Would someone please hip these people to the fact that Reagan is dead and will not be resurrected. Look, it's clear that the Prez has sided with the demonstrators, we've already seen that. But it doesn't really matter cause they've got nothing and children will be children. Lindsey Graham said "their basically asking us to speak up on their behalf. I appreciate what the President said yesterday but he's been timid and passive." "timid and passive" huh - how asinine! Apparently Graham hasn't been monitoring what's been coming out of Iran. The twittering and blogging, etc. I would suggest that he change the channel from FOX Noise for a change. Yeah they've been a few students that have called out for the Prez. But the real organizers of the protest know that our intervention would mean death to their movement. McCain sounded off again and said "I don't consider it medaling when you stand on the side of the principles that made our nation the greatest nation in history." Guess what John boy... IRAN ISN'T OUR NATION!!! Hello, standing up for American principles in Iran doesn't do any good! More McCain: "I'd like to see the President be stronger than he has been, although I appreciate the comments that he made yesterday. Ahh, I think that he ought to have America lead." Iowa Senator Chuck Grassly said "I believe that we could be more forceful than we have. If America stands for democracy and all of these ahh, demonstrations are going on in Tehran and other cities over there and people don't think that we really care, then obviously people are going to question whether we really care about our principles." Okay Grassly, you've convinced me! LETS DECLARE WAR AND BOMB THE BASTARDS!!! Former Reagan Sec. of education and now talk radio host Bill Bennett said on CNN "this is very disappointing as far as I'm concerned. This is the President to whom the whole world was looking. Remember when Obama speaks the young people of the world listen. This is a President that's supposed to be about hope and the future. This is a guy that was a community organizer. He missed it, he missed the opportunity. He was feckless, he was pusillanimous." What the!?! P-U-S-I-L-L-A-N-I-M-O-U-S. Damn Bill, you sent me to the dictionary on that one. Gee, thanks for adding to my vocabulary btw, I owe you one... Ahh, little Barakie Obama, just an itty bitty community organizer. Yeah, just diminish him and make fun of community organizing like the two losers Rotten Rudy and the Sarahcuda did at the GOP dog & pony show last August. Yeah, and good luck with that too. Community organized himself right into the White House. LOL! You know what I say peeps - let em keep it coming, cause the American people are not as stupid a people as these people think we are, we're keeping score and it's obvious to all who the real grownups are. 8 Comments

Betraying the Planet Jun 30, 2009 12:54 pm 485 Views So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement. But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases. And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet. To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial, you need to know about the grim turn taken by the latest climate research. The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a terrifying rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe — a rise in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable — can no longer be considered a mere possibility. It is, instead, the most likely outcome if we continue along our present course. Thus researchers at M.I.T., who were previously predicting a temperature rise of a little more than 4 degrees by the end of this century, are now predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees. Why? Global greenhouse gas emissions are rising faster than expected; some mitigating factors, like absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, are turning out to be weaker than hoped; and there’s growing evidence that climate change is self-reinforcing — that, for example, rising temperatures will cause some arctic tundra to defrost, releasing even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Temperature increases on the scale predicted by the M.I.T. researchers and others would create huge disruptions in our lives and our economy. As a recent authoritative U.S. government report points out, by the end of this century New Hampshire may well have the climate of North Carolina today, Illinois may have the climate of East Texas, and across the country extreme, deadly heat waves — the kind that traditionally occur only once in a generation — may become annual or biannual events. In other words, we’re facing a clear and present danger to our way of life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify failing to act? Well, sometimes even the most authoritative analyses get things wrong. And if dissenting opinion-makers and politicians based their dissent on hard work and hard thinking — if they had carefully studied the issue, consulted with experts and concluded that the overwhelming scientific consensus was misguided — they could at least claim to be acting responsibly. But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn’t see people who’ve thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don’t like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they’ve decided not to believe in it — and they’ll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds their denial. Indeed, if there was a defining moment in Friday’s debate, it was the declaration by Representative Paul Broun of Georgia that climate change is nothing but a “hoax” that has been “perpetrated out of the scientific community.” I’d call this a crazy conspiracy theory, but doing so would actually be unfair to crazy conspiracy theorists. After all, to believe that global warming is a hoax you have to believe in a vast cabal consisting of thousands of scientists — a cabal so powerful that it has managed to create false records on everything from global temperatures to Arctic sea ice. Yet Mr. Broun’s declaration was met with applause. Given this contempt for hard science, I’m almost reluctant to mention the deniers’ dishonesty on matters economic. But in addition to rejecting climate science, the opponents of the climate bill made a point of misrepresenting the results of studies of the bill’s economic impact, which all suggest that the cost will be relatively low. Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn’t it politics as usual? Yes, it is — and that’s why it’s unforgivable. Do you remember the days when Bush administration officials claimed that terrorism posed an “existential threat” to America, a threat in whose face normal rules no longer applied? That was hyperbole — but the existential threat from climate change is all too real. Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it’s in their political interest to pretend that there’s nothing to worry about. If that’s not betrayal, I don’t know what is. Paul Krugman 14 Comments

Atheism is... Jun 30, 2009 12:40 pm 480 Views Atheism offers nothing to me. It never has and it never will. It doesn't make me feel good or comfort me. It's not there for me when I'm sick or ill. It can't intervene in times of need. It won't protect me from hate and lies. It doesn't care if I fail or succeed, it won't wipe the tears from my eyes. It does nothing when I have nowhere to run; it won't give me wise words or advice. It has no teachings for me to learn. It can't show me what's bad or nice. It's never inspired or excited anyone. It won't help me fulfill all my goals. It won't tell me to stop when I'm having fun. It's never saved one single soul. It doesn't take credit for everything that I achieve. It won't make me get down on bended knee. It doesn't judge me or demand that I have to believe. It won't torture me for eternity. It won't teach me to hate or despise others. It can't tell me what's right or wrong. It won't tell anybody that they can't be lovers. It's told nobody that they don't belong. It won't make you think that life is worth living, it has nothing to offer me, thats true, but the reason that Atheism offers me nothing is because I've never asked it to. Atheism offers nothing because it doesn't need to. Religion promises everything because you want it to. You don't need a religion or to have faith, you just want it because you need to feel safe. I want to feel reality, and nothing more. Atheism offers me everything that religion has stolen before... Coughlan 9 Comments

A conversation with Sis... (Part 1) Jun 13, 2009 9:08 pm 948 Views Well Sis I don’t know whether or not you were trying to take my measure in your comment on my Who’s gonna save the party? (Part post but its cool, I’ll bite! Got to tell you that when I read that comment it made my blood boil. I think I made a good choice by not saying anything when I first read it. I guess my main beef was because your comment took a tone as if you questioned my patriotism. I’m in Cali and supposed to be going sailing today (never did that before in my life). So while I’m waiting on my ride I figured I'd have this conversation with you and hopefully I can express where I’m coming from. Excuse me for the length of this post cause I predict that this will be a long one. Partly because you commented on an earlier post some months back concerning religion but I never answered that one either. Becides I have a brand new Bible siting next to me and feel like flipping though it. I love you and am a bit mindful of offending you. Hopefully I won't, but this time I plan on covering religion as well. Some might feel that it is too long and I understand if they choose not to read it. However I do want you to take the time out to read it in its entirety. I take my patriotism very seriously. My blog is a celebration of my patriotism. It is the reason why I chose a quote from the British born Thomas Paine – our first progressive – to be the header on my blog. Having allies is cool but I’m against putting any nation’s foreign policy concerns ahead of our own. That goes for theocracies that claim to be democracies. Case in point Israel! I understand Israel’s right to exist and support it. On the other hand I’m for democracy and dislike theocracies. Something about that whole “I’m doing God’s work” - “I’m special” - “I’m chosen,” mind set. Israel – just like Iran and now Iraq is a theocracy. Never mind this lie that is force fed to us that “Israel is the only democracy in the middle east.” Bullshit! It takes more than having elections to make a nation a democracy. It’s about representation of all the people. Say one even puts aside the fact that Muslims are born there, what about the many Christians that are born there as well? In Israel you have to be a Jew to become Prime Minister, be in the legislator or on the high court. That is a bigoted policy and does not give its people equal representation. Besides that, they have no qualms’ about declaring them self “a Jewish state.” I believe that I take my patriotism more seriously than most people that I know on the right. For instance, the fact that I never supported Dubya’s oil war in Iraq never deterred my support for our troops. It’s not their fault that they’ve been put there. Just doing their jobs is all. Unlike the two chicken shit cowards (Bush & Cheney) that sent them there. Those two cowards did everything in their power to avoid service when their generation was called (Viet Nam) yet didn’t hesitate to lie young men from my generation into war. Now they tell the Kool–aid drinkers that they had to because “Saddam killed thousands of his own people.” However they fail to mention that that was some decades ago and we supported Saddam during that time. Made no bones about those thousands of dead Kurd's back then. Shit, we helped arm both he and Iran in their war against each other. Yeah, they like to say of the WMD’s that everyone in congress said he had them as well as the Clintons. Not taking note of the fact that Saddam was contained, had restricted no-fly zones as well as was being bombed by us during the whole of the Clinton years. I question whether Iraq really benefitted from our invasion. I mean, the right likes to say that Saddam killed thousands of his own people but according to Al Jazeera one million Iraqis have died since our invasion of Iraq. We’ll have to leave it to the historians to sort that one out. Anyway, I like to think that another way that I exercise my patriotism is by pen-paling with soldiers and marines. I've been doing it since 2004. And when a few of them finished their tour and came home I invited them to Vegas, got them show tickets and even took a few out to dinner here in town. Had an unforgettable night with a marine that I took to “The Body English” club (at the Hard Rock). We ended up hanging out with “Pink” and her entourage. To date, I web-cam with a few of our guys each week. I’ve even been told by a couple of them that my mail helped them get through their tour. I’ve even got a few girlfriends out here (both liberal and conservative - more like claim to be conservative) and have given them mailing addresses for a few of our guys and to date not one of them have ever written. In addition to that I’ve donated to our troops (via Starbucks) and even volunteered my time at homeless shelters. BTW, conservatives like to say that liberals don’t work and are poor. I won’t mention for the millionth time that the two richest guys in this country identify themselves with liberals and liberal causes. But last Thanksgiving after the election I volunteered at and served Turkey dinners on the “West Side” (the poor part of Vegas). During that evening and still pumped up from the election victory I asked a bunch of those folks what they felt about the election and who they voted for and everyone of them were indifferent about it. Everyone of them did not vote! I was shocked! So in my opinion poor people, for the most part don’t vote. As I've mentioned before, I Volunteered my time during the last election as well. So as far as I’m concerned when it comes to patriotism I walk the walk. 9 Comments

A conversation with Sis... (Part 2) Jun 13, 2009 9:04 pm 954 Views Being you started your comment with my mention of Cuba I guess I’ll go there: By what you wrote I don’t get the impression that you read all of my comments. Because just like Michael Moore I used Cuba as a reference point. You seem to have read the word C-U-B-A and saw nothing else and ran with it. I could have used a variety of nations because so many have a system that serves their populous better than our system serves us. As I stated in the past we have the best doctors and equipment but the worst system. The US ranks 45 in life expectancy. Behind Canada (14), France ( 8 ), Japan (3), Sweden (10), Australia (11), Germany (33) and the United Kingdom (37) – source: 2008 CIA World Factbook. The U.S. ranks 29th worldwide in infant mortality, tying Slovakia and Poland but lagging behind Cuba – source: CDC report. Furthermore we spend 50% more on health care that the second biggest spender - Sweden - and they cover all of their citizens. Allow me to reminisce a bit... a few years ago I watched (on you-tube) an old CBS news special from the early sixties. It was named “The Hate That Hate Produced” and was hosted by Mike Wallace of CBS. It was based on his interviews with Malcolm X. At the time Malcolm X was the spokesman for the Black Muslim movement here in the US. In it Malcolm X said some pretty inflammatory things. He claimed that according to his religion white people were the devil. I don’t believe in devils but I was curious enough to want to know what caused such hatred. At the time the Bush administration was in full throttle on their march to war in Iraq (a country that had nothing to do with attacking us on 911), I wanted to get up to speed on Islam, where the hatred comes from and what made them tick. Anyway I ended up reading Malcolm X’s biography (written by Alex Haley). In it I read that as a boy his dad was murdered by the KKK. Haley pointed out that when Malcolm X made his pilgrimage to Mecca he came to realize that the point of view that he held about Islam was false. That Elijah Mohammed (the head and self proclaimed prophet of the Black Muslims) was a phony. While he was in Mecca he sat down, broke bread and prayed with white Muslims. When he returned to the US he denounced the racial hatred and the Black Muslim movement (The same Black Muslims that are presently run by Louis Farrakhan). Malcolm X was assassinated by the Black Muslims a few months later. Why this long story? Because Fidel Castro with the help of the Argentinean Che’ Guevara only came to power because of the hate that hate produced. I’ve researched the Cuban revolution enough to know that I would in no way, form or fashion desire their politics to that of our own. Again I believe in democracy. Cuba is a totalitarian dictatorship run by a human rights violator and communist! Still I do know how he came to be. It was fueled by hate - Fulgencio Batista was elected as Cuba’s president in 1940, but when he got in he never allowed an opposition party to thrive. He was actually a self proclaimed Communist himself. The US embraced him because he was a bit of a capitalist and not much of a nationalist. He allowed US business interests to run rough shot over the interests of his people. For example he allowed American gangsters to run wild in his country through the casinos – he allowed US companies to dominate the countries thriving sugar cane industry as well. All the while ruling the people through class warfare and an iron fist. The Cuban people suffered under Batista. I even read where during Batista’s regime there was only one university and one general hospital for the whole country. As a consequence the revolution led by Castro and Che’ was originally welcomed by most of the Cuban people. In fact the US actually wasn’t originally opposed to the revolution. They thought that we could deal with Castro. Castro quickly fell out of favor with the US due to overtures with the Soviet Union. It was the height of the cold war you know. So I know enough about Cuba to know that it is nothing that I would envy. Furthermore if you read my comments you would know that I only used Cuba as an example of what a thriving free public education system could achieve. Shit, Colin Powell is a product of the public school system. You bring up Michael Moore in a way that makes me question if you ever saw his movie “Sicko”. I question it because when the movie first came out Fred Thompson made a foolish online commercial about it. Where he claimed that Michael Moore was holding up Cuba as example of a great health care system – he did nothing of a sort! That didn’t stop the uninformed and FOX News form saying he did. (I bring up FOX News because they are one of the major contributors to the “dumbing down” of America as well as masters of disinformation – 67% of Fox viewers believed there was evidence of links between Iraq to Al Qaeda (PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll). Fact is there were none! – 33% of Fox viewers believe that WMD’s were found in Iraq (PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll). None were found! This is a news agency that would rival anything Joseph Goebbels could have ever conceived. There’s even a poll that I once saw that estimated how many Fox viewers believe that the President is a Muslim and was born in either Kenya or Indonesia. A disinformation network like that is not healthy for our nation. As for Michael Moore, his detractors never mention the fact that he only criticized our system! The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says 47.6 million, or about 15 percent of Americans, were uninsured in 2006. For the past five years, the overall count has fluctuated between 41 million and 47 million people. That’s not to mention the amount of people that are under insured. According to the Institute of Medicine, 18,000 people do die each year mainly because they are less likely to receive screening and preventive care for chronic diseases. The United States spends more than 18 percent of its GDP on health care - no other nation even comes close to that number. Not even the second most expensive nation next to ours (Sweden) does. And again they cover everyone! France spends about 11 percent, and Canadians spend 10 percent. It’s ridiculous! We the people have been getting screwed by the blood sucking insurance companies for generations now. And like sheep we’ve been programmed to think that our system is the best and the only way to go. Part of it is this republican think – the party that has been dominating out politics for the 40 years. A party that is beholding to the insurance and pharmaceutical companies. This is a mindset that puts profit before the lives of its citizens. They make money by denying coverage. That’s why they do it every chance that they get. Why do you think I rail against them so hard? GOP policies kill! When you talk to right wingers about these facts as I often do, they like to say things like “all those countries make you wait.” “You can’t decide your own doctor.” Right wing talking points that are bogus! To them I say look into the German system – they have universal health care and no waiting time. I say lets study all of these systems and come up with the best one that fits our needs. Lets stops letting these blood suckers rip us off. BTW, health care issues are one of the things that helped bring down our auto industry. The price of health care cost more per vehicle than the cost of the steal used to make that vehicle. It’s no wonder that it’s so hard for us to compete with foreign car companies that pay nothing for health care for their employees. Michael Moore used Cuba (as I did) as an example that as poor as Cuba is they cover every citizen. When Fred Thompson went on “Hardball” with Chris Matthews to defend his online video where he criticized Michael Moore’s movie “Sicko,” he made a complete fool of himself when he reluctantly admitted that he hadn’t even seen the movie. Hun, I question by your comment whether you ever saw the film as well. If you didn’t it would behoove you to rent it and watch it. That way you can be better informed as to its contents. I can tell you that I watch, listen and read plenty of stuff that comes from the right. I think that its advantageous because it strengthens my arguments. As far as Cuban doctors are concerned they are rated highly. In fact after the Tsunami in the Far East a couple of years back, many nations including ours sent doctors to Indonesia to help. As the doctors headed home Java, Indonesia requested that Cuba allow their doctors to stay on a little longer. I also posted an article on that post that you might want to read about Cuban doctors. Bottom line is I am a capitalist and think nothing of the failed ideology of communism. Now as I’ve mentioned in the past I’m not against elements of socialism. Doesn’t scare me in the least, but then I don’t scare easily. Besides as I’ve also mentioned in the past we have long had elements of socialism. The conservatives rail against government run health care and how government doesn’t do anything right. To that I say Bull Shit! Tell it to some of the veterans that I know that get all of their health care by way of the VA. I’m going to touch on this socialism scare tactic that FOX Noise and many on the right are trying to cow tow the people into believing. To date the percentage of American corporate and business assets recently nationalized by the United States government is 0.21% ($82.3 billion). And the percentage of American corporate and business assets not held by the United States government is 99.79% ($39.2 trillion). Now to emphasize how ridiculous the rights cry of socialism is open up your Microsoft Excel or your Corel Quarto Pro and create a pie chart using these numbers and the resulting slither that represents the 0.21% will be thinner than a pin. Then you too will come to realize just how stupid their argument is. According to collegeboard website the average private four year college tuition is $9,000 per year. Public four-year college tuition is about $6,585 per year. On the other hand it costs approximately $52.06 Per Day/ $19,002 Per Year to keep one person locked up in prison. Republicans have occupied the White house for most of the last 40 years. With the exception of Carter for one term (4 years) and Clinton for two terms (8 years). Nixon ran on a law & order platform and since then the prison population has been on a steady rise. We now have more people in prison (over two million) than any other nation on the planet (per capita) including China (where one can be sentenced to 15 years for stealing a bicycle). This is a direct result of conservative politics. Where they rather lock people up than spend the money on public education. Lack of education leads to both poverty and crime. There is a direct correlation! Shit, Texas GOP congressman Ron Paul says that we should do away with the dept. of education all together. And who ever can’t afford schooling from the private sector should home school. That’s simply crazy. I mean what if that child’s parents are illiterate? I suppose the GOP mindset is that someone’s got to pick up the trash. I find their policies towards public education both counterproductive and destined to keep our public schools in the dark ages. In my state (Nevada) our republican Governor (Gibbons) ran into a budget problem. Same problem that many states are going through right now. They can’t meet their budget. So in order to raise the 800 million dollars that Gibbons needed he cut the budget. Guess what he cut? The public education budget. In fact he raised every penny of that money from cutting public education (all 800 million dollars!). Can you imagine what that will do to public education in my state? This is worst than what George Bush did with passing “no-child-left-behind" and then not funding it. It’s irreprehensible! It gets worst! On top of that Gibbons is building another prison!!! Never mind the fact that other nations are graduating well educated students from their public school systems. Or the fact that our public schools can and have produced many successful and productive members of society. Republican law makers don’t care because most of their kids go to private schools. Its stinks but this is the way the GOP does things. Not very “Christ like” I’d have to say. As I said I care about my fellow Americans and I want this country to be all that it can be and it will not if we allow GOP politics to dominate us again. Our hospitals and cooperation’s will continue to be staffed by well educated foreigners. While we continue to graduate inadequately educated and ill prepared people – and yes that’s what’s going on! Republicans love to tout religion and act as if they are god like. Personally I believe most of them to be the biggest hypocrites that ever walked the earth. You said to me “Life isn't free Ginger.” I am painfully aware of that, as I came up poor and in foster care. Thankfully I don't live like that now. And only because everything that I’ve accomplished, I’ve accomplish through my own efforts and ingenuity. I don’t expect that anyone should get a free ride, I expect that anyone that is given the opportunity to get public higher education to keep good grades and earn it. I’m simply saying that it would be better for all of us (Americans) if higher education was available to all that have the grades to achieve it. 20 Comments

A conversation with Sis… (Part 3) Jun 13, 2009 8:56 pm 948 Views Let me ask you something. Did Christ not identify with the poor? "Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God." Luke 6:20. I’ve read the Bible and like to think that I know it better than most Christians. Why? Because most Christians have never read it in its entirety. Just bits and pieces and allow the rest of it to be dictated to them, and told how to interpret it as well. Jesus constantly spoke of helping and looking out for “the least of us” (i.e. the poor). In Luke 18:19-22 a man ask Jesus what it would take for him to get to heaven? Jesus said “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” That’s right! Sell everything!!! Jesus said that! Now remember, according to Christians – Jesus is God and God is perfect! Why do Christian conservatives totally ignoring Jesus' request? Why won't they listen to passages like this? I suspect that passages like these make them feel uncomfortable. And as a result they ignore them and many more passages that don't comport with their world view. Jesus also said in Luke 14:26-33: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters, yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple... in the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.” As you know I’m a non-believer. Why? Because I know that the Bible is full of enough contradictions that I could no doubt find verses that could be construed to mean that greed and selfishness might be a good thing. You might be thinking of sending me a verse that can be interpreted in that way. But let me stop you now because in my view the Bible lacks true historical verisimilitude, and would only prove my point as to the fallacy of the Bible and the belief in the God of Abraham. I firmly believe that religion is like a poison on the earth and is the cause of most of the earth’s woes. It promotes hatred for the non-believer. That the non-believer is somewhat lacking as a human being. The Bible is contradictory and if your reverend or holy man told you that the Bible does not contradict itself, allow me to expound and I will prove it with just one of the many examples where it does. First let’s take a look at the resurrection contradiction. As with the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). Marks gospel (the earliest of the four canonical gospels) is rather stark and minimal. In it news of Jesus’ resurrection does not inspire joy or faith but rather fear bewilderment and silence. Moreover Jesus never appears. As time goes on and Matthews gospel is written then Luke’s gospel and then Johns gospel is written. The story becomes much richer, taking on a variety of new details that often seem aimed at correcting the starkness of the Mark version. It seems that the further away in time from the alleged events of that Sunday morning, the more detailed the story of those events became. Second, it’s important to have a sense of the criteria that a historian uses to determine which sources can reasonably be relied upon to establish what probably is and isn't a historical fact. Among other things historians look for contemporary sources that corroborate one another, that are consistent with one another. So with respect to the claim that Jesus was raised from the dead, the Christian scriptures even if they could be considered contemporary sources are definitely not sources that corroborate one another. In fact they are often extremely inconsistent! I’ll further expound. In Mark and Matthew’s gospels an angel instructs women (two women in Matthew and three women in Mark) who had gone to Jesus’ tomb to go and tell the disciples that Jesus will be appearing to them up north in Galilee. Mark’s angel says “go, tell the disciples and peter, ‘he is going before you into Galilee; there you will see him, just as he said to you.’” Mark 16: 7. Matthew’s angel says “go quickly and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he is going before you into Galilee, there you will see him; behold, I have told you.” Matthew 28: 7 Matthew’s gospel goes even further, it has Jesus meeting the women on their way to tell the disciples and Jesus says “go take word to my brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will see me.” Matthew 28:10. Now Jerusalem where Jesus was executed and buried was in Judea – about 70 miles south of Galilee. Where talking 2000 years ago, so the disciples had a bit of a trip ahead of them before they would see Jesus. Matthew 28:16-17 tells us that “the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee” where they “saw him.” The angels who appeared to the women at Jesus’ tomb in Luke’s gospels say nothing to them about the disciples heading north to Galilee to see Jesus. Luke’s Jesus starts appearing to his disciples “that very day” – Luke 24:13 in and immediately around Jerusalem. After this series of appearances in and immediately around Jerusalem – nothing about Galilee! Luke has Jesus and his disciples go to Bethany. Once again just a short distance outside Jerusalem where Jesus “parted from them.” – Luke 24:50-51. Curiously in Luke’s version there is not one word about the disciples going to Galilee – zip, zero, nada! All the action is in and around Jerusalem. In fact Luke’s Jesus “commanded them not to leave Jerusalem" – Acts 1:4. While Matthew’s Jesus commanded them to “leave for Galilee.” – Matthew 28:10. John’s gospel avoids the whole go to Galilee to see Jesus thing. On Sunday evening (“When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week...” – John 20:19) John has Jesus appearing in Jerusalem where the disciples are not preparing for a trip to Galilee but rather behind locked doors “for fear of the Jews” – John 20:19. Jesus makes his first appearance to the disciples there in Jerusalem according to John. The action does not move to Galilee until Jesus’ third appearance. This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to the disciples after he was raised from the dead. – John 21:14 Now if your following me and keeping score Matthew’s Jesus – tells disciples to leave Jerusalem to go to Galilee. Jesus’ first appearance is on a mountain in Galilee. While Luke’s Jesus – has him making all of his appearances in and immediately around Jerusalem. Never in Galilee! Furthermore Jesus tells the disciples not to leave Jerusalem! John’s Jesus has Jesus’ first and second appearances in Jerusalem. In Jesus’ third appearance the action moves to Galilee, and it’s not on a mountain either but on a beach! Now, one needn’t be a professional historian to see that there’s nothing for the historian to work with here. These are not sources that corroborate one another. Rather they contradict one another directly and in a variety of ways. In sum they fail as contemporary sources that corroborate one another, that are consistent with one another. And therefore at least with respect to Jesus’ resurrection they cannot be viewed as historical evidence. Might I add that this is nothing either. I can point out a multitude of inconsistencies and contradictions just like this throughout the Bible. So many that it would render any other book a work of fiction. But not so to the Christian! And if one is to judge others and try to inflict their morality on others and use that book as a foundation to discriminate against another due to sexual preference or whatever – their foundation is built on folly! That goes for abortion or limiting scientific progress (stem cell research), denying education or health services – all of it! If your religion and world view is based on this book, well... Don’t want to be offensive to you Hun, that’s not what I’m doing here. Just want you to recognize how dangerous and discriminating religion is. That it stumps our growth and hurts us as a species. That it is dangerous to believe anything on insufficient and clearly flawed evidence. Part of the problem with the Bible is that people cherry pick scripture and ignore scripture that doesn’t jive with what suits them. People do this all the time with respect with the Old Testament and the New. I believe that if you are to give credence to the New Testament, then what of all the evil that was commanded by God in the Old Testament. Is it not the same God? For instance; that you are to stone a woman to death on her father’s door step if she were found to not be a virgin on her wedding night. Just to name one. Christians ignore that but hate homosexuals who are spoken about in the Old Testament but not the new. As Sam Harris points out in his book the “End of Faith”. (BTW, I don't have the book with me so I’m not making exact quotes here.) Grant the possibility that there is a creator god that is omniscient and occasionally authors books. He’s a loving god and compassionate god and he’s going to give us a guide to life. A book! He’s got a scribe and the scribe is going to write it all down. What’s going to be in that book? Just think of how good that books going to be if it were authored by an omniscient deity. But when you read it, there isn't a single line in the Bible that couldn’t have been authored by a first century person. Not a one! There is not one reference to anything outside of the norm of primitive man. There are pages and pages of references to how to perform animal sacrifice and the treatment of slaves and who to kill and why. There’s nothing about electricity or DNA or infectious deceases. Or the principles and treatment of infectious deceases. Nothing particularly useful like that. Only things that expose the limits of man’s intelligence during the period. And it’s full of a lot of Iron Age barbarism. This is not a candidate book from an omniscient deity. Look, you can go into any Barns & Noble blindfolded and pull a book off of the shelf that would have more relevance and wisdom for the 21st century than the Bible. This is not an exaggeration; every one of our specific sciences has superseded and surpassed the wisdom of scripture. From cosmology to psychology to economics, we know more about ourselves and the world than anyone writing the Bible ever did. And that is a distinctly inconvenient fact for anyone that wants to claim that these books could have been authored by the creator of the universe. Look at the whole God concept and ask yourself why? Why the game? If this god needed company in heaven what’s the whole convoluted process to pick people to be there with him all about. After all he’s god. Comes off like a primitively thought up game to me. He could have easily made humans to keep his company without the big riddle. And what’s with the whole hell concept? I mean if people couldn’t figure out which of the thousands of religions on earth was the right one... wouldn't that be his fault for not getting his message across correctly? And if he was such an angry God why not just make the non-believers disappear. Why create an evil place like hell and allow people to suffer for eternity? Then what of heaven? Isn’t it supposed to be a delightfully happy place with no pain and suffering? Now suppose you got to heaven and your parents or siblings that you deeply loved didn’t get there and were sent to eternal damnation in hell. Wouldn’t you suffer and hurt for them? Wouldn’t you miss them? How then would you find peace in heaven when your love ones are suffering unending torment? It's ridiculous! And why make a hell in the first place? Does this God get off by peeking in on hell every now and then so that he can watch the people that didn't beleive in him suffer in agony? Makes no sense to me, and the whole idea is completely ridiculous! And let’s not forget now... this is supposed to be a loving, caring God we're talking about here. Well I don’t know about you but I wouldn't feel comfortable hanging out with someone who did something like that to the people that I love. I'd have to pass... Send me to that other place! Rather not spend eternity with someone that evil and vengeful. Before I close I'd like to touch on politics one last time. Touch on a couple of former conservative Presidents and their relationship with faith. Did you know that George Bush infrequently attended church? Or that during his eight years in office he never belonged to a Washington DC congregation? He also never attended a “pro-life” convention, gathering or rally. Yet FOX constantly berates the new president for not going to church. I do want to say that I don’t agree with President Obama on everything. The list has been mounting too. First, he's not a true liberal. But I didn’t really expect it anyway. Second, I don’t agree with him as far as “don’t ask, don’t tell.” I mean, what’s the delay? Third, I don't agree with him at all when it comes to religion. He has invoked Jesus’ name in speeches more times than George Bush ever did during his entire 8 year Presidency. Doubt me? Fact check it! I don’t think religion has any place in government. In fact I think it’s dangerous when it does. I believe that it as well as Biblical references (which he has made) should not be promoted by government officials. As far as religion goes Ronald Reagan’s piety was a complete fraud! Time magazine editor Amy Sullivan noted that "Ronald Reagan didn't go to church at all." And in his book “God and Ronald Reagan: A Spiritual Life", author Paul Kengor wrote that "after surviving an assassination attempt in 1981, Reagan still chose not to attend church regularly as president." Why then do right wing holy rollers hold Reagan up as some kind of Godly and righteous figure? Good ole GOP marketing... 5 Comments

28 F