"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin
Saturday, October 22, 2005
I HAVE HAD IT
and I'm not going to take it anymore
Have you ever been so mad you literally wanted to beat someone? I mean really beat them. Kick, slap, punch, pull their hair. Just beat the living crap out of them?
Yeah, I've got serious anger issues. I know it's not good Christian-like behavior. I know God in his infinite wisdom is not going to be happy with me. It won't be the first time. You can bet (oops, another 'no no') it won't be the last.
AN Y WAY, (ooo Piggy's fav word) I've been in a mood
lately. You know, one of those pissy/bitchy moods where everything seems to rub you the wrong way. Some might call it PMS. My family might call it PBS (you figure it out). Then yesterday morning I read David's
post and I started feeling a little better. Maybe the world isn't so phucked up after all.
It didn't last long, because THEN, I read THIS
That sorry piece of human excrement has the unmitigated gall to freaking plead innocent
??? What part of you DID IT does she NOT get? People SAW her. They SAW her cold-bloodedly stand on that pier and throw those innocent little babies in that deep, dark water. She dropped them in, one at a time, then stood there and watched as they drowned. She was their Momma. They trusted her. And she killed them. Now she has the nerve to plead INNOCENT?
I am SO SICK of this. What kind of a sick world do we live in where this woman can stand up in a court of law and claim innocence? It's gone too far. We as a society have let it go too damn far.
I don't want to hear that God, the devil, 'voices'
(or post-partum depression) told/made her to do it. Bullcrap! I'm sick of the Andrea Yate's and Susan Smith's getting away with cold blooded murder, of children. THEIR own children. I'm tired of the John Couey's, and the Joseph Edward Duncan's, raping, torturing, and murdering OUR children. I'm sick of hearing excuses, and I'm sick of us, ALL of us sitting back and letting people like this thrive in our society.
I know, your thinking what can I do? That's way out in California. Well here's what you can do, you can take 20 or 30 minutes out of your busy day and write you Senator, your Congressman, your Governor, your President, and tell them you are sick and tired of people getting away with murder (and other crimes). You can tell them if they want YOUR vote, they'd darn well better start stepping up and doing something about the criminals in our society. Tell them your tired of people who break the law being let go on technicalities. Let them know that SOMEONE is going to start being held accountable. If not the criminals then the politicians (who often are both). Because we are not going to take it anymore. Then write about it in YOUR blog, get the word out. Encourage others to do the same. Believe me if they hear this from enough people, they'll start paying attention.
Yesterday afternoon I sent out a dozen emails. Today I'm mailing at least as many letters. Because I for one and not going to just keep sitting back and whining about the mess our society is in, I'm going to do something. At least I'm going to try.
Now if you all want to all chip in and buy me a plane ( train or bus) ticket to California, I might even do more than that. Just let me in a room with that bitch. Five minutes is all I need.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Jerry Falwell or Jimmy Carter?
One of the things that commends Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court is her religion. So said President Bush, who has made no bones about his own religion and its importance in his life. But if, as he said, "part of Harriet Miers's life is her religion" and his important aide Karl Rove attested to her bona fides to at least one Christian conservative leader (James Dobson), then can she be rejected on the same account? Simply put, if Dobson is assured, why should I not be scared to death?
After all, to say someone's a Catholic (or in Miers case an evangelical Protestant) tells you virtually nothing about him/her. Is he/she a Ted Kennedy Catholic or a Rick Santorum Catholic? Is Miers a James Dobson, Jerry Falwell Christian, or a Jimmy Carter Christian?
The president has stupidly opened a Pandora's box -- and all sorts of ugly questions may pop out. For example, should the government fund churches? Can military (or college) chaplains proselytize the unchurched? Should gays be "reprogrammed," and should the government recommend only abstinence as a way to avoid teenage pregnancy? These are all positions taken by many fundamentalist religious leaders. Are they Miers's? Is anyone going to ask?
What I do find disturbing is the idea that one's qualification for a Supreme Court Justice should be determined on where they stand on one issue. Has anyone ask where she stands on the 2nd Ammendment? What about the 1st Ammendment? Are these rights so trivial that they take a distant seat to Roe-v-Wade?
Can Miers set her beliefs aside? Will the law take precedence? When it comes time to argue a case, will she simply say "I believe what I believe -- and that's all there is to it." I kind of doubt it, but I would like to be reassured. Bush has done his nominee no favor -- especially to suggest that one closed mind has recommended another.
[Editors note::The bulk of this post is taken from Faithful to Whom?
, an op-ed Columist for The Washington Post]
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
maybe it's not so "intelligent"
For the past few years there's been a progressive effort to apply religious teachings to what is often called the real world. There's a strong ongoing debate concerning the teaching of intelligent design
in public schools or "balancing" it with evolution.
Personally I've always believe that the 'evolution' of humankind was a combination of God's creationism and the natural evolution of the species. God did indeed create the first beings but man himself evolved from that original creation. This , in my opinion is the only realistic and logical explanation.
Otherwise what you have is something I'd have a difficult time reconciling.
Lets look at what the theory of 'intelligent design' is at it's core.
Genesis ii, 21-22So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.
That's one rib, one woman, right?
Okay lets move forward, Adam and Eve have done the deed. We have Cain and Able. Able it would appear is a hard working, decent sort a guy, who loves his God, and builds a lovely alter to honor him. Cain on the other hand, is at best not as talented at alter building as his brother. When Cain sees how impressed God is with his sibling, he gets all pissed off and kills his brother in a fit of rage. Now, that's murder, right? Yet does God banish Cain from the family compound? Does he have Daddy Adam lock Cain up 'for life' or worse give him the 'death' sentence for his crime? He does not. But that's a topic for another day.
Moving on, along comes Seth. Which makes Seth and Cain, literally the 'fathers' of the human race.
Now, here's my question. Where's the Mother?
Were there daughters born (of Adam and Eve) that are not mentioned?
The problem here is no matter whether there were daughters we don't know about, or worse there were no daughters and Eve remained the only woman, what you have is NOT a pretty picture.
THIS is the problem with Intelligent Design. If you are going to teach the 'theory' of man being created by God, then you are going to have to teach our children that the human race has it's roots founded in incest. Because in order for Seth and Cain (that brother killer) to have children they had to have to had sexual relations with their [previously unmentioned] sister/sisters, or their Mother.
Do we really want to teach our children that the very roots of our race are a murderer and incestuous brothers/Mother/sisters?
The 'theory' of evolution is starting to look a whole lot more attractive and simple. Don't ya think?
Of course there is that alternative that far too many [pseudo] Christians appear to apply to any Bible related subject that doesn't appeal to them. Just ignore it.
If the Bible teaches adultery is a sin. Ignore it.
If the Bible teaches greed and gluttony are sins. Ignore it.
If the Bible says it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. Ignore it.
If the Bible says blessed be the poor, and meek shall inherit the earth. Ignore it.
On the other hand if the Bible says a man shall not lie with another man, that's the gospel and cannot be ignored.
That is precisely why those who are non-Christian hold those who are, in such disregard.
No wonder they don't want their children being taught religion/intelligent design in public schools.
editors note: This post was inspired by a post found at Adgitadiaries
Sunday, October 16, 2005
in independent point of view
To be fair, Republicans do have a vision. They have a plan. They see the United States as the last, greatest super power. They see us as the last bastion of Christianity. Their plan is to take over not just this country but as much of the world as possible To spread their
idea of democracy. Except it's not really democracy. Because in their vision, there's only ONE party. Their own. Their plan is to make this a reality by eliminating as much as possible of the power the Democrats and Independents have. By controlling not only the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government, but the media as well.
Republicans feel threatened by the two party system. They fear democrats and their ideas/ideals. Republicans want all the power, they want to have the only voice, the only vote. They want to do away with the time honored tradition of the filibuster because it keeps them from running roughshod over the Senate.
They have to make themselves believe the middle and the left are evil. They hate them because they stand for the real American dream. The ability of the poor and disadvantaged to rise above their birth and join the ranks of the powerful and the wealthy.
Republicans have this pious, self-righteous attitude. They think they and they alone know what 'God' wants and how good decent people should live their lives. Whether all the people agree with that or not. Does this maybe remind you of another party from the past?
Democrats? Well their vision of America has never changed.
Our forefathers came to this country to escape a society run by the church. They came here seeking the right to live their lives independent of government interference. They were progressives. They desired change. They wanted freedom from oppression. I can't help but believe those original Americans would more strongly identify with the ideals of the democratic party.
You would be hard put to find a democrat (or independent) who would wish to see the demise of the republican party. They understand the need for diversity and the need for more than one party, so that everyone can have some level of representation. On the other hand we constantly hear republicans talking about how democrats need to be delegated to non-participating status. Why is that? Why do republicans feel the need to diminish anyone who does not share their beliefs?
Democrats merely want their fair share of the pie. They don't want to own the show they just want to be part of the process. They want equal rights for ALL people, not just the [Christian] white heterosexual, and the wealthy. They want fair wages, fair housing, fair health care. They want not just freedom OF religion but FROM religion as well. The very ideals that this country was founded on.
The problem for Democrats is they don't seem to be able to find a strong leader to carry their message to the people.
Democrats= The ink is black, the page is white, together we learn to read and write.
Republicans= You're either with us, or we'll kick your ass until you are.
Yep, that's it in a nutshell. At least in MY opinion.