Huacachina is a beautiful oasis in the Ocucaje Desert in Peru.
"… an oasis ... is an isolated area of vegetation in a desert…"
Wikipedia
Is Huacachina an oasis or not? It doesn't look very isloated to me.
TTFN
(Bright)
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Is Huacachina an oasis?
"… an oasis ... is an isolated area of vegetation in a desert…"
Wikipedia
Is Huacachina an oasis or not? It doesn't look very isloated to me.
TTFN
(Bright)
Sunday, November 21, 2010
The TSA has criminalized the US citizen
The TSA has criminalized the average US citizen. In their eyes, everyone is a guilty criminal until proven innocent! Under US common law and international law, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The TSA has got it backwards.
"...somehow [... the TSA has to provide security ...] without treating everyone from frequent business travelers to the family heading home to visit grandma as a potential terrorist. "
"Over time, TSA has settled into a pattern of issuing directives with little explanation and expecting they be followed. But increasingly fed-up travelers don't understand the agency's sense of urgency and aren't buying it."
"The TSA has spent roughly $40 billion dollars. The ability of TSA screeners to stop prohibited items being carried through sterile areas of airports fared no better than the performance of the screeners prior to September 11, 2001"
TSA gone wild
The TSA has become paranoid and has overstepped its authority and all bounds of decency.
The TSA is flaunting the fourth amendment that guarantees American citizens against unreasonable search and seizure. Other law enforcement agencies need a warrant to invade a person's privacy. Body searches, thus far, have been by the police with reason to believe a person has committed a crime. Yet the TSA sidesteps the fourth amendment whenever a person refuses to submit to intimate body scans. These searches are offensive, touching the most intimate parts of a citizen's body. This is sexual harassment. By what right does the TSA have to do this?
What justifies this intrusion of privacy? What justifies this illegal search? What incidents were there with the metal detectors? A precious few, none leading to any serious incident. The paranoid TSA has perpetrated an enormous boondoggle, spending hundreds of millions of dollars to allow them to exceed the limits of the bill of rights.
They have not shown than the abrogation of a citizens rights and the expense they have incurred is justified by the facts at hand.
They have become an uncontrollable bureaucracy, unaccountable to anyone, least of all the US citizen.
TTFN
Saturday, November 20, 2010
We pay Sarah Palin's State Taxes.
It seems to have gone unnoticed, but Sarah Palin and the Alaskan citizens do not pay state income or sales taxes. They tax the oil companies who pass the cost to the citizens of the other states when they fill up their gas tanks.
In short, the average non-Alaskan pays for the Alaskan government and its services while the Alaskans get a free ride. In addition, the Alaskan citizen is given a "bonus" each year, again from taxes on the oil companies, and ultimately by the average US citizen.
In short, the average non-Alaskan pays for the Alaskan government and its services while the Alaskans get a free ride. In addition, the Alaskan citizen is given a "bonus" each year, again from taxes on the oil companies, and ultimately by the average US citizen.
When Palin was governor and running for VP the citizens of the other states were paying her salary as governor. She was not paying state income or sales taxes like the citizens of the other states . Even today, everyone else in the other states pays her taxes for her.
When you think about it, since the US average citizen paid her salary, not only did they pay for her states taxes but also her federal income taxes because that came out of her salary. She was running on a platform of lower federal taxes when everyone else were paying hers. She is still touting the the same idea, ignoring the fact that everyone else is paying her way.
She seems to be quite proud that her state is so prosperous. Of course it is. Everyone else is paying Alaska's way, even in these difficult economic times. They do not have the cash cow that Alaska has and have to pay for their own state governments out of pocket as well as Alaska's.
When you think about it, since the US average citizen paid her salary, not only did they pay for her states taxes but also her federal income taxes because that came out of her salary. She was running on a platform of lower federal taxes when everyone else were paying hers. She is still touting the the same idea, ignoring the fact that everyone else is paying her way.
She seems to be quite proud that her state is so prosperous. Of course it is. Everyone else is paying Alaska's way, even in these difficult economic times. They do not have the cash cow that Alaska has and have to pay for their own state governments out of pocket as well as Alaska's.
She is speaking with a forked tongue. She is talking about reducing taxes when the rest of the US citizens are paying her State income and sales taxes for her.
TTFN
Thursday, November 11, 2010
How Tall Was Napoleon?
Look at the painting. He seems normal height to me unless the painter used deceptively small furniture.
Apparently the British Tory press of his time sometimes depicted Napoleon as much smaller than average height, and this image persists.
In 1908 psychologist Alfred Adler cited Napoleon to describe an inferiority complex in which short people adopt an over-aggressive behaviour to compensate for lack of height; this inspired the term Napoleon Complex.
Napoleon surrounded himself with tall bodyguards and had a nickname of le petit caporal which was an affectionate term that reflected his reported camaraderie with his soldiers rather than his height, which only added to the confusion ("petit", a term of endearment as in "petit chaux", "my little cabbage").
I'm curious why he surrounded himself with tall bodyguards. Wouldn't bodyguards shorter than himself make him look taller and more impressive?
Confusion about his height also results from the difference between the French pounce (inch) and British inch—2.71 and 2.54 cm respectively. Of course the Tories reported the French "inch" which makes him about 5'2". He was measured at his autopsy to be about 1.7 metres (5' 7", English) tall.
He was average height for the period.
I told you, I don't have a Napoleon complex. I'm 1.7 meters tall!
(So much for the the Tory Press. Alfred Adler should have read a variety of newspapers and checked his facst in a couple of medical journals)
TTFN
(Peace, Skepticism, Bright, Humanism, Green, TED)
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Obama Economic Recovery According to Dow Jones
"[...I...] wasn't alone in [...my...] failure to foresee the financial meltdown and defended [...my...] administration's decision to invest in failing banks in late 2008 to stabilize the financial system I believe it helped save the country" G.W.
Bush cannot take credit for the subsequent recovery; at most, he put his finger in the dyke.
The election saved our country by booting the administration and congress out of office.
The democrats have been struggled mightily working to keep us out of depression and seem to have succeeded, saving the economy, and leading its recovery.
Supposedly smart money with diversified portfolios invests in the stock market. One leading economic indicator is Dow Jones. Notice the large, consistent recovery under his successor.
Select the 5y option and notice the trends before and after the last presidential election. Do you notice any growth and recovery.
Dow Jones
The economy isn't recovering fast enough under Obama and the Democrats? Someone has made a significant investment in the American economy.
So much for the economic acumen of the Republicans!
(my political party - the Green Party)
TTFN
(Peace, Skepticism, Bright, Humanism, Green, TED)
Bush cannot take credit for the subsequent recovery; at most, he put his finger in the dyke.
The election saved our country by booting the administration and congress out of office.
The democrats have been struggled mightily working to keep us out of depression and seem to have succeeded, saving the economy, and leading its recovery.
Supposedly smart money with diversified portfolios invests in the stock market. One leading economic indicator is Dow Jones. Notice the large, consistent recovery under his successor.
Select the 5y option and notice the trends before and after the last presidential election. Do you notice any growth and recovery.
Dow Jones
The economy isn't recovering fast enough under Obama and the Democrats? Someone has made a significant investment in the American economy.
So much for the economic acumen of the Republicans!
(my political party - the Green Party)
TTFN
(Peace, Skepticism, Bright, Humanism, Green, TED)
The Return to Racism in Conservative Politics
"... you're not going to see me out there chirping away (at Obama). ... I want our president to succeed. I love our country." -- G.W.
What is all this Republican invective about getting Obama out of office? Some of them say that this is the primary goal of the Republican Party. Is some it racial bias?
It seems to me that the Tea Party is not very racially, culturally, and ethnically diverse. Nor is the Republican Party.
It seems that the conservatives have focused so much on illegal immigrants that they've denigrated the Latin heritage in this country. They seem to have forgotten that the vast majority of Latino's are American Citizens going back to the Mexican-American war when America's spoils were the Southwest and all its residents became Americans. The "mexicans" aren't Mexicans. They are Americans.
Is their grasp of U.S. history so scant that they have forgotten that America was discovered by a Latin, Columbus (not the English)? That the Spaniards established the oldest surviving settlement in America, and settled the Southwest when the English Colonies were being established. Do they not recall that Spanish was the primary language of the Southwest until well into the 19th century. I doubt that few know that there are proud U.S. Citizens, veterans, leaders, responsible members of our society, whot can trace their ancestors back to the first European conquistadors.
Are the people in Arizona that dense? Is Jose Arpaio, sheriff of Maricopa County in Arizona, that dense? Don't they know who their people are? 31% of their state is Hispanic/Latinos. What are they going to do? Stop every third person?
Take Leo Carillo for example, the Cisco Kid's sidekick.
Leo was born in an adobe in the Plaza in L.A. His ancestry that goes back to the exploration of California, a settler of San Diego, a governor who controlled 70,000 acres in what is now West Los Angeles, a signer to the capitulation to the Americans, an L.A. judge, and a Santa Monica mayor. For Leo's service to California, there is a state beach and a state park named after was well as several state historical sites. A fixture in the Rose Parade, he and his mounted posse carried an American Flag. I know he was a proud U.S. citizen and American.
The Cisco's Kid sidekick, Pancho
I remember a conversation with a colleague from the mid west. We were having lunch and he wanted to know, "why don't the "mexicans" speak English. After all, this is America." I gently pointed out that we were on Santa Teresa blvd. in the city of San Jose, in the county of Santa Clara, in the state of California. The state's largest cities are Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, and San Francisco. The Spanish speaking got here before "us"!
There is no majority ethnic group or race in California!. Anglos account for, at most 43%. Latinos account for 37% . Other groups are 20%. Illegals do account for 7.3% of the population; i.e. 80% of the Latinos are American Citizens! The "mexicans" he was referring to were bilingual Americans.
Rather than wanting our president to succeed because we love this country it seems that the conservatives are intent on driving the divisions even deeper.
TTFN
(Peace, Skepticism, Bright, Humanism, Green, TED)
What is all this Republican invective about getting Obama out of office? Some of them say that this is the primary goal of the Republican Party. Is some it racial bias?
It seems to me that the Tea Party is not very racially, culturally, and ethnically diverse. Nor is the Republican Party.
Have they forgotten that one of the things that has made America great is its diversity
What continents, countries, and ethnic heritages do our ancestors come from? We are descended from Native Americans, Europeans, Africans, Asians, Australasians, and so many more.
Latin Americans
It seems that the conservatives have focused so much on illegal immigrants that they've denigrated the Latin heritage in this country. They seem to have forgotten that the vast majority of Latino's are American Citizens going back to the Mexican-American war when America's spoils were the Southwest and all its residents became Americans. The "mexicans" aren't Mexicans. They are Americans.
Is their grasp of U.S. history so scant that they have forgotten that America was discovered by a Latin, Columbus (not the English)? That the Spaniards established the oldest surviving settlement in America, and settled the Southwest when the English Colonies were being established. Do they not recall that Spanish was the primary language of the Southwest until well into the 19th century. I doubt that few know that there are proud U.S. Citizens, veterans, leaders, responsible members of our society, whot can trace their ancestors back to the first European conquistadors.
Are the people in Arizona that dense? Is Jose Arpaio, sheriff of Maricopa County in Arizona, that dense? Don't they know who their people are? 31% of their state is Hispanic/Latinos. What are they going to do? Stop every third person?
Take Leo Carillo for example, the Cisco Kid's sidekick.
Leo was born in an adobe in the Plaza in L.A. His ancestry that goes back to the exploration of California, a settler of San Diego, a governor who controlled 70,000 acres in what is now West Los Angeles, a signer to the capitulation to the Americans, an L.A. judge, and a Santa Monica mayor. For Leo's service to California, there is a state beach and a state park named after was well as several state historical sites. A fixture in the Rose Parade, he and his mounted posse carried an American Flag. I know he was a proud U.S. citizen and American.
The Cisco's Kid sidekick, Pancho
I remember a conversation with a colleague from the mid west. We were having lunch and he wanted to know, "why don't the "mexicans" speak English. After all, this is America." I gently pointed out that we were on Santa Teresa blvd. in the city of San Jose, in the county of Santa Clara, in the state of California. The state's largest cities are Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, and San Francisco. The Spanish speaking got here before "us"!
There is no majority ethnic group or race in California!. Anglos account for, at most 43%. Latinos account for 37% . Other groups are 20%. Illegals do account for 7.3% of the population; i.e. 80% of the Latinos are American Citizens! The "mexicans" he was referring to were bilingual Americans.
TTFN
(Peace, Skepticism, Bright, Humanism, Green, TED)
G.W. Bush Owns Up to Some of His Mistakes
Republicans Take Heed!
"... you're not going to see me out there chirping away (at Obama). ... I want our president to succeed. I love our country." -- G.W.
Selections from the rest of what G.W. said:
A little joke between him and the rest of the world
"A lot of people don't think I can read, much less write"
Iraq
"When we didn't find weapons I felt terrible about it, sick about it and still do, because a lot of the case in removing Saddam Hussein was based upon weapons of mass destruction,"
Does he not feel terrible about his major disregard of American Tenets and Policy, international law, and humanity - "preemptive invasion"?
Katrina
"[...I...] should have sent federal troops to help with security in New Orleans sooner, but I was waiting for authority from Louisiana state government" (the constitution and federal law is very clear about that for very good reasons; actually who delayed was the Governor of Louisiana for not calling out the National Guard of her state)
"I didn't land Air Force One to view the submerged New Orleans up close because he was worried about taking resources away from rescue efforts." (You cannot fault him on that - all the panoply of his physical presence would have hampered the effort)
"I shouldn't have flown over and looked. I made a mistake. I should have landed ... I didn't realize a picture of me looking out would look like I didn't give a darn." (see his previous statement)
The Economy's Meltdown
"[...I...] wasn't alone in [...my...] failure to foresee the financial meltdown and defended [...my...] administration's decision to invest in failing banks in late 2008 to stabilize the financial system I believe it helped save the country"
G.W. On Ophray
TTFN
(Peace, Skepticism, Bright, Humanism, Green, TED)
"... you're not going to see me out there chirping away (at Obama). ... I want our president to succeed. I love our country." -- G.W.
Selections from the rest of what G.W. said:
A little joke between him and the rest of the world
"A lot of people don't think I can read, much less write"
Iraq
"When we didn't find weapons I felt terrible about it, sick about it and still do, because a lot of the case in removing Saddam Hussein was based upon weapons of mass destruction,"
Does he not feel terrible about his major disregard of American Tenets and Policy, international law, and humanity - "preemptive invasion"?
Katrina
"[...I...] should have sent federal troops to help with security in New Orleans sooner, but I was waiting for authority from Louisiana state government" (the constitution and federal law is very clear about that for very good reasons; actually who delayed was the Governor of Louisiana for not calling out the National Guard of her state)
"I didn't land Air Force One to view the submerged New Orleans up close because he was worried about taking resources away from rescue efforts." (You cannot fault him on that - all the panoply of his physical presence would have hampered the effort)
"I shouldn't have flown over and looked. I made a mistake. I should have landed ... I didn't realize a picture of me looking out would look like I didn't give a darn." (see his previous statement)
The Economy's Meltdown
"[...I...] wasn't alone in [...my...] failure to foresee the financial meltdown and defended [...my...] administration's decision to invest in failing banks in late 2008 to stabilize the financial system I believe it helped save the country"
G.W. On Ophray
TTFN
(Peace, Skepticism, Bright, Humanism, Green, TED)
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Women don't stay home and cook anymore
Female Soldiers from around the world
Girls in the Israel defense forces
Girls of the Israeli Army
Gee, just like any other girls at the beach? Guys, this is an eye test. Look very carefully. Do you see any rifles in this pic.
TTFN
(Peace, Skepticism, Bright, Humanism, Green, TED)
Girls in the Israel defense forces
Girls of the Israeli Army
Gee, just like any other girls at the beach? Guys, this is an eye test. Look very carefully. Do you see any rifles in this pic.
TTFN
(Peace, Skepticism, Bright, Humanism, Green, TED)
Acidcow.com is always fun
Imagine
-- lyrics by John Lennon
Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
TTFN
(Peace, Skepticism, Bright, Humanism, Green, TED)
Send "Imagine" Ringtone to your Cell
Maybe the Greens Are A Viable Alternative
Cooperation is hard. Change is hard.
First, a quick review of civics. I was taught in school that "The United States is the world's oldest surviving federation. It is a constitutional republic [...whose leaders are chossen by...] representative democracy, "in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law.""
The United States Government
"Republic" is not the antithesis of "democrat". It is the combination of the two that makes this country great.
So, what is all this codswallop about Republicans versus Democrats? Certainly, there needs to be different of opinions to keep our country fresh and alive. Our government, to keep our values, is difficult to run. But shouldn't it be based on cooperation rather than obstructionism?
A lot of people are saying that it is time for hard changes. What direction should we go?
Maybe its time to think differently? Green, and its platform for example,
First, a quick review of civics. I was taught in school that "The United States is the world's oldest surviving federation. It is a constitutional republic [...whose leaders are chossen by...] representative democracy, "in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law.""
The United States Government
- A federation of states
- The law is defined in the Constitution which can only be amended by the will of the people.
- A republic where the leaders are responsible to the people
- The leaders are elected democratically
- Majority "rules", but people's rights are protected
- It has a system of checks and balances to ensure that no one part of the government dominates to the detriment of the people (executive, bicameral legislature, and judicial branches - so for all intents and purposes, four (4), not three branches of the govenment)
"Republic" is not the antithesis of "democrat". It is the combination of the two that makes this country great.
So, what is all this codswallop about Republicans versus Democrats? Certainly, there needs to be different of opinions to keep our country fresh and alive. Our government, to keep our values, is difficult to run. But shouldn't it be based on cooperation rather than obstructionism?
A lot of people are saying that it is time for hard changes. What direction should we go?
Maybe its time to think differently? Green, and its platform for example,
- Grassroots democracy
- Social justice and equal opportunity
- Ecological wisdom
- Non-violence
- Decentralization
- Community-based economics and economic justice
- Feminism and gender equality
- Respect for diversity
- Personal and global responsibility
- Future focus on sustainability
Isn't Our Universe A wonderful And Awesome Place?
My personal most wonderful and awesome sight.
Peace
Neutering Iran
"Sen. Lindsey Graham, a top U.S. Senate Republican [...from South Carolina...], said Saturday the United States should consider neutering Iran's navy and air force if Tehran does not halt its nuclear program."
"Instead of a surgical strike on their nuclear infrastructure, I think we're to the point now that you have to really neuter the regime's ability to wage war against us and our allies. And that's a different military scenario. It's not a ground invasion but it certainly destroys the ability of the regime to strike back," said Graham, one of his party's top voices on defense."
In short, wage war against Iran.
"Top leading voices on defense?" Didn't the writer mean, "Top leading voices for ill considered offense"
I'm too nauseated to read the entire article. I'll let you read it for yourselves.
Iran Offers New Nuclear Talks
Hold on a moment. I have to get my breath back after reading such an arrogant, naive, ignorant insult to human intelligence and humanity.
What does he mean, "neuter the regime".
Does he mean like how we've neutered the Taliban or Al Qaeda or the Afghanistan warlords? Like how we've neutered the ability of the different Muslim sects, keeping one sect from blowing up another? Like how we neutered Saddam by denying him access to his airspace while his atrocities just kept rolling along?
Do his mean like how the Republicans neutered the Democrats in the last election; well neutering only 1/4 of it, leaving the Senate, Presidency, and the Supreme court intact, though possibly diminished in power, but certainly not neutered.
"We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation treaties, and then systemically break them. If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long — Our security will require transforming the military you will lead — a military that must be ready to strike at a moment's notice in any dark corner of the world. And our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives."
-- G.W. Bush
"Defensive preemptive action"? At least we can credit G.W. with a new oxymoron.
Bush did not understand the difference between a threat and reality. Does WMD come to mind?
A "preemptive action" to defend our liberty and to defend our lives? What he really meant was let's start a war and kill the other guy before he kills us. It goes against the grain of the entire U.S. history, morals, and ethics. Against tenets of American morals and tenets of our forefathers. Against the tenets of international law. Against the tenets of all humanity.
We don't go around killing people just because we think they might kill us. That is mental illness, paranoia.
Has Graham forgotten the old adage, "Don't count your chickens before the eggs have hatched". Or to put it into a more modern context, "Don't count your WMD until you find them".
Graham obviously is not an expert on the Middle East or he would not be advocating further military involvement. Doesn't he know that engaging in combat in the Middle East is foolhardy at the very least? Ask the British. Ask the Russias. The middle easterners have experience in fighting amongst themselves and against invaders that goes back millenia, even before the genocide in Canaan. Conflicts In the Middle East
Hasn't he learned from history that an air assault is just long range artillery. Hasn't he learned from Iraq that denying the air space does not solve the problem? It only leads to more bombing, more billions wasted in impressive explosives. Hasn't he learned anything from Israeli experience how effective "neutering" and "surgical strikes" are?
Of course, he buys off on the obscenity, "acceptable collateral damage". It may be acceptable to him, but the civilians killed are dead. Dead is dead, whatever obfuscation he care to use. "Opps, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to do that" does NOT bring them back to life; it does not repair the damage done to their lives. Should we give him and his military a pat of condolence on the head and send them back to cause more "collateral damage".
And isn't he aware that if we attack Iran, an Islamic Republic, the whole Muslim world be against us. So much for middle eastern oil. They claim Islam is a peaceful religion. If we follow Graham, like we followed G.W., the whole world would know that we were not.
Has Graham and other Hawks (Cheney?) forgotten Christ's teaching, "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone". (John 8:2-11 KJV) (Where does this left wing liberal secularist find these obscure quotations?).
Since our army is stretched to the limit in two wars, who does he propose we send - The American Veterinary Medical Association? They're the most experienced in neutering in the country, probably the world.
The biggest psychological swindle passed off on the American people are when they changed "Department of War" to "Department of Defense". We have been engaged in wars every since, but not one in our defense.
"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (Matthew 22:39 (KJV)) (another obscure left wing liberal secularist quotation?).
Maybe Graham should spend more time reading Christ's teachings. After all, there is a free copy of the bible in every hotel and motel room in America and I'm sure that he has spent ample time in some of them. Many organizations are willing to give him a copy free. If he wants to wage war, he should read the old testament. If he wants to call himself a Christian, maybe he should confine his bible study to the Gospels.
TTFN
(Peace, Skepticism, Bright, Humanism, Green, TED)
"Instead of a surgical strike on their nuclear infrastructure, I think we're to the point now that you have to really neuter the regime's ability to wage war against us and our allies. And that's a different military scenario. It's not a ground invasion but it certainly destroys the ability of the regime to strike back," said Graham, one of his party's top voices on defense."
In short, wage war against Iran.
"Top leading voices on defense?" Didn't the writer mean, "Top leading voices for ill considered offense"
I'm too nauseated to read the entire article. I'll let you read it for yourselves.
Iran Offers New Nuclear Talks
Hold on a moment. I have to get my breath back after reading such an arrogant, naive, ignorant insult to human intelligence and humanity.
What does he mean, "neuter the regime".
Does he mean like how we've neutered the Taliban or Al Qaeda or the Afghanistan warlords? Like how we've neutered the ability of the different Muslim sects, keeping one sect from blowing up another? Like how we neutered Saddam by denying him access to his airspace while his atrocities just kept rolling along?
Do his mean like how the Republicans neutered the Democrats in the last election; well neutering only 1/4 of it, leaving the Senate, Presidency, and the Supreme court intact, though possibly diminished in power, but certainly not neutered.
"We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation treaties, and then systemically break them. If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long — Our security will require transforming the military you will lead — a military that must be ready to strike at a moment's notice in any dark corner of the world. And our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives."
-- G.W. Bush
"Defensive preemptive action"? At least we can credit G.W. with a new oxymoron.
Bush did not understand the difference between a threat and reality. Does WMD come to mind?
A "preemptive action" to defend our liberty and to defend our lives? What he really meant was let's start a war and kill the other guy before he kills us. It goes against the grain of the entire U.S. history, morals, and ethics. Against tenets of American morals and tenets of our forefathers. Against the tenets of international law. Against the tenets of all humanity.
We don't go around killing people just because we think they might kill us. That is mental illness, paranoia.
Has Graham forgotten the old adage, "Don't count your chickens before the eggs have hatched". Or to put it into a more modern context, "Don't count your WMD until you find them".
Graham obviously is not an expert on the Middle East or he would not be advocating further military involvement. Doesn't he know that engaging in combat in the Middle East is foolhardy at the very least? Ask the British. Ask the Russias. The middle easterners have experience in fighting amongst themselves and against invaders that goes back millenia, even before the genocide in Canaan. Conflicts In the Middle East
Hasn't he learned from history that an air assault is just long range artillery. Hasn't he learned from Iraq that denying the air space does not solve the problem? It only leads to more bombing, more billions wasted in impressive explosives. Hasn't he learned anything from Israeli experience how effective "neutering" and "surgical strikes" are?
Of course, he buys off on the obscenity, "acceptable collateral damage". It may be acceptable to him, but the civilians killed are dead. Dead is dead, whatever obfuscation he care to use. "Opps, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to do that" does NOT bring them back to life; it does not repair the damage done to their lives. Should we give him and his military a pat of condolence on the head and send them back to cause more "collateral damage".
And isn't he aware that if we attack Iran, an Islamic Republic, the whole Muslim world be against us. So much for middle eastern oil. They claim Islam is a peaceful religion. If we follow Graham, like we followed G.W., the whole world would know that we were not.
Has Graham and other Hawks (Cheney?) forgotten Christ's teaching, "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone". (John 8:2-11 KJV) (Where does this left wing liberal secularist find these obscure quotations?).
Since our army is stretched to the limit in two wars, who does he propose we send - The American Veterinary Medical Association? They're the most experienced in neutering in the country, probably the world.
The biggest psychological swindle passed off on the American people are when they changed "Department of War" to "Department of Defense". We have been engaged in wars every since, but not one in our defense.
"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (Matthew 22:39 (KJV)) (another obscure left wing liberal secularist quotation?).
Maybe Graham should spend more time reading Christ's teachings. After all, there is a free copy of the bible in every hotel and motel room in America and I'm sure that he has spent ample time in some of them. Many organizations are willing to give him a copy free. If he wants to wage war, he should read the old testament. If he wants to call himself a Christian, maybe he should confine his bible study to the Gospels.
TTFN
(Peace, Skepticism, Bright, Humanism, Green, TED)
Christians want to post the Ten Commandments everywhere
Why do many Christians want to post the Ten Commandments everywhere?
Rather than "Thou Shalt Not",The Christian Gospel takes a positive approach and sets a much higher standard .
Aren't Christians supposed to follow the teaching of Christ?
"But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.This is the first and great commandment.And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:34-40 (KJV))
That is to say, these two commandments supersede all the previous teachings in the old testament.
This theme recurs in all of the books of the Gospel (The Story of the Good Samaritan, etc.)
See, some of us secularists have actually read the bible, including both testaments! That seems to be more than some so called Christians have.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if a Christian is going to "thump the bible" maybe he should leave the old testament on the shelf.
Why can't Christians follow their own Savior's teaching? Why do they insist on quoting the old testament when it suits their purpose, ignoring the Gospels?
"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Isn't that all you need for the basis of an ethical and moral system?
I suppose we could go point, counterpoint, quoting verse versus verse in the Gospels (and let's stick to the Gospels, Christ's teachings, not the "revelation" of some apostle or ex tax collector). But you still have to ask the question, "what is the body of Christ's teachings?"
"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
Why do Christians think they can trample on the rights of others, defacing public property with their propaganda? They are free to put whatever they want on their own property, but not on public property. Why, under the banner of free speech, do they think that they can foist their views on the rest of us. They seem to want to take the rights, as guaranteed under the first amendment, away from 16% of the people, some 48 million. And that 16% is growing ever bigger - possibly because of the irrelevancy of Christian in today's world. Are they getting that desperate that they can't even follow the teachings of Christ? America is pluralistic nation
What "the bible says" rather than what "Christ teaches" in my mind, may be why they are losing adherents.
Christ was a penniless wandering religious teacher. Doesn't it seem strange, that to "honor" him, Christians build crystal cathedrals and place gold and silver on their altars and take communion out of gold or silver goblets? Popes and priests dress in "fine raiments", changing them as the Christian calender progresses through the year. What did Christ wear even to his grave?
"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
That's something even secularist's might agree with. Even curmudgeons like me.
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
-- Mahatma Gandhi
TTFN
(Peace, Skepticism, Bright, Humanism, Green, TED)
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Have All Wars Been Started By Atheists?
Somehow, our collective memory only seems to go back to the advent of Fascism and Communism after WWI. Don't people really mean, "All Wars Have Been Started by People of Another Religion (but not ours)"?
I would surmise that almost all of the wars in history have been initiated by religious leaders or by those who were at least nominally religious. And the almost all soldiers were religious.
The wars outlined in Abrahamic religious sacred texts, for example, were by the commandment of God. Is God an atheist? (a separate discussion)
It is not my intent to put the onus on any particular religion; however, out of many religious wars, one of the earliest recorded is in the Book Of Joshua. God commanded Joshua to commit genocide, destroying the Canaanites. Starting at Jericho, "[...The Jews...] destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys [...and...] burned the whole city and everything in it, but they put the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron into [... their ...] treasury". (KJV 6:24) They then proceeded to conquer the rest of Canaan the same way. Is this an atheist's war. Is this the only example of a religious war? Is this the only example of religious genocide?
The wars fought in the middle east over the millennia have been initiated by the religious. They may not have been of the Abrahamic tradition, but worshiped at least some sort of god or pantheon of gods, or as the Abrahamics loftily say, "false idols". A Partial List of Religions in the World
Need I mention the spread of Christianity by the Romans. Or Islam by the Muslims? Or their beliefs by the "idolators"? Or the Crusades, pitting one Abrahamic religion against another? It seems the descendants of the Patriarch are a particularly contentious lot. Weren't most of the wars in Europe over the ages led by leaders who were religious? And it may not be much of a reach to say, the World.
I would suggest that, in all wars, the soldiers who were enlisted or conscripted to fight were mostly the religious.
Weren't the legions of actual combatants whose blood was split religious? Weren't the legions of civilians whose blood was split religious?
(I will not use that obscene phrase, "collateral damage")
In other words, the cannon fodder has been religious!
Hitler wanted to eventually suppress religion when the time came, but it never came (you might say that he was distracted). He did not suppress it in Germany, with the exception of Judaism and a few minor sects. Religion in Nazi Germany His war was fought by the religious on all sides. The Nazis even conscripted a future Pope into their "Hitler Youth" and as a "child soldier", but he was allowed to practice his religion. Pope Benedict XVI
Even Stalin, who forced atheism on Russia, allowed religion when it suited his purpose. "During World War II, the Church was allowed a revival as a patriotic organization ... Thousands of parishes were reactivated ..." i.e. he needed loyal cannon fodder. Stalin-Religion The USSR was more religious than the leaders wanted us to believe. Religion in the Soviet Union
Certainly, some wars have been started by people of Abraham's tradition, some were stared by "idolaters", but you would be hard pressed to name many that were started by atheists. And you would be very hard pressed to find any wars that were not fought by the religious.
(With thanks to Wikipedia. However, the opinions expressed herein are purely my own)
TTFN
(Peace, Skepticism, Bright, Humanism, Green, TED)
I would surmise that almost all of the wars in history have been initiated by religious leaders or by those who were at least nominally religious. And the almost all soldiers were religious.
The wars outlined in Abrahamic religious sacred texts, for example, were by the commandment of God. Is God an atheist? (a separate discussion)
It is not my intent to put the onus on any particular religion; however, out of many religious wars, one of the earliest recorded is in the Book Of Joshua. God commanded Joshua to commit genocide, destroying the Canaanites. Starting at Jericho, "[...The Jews...] destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys [...and...] burned the whole city and everything in it, but they put the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron into [... their ...] treasury". (KJV 6:24) They then proceeded to conquer the rest of Canaan the same way. Is this an atheist's war. Is this the only example of a religious war? Is this the only example of religious genocide?
The wars fought in the middle east over the millennia have been initiated by the religious. They may not have been of the Abrahamic tradition, but worshiped at least some sort of god or pantheon of gods, or as the Abrahamics loftily say, "false idols". A Partial List of Religions in the World
Need I mention the spread of Christianity by the Romans. Or Islam by the Muslims? Or their beliefs by the "idolators"? Or the Crusades, pitting one Abrahamic religion against another? It seems the descendants of the Patriarch are a particularly contentious lot. Weren't most of the wars in Europe over the ages led by leaders who were religious? And it may not be much of a reach to say, the World.
But Are We Asking The Right Question?
I would suggest that, in all wars, the soldiers who were enlisted or conscripted to fight were mostly the religious.
Weren't the legions of actual combatants whose blood was split religious? Weren't the legions of civilians whose blood was split religious?
(I will not use that obscene phrase, "collateral damage")
In other words, the cannon fodder has been religious!
Hitler wanted to eventually suppress religion when the time came, but it never came (you might say that he was distracted). He did not suppress it in Germany, with the exception of Judaism and a few minor sects. Religion in Nazi Germany His war was fought by the religious on all sides. The Nazis even conscripted a future Pope into their "Hitler Youth" and as a "child soldier", but he was allowed to practice his religion. Pope Benedict XVI
Even Stalin, who forced atheism on Russia, allowed religion when it suited his purpose. "During World War II, the Church was allowed a revival as a patriotic organization ... Thousands of parishes were reactivated ..." i.e. he needed loyal cannon fodder. Stalin-Religion The USSR was more religious than the leaders wanted us to believe. Religion in the Soviet Union
Certainly, some wars have been started by people of Abraham's tradition, some were stared by "idolaters", but you would be hard pressed to name many that were started by atheists. And you would be very hard pressed to find any wars that were not fought by the religious.
(With thanks to Wikipedia. However, the opinions expressed herein are purely my own)
TTFN
(Peace, Skepticism, Bright, Humanism, Green, TED)
Friday, November 5, 2010
Join The Brights' Network
Illuminating and Elevating the naturalistic Worldview
Who is a Bright?
- A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview
- A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements
- The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview
worldview: (wide world perception) is a fundamental cognitive orientation encompassing natural philosophy; fundamental existential and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics; a framework of ideas through which an individual interprets the world and interacts with it, in a word, weltanschauung (gasp) Worldview
What are this movement's aims?
- Promote the civic understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview, which is free of supernatural and mystical elements.
- Gain public recognition that persons who hold such a worldview can bring principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance.
- Educate society toward accepting the full and equitable civic participation of all such individuals.
The Constituency of Brights is Hugely Diverse
The movement’s goals attract all sorts of people who “have a naturalistic worldview” and favor thinking of themselves broadly and in a civic sense, as Brights:- atheist, humanist, secular humanist, freethinker, rationalist, naturalist, agnostic, or skeptic
- there are individuals who go by their preferred affiliations, such as Ethical Culturalist, Pantheist, Buddhist, Yogi, Wiccan, Transhumanist, or Unitarian
- Also part of the gamut of constituents are Jews, Catholics, Quakers, Episcopalians, and others who may personally maintain their religion’s cultural or aesthetic aspects, but not its supernaturalism
- There are professors of religious studies and clergy in and out of practice who are Brights (e.g., Unitarian-Universalist ministers, Protestant pastors, even one ex-Benedictine monk)
- Some constituents do not associate themselves with familiar groupings or labels
The Brights Principles
- We are a constituency of individuals (the registered Brights)
- We conserve original definitions (of a bright)
- The Brights' Net offers a pragmatic action connection for Brights
- The Brights' Net functions as an Internet entity (not as a membership organization);
- The movement is inclusive of the varied Brights who support its aims
- The movement is carried forward by these individuals (the Brights) and is not describable by other labels
- The Brights, and not others, are to define their movement
- The movement is to be a positive force toward full civic participation (fairness for all)
- The Brights seek acknowledgment and influence in society.
The Brights' Network registers brights into an Internet constituency of Brights and serves as a communications hub for actions that align with the aims and principles of the Brights movement.
Living on the Bright Side Of Life
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)