| You scored as agnosticism. You are an agnostic. Though it is generally taken that agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in God, it is possible to be a theist or atheist in addition to an agnostic. Agnostics don't believe it is possible to prove the existence of God (nor lack thereof).
Agnosticism is a philosophy that God's existence cannot be proven. Some say it is possible to be agnostic and follow a religion; however, one cannot be a devout believer if he or she does not truly believe.
Fear, The Foundation Of ReligionReligion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing -- fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand-in-hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by the help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the Christian religion, against the churches, and against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it. What We Must DoWe want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world -- its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is and be not afraid of it. Conquer the world by intelligence and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it. The whole conception of a God is a conception derived from the ancient oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create. A full text of the essay can be found here.
So what do you think?
Weapons of mass destruction? I’m still looking for them, and if you find any give me a call so we can justify our presence in Iraq. We started the war based on a lie, and we’ll finish it based on a lie. I say this because I am currently serving with a logistics headquarters in the Anbar province, between the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi. I am not fooled by the constant fabrication of “democracy” and “freedom” touted by our leadership at home and overseas.
This deception is furthered by our armed forces’ belief that we can just enter ancient Mesopotamia and tell the locals about the benefits of a legislative assembly. While our European ancestors were hanging from trees, these ancient people were writing algebra and solving quadratic equations. Now we feel compelled to strong-arm them into accepting the spoils of capitalism and “laissez-faire” society. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy watching Britney Spears on MTV and driving to McDonald’s, but do you honestly believe that Sunnis, Shias and Kurds want our Western ideas of entertainment and freedom imposed on them? Think again.
I’m not being negative, I’m being realistic. The reality in Iraq is that the United States created a nightmare situation where one didn’t exist. Yes, Saddam Hussein was an evil man who lied, cheated and pillaged his own nation. But how was he different from dictators in Africa who commit massive crimes again humanity with little repercussion and sometimes support from the West? The bottom line up front (BLUF to use a military acronym) is that Saddam was different because we used him as an excuse to go to war to make Americans “feel good” about the “War on Terrorism.” The BLUF is that our ultimate goal in 2003 was the security of Israel and the lucrative oil fields in northern and southern Iraq.
Weapons of mass destruction? Call me when you find them. In the meantime, “bring ’em on” so we can get our “mission accomplished” and get out of this mess.
Capt. Jeff Pirozzi
Camp Taqaddum, Iraq
Couldn't have put it better myself!
Come on Santa, I've been a good boy this year! Make it happen!
According to this... yeah... I'm not ready for kids.MESS TEST Smear peanut butter on the sofa and curtains. Place a fish stick behind the couch and leave it there all summer. TOY TEST Obtain a 55-gallon box of LEGOs (or you may substitute roofing tacks). Have a friend spread them all over the house. Put on a blindfold. Try to walk to the bathroom or kitchen. Do not scream because this would wake a child at night. GROCERY STORE TEST Borrow one or two small animals (goats are best) and take them with you as you shop. Always keep them in sight and pay for anything they eat or damage. DRESSING TEST Obtain one large, unhappy, live octopus. Stuff into a small net bag making sure that all the arms stay inside. FEEDING TEST Obtain a large plastic milk jug. Fill halfway with water. Suspend from the ceiling with a cord. Start the jug swinging. Try to insert spoonfuls of soggy cereal into the mouth of the jug, while pretending to be an airplane. Now dump the contents of the jug on the floor. NIGHT TEST Prepare by obtaining a small cloth bag and fill it with 8-12 pounds of sand. Soak it thoroughly i! n water. At 3:00 p.m. begin to waltz and hum with the bag until 9:00 p.m. Lay down your bag and set your alarm for 10:00 p.m. Get up, pick up your bag, and sing every song you have ever heard. Make up about a dozen more and sing these too until 4:00 a. m. Set alarm for 5:00 a.m. Get up and make breakfast. Keep this up for 5 years. Look cheerful. INGENUITY TEST Take an egg carton. Using a pair of scissors and pot of paint, turn it into an alligator. Now take a toilet paper tube and turn it into an attractive Christmas candle. Use only scotch tape and a piece of foil. Last, take a milk carton, a Ping-Pong ball, and an empty box of Cocoa Puffs. Make an exact replica of the Eiffel Tower. AUTOMOBILE TEST Forget the BMW and buy a station wagon. Buy a chocolate ice cream cone and put it in the glove compartment. Leave it there. Get a dime. Stick it into the cassette player. Take a family size package of chocolate chip cookies. Mash them into the back seat. Run a garden rake along both sides of the car. There, perfect. PHYSICAL TEST (Women) Obtain a large bean bag chair and attach it to the front of your clothes. Leave it there for 9 months. Now remove 10 of the beans. PHYSICAL TEST (Men) Go to the nearest drug store. Set your wallet on t! he counter. Ask the clerk to help himself. Now proceed to the nearest food store. Go to the head office and arrange for your paycheck to be directly deposited to the store. Purchase a newspaper. Go home and read it quietly for the last time. FINAL ASSIGNMENT Find a couple who already have a small child. Lecture them on how they can improve their discipline, patience, tolerance, toilet training and child's table manners. Suggest many ways they can improve. Emphasize to them that they should never allow their children to run wild. Enjoy this experience. It will be the last time you will have all the answers.
See, this is exactly why friends don't let friends drive drunk!
Yahoo News 
A woman dressed as a witch robbed a bank and vanished in the smoke of an exploding security dye pack, then apparently reappeared in street clothes and held up another bank, police said. The Halloween holdups were less than an hour apart at bank branches in Olympia and neighboring Lacey, authorities said. The first robbery was reported when a woman wearing a shiny purple witch hat, cloak and long blond wig handed the teller a note indicating she had a weapon and demanding cash, Lacey police Lt. Phil Comstock said. As the woman ran from the bank, the dye pack exploded and she dropped the money and her hat, authorities said. Olympia police later received a silent alarm from a bank branch where witnesses said a woman handed the teller a note and escaped with an undisclosed amount of money. Investigators were comparing images from surveillance cameras, but from witness descriptions "it looks like the same lady," Detective Samuel Costello said. I'm confused, I don't know if it would be more amusing if this story proved to be bogus or if it was proved to have actually taken place?
 As someone who has had their nipples pierced, I can't imagine the pain that this "unprocessed hamburger" must have gone through.
 What is happening to our poor Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man?
Well, tomorrow I depart for Salt Lake City. Land of the white skinned, blue eyed, blonde haired...I should fit in just fine. You know, except for the fact that I am not a zombie of the Church of Jesus Christ and Later Day Saints. Let's hope I don't have any of their recruiters knocking on my hotel door! I am also looking forward to the 3.2 % alcohol! Wish me luck my Laramie brothers and sisters! Heiwa!
 This test only has one question, but it's a very important one. By giving an honest answer, you will discover where you stand morally. The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation in which you will have to make a decision. Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yetspontaneous. Please scroll down slowly and give due consideration to each line. You are in Florida, Miami to be specific. There is chaos all around you caused by a hurricane with severe flooding. This is a flood of biblical proportions. You are a photojournalist working for a major newspaper, and you're caught in the middle of this epic disaster. The situation is nearly hopeless. You're trying to shoot career-making photos. There are houses and people swirling around you, some disappearing under the water. Nature is unleashing all of its destructive fury. Suddenly you see a man floundering in the water. He is fighting for his life, trying not to be taken down with the debris. You move closer . . . somehow the man looks familiar. You suddenly realize who it is. It's George W. Bush! At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take him under . . . forever. You have two options -- you can save the life of G. W. Bush or you can shoot a dramatic Pulitzer Prize winning photo, documenting the death of one of the world's most powerful men. So here's the question, and please give an honest answer: Would you select high contrast color film, or would you go with the classic simplicity of black and white?
 Mine: "Hmmm, is it suppose to be purple?"
In light of your failure to elect a competent President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately. Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories (excepting Kansas, which she does not fancy). Your new prime minister, Tony Blair, will appoint a governor for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed. To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect: You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary.? Then look up aluminium, and check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favour' and 'neighbour.' Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters, and the suffix ize will be replaced by the suffix ise. Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. (look up vocabulary). Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. There is no such thing as US English. We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of -ize.? You will relearn your original national anthem, God Save The Queen. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be independent. Guns should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you're not grown up enough to handle a gun. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. A permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and this is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour. The Former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling gasoline)-roughly $6/US gallon. Get used to it. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar. The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as Lager. American brands will be referred to as Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine, so that all can be sold without risk of further confusion. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play English characters. Watching Andie MacDowell attempt English dialogue in Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to having one's ears removed with a cheese grater. You will cease playing American football. There is only one kind of proper football; you call it soccer. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies). Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware that there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due (backdated to 1776). Thank you for your co-operation.
"You can support the troops but not the president." --Rep Tom Delay (R-TX) "Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years." --Joe Scarborough (R-FL) "Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?" --Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99 "[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy." --Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) "American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy." --Rep Tom Delay (R-TX) "If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy." --Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush "I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I >didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area." --Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) "I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today" --Rep Tom Delay (R-TX) "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." --Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) Oh sweet, sweet irony!
By Harold Meyerson (op-ed columnist) WASHINGTON POST We're not number one. We're not even close. By which measures, precisely, do we lead the world? Caring for our countrymen? You jest. A first-class physical infrastructure? Tell that to New Orleans. Throwing so much money at the rich that we've got nothing left over to promote the general welfare? Now you're talking. The problem goes beyond the fact that we can't count on our government to be there for us in catastrophes. It's that a can't-do spirit, a shouldn't-do spirit, guides the men who run the nation. Consider the congressional testimony of Joe Allbaugh, George W. Bush's 2000 campaign manager, who assumed the top position at FEMA in 2001. He characterized the organization as "an oversized entitlement program," and counseled states and cities to rely instead on "faith-based organizations . . . like the Salvation Army and the Mennonite Disaster Service." Is it any surprise, then, that the administration's response to the devastation in New Orleans is of a piece with its response to the sacking of Baghdad once our troops arrived? "Stuff happens" was the way Don Rumsfeld described the destruction of Baghdad's hospitals, universities and museums while American soldiers stood around. Now stuff has happened in New Orleans, too, even as FEMA was turning away offers of assistance. This is the stuff-happens administration. And it's willing, apparently, to sacrifice any claim America may have to national greatness rather than inconvenience the rich by taxing them to build a more secure nation. As a matter of social policy, the catastrophic lack of response in New Orleans is exceptional only in its scale and immediacy. When it comes to caring for our fellow countrymen, we all know that America has never ranked very high. We are, of course, the only democracy in the developed world that doesn't offer health care to its citizens as a matter of right. We rank 34th among nations in infant mortality rates, behind such rival superpowers as Cyprus, Andorra and Brunei. But these are chronic conditions, and even many of us who argue for universal health coverage have grown inured to that distinctly American indifference to the common good, to our radical lack of solidarity with our fellow citizens. Besides, the poor generally have the decency to die discreetly, and discretely -- not conspicuously, not in droves. Come rain or come shine, we leave millions of beleaguered Americans to fend for themselves on a daily basis. It's just a lot more noticeable in a horrific rain, and when the ordinary lack of access to medical care is augmented by an extraordinary lack of access to emergency services. Even if we'll never win the national-greatness sweepstakes for solidarity, though, we've long been the model of the world in matters infrastructural, in roads, bridges and dams and the like. But the America in which Eisenhower the Good decreed the construction of the interstate highway system now seems a far-off land in which even conservatives believed in public expenditures for the public good. The radical-capitalist conservatives of the past quarter-century not only haven't supported the public expenditures, they don't even believe there is such a thing as the public good. Let the Dutch build their dikes through some socialistic scheme of taxing and spending; that isn't the American way. Here, the business of government is to let the private sector create wealth -- even if that wealth doesn't circulate where it's most needed. So George W. Bush threw trillions of dollars in tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, and what did they do with it? Did the Walton family up in Bentonville raise the levees in New Orleans? Did the Bass family over in Texas write a tax-deductible check to the Mennonites for the billions of dollars they would need to rescue the elderly from inundated nursing homes? Even now, with bedraggled rescuers pulling decomposed bodies from the muck of New Orleans, Bill Frist, the moral cretin who runs the U.S. Senate, wanted its first order of business this week to be the permanent repeal of the estate tax, until the public outcry persuaded him to change course. The Republicans profess belief in trickle-down, but what they've given us is the Flood. The world looks on in stunned amazement, unable to understand how a once great nation has grown so indifferent not just to its poor and its blacks but even to the most rudimentary self-preservation. Some of it is institutional racism, but the primary culprit is the economic libertarianism that the president still espouses whenever he sells his Social Security snake oil. It's that libertarianism, more than anything else, that has transformed a great city into an immense morgue. But, hey -- stuff happens. BRILLIANT, JUST F'N BRILLIANT!
by Van JonesDon't say that a hurricane destroyed New Orleans. Hurricanes don't drown cities. It was a "perfect storm" of a different kind that put that great city underwater: Bush-era neglect of our national infrastructure, combined with runaway global warming and a deep contempt for poor African-Americans. The result: catastrophe. The flooding was not a result of heavy rains. It is a result of a weak levee -- one that was in mid-repair when the storm hit. And that levee, which has held back floodwaters for time beyond memory, collapsed for one simple reason: Bush refused to fix it last summer, when local officials were begging him to do so. Instead, he diverted those funds to the war effort. In other words, the dollars that could have saved New Orleans were used to wage war in Iraq, instead. What's worse: funds that might have spared the poor in New Orleans (had the dollars been properly invested in levees and modern pumping stations), were instead passed out to the rich, willy-nilly -- as tax breaks. With those two simple steps, Bush squandered the hard-won Clinton-era surplus. He left the national piggy bank empty for fixing and maintaining basic U.S. infrastructure. (And what was Clinton doing next to the president, giving him cover at a time like this?) Had the levee repairs been completed in a timely manner (two years ago), Katrina would have hit hard, destroyed buildings and probably taken some lives. But it would NOT have cracked open the floodwalls and submerged an entire CITY. It took Bush's criminal neglect of his domestic duties to produce that outcome. But that is only one area of Bush's culpability. Ross Gelbspan says: "Katrina began as a relatively small hurricane that glanced off south Florida, [but] it was supercharged with extraordinary intensity by the relatively blistering sea surface temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico." In other words, global warming likely super-charged this hurricane. Yet Bush's energy policies amount to an ongoing conspiracy to add even MORE carbon to the atmosphere, further destabilizing the climate. So get ready for even worse storms next year, and the next. And the next. And the human suffering was not -- and will not be -- equally distributed. Poor people and Black people didn't "choose to stay behind." They were left behind. All evacuation plans required the city's residents to have working, private cars -- plus gas money, nearby relatives or funds for a hotel stay. And if you didn't have all those things, tough luck. Had the responsible agencies valued the lives of the poor, they would have helped the destitute flee in the face of the hurricane -- even those who couldn't afford a car or a motel room. But when the "face of suffering" is Black, somehow our high standards for effective action and compassion begin to sag. Of course, seeing this, Bush could have taken a strong stand for the poor and the suffering. But his half-hearted, emotionally flat statement on Wednesday did little to rally the nation. It seems that, as long as "the terrorists" didn't do it, Bush just can't get himself too worked up about Americans dying by the hundreds. So tonight Americans are dying in the flooded streets of New Orleans like flies. And many of the men and women in uniform who could help rescue them and restore order are nowhere to be found. Instead of helping their grandparents and aiding their neighbors in this time of crisis, Louisiana and Mississippi guardsmen are half-a-world away, fighting for a lie. We are witnessing a monumental leadership failure in the Bush White House, on top of five years of foolish policies that set the city of New Orleans up for this disaster in the first place. We must not be afraid to speak that truth. Some will say that this is no time for playing the "blame game." No time for engaging in "divisive politics." Pardon me. To the contrary: this is exactly the time to draw a clear line of distinction between those of us who have always fought to invest in this country -- and those who happily squandered the national treasure on give-aways and imperial adventures. Between those of us who have long fought to protect the most vulnerable among us, and those who have worked feverishly to undo those protections. This is no time for progressives to be hemmed in by some false "unity" with a President whose policies are largely to blame for this disaster. Too much is at stake, going forward. In the short term, we must exert maximum pressure on the federal government to pull out all stops to rescue people and re-establish peace and good order. And in the weeks to come, we must demand an immediate repeal of the tax cuts -- to enable a massive investment for rebuilding New Orleans and repairing the nation's crumbling infrastructure. Also, any Louisiana and Mississippi guardsmen who want to return home from Iraq to aid their statesmen should be allowed to do so. The truth is that the poor people of Louisiana were deliberately left behind -- and not just over the weekend. Our political leaders as a class -- and George W. Bush, in particular -- left them behind a long time ago. In the aftermath of this wholly avoidable catastrophe, let us do all we can to rescue those who have been abandoned. And then let us rescue the U.S. government from those who engineered that abandonment. And let us recognize our sacred duty in completing BOTH acts.
If you have not already done so, I URGE YOU TO DONATE TO RED CROSS OR ANOTHER ORGANIZATION! Hurricane Katrina is potentially the deadliest and most expensive in US history. There are potentially tens of thousands of homeless people that need your help now. Remember-The American Red Cross relies exclusively on your donations-please click here to donate.
from "the Onion" KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling. "Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University. Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power." Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible. According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise. The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision." "We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said. Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis. "Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling." Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture. "Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how." "Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'" Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics. "Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."
The combination of humor and truth make this one of the best movie quotes ever!We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong Il is an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit!
I got this from Corley's blog site, so my thanks to you buddy for letting me copy the contents to my own blog. My reponses to Mr. Miller's "efforts to help" are in bold."TRYING TO HELP" By Dennis Miller "All the rhetoric on whether or not we should go to war against Iraq has got my little brain spinning like a top. I enjoy reading opinions from both sides, but I've detected a hint of confusion from some of you. Maybe this can help. As I was reading the paper recently, I was reminded of the best advice anyone ever gave me. He told me about the "KISS" method ("Keep It Simple, Stupid!"). So with this as a theme, I'd like to apply this theory for those who don't quite get it. My hope is that we can simplify things and recognize a few important facts. Here are ten things to consider when voicing an opinion on this important issue: (1) Between President Bush and Saddam Hussein ... Hussein is the bad guy. (1a) Both are bastards in their respective ways!(2) If you have faith in the United Nations to do the right things, keep this in mind: the UN has Libya heading the Committee on Human Rights and Iraq heading the Global Disarmament Committee. Do your own math here. (2a) Myself and millions of others are fully aware of the imperfections in the United Nations. But there is NOTHING wrong with believing that these imperfections can be remedied for the greater good. Hell, it beats the imperialist and fascist strategies of the current administration!(3) If you use a Google or Yahoo search and type in "French Military Victories," don't be surprised if your computer panics at its inability to respond to your inquiry. (3a) If you Google the word "failure", the first suggested link will be George W. Bush's official White House biography web page.(4) If your only antiwar slogan is "No War For Oil," hire a pit bull lawyer and sue your school district for having allowed you to slip through the cracks and robbing you of the minimum education that any non-troglodyte deserves (4a) Anyone who is willing to do a little research can see just how F'N lucrative this war has been for companies like Halliburton.(5) You can take this one to the bank: Saddam and bin Laden will NOT seek UN approval before they try to kill us. (5a) Touché(6) Despite common belief among some, Martin Sheen is NOT the President. He only plays one on TV. (6a) How about Christopher Walken for President?http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45757 (7) If you are antiwar and even an outright "America Basher," to bin Laden you are still an "infidel" whom he wants dead. (7a) I agree! So where exactly is Bin Laden Mr. President? What's that? Oh, you DON'T have a F'N clue where the man who is responsible for 9/11 is?(8) Be careful: if you believe in a "vast right-wing conspiracy," but not in the danger that Hussein poses, the only job you may be able to get is as an Ivy League college professor. (8a) Regardless of the fact that it has been proven that THERE WERE NO W.M.D.s! What about the danger that now exists in the lives of everyday Iraqi citizens, now that our military operation has turned their cities and towns into breading grounds for terrorism and chaos?
(9) Even multiculturalists who try to browbeat us into believing that all cultures are equally deserving of respect have trouble explaining the past 500 years of Islam. (9a) Like the history of Christianity is taint free? Please!(10) Whether you are for or against military action, our young men and women overseas are fighting to defend our right to speak out on these issues. They deserve our unreserved support. (10a) I fulheartedly agree! But instead of just throwing a cheap car magnet on the back of your car and calling it good. Why not try and ACTUALLY HELP THE TROOPS by visiting OPERATION TRUTH @ http://www.optruth.org and take action.
I hope this helps." I hope my comments were helpful as well Mr. Miller!
This is George Bush’s accountability moment. That’s why I’m here. The mainstream media aren’t holding him accountable. Neither is Congress. So I’m not leaving Crawford until he’s held accountable. It’s ironic, given the attacks leveled at me recently, how some in the media are so quick to scrutinize -- and distort -- the words and actions of a grieving mother but not the words and actions of the president of the United States. But now it’s time for him to level with me and with the American people. I think that’s why there’s been such an outpouring of support. This is giving the 61 percent of Americans who feel that the war is wrong something to do -- something that allows their voices to be heard. It’s a way for them to stand up and show that they DO want our troops home, and that they know this war IS a mistake… a mistake they want to see corrected. It’s too late to bring back the people who are already dead, but there are tens of thousands of people still in harm’s way. There is too much at stake to worry about our own egos. When my son was killed, I had to face the fact that I was somehow also responsible for what happened. Every American that allows this to continue has, to some extent, blood on their hands. Some of us have a little bit, and some of us are soaked in it. People have asked what it is I want to say to President Bush. Well, my message is a simple one. He’s said that my son -- and the other children we’ve lost -- died for a noble cause. I want to find out what that noble cause is. And I want to ask him: “If it’s such a noble cause, have you asked your daughters to enlist? Have you encouraged them to go take the place of soldiers who are on their third tour of duty?” I also want him to stop using my son’s name to justify the war. The idea that we have to “complete the mission” in Iraq to honor Casey’s sacrifice is, to me, a sacrilege to my son’s name. Besides, does the president any longer even know what “the mission” really is over there? Casey knew that the war was wrong from the beginning. But he felt it was his duty to go, that his buddies were going, and that he had no choice. The people who send our young, honorable, brave soldiers to die in this war, have no skin in the game. They don’t have any loved ones in harm’s way. As for people like O’Reilly and Hannity and Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh and all the others who are attacking me and parroting the administration line that we must complete the mission there -- they don’t have one thing at stake. They don’t suffer through sleepless nights worrying about their loved ones. Before this all started, I used to think that one person couldn’t make a difference... but now I see that one person who has the backing and support of millions of people can make a huge difference. That’s why I’m going to be out here until one of three things happens: It’s August 31st and the president’s vacation ends and he leaves Crawford. They take me away in a squad car. Or he finally agrees to speak with me. If he does, he’d better be prepared for me to hold his feet to the fire. If he starts talking about freedom and democracy -- or about how the war in Iraq is protecting America -- I’m not going to let him get away with it. Like I said, this is George Bush’s accountability moment. I would like to voice my strong support for Cindy Sheehan, and I would also like to add, GEORGE W. BUSH IS A PIECE OF SHIT!
"Going to war for peace is like screwing for virginity!"
System of a Down: B.Y.O.B.  Why do they always send the poor?
Barbarisms by Barbaras
With pointed Heels
Victorious victories kneel
For brand new spanking deals
Marching forward hypocritic
And hypnotic computers
You depend on our protection
Yet you feed us lies from the tablecloth
La la la la la la la la la la
Everybody is going to the party
Have a real good time
Dancing in the desert
Blowing up the sunshine
Kneeling roses
Disappearing into Moses' dry mouth
Breaking into Fort Knox
Stealing our intentions
Hangars sitting, dripped in oil
Crying freedom!
Handed to obsoletion
Still you feed us lies from the tablecloth
la la la la la la la la la la
Everybody is going to the party
Have a real good time
Dancing in the desert
Blowing up the sunshine
Everybody is going to the party
Have a real good time
Dancing in the desert
Blowing up the sunshine
Blast off, it's party time
and we DON'T live in a fascist nation
Blast off, it's party time
And where the fuck are you?
Where the fuck are you?
Where the fuck are you?
Why don't presidents fight the war?
Why do they always send the poor?
Why don't presidents fight the war?
Why do they always send the poor?
Why do they always send the poor?
Why do they always send the poor?
Why do they always send the poor?
Kneeling roses
Disappearing into Moses' dry mouth
Breaking into Fort Knox
Stealing our intentions
Hangers sitting, dripped in oil
Crying freedom!
Handed to a obsoletion
Still you feed us lies from the tablecloth
la la la la la la la la la la
Everybody is going to the party
Have a real good time
Dancing in the desert
Blowing up the sunshine
Everybody is going to the party
Have a real good time
Dancing in the desert
Blowing up the sun...
Where the fuck are you?
Where the fuck are you?
Why don't presidents fight the war?
Why do they always send the poor?
Why don't presidents fight the war?
Why do they always send the poor?
Why do they always send the poor?
Why do they always send the poor?
Why do they always send the poor?
Why do they always send the poor?
Why do they always send the poor?
They always send the poor!
They always send the poor!
I remember being literally moved to tears by the tragic beauty of this song, when I saw these guys perform on S.N.L. They are a very talented band and are really in their own genre. This is definately the quintessential "Iraq War Protest Song" in my humble opinion. The neat thing about this band is that they are all Armenian. Geography lesson of the day: Armenia is just north of Iraq & Saudi Arabia. I'm sure this is a part of why they feel so strongly anti-war.
BY ANGELA BROOKS Boomerang Staff Writer The Laramie City Council snuffed out a proposal Tuesday that would have relaxed the city’s smoking ban, allowing smokers to light up in bars and private clubs. With a 3-5 vote, councilors defeated the ordinance on its first reading. It was the first time the newly assembled council has voted on an issue involving the smoking ban. “You can have a drink and drive in this state, but we regulate how much you can drink for public health and safety reasons,” Councilman Dave O’Malley said. “I believe we can regulate smoking from the same sense.” The proposal would have allowed smoking in bars and private clubs, so long as smoking was limited to no more than half of the establishment and there was a working ventilation system. Smoking is currently banned in all workplaces, including restaurants, bars and private clubs. Those who voted for the ordinance were Joe Hageman, Jeanne Armintrout and Bryan Shuster. All three agreed the smoking ban has hurt businesses financially. “This has cost Laramie money, no matter what people say,” Shuster said. Hageman, who spearheaded the ordinance, faced an uphill battle in convincing other councilors, some of whom voted for the smoking ban, to support his proposal. For Councilman Seth Carson, the smoking issue hit home. Carson said he battled cancer when he was a child and underwent nine months of chemotherapy. The community held a marathon to help pay his bills. “Not only no, but absolutely no for me,” Carson said of his voting intention. “… I can’t dishonor the 600 individuals who raised money to pay for my cancer treatment (by voting for the proposal),” Carson said. Councilman Klaus Hanson said he is also a cancer survivor, and is convinced he did the right thing by supporting the smoking ban last year. “This was an ordinance originally designed and voted on by the public to protect workers who may be exposed to second-hand smoke,” Hanson said. “This is why I signed on to it originally, and I stand by it now.” Supporters and opponents of the proposal showed up in droves for the meeting, many of them making similar arguments as they did a year ago when the ban first surfaced. The debate lasted just over an hour. Smoke-free advocates said the proposal was unacceptable because it would expose employees and customers at bars and private clubs to second-hand smoke. They said the proposal also tramples upon the will of voters, who upheld the current smoking ban in a special election last year by a difference of 361 votes. “I cannot think of another ordinance in Laramie where every eligible voter had the opportunity to cast an equal vote on an ordinance,” said Megan Hayes of the Laramie Clean Indoor Air Coalition. The effectiveness of the ventilation systems also was in question. Jan Drury of the American Heart Association said the systems don’t remove all second-hand smoke. They also cost as much as $10,000. “This (proposal) asks business owners to incur that cost,” Drury said. “The beauty of the original ordinance is that it didn’t cost the owner anything.” Representatives of private clubs rallied behind the proposal. Several said customers are opting to stay at home where they can smoke, which has taken a chunk out of their profits. “Another year of this and we’re going to close our doors,” said Kevin Fuller of Moose Lodge, where revenues dropped by 45 percent in May. At most private clubs, members vote on policies such as smoking. The proposal would restore that right to club members, said Ray Martinez of Eagles Lodge. “Taking that away from private clubs is kind of like you coming into my home and saying, ‘Hey, you can’t watch NFL football anymore,’” Martinez said. Hageman’s ordinance also would have allowed smoking in health care facilities that are treating terminally or mentally ill patients. He said his proposal was more about private rights than health. “I’m not trying to argue about whether or not second-hand smoke is something that can be harmful,” Hageman said. “It’s about whether or not we can provide a place for those who choose to go where they know it’s harmful.” Many bars and private clubs have created areas outdoors where people can smoke. But Hageman, an attorney and smoker, said it is an unpleasant and unrealistic option once the weather turns cold. “Standing outside is a sentence for more than half the year. People won’t do it,” Hageman said. When asked by a citizen if his law firm represents businesses that oppose the smoking ban, Hageman said that it does. However, he said he also has clients who support the ban. Earlier in the meeting, Hageman said he had no conflicts of interest and planned to vote on the proposal. Even before the vote Tuesday, the measure’s prospects were dimming. At least four councilors publicly stated they would not vote for the proposal, even after Hageman made several significant changes. Hageman planned to introduce the ordinance earlier this month, but withdrew it to make revisions. The original version would have exempted truck stops under the same rules as bars and private clubs. Truck stop managers were not interested in the exemption, Hageman said. The original also would have allowed two-year exemptions for businesses that could show their revenues had dropped since the ban went into effect in April. The short nature of the exemption made it impractical, Hageman said. Shortly before the ban kicked in, Hageman announced he would propose amendments to give businesses more discretion. Now that the measure has failed, he is not sure if he will return with a different proposal. “I haven’t reached a conclusion if I would try to go about it a different way,” Hageman said Monday. “To me, this current proposal seems the most sensible way.” Only four members of the original council that adopted the ban are still in office. Councilors Jodi Guerin, Wendy Guerin and Hanson voted for it. Shuster voted against it. Guerin did not attend Tuesday’s meeting. Well, Joe Hageman, Jeanne Armintrout and Bryan Shuster certainly won't be getting my vote in the future!Let's hear it for the 5 councilors who rejected the proposal and stood up for THE RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES AND CITIZENS TO HAVE CLEAN AIR!
Swearing on the Holy ScripturesPaul V.M. Flesher When witnesses take the stand in a court trial, they take an oath in which they swear to tell the truth. In most states, the witnesses swear this oath by placing their hand on a Christian Bible. The Bible came into use because it was believed that its sacred character would link the oath to God and hence encourage the witness to speak the truth before God, if not before the human court. So although the state administers the oath using the Bible, it is the individual who receives the effect of the oath. But consider the following scenario described in the June 23rd issue of The Daily News of Jacksonville, N.C.: Imagine that you are a key witness to a major crime -- you are called to court to testify. A man's life hangs in the balance. You know your attention to detail will be crucial. You know your credibility will be called into question. Your name is called in court, and you approach the witness stand. Next comes the time-honored courtroom tradition -- swearing to tell the truth. You raise your right hand and lower your left hand to that holy book that represents your faith. But wait. Something's wrong. That's not the Bible you're swearing on. It's a book of Hindu scriptures, or "vedas." What's going on? Why should you be swearing an oath on a book that does not represent your own religion? You object, but the judge forces you to, in essence, swear an oath that violates your own religion! You can't refuse, or you will be found in contempt. Sound farfetched? It happens every day in North Carolina. Of course, Christians aren't being forced to swear on someone else's "bible;" it's folks who practice other religions who do so. This scenario imagined by The Daily News points out the problem with the North Carolina law, common in other states as well, that requires all witnesses to swear on the Bible and does not allow the sacred texts of other religions to be used. The question of the Quran's use in North Carolina courts became an issue last month when Guilford County Judge W.D. Albright refused the attempt by a local Muslim group to donate copies of the Quran to the court system for use in swearing in Muslim witnesses. He ruled, "an oath on the Quran is not a lawful oath under our law." The matter hinged upon the interpretation of the state's law which said that the oath should be taken on the "Holy Scriptures." Judge Albright took the narrowest possible interpretation of the law and understood it to refer only to the Christian Bible (although he did not indicate whether he thought the Catholic or Protestant version should be used). But the term "Holy Scriptures" is not specific to Christianity, even though used frequently by Christians. It is a generic term which simply means "sacred texts." Since all religions that use writing have sacred texts, the law can be understood to allow the use of those texts in oath-taking. The state legislature apparently understood this distinction when in 1985 it changed the law from the Christian-specific requirement to swear upon "the Gospels" to its present reading. Judge Albright's ruling causes three problems. First, for non-Christian witnesses, it prevents the connection between a believer and their god that was the original intent of the law, one which would encourage truth-telling. Second, it puts the government in the position of favoring one religion over all others, which is prohibited by the First Amendment. Third, it fails to grant all citizens equal treatment under the law by allowing only Christians, but no one else, to swear upon their own holy book. Judge Albright may think he is simply interpreting the law as written, but his ruling has set in motion the reconsideration of the religious implications of the rights of American citizens, a reconsideration which recognizes the expanding variety of religious beliefs and practices in our country. Flesher is director of UW's Religious Studies Program. Past columns and information about the program can be found on the Web at www.uwyo.edu/relstds.
You're keeping in step In the line Got your chin held high and you feel just fine Because you do What you're told But inside your heart it is black and it's hollow and it's cold Just how deep do you believe? Will you bite the hand that feeds? Will you chew until it bleeds? Can you get up off your knees? Are you brave enough to see? Do you want to change it? What if this whole crusade's A charade And behind it all there's a price to be paid For the blood On which we dine Justified in the name of the holy and the divine Just how deep do you believe? Will you bite the hand that feeds? Will you chew until it bleeds? Can you get up off your knees? Are you brave enough to see? Do you want to change it? So naive I keep holding on to what I want to believe I can see But I keep holding on and on and on and on Will you bite the hand that feeds you? Will you stay down on your knees? ...Love that one!
A curious fellow died one day, and found himself waiting in the long line of judgment. As he stood there, he noticed that some souls were allowed to march right through the Pearly Gates into Heaven. Others though, were led over to Satan, who threw them into the burning pit. But every so often, instead of hurling a poor soul into the fire, Satan would toss a soul off to one side into a small pile. After watching Satan do this several times, the fellow's curiosity got the best! of him. So he strolled over, and asked Satan what he was doing. "Excuse me, Prince of Darkness," he said. "I'm waiting in line for judgment, but I couldn't help wondering. Why are you tossing those people aside instead of flinging them into the Fires of Hell with the others?" "Oh those . . ." Satan groaned. "They're all from Wyoming.. They're still too cold and wet to burn."
By William Rivers Pitt t r u t h o u t Perspective Thursday 23 June 2005 With the revelation of the secret Downing Street Minutes, which exposed the fact that George Bush and Tony Blair had decided to invade Iraq in April of 2002, a heated debate has blown through media, congressional and activist circles. The decision to go to war in Iraq was made before any public debate was initiated, before the United Nations was brought into the conversation, confirming that Bush's blather about wanting peace and leaving war as the last resort was just that: blather. So why did we go? It had been suspected, and has now been confirmed by the Minutes, that Bush took us to war on false pretenses and by way of a whole constellation of lies and exaggerations. First it was the weapons of mass destruction that were not there. Then it was connections between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda that did not exist. Finally, it became about bringing freedom and democracy to the region, which has emphatically not happened. Threaded through the discussion was the belief that Bush and his petroleum-company allies lusted after Iraq's oil. There was also the idea that Bush wanted Saddam's head because of the "unfinished business" left by his father in 1991. Some whispered that Iraq had intended to change the monetary basis of its petroleum dealings from the dollar to the Euro, an action that would have spelled financial disaster for the boys in Houston. Finally, many believed Bush ramped up a war push in order to give Republicans a flag-waving platform to run on in the 2002 midterms. All of these were on the table as reasons for an invasion, though most of them were not included in public debate. Yet the real reasons behind this war, the real reasons for many of our military actions over the years, were never discussed. As with almost everything we deal with today in the foreign policy realm, the real reasons we invaded Iraq harken back to World War II and the Cold War. When the United States jumped into World War II, President Roosevelt ordered the American economy be put on a wartime footing. This was a sound decision: the country had to speed its industrial capabilities up to a sprint in order to manufacture a huge fighting army out of whole cloth. The action was successful beyond measure. The economy was invigorated, the war was won, and in the process the military/industrial complex, so named by President Eisenhower, was established as a power player in the American economy. In 1947, President Harry Truman put forth the Truman Doctrine, a broad policy of foreign intervention to combat the feared spread of Communism around the world. The Doctrine was essentially created by a small band of men like Paul Nitze, who were the precursors of what we now call neo-conservatives. Nitze, it should be noted, was the mentor of Paul Wolfowitz, who went on to be the mentor of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. The establishment of the Truman Doctrine, the establishment of the "permanent crisis" that was the Cold War, required that the American economy remain on a wartime footing. There it has remained to this day, despite the fall of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the threat of a global communist takeover. Ten thousand books have been written on this subject, on the impact of our wartime economic footing upon domestic policy, the environment, global affairs and politics. In the end, however, the fact that our economy is set on a wartime footing means one simple thing. We need wars. Without wars, the economy flakes and falls apart. Without wars, the trillions of dollars spent on weapons systems, military preparedness and a planetary army would dry up, dealing a death blow to the economy as currently constituted. Without wars or the threat of wars, the populace is not so easily controlled and manipulated. Let us be clear, however. When I say "we," I do not refer to your average working man and woman on the street. The man running the shoe store or the woman managing the bar does not need war to remain economically viable. The "we" I speak of is that overwhelmingly wealthy and powerful few who have wired their fortunes into the manufacture of weapons, the plumbing of oil, and the collection of spoils through political largesse. These are the people who need war. They need it to pile up the contracts from the Pentagon, to enrich the banking institutions that protect them, to pay the lawyers who defend them, to pay the lobbyists who sustain them, to purchase the politicians who champion them, and to buy up the media that hides them from sight. Yet though this group is small in number, they are "we," for they are our leaders and our myth-makers. They have convinced the majority of this population that war is a necessity. They create the premises for combat and invasion, they convince and cajole and, when necessary, frighten us into line. All too often, almost every time, we buy into the fictions they manufacture, thus sustaining the "permanent crisis" mentality and the need for war after war after war. The economic need for war creates the required excuses for war. The "permanent crisis" of the Cold War motivated the United States to support the Shah in Iran, a decision that led to the Islamic Revolution and the establishment of Iran as a permanent enemy. The Cold War motivated us to support Saddam Hussein financially and militarily as a bulwark against Iran. The Cold War motivated us to establish the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia to ensure a steady supply of oil. The Cold War motivated us to support Osama bin Laden and the so-called "Jihadists" in Afghanistan in their fight against the Soviet invaders. Now, we prepare to invade Iran. We have invaded Iraq for the second time in 15 years. We will never invade Saudi Arabia, despite the fact that this nation's vast wealth and Wahabbist extremists make it the birthing bed of international terrorism. We lost two towers in New York City at the hands of a group that we created in the 1980s to fight the Soviets. Put plainly, the "permanent crisis" of the Cold War created a cycle of military self-justification. We build enemies with arms and money, and then we destroy them with arms and money, thus keeping our wartime economy afloat. The Cold War ended more than ten years ago, but we still need war, and we need that "permanent crisis" to continue the cycle of military self-justification. If a legitimate war is not available, we will create one because we have to. We have our new "permanent crisis," which we call the War on Terror, another turn of the cycle created by an attack that our foreign policy and war-justifications of the last 50 years made almost inevitable. We need wars. That's why we are in Iraq. This invasion and occupation of that nation has given our economy the war it needs, and has also created the justification for future wars by creating legions of enemies in the Mideast and around the world. Our wartime economy will tolerate no less. Talking about Bush's lies regarding weapons of mass destruction, or about bringing democracy to the region, or about the dollar-to-Euro transfer, or about the midterm elections, is window-dressing. We invaded Iraq because we had to. This is the elephant in the room, the foreign policy reality nobody talks about. If you want peace, work to change the underpinnings of our economy. Until that change is made, there will always be wars, invasions, and lies to brings such things about. It is what it is.
Oh, and quite the AWESOME movie as well I might add! Now THAT is how a Batman movie is done! Quote: "Criminals thrive on the indulgences of society’s understanding."-- Ra's Al Guhl (Batman villain) ,
Please inform those close to you, who still might be "drinking the cool-aid."
The contents of the Downing Street Minutes confirm that the Bush Administration was determined to go to war in Iraq, regardless of whether there was any credible justification for doing so.1 The Secret Downing Street Memo ----- SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY DAVID MANNING From: Matthew Rycroft Date: 23 July 2002 S 195 /02 cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER’S MEETING, 23 JULY Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq. This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents. John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam’s regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based. C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justifi ed by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fi xed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action. CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August. The two broad US options were: (a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait). (b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option. The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were: (i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons. (ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition. 2 (iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions. The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun “spikes of activity” to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections. The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justifi cation for the use of force. The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The fi rst and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be diffi cult. The situation might of course change. The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work. On the fi rst, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions. For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfi ghting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary. The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN. John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real. The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush. Conclusions: (a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any fi rm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options. 3 (b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation. (c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week. (d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam. He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states. (e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update. (f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers. (I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.) MATTHEW RYCROFT (Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)
...My Flag Day Tribute... If these walls came crumblin' down Fell so hard, to make us lose our faith From what's left you'd figure it out Still make lemonade taste like a sunny day Stay, beautiful baby I hope you Stay, American baby American baby Nobody's laughing now God's grace lost and the devil is proud But I've been walking for a thousand miles One last time, I could see you smile I (I) hold (hold) on (on) to you You bring me hope, I'll see you soon And if I don't see you I'm afraid we've lost the way Stay, beautiful baby I hope you Stay, American baby American baby I (I) hold (hold) on (on) to you You lift me up and always will I see you in life Hope I don't get left behind I (I) hold (hold) on (on) to you You bring me hope, I'll see you soon And if I don't see you I'm afraid we've lost the way Stay, beautiful baby I hope you Stay, American baby I hope you Stay, beautiful baby I hope you Stay, American baby American baby Nobody's laughing now But you could always make me laugh out loud
By Melinda Barton | RAW STORY COLUMNIST The American Empire. Pax Americana. The fervent dream of the ruling party. The nightmare of its opponents. Today’s political discourse is rife with tales of this mythical beast rising from the back rooms of Washington to wreak havoc on the unsuspecting citizens of the world. Advertisement Fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately,) we just don’t have what it takes to become the latest empire. In the meantime, as we pursue the right wing’s pipe dream, American hegemony, the more benevolent albeit weaker younger brother of empire, is spiraling to its destruction. The American Empire is falling before it has even truly risen. I blame it on the state of history education in this country. We’ve all heard the cliché, “Those who don’t learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.” How much truer must this be for those who don’t learn it at all? Or who ignore it altogether because they believe that our nation’s uniqueness protects us from the march of history? Remember your own history classes? The rote memorization of names and dates. The patriotic mythology that filled the pages of your textbooks. The tremendous gaps in the relation of events where the “unimportant” people simply weren’t mentioned, where the history of our nation seemed the sole creation of a group of wealthy white men? Remember how you were taught that America was completely unique in the annals of human history and therefore, somehow, completely disconnected and safe from the trends that ravaged the rest of the world? It was all wrong. History is very much about trends. You can change the names and dates as much as you want, but the bigger pictures won’t change very much. To truly understand how events will unfold, you need only find the connections to the common threads that continue unbroken through time and space. Follow the threads and you’ll see how the “American Empire” is doomed to extinction even now, as it makes its first tentative steps into the world. If our ruling class had learned the lessons of the Roman Empire, the one whose propaganda we so readily mimic for our own purposes, they’d give up now and save our nation and our world from this disastrous enterprise. The Roman Empire. Pax Romana. What can we learn from the inspiration for our attempt to bring about peace and freedom through American rule? Just this. We don’t have what it takes. The Romans began from a position of unprecedented strength and a unified people dedicated to society’s values. For all the patriotic ramblings of our rulers, we don’t have that anymore. The Roman Empire began its fall where we attempt to begin a rise to power. So, why did they fall? And why won’t we rise? The decline of morals and values: The Roman Empire lost its strength when Roman values gave way to pleasure and treasure. Lavish parties, gladiatorial contests, violence, and other forms of immorality chipped away at the unifying values that kept the Roman Legion and thus the empire strong. Our own pursuit of pleasure and treasure is doing the same. Lavish parties, reality TV, violence, and the abandonment of democratic values are leading us to destruction. For nearly two centuries, American individualism was balanced by the communal commitment to the construction of an ever more just nation through democratic processes. We voted and protested our way to greater freedom for all. Even those with no freedom to vote participated through the power of their voices. For the last few decades, however, the ruling elite has entertained and bullshitted us into submission. We have abandoned political discourse, building a taboo around “talking politics” lest someone’s feelings get hurt or an actual debate arises. Consequently, the American people now know less about the important political topics of our country than citizens of foreign nations and participating through protest is viewed as “un-American.” Public health: The rampant spread of disease through Roman territories due to overcrowding and unsanitary conditions decimated that empire’s population. America is far more advanced in its knowledge of public health concerns and our ability to control, to some extent, the spread of disease. We have doctors that don’t use leaches, medicines that usually aren’t poisonous, and high tech hospitals that would have been the stuff of science fiction just a few decades ago. While the spread of communicable disease is not what it was, a variety of factors have contributed to a decline in the health of the average American: pollution; obesity; limited or non-existent access to preventative medicine due to cost-saving measures on the part of HMO’s and insurance companies; lack of access to preventative medicine due to lack of health insurance; the absence of early stage treatments due to some of the same factors; a serious dearth of public education about health realities due to religious influence on governmental policies. Despite spending more money on health care than any other nation, our citizens are far less healthy than those in other industrialized nations. Illness, according to some studies, costs the United States billions of dollars per year in lost wages and decreased productivity. We need no study to imagine the human costs. Political Corruption: Rome’s system for choosing an emperor was rather democratic at first with the outgoing emperor, the Senate, the Praetorian guard, and the army coming together to choose the new ruler. Over time, the Praetorian Guard took complete control of the selection process and the highest bidder became emperor. Our forefathers so distrusted the “mob” that they instituted the Electoral College to limit the powers of the people. Under this system, no less than three men have lost the vote but gained the presidency. Lately, however, the Electoral College has become less a threat to democracy than campaign finance. With election campaigns become ever more expensive, those with the most money have an ever-growing role in determining the winners and losers of the political shell game. Whoever spends the most money wins. With the exception of billionaires like Ross Perot, candidates must raise money from outside sources and thus become beholden to special interests and corporate powers at the cost of the common welfare. Access to the halls of power has become far too expensive for even the somewhat wealthy private citizens. Thus, a small group determines which candidates we’ll have the chance to vote for in any election and our emperor…ahem…president is generally the highest bidder. It’s the economy, stupid!: Unemployment, inflation, and the trade deficit felled the great Romans. Surely, we’re in no better position than they were. President George W. Bush was the first ever American president to show a net loss of jobs during his first term in office. Those jobs that are being created are generally low wage positions in the service industries. Outsourcing of manufacturing has led to greater unemployment and underemployment as well as a monstrous trade deficit that places our economy at the mercy of foreign powers. Outsourcing of jobs that require skilled labor and successful competition from countries like India and China has led to an economy where skilled and highly educated workers make up an ever-greater percentage of the long-term unemployed. The “strong” American economy is a smoke and mirrors ploy. The “strong” American dollar is but a memory. Military spending: Maintaining military might in the face of “recruitment” problems required that Rome hire outside fighting forces and draw resources from other necessary projects. Maintaining or building our own has and will do the same. Half of our tax dollars going to military expenditures limits our abilities to adjust to new necessities or shore up old ones. Public education, social programs like welfare and social security, and infrastructure maintenance are already feeling the bite. The military’s inability to recruit new personnel and retain current troops, as well as growing protests from reservists and recalled service members will push us to rely more heavily on the fighting forces of our allies.Unfortunately, few of our allies have the desire or the sheer number of troops that would be needed for an American empire to take shape. Only reinstating the draft would get us the manpower we need for empire, but that act would bring about the dangers of civil unrest. So, we just don’t have what it takes to be an empire. As it is, American hegemony is quickly becoming the victim of foreign progress and unpopular American policies. Our allies are distancing themselves from us politically and are far less ready to support our every move. Developing nations are threatening the strength of the American economy by the fair competition and marketplace values we insisted they embrace. As they progress, we’ll face ever-greater competition for the resources we need to maintain economic strength. Thus, we’ll lose much of the power and influence our economy has provided. The sleeping tiger of our military might is beginning to look a bit more like an aggressive alley cat. Although we’re fortunate enough to have no military enemies on our borders, foreign military adventures will surely become less feasible in the future. The desire for an American Empire will only worsen the situation and ultimately, destroy what is left of our unprecedented strength in the world. We just don’t have what it takes. Let’s hope the powers that be get the message before we, like Rome, become the power that was. 
“WE BELIEVE that in the best American tradition of helping others help themselves, now is the time to join with other countries in a historic pact for compassion and justice to help the poorest people of the world overcome AIDS and extreme poverty. WE RECOGNIZE that a pact including such measures as fair trade, debt relief, fighting corruption and directing additional resources for basic needs – education, health, clean water, food, and care for orphans – would transform the futures and hopes of an entire generation in the poorest countries, at a cost equal to just one percent more of the US budget. WE COMMIT ourselves - one person, one voice, one vote at a time - to make a better, safer world for all.”  For more information please visit www.one.org--Heiwa!
The End Is Coming -- The Hindu VersionPaul V.M. Flesher Evangelical Christianity has long taught that the "End of the World" is coming. This teaching, called "Premillennialism," is often accompanied by detailed descriptions of apocalyptic events leading up to a cataclysmic finale. Of all the world's religions, Hinduism may have the most similar views of the end-of-time, even though Christianity believes in one God and Hinduism envisions many. Premillennial Christianity starts with the belief that God created the universe in a perfect form, but two events soon marred it -- the sin of Adam and Eve and the rebellion of the angel Satan. These two events caused creation to begin a gradual deterioration. Year after year, human morality and nature's harmony have been getting worse. This will continue until matters are so bad that God will have to destroy creation. After this, God will make a new universe. Surprisingly, Hinduism closely follows the three key features of this scheme. First, the universe was created perfect -- the best it can be. Second, this is followed by gradual moral and natural deterioration. Third, things will finally get so bad that creation will be destroyed, and then rebuilt in a perfect form. Despite this general parallelism, Premillennialism and Hinduism differ on a key component -- the time-frame. Premillennialism views time on a biblical scale, with the time from creation to the end being approximately six thousand years. Hinduism designed its scheme in millions of years, 4.32 million to be exact. Hinduism imagines the existence of the universe as one day in the life of the god Brahma. That day is divided into four yugas, each of which lasts a multiple of 432,000 years. At the beginning of the day, at creation, Brahma awakes and all creation is bright and lively. People, gods and nature live in moral and religious harmony. As Brahma's day moves from yuga to yuga, he starts getting tired, and morality and natural harmony deteriorate. Now, humankind is in the last yuga, the Kali Yuga, the period of absolute depravity and the reign of wickedness. This yuga is the shortest; it lasts only 432,000 years. When it ends, Brahma will fall asleep and the universe will disappear -- to be reborn when he reawakens. When will the Kali Yuga end? According to modern calculations, the Kali Yuga began in 3102 B.C. So this year, humanity will have lived through only 5101 years of the yuga. There are 426,899 years to go! While Hinduism's scheme may share the overall shape of Premillennialism, its view of the end lies far in the future. Flesher is director of UW's Religious Studies Program. More information about the program can be found on the Web at www.uwyo.edu/relstds
|
