Fundies keep on insisting that creationism should be taught in schools, but then they go ahead and bitch interminably about how all these foreign students are getting scholarships to our best universities and all the world is getting ahead but us. Are they that stupid (or willfully ignorant) that they can't see the link between the educational standards they are seeking to impose and the lower college exam scores American children are getting?

It seems to me that if these people had even half a brain among them, they would back off and shut up.

There are many diverse reasons why American students are sliding on these scores, and homeschooling (as it is done by unschooled fundies and other people with no regard for actual education) is one of them. None of them is more important than sending a daughter or son out with the best possible educational background, and that includes a properly taught scientific base.

Yes, there are other reasons why Americans are flunking scores while other countries are succeeding, and that includes laziness, discipline, obsession with gadgetry and a disregard for traditional subject matter, but that's not at issue here--what is at issue is that fundie parents (and any parent who refuses to teach or let their child be taught scientific subject matter) are forgetting the basic foundation of a good education, and that means biology, chemistry, physics and evolution. The subject matter itself is not debatable--we cannot hope to provide students with the tools and weapons they are going to need in a world that isn't sealed off from reality if they have no idea of what they are facing.

My fundie ex-friend, a teacher herself, could not grasp this concept, and bitterly complained how all these "illegals" were getting scholarships and American students were being shut out. In retrospect, I can see that her mind was too tightly wound around dangerous concepts that show how out of touch she had become with the real world.

The only way to keep the devil from our door--and that's how I look to anyone who shuns actual science in favor of idiocy--is to keep fighting it with everything we have in our arsenal of intelligence. That means, debate, a constant barrage of facts, refusal to allow them to sneak in their religious rhetoric in our public school systems, and battling their notions in every way possible in order to keep that nonsense from pervading our educational system.

One argument that some people give in objection to this argument is that the subculture of fundamentalism is a minority one. Be that as it may in terms of actual people who might be considered fundies, but their influence is a great one: no other cult has as many lobbyists, PACs, or publicity as they do, nor are there as many people in the general population who are affected in some fashion as by fundies. A recent survey showed that even among non-fundies that 2/3 of the American population believed in creationism and not in evolution. Scary, isn't it?

The United States is on the brink of losing everything our founding fathers worked so hard to achieve--we will lose our status as a superpower, we will lose any part of being at the forefront of technological discoveries, and we will certainly lose any credibility as a world leader if we allow the religious nuts like the fundies dictate what will or won't be taught in our public schools. Many fundies are looking to the "rapture" and apocalypse to happen in their lifetime: if we allow them to gain any more momentum in that goal, we are dooming not only the United States, but possibly the whole world to a fiery end.

We can't let them win--our lives, and so many others, are at stake. A win for the fundies is armageddon to the rest of us. In their vision, they will be taken into the "hands" of their lord, and the rest of us will suffer for a thousand years before the world ends. In reality, there will simply be nothing--no redemption, no life, no nothing. If our own lives, the lives of the next generation and the life of our planet itself isn't motivation enough to stop these people, there is nothing else for us to look to. We have already seen what religiously motivated people can do, and we know these people are fanatical enough to lead the charge against those of us with a better perception of what might or might not happen. Stopping them, at the very least, will keep the barbarians from the gates, and grant us enough time to launch a counter position. Because if we can't stop them, there aren't enough places on planet earth we will be able to hide from the destruction of all we have taken so long to build.

Has DU become a Nazi camp, where we're all supposed to march in lockstep with the Barack Obama lovers? If it is, I think it's time for me--and others of us--to get the hell out of here. If it is, it isn't any different than spending time at FR or other such fascist discussion groups.

Obama is the nominee, and I think a lot of us have gotten the feeling that the media made it so. My sense says to me that while some people have always been enthusiastic about him, there are some here who have pushed this for their own gain--even though I would NEVER say that a DUer was intolerant, there are few people out in the non-DU world who are certain that a black man (I don't care about the nuamces of that--truth is, most people don't give a fuck about the nuances, and will look to the color of Obama's skin as a deterrent to their voting for him) should never be a president, and they would take a dim view of an "uppity n****r holding any kind of power as important as the presidency.

So DU goes into the opposite direction--if you don't like Obama, you're prejudiced against him. Period.

But what if we aren't prejudiced, simply at odds with some of his positions and stances on some of the issues which are important to us? My choice right from the beginning was John Edwards, and I still stand behind John 100%, and I look forward to some future time when he IS the presumptive candidate and is elected to the presidency. When John left, I was without a candidate. I asked, once upon a time, here in the "primaries" forum for a list of the stances that both Hillary and Obama held on issues that were important to me, personally, and NO ONE answered me. It makes things a little maddening to be in quest of such imformation in the presence of so many supporters, and have absolutely NO ONE respond. I gleaned the information as much as I could have from other places, but there were/are a lot of things for which I have no real answers, and I decided to wait out until either Obama or Hillary gave me a better reason to stand behind them, and finally, it was clear I had a lot more in common with Hillary. Yes, some of her opinions don't mesh with me, and perhaps Obama's do. But like an elephant isn't just his trunk, his tail or his hide, it isn't the pieces but the whole package which is what I based my choice on.

I didn't say anything. The mere fact that I chose Hillary made me: a traitor, a Republican, a troll, a deluded fool, a DLCer, any one of a bunch of other things which are hardly complimentary. It isn't a very nice thing to say about DU, but I couldn't speak my mind, couldn't talk about my choice with reasonable people. So I said NOTHING.

Well, that time has come and gone, and Obama managed, IMHO, with the direction of the MSM, to become the candidate. Whether he is the right person or not isn't something I can say--he still hasn't fit all my criteria for an ideal candidate--nor has anyone for that matter. But here I am, questioning the de facto nominee, and that earns me an epithet of dubious value, even though I am a LONG time member of DU (since June or July, 2001) and have certainly never praised a Republican in my life, with few exceptions (and none of them in the past thirty years).

I have my misgivings about Obama, just as I had for Hillary, for John, for everyone who campaigned for the presidential nod, but that isn't going to stop me for voting for him--it would be far, far worse to vote for McCrime, who sold his soul to the BFEE sometime between 2001 and 2004. So while I have had to alter my own choices for the nomination, I am not going to keep me from voting for Obama, even if I have to do it holding my nose.

The thing is, folks, RESPECT for your fellow DUers is one of the reasons we ALL came here, isn't it? For those of us who have been online for ages, it was difficult to find a place to commiserate with other liberals, progressives and Democrats for a long time. I found some places away from here, but DU was alive--with a spirit of cooperation and mutual regard. Has that gone now, with the bitterness on all sides for the other candidates and their supporters?

I've begged in the past for a "cease-fire" but I never got anywhere, and like many others, I gave up and silently stopped trying. It is one of the most ludicrous things I have ever seen when a forum called GENERAL DISCUSSION (Primaries or Presidential, doesn't matter) is such a hellhole, and people on a political website are avoiding it in droves. Every day I notice someone else gone from DU and it's sad. Are those of us who still aren't sold on Obama going to be driven out by those who refuse to acknowledge that there was anyone else in the race besides Obama?

Right now, it's not even Obama who I doubt--it's the fanatics who are insulting, uncompromising, and downright belligerent to everyone else who isn't behind Obama 100%. If it keeps up--and my guess is it will just get worse before it ever gets better--DU won't ever be the place it used to be, and its ranks will only include those who tow the line, who march in lockstep with each other, and who will become the Democrat versions of sheeple.

Pets or Prisoners?

When deputies in Pickens County, Ga., responded to a domestic dispute, they uncovered a horrific scene of animal neglect and cruelty that shocked even the most seasoned officers.

Thirty-six dogs, most of them covered in filth, were found living -- but only barely living -- at the home in miserable conditions. These poor dogs were severely malnourished, with no water or food bowls in sight.

Many of them ached with every movement they made, while others could barely move at all, partly paralyzed and suffering from infections that had been long left untreated. The deputies even found skeletons and decomposing carcasses of dogs stuffed inside dog food bags scattered around the property.

The county sheriff, who later charged the property owner with 40 counts of animal cruelty, described the situation as the worst case of its kind he had seen in his 28 years on the job. He immediately contacted a local shelter for assistance, and once volunteers arrived to transport the dogs to safety, an amazing thing happened -- the dogs, despite being extremely weak and malnourished, began wagging their tails. It was as if they knew that help had arrived!

Plenty of Love, Not Enough Money

Although the dogs were rescued from immediate danger, their futures were far from certain. Like most animal shelters, the Pickens Animal Rescue, which so compassionately stepped in to care for the dogs, operates on the tightest of budgets. How could it afford the estimated $10,000 it would take to restore the health of so many dogs and ready them for adoption into new, loving homes?

Thanks to caring donors like you, American Humane was able to help defray the costs of the traumatized dogs’ rehabilitation through our Second Chance® Fund. We created this vital funding source as a way to reach out to animal welfare organizations across the country and provide medical care to abused and neglected animals.

Some of the dogs from the Pickens County case have already made full recoveries and moved on to wonderful new homes. However, American Humane’s fight against cruelty is far from over.

Donating to the Second Chance Fund today means making a difference for the countless other pets trapped in circumstances that are just as heart-wrenching, or even worse!

A link to American Human with the original email contents and a form to forward to other people.
http://www.americanhumane.org/site/R?i=n9I... ..

And unless you are here strictly to batter me over the head with YOUR religious beliefs (or lack thereof), I take umbrage at such an assumption.

In fact, before I start de-constructing your post, I thought perhaps you might find the definition of "secular humanism" refreshing. It appears to me that you are not familiar enough with it to successfully form your argument on such a nebulous concept:



>>>>>how much easier life is when you just let people believe what they want to believe about God or spirituality without banging them over the head with a hundred tons of intellectual condescension.<<<<<

My motto has always been to let people do what they want, and believe what they want. It is only when I have people proselytizing ME that I object. In fact, I made a point in my post that religion simply has no place in government. That is how the makers of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence wanted it to be: NO establishment of a specific religion, and that everyone had the right to believe what they wanted to believe.

>>>>>atheists take too much pride in their "elite" status as the tiny minority that gets it: it blinds them-and just like that episode of South Park, proves, that even when you take God out of the equation, people are still so fucking hopelessly petty in their arrogance and their willingness to divide and sow suffering for the sake of their own ego, with or without any crazy god talk to justify it.<<<<<

Citing an episode of "South Park" in an argument about religious freedom, and keeping religion out of our SECULAR government? Puh-lease. I never said I was an elitist, and I gave no indication of such in my post. Whether I am an atheist or not is irrelevant (hint: secularism is NOT a code word for atheist, believe it or not!). And I don't think I sounded "petty" in that post (OTOH, I AM being petty and smarmy in THIS post). I simply indicated that RELIGION has NO PLACE in decisions in government. Now, if you want to show me exactly where in my post I said anything to the contrary, please do. I would LOVE to hear it. In fact, here is my entire post (I have done you a favor and highlighted different passages which you obviously didn't read all that well):



>>>>>It's odd, because, pragmatically on a political level, having some respect for people's religious faith is generally a very good political practice (if atheists are so smart, how come they are incapable of the political pragmatism of an inclusive attitude towards religious faith?).<<<<<

Uh, no, I think you took a wrong turn somewhere along the line. Progressives are the only ones CAPABLE of having an open-mindedness about religion. If you are trying to say the opposite, I think you missed the exit for another website. It's an insult to EVERY progressive to say WE'RE the intolerant ones--and if you spent much time reading DU, you would know that.

>>>>>The hard secular view turns off a lot of people -even a lot of people that are actually pretty secular in their life style (like me), because it is arrogant, because it ignores the beauty of spiritual interpretation of human existence which is moving in it's elegance even if not wholly supportable by empirical evidence (some of us can find beauty and meaning in religious parable without ascribing reality to it -it is not real in the physical sense, but it is real in so far as it a kind of language to communicate profound psychological phenomenon that clearly motivate very real human behavior).<<<<<

Hard secularism does NOT exist--you are either secular or you are not. Religion in its formal sense is not the same as spiritualism. In fact, I know more spiritual atheists than I know those who claim to be highly religious and who are truly spiritual. Do not confuse spirituality with religiosity--the comparison is offensive. We cannot say that those who are not Xtians don't have spirituality. That attitude is the very reason why many of us are so turned off by those on the religious wrong side. I shouldn't nitpick, but considering the tone of your post, I would like to make a comment on the grammar (and I say this as someone with a degree in English) in the last sentence above. It is not only atrocious, but nearly incomprehensible. Are you trying to rack up points in some obscure vocabulary contest?

>>>>>So if you're so much smarter than all the mouth-breathing retards that believe in God, and we should automatically distrust anyone with religious faith -as though they are all so arrogant as so ready to impose their belief structure on you (while at the same time, you would mock their most cherished beliefs and have all recognition of these beliefs barred from the public as though it really were something to be ashamed of), then maybe we should disavow our respect for the many religious (liberal) leaders who have (do I really have to name them?), over the centuries, sacrificed greatly of themselves to improve the lot of the average human being, and many times accomplished amazing tasks that seemed beyond possibility because the profound psychological strength and endurance granted them by their faith made it possible.<<<<<

A run-on sentence! First of all, NO progressive would EVER use the word "retard" in an essay for public consumption, nor would it ever be considered! And yet again, you try to push the meme that secularists, progressives and non-Xtians somehow are the ones with tolerance issues. As you are trying to push irrelevant and wrong assumptions throughout your post, you are only showing that you are the one suffering from intolerance, and it is most likely that you are neither a progressive (who would have the common decency to frame an argument without insulting as many groups as you have) nor a liberal.

>>>>>in other words, a million sheisty snakeoil salesmen seem like a small price to pay for one MLK.<<<<<

If we are to settle for some shysters (note spelling) who are trying to get rich from the population's blood, sweat and tears, we would be as evil as those who try to connive us. Even Martin Luther King would find himself such a compromise unacceptable. There might be such a thing as forgiveness, but remaining vigilant for those who attempt to deceive us is also prudent.

Liberals Are Patriots, Unctuous Joe
August 13, 2008 04:30 PM ET | John Aloysius Farrell

Sen. Joseph "Unctuous Joe" Lieberman, now working as a warm-up act for the Republican Party, introduced its nominee in Pennsylvania this week by defining this year's election as a choice "between one candidate, John McCain, who has always put his country first...and one candidate who has not."

Let's dismiss, for the moment, the howler that McCain is some sort of sanctified snowy-haired patriot—"The One," if you will—who never makes political calculations.

You can judge for yourself whether McCain's decades in Washington, his involvement in the savings and loan scandal, his ties to lobbyists, his pandering to the Religious Right, his support of President Bush and his flip-flops on taxes, the environment, and other issues are all examples of putting America first.

What's objectionable (though not really surprising) is Lieberman's self-righteousness.

Unctuous Joe has always had a bad case of holier than thou. This is the guy who, as it became clear that he was going to be dumped by his fellow Democrats in his last campaign, announced that he would run as an independent because the fate of his state, nation, and planet required his sage presence in Washington.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/john-farrell/2...

We live in a world made so small, we often forget someone we're chatting with online might be thousands of miles away. We use phones so small we can barely see the number pads, and don't think twice about recording events broadcast off a satellite somewhere encircling the globe.

We've seen footage recorded in space, from shuttles, moon landers and a revolving space station, on its way to finished glory. We have seen people far away and near in agony, in ecstasy, in pain and in death, and we never think about the great distances we have come in all the years before the beginning of the 20th century, scientifically, philosophically, medically, and in every area across the invisible board of man's progression from ignorance to enlightenment.

But, I pause. We can say we've come far, and it is true: if Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, or any other pioneer or inventor were to time travel to this present, their minds would boggle at the tools we have to help us live.

But we haven't really come all that far. We really can't say we are better today than at any other time in the past. In fact, we are probably more barbaric, more violent, more reprehensible than some of our forefathers and fore-mothers could ever have thought possible. And what's also true, is that we have even less regard for our own people, despite the calls of jingoism that reverberate from the white house lawn.

We've put more money into Iraq than we have put into our own populace's welfare. We pretend that the homeless, the starving, the ignorant, the indigent and the dying don't exist here. We forget that the welfare of the American people is as vital as the welfare of any citizen in any other country, and we shake our heads in disbelief as the needs of those people here in the United States are put into second place or lower as rich men rule the land.

We spend way too much time and way too much money thinking and worrying about other nations in this world. It's nice to be friends with these other countries, and it's good for us to lend a hand when we can, but this regime has made every citizen in our own country a second-class human, in deference to the wheeling and dealing they are doing in those other countries, intent on sucking every element they can financially out of those other places, with the sole desire to line their own pockets with as much filthy lucre as they can.

There is no need to go back to an isolationist society, but we should--and need to--take care of ourselves before we begin to invade other countries with the pretense of seeking freedom for them. We need to keep the homeless from dying from exposure in the wintertime. We need to make sure every American gets at least one square meal a day, with the hope of making that a full three meals a day. We need to educate our children with the best teachers, the best text books, and the best spirit of learning possible. We need to fight for the jobs that companies are outsourcing to other nations, simply to take advantage of cheaper wages. We need to stop the violent behavior that plagues many of our inner cities, resulting in so many tragic deaths. We need to make changes in our society to things that are neglected, not thought of, or lead to aberrant behavior that makes life so much more intolerable. We need to worry about US. And once we take care of us, we can take our time taking care of the rest of the world.

But we can only do it for non-selfish reasons. And that's one of the problems with our country right now: we don't do selfless. And that goes down all the way down the line. Until we can clean out our own house, we will never be honestly able to lift our heads, consciences clear.

The next time I see some poor soul who is obviously down and out, the next time I see news of a murder, or the next time I read an article of those who are unemployed or of a corporation getting bailed-out by our government, I will think of how our we, as a nation, have failed the citizens of this country, and have betrayed their trust. And realize that so few in government really give a shit about these things, and so few are really the statesmen--or women--that our history should expect. Robber barons have far more scruples than many who are elected into our government, and we can hope for nothing better if we keep our mouths shut and let the pillaging and lies continue.

Anywhere I want to spend any time at all. Here, in Mass., a house by the ocean, preferably on the north shore, in Rockport or Gloucester or other place in that area; a beach house in Malibu; a flat in London proper; an estate somewhere near Toronto; a farm in Yorkshire (England, that is). I'd buy a house for my mom (if she were still alive--whenever I win this: she's still alive, but barely), finish paying the mortgage for my brother, and buy a house for my sister in which to live. I'd also hire full time nurses around the clock for my mom.

For my nieces and nephews, I'd set up a system where they would get $2 for every $1 they earned on their own--if they wanted to start their own business, I would give them the start-up costs, but for no more than twice in their lifetimes. If they blew the money, that's their problem--I can't waste my time and money bailing them out all the time like a certain idiot we all know and despise. All of them, except one nephew and one grand-nephew, are past college age, but I would pay tuition for them in full if they wanted to go to college with the proviso they carry at the least a 3.0 GPA.

A foundation would be set up--for anyone with that kind of money, it is de rigueur. I would also get recommendations from well-off friends on who would be a good attorney, and a good money manager.

I would also make sure that I had a completely iron-clad will, so that only the bequests I actually want will be made should something happen to me, and make certain my animals are taken care of.

I would also make a few choices that some people might consider somewhat shaky, and those choices would include buying the rights to certain intellectual properties and become executive producer and/or director on them as either TV series or films. This would be one of the dreams I set out for myself, and whether the shows or films went south, the experience would be to me most fulfilling. In addition, I would love to publish a "coffee table" book of my photographs and writing, as this would satisfy the rest of my long awaited dreams.

The rest of the money would sit for awhile in bank vaults earning interest. One more thing I would do, though, is to do what one wealthy man did somewhere in the midwest--he ran a syndicated newspaper column, and encourage people to write to him about what need they might have for monetary contributions--I don't think the amount was ever over $300. People would write to him and they would tell him why they needed money, and he would help out those who would make the best use of the amount they requested. One woman, I recall, told him that she had just gotten a new job, and that she needed the money to buy a used car to get her to and from the job, since it was a long way from where she lived (it was rural) and she couldn't depend on rides from people. It was never anyone asking for money to buy a new PS2 or some ridiculously expensive toy--he granted money to those who had a practical need for it. This is something worth funding, IMO. People spend so much damned money on things they really don't "need" and these things they actually put cash out on, when there are so many who can't even buy food or medicine. Consumerism is alive and doing quite well in Bush's Amerika.

Anyhow, as you can see, I've planned it all out.

You, my dears, are in the minority. You're also mental midgets. Oh, now, you mustn't get angry--I'm just calling them like I see them.

You attack any and all liberals and progressives for perceived policies, but have you looked at your idiot in the white house lately? Have you reviewed his "performance" over the past 7 and a half years? Have you even tried to get out of the mire you call "security" and the rest of us call complete failure?

It's hard, as I sit here trying to figure out how I'm going to get my van back on the road, a task I simply can't afford right now, and buy gas for it at the same time. And spending outrageous amounts at the grocery store for food that was only 1/2 as expensive before King George got himself crowned. He has caused the greatest recession in our country since the Great Depression, he has caused untold numbers of unemployment, he has caused our country to lose the respect of almost all nations worldwide, he has put our defense in severe distress by starting a war with one nation in a pre-emptive strike, he has made millionaires out of many of his friends, and in doing so, he has crippled the United States for what might be decades to come.

He has made large gas guzzlers irrelevant, he has watched the property values of homes plummet into previous unreached depths, he is only a few steps from the insane Greg Stillson from "The Dead Zone" in pushing us to the brink of nuclear devastation, but more than anything else, he has caused the continual degradation of our educational system into unplumbed ignorance and despair.

Mr. Bush can't help doing these things, though, and the 28% of you who stand with him know that it's part of his illness. But there is a definite line between blithe innocence and corrupt sociopathy, and Bush and his entourage haven't been on the side of good for even a ten minute stretch anytime since January 20, 2001.

And what have you really gotten out of the past 7 and a half years?

Wealth? Nope, unless your income is over $250,000, and I would say if it is, you share little in common with most people anyhow;

Health? Oh sure, if you have full and complete insurance and a guaranteed golden parachute. Otherwise, you're as screwed as the vast majority of folks in the U.S.;

Booming economy? Oh, please. Take a look around. Most of us are looking for creative solutions to keep food on the table. Once upon a time, there were victory gardens in most urban settings for people who wanted to grow their own vegetables, fruit and herbs. Nowadays, there is no land for such endeavors, and if there was room to make such use of the earth, right now they would be known as desperation gardens, because there is no victory to celebrate, now or in the future.


You are a supporter of George W. Bush for the following reasons, and these reasons only. Even if you would like to deny these charges, you would be adding lying to the list:

You are a bigot. You hate foreign nationals, you hate them being in YOUR country, how dare they! You think blacks shouldn't get uppity and demand the same rights as white folks. You forget that anyone who isn't 100% native American is and always was a "foreign national."

You are afraid of gays and lesbians, and the thought that someday their "unnatural" deeds will take over the country, and you will be screwed--both literally and figuratively. You will never understand that most of the gay community never really had a choice--that in fact, the "compulsion" to love members of their own sex is as natural as your own sexual preferences. And we know how young you like them, and how difficult it is for you to admit you are perverted yourself.

You are afraid of women. Let's face it: you want to keep women subservient and pliable. When women get equal status, they get uppity and bold. They don't give you sex when you want it, they take control of portions of their own lives which men have controlled for most of recorded history, and they get their own friends and begin to demand things. And don't even mention abortion!!! That's up to you to decide--if you don't give them the money to get one, perhaps they will forget it, have the kid, and end up as you best like them--barefoot and pregnant.

You feel the need for speed. Or rather, in these days, the need for an SUV that shows the world how much power you have and are in charge of. It doesn't matter if you live in the middle of a city, and the only off-roading you will ever do is to find a good patch of grass at a drive-in theatre. So what if the price of gas has gone from about $1.50 during the Clinton years to over $4 in our country today? You won't drive as far, that's all. You don't need to go to the next county to prove that--your neighbors will see it instead. And you don't really need to drive that behemoth anyhow! As long as it's there, in front of your house, it's still a symbol of your power! (Back some years ago, it used to be a convertible for those folks who had the need to show off. Wouldn't you like to have one of those now? Only trouble is, the dealers aren't taking a lot of SUVs anymore in trade, so be prepared to put your house on the market instead--which isn't going to sell, either, but hell, your boss, George Bush tells you everything is going to be okay.)

You hate anyone who doesn't share your religious views, which are so narrow that the eye of a needle is wider. The point here is that you might know your "bible" inside out, but you don't even know what is in the Constitution of the United States, except for the second article in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights has a clause that states that there will be NO establishment of a government religion, as there was in England, France and Spain, among other Western countries. It means that all citizens have the right to worship as they chose, whether it be some form of Xtianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Wiccan, or something else entirely. It's part of the reason people came to this country--because they were being persecuted in their own country for their beliefs. Look-Adolph Hitler was a Xtian--ask anybody! And the Spanish Inquisition wasn't exactly a holiday for anyone who wasn't Xtian. Christians haven't exactly been the pacifistic role models for goodwill and accord worldwide. So, I would simply tell you to stuff it.

You are the only one who knows why you are still supporting the idiot in the white house. Whether you have a mental illness yourself with the belief that GWB is the second coming, or that GWB is bringing all you fundies closer to the End of Days, or simply that you have no soul to examine life as closely as the rest of us, your existence is undeniably sad in your failure to recognize that this administration is the single most horrific event to happen in the United States, even worse than the Civil War, the American Revolution, the World Wars and the Great Depression.

As a wrong-winger, you would pooh-pooh such exaggeration, but if you even acknowledge any of the above catastrophes, you are close to the admission that very few people have benefited from the past 7 and a half years, and that no matter how much you deny this, it's your sanity that's at stake. The rest of us just look in wonder at how twisted and warped your judgement is to still stand behind the policies carried out by this complete debacle in our country.

So folks, it's up to you to decide: shall we make the attempt to move forward, our country united in a bipartisan effort to clean up this ungodly mess? Shall we add a footnote to the 43rd presidency as being the great blotch ever to reek havoc on our country? Shall we finally decide that people are getting hurt, killed and annihilated and it needs to stop?

Or are you too greedy, too selfish, too vain to put out a hand and help someone out of the abyss that has been created? If you call yourself a Xtian, you know that militant tactics were never Jesus's choices--that he helped men and women, thieves and kings alike in his philosophical endeavors. But if you can't admit that you are unable to help because of hatred and fear, perhaps it's time for you to lock your doors on January 21, 2009 and never come out again. The rest of us would like for you to join us in celebrating the end of the dictatorship of Bush and Cheney and move ahead, but if you are so consumed by your own wickedness, perhaps it is best you don't come out at all.

of the icons of their party over the past 7 years, but people die, regardless of who they are. There are very, very few people I actively (mentally, at least!) wish were dead. On the other hand, I grew up with the attitude that we must conduct ourselves with some measure of propriety, and I believe this translates to comments made after someone passes away.

Do we REALLY want to sink to the level of the wrong-wing and blatantly say nasty things about another human being, despite how bad they appear in our eyes?

It used to be a superstition that if one criticized someone who has died, their house would be also visited upon by tragedy. There likely isn't any truth to this, but I think that some people, including myself, prefer to keep glee and satisfaction in check for reasons like this. It's like the Golden Rule--talk about others only in the context of how you, yourself, would like to be treated. No, it's not a commandment, an amendment, or anything as concrete as any sort of law, but as an actual "humane" human being, I find I live a little easier when I don't incorporate all that bitterness into how I think of those on the wrong-wing.

To be frank, I have mainly followed one rule of thumb in my discussions of those who have died who have been an influence on, or have been influenced by, this administration: I ignore them in death just as I have tried to ignore them in life. People give credence to many of these people when they die, giving them more press dead than alive. Is that how we want to look at the denizens of terror and evil, work ourselves up in a lather and obsessing about them after they have gone?

I think that simply making them non-entities after their death is a healthier and appropriate way to deal with them. And not because we need to spare anyone, or not because they didn't deserve to die, or any other such bullshit. We all die, and everyone dies in their own manner. It's best to note their passing, and move on to other things.

I've been reading Chris Hedges' American Fascists, and while I knew its reputation before I started reading, I was reading just to compare it to some of the other books I've been reading on fundies. Some of these books focus on the political side of things, while AF delves further into the mindset of those who are into this cult, and the tactics they use to bring people into the fold, and then never let go. I find it very sad to see how some of these people are derailed on their way to logical thinking, and end up stuck with fanatics and other creeps.

I've come up to a specific section that made my jaw drop even further than it has through other chapters of the book. This section is dealing with a "new class" of affluent "Xtians" and Hedges, at a convention in Anaheim, is describing one of the women at this convention. She and a friend are talking with Hedges, and mention is made of her daughter's wedding:




Okay, so I'm not rich I'm not married, and haven't been to too many weddings, either. But I know my brother and SIL were married 32 years ago by a Justice of the Peace, and they are still together, despite how low-key their marriage started. I can't see spending this kind of money on ANYTHING, least of all a marriage that may or may not work out (the groom is considerably older than the bride, who is 36 at the time of the book). And five hundred people? Is that insane, or is it just my perception?

I know that "rich people" live differently than the rest of us, but I'm appalled at such conspicuous consumption and wastefulness. I just find it very difficult to absorb these things in the general light of all that is wrong with our country sometimes, and how some people just live in such a surreal world that it bears absolutely nothing familiar to me.

These people--this überclass of rich, powerful fundies, is too damned scary for me sometimes. They influence our government, they take something which was once the "promised land" (so to speak), and turn it into a battlefield of "believers and non-believers." They are willing to do anything--and I mean, EVERYTHING--to take our country and let it disintegrate simply to reach their goals they have decided on. And they have the audacity to say THEY are being persecuted?

Is this kind of a wedding de rigueur for someone of an upper class? Or are the excesses mentioned (and I'm sure a lot NOT mentioned) even moreso by these people because they want to be more than merely mentioned? Help me understand how these people think, because I personally believe it's just plain, fucking ridiculous otherwise.

I've fantasized about this for a long time--you have to, in the Bush fiasco of an administration!

1) Yes, mandatory for any list is health care. How to fix it? There are so many different theories about how to make it work for all Americans, and none of them really holds the key. Low income folks such as myself get care through a wide variety of state-run options--here in Massachusetts, it's MassHealth, which is sort of like the Medicaid options that used to be available. Massachusetts passed a law that requires everyone to get medical care in one form or another, and is stepping up to the plate for subsidizing care for everyone. Whether that includes catastrophic coverage, I'm not certain, but the plan is a very progressive one, so I'm sure it has contingencies for those who can't afford to pay emergency bills.

2) Animal rights and welfare. Some of the horrors of animal abuse makes this one of my high priority items. We've seen animal abusers in action--Michael Vick is only one of many fuckers who harm animals and need to be punished for it. Torture and abuse of animals should no longer be a misdemeanor, but an outright felony. In states where there is a three-strike law, perhaps some of these bastards would think twice if they knew they could be sent away for a very long time by abusing or harming an animal. Medical research has also advanced significantly to the point where animal computer models can be used in many instances, instead of killing or harming animals. If we lose our compassion toward animals, we are certainly not part of "humanity," are we?

3) Make the bastards pay for their crimes. I only wish that Ken Lay had paid for his crimes, too, but there are others, like Jack Abramoff, Jeff Skilling, Grover Norquist, and more who should share jail cells with so many neo-cons and members of this administration. Supermax doesn't even sound punishment enough: there are innocent detainees in Gitmo who have suffered for 7 years, and we certainly can't forget those at Abu Graib who were tortured, abused, and in some instances, died.

4) Make an amendment to tell the religious right to fuck off and die. It needs to be part of the federal legal system that creationism is NOT true, and that we are depriving the next generation of a real education if they are not taught science and evolution. In fact, I think there need to be federal standards for all colleges and university, and if students from those universities fail to meet those standards, the college or university should lose its accreditation. As with government, I don't think there should be any kind of religion at higher levels of education. If a college, like one of those whacko bible colleges, can't teach without insinuating their radical religious slant to the curriculum, they shouldn't exist. In addition to their educational restrictions, the religious wrong needs to be shown for the money-grubbing extremists that they are. And once exposed to the light, they can no longer harm any of us with their lies, their blatant attempts to mold our country into a theocracy.

5) Corporations need to lose their status if they decide to register as foreign corporations, and other tax evasion strategies. If a company that was a former US corporation moves to become a foreign entity, their tariffs on "importing" products to the US should be equal to, if not more, than what they would be paying for taxes as US companies. And companies that outsource more than 25% of their labor should be charged appropriately as to taxes on foreign workers. In addition, companies that won't give their workers insurance should be made to pay additional surcharges, taxes, what have you, to the government to assist in bringing insurance to all those employees anyhow. I know a lot of companies cut the hours on their employees in order to avoid paying for insurance. I don't know what the average is, but I think it's 32 hours is the cutoff. I would make insurance mandatory for ALL employees, regardless of how many hours they have to work.

6) Mandatory research and implementation of bringing transportation into the 21st century: all fossil fuels must be dropped within ten years, and for older cars, the government needs to assist in converting these cars and other vehicles into non-fossil fuel ones. Automobile manufacturers must immediately utilize measures which will make the conversions easy and quickly, and any vehicles which cannot meet those new standards must be scrapped. In addition, unless there is proof that a humongous travesty of a vehicle is needed (which is really unlikely under my dictatorship), all SUVs the size of a small country will vanish from the face of the earth and used solely as lawn ornaments only. We really need to bring back nice, ordinary station wagons, and I love my van, which is as big a vehicle as most families should have.

7) Lobbyists need to be ruled as non-conducive to the spirit of statehood. No more measures to affect the votes of OUR representatives by bribery of any kind. This is the nation of ALL the people, and definitely NOT the corporations of the country. And that should be reflected in the records of those representatives. If the people in any district believe that their rep is not representing their wishes, there should be penalties imposed on those representatives. And the more penalties a politician gets on his "permanent record," the less he or she will be able to "serve" that district. Just throwing numbers out right now, but 50 penalties on someone's record could make them ineligible to serve another term. Or if it's the money and power trips, deduct $5000 a year for 100 penalties, etc. In addition, while we have our senators, for example serving 6 years, so many penalties will deduct 6 months to a year from their term, and if they are left with less than a year as a result of penalties, a special election in their state would be warranted, and they would not be able to run again--ever.

8 ) NO DRILLING--EVER--in any national or state parks, reserves, refuges, preservations, or anywhere else where there is wildlife or natural resources threatened. Since we would be switching over to non-fossil fuels anyway, this will become a moot point. In addition, NO GRAZING on government land ever again. If a rancher can't take care of his animals on his own ranch, too fucking bad. Herds should be cut for the benefit of the animals and not to the liking of the ranchers. And everyone in the country should be instructed at least once on a weekly basis on how to consume more grains, more vegetables, and more fruits, and less on livestock. (That is such a deplorable word--livestock. It certainly is a cruel word, if nothing else.)

9) For the benefit of ALL children in our country, there will be no use of cell phones, blackberries, pagers, calculators in any schools. A truly involving course of study will make them better students and teach them more. Dampeners would need to be put up around schools, and if their is an emergency of some sort, it should go through the principal's office like it used to be. As far as protection and security at all schools, I see no problem with scanners or metal detectors used on everyone--staff AND students--to check for weapons. If even one weapon is detected anywhere as a result of scanners, it will have been worth it. In fact, I would even suggest that all weapons--or potential weapons--have some kind of chip (or something) which can render them useless if someone attempts to smuggle them into schools or universities. Some students might try blades or knives, but those could be eliminated through a metal detector. Whatever will work--I would definitely put research teams on the subject.

10) When I was in London many years ago now, one of the parks had (literally) soapboxes set up for those who chose to use them. I think our country needs more soapboxes, and more involvement of the people in the country instead of couch potatoes. If I could, I would also make some kind of mandatory involvement for all able-bodied folks as part of their community. Perhaps a civics class once a week, or some method to get people to simply to meet neighbors or find out about the real facts, and not the lies politicians want to feed them. The people in the US are so self-involved, and so many don't even know the least iota of knowledge about their government. Once they have been taught the facts, perhaps we will see improvement in attitudes in the population.

11) Yes, I want an 11th, as a result of my #10! NO MORE REALITY SHOWS. Idol can stay around, I suppose, but 90% of the rest of these damned shows should disappear into the oblivion that they so richly deserve.

And that's my decree. Make it so, number one!

>>>>>Would you gleefully giggle at the prospect of another person's death?<<<<<

It depends 100% on who the corpse is. I might enjoy my fantasy world with the many scenarios I can dream up, but acting upon those wishes in RL is as likely as me running a marathon. Which means it would never happen.

I think that everyone creates scenarios where someone might exact revenge upon another, but the key is whether it is actionable.


As far as the bozo in chief is concerned, I think his main weakness is his arrogance. It's been the one thing which has given him hubris and the desire to fuck other people over so much. He won't listen to anyone who might actually know what they're doing, instead of becoming a tool for others who flatter him and make him feel bigger than he is. We can blame a lot of that on Babs and Poppy, because he never learned humility--someone was bailing him out all his life. So he instead ignores reason in favor of pure, unadulterated malice and connivance. But it's mainly because those were the "values" that were instilled in him. I don't feel sorry for him at all--he is a tool for a lot of whackos, and he just loves his own role in all of these schemes and plans.

I saw the headline and the author, and just knew I had to bring it to you all. Mr. Sleazy Ass is trying to swiftboat already. I hope someone corrects him before his article becomes a meme.
_______________________________________________________________

Wall Street Journal
It's All About Obama
By KARL ROVE
June 26, 2008; Page A13

Many candidates have measured the Oval Office drapes prematurely. But Barack Obama is the first to redesign the presidential seal before the election.

His seal featured an eagle emblazoned with his logo, and included a Latin version of his campaign slogan. This was an attempt by Sen. Obama to make himself appear more presidential. But most people saw in the seal something else – chutzpah – and he's stopped using it. Such arrogance – even self-centeredness – have featured often in the Obama campaign.

<snip>

For example, Mr. Obama has said he "strongly supported public financing" and pledged to take federal funds for the fall, thereby limiting his spending to roughly $84 million. Now convinced he can raise more than $84 million, he reversed course last week, ditching the federal money and its limits. But by discarding his earlier pledge so easily, he raises doubts about whether his word can be trusted.

<snip>

Mr. Obama has now also played the race card, twice suggesting in recent weeks that Republicans will draw attention to the fact that he's black. Who is unaware of that? Americans overwhelmingly find it a hopeful, optimistic sign that the country could elect an African-American president. But they rightly want to know what kind of leader he might be. They may well reject as cynical any maneuver to discourage close examination of him by suggesting any criticism is racially motivated.

The candidate's self-centeredness has been on display before. Having effectively sewed up the Democratic nomination, he could have agreed to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations (states Hillary Clinton had carried). While reducing his lead by 50 to 55 delegates, it would not have altered the outcome. But Mr. Obama supported cutting these battleground-state delegations in half. At a time when magnanimity was called for, the candidate decided he'd strut.

<snip>

Mr. McCain will be helped if he uses Mr. Obama's actions to paint his opponent as someone driven by an all-powerful instinct to look out only for himself. In a contest over who is willing to put principle above personal ambition and self-interest, John McCain, a war hero and a former POW, wins hands down. That may not be the most important issue to voters in electing a president, but it's something they will rightly take into account.

Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1214438232...

To most bigots, it's a question of control. If we elect a person who is "different" than their ideal, they feel out of control, and will fight to regain that control. It's one of the reasons there is so much resistance to change in our country. It's a form of immaturity--our country is relatively young in terms of history and government, and while longer established countries are mature enough to elect members of other races, women and different faiths, the "white male" is still firmly in charge of the American mindset.

No, it's not just this once--it's been ongoing since the very beginning. And black people were once the slaves of the white people, and that is how much of the mindset of the bigots work: if we elect a person who is not white (or only half-white in this case), these people believe that they are losing control of something they held firmly--power and control of it.

By putting forth Obama as our candidate, we are risking a great deal, and no matter how wistfully we hope he will win, the other side just has to appeal to all the prejudice out there, all the intolerant people who have heretofore stayed out of the polling places, and simply ask, "Do you want a black man to be in charge of our country?" And from there, there will be a massive effort set forth to kill such an historic event.

I will always support our candidate, regardless, but I know what scared, bigoted white men can do when they set their mind to it. And don't think that Obama's skin color isn't going to be factored in to McCain's commercials--they will make sure the message is loud and clear.

it will create flame bait.

Do others have that same sort of feeling, that there are simply some issues best left untalked about, because your opinion of an issue would make you unpopular or enrage others?

While it seems, for the most part, that people are mostly tolerant of almost every single topic of interest, in practice it isn't quite that clean-cut. The primaries were a very clear point of showing this polemic and the uproar it caused.

And then there is the concern for political correctness--there are too many people who are sensitive to some issues and opinions, and often those of us who feel a certain way are challenged by those who are looking for references to certain phrases, cliches, what have you, and will become belligerent no matter how innocent something might seem to the person who says it.

Sometimes, I want to rant and shout about something, but I hesitate, and often find myself editing my writing to eliminate anything which might offend someone. It takes away some of the spontaneity of my writing, though, and in the end, I have to wonder if what I say even approaches the full intent of my comments. Do certain axioms and comments have loaded meanings? Of course they do, but sometimes that's the point--to say something in an outrageous way to spark discussion and debate. Instead, some people simply attack the author of a piece without "getting" what the piece is about in the first place.

A couple of times, to be sarcastic, I have posted a "disclaimer" on my work, simply to make it completely clear that I'm not trying to offend anyone or any group in particular, and that the words and tone are intentional in order to get the ball rolling. But I decided some time later that posting a disclaimer implies that some of the people reading the post are halfwits--if someone can't get the tone of the piece without a warning, they shouldn't be here, trying to answer such a post. Rhetoric can be a powerful device in the creation of writing, but unless people are aware of and familiar with it, then it serves no purpose other than to be loud and offensive.

I know the Humanities in college and high school have been short shrifted for some time now--hell, in some places, basic biology and evolution are so volatile as to be rendered useless--but if we could introduce different styles of writing used throughout history, we should be able to make it easily apparent what style of writing is being utilized, and then the words used will become part of the argument, not the argument itself.

I would love to see more engaging discussions, without the flames thrown on what is perfectly good writing, just because someone doesn't understand the purpose of the piece. Hell, in one example, I could even imagine someone taking a historical piece of writing such as "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift (a satirical piece if you aren't familiar with it) and taking it at face value.

Toning down a piece of writing to make it appeal to the lowest common denominator often weakens it, and certainly makes the thoughts in it as bland as possible, fully removing the bite, the wit and the spirit of something. Trying to be so politically correct that you lose your edge in writing begs the question of whether the writing is even worth the effort. There are times when perceived insults make true debate impossible, when every single word is weighted as to its meaning and tone, instead of examining the writing as a whole.

The impact of such writing is forever lost, and while some people will be happier and cozier in their beds at night, believing that they are helping to abolish narrow-mindedness, they are helping to abolish a mode of writing which goes back over 3000 years, and which has been highly effective many times in history.

Hey, the next generation has, across the board, helped to wipe out grammar and spelling already, so what do they care about understanding literature?