Tuesday, December 30, 2003
This is your new gov California!
Saturday, December 27, 2003
An interesting read for sure.
Thursday, December 25, 2003
The exception to the administrations poor environmental record is the Interstate Air Quality rule. This program will reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides in 30 eastern states, bringing most counties into compliance with the Clean Air Act. Even the environmentalists agree that this will be the result. This is also an act whose passage was ignored in the media. Guess no credit can be given to this administration.
Tuesday, December 23, 2003
Legalize gay marriages. My reasons for supporting this have varied. I do not find gay sex agreeable. I do not know if being gay is genetic or simply deviant sexual behavior. I do believe that prohibiting a gay union restricts the rights of a gay man or woman and is discrimination, plain and simple.
For me, this issue is becoming more about equality than the moral/religious aspect. My rants started to extol the superiority of a gay union over an un-happy hetero- union. Well, a happy hetero- union is also better than an unhappy one. This argument had to be put to rest. After all, who's to say a gay couple can't be as unhappy and 'dysfunctional' as a hetero- couple?
I moved on to what I feel is a better argument. There was (and in some peoples' minds, still is) a time when blacks were seen as non-human, that denying them rights was normal and acceptable. Same with women. We have come to see this as arrogant and incorrect. Why do we not afford gay people the same respect? It seems to me that everyone wants respect and equality for all-as long as the all does not include those that they feel 'don't belong'. I think this is wrong. I think those who are so terrified of gay couples should get to know some gay people. Eliminate the ignorance, and the hatred may follow.
Monday, December 22, 2003
Thursday, December 18, 2003
Back to the matter at hand. A list has been compiled by Young America's Foundation of the top 10 most shameful campus events. This is a funny read.
Monday, December 15, 2003
However, here is a good article in defense of this corporation. It all makes you think. And in my case, throws me into a whirlwind of conflicting thoughts and confusion.
Friday, December 12, 2003
Thursday, December 11, 2003
Wednesday, December 10, 2003
It also tells about their people and customs.
Granted, oil folk say they can remove the oil in an environmental fashion. The question is whether or not they will. Since these indigenous people have highlighted the situation, perhaps care will be taken so as to avoid bad press. We can only hope. Then, hopefully, these people will be compensated as they have been promised.
Tuesday, December 09, 2003
"Sydney, Australia is regularly voted one of the world's best cities to live in, but a new environment report has warned its affluent lifestyle is ecologically unsustainable. The 2003 environment report on the Australian state of New South Wales (NSW) says Sydney residents are wasting millions of gallons of water, demanding ever more electricity and remain car obsessed, increasing greenhouse gas emissions."
Now call me crazy, but couldn't this describe a vast majority of cities in the US? When are we going to see a study like this regarding a US city or the US itself? I guess it's ok for Aussies to criticize their own lifestyle. I don't know how well that would go over here.
Monday, December 08, 2003
Friday, December 05, 2003
Thursday, December 04, 2003
Let’s look at the drama surrounding the use of the phrase “under God”. This phrase is in the Pledge of Allegiance, on our currency and in the Constitution. Although I don’t really agree with the venue chosen, the atheist man in California who went to court over the use of this phrase in public schools had a point. His ‘religion’, is atheism. While this is not a church, and atheists don’t convene to discuss how there is no god, it is a belief structure. Is this not covered under the 1st Amendment? Why are atheists denied the same rights that a practicing Christian has? That is contrary to the 1st Amendment, and it contradicts the “freedom of religion” message many devout Christians claim to espouse.
One of Alabama’s ex-Chief Justice’s was recently removed from his position as the result of his placing a monument for the 10 Commandments in the State Judicial building. Actually, let me clarify-he was stripped of his position-not for displaying this 2.6 ton granite monument, but because he ignored the ruling of a higher court that deemed it an illegal display and left it where it was. His claim was that this country was founded on Christian beliefs and therefore it should be allowed. However, while I do think the Commandments have a good message in them, they are a Christian based set of beliefs. Let me again call attention to atheists, polytheists, or many eastern religions. This man claimed his rights were being squelched, yet he failed to consider not only the Constitution (separation of Church and State), but the rights of people who DO NOT share his views.
Now let’s toss the idea of gay marriage around. First of all, I applaud the State of Massachusetts for ruling that gay marriage is not illegal. Why is this idea opposed by so many? What group is most vocal in condemning this practice? People who believe in the Bible, and the devoutly religious or various faiths. Let me pose this question-when it is said that these people are destroying the sanctity of marriage, what is this based on? Oh yeah-God saying that homosexuality is wrong. Well, what if you have a different faith? Is this not another instance of forcing a person of a different religion to accept what you believe to be true? I won’t get into this topic too deeply, that’s another blog. But I am not sure I’ve heard any mention as to this aspect. If I were an atheist, I would care less that YOUR god in YOUR book doesn’t agree with my lifestyle. After all, western religions and beliefs are looked upon with scorn by many other religions. Why is this different?
These are just a couple of examples of what I see as the squelching of religious rights in this country. Too many people are more than willing to mount their soapbox in defense of THEIR way of life; to defile non-believers or believers of another creed as un-American and evil. I think this is a travesty. I am glad many people are so staunchly supportive of their faith. But they need to practice the tolerance they demand for themselves. I am not sure how or if we can convince these people that they are acting in a way they would deem unacceptable if it were enacted upon them. They need to remember, and practice the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
It's amazing to me that a trial for a crime this large is proceeding almost completely under the radar. I had not heard about until I snooped around and found this article.
This man is a study in excess, and power gone bad. I wonder if he has any daughters....
ATO: "You reckon that there are so many contradictions between the West and the Muslim world, is there any chance of reconciliation and dialogue between the two civilizations?"
Munawar: "There is none. The basic concepts of both civilizations are in total contrast with each other. When I say this I do not address Western civilization as Christianity. I speak of a man-made system completely devoid of divine guidance. Our concepts of God, human beings, the universe, are totally in contrast with the concepts of the Western world. We cannot segregate human lives into private and public, our lives are ruled by divine guidance, not by man-made rules based on his own prejudices and specific mindset characterized by its own dilemmas and shortcomings. Our concept of the universe is not materialistic, and the result of an 'accident'. Instead, it was a very well thought out process envisaged by the creator of the universe with a plan. So these basic concepts have made the difference between ours and Western approaches."
South Dakota Senator Janklow was recently charged with killing a motorcyclist with his car. These facts are known-the Senator’s car hit and killed a motorcyclist. The Senator was driving. He and his car were moving at approximately 70mph when it/they broadsided the motorcycle. The intersection where this occurred has stop signs on only one of the intersection roads-the one the Senator was driving on. This Senator has a long history of speeding tickets, near misses and accidents; since 1990 he’s had a dozen tickets and was involved in four accidents. Nearly a year ago, the Senator almost caused a similar accident-at the same intersection! For this he did not get a ticket even though the police were called and investigated. Makes you wonder what his traffic record would look like had he been given all the tickets he deserved. He is not a good driver, and has gotten away with his vehicular transgressions because of his position. These are facts. My question is this-how the hell can he plead innocent? He killed a man because he is a terrible driver. He knows this. We all know this. The dead man’s family knows this. And they have to hear him plead innocent to this crime? That has to be heart-wrenching for them! How could this man not be guilty? How can he not have the cojones to plead innocent, like a grown man, and take the punishment coming to him? His pleading innocent is an insult to the man who has been killed and to his family. To me, this act negates ANY apology he may have issued or any remorse he claimed to have felt. It makes me sick to see someone show such blatant disregard for another person and for the law, especially when said person has been chosen to represent American people and uphold the law! I despise this man for how he is reacting to his actions. Apparently he found his previous transgressions laughable and not nearly serious enough. Perhaps my being a motorcyclist lends me to being more riled over this event as I have dealt with idiots and their disregard for me on the roadway.
Again I digress. My point is question is how people who are known to be wrong can plead innocent. I suppose it’s not wanting to pay for their crimes (even if they support the laws that make these actions illegal) and hoping that some error will be made that will enable them to be acquitted of their crimes sans penalty. Disgusting, even worse when done by a public official.
Wednesday, December 03, 2003
Let's ignore the commercialism that superseded the original reason for being decadent (Christ's supposed birth) and the sterility that has been forced upon the holiday.
What is the pagan holiday? Santa Clause (aka-Kris Kringle, Sinter Claus, etc) brings toys and happiness to all the girls and boys in the world. Spreading messages of peace, love, harmony, blah blah blah. Let's explore in depth:
Who makes all the toys? The elves. Might this be the original sweat shop? How are they compensated for their efforts? They have to be slaves-why else would they be in the North Pole.
Who pulls and guides the sleigh? The reindeer. Why hasn't PETA stepped up yet on this issue? A wild animal forced into indentured servitude? That ain't right.
What does Santa do? Not much.
He spies on people all year (anyone remember the Commie scare and J. Edgar Hoover?) deciding who has been good and who has been bad, essentially forcing his value system (which doesn't seem so high) on the rest of the world. Not to mention the fact that he is peeking into your window seeing who knows what. Maybe he bases a kid's goodness based on his parents' proclivity for undressing and doing dirty things.
He takes credit for the work of his elf slaves. They make all the toys while he sits around, hand in pants, swilling Old Crow looking into peoples' homes with his extra strength telescope. I'll bet he doesn't even shower or wash his Santa Suit for most of the year.
He probably beats his wife-why else would she hang around this pervert in a place as inhospitable as the North Pole? Speaking of the NP, what better place to set up shop and ensure low employee turnover? Too cold to run away. Plus, there is nothing to do all year long except slave away at making toys and babies (aka-future employees).
A bowlful of jello? Of course he's a big fat tub of goo. He doesn't do a dang thing all year (except the above mentioned atrocities) until the night before Christmas. Then he capitalizes on the birth of Christ (and peoples' greediness) and goes around distributing the efforts of his slaves' hard work. In reward for being a lazy slob, he gets to fill his burgeoning gut on the goodies left for him!
Santa is a slave driving, perverted man, possibly into spousal abuse and child porn. A peeping tom at the least. Perhaps he is also the head of the largest most influential militia in history. Who knows what they are really doing up there, but Santa (rearrange the words and you get Satan) controls the minds of millions. That is terrifying.
Somebody let Bush know. Santa/Satan may have weapons of mass destruction. At the least, we need to invade for the sake of his slaves/prisoners and poor Mrs. Clause, who are unable to speak for themselves. We also have to do it to protect ourselves and our children! We have let him control us for too long! Who knows what evil plans his twisted frost covered mind has constructed! We must act!
Tuesday, December 02, 2003
Here is another article on the subject. This one has quotes from the remaining members of the board, and more about Roy Disney. As a company that prefers to squelch dissent and bad reviews, I have a hard time taking the comments from the board seriously. It's sad that a company that plays such a huge part in the lives of many people has such poor standards and little respect for something as simple as free speech.
Monday, December 01, 2003
However, the story that really caught my attention was this one. Apparently, people were in such a hurry to take advantage of a huge DVD player sale, that when the doors open, the woman in front was trampled repeatedly, even though the woman's sister was trying to help her up. She ended up being hospitalized. All of this for a DVD player? This is one of the things that frustrates me about people. These shoppers were so blinded by greed that they were willing to kill someone, essentially, FOR A DVD PLAYER! It's not as though it was a food line, and these were starving people. It was an entertainment piece! The fact that a piece of electronics took precedence over a person's life is despicable. I think it would be great if they could take the security video and identify the tramplers, and hold them responsible for what they did-make them pay this woman's hospital bills. And take their precious DVD players back.
Question-would the trampled woman have behaved any different had it been someone other than her on the ground?