Apparently the discussion Senator Obama wants to have on race is “YOU’RE FIRED”!
This is the edge ________________________ This is OVER the Edge
_______________________________________I’m here!
To be “encouraged to step down” after calling children playing in a tree “monkeys” is the last straw! Politically correct people annoy me. Politically correct people who push their Nazi like agenda on others make me mad! People who push their Nazi agenda on others using children makes me furious!!
Please read this story!
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-carpenter-trustee-both-08apr08,0,568283.story
What happened to the party of choice? The party of “Free Speech”?
If Senator Obama’s response to this issue is any indication, IT”S DEAD!
And before any Loon de la Left pops their head up and says” Obama didn’t make her step down”, may I point out:
1. The “encouragement” to step down came from the Obama camp.
2. If Obama is going to run our country, he should be running his political machine.
3. He could have defended Trustee Linda Ramirez Sliwinski and opened the mythical “conversation on race”.
Is Senator Obama’s “Conversation on Race” “Case Closed”?
Is this conversation merely to point out that we’re not allowed to have it?
If I were a cartoonist, I would draw Curious George, hanging in a tree, holding a NO POLITICAL CORRECTNESS sign!
If Sen. Obama’s criterion for “conversation” is that you must agree with everything he says, it certainly displays leadership potential. But perhaps NOT leadership of free people.
And as an old pinochle player, let me add: “That’s just calling a spade, a spade”!
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Monday, April 7, 2008
Military Service vs. College Degree
In the article “On Rev. Wright” I took a small swipe at the military:
"Military service is a measure of patriotism.
Every rule has its exceptions, but for the most part: Check!"
Yes, there are those who try to steal the benefits of service with no obligation to actually serve. Oh those pesky wars! These people are their own problems, and beyond saying that they probably don’t keep score at T-Ball, I’ll move on.
This article is about those who serve with honor.
In my humble opinion, a two, four or six year enlistment looks better on a resume than an Associates, Bachelors or Masters degree. I also notice this opinion is catching on in the main stream.
Let’s face it, the T-Ball crowd is gutting our education system. What started so “innocently” in preschool has now spread all the way through high school. It appears that the minimum requirement for graduation from high school is occasional attendance. You don’t actually have to learn anything; you only have to feel good about it!
As a result colleges are dumbing down to accommodate the fresh crops of T-Ballers!
It is VERY possible to complete four years at an “Institution of Higher Learning” and only be marginally qualified for a career in fast foods.
Not to overly bash Colleges! Many of our best and brightest come from “Institutions of Higher Education”. But many of even the best and brightest lack the following important qualities:
The ability to take orders.
The ability to give orders.
The ability to work as a team.
The ability to work alone.
Understand the importance of victory.
Understand the results of defeat.
As a bare minimum any person completing an enlistment will possess these qualities and more! The College of the Americas is available for every enlisted person so they may also educate themselves to any degree they might choose. Any enlisted person that attains a college level education stands head and shoulders above all others!
By my experience, it’s better to hire an attitude and teach a skill than it is to hire a skill and teach an attitude.
The military keeps score at T-Ball!
"Military service is a measure of patriotism.
Every rule has its exceptions, but for the most part: Check!"
Yes, there are those who try to steal the benefits of service with no obligation to actually serve. Oh those pesky wars! These people are their own problems, and beyond saying that they probably don’t keep score at T-Ball, I’ll move on.
This article is about those who serve with honor.
In my humble opinion, a two, four or six year enlistment looks better on a resume than an Associates, Bachelors or Masters degree. I also notice this opinion is catching on in the main stream.
Let’s face it, the T-Ball crowd is gutting our education system. What started so “innocently” in preschool has now spread all the way through high school. It appears that the minimum requirement for graduation from high school is occasional attendance. You don’t actually have to learn anything; you only have to feel good about it!
As a result colleges are dumbing down to accommodate the fresh crops of T-Ballers!
It is VERY possible to complete four years at an “Institution of Higher Learning” and only be marginally qualified for a career in fast foods.
Not to overly bash Colleges! Many of our best and brightest come from “Institutions of Higher Education”. But many of even the best and brightest lack the following important qualities:
The ability to take orders.
The ability to give orders.
The ability to work as a team.
The ability to work alone.
Understand the importance of victory.
Understand the results of defeat.
As a bare minimum any person completing an enlistment will possess these qualities and more! The College of the Americas is available for every enlisted person so they may also educate themselves to any degree they might choose. Any enlisted person that attains a college level education stands head and shoulders above all others!
By my experience, it’s better to hire an attitude and teach a skill than it is to hire a skill and teach an attitude.
The military keeps score at T-Ball!
On Civil Unions
This is another great example of a topic that needs a good Whack a Mole session!
Let’s throw some common sense at it. First, let’s start with some facts.
1. Separation of church and state. The federal government is not to endorse or promote the doctrine of any religion.
2. If you are married in any faith, there are usually TWO ceremonies. The one before God (for faith) and the one immediately after where you sign the marriage license (for the government).
3. You can elect to be married only in the eyes of the government. This requires only the presence of a qualified government employee (I have no idea what the qualifications are) and a witness.
If I remember correctly, this issue first came to the forefront when a man, dying of AIDS, was not allowed to be visited by his partner in intensive care. The dying man either had no family, or worse, had no family wanting to share in his life. All he had was his friend, love and partner! It spotlighted the fact that unless you are “family” or “spouse”, there are limitations as to your legal interactions with another person.
Of all the arguments against Civil Unions, the only one with any validity (in my opinion) is “Gods Law” But God is not the government and the government is not God, despite what the Loons Left and Right would wish for!
The government should hold no prejudice over the unions of peoples. The purpose of a civil marriage license is to stop incest, limit the spread of STD’s and (as always) collect taxes.
As I understand the King James Bible, faith based marriage between same sex couples isn’t happening. But, hey, the King James is a version of a version. Why doesn’t someone write a new version! Really! In the King James, the Old Testament is copied from the Torah (minus three chapters that show women as wise, strong and good leaders), and the New Testament is a collection of personal accounts that served the purposes of King James. If you don’t like the Sodom and Gomorrah parts, write your own and start a new religion. They’ve been doing it for centuries.
What I don’t approve of is holding any document (bible, constitution or other) up as THE doctrine, and then saying “except for the parts we don’t like”.
In for a penny, in for a pound.
To make matters worse, the zealots have now raised the bar. Civil unions are not enough! Now it’s marriage or nothing.
Only zealots TRY to offend as many people as possible to advance their agenda!
I wish everyone who cares about gay rights could learn two small lessons:
1. The smallest victory advances your cause. The smallest defeat sets you back.
2. (This is the big one!) The Democratic Party is NOT your friend! Strong words, I know, but here is my proof. From the day that the Democratic Party lost power, there was a daily drumbeat for gay rights. Since the day they regained power the drumbeat stopped. Why?
Why isn’t President Bush forced to veto a gay rights bill every week? If nothing else, it would vilify the Republican Party (Unless he actually signed it). And don’t try to tell me they’ve been too busy! What do they have to lose? I’ll tell you. It’s your vote that they don’t want to lose! If the gay rights community reaches its dream, it will move on to new agendas. Why mess with a good thing?
The Loons De La Left are a stone around your necks and the Loons de la Right are, well, the Loons de la right. Our only hope to advance gay rights is to avoid the Loons and drive up the middle!
Let’s throw some common sense at it. First, let’s start with some facts.
1. Separation of church and state. The federal government is not to endorse or promote the doctrine of any religion.
2. If you are married in any faith, there are usually TWO ceremonies. The one before God (for faith) and the one immediately after where you sign the marriage license (for the government).
3. You can elect to be married only in the eyes of the government. This requires only the presence of a qualified government employee (I have no idea what the qualifications are) and a witness.
If I remember correctly, this issue first came to the forefront when a man, dying of AIDS, was not allowed to be visited by his partner in intensive care. The dying man either had no family, or worse, had no family wanting to share in his life. All he had was his friend, love and partner! It spotlighted the fact that unless you are “family” or “spouse”, there are limitations as to your legal interactions with another person.
Of all the arguments against Civil Unions, the only one with any validity (in my opinion) is “Gods Law” But God is not the government and the government is not God, despite what the Loons Left and Right would wish for!
The government should hold no prejudice over the unions of peoples. The purpose of a civil marriage license is to stop incest, limit the spread of STD’s and (as always) collect taxes.
As I understand the King James Bible, faith based marriage between same sex couples isn’t happening. But, hey, the King James is a version of a version. Why doesn’t someone write a new version! Really! In the King James, the Old Testament is copied from the Torah (minus three chapters that show women as wise, strong and good leaders), and the New Testament is a collection of personal accounts that served the purposes of King James. If you don’t like the Sodom and Gomorrah parts, write your own and start a new religion. They’ve been doing it for centuries.
What I don’t approve of is holding any document (bible, constitution or other) up as THE doctrine, and then saying “except for the parts we don’t like”.
In for a penny, in for a pound.
To make matters worse, the zealots have now raised the bar. Civil unions are not enough! Now it’s marriage or nothing.
Only zealots TRY to offend as many people as possible to advance their agenda!
I wish everyone who cares about gay rights could learn two small lessons:
1. The smallest victory advances your cause. The smallest defeat sets you back.
2. (This is the big one!) The Democratic Party is NOT your friend! Strong words, I know, but here is my proof. From the day that the Democratic Party lost power, there was a daily drumbeat for gay rights. Since the day they regained power the drumbeat stopped. Why?
Why isn’t President Bush forced to veto a gay rights bill every week? If nothing else, it would vilify the Republican Party (Unless he actually signed it). And don’t try to tell me they’ve been too busy! What do they have to lose? I’ll tell you. It’s your vote that they don’t want to lose! If the gay rights community reaches its dream, it will move on to new agendas. Why mess with a good thing?
The Loons De La Left are a stone around your necks and the Loons de la Right are, well, the Loons de la right. Our only hope to advance gay rights is to avoid the Loons and drive up the middle!
Saturday, April 5, 2008
On Evolution
As long as I’m playing whack a mole with the Loons de la Right over science v religion, let’s talk about evolution.
From my early teen’s I have looked at the loons both left and right and shook my head in amazement. If you bother to read both Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, specifically his theory of Natural Selection and the book of Genesis starting at 1:1 you might notice something very interesting. They copy each other almost word for word!
Here are the links:
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genesis.html
I did say “almost”! With so much in common, what do the Loons Left and Right fight over?
Days and clay.
This is another reason why I have no use for Loons! With so much in common, let’s fight, slander, legislate, and even kill over what little divides us!
My slant? Thank you for asking! Let’s throw some common sense at it!
Beware! I’m a deep science buff who also has no choice but to believe in God!
Common Sense:
God didn’t write Genesis! Men did. Don’t get me started on men!
Genesis was written at the dawn of mans ability to communicate.
I feel that both these statements stand on their own two feet.
Now, “what if”?
What if, man (at the time) wasn’t ready to grasp Gods “day”?
What if, Man was not ready to sell, “we’re this far away from monkeys”?
I’m not crying “typo” but “what if”.
If “day” was God’s day, how long would it have been?
If God were a child of Earth, the day would be 24 hours long.
If God were a child of our solar system, the day would be 365 of our days.
If god were a child of our galaxy, the day would be 225 million years.
If God were a child of the universe, the day would be like forever man! Kool!
If we could whack a mole ALL the loons and focus on what we have in common, maybe we could locate God’s I P address! Then we could knock off a quick e-mail and get a ruling on “clay”.
Just thinking out loud here. What do you think?
From my early teen’s I have looked at the loons both left and right and shook my head in amazement. If you bother to read both Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, specifically his theory of Natural Selection and the book of Genesis starting at 1:1 you might notice something very interesting. They copy each other almost word for word!
Here are the links:
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genesis.html
I did say “almost”! With so much in common, what do the Loons Left and Right fight over?
Days and clay.
This is another reason why I have no use for Loons! With so much in common, let’s fight, slander, legislate, and even kill over what little divides us!
My slant? Thank you for asking! Let’s throw some common sense at it!
Beware! I’m a deep science buff who also has no choice but to believe in God!
Common Sense:
God didn’t write Genesis! Men did. Don’t get me started on men!
Genesis was written at the dawn of mans ability to communicate.
I feel that both these statements stand on their own two feet.
Now, “what if”?
What if, man (at the time) wasn’t ready to grasp Gods “day”?
What if, Man was not ready to sell, “we’re this far away from monkeys”?
I’m not crying “typo” but “what if”.
If “day” was God’s day, how long would it have been?
If God were a child of Earth, the day would be 24 hours long.
If God were a child of our solar system, the day would be 365 of our days.
If god were a child of our galaxy, the day would be 225 million years.
If God were a child of the universe, the day would be like forever man! Kool!
If we could whack a mole ALL the loons and focus on what we have in common, maybe we could locate God’s I P address! Then we could knock off a quick e-mail and get a ruling on “clay”.
Just thinking out loud here. What do you think?
On Fetal Life
In a previous post, I touched on fetal life. Let’s explore this further.
I believe that many people (and especially zealots) are much too fast to transpose scientific “indicators” into scientific “fact”.
On the topic of fetal life, science has found indicators of possible independent function in fetuses nearly to the point of conception. This is true, but, does that mean that a fetus is an independent life?
Let’s throw some common sense at it!
By my life’s experience I have found many things that “twitch” pre and post life.
Within my own body I have a kidney. Actually I have two but for today I’m just referring to the one on the… Bad Analogy!
Within my own body I have a stomach (Better). If you ask my wife she will tell you that it occupies the space above my navel and below my neck. Left, right and center! On a regular basis, my stomach will twitch. By my observations, it twitches completely independently of my wishes and control. As I hope is common, I give these twitches independent human emotions and qualities: i.e.
OH GOD! FEED ME! or
OH GOD! STOP FEEDING ME! or
OH GOD! STOP IT WITH THE DOUBLE HOT CHILI!
I have a very passionate stomach! But, is it a separate being? Nope.
At what point does a fetus have more “life” than my stomach?
I guess what I’m trying to say is this:
Although I love science, I will never lose site of the difference between fact and indication. Too many zealots will grasp any straw that supports their personal zealotry.
When they clearly record a little fetal inner voice saying,
“MOM, enough with the pickles already!”
I will go Pro Life.
My stomach twitches at pickles too.
I believe that many people (and especially zealots) are much too fast to transpose scientific “indicators” into scientific “fact”.
On the topic of fetal life, science has found indicators of possible independent function in fetuses nearly to the point of conception. This is true, but, does that mean that a fetus is an independent life?
Let’s throw some common sense at it!
By my life’s experience I have found many things that “twitch” pre and post life.
Within my own body I have a kidney. Actually I have two but for today I’m just referring to the one on the… Bad Analogy!
Within my own body I have a stomach (Better). If you ask my wife she will tell you that it occupies the space above my navel and below my neck. Left, right and center! On a regular basis, my stomach will twitch. By my observations, it twitches completely independently of my wishes and control. As I hope is common, I give these twitches independent human emotions and qualities: i.e.
OH GOD! FEED ME! or
OH GOD! STOP FEEDING ME! or
OH GOD! STOP IT WITH THE DOUBLE HOT CHILI!
I have a very passionate stomach! But, is it a separate being? Nope.
At what point does a fetus have more “life” than my stomach?
I guess what I’m trying to say is this:
Although I love science, I will never lose site of the difference between fact and indication. Too many zealots will grasp any straw that supports their personal zealotry.
When they clearly record a little fetal inner voice saying,
“MOM, enough with the pickles already!”
I will go Pro Life.
My stomach twitches at pickles too.
On Abortion
I’m continually surprised that each time a Loon de la Right pops up out of the landscape and cries “nowhere in the constitution is a woman guaranteed the right to an abortion” that the corresponding Loon de la Left doesn’t pop up and cry back “nowhere in the constitution is a woman denied the right to an abortion”. This is indeed a fact!
Abortion existed long before what we so loosely refer to as “civilization” began, and it will continue long past the end of our “civilization”. It certainly existed during the latter half of the 18th century.
For some inexplicable reason, our founding fathers thought it was a personal decision, a personal right and decided not to legislate it. In the correct application of “separation of church and state” the founding fathers left it to religions to set the standards for abortion within the fellowships of their parishes and (of course) revile anyone who disagreed. This ultimately left the decision in the hands of the individuals.
If you happen to be a Loon de la Right, and reading this has gotten you all excited, white knuckle the King James and calm yourself! You might be surprised at the churches position on abortion circa 1776.
This is an exert from one of my favorite sources (Wikipedia)(Thanks Bill):
Historically, it is unclear how often the ethics of abortion (induced abortion) was discussed, but widespread regulation did not begin until the 18th century. One factor in abortion restrictions was a socio-economic struggle between male physicians and female mid-wives.[citation needed] In the 18th century, English and American common law allowed abortion if performed before "quickening." By the late 19th century many nations had passed laws that banned abortion. In the later half of the 20th century most Western nations began to legalize abortion. Abortion is an issue of reproductive rights, a sub-set of human rights. This controversial subject has sparked heated debate and in some cases even violence against abortion providers.
Here’s a link to the entire section! Great read! Expand yourself if you wish!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion_law#Legal:_History_of_abortion_law
So, the church was OK with abortion as long as it was performed before “the quickening”.
The Quickening refers to the fetus being felt to move. Hmmmm.
It’s a shame that the zealots have removed all middle ground on this topic.
I will continue to defend a woman’s right to chose, but I also believe that with rights come responsibilities.
Without zealots and a fear of “the slippery slope” common sense could prevail.
Common sense (in my opinion) would be a concrete right to personal choice with the following caveat:
No law shall be passed limiting a woman’s right to self determination of her reproductive rights. With this inalienable right comes the responsibility of making a timely decision.
The decision to terminate a pregnancy must be made within the first two trimesters. If upon reaching the third trimester, no decision to terminate has been made, the tie goes to the runner. (I’m flexible on the wording of that last part)!
AND!
Before any Loons de la Right jump up and spout anything about “science has proven…” be advised that I will “Whack a Mole” you right back into the weeds!
Until the Loons de la Right embrace “science has proven” with respect to evolution, I have no respect for their “science has proven” cries in reference to abortion.
In for a penny, in for a pound!
If we could permanently whack a mole all the zealots, do you think Common Sense could prevail?
Let me know.
Abortion existed long before what we so loosely refer to as “civilization” began, and it will continue long past the end of our “civilization”. It certainly existed during the latter half of the 18th century.
For some inexplicable reason, our founding fathers thought it was a personal decision, a personal right and decided not to legislate it. In the correct application of “separation of church and state” the founding fathers left it to religions to set the standards for abortion within the fellowships of their parishes and (of course) revile anyone who disagreed. This ultimately left the decision in the hands of the individuals.
If you happen to be a Loon de la Right, and reading this has gotten you all excited, white knuckle the King James and calm yourself! You might be surprised at the churches position on abortion circa 1776.
This is an exert from one of my favorite sources (Wikipedia)(Thanks Bill):
Historically, it is unclear how often the ethics of abortion (induced abortion) was discussed, but widespread regulation did not begin until the 18th century. One factor in abortion restrictions was a socio-economic struggle between male physicians and female mid-wives.[citation needed] In the 18th century, English and American common law allowed abortion if performed before "quickening." By the late 19th century many nations had passed laws that banned abortion. In the later half of the 20th century most Western nations began to legalize abortion. Abortion is an issue of reproductive rights, a sub-set of human rights. This controversial subject has sparked heated debate and in some cases even violence against abortion providers.
Here’s a link to the entire section! Great read! Expand yourself if you wish!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion_law#Legal:_History_of_abortion_law
So, the church was OK with abortion as long as it was performed before “the quickening”.
The Quickening refers to the fetus being felt to move. Hmmmm.
It’s a shame that the zealots have removed all middle ground on this topic.
I will continue to defend a woman’s right to chose, but I also believe that with rights come responsibilities.
Without zealots and a fear of “the slippery slope” common sense could prevail.
Common sense (in my opinion) would be a concrete right to personal choice with the following caveat:
No law shall be passed limiting a woman’s right to self determination of her reproductive rights. With this inalienable right comes the responsibility of making a timely decision.
The decision to terminate a pregnancy must be made within the first two trimesters. If upon reaching the third trimester, no decision to terminate has been made, the tie goes to the runner. (I’m flexible on the wording of that last part)!
AND!
Before any Loons de la Right jump up and spout anything about “science has proven…” be advised that I will “Whack a Mole” you right back into the weeds!
Until the Loons de la Right embrace “science has proven” with respect to evolution, I have no respect for their “science has proven” cries in reference to abortion.
In for a penny, in for a pound!
If we could permanently whack a mole all the zealots, do you think Common Sense could prevail?
Let me know.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Let's talk about Racism!
As a parent, you tend to remember the day your child comes home from school and asks “what are the definitions of racist and bigot”?
I think all good parents will answer the same way, “grab the dictionary and we’ll look them up”.
The day my son and I started this dance, the definitions didn’t sooth his worried brow. When I pressed him as to what the core of the problem was, he confided to me that he thought he was becoming a racist.
HELLO!
It seems a group of Black students were making life difficult for him at school and he was harboring more and more resentment toward them. This was of particular concern to him because his fist love, step father, step siblings and several of our friends were black.
And, he loved them all!
If he was becoming a racist, would he grow to hate the people he loved too? Big problem for a 17 year old mind.
Oh, p.s. pasty white single parent guy here!
We talked about it through dinner and into the evening with two conclusions:
He was not, and probably never would be a racist.
We needed a way to make sense of how some people can be so good and others so bad within any particular group.
Over the next two weeks we would continue the conversation as new thoughts presented themselves. Finally we developed a rule that we both felt we could live by.
Note: in my house all rules must work equally for all people. No special interests, no preferential treatment. With rare exceptions to the parental caveat “not until your 21”, he and I lived by the same rules.
The sense we made of (frankly) BOTH our feelings became know as the 10% Sludge Rule.
I offer it to you here, free of charge.
The 10% Sludge Rule:
Given any slice of humanity:
10% will be extraordinary people! People that we would be better ourselves if we were more like them.
80% will be good solid citizens. Honest, reliable, kind.
10% will be sludge that the world would be better off without.
Divide humanity in any fashion you choose. Red, yellow, black, white, man, woman, orientation, affiliation, religion, occupation, young old, whatever. Within that divide you will find heroes, friends and sludge.
On the days when you feel like the bottom 10% has camped out on your doorstep; remember 90% of that slice are people you want to know better. If you reach out to some of the bottom 10%, you both might move up a notch!
Also remember:
The top 10% gets 5% of the press.
The middle 80% gets none of the press.
The bottom 10% gets 95% of the press.
Take heart, it’s not as bad as it seems!
I think all good parents will answer the same way, “grab the dictionary and we’ll look them up”.
The day my son and I started this dance, the definitions didn’t sooth his worried brow. When I pressed him as to what the core of the problem was, he confided to me that he thought he was becoming a racist.
HELLO!
It seems a group of Black students were making life difficult for him at school and he was harboring more and more resentment toward them. This was of particular concern to him because his fist love, step father, step siblings and several of our friends were black.
And, he loved them all!
If he was becoming a racist, would he grow to hate the people he loved too? Big problem for a 17 year old mind.
Oh, p.s. pasty white single parent guy here!
We talked about it through dinner and into the evening with two conclusions:
He was not, and probably never would be a racist.
We needed a way to make sense of how some people can be so good and others so bad within any particular group.
Over the next two weeks we would continue the conversation as new thoughts presented themselves. Finally we developed a rule that we both felt we could live by.
Note: in my house all rules must work equally for all people. No special interests, no preferential treatment. With rare exceptions to the parental caveat “not until your 21”, he and I lived by the same rules.
The sense we made of (frankly) BOTH our feelings became know as the 10% Sludge Rule.
I offer it to you here, free of charge.
The 10% Sludge Rule:
Given any slice of humanity:
10% will be extraordinary people! People that we would be better ourselves if we were more like them.
80% will be good solid citizens. Honest, reliable, kind.
10% will be sludge that the world would be better off without.
Divide humanity in any fashion you choose. Red, yellow, black, white, man, woman, orientation, affiliation, religion, occupation, young old, whatever. Within that divide you will find heroes, friends and sludge.
On the days when you feel like the bottom 10% has camped out on your doorstep; remember 90% of that slice are people you want to know better. If you reach out to some of the bottom 10%, you both might move up a notch!
Also remember:
The top 10% gets 5% of the press.
The middle 80% gets none of the press.
The bottom 10% gets 95% of the press.
Take heart, it’s not as bad as it seems!
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
On Rev. Wright
Well, let's get this one put on the table for discussion.
This discussion does not include Senator Obama! He is a separate topic for another day.
I defend Rev. Wright's right of free speech and will defend it with my life. I am however amazed and disturbed that anyone could rise to his level of influence and power while despising the very fabric that enabled him to do so. He doesn't seem too upset about the new house being built for him out of church funds. I have heard two rumors with regards to his new home:
1. It's a $1,000,000.00 plus home.
2. It's in a gated community no where near his old church.
Can anyone please verify the fact or fiction of these claims?
I am "up to here" with people defending his statements and supporting his role as leader in this church.
Let's throw a little common sense at it and see if it still stands up.
For the sake of discussion, let's say that we all have a crazy uncle. We'll call him uncle Bob.
Uncle Bob's a nice guy. He's generous, caring, reliable, but he has a bad habit of reducing any topic to "they're a bunch of fa**ot's and God will burn them in hell". Oh Kay Uncle Bob!
Uncle Bob's a nice guy, and you love him. He is now, and always will be a part of your family.
But.........
Do you hold him up as a leader in your family and community?
Do you video tape his grotesque rants and share them with other people?
Do you let him give the toast at your wedding?
Do you expose your children to him as often as possible?
If you agreed with his rant, YES!
If you disagreed, not so much.
I'm also "up to here" with exasperated defenses of:
1. It's being taken out of context.
2. You're taking a few minutes of speech out of a life times work.
IT'S CALLED EDITING!!!!!!!!!
I could always edit Uncle Bob's flaming hatred out of the family video!
Unless of course I felt it was OK, or perhaps even shared his beliefs.
I would either shield my family and friends from Uncle Bob (if I disagreed),
or support his speech with something intellectual like "yeah, so what" if I agreed!
I'm not seeing or hearing either from his community.
Help me become a "brighter bulb"!
What does your common sense tell you?
This discussion does not include Senator Obama! He is a separate topic for another day.
I defend Rev. Wright's right of free speech and will defend it with my life. I am however amazed and disturbed that anyone could rise to his level of influence and power while despising the very fabric that enabled him to do so. He doesn't seem too upset about the new house being built for him out of church funds. I have heard two rumors with regards to his new home:
1. It's a $1,000,000.00 plus home.
2. It's in a gated community no where near his old church.
Can anyone please verify the fact or fiction of these claims?
I am "up to here" with people defending his statements and supporting his role as leader in this church.
Let's throw a little common sense at it and see if it still stands up.
For the sake of discussion, let's say that we all have a crazy uncle. We'll call him uncle Bob.
Uncle Bob's a nice guy. He's generous, caring, reliable, but he has a bad habit of reducing any topic to "they're a bunch of fa**ot's and God will burn them in hell". Oh Kay Uncle Bob!
Uncle Bob's a nice guy, and you love him. He is now, and always will be a part of your family.
But.........
Do you hold him up as a leader in your family and community?
Do you video tape his grotesque rants and share them with other people?
Do you let him give the toast at your wedding?
Do you expose your children to him as often as possible?
If you agreed with his rant, YES!
If you disagreed, not so much.
I'm also "up to here" with exasperated defenses of:
1. It's being taken out of context.
2. You're taking a few minutes of speech out of a life times work.
IT'S CALLED EDITING!!!!!!!!!
I could always edit Uncle Bob's flaming hatred out of the family video!
Unless of course I felt it was OK, or perhaps even shared his beliefs.
I would either shield my family and friends from Uncle Bob (if I disagreed),
or support his speech with something intellectual like "yeah, so what" if I agreed!
I'm not seeing or hearing either from his community.
Help me become a "brighter bulb"!
What does your common sense tell you?
No Zealots!!!
Hopefully you noticed that one of "the rules" was NO ZEALOTS!
Why, because zealots are blinded to alternative points of view. They are hopelessly locked into a mindset that they will not allow to be examined, contended or (parish the thought) changed. They are completely invested in their own interests and deliberately callous to any opposing thought.
I believe that zealots are the worst of the worst, and beyond their particular brand of zealotry, interchangeable. That's right, not a pennies worth of difference between them. The most whacked out left wing loon is no better than the most self righteous right wing fanatic.
Have you ever noticed that if you take one zealots battle cry and replace the nouns, you have a polar opposite zealots battle cry.
i.e. Any legislation limiting a woman's right to chose is a direct erosion of Roe V Wade.
to: Any legislation limiting the right to bare arms is a direct erosion of the 2nd Amendment.
to: Any legislation limiting limiting access to the Internet is a direct erosion of the
1st amendment.
It seems that the common elements of zealotry are "Legislation" and "Erosion".
To their credit, our founding fathers legislated that our rights should never be eroded. They also clearly laid out that the role of the government should not be too intrusive on the lives of the individuals. To the exclusion of the 18th amendment (which didn't work out to well) most if not all legislation through the 1970's protected and empowered all Americans to be equal in the fundamental liberties promised by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Somehow in the 70's there was a dramatic shift in the direction of legislation and since then it seems that every time a bill is passed, some liberty is lost.
Zealots have taken over. Too much is never enough.
Please prove me wrong!
Is it possible to live in the middle? Can we still be fair to all?
Reply with any legislation that you feel is equal in it's protection of our basic rights.
Or just vent using Common Sense.
Why, because zealots are blinded to alternative points of view. They are hopelessly locked into a mindset that they will not allow to be examined, contended or (parish the thought) changed. They are completely invested in their own interests and deliberately callous to any opposing thought.
I believe that zealots are the worst of the worst, and beyond their particular brand of zealotry, interchangeable. That's right, not a pennies worth of difference between them. The most whacked out left wing loon is no better than the most self righteous right wing fanatic.
Have you ever noticed that if you take one zealots battle cry and replace the nouns, you have a polar opposite zealots battle cry.
i.e. Any legislation limiting a woman's right to chose is a direct erosion of Roe V Wade.
to: Any legislation limiting the right to bare arms is a direct erosion of the 2nd Amendment.
to: Any legislation limiting limiting access to the Internet is a direct erosion of the
1st amendment.
It seems that the common elements of zealotry are "Legislation" and "Erosion".
To their credit, our founding fathers legislated that our rights should never be eroded. They also clearly laid out that the role of the government should not be too intrusive on the lives of the individuals. To the exclusion of the 18th amendment (which didn't work out to well) most if not all legislation through the 1970's protected and empowered all Americans to be equal in the fundamental liberties promised by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Somehow in the 70's there was a dramatic shift in the direction of legislation and since then it seems that every time a bill is passed, some liberty is lost.
Zealots have taken over. Too much is never enough.
Please prove me wrong!
Is it possible to live in the middle? Can we still be fair to all?
Reply with any legislation that you feel is equal in it's protection of our basic rights.
Or just vent using Common Sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)