January 25, 2007

January 25, 2007

Senate panel strikes first blow to block Bush's Iraq plan - "Democrats began what they promised would be a prolonged push to stop President George W. Bush’s troop buildup in Iraq today granting initial approval of a resolution condemning the move and potentially opening the door to debate on funding cuts for the war."

Cheney: Talk of blunders in Iraq is 'hogwash' - ""It won't stop us," he said. "And it would be, I think, detrimental from the standpoint of the troops." If U.S. forces were to pull out of Iraq, "we would simply validate the terrorists' strategy that says the Americans will not stay to complete the task ... that we don't have the stomach for the fight. That's the biggest threat."" -- How do we allow this guy to stay in office?

Senator Feinstein's Iraq Conflict - "As a member of the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee, Sen. Feinstein voted for appropriations worth billions to her husband's firms."

US says its has proof Iran is interfering in Iraq - ""There is solid evidence that Iranian agents are involved in these networks and that they are working with individuals and groups in Iraq and that they are being sent there by the Iranian government," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack." -- Just like the solid evidence of WMDs in Iraq?

Dropping like flies - "Resignations of U.S. attorneys raise suspicion of politically motivated Justice Department purge. ... Democratic senators are concerned that the high turnover is linked to an obscure, recently passed provision of the Patriot Act. The provision allows the Bush administration to fill vacancies with interim prosecutors for the remainder of the president's term without submitting them to the Senate for confirmation. Previously, interim appointments were made by a vote of federal judges in the districts served by the outgoing U.S. attorneys." -- Stacking the deck?

Heat-beaming weapon ready by 2010 - "THE US Defence Department today unveiled what it called a revolutionary heat-beaming weapon that could be used to control mobs or repel foes in conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan. The so-called Active Denial System creates an intense burning sensation causing people to run for cover, but no lasting harm, officials said."

Bush's War on the Republic - "In Bush’s State of the Union speech on Jan. 23, there could be heard a requiem for the Republic. “The evil that inspired and rejoiced in 9/11 is still at work in the world. And so long as that’s the case, America is still a nation at war,” Bush told Congress. But that “evil” will always be “at work in the world,” so America will always be “a nation at war” and thus, under Bush’s theories of unlimited Commander-in-Chief powers, the American Republic will be banished permanently. ... Since the 9/11 attacks, Bush has overseen a bare-knuckled political strategy of bullying anyone who disagrees with him and marginalizing their voices. From the Dixie Chicks to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, from France to United Nations weapons inspectors, those who have dared to cross the President have faced ridicule and reprisals. These ugly attacks have become so much a part of the American political landscape that the news media treats them as unexceptional, as if it’s normal for a President to coordinate with powerful media allies to silence dissent."

Martyrs of the Republic - "Ah, how things change! The military court in LT Ehren Watada’s trial has denied any courtroom discussion of the legality of the war in Iraq. Yes, the vast majority of Americans, Senators and Congressmen have already admitted that the war was based on lies, fostered by a narrow set of agenda setters, for a non-national security agenda, violates international law, and is likely unconstitutional. Yes, we all suspect today that the war for "democracy" is no more than make-believe, even as the war for oil and bases is all but lost."

The World Agrees: Stop Bush Before He Kills Again - "President Bush has accomplished what Osama bin Laden only dreamed of by disgracing the model of American democracy in the eyes of the world."

Carl Bernstein: Bush Administraton Has Done 'Far Greater Damage' Than Nixon - ""In the current administration we have seen from the President down -- especially Vice President Cheney, Attorney General Gonzales, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld -- a willingness to ignore the great constitutional history of the United States -- to suspend, really, many of the constitutional guarantees that have made us a nation apart, with real freedoms unknown elsewhere, unrestricted by short-term political objectives of our leaders. "Then there are the Geneva conventions: Who would have dreamed that, in our lifetime, our leaders would permit their flagrant abuse, would authorize torture, 'renditions' to foreign-torture chambers, suspension of habeus corpus, illegal surveillance of our own citizens.... "But perhaps worst, has been the lying and mendacity of the president and his men and women--in the reasons they cited for going to war, their conduct of the war, their attempts to smear their political opponents. "Nixon and his men lied and abused the constitution to horrible effect, but they were stopped. "The Bush Administration -- especially its top officials named above and others familiar to most Americans -- was not stopped, and has done far greater damage."

Fanning Fears of a Space War - "The revelation last week that China had slammed a medium-range ballistic missile into one of its aging satellites on January 11 and littered space with junk fragments has created its own form of political debris in Washington, D.C." -- God, the human species loves conflict.

Smears for Fears - "And, indeed, it is interesting, for demonstrating the bizarre rules of the road in discussing America's Israel policy. If you're offering commentary that's supportive of America's soi-disant "pro-Israel" forces, as Barone was, it's considered perfectly acceptable to note, albeit elliptically, that said forces are influential in the Democratic Party in part because they contribute large sums of money to Democratic politicians who are willing to toe the line. If, by contrast, one observes this fact by way of criticizing the influence of "pro-Israel" forces, you're denounced as an anti-Semite."

A Fundamental Evil - "I have come to the conclusion that the Christian fundamentalists, also known as the religious right, are the most evil people in the world. Others (such as those of various Islamic terrorist groups) were considered, but after due consideration, the Christians won... hands down. In fact it was no contest."

Love Jesus or Burn Forever in Hell... You're Basic "Love Me or I will Kill You" Religion - "Boy does this little bit of encouragement say reams about the either/or mentality that goes with many fundamentalist teachings. So here is the lesson for the day evidently. EITHER I love Jesus, which I assume means confess him, promote him and do everything he is thought to have said and taught, or burn, not just up, but FOREVER in hell. Whoa moma, what a choice and even better, what a reason to love Jesus! Obey out of sheer fear of annihilation. Spirituality doesn't get any better than this!"

The Maid is Not Coming in Today and Neither is Jesus - You'll Just Have to Work It Out Yourselves - "You can sure tell it's almost time for Jesus to return,” is a phrase I have heard all my life. During the 1967 Arab Israeli war, when all the forces of Middle Eastern good and evil, depending on who you were rooting for, were coming together for the one big bang before Jesus returned to save us all, I just knew it was the end times. Well that one lasted six days and Jesus, I guess, was recalled."

Scientology Treatment Program for Prisoners Funded by Feds - "The Second Chance program is billed as an alternative treatment program for nonviolent offenders and uses the principals of Scientology -- such as using saunas, diet, massage and vitamins to purge the body of toxins -- to fight addiction."

Another Media Expert Nobody Has Heard Of - "The tendency to create spokespeople for certain issues isn’t something the media has recently engaged in, they have been doing it for decades, but only recently has it been possible to prove that their spokespeople are in reality total creations of the media and nothing more. A quick google news search will reveal that the Washington Post is the ONLY national media publication that picked up Lipstadt’s garbage article about Carter and if one closely researches the results of a standard google search one will find that Lipstadt’s only champions are in fact the pro-Israel, pro-Jewish websites, while the majority of everyone else is highly critical of her position on Carter. In short, nobody is reading Deborah Lipstadt, primarily because nobody knows who she is or they’ve finally figured out that her position on matters related to anti-Semitism and Israel are part and parcel of the media’s lies - people are getting wiser you know."

Militarization and The Moon-Mars Program: Another Wrong Turn in Space? - "NASA is not paying the giant of the military-industrial complex $8.15 billion to have people hop around and hit golf balls on the moon. The aim of the moon-Mars program is U.S. dominance, as suggested by NASA Administrator Michael Griffin’s statements that "my language"—i.e., English—and not those of "another, bolder or more persistent culture" will be "passed down over the generations to future lunar colonies.""

Microsoft offers cash for Wikipedia edit - "Microsoft Corp. landed in the Wikipedia doghouse Tuesday after it offered to pay a blogger to change technical articles on the community-produced Web encyclopedia site."

Father kills daughter; doubted virginity - "A Jordanian man fatally shot his 17-year-old daughter whom he suspected of having sex despite a medical exam that proved her chastity, an official said Thursday. The man surrendered to police hours after the killing, saying he had done it for family honor." -- Disgusting.

Girl, 6, embodies Cambodia's sex industry - "She was sold to a brothel by her parents when she was 5. It is not known how much her family got for Srey, but other girls talk of being sold for $100; one was sold for $10. Before she was rescued, Srey endured months of abuse at the hands of pimps and sex tourists. Passed from man to man, often drugged to make her compliant, Srey was a commodity at the heart of a massive, multimillion-dollar sex industry in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. ... Despite the attention, Somaly said the situation on the street is not getting better. Gang rapes of prostitutes are becoming more common, she said, and many of the attackers don't use condoms. Instead, they share a plastic bag. "Poor women, they have been raped by eight, 10, 20, 25 men ... they hit them. They receive a lot of violence," she said." -- Humans are such a sad lot.

Educators assail No Child Left Behind - "Colorado teachers, principals and administrators overwhelmingly say the federal education law No Child Left Behind is unrealistic and underfunded, according to a survey conducted by U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar's office."

Obama calls for universal health care - ""I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country," the Illinois senator said."

Study: Americans spend more time with computer than spouse - "A new study indicates that most people spend more time with technology than they do with their family. The survey found 65 percent of respondents spent more time with a computer than with their spouse or significant other."




Quote of the Day
"Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. And armies and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few."
~ James Madison

2 comments:

Unknown said...

I had thought about commenting on A Fundamental Evil, but I had too many comments to justify a "comment". Then I thought about ranting about it over on my blog, but I think I'll just set it aside as unoriginal sophistry and leave it at that (I will, however, make a reference to a point in this article in my rant below).

What I really want to comment on is Dennis Diehl's Love Jesus or Burn Forever in Hell... You're Basic "Love Me or I will Kill You" Religion, which allows the same sophistry as the other article, but in a much more concise manner (and so my resulting rant will be shorter).

I will, however, begin with a disclaimer. This article (both of them, actually) address "fundamentalist Christianity", which I do not subscribe to. That said, any statements I make herein should not be taken as an endorsement of their beliefs on my part; rather, I simply wish to point out a certain flaw in the argument provided by Mr. Diehl.


"'Love Jesus or Burn Forever in Hell.' I first saw this wonderfully encouraging statement emblazoned on the roof of a barn in rural South Carolina. Actually just about where I would expect to find it.

Boy does this little bit of encouragement say reams about the either/or mentality that goes with many fundamentalist teachings. So here is the lesson for the day evidently. EITHER I love Jesus, which I assume means confess him, promote him and do everything he is thought to have said and taught, or burn, not just up, but FOREVER in hell. Whoa moma, what a choice and even better, what a reason to love Jesus! Obey out of sheer fear of annihilation. Spirituality doesn't get any better than this!

In effect this would be the same as me, a loving parent, telling my kids, either you love your daddy, or I will kill you and not in a good or easy way. Any parent that was reported to have said this to a child would be arrested and probably loose custody of the child. But not "God." of course. Now any real God would never have such a flawed "these are the rules of love" mentality and this is more a reflection of the human who thought it up as cute or threatening, depending on the desired effect. It's also hogwash."

Mr. Diehl then spends the next few paragraphs poking fun and the fundamentalists and their beliefs, and finally concludes with the following:

"'Love Jesus or burn forever in hell,' is a pathetic statement of what is wrong with fundamentalist religious thinking. It's all fear, shame and guilt based. It's key motivator is fear of consequences if one does not comply, and it so often neither works nor inspires compassion or encouragement. I'd love to meet the kids of anyone that would paint on a huge barn roof, this little bit of sage Biblical advice. I wonder if they ever come home to the farm for Thanksgiving or Christmas, or dads birthday? I wonder if they even sends cards? I wonder if they are close to their parents or enjoy their company and perspectives on how life works and what to do when it doesn't seem to. Naw, I bet not. I bet these kids were stoned to death long ago."


At the end of the day, the gist of the article is attainable if we keep only a couple of sentences. These are:

"Now any real God would never have such a flawed "these are the rules of love" mentality and this is more a reflection of the human who thought it up as cute or threatening, depending on the desired effect."

and

"'Love Jesus or burn forever in hell,' is a pathetic statement of what is wrong with fundamentalist religious thinking. It's all fear, shame and guilt based."

This is what I love about articles of this nature. They have absolutely no substance, but they make a whole lot of noise about it.

This is the argument presented: fundamentalists can be grouped into two mutually exclusive groups: manipulators and sheep. If you're a fundamentalist, your obviously one or the other. The sheep follow because they are duped by the manipulators... not smart enough to analyze their own theology, the blindly go where they are told. The manipulators are, as Doug Soderstrom would have you believe, the most evil people on earth. They corrupt the notion of God and lead the fools of the world astray.

How do we know they corrupt the notion of God? Because it's obvious, that's why. We need no more proof than saying "it's obvious". That's good enough.

Do we provide any more insight into this? Sure we do. Certain things promoted by these folks are obviously wrong. We've established that by the sheer obviousness of them being wrong. God would never command these things. How do I know? I just do. I don't need a better argument than that. "God would never do that." Enough said.

*sigh*

I'm sure glad most folks don't follow that approach to arguing.

"No, no, no... you see, it's just plain wrong that if you drop two objects, one heavier than the other, that they will both touch the earth at the same time. That just doesn't make sense. Any real system of universal dynamics just wouldn't do that."

I'm surprised the number of folks that resort to this type of argument, especially when the non-religious discuss religion. It seems that when the non-religious discuss religion, they think that since the folks they are criticizing are illogical (which, almost exclusively, is the point of their arguments), they can throw logic out the window when presenting their position.

Another example of this is Doug Soderstrom's statement:

"More than this, fundamentalist Christians have, en masse, turned to the Bible (what they refer to as 'the Holy Scriptures') in order to justify such terrible deeds. All of this in light of the rather alarming belief that everything in the Bible (every 'jot and tittle') has been inspired by 'the very hand' of God, rather than acknowledging the historically validated reality of the Bible, the fact that the Bible is a rather nondescript collection of varied stories that eventually morphed (through the transcription of scribes, the very few who knew how to write in those days) into a collection of oft-translated documents that, through a process of political compromise, eventually came to be known as that which is now referred to as 'the Holy Bible'.. a rather awkward (although no doubt very natural) attempt, on the part of man, to come to terms with an evolving understanding as to what 'The Truth of God' just might, or might not, be!"


Statements like this thrill me to no end, as they don't necessarily rely on the "it's obvious" argument, but rather on the "it's been historically validated, so I don't need proof" argument. Just once I'd like to see this particular argument ("the Bible... morphed... through a process of political compromise") with dates and significant events provided.

For instance, a statement like, "In 1611 the King James version of the Bible contained Second Maccabees, but the 1629 version does not". That's a great argument, but to a different debate (Catholic/Orthodox vs. Protestant, as opposed to non-religious vs. Christian).


Unfortunately, the vast majority of arguments provided by non-religious folks regarding religion tend to be very poorly delivered, even if their points have some validity.

Now, be thankful that I didn't choose to go with the "long rant". :)

Randy Anderson said...

I knew you'd be able to rant about those two articles! Thank you for not letting me down!