Sunday, December 19, 2004
Wow...just...wow....sounds similar to the bearer of the divine credit card, no?
Doctors say a transplant is the only way to save her
By Matthew Bell
A GIRL of 20 has become the youngest person in Britain to need a new liver because of binge-drinking.
The girl, who began boozing when she was 12, was diagnosed with cirrhosis of the liver in hospital after collapsing following a heavy drinking session.
Her case was highlighted by expert Ian Gilmore on the eve of a conference to discuss the alarming rise in drinking among British girls. Shock figures last week showed that teenage girls are now bigger binge drinkers than boys
The girl involved told doctors at the Royal University Hospital in her home city of Liverpool that she had become a frequent binge drinker by the age of 14 and continued until she was 17. Medics found her liver was so badly damaged that she needed a new one to save her life.
A hospital source said: "She is not the sort of person you would think something like this is happening to - she's an ambitious young woman who has a good career and comes from a stable family background.
"But she admitted she had started drinking heavily from around the age of 12. She first came to us three years ago and that was when the extent of the damage to her liver, caused by too much alcohol, was discovered.
Saturday, December 18, 2004
...warmongers soaked in blind patriotism, violent nationalism, animalistic fear and ignorant xenophobia...
I saw the above quote used to describe what Joseph Goebbels was able to turn the defeated German populace into after WWI. Does any one else feel that our nation today, to a degree, could be described in the same language? We are just when we defend ourselves. But that justice can be so easily lost when we move from self-defense into self-aggrandizement and cultural myopathy. Let us not lose the great lesson we learned in the 1940's, lest we become what we once destroyed.
Friday, December 17, 2004
Those of you that know me, or have spent any time on my blog, know that there are few things I hate worse than hypocrisy. I am rather inflamed right now. The issue is this: recently Chevy Chase was at an “Awards Ceremony” set up by People for the American Way, a Leftist lobbying group. If you’re not familiar with Chevy Chase, you’re lucky. If you’re not familiar with this story, here’s a link to the Washington Post’s take on it.I read about it on the Drudge Report soon after it happened. I didn’t think it was worth even wasting space in my brain to remember it, but it’s there anyway. But today, today it was brought back to my attention.
Driving to town this evening, I was listening to the O’Reilly Factor on the old XM radio, as I usually do since I’m a news junkie (yes, I know the OF isn’t ‘news’, grant me the euphemism). And as usual, Bill was being about as fair and balanced as a seesaw helmed on one end with Adolph Hitler and Jared from Subway (before he ate the sandwiches) crushing the other end into the depths of the Earth. I can’t remember what other gabadellic goof was on the show with him, but the topic for the first half of the show was the Chevy Chase remark.
For those of you who don’t know, Chase called the President a “Dumb f---“. That is what ol’ Bill was up in arms about. He went on and on about how horrible and insulting and awful it was. And then he says, “you don’t have Conservatives out there saying things like that about Democrats”. GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
After that, Hannity and Colmes came on, and Hannity was playing the same song. Here’s my problem, YES there were, and are, “Conservatives” saying bad things about Democrats. Does anyone remember Bill Clinton? According to the “Conservatives” he was a murderer, a drug kingpin, and a rapist. Now, to me that’s a shade worse than calling someone a dumb f---.
Hannity HIMSELF made similar accusations about Clinton and had several people on his radio show how rabidly sold those stories. Has he really smoked away ALL his memory?
Back to O’Reilly. The guy on the show with him, representing the left, actually mentioned the things I said, and Bill has the audacity to say that calling the President a dumb f---- is worse than the above accusations leveled toward Clinton. Can this creature go any more insane? Please, dear GOD get him off the air before his head implodes from the vacuum during a live appearance.
Bill, Sean…you’re not fair, you’re not balanced. You’re just a couple of dumb f---s who can yell over peoples heads. If you want to be all sacrosanct, go ahead. But can we stop the outright lies and the hypocrisy. Please?
I’m sure your mommies are proud.
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
I believe that we will still be a strong force, if not a true occupation force, for 10 more years at least. We still have troops in Europe from WWII, and at least in Europe we were dealing with a developed society, not a tribal situation as it exists in Iraq.
Also, I don't buy the "We are fighting Saddam loyalists" business. The Iraqi people were not big supporters of Saddam for the past decade or so. Maybe they were when he first came to power. But not now. And from all our estimations, there would have to be a lot of regular Iraqis out there killing our guys. So then, if they're not fighting because they loved Saddam, then why do they fight us? Put simply, because we are there. I know if, say, my county was to be invaded by a foreign country, for whatever good or bad intention, we here would take up arms and explosives and whatever else we could find. And we would do our best to drive them out. Would we be doing this because we are all Bush Loyalists? No, we'd be doing it to defend our homeland, our families, our houses, all the people and things we love.
I believe the same is true about many of the Iraqis fighting against us. Sure, there are some left over Fedayeen types, but I believe the majority are just people trying to defend themselves. It's not like they all have TV's and are watching CNN all the time saying "hey, the Americans are here to liberate us!” For the most part, they don't have a clue about who those camouflaged guys are or why they're there. They just don't like seeing their friends and family die.
Now don't get me wrong, I am in NO way supporting the people over there killing OUR friends and families. I just don't see a reason not to be honest about motives. Ours and theirs.
If you're unfamiliar with the story, read it here.
I have to be honest, I don't see either Senator Lott's or Senator Reid's comments to be racist at all. I may be one of few in the world with that view. Let me give my arguments for each case. First, Senator Lott's remarks
To understand Lott’s comments, you have to take into account the CONTEXT. As you know, reviewing writings or remarks out of context will leave you, almost always, with a mistaken view of said writings or remarks. Sen. Lott was at a birthday party for a very old Sen. Strom Thurmond. At what, for all Lott knew, could be Sen. Thurmond’s last birthday party ever, Lott was one of many people in attendance who praised Sen. Thurmond, each for different reasons and different areas. Lott said, and I’m paraphrasing, America would be better off today if Strom Thurmond had won his bid for the Presidency in 1948. And his platform was unabashedly and rabidly segregationist. But it is highly doubtful that Lott was referring to segregation when he said we’d be better of had Thurmond won.
I believe the main reason he said what he did is that he knew Thurmond was close to death. He and others were showering the man with praise so he would feel that he’d led a good life, done things people would be proud of, and done important things. Given an elderly person the gift of pride and self worth is an honorable thing, and I believe that is why Lott made his remark.
And if I had to say that Lott WAS referring to a specific issue Thurmond lobbied for, I would say it would be states’ rights. When Thurmond ran in 48, he ran as a third party candidate in the “States’ Rights Party” that he helped create.
Having met and spoken with Senator Lott a handful of times, I can tell you he is not a racist, though he does hold a strong position on states’ rights. And that, if anything in particular, is what Lott was referring to when he said we’d be better off had Thurmond won.
As for Reid, all he said was that he didn’t think that Justice Thomas was that bright. He also said that his opinions weren’t well written. Personally, I don’t know Justice Thomas and I’ve only read a couple of his opinions. From what I can see, he seems fairly intelligent and good, though not excellent, writer. Reid never said “Justice Thomas is a dumb black guy,” or that “Justice Thomas is obviously dumb, look at him, he’s black!”
Just my thoughts
Saturday, December 11, 2004
This is by Sanford.
Without Darrell Abbott, the music world is now Becoming Hollow. He exemplified Strength Beyond Strength with his innovative and entrepreneurial Art of Shredding. He definitely took heavy music to A New Level and continued Domination while remaining a friendly and positive figure to all, making each person he met, if even for a minute, feel as if he'd known him/her for years. The music community is Shattered, feeling rage and sadness at the same time. Many claim "I'm Broken", and just wish for Five Minutes Alone to cope with this tragedy. Darrell's music now Floods many more speakers and hearts than ever. He seemed to enjoy life, even with Good Friends and a Bottle of Pills, except he didn't care for the pills... maybe a cold one here and there, but he publicly asserted his negative view of damaging drugs. I hope that Darrell is not on a path of Thirteen Steps to Nowhere, but somewhere where he can continue to wail on that lightning-shaped guitar, although he could equally jam on an acoustic, a mandolin, a ukelele, and just cut up for the camera, always making those in his presence laugh. I wish he would've had a chance to stop the assassin and maybe stifle his Mouth For War and just Walk away. From the Cemetary Gates, we can all hear the sweet melodic solos that touched our hearts and gave us chills, the vibrato that shook us so, that tone that WAS Darrell Abbott. May he rest in peace, and know how much he impacted music and those affiliated with music. He shall be missed.
Friday, December 10, 2004
This article was emailed to me, and I find it to be excellent. The research, theory, and clear presentation all come together to show that this article is sound. I personally don't really take a strong stand on the issue of capital punishment. However, I have found it to be rather hypocritical for many "loving Christians" to be so evangelically PRO-death penalty.
I only wish I could watch one of those types read this article and try to explain their case. If you happen to be someone like the abovementioned, let me know what your argument is that the Bible supports the death penalty.
Without further ado, here's the article. Enjoy!
Is capital punishment Biblical?
While many Christians support capital punishment, I have some serious questions . . .If we use the Old Testament as support for capital punishment--shouldn't we support execution for all offenses it lists as capital?
Under the Old Testament law, murder (Numbers 35:16) and rape (Deuteronomy 22:25) were in fact grounds for execution. However to be consistent--if we use the Old Testament as support for capital punishment--shouldn't we support execution for all offenses it lists as capital:
adultery (Leviticus 20:10), homosexual behavior (Leviticus 20:13), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), loving anything more than God (Leviticusé20:2), occult practices (Exodus 22:18), pre-marital sex (Leviticus 21:9), not observing the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36), and striking or slandering a parent (Exodus 21:15, 17)?
Who would be left to pull the switch?!
Under New Testament grace, didn't Christ take our "capital punishment" required under the Law?
"When we were utterly helpless with no way of escape, Christ came at just the right time and died for us sinners who had no use for him. But God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners. And since by his blood he did all this for us as sinners, how much more will he do for us now that he has declared us not guilty? Now he will save us from all of God's wrath to come" (Romans 5:6, 8-9)."Well then, are God laws and God's promises against each other? Of course not! If we could be saved by the laws, then God would not have had to give us a different way to get out of the grip of sin--for the Scriptures insist we are all its prisoners. The only way out is through faith in Jesus Christ; the way of escape is open to all who believe in him" (Galatians 3:21-22).
If we still lived under Old Testament Law--not Grace--then, shouldn't the following people deserve execution?
The Woman at the well (John 4:1-42) who was guilty of adultery. The Woman caught in the act of adultery (John 8:1-11).The Christians in Corinth (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 NIV) who were formerly "sexually immoral," "idolators," "adulterers," "male prostitutes," and "homosexual offenders"--all of which were capital offences in the Old Testament.
And don't forget, to include everyone of us in that list! "Yes, all have sinned; all fall short of God's glorious ideal." " For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 3:23, 6:23 TLB).
I've searched the New Testament for justification for humanly-imposed capital punishment. (God's punishment of unbelievers at Judgment Day is certainly capital!)
What I do find, however, are many passages that warn against judging others, not showing mercy, and mistreating prisoners (Matthew 5:7, 44; 7:2; 25:39-40, 44-45).Admittedly, it is a controversial issue. (And I could be wrong!) But on those issues where there is such disagreement, shouldn't we error on the side of life rather than death?
Adapted from Death & Beyond copyright © 1992 James N. Watkins. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
Here are some links to some pieces I found that offer a lot more information on this case than the Reuters piece (the most commonly read article on this case) and most other articles I've found on the subject. Enjoy!
So guys, check out the info here, and let me know what you think about all this.
I'd like to clear up a few things here. First, the school, principal, etc did NOT BAN the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence or any such thing. What they did do was make this teacher get his lesson plans approved by the administration before he put the lesson plan to work. Now, here in Mississippi this is very common for someone to have to approve a lesson plan before it is taught. Maybe it's an odd thing in CA, I don't know.
Now, the problem they had with his lesson plans in the first place was that the teacher was taking excerpts from the various founding documents and making handouts with JUST these excerpts on them. These excerpts ONLY contained references to God or a Creator, etc, that were in the founding documents he was using.
What started this all off? Of the preceding paragraph, I am certain of its veracity.
But as to what precipitated the actions of the administration, I’m not 100% sure. However, based on early reports of the situation, and hearing personally from some of the involved people, what happened is as follows:
The administration had received previous complaints from parents and students that Mr. Williams had been, basically, proselytizing in his classroom. At some point before the administrative screening began, a student asked Mr. Williams why he had to say “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. In response, Mr. Williams made the handouts with excerpts from certain founding documents which supported his case that America was wholly founded as a Christian nation, and that was why this student had to say “under God” in the pledge.
I’m not trying to start a fight here. I believe that we were, basically, founded on Judeo-Christian values. I believe in God. I believe in lower taxes and strong families. I believe in States’ Rights and gun ownership. But I do not believe that teachers should be evangelizing students as a captive audience in a public school. If this is what happened, and again, I don’t know with 100% certainty that it did, then the school has every right to keep an eye on him.
My only real point here is that before a mob is started to torch the school (metaphorically speaking), I think we should know ALL the facts involved. And if a school DID ban the Constitution, DoI, etc on religious or ANY grounds, I would be first in line to demand that its certification and funding be withdrawn as it would not be able to teach history with any truth. However, even though I don’t have every fact, I DO know that that is NOT what happened in this case. So please, before we all have arteries popping, calm down and wait for all the facts to come out.
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
From the New York Times
Full Article is Here
2 C.I.A. Reports Offer Warnings on Iraq's Path
By DOUGLAS JEHL
WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 - A classified cable sent by the Central Intelligence Agency's station chief in Baghdad has warned that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating and may not rebound any time soon, according to government officials.
The cable, sent late last month as the officer ended a yearlong tour, presented a bleak assessment on matters of politics, economics and security, the officials said. They said its basic conclusions had been echoed in briefings presented by a senior C.I.A. official who recently visited Iraq.
The officials described the two assessments as having been "mixed," saying that they did describe Iraq as having made important progress, particularly in terms of its political process, and credited Iraqis with being resilient.
But over all, the officials described the station chief's cable in particular as an unvarnished assessment of the difficulties ahead in Iraq. They said it warned that the security situation was likely to get worse, including more violence and sectarian clashes, unless there were marked improvements soon on the part of the Iraqi government, in terms of its ability to assert authority and to build the economy.
Together, the appraisals, which follow several other such warnings from officials in Washington and in the field, were much more pessimistic than the public picture being offered by the Bush administration before the elections scheduled for Iraq next month, the officials said. The cable was sent to C.I.A. headquarters after American forces completed what military commanders have described as a significant victory, with the retaking of Falluja, a principal base of the Iraqi insurgency, in mid-November.
Continued here at the NYT site.
Yes indeedy, birth control is the same as abortion, which is the same as murder. Therfore, birth control is murder. Don't believe this either? Well just check out the proof on another page from the Army of God...
Birth control is evil and a sin. Birth Control is anti-Baby and anti-Child. Isn't that the purpose for birth control to stop the life of an innocent baby from being born. Why would you stop your own child from being conceived or born? What kind of human being are you?
One of the proofs of this is in Genesis 38:
From the KJV
8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.
They use that story as proof that birth control is evil. So, according to these fellows, not only is it murder to have an abortion, it is also murder to try not to have a child in the first place. If you're having intercourse and do not "deposit your seed" then you are guilty of murder and should be put to death.
To further that interpretation then, aren't all catholics priests murderers? They're abstinate, so therefore they've chosen to NEVER "deposit their seed". So now, along with the sodomites and the baby killers, we now also have to kill all who practice abstinance or use any form of birth control.
My Hit List is getting loooooong....
The full page is here.
Don't believe me? Well just look at what the true believers over at the Army Of God website have to say:
The United Way refuses to fund the Boy Scouts, because the Boy Scouts will not let sick, sodomite, sex perverted, homosexuals be Scout Masters to your sons.
The United Way is EVIL!!!
The United Way also gives your money to babykilling organizations like Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion organizations.
The United Way refuses money to the Boy Scouts because the Boy Scouts will not let homosexual sex perverts become Scout Masters and take your children out to the woods and molest them.
Let the United Way know how you feel about their support of sodomites and babykillers:click here
What does God say about homosexual sodomites?
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
And baby killers?
Numbers 35:33 So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.
So go murder some sodomites and baby killers and your soul will be cleansed.
Full text of the page can be found here.
So go murder some sodomites and some baby killers and your soul will be cleansed. Or something..
Monday, December 06, 2004
This is a nice little satire piece I found through the StreetPreach.com website. It's a nice little site with pictures of aborted fetuses and an on-line memorial to Paul Hill. In case you don't remember, Paul Hill murdered abortion doctor John Britton, his bodyguard, James Barrett, and wounded Barrett’s wife, June. For the whole story on Hill's actions and his eventual execution, go here.
Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay, Socialist Republican Caucus praises Christian right for helping re-elect G.W. Bush
This piece was written, as far as I can tell, to brand people on the "religious right" who supported Bush for re-election as hypocrites. To a point, these folks may be right. Regardles, it helps make my point that most "Conservative Republicans" are Republican first and Conservative third or forth, if at all. They are driven by politics, not a real ideology or faith.
Read the little lunatics' rantings and see what you think.
We here at the Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay, Socialist Republican Caucus would like to extend sincerest gratitudes to our Christian colleagues all over the country for their help in electing George W. Bush. Many of you typically associate pro-choice, pro-gay, and socialist citizens with the Democratic Party, but unlike our counterparts to the left, we want to cut taxes and pre-emptively invade terrorist nations. We are glad that you are not so intolerant in your religious beliefs to share the same Party with the like-minded Republicans in our progressive Caucus. We could not have got George Bush into office without you! With George W. Bush at the helm, we are headed in the right direction.The Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay, Socialist Republican Caucus has thrown its support behind George W. Bush for a number of reasons:
1. President Bush has increased taxpayer funding for abortion, through Medicaid and Title X funding, more than any President in history.
2. He publicly denies a pro-life litmus test for judicial appointees. By the pre-1992 Right to Life standards, he would have been classified as a "pro-abortion" candidate, but we are fortunate to have a Christian right that has evolved from its Neaderthal days of chauvinism.
3. The brand of "strict constructionists" he has appointed has not been inconsistent with the pro-choice position. The judicial candidates he endorsed to the Texas Supreme Court when he was Governor of Texas allowed an underage woman to get an abortion without parental consent, defying underage-consent legislation that the misinformed public overwhelmingly approved. One of his appointees, Miguel Estrada, was employed by the pro-choice National Organization of Women to argue a case before the Supreme Court to prosecute anti-abortion protesters for RICO violations. This is our kind of "strict constructionist"!
4. Although we have not been proud of all of Bush's court appointees, but we have been encouraged nonetheless by his active campaigning and endorsement of Senate Arlen Specter over the Republican challenger anti-abortion religious extremist, Pat Toomey. Having won re-election, Senator Specter will now chair the Senate Judiciary Committee, which holds hearings on all judicial nominees. Senator Specter has a tried and true pro-choice litmus test - he refused to let anti-abortion extremists to the Federal bench. He helped stop the anti-abortionist Robert Bork, who Reagan tried to get to the Supreme Court, and as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. We are confident that he will follow in Patrick Leahy's footsteps and will not allow any anti-abortion nominees to come to a floor vote.
5. George W. Bush has also gone on the record saying he doesn't think Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
6. George W. Bush has admitted that he is personally pro-choice with exceptions - he believes that abortion is justified in cases of rape, incest, and for the health of the mother. This position also helps clarify in our minds that his "pro-life" position is based on political expediency, and is not a firmly-held principled position that considers abortion to be a criminal act against a real human being.
7. Although he signed the abhorrent Mexico City policy, which was intended to forbid taxpayer monies from being distributed to groups that perform abortion overseas, he remedied himself by proposing a budget that sent taxpayer funds to groups that perform abortion overseas.
8. Moreover, George W. Bush has appointed more open gays to high government positions than Bill Clinton.
9. He appointed an open homosexual ambassador to the less enlightened Christian nation of Romania. The ambassador's lover was acknowledged at the appointment ceremony and he is staying with his partner on the taxpayers' tab at the Romanian embassy. Hopefully, Romania's homophobic version of Christianity will see the light and begin to accept gays as normal people of faith.
10. President Bush sent a personal letter of praise to the Metropolitan Community Church, which marries about 6,000 gays annually.
11. He has praised the diverse family of his Vice President, Dick Cheney, and has embraced his lesbian daughter's sexual preference.
12. He has campaigned with and for many pro-choice and pro-gay politicians, including Mayor Rudy Guliani, NY Governor Pataki, and California Governor Swartzenegger. Those are our kind of Republicans!
13. President Bush's church in Texas, Highland Park United Methodist Church, accepts open homosexuals as brothers and sisters in Christ.
14. Although he publicly professes the Christian faith, he has gone on record publicly admitting that he believes Muslims and non-Christians are going to heaven. (We hope and pray that homophobic, exclusive Christian groups, who lobbied so hard for the President's re-election campaign, will mimic his tolerance, acceptance, and love for other diverse people groups.)
15. President Bush has also gone on record admitting that he doesn't believe every word of the Bible to be true. We are relieved that he does not embrace the parts of the Bible that endorse homophobia, hatemongering, the subjugation of women, or the exclusiveness of Christianity.
16. He has increased funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, for the Department of Education, and for many other groups that previous Republican Presidents attempted to dismantle.
17. Although he did cut taxes, he did not let that stop him from increasing government spending for almost every government program - indeed, spending has increased more under Bush's leadership than any President in a generation.
18. His administration helped oust that radical hatemonger former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore from the judiciary, and Bush gave a recess appointment to his chief nemesis, Bill Prior.
19. Although Bush did capitulate to the anti-abortion forces and signed the "Partial Birth Abortion" ban, at least the wording of the Ban legalized every form of abortion except one type, and since there are other late term procedures available for women who want an abortion, this Ban - if it even survives the judicial gauntlet - will not impede a woman's right to choose.
20. President Bush has also gone on the record opposing the Republican policy which is against gay civil unions, and he is endorsing gay civil unions at the state level. (Gay civil unions are basically legal relationships in which marriage rights are conferred on gay couples.)
21. Although he was endorsed by the fanatical NRA, he crossed them by admitting that he would re-enact the Clinton assault weapons ban, and he refused to rescind on any prior gun control legislation when he had the chance.
As chairman of the Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay, Socialist Republican Caucus, I want to thank you all, and say that we could not have done it without you! Although you have publicly disagreed with the more moderate and progressive members of your Republican Party, it's nice to see that the Party is more important than your particular version of Christianity. It's good to see that you put the interests of your Republican President above the interests of your religion.Let this union between the left and the right wings of our party demonstrate to the world once and for all that we are all God's children, and we can work together for a better world without the divisiveness and intolerance of religious exclusiveness of those who say that abortion is murder, homosexuals are hellbound, and that Jesus is the only way to heaven. We re-elected the most liberal, progressive Republican in history into the White House, and we did it together!
CONTACT:Your Pro-Gay, Pro-Choice, Socialist Republican chairman,
Dr. Estee Deeze
Sunday, December 05, 2004
My friends, I so much wish that I was joking...
“Our culture, how we know it today, is under attack from every angle,” Representative Allen said in a press conference Tuesday.
That may be, but how that directly interfaces with the idea of his bill to destroy books I don't exactly follow. Allen said that if his bill passes, novels with gay protagonists and college textbooks that suggest homosexuality is natural would have to be removed from library shelves and destroyed.
But when pressed harder as to what the specifics would be as to what books would be destroyed and who would make that call, Gerald Allen was less concise than usual, being such a learned individual. And as far as I can tell, basically has not really responded to the question. However, when asked about specific titles, he mentioned some obvious ones, such as Heather has Two Mommies. He also mentioned a few, less gay, books that some would even call classics, The Color Purple, The Picture of Dorian Gray and Brideshead Revisted.
Further, Gerald’s proposed bill would also ban materials that acknowledge or advocate a lifestyle or actions prohibited by the sodomy and sexual misconduct laws of Alabama. Allen said that would mean that books with heterosexual couples committing those acts likely would be banned, too. Also, the proposed bill would disallow an educator or guest speaker, etc. from giving out materials or suggesting homosexuality was OK, according to Rep. Allen.
Here I have to ask, where would it stop? The logical end of Allen’s plans would be to ban all books that mention any crime. Right? So out the door go Romeo and Juliet, Crime and Punishment, Tom Sawyer, Calvin and Hobbes. The list could go on ad absurdum. Though if you ask me, we’ve reached absurdum already.
And perhaps you’re wondering what Representative Allen proposes to do with the books he bans? His answer is simple:
"I guess we dig a big hole and dump them in and bury them," he said.
Sheer genius. I now believe in reincarnation. This man IS George Wallace.
Speaking of genius, here’s my brilliant plan. Why don’t we contact this fellow and give him our unwavering support and devotion.
His address in the Alabama State House is:
Room 53111 S. Union StreetMontgomery, AL 36130
His phone number at the State House is 334-242-7758. His work number at his day job as Owner of Cashco Marketing is 205-556-5310. His home phone number is 205-556-5310. And his home address is:
8200 Old Hargrove Road
East Cottondale, AL 35453
Let’s show him some love
(short disclaimer: I am not explicitly or implicitly recommending violence, vandalism, or any other criminal activity in any way. I only suggest that the Representative hear the public’s opinion of his plans)
No, I'm not kidding. The geniuses at ChristianGallery.com explain it all so well, who am I to add or take away from their work. Check it out here.
Full Story Here
Russian President Vladimir Putin (news - web sites) accused the United States on Friday of pursuing a dictatorial foreign policy and said mounting violence could derail progress toward bringing peace and democracy to Iraq.
Putin also criticized the West for setting double-standards on terrorism, pursuing Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Iraq while giving refuge to "terrorists" demanding Chechnya (news - web sites)'s independence from Russia.
Full story here.
Dec 3, 2004 — By Pavel Polityuk
KIEV (Reuters) - Ukrainian opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko declared victory in an "orange revolution" on Friday after the ex-Soviet state's top judges annulled a rigged election and ordered a new vote on Dec. 26.
The Supreme Court ruling is a slap in the face for Russian leader Vladimir Putin, who only on Thursday met outgoing Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma and said he was right to oppose a re-run of the poll's final round last month.
A triumphant Yushchenko addressed tens of thousands of supporters in the center of the capital Kiev, telling them to stay in the streets until Kuchma sacked the government and the election commission that held the tainted vote.
Young and old protesters clad in the opposition's orange colors set off fireworks and cheered each Supreme Court judge by name in Independence Square amid scenes of jubilation.
The crisis following the election battle between Western- oriented Yushchenko and Moscow-backed Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich has plunged Ukraine into turmoil and kindled distrust between Russia and the West.
The judges agreed with Yushchenko's allegations that the Nov. 21 run-off vote had been subject to systematic fraud.
"Ukraine is henceforth a true democratic state," Yushchenko told the crowd, one of his young daughters hugging his leg.
"Mr Kuchma, Mr Yanukovich! Find the courage and go! Don't torture your people."
....Cont'd on the page I stole it from
Saturday, December 04, 2004
Read the full story here.
Photographs showing Navy SEALs in Iraq sitting on hooded and handcuffed detainees, what appear to be bloodied prisoners, and a prisoner with a gun to his head. One photo shows a man on his back with a boot on his chest. One photo shows a man with an automatic weapon pointed at his head and a gloved thumb jabbed into his throat. Some photos seem to show blood on or about the faces of the detainees.
Maybe I'm just cold hearted, but the abovementioned photos do not seem to show torture or any illegal acts. Most I don’t even believe are improper. Now, I must clarify that I’m working on the assumption that the detainees, POW’s, enemy combatants, whatever you’d like to call them, that are in these photos are men who were captured in battled, captured while trying to kill our troops or murder our civilians in Iraq. Now, if that is not the truth and these men are innocent or simply looters, then yes, I would say these actions are inappropriate. But if they are photos of fighters trying to kill our guys, I don’t see the problem. Some say the photos were used simply for souvenirs, some say they are used as propaganda to show other enemy combatants that they should cooperate. If it’s the latter, then more power to them. If a picture can help save one of our guys or keep one unit out of a dangerous area, then keep taking pictures. If it’s the former, just being taken for kicks, I don’t think it’s great, but I don’t see a big problem. I know from talking to WWII vets that some of our guys did much worse things. And to put it in a current prospective, you’ll notice all the enemy in these photos still have heads and appear to be alive. You can’t say the same about how the animals treat our guys.
Just my 2 cents.
Read the full story here.
GreatBritain recently gave Akhmed Zakayev, an envoy for rebel leader and former Chechen President Aslan Maskhadov, refugee status. The US has granted asylum to lyas Akhmadov, a former Chechen foreign minister. Russian President Vladimir Putin is not happy with this. Frankly, neither am I. He sees a double standard in this. We (the US) and our strongest ally, Great Britain, are currently waging a war in Iraq purportedly to help defeat terrorism. Unlike the US and the UK, Russia has a terrorist pseudo-state right next door. They receive terrorist attacks in their homeland around once a month. We haven’t had a terrorist attack, or even a real attempt, since the attack on 9/11. I can’t recall there being any real terrorist attack in the UK from the Islamists, ever. I could be wrong there, and if I am, please correct me. But I’ve been unable to find any Islamist terrorism in the UK.
So, without an attack since 9/11 here in the US, and no attack ever in the UK, we (the US and UK) feel justified invading Iraq. And yet we have criticized Russia for trying to defend herself against Islamist terrorists that live on their doorstep. Further, not only do we criticize Russia, we have granted ASYLUM to these same terrorists. I can’t remember having ever said this before, but I agree with Putin.
This only furthers my hypothesis that our “War on Terror” is based on expediency, not truly killing or capturing all terrorists. Our faux conviction is sickening.
From UPI Newswire via http://interestalert.com/brand/siteia.shtml?Story=st/sn/12030000aaa0316b.upi&Sys=siteia&Fid=WORLDNEW&Type=News&Filter=World%20News
Putin's silverware disinfected with vodka
NEW DELHI, Dec. 3 (UPI) -- The silverware used by Russian President Vladimir Putin during his ongoing visit to India reportedly is being disinfected with copious amounts of vodka.
Russian security sleuths will use the liquor to wash knives and forks to be used by Putin and his wife, Lyudmila, Indo Asian News Service reported, quoting an employee of the Maurya Sheraton Hotel in New Delhi where the Russian leader is staying.
"The silverware was washed with vodka and then dried with a towel," the employee said.
Putin is known to drink a little, unlike his predecessor, Boris Yeltsin, whose relationship with the alcohol made headlines a few times.
Washing dishes with vodka is part of the elaborate security arrangements for Putin who is under threat from Chechen Islamic rebels.
Putin has escaped at least three assassination attempts, including one as recently as Sept. 18 when his security personnel defused two car bombs on a regular route he takes to the Kremlin.
Putin is in India for a three-day visit to bolster bilateral ties.
Copyright 2004 by United Press International.All rights reserved.
Friday, December 03, 2004
I assume most of you know the basics of this case. If not, check out this link for one of the original stories about it:
Also, I’ll give a quick rundown. 23 year old school teacher, Debra LaFave, with a new marriage that was on the rocks. A friend of this 15 year old kid, we’ll call him Dave, in an unrelated incident, introduces Dave to LaFave at a bakesale or a football game or something. They develop a romantic relationship, and at some point they begin having sex. They have sex a few times. At some point, Dave’s mom becomes aware of the sex and the relationship. The mom calls the cops, the cops start investigating, including having Dave call LaFave and allowing the cops to record the conversations. Then Debbie is arrested and charged in late June of this summer.
That’s basically the story, as far as I can tell. Like I said, check out the above link for a better description. Now, my take.
My first thought is that if the kid had actually been the bleeding-ear inducing crooner David Lee Roth, this lady would never have been arrested. Just a hunch.
Now the part I find most interesting, the legal stuff. She’s charged with at least one, and perhaps 2, count of lewd and lascivious behavior. Now, under Florida law, this basically means sex without consent. We know that here as Statutory Rape. Now here are some intriguing facts. The age of consent in Florida is 12. This kid is 15. So why is she going on trial? Good question, well there’s another law stating basically that there can be no consent if someone has sex with someone they have authority over. But again, there’s a problem. As far as I can tell, yes, this girl is a teacher, but not HIS teacher. So, he’s of the age of consent under Florida law and, as I far as I can see, the “authority clause” piece doesn’t apply because of her position. So again, why is she going to trial? I’m not 100% sure. Yeah, you can tell me it’s immoral and horrible, and maybe it is. But under FL state law, I don’t see it being ilLEGAL. For another thing, the kid obviously was ok with it. I mean, come on, without getting too graphic here, if he didn’t want to do it or wasn’t interested or enjoying the sex, he could NOT have engaged in it. Physically I mean, he would not have been able. I think you understand.
Best I can see, the mom was upset and called the cops, that’s the only reason the cops got involved. The kid, so far, has not complained or filed a complaint. I’m not condoning this sort of thing. I’m just asking, again, is it illegal?
As a side note, had the roles been reversed, a male teacher and a female student, but ages remained the same, the man would be lynched by now. He’d be labeled a child molester, a pedophile. And perhaps he would be. But I guess she isn’t.
23 year old female teacher, 15 year old male student, both of legal age, but it’s criminal. But a 28 year old school administrator and a 19 year old girl, they get married and everyone’s so very very happy. Maybe she should have just waited three years.
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
Ever been to an airport trying to pick someone up? Remember having to keep moving? Remember how the cop yells at you if you do stop in a load/unload zone for more than 45 seconds? Well, Diana Dietrich-Barnes has more than that to remember. And before any of you cops-do-no-wrong-unless-the-liberals-make-them start in Mrs. Dietrich-Barnes is not an aging hippy whiner. She's a Republican. She donated $300 to the National Republican Congressional Committee on 07/23/03 and donated $250 to the National Republican Congressional Committee on 09/16/03 (according to public FEC documents via http://www.city-data.com/elec/elec-STOCKBRIDGE-GA.html). She was at Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport in Atlanta trying to pick up her mother. An officer politely yelled at her to move her car or she would be ticketed. She said ok. But she would have to back up a bit first so she could make it around the truck in front of her. As she backs up, the cop says she intentionally hit him with her side mirror. At the bottom of this post is a link to this story and a link there to the video of it, watch it and decide what you see. Here's what I saw.
First, not only did she not appear to intend to hit him with the mirror, she didn't hit him with it. Unless I am greatly mistaken, the Ford Explorer she drove has fold-away mirrors. Had she even bumped him, the mirror would have folded forward a bit. This can't be made out on the tape, but according to her statement and witness statements, the mirror did not move at all. At this point the cop begins yelling at her to stop the car and get out. He then drags her out of the car and to the back of her car. Now, does he ask her to put her hands on the vehicle? No. How about asking her to kneel or lay down? No. He PICKS HER UP FULLY OFF THE GROUND AND DROPS HER ON HER STOMACH. He then cuffs her and a few other little cops come in soon as backup.
After watching the video, prosecutors dropped ALL charges against the woman. The idiot cop then tried to file a complaint as a private citizen against her. He was basically laughed out of court. Mrs. Dietrich-Barnes is currently considering whether to press charges and/or file suit.
And to top it off, this one lovely cop has only been on the force there for 5 years. Yet in that short span, Officer Terence Alexander has accumulated more than 20 complaints filed against him. He is said to have a long history of disciplinary problems and has had more than 11 reprimands and suspensions in the past four years.
This thug should’ve been fired long ago. Now he should be fired and severely damaged.
When will someone learn that we cannot keep hiring sociopaths to serve and protect?
One of the news stories of the incident and a link to the video of the “incident”.
A briefing released by the APD to the media concerning the “incident”.