Friday, September 24, 2004
BMW finally has an official press release about the new M5! So, if anyone is looking for a present for me, here it is.
Kerry: Allawi's Take on Iraq Unrealistic
By NEDRA PICKLER
Associated Press Writer
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Thursday that Iraq's Ayad Allawi was sent before Congress to put the ``best face'' on Bush administration policy.
Shortly after Allawi, the interim government's prime minister, gave a rosy portrayal of progress toward peace in Iraq, Kerry said the assessment contradicted reality on the ground.
``The prime minister and the president are here obviously to put their best face on the policy, but the fact is that the CIA estimates, the reporting, the ground operations and the troops all tell a different story,'' Kerry said. (cont'd)
Bush at the U.N.: Sugarcoating Failure
By Marjorie Cohn
t r u t h o u t Perspective
Friday 24 September 2004
In his speech to the U.N. General Assembly Tuesday, Bush spoke of spreading "freedom" and "human dignity" in Iraq and Afghanistan. He decried dictators who "believe that suicide and torture and murder are fully justified to serve any goal they declare." He accused the terrorists of seeking to destroy the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But he failed to say that the UDHR declares: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." And he forgot to mention the torture and murder of prisoners in U.S. custody in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
Bush claimed "the people of Iraq have regained sovereignty." But he omitted any reference to the 150,000 U.S. troops on the ground there, who enjoy immunity from prosecution for any crimes they might commit. (cont'd)
President Bush's Lead Balloon
Published: September 22, 2004
We did not expect President Bush to come before the United Nations in the middle of his re-election campaign and acknowledge the serious mistakes his administration has made on Iraq. But that still left plenty of room for him to take advantage of this one last chance to appeal to an increasingly antagonistic world to help the Iraqis secure and rebuild their shattered nation and prepare for elections in just four months. Instead, Mr. Bush delivered an inexplicably defiant campaign speech in which he glossed over the current dire situation in Iraq for an audience acutely aware of the true state of affairs, and scolded them for refusing to endorse the American invasion in the first place. (cont'd)
A Great PDF File Explaining How the Presidential Debate System Is Corrupt
For the last sixteen years, the general election presidential debates have been controlled
by a private, tax-exempt corporation – the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) –
that has deceptively served the interests of the Republican and Democratic parties at the
expense of the American people.
In 1986, the Republican and Democratic National Committees ratified an agreement for
the “parties to take over the presidential debates.”i Fifteen months later, then-Republican
Party chair Frank Fahrenkopf and then-Democratic Party chair Paul Kirk created the
CPD, which immediately seized control of the debates from the genuinely nonpartisan
League of Women Voters.
Still co-chaired by Frank Fahrenkopf and Paul Kirk, the CPD secretly submits to the
demands of the Republican and Democratic candidates. Behind closed-doors, negotiators
for the major party nominees jointly draft debate contracts called Memoranda of
Understanding that dictate precisely how the debates will be run – from decreeing who
can participate, to selecting who will ask the questions, to ordaining the temperature in
the auditoriums. Masquerading as a nonpartisan sponsor, the CPD obediently implements
and conceals the contracts. (cont'd)
Millions Blocked from Voting in U.S. Election
This article is mostly full of crap. The writer claims that refusing voting rights to felons is racial disenfranchisement.
Additionally, Florida is one of 14 states that prohibit ex-felons from voting. Seven percent of the electorate but 16 percent of black voters in that state are disenfranchised.
In other swing states, 4.6 percent of voters in Iowa, but 25 percent of blacks, were disenfranchised in 2000 as ex-felons. In Nevada, it was 4.8 percent of all voters but 17 percent of blacks; in New Mexico, 6.2 percent of all voters but 25 percent of blacks.
In total, 13 percent of all black men are disenfranchised due to a felony conviction, according to the Commission on Civil Rights.
Ok, maybe it's bad law to still disallow felons from voting, after all, as the author points out, the laws have roots in the post-Civil War 19th century and were aimed at preventing black Americans from voting. We all know that any post-Civil War 19th century laws are evil and unusable, right? And I'm sure that only black felons are not allowed to vote in the above states due to their felon status, all white felons are probably allowed to vote of course.
Another complaint from the author:
Minority voters may be deterred from voting simply by election officials demanding to see drivers' licenses before handing them a ballot, according to Spencer Overton, who teaches law at George Washington University. The federal government does not require people to produce a photo identification unless they are first-time voters who registered by mail.
"African Americans are four to five times less likely than whites to have a photo ID," Overton said at a recent briefing on minority disenfranchisement.
This I just do not get. If they ask for an ID and that is not lawful, you don't show it and you call the cops to come and set things right. Or just show the old man or woman your stinking license. Why don't blacks have photo IDs? This must be another white conspiracy to steal the black identity. You know, like Eminem.
Why We Must Leave Iraq
Jonathan Schell makes a decent case.
The bubble boy
The ever-brilliant Sid Blumenthal bashes dum Dubya about something or other.
Ok, it's not pointless. Not the info anyway. But my effor to place it here is, because no one reads it but me. And I'm pretty sure that I don't care :)
US's "Axis of Evil" as China Sees It
China’s Persecution of Christians
US-China-Israel - The Real Axis Of Evil
China Today: Evil Empire or Unprecedented Opportunity?
Heinz estate attorney argues records should remain closed
PITTSBURGH (AP) — An attorney for the estate of the late U.S. Sen. H. John Heinz III argued that too much time has passed for news organizations to try to unseal records that were sealed the day after his death in 1991.
EUROPEAN UNION COULD 'SPLIT' OVER CONSTITUTION
Thu Sep 23 2004 21:52:02 ET (from Drudge)
THE EUROPEAN Union could be destroyed by divisions over plans for a new constitution, the world's most influential business journal declared today.In a warning to Europe's leaders, The Economist said it was 'probable' the EU would split into rival camps if one or more countries votes against the constitution.But it argued that such a collapse would actually be a good thing with Britain and other countries able to choose how much - or how little - they wanted to be involved.
Teresa Heinz Kerry says Bin Laden Will Be "Caught" Just Before the Election
Personally, I wouldn't be surprised one whit.
Friday, September 17, 2004
Just for the record, I'm with Jesus.
Manner of Worship: Jesus and Paul left contradictory legacies as to the manner in which worship should be conducted. Jesus preached as an itinerant wanderer, informally to locals he encountered in his travels. Usually these were small groups, though he did encounter the occasional large crowd. Jesus always prayed privately, and taught his followers to do the same. In fact, he specifically prohibited public prayer and public displays of worship (Matt. 6:1-18). The fact that he belabored this point so thoroughly in his Sermon on the Mount, his first and greatest public teaching, almost suggest a premonition that others would follow to undermine and contradict him. Jesus did not organize any great church. He led a small, itinerant band of traveling wanderers from town to town. The closest he came to establishing any kind of authority was in Matt. 16:18, when he designated an itinerant fisherman named Simon to become "Peter" the "rock" upon which his church would be founded. Paul, in contrast, organized a great system of churches. The story of Acts is the story of Paul traveling throughout the known world, establishing great churches. His epistles, which comprise the greatest single portion of the New Testament, about a third of it, were written to maintain administrative control of this great ecclesiastical network and to standardize its doctrines, not based on the teachings of Jesus, but on his own contradictory theology.
As with so many other issues, today's modern evangelical Christians fight for their right to expropriate public facilities for their worship and offer great churches with elaborate public worship rituals, once again coming down on the side of Paul and repudiating the simple teachings of the founder they accept, once again, in name only.
Dealing with sinners: Jesus ministered to the sinners, with no reluctance to engage adulterers, whores, publicans, tax collectors, lepers, or any other "unclean" person (the whole need not a physician; a church is a hospital for sinners rather than a showcase for saints). (This, of course, completely devastates the argument that god cannot be in the presence of sin, unless you do not believe in the notion of Jesus being god.) Paul, contradicts Jesus: 1Cor 5:11 "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat."
Feeding the poor: Jesus taught in Matt 25:31-46 that our final salvation and judgment would be based in large part on our willingness to feed the poor. Paul contradicts this: 2Thess 3:10 "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." Does this mean that if poor people are unemployed, we should turn them away from any charity?
Slavery: When the Southerners in our country sought to defend slavery, they called upon Paul to back them up, citing Ephesians 6:5 and Titus 2:9-10, where he exhorts slaves to obey their masters, and the fact that slavery was widely practiced, but Paul never condemned it once.
Equality for Women: Paul was very anti-woman. He ordered that they not be allowed to speak in the churches (I Cor 14:34-45) and that they stay home and take care of the kids (1Timothy 5:14), and that wives should be submissive to the mastery of their husbands (Ephesians 5:22-24 and Colossians 3:18-19).
Homosexuals: The ONLY passages in the New Testament that are offered as evidence against equal rights for homosexuals are those taught by Paul (various passages have been construed to oppose homosexuality, but the most direct reference is in Romans 1:26-27). Jesus himself never uttered a single word against homosexuals and, given his affinity for sinners, lepers, tax collectors, and other outcasts, it is likely that in our modern times it would be Jesus who would be embracing the homosexuals rejected by those who claim to be his followers. Just as it was Paul's words that were held up in the mid-1800's to justify slavery, so Paul's words today are still used to persecute others.Ironically, Paul is the one who asserts that the Law of Moses is no longer operational, yet he echoes the Law on homosexuality (see Leviticus 18:22). Ironically, many of the same Christians who eat pork, shrimp or rabbit (forbidden in Leviticus 11) because the Law no longer applies, still also cite Leviticus 18 when they want to oppose homosexuality -- trying to have it both ways.
Paul vs. James
Re: Faith or Works
Paul teaches that the gift of salvation through grace occurs APART FROM any behavioral requirement:
Romans 3:28 : "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith WITHOUT THE DEEDS OF THE LAW."
Paul reiterates this position in: Romans 4:6; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; II Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:5 -- yet no other Bible writer ever makes this point of stating that salvation occurs apart from or separate from works or deeds, which Paul not only states, but reiterates so emphatically.
Paul is specifically rebutted by the later writing of James (brother of Jesus) who offers one of the most striking and dramatic direct contradictions in James 2:24. Here he chooses language and syntactical structures which specifically contradicts Paul's wording in Romans 3:28 in both content and construction:
Here are the two passages, shown in various translations:
Romans 3:28 (Paul)
KJV: a man is JUSTIFIED by FAITH apart from WORKS of the law.
RSV: a man is JUSTIFIED by FAITH without the DEEDS of the law.
Today's English Version: a person is PUT RIGHT WITH GOD only through FAITH, and not by DOING what the Law commands.
NIV: a man is JUSTIFIED by FAITH apart from OBSERVING THE LAW.
James 2:24 (James' rebuttal)
KJV: by WORKS a man is JUSTIFIED, and not by FAITH only.
RSV: a man is JUSTIFIED by WORKS and not by FAITH alone.
Today's English Version: it is by his ACTIONS that a person is PUT RIGHT WITH GOD, and not by his FAITH alone.
NIV: a person is JUSTIFIED by what he DOES and not by FAITH alone.
Clearly, James seems to be saying exactly the opposite of what Paul says. The key words here, in both passages, are JUSTIFIED (or, in Today's English, "put right with God"), WORKS/DEEDS/ACTIONS (or, in NIV, "observing the law"), and FAITH (same in all versions of both passages). Not only does James echo the same words, in the same parallel structure, but he even cites exactly the same example! The passage from Paul comes near the end of the third chapter of Romans; immediately after that, opening up the fourth chapter, Paul cites the example of Abraham and says it was his faith, not his works, that justified him (Romans 4:1-3). In James 2:21-24 (the same passage noted above), Paul's very example is used against him, but with the opposite (and contradictory) conclusion, that Abraham was justified by the combination of faith with works. Not only does James use exactly the same example, but to remove any doubt that they are referring to Abraham in exactly the same context, both Paul (Romans 4:3) and James (James 2:23) refer to exactly the same scriptural reference to Abraham, in which the Old Testament scriptures say that Abraham's belief was counted to him for righteousness (see Genesis 15:6). James' use of the same examples (right down to the identical scriptural reference), same words, and parallel structure clearly suggest that this was an intentional reply/rebuttal to Paul.
All of the above is taken from http://www.wordwiz72.com/paul.html
If you would like to read up on some other similar material, I encourage you to check out the following sites:
And of course, if ever you find the Scriptures quoted on any of the above sites to be wrong or misleading, please go to Bible.com to see for yourself.
I know this is a bit off of what I usually post, but I've been in several discussions lately on this topic. Enjoy
Friday, September 10, 2004
Will someone please shoot this man?
Yeah, the one on the left.
An unidentified member of the audience pulls the hair of a demonstrator
as he forces her out of an auditorium where President Bush was addressing a
crowd of supporters at Byers Choice in Colmar, Pa., Thursday Sept. 9, 2004.
Bush's speech focused on the economy. (AP Photo/Jacqueline Larma)
What the hell is wrong with this idiot? I don't care what the girl was saying,
you don't treat a woman like that. You don't pull hair. This guy is at least
in his 60's; he should know better. The girl is tiny; pick her up, and carry
her out. Handcuff her and carry her out. Both ok options. But you do NOT assault
someone like that. I don't care who they're protesting. As long as they pose
no physical threat, you just do not behave that way. If anyone knows who this
guy is, send him over to my house. We'll have a little discussion about how
a gentleman is supposed to behave.
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
Yes, I know. That's a lot of idiots.
Protesters Disrupt Convention Gathering
Wed Sep 1, 1:21 PM ET
By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK - Anti-war demonstrators disrupted a Republican youth gathering on the floor of the party convention Wednesday, shortly after President Bush (news - web sites)'s twin daughters left the stage.
Jenna and Barbara Bush introduced White House chief of staff Andrew Card. As he began speaking, 10 protesters sitting in the crowd jumped up, blew whistles and began to chant, "Bush kills." They also removed sweat shirts to reveal T-shirts reading "Bush Drop Global Debt Now."
Card tried to continue speaking, but was drowned out and stopped as young participants in the morning event scuffled with the demonstrators. Police moved in to remove the protesters, including a young woman hoisted out by two officers — one at her shoulders and one at her knees.
At least one delegate was slightly injured. Suhr Daniel, 20, of Milwaukee, said he was punched in the head by a protester. He had a cut near his temple and the side of his face was reddened.
U.S. Seeks to Dismiss Terror Convictions
Wed Sep 1,10:59 AM ET
By JOHN SOLOMON and CURT ANDERSON, Associated Press Writers
WASHINGTON - In a dramatic reversal, the Justice Department (news - web sites) acknowledges its original prosecution of a suspected terror cell in Detroit was filled with a "pattern of mistakes and oversights" that warrant the dismissal of the convictions.
In a 60-page memo that harshly criticizes its own prosecutors' work, the department told U.S. District Judge Gerald Rosen on Tuesday night it supports the Detroit defendants' request for a new trial and would no longer pursue terrorism charges against them. The defendants at most would only face fraud charges at a new trial.
The Justice Department is "concurring in the defendants' motions for a new trial" and asks the court to dismiss the first count of the original indictment charging the defendants with material support of terrorism, the government's filing said.
The reversal comes during the buildup to President Bush (news - web sites)'s nomination acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, where he and his allies have been touting their success in the war on terror.
The department's decision came after a monthslong internal investigation uncovered several pieces of evidence that prosecutors failed to turn over to defense lawyers before the trial last year. The probe exposed deep differences within the government over the course of the case and the quality of the prosecution's evidence.
Armed Group Seizes Russian School, Talks Start
Sep 1, 3:26 PM (ET) By Oleg Shchedrov
MOSCOW (Reuters) - A heavily armed gang seized up to 400 hostages at a Russian school near Chechnya Wednesday and threatened to shoot dead 50 children for any one of their comrades killed, a senior local official said.
Itar-Tass news agency said negotiations had begun with the gang of up to 17 men and women who stormed into the secondary school in North Ossetia province during a morning ceremony marking the first day of the new school year.
The assault in the town of Beslan bore the signs of a Chechen rebel operation and was the latest in a recent spate of deadly attacks in Russia which have killed more than 100. But Chechen separatists said they had nothing to do with it.
President Vladimir Putin, facing a major challenge to his security policies, broke off his seaside holiday and rushed to Moscow. But he made no public statements.
I'm so shocked. Wait, no I'm not, because i said this would happen. Don't believe me? Click here. That link should take you to my archives from January of this year. Scroll down to my 2004 predictions. So there you go.
Anyway, here's the story on it today.
EAGLE, Colo., Sept. 1, 2004 — A motion to dismiss the sexual assault charge against Kobe Bryant will be filed by prosecutors this afternoon, according to sources familiar with the case.
The motion will say that both the alleged victim and Bryant agree to have the case dropped. Prosecutors will ask that it be dismissed with prejudice, meaning that the charges can never be brought again.
In an interview on Sirius sattelite radio, Keyes said the following:
"The essence of ... family life remains procreation. If we embrace homosexuality as a proper basis for marriage, we are saying that it's possible to have a marriage state that in principal excludes procreation and is based simply on the premise of selfish hedonism."
When he was asked whether that meant Mary Cheney, the Vice President's daughter "is a selfish hedonist," Keyes said: "That goes by definition. Of course she is."
Ok, family life, his euphemism for love and sex, exists only for procreation. Therefore, any couple who marries for love and choses not to have children are "selfish hedonists". If a couple marries and wants to have children but, for whatever medical reasons, they cannot then they are "selfish hedonists". If a woman or man has a damaged reproductive system, they owe it to everyone to never marry because they can not procreate. If the did marry they would be...wait for it...yes! "Selfish hedonists"!
This man is dangerously delusional. No one has to like gays. No one has to believe that they are good in the eyes of God. But this is beyond the pale, and it indicts far more than just homosexuals.
Keyes should be in a tight white coat, not in an election.
Take the time to read it. You won't even hate him anymore. Ok, you probably will. But you won't hate him because of this.