Electronic Writer

Yahoo! News – Abortion Clinics on Edge After Manifesto: “Abortion Clinics on Edge After Manifesto”

An Eye for An Eye

Apparently, there are a few of us that have not progressed as a civilization beyond antiquity. These few culturally inept still believe that it is acceptable to meet force with equal force. This freak who was BOMBING abortion clinics actually believes that he is justified in killing the people who work in abortion clinics (or who use them) “because abortion is murder.” This is the most wobbly soap-box I have ever seen.

I Digress for a Moment

In a recent translation of the epic poem “Beowulf” there is an applicable theme to our abhorrent tale. For those of you who do not know, or for those who might need a memory trigger, “Beowulf” is an oral poem passed on by the bards about the Nordic battles and heroes of old. It was recorded in writing (some believe as early as 600 A.D.) and surfaced as a manuscript around 1200 A.D. Some people think that it is a dry tale, and others believe that it is a great story of battles, and heroes, and swords, etc. Obviously, I am in the latter group.

In a recent translation by Seamus Heaney, I detected an element of sarcasm that none of the other translators surfaced. At one point, the poet lamented the current situation–that the social rules require each of the societies to destroy generations to pay back the “Weirguild”–or, man-price. If someone in your family was murdered, then you can extract either cash in the equivalent of that person’s “Weirguild” (determined by their social rank), OR you could kill an equal value person in THEIR family. It was the equivalent concept to the “Eye for an Eye” of biblical times.

Is the Abortion Bomber Alone?

Absolutely NOT! Right now, we call them extremists, but I have a different argument. There is an entire sub-culture that is as unforgiving and misguided as him. Abortion Bomber’s core belief is that he has the ability (or, perhaps DUTY) to destroy the people who do not agree with him. Now, who else can I think of who feels that way? Who, in our world, behaves like that?

I don’t want to point any fingers, but . . . there is this country over in the Middle East that we are giving Democracy right now. And, it was kind of, sort of, NOT their idea. I know that their idea of the world was WRONG and all, but . . . .

And, then there is the state of Oregon who actually REVOKED same-sex marriage licenses today. Talk about feeling duped! You are really not married, or recognized, or anything. I hope they get their processing fee back . . . .

Our abhorrent Abortion Bomber stands on the same philosophical ground as the homophobes passing legislation in our government, as the war-mongers who are giving democracy to Iraq, and ANYONE who thinks that if you do not believe in their god, you are going to their hell.

If I remember correctly, Jesus was a pretty tolerant guy, but maybe that is just my interpretation of the bible.

Yahoo! News – Congress Passes Bankruptcy Reform Bill: “Congress Passes Bankruptcy Reform Bill”

Of Course they passed the bankrupcy reform bill. Of Course President Bush was “eager” to sign the legislation. Has he ever HAD a credit card bill in his entire life? I remember in college. I was earning about $200 less per month than I needed to live. And guess where it came from for a year, or so: YUP–my credit cards.

To our fearless leader, he thinks that credit cards are something you use to NOT CARRY CASH. They certainly are not something people “live on.” “This is a good thing for business (my base) . . . I am sure that thought rummaged around there, somewhere–pending verification that there was any brain activity at all.

I am certainly NOT advocating that it is acceptable to not pay your bills. I am, however, questioning the representation of the our government. The people who made this decision are the “haves.” How many legislators come from rich families? How many have earned their money? How many of them have lived from paycheck-to-paycheck at ANY POINT in their lives?

My understanding is that the majority of Bankrupcies are caused by Medical Bills and procedures–NOT from people buying too many electronic devices at Best Buy. Actually, now that I think about it–coupled with the recent court ruling that stated that [Americans] are not entitled to low-cost medicine, and a history of legislation that consistenly chooses the profits of the companies over the people receiving the care–it would seem to me that Darwinism is no longer a valid theory for our society.

This is an extermination of the middle and lower classes. Only the rich will survive.

I have had the wind knocked out of my lungs by this thing (figuratively AND literally). See for yourself.

http://www.thebattleforamerica.com/

Anyone want to talk about it–leave a comment.

Be warned. Be wary. We may live in a monosyllabic, singular, olive drab country soon. Although this may be similar to the “ditto-head” culture popular with so many Limbaugh-ites, it happens to frighten me. And, it may happen in the not-so-distant future. Our glorious comander-in-chief has replaced the leaders of the US Commission of Civil Rights with people who agree with him. Two more dissenters from within the Government have been removed and effectively silenced.

Why should we care?

This is a good place for an analogy. Let’s say that you are hungry and do not feel inclined to cook this evening. When selecting the restaurant you will patronize, you may consider a restaurant that serves Chinese food, or Mexican food. You may consider a drive-through, or a sit-down meal. You may consider how much money you have in your wallet. The point is–you have options.

Right now, in our very own government, our leaders are removing politicians and employees that appear to be voices of dissent. The executive branch is systematically eliminating program directors, scientists and experts from our government. And, this current story of the US Commission of Civil Rights is just another very poignant example.

let’s go back to our dining analogy. You are looking for a place to eat. This time, however, you have a new constraint. There are now no longer any Chinese restaurants. They were banned because the government does not like some of the ingredients. So, they passed a law, or changed the Constitution, or said that the sale of Chinese food was affecting Interstate Commerce, or something. But, you can’t go anymore. Restaurants can’t serve the stuff, and you can’t buy it.

The truth was that someone in the Administration felt that Chinese food was terrible for you. Or, someone from the Organization of Chinese Restaurant Owners angered a politician at a dinner party. Or, even worse, it could be retribution because many Chinese people are Buddhist, and unless they become Christian and accept the Lord, Jesus Christ, as their savior, they really don’t HAVE a place in our country! They belong in China with the other heathens of the world. Right?

Here’s were the analogy ends, and you have to step up and step in. Dissention is crucial to the world. When people disagree with you, it tests your arguments and ultimately makes them richer. You have to incorporate more diverse ideas into what you do or say. It may lead to more research, and it may lead you to change your opinion. The argument may also expose just how right you were. Regardless–the outcome makes you better.

Disagreements create better meetings, work groups, classrooms, products, friendships, news, relationships, policies, and yes, even better government. Keep people who disagree with you around–they will teach you things about yourself and your knowledge that you may never discover otherwise.

Ask your Senators and Representatives to encourage diversity in our government. Request or foster State and local diversity. Vote for politicians that you may disagree with, but who will be best for your neghborhood or country. Express your opinions with your loved ones–especially if you disagree.

If you do not bring diversity into our country, then you are to blame when we all have to eat bland, tasteless food, in some olive-drab mess hall catered by Haliburton.

Bush Replaces Head of Panel on Civil Rights

By JOHN FILES

Published: December 7, 2004

WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 – President Bush sought to reshape the United States Commission on Civil Rights on Monday, announcing a replacement for its chairwoman, Mary Frances Berry, who has been critical of his civil rights policies.

Mr. Bush appointed two new members to the commission and designated one of them, Gerald A. Reynolds, as chairman. Mr. Reynolds, a former assistant secretary in the Department of Education’s Civil Rights Office, will replace Ms. Berry, whose term expired on Sunday, according to the White House.

But, according to a report by The Associated Press, Ms. Berry contends that the leaders of the commission retain their positions until midnight on Jan. 21, 2005.

Mr. Bush also designated a current Republican board member, Abigail Thernstrom, to replace Cruz Reynoso, as vice chairman.

Claire Buchan, a White House spokeswoman, said of Ms. Berry and Mr. Reynoso, “The president appreciates their service; their term expired yesterday.” Ms. Buchan declined to discuss the matter further.

The open seat created by Mr. Reynoso’s departure will be filled by Ashley L. Taylor, a former Virginia deputy attorney general.

The president, who received 11 percent of the black vote in November, up from 8 percent in 2000, has had a strained relationship with the civil rights organization. Last week, Ms. Berry and Mr. Reynoso sent the White House a 166-page report highly critical of Mr. Bush’s record on civil rights. A cover letter told Mr. Bush that his civil rights policies “further divide an already deeply torn nation.”

Ms. Berry, 66, a history professor at the University of Pennsylvania, has sparred with other presidents since she was appointed to the commission by President Jimmy Carter in 1980. President Reagan removed her from the commission, but she was reinstated after a lawsuit . Ms. Berry was also critical of the way Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida handled the disputed presidential election in that state four years ago.

The eight-member panel investigates civil rights complaints and reports its findings. It has no enforcement power.

But, you didn’t have to prove it. So, y’all failed my test, but it doesn’t really matter. I am gonna keep writing anyways. I guess that I am going to just have to get a little more caustic in order to illicit a response.

We Need Dialog

Now, more than ever, we need to keep interacting. The deadline is coming for the electors to vote. Kenneth Blackwell is not eveer going to tell us the results of the votes that were counted behind closed and locked doors. So, stay close and stay active. We have a four-year typhoon that is about ready to hit with Biometric Passports, electronic listening, and a further suspension of our personal rights. Do not be lulled into complacency by the media that can only report about their famous anchors retiring . . . .

[Posted with hblogger 2.0 http://www.normsoft.com/hblogger/]

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1124-11.htm

This is a great article with very specific steps to end our occupation of Iraq. This is worth the read.

Ah, yes. The Sacred Institution of Marriage

If I hear one more “deeply religious” person tell me that the motivation behind same-sex marriages is the “tax break,” I am going to vomit. The core of that statement has a deeper, more sinister message. It implies that same-sex relationships are founded out of necessity and usership of our system–not out of love. It would be a slippery-slope for me to continue by thinking that perhaps gays and lesbians cannot even experience love because “it goes against nature.” Although, I recognize the logical fallacy of that claim, I bet there are others out there who don’t. Slippery-slope or not, there are those who would not stop there with their fuzzy logic and overgeneralizations . . . .

I am a straight, single male who has never been married–which, probably disqualifies me from making statements about gays, lesbians, and even married (I think we should call them “natural” –at least that is what THEY would prefer) couples. So, rather than talk about them, I am going to espouse some historical trivia about their precious institution called “marriage.”

Marriage was Based Upon Practical Reasons

Way back when, at the time marriages were founded, the ceremony held a dual role in society. There was the traditional role where a couple asks for communal recognition of their previously-existing relationship. The participants already HAD a relationship. They were simply asking for everyone else to recongnize it.

In addition, marriage had a practical side to it. As the kids got married, it became time for them to move out of their parents’ houses and get a place of their own. So, the entire community would assemble together and give them gifts–all of the things necessary to maintain/run a household. Couple that with a nice dowry, and voila–parents could get the spare room and the office back–all in a good weekend.

The idea that their relatioship is being “blessed” by God was tacked on somewhere by the men in charge. A religious element probably existed somewhere as part of the process because many early communities were formed around spiritual groups, but the ceremony of marriage itself was really devised for practical reasons.

Does Anyone Actually Know Someone who Married for Tax Reasons?

I guess the other big question that I have about the sanctity of marriage relates to a story that has been quoted to me more times than I can count about two little old ladies . . . .

Invariably, the discussion begins with the concept of same-sex relationships, and the return shot is about the tax breaks. How it is not right to use the God-granted institution of marriage for the associated tax breaks. The next step in the argument is then about two, mythical old ladies who wanted to get married-for the tax breaks. Someone thinks that is fine, and someone else thinks it is terrible. My point is: I think it is a lie!

I have heard about the mythical grannies, but have never met anyone from that generation that would mix sexual mores and their reputation for a taxbreak! In all probability, they woukd be a likely group of career taxpayers who would pay more taxes to keep their reputation clean. After all, we are talking about the “Leave it to Beaver” generation with their white-washed reality and no camera shots of the bedroom,

I also have a message for the “au naturale” couples:

If you are married for the tax breaks, go see a counselor. You are an idiot and a loser, and you need spiritual cleansing/replacement treatment, you need to engage the cerebral portions of your brain (go ahead, plug them in–even for a minute–it wont hurt you), and you must cease and desist projecting your inadequecies onto others.

[Posted with hblogger 2.0 http://www.normsoft.com/hblogger/]

This is reprinted from Common Dreams

http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/1123-13.htm

Stealing votes in Columbus

by Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.

November 23, 2004

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/914