In a recent article titled "Americans Deserve Better Politicians In Washington, Dr. Thomas Sowell, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute suggested that we pay our Congressmen and Senators a million dollars a year in salary. Why? Because according to him we deserve a lot better people in Congress than what we have.
He goes on to say that:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
"The cost of paying every member of Congress a million dollars a year is absolutely trivial compared to the vast amounts of the taxpayers' money wasted by cheap politicians doing things to get themselves re-elected"
And he says:
quote:
"The cost of paying every member of Congress a million dollars a year is absolutely trivial compared to the vast amounts of the taxpayers' money wasted by cheap politicians doing things to get themselves re-elected"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The real problem we have in our elected politics is not corruption--it is the demise of the concept of "service" as a worthy ideal in our society. We have become a self serving and self obsorbed population. And our elected politicians mirror this back to us by their self centered actions. Unless we are willing to pad their pocket books, we don't have a voice in our "elects" agenda. I recently read where one high ranking congressman from California was caught accepting bribes. He had been a former war hero and had gained the publics trust. With tear filled eyes he stood before news camaras aplogizing for his mis-deeds. One has to wonder how many of those tears were actually being shed because he had been caught not because he was sorry and repentant.
George Washington, who took pride in his self-control, lost his temper completely when someone told him that a decision he was going to make could cost him re-election as President. He blew up at the suggestion that he wanted to be President, rather than serving as a duty when he would rather be back home.
Power is such a dangerous thing that ideally it should be wielded by people who don't want to use power, who would rather be doing something else, but who are willing to serve a certain number of years as a one-time duty, preferably at the end of a career doing something else.
Yes--Yodi, I'm afraid we are stuck with what we have until we change the image in the mirror of what society looks like. Until then, we will reap what we sowed.
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Remaining Firm In The Face of Temptation
In times of stress we learn how loyal we are to our personal integrity. Are we willing to abandon our faith and moral values for the gratification of others or our mental and physical needs?
Stress plays out for me than it does for others. We all have had life experiences which we can blame for the failure to live up to our own values.This failure which involve the lowering of our standards may result in a relief grom the tension brought on by the stress but will result in a damaged character and tear in the fabric of our soul.
Faith, moral values, character, and soul make up who we are. It is the imprint we bring to the terestrial environment--our temporary home.
There will be an abundance of situations in our lives where stress will tempt us to choose the easy way out. to abandonwho we are in favor of temporary relief. We must always consult our conscience for guidance. It is the compass that guides us toward righteous behavior. Pray that this compass sings out so loudly that all voices of dissent are drowned out while allowing for the voice of "GOD" to win the day.
That's right Yodi, always stay the course.
Stress plays out for me than it does for others. We all have had life experiences which we can blame for the failure to live up to our own values.This failure which involve the lowering of our standards may result in a relief grom the tension brought on by the stress but will result in a damaged character and tear in the fabric of our soul.
Faith, moral values, character, and soul make up who we are. It is the imprint we bring to the terestrial environment--our temporary home.
There will be an abundance of situations in our lives where stress will tempt us to choose the easy way out. to abandonwho we are in favor of temporary relief. We must always consult our conscience for guidance. It is the compass that guides us toward righteous behavior. Pray that this compass sings out so loudly that all voices of dissent are drowned out while allowing for the voice of "GOD" to win the day.
That's right Yodi, always stay the course.
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Medical researchers make me sick!
Here we go again. Another diet myth exposed and one has to wonder what next is on the list that will soon be proven false.
The belief that a high-fibre diet will keep your colon healthy and cancer-free -- a popular medical theory since the 1960s -- does not appear to be correct, according to a new study.
Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health, who analyzed a number of long-term studies on the issue, said they "could not find support" for the notion that the risk of colorectal cancer is reduced by regular consumption of fibre.
Still-- they said there are plenty of good reasons to eat the recommended five to 10 servings daily of fruits and veggies-- along with plenty of whole grains.
"It's still important to eat a high-fibre diet," said Yikyung Park, a postdoctoral fellow at the U.S. National Cancer Institute in Washington and a member of the team whose research is published in today's edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
"Even though our study didn't find a reduction in colorectal cancer, other studies show that high-fibre diets reduce the risk of heart disease and diabetes."
Other researchers also cautioned that this is far from the final word on the topic.
From as far back as I can remember, medical scientists have been telling me to quit eating my favorite foods for health benefits. Hey--I'm all in favor of doing what is right if it means I can get a few more miles out of this carcass. But---and it is a "big but"--I'm getting a little annoyed when one of these proven dietary links to disease becomes dis-proven.
Bacon, cows milk, coffee, tea, beef, catsop, butter, alcohol, cigars, and fast food have all been favorites of mine over the years. Why? Because they taste good and I like to eat what tastes good.
So now the researchers are telling me that all the fiber that I have choked down was for naught. I hate rabbit food but felt my colon needed it in abundance.
I'm going to pledge right now to eat exactly what I want and when i want it for the rest of my natural life. And I'm also letting Yodi do the same.
Please pass the capsop and I think I will have another cup of coffee--and a donut too. And anybody that doesn't agree--? I'll eat your donuts too!
The belief that a high-fibre diet will keep your colon healthy and cancer-free -- a popular medical theory since the 1960s -- does not appear to be correct, according to a new study.
Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health, who analyzed a number of long-term studies on the issue, said they "could not find support" for the notion that the risk of colorectal cancer is reduced by regular consumption of fibre.
Still-- they said there are plenty of good reasons to eat the recommended five to 10 servings daily of fruits and veggies-- along with plenty of whole grains.
"It's still important to eat a high-fibre diet," said Yikyung Park, a postdoctoral fellow at the U.S. National Cancer Institute in Washington and a member of the team whose research is published in today's edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
"Even though our study didn't find a reduction in colorectal cancer, other studies show that high-fibre diets reduce the risk of heart disease and diabetes."
Other researchers also cautioned that this is far from the final word on the topic.
From as far back as I can remember, medical scientists have been telling me to quit eating my favorite foods for health benefits. Hey--I'm all in favor of doing what is right if it means I can get a few more miles out of this carcass. But---and it is a "big but"--I'm getting a little annoyed when one of these proven dietary links to disease becomes dis-proven.
Bacon, cows milk, coffee, tea, beef, catsop, butter, alcohol, cigars, and fast food have all been favorites of mine over the years. Why? Because they taste good and I like to eat what tastes good.
So now the researchers are telling me that all the fiber that I have choked down was for naught. I hate rabbit food but felt my colon needed it in abundance.
I'm going to pledge right now to eat exactly what I want and when i want it for the rest of my natural life. And I'm also letting Yodi do the same.
Please pass the capsop and I think I will have another cup of coffee--and a donut too. And anybody that doesn't agree--? I'll eat your donuts too!
Medical researchers make me sick!
Here we go again. Another diet myth exposed and one has to wonder what next is on the list that will soon be proven false.
The belief that a high-fibre diet will keep your colon healthy and cancer-free -- a popular medical theory since the 1960s -- does not appear to be correct, according to a new study.
Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health, who analyzed a number of long-term studies on the issue, said they "could not find support" for the notion that the risk of colorectal cancer is reduced by regular consumption of fibre.
Still-- they said there are plenty of good reasons to eat the recommended five to 10 servings daily of fruits and veggies-- along with plenty of whole grains.
"It's still important to eat a high-fibre diet," said Yikyung Park, a postdoctoral fellow at the U.S. National Cancer Institute in Washington and a member of the team whose research is published in today's edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
"Even though our study didn't find a reduction in colorectal cancer, other studies show that high-fibre diets reduce the risk of heart disease and diabetes."
Other researchers also cautioned that this is far from the final word on the topic.
From as far back as I can remember, medical scientists have been telling me to quit eating my favorite foods for health benefits. Hey--I'm all in favor of doing what is right if it means I can get a few more miles out of this carcass. But---and it is a "big but"--I'm getting a little annoyed when one of these proven dietary links to disease becomes dis-proven.
Bacon, cows milk, coffee, tea, beef, catsop, butter, alcohol, cigars, and fast food have all been favorites of mine over the years. Why? Because they taste good and I like to eat what tastes good.
So now the researchers are telling me that all the fiber that I have choked down was for naught. I hate rabbit food but felt my colon needed it in abundance.
I'm going to pledge right now to eat exactly what I want and when i want it for the rest of my natural life. And I'm also letting Yodi do the same.
Please pass the capsop and i think I will have another cup of coffee--and a donut too. And anybody that doesn't agree--? I'll eat your donuts too!
The belief that a high-fibre diet will keep your colon healthy and cancer-free -- a popular medical theory since the 1960s -- does not appear to be correct, according to a new study.
Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health, who analyzed a number of long-term studies on the issue, said they "could not find support" for the notion that the risk of colorectal cancer is reduced by regular consumption of fibre.
Still-- they said there are plenty of good reasons to eat the recommended five to 10 servings daily of fruits and veggies-- along with plenty of whole grains.
"It's still important to eat a high-fibre diet," said Yikyung Park, a postdoctoral fellow at the U.S. National Cancer Institute in Washington and a member of the team whose research is published in today's edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
"Even though our study didn't find a reduction in colorectal cancer, other studies show that high-fibre diets reduce the risk of heart disease and diabetes."
Other researchers also cautioned that this is far from the final word on the topic.
From as far back as I can remember, medical scientists have been telling me to quit eating my favorite foods for health benefits. Hey--I'm all in favor of doing what is right if it means I can get a few more miles out of this carcass. But---and it is a "big but"--I'm getting a little annoyed when one of these proven dietary links to disease becomes dis-proven.
Bacon, cows milk, coffee, tea, beef, catsop, butter, alcohol, cigars, and fast food have all been favorites of mine over the years. Why? Because they taste good and I like to eat what tastes good.
So now the researchers are telling me that all the fiber that I have choked down was for naught. I hate rabbit food but felt my colon needed it in abundance.
I'm going to pledge right now to eat exactly what I want and when i want it for the rest of my natural life. And I'm also letting Yodi do the same.
Please pass the capsop and i think I will have another cup of coffee--and a donut too. And anybody that doesn't agree--? I'll eat your donuts too!
Friday, December 16, 2005
Torture --Why is this a subject of debate?
I should not have to use a quote such as the one pasted below in order to determine whether it is alright to torture and abuse others in order to extract information. This fact should already be present in my own conscience as well as the reader's here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:At a news conference about the peace message, Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Vatican's pontifical council on peace and justice, was asked if torture could be a legitimate tool to gain information that might prevent terror attacks.
The prelate replied that there was no justification for using torture, which is the "humiliation of the human person, whoever he is."
"The church does not allow torture as a means to extract the truth," Martino said. Terror suspects "sometimes say what the torturers want to hear. ... There are other ways to obtain the truth."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there is still a question in your mind, then ponder this:
Imagine for a moment that your mother, wife, or child was being held captive by an opposing force of soldiers. And--that this loved one held critical intelligence information needed by their enemy. How would you like them to be treated? Remember--they are being held captive and are not a threat to their captors.
Now picture yourself as a member of the apposing force and your own mother was seated across from you. You are the chosen interigator. How would you treat her?
I realize these are extreme questions and that your own loved ones will probably never be threatened as a captive nor will you ever be assigned to interigate your own dear mother.
But now answer my question.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:At a news conference about the peace message, Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Vatican's pontifical council on peace and justice, was asked if torture could be a legitimate tool to gain information that might prevent terror attacks.
The prelate replied that there was no justification for using torture, which is the "humiliation of the human person, whoever he is."
"The church does not allow torture as a means to extract the truth," Martino said. Terror suspects "sometimes say what the torturers want to hear. ... There are other ways to obtain the truth."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there is still a question in your mind, then ponder this:
Imagine for a moment that your mother, wife, or child was being held captive by an opposing force of soldiers. And--that this loved one held critical intelligence information needed by their enemy. How would you like them to be treated? Remember--they are being held captive and are not a threat to their captors.
Now picture yourself as a member of the apposing force and your own mother was seated across from you. You are the chosen interigator. How would you treat her?
I realize these are extreme questions and that your own loved ones will probably never be threatened as a captive nor will you ever be assigned to interigate your own dear mother.
But now answer my question.
Monday, December 05, 2005
Bogged down means time for a re-charge
Sometimes my brain and emotions outrun my normal reserved demeaner. It has happened more frequently lately which tells me it is time for a breather. To take some quiet reflective time away from the news and everyday problems that drag me down.
Evidence of this neededd break is all around me. I spend more time fretting and less time doing. I have neglected this blog and I have become less focussed on other important issues.
So in light of the fact that this is the season remembered for a re-birth of mankind through the birth of its savior. It is fitting to spend some time re-birth and renewal in my own life.
The next post here will be from a re-charged me. Yodi and I wish you all a Merry Christmas.
Evidence of this neededd break is all around me. I spend more time fretting and less time doing. I have neglected this blog and I have become less focussed on other important issues.
So in light of the fact that this is the season remembered for a re-birth of mankind through the birth of its savior. It is fitting to spend some time re-birth and renewal in my own life.
The next post here will be from a re-charged me. Yodi and I wish you all a Merry Christmas.
Monday, November 28, 2005
Wal-Mart ripping off stockholders through low wages
Admittedly I know very little about running companies or stockholder relations with management. But even with my limits, finding out that a company is mismanaging its employment practices to a point of costing the stockholders approximately--
$41,728,000 dollars a year in profits catches my attention.
Wal-Mart is the company and it happens to be the worlds largest corporation let alone the largest retailer. How can this be? I have been led to believe over the years that the way Sam Walton wanted things, his practices were going to affect overall consumer prices for the better-- of us all. But when his low wage a benefit plan is put to the test and compared to companies that are also large, he is all hat and no cow.
As the article below indicates, Walmart pays $4.45 per hour less in wages, $1,875 less in employee benefits, covers fewer employees with healthcare and yet rips off the stockholders in the amount of $2,608 per year in --profit per employee.
That's right! For every employee [all 1,600,000 of them] Walmart earns $2,608 less per year profit per employee than Costco [another large retailer]. In fact--the head of Costco claims it just makes good business sense to pay their employees more!
Of course it does if it means you end up with another $42,000,000 per year profit by paying more. Why aren't the Wal-Mart stockholders up in arms. That is a substantial amount of profit being lost do to management employee practices.
And now I'm upset. If Walmart is needing to make up that profit shortfall, then I'm being asked to come up with the extra money through higher prices! Companies still need to make a certain return on investment in order to attract investors[stockholders].
Yodi's pet toys and my underwear prices are higher because Wal-Mart wages are lower. If Sam knew this he would probably be doing something about it. He always claimed to be a friend to his customers. Maybe not as friendly as I thought.
Now I wish I knew even less about business and profit. This is another one of those little know facts that I now know but have little if any control over. But those stockholders sure do.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, November 28, 2005 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
Neal Peirce / Syndicated columnist
Wal-Mart's low-road model
The Wal-Mart Watch campaign, a labor-environmental group highly critical of America's mega-mega retailer, recently launched more than 1,000 events nationwide for its "Higher Expectations Week."
A scathing documentary by independent filmmaker Robert Greenwald with a focus on Wal-Mart's business tactics and treatment of workers began to play to audiences across the country.
Wal-Mart is fighting its critics with waves of television ads celebrating happy workers and the company's gifts to local charities.
But the action goes much further. Across state capitals, legislators are into spirited debates over whether Wal-Mart should be forced to pay adequate health benefits or leave it to the states to subsidize its low-paid workers through Medicaid and other public benefits.
In one sense, all of this is predictable: With annual sales of $288 billion and 1.6 million employees, Wal-Mart is now the world's biggest corporation. Its footprint on American communities and retailing is so vast that some opposition to its tactics is virtually inevitable.
But something even bigger seems to be occurring. Wal-Mart has become the poster child for an era of unfettered globalized corporate operations — "a destabilizing business model, a dangerous detriment to America's local and national economies and to the middle class," in the words of critic Leo Hindery Jr., former CEO of the telecom carrier Global Crossing and an active figure in Democratic Party politics.
Hindery, at a recent Washington conference organized by the Center for American Progress, noted that as recently as 1992 (the year of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton's death), the Business Roundtable of top business leaders was asserting that corporations had a major responsibility not just to stockholders but to their employees, society at large and the nation's economy. But now, Hindery asserts, the Business Roundtable — indeed, most of the corporate world — focuses almost exclusively on profits for stockholders.
Wal-Mart leads and embodies the trend, he asserts, in three ways: the "clobbering" of Main Streets when Wal-Mart moves to one of its usual edge-of-town locations, "the miserable wage and benefits package offered by Sam Walton's creation," and Wal-Mart's buying strategy, focused on cheaply produced foreign goods, a total reversal of Walton's "Buy America" advocacy.
The reply of economists friendly to Wal-Mart is based — like the company's promotions — almost exclusively on low prices and efficiency. According to a Wal-Mart commissioned study by Global Insight, a respected economic-forecasting firm, low Wal-Mart prices saved consumers $263 billion last year. Wal-Mart defenders say that's "progressive" because the benefits flow principally to low-income families who shop at discount stores.
But the real choice, says Harry Holzer, former chief economist for the U.S. Labor Department, is between "lower-road" employer strategies focused, like Wal-Mart, on low wages regardless of high employee turnover, versus a "higher road" strategy by employers focused on higher worker productivity that's supported by higher wages and benefits as well as training and promotion ladders.
The mass-retailer Costco, which competes directly with Wal-Mart's Sam's Club warehouse chain, has emerged as the high-road model. While Wal-Mart fights aggressively to stop any union organizing whatever, Costco has agreements with the Teamsters for 16 percent of its employees and has extended most of the benefits to its entire work force.
Indeed, a Business Week analysis shows Costco's average hourly wage is $15.97, far above the Wal-Mart (Sam's Club) $11.52 figure (even excluding the 25 percent of Wal-Mart workers who are low-paid part-timers). The yearly employer contributions to health care — Costco, $5,735; Wal-Mart, $3,500. Of Costco employees, 82 percent are covered by the health plan; Wal-Mart, 47 percent. Employee turnover at Wal-Mart is three times higher than Costco's.
And then comes the clincher, suggesting the low-road approach may not be so clever after all: Costco's profit per employee is $13,647; Wal-Mart's, $11,039.
Paying good wages and benefits, says Costco CEO Jim Sinegal, "is not altruistic; this is good business."
Still, if history is any measure, it will take energetic union organizing to force Wal-Mart to shift tactics — perhaps a replay of 1937, when a courageous Detroit sit-in strike by young women at Woolworth's, the dominant retailer of the day, sparked a string of nationwide victories and substantial pay increases.
Wal-Mart Watch, though founded by Andy Stern, head of the Service Workers International, isn't ready to leap into an organizing fight. If and when it's ready, look for a struggle that shapes America's economy and character for the century.
Neal Peirce's column appears alternate Mondays on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is nrp@citistates.com
2005, Washington Post Writers Group
$41,728,000 dollars a year in profits catches my attention.
Wal-Mart is the company and it happens to be the worlds largest corporation let alone the largest retailer. How can this be? I have been led to believe over the years that the way Sam Walton wanted things, his practices were going to affect overall consumer prices for the better-- of us all. But when his low wage a benefit plan is put to the test and compared to companies that are also large, he is all hat and no cow.
As the article below indicates, Walmart pays $4.45 per hour less in wages, $1,875 less in employee benefits, covers fewer employees with healthcare and yet rips off the stockholders in the amount of $2,608 per year in --profit per employee.
That's right! For every employee [all 1,600,000 of them] Walmart earns $2,608 less per year profit per employee than Costco [another large retailer]. In fact--the head of Costco claims it just makes good business sense to pay their employees more!
Of course it does if it means you end up with another $42,000,000 per year profit by paying more. Why aren't the Wal-Mart stockholders up in arms. That is a substantial amount of profit being lost do to management employee practices.
And now I'm upset. If Walmart is needing to make up that profit shortfall, then I'm being asked to come up with the extra money through higher prices! Companies still need to make a certain return on investment in order to attract investors[stockholders].
Yodi's pet toys and my underwear prices are higher because Wal-Mart wages are lower. If Sam knew this he would probably be doing something about it. He always claimed to be a friend to his customers. Maybe not as friendly as I thought.
Now I wish I knew even less about business and profit. This is another one of those little know facts that I now know but have little if any control over. But those stockholders sure do.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, November 28, 2005 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
Neal Peirce / Syndicated columnist
Wal-Mart's low-road model
The Wal-Mart Watch campaign, a labor-environmental group highly critical of America's mega-mega retailer, recently launched more than 1,000 events nationwide for its "Higher Expectations Week."
A scathing documentary by independent filmmaker Robert Greenwald with a focus on Wal-Mart's business tactics and treatment of workers began to play to audiences across the country.
Wal-Mart is fighting its critics with waves of television ads celebrating happy workers and the company's gifts to local charities.
But the action goes much further. Across state capitals, legislators are into spirited debates over whether Wal-Mart should be forced to pay adequate health benefits or leave it to the states to subsidize its low-paid workers through Medicaid and other public benefits.
In one sense, all of this is predictable: With annual sales of $288 billion and 1.6 million employees, Wal-Mart is now the world's biggest corporation. Its footprint on American communities and retailing is so vast that some opposition to its tactics is virtually inevitable.
But something even bigger seems to be occurring. Wal-Mart has become the poster child for an era of unfettered globalized corporate operations — "a destabilizing business model, a dangerous detriment to America's local and national economies and to the middle class," in the words of critic Leo Hindery Jr., former CEO of the telecom carrier Global Crossing and an active figure in Democratic Party politics.
Hindery, at a recent Washington conference organized by the Center for American Progress, noted that as recently as 1992 (the year of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton's death), the Business Roundtable of top business leaders was asserting that corporations had a major responsibility not just to stockholders but to their employees, society at large and the nation's economy. But now, Hindery asserts, the Business Roundtable — indeed, most of the corporate world — focuses almost exclusively on profits for stockholders.
Wal-Mart leads and embodies the trend, he asserts, in three ways: the "clobbering" of Main Streets when Wal-Mart moves to one of its usual edge-of-town locations, "the miserable wage and benefits package offered by Sam Walton's creation," and Wal-Mart's buying strategy, focused on cheaply produced foreign goods, a total reversal of Walton's "Buy America" advocacy.
The reply of economists friendly to Wal-Mart is based — like the company's promotions — almost exclusively on low prices and efficiency. According to a Wal-Mart commissioned study by Global Insight, a respected economic-forecasting firm, low Wal-Mart prices saved consumers $263 billion last year. Wal-Mart defenders say that's "progressive" because the benefits flow principally to low-income families who shop at discount stores.
But the real choice, says Harry Holzer, former chief economist for the U.S. Labor Department, is between "lower-road" employer strategies focused, like Wal-Mart, on low wages regardless of high employee turnover, versus a "higher road" strategy by employers focused on higher worker productivity that's supported by higher wages and benefits as well as training and promotion ladders.
The mass-retailer Costco, which competes directly with Wal-Mart's Sam's Club warehouse chain, has emerged as the high-road model. While Wal-Mart fights aggressively to stop any union organizing whatever, Costco has agreements with the Teamsters for 16 percent of its employees and has extended most of the benefits to its entire work force.
Indeed, a Business Week analysis shows Costco's average hourly wage is $15.97, far above the Wal-Mart (Sam's Club) $11.52 figure (even excluding the 25 percent of Wal-Mart workers who are low-paid part-timers). The yearly employer contributions to health care — Costco, $5,735; Wal-Mart, $3,500. Of Costco employees, 82 percent are covered by the health plan; Wal-Mart, 47 percent. Employee turnover at Wal-Mart is three times higher than Costco's.
And then comes the clincher, suggesting the low-road approach may not be so clever after all: Costco's profit per employee is $13,647; Wal-Mart's, $11,039.
Paying good wages and benefits, says Costco CEO Jim Sinegal, "is not altruistic; this is good business."
Still, if history is any measure, it will take energetic union organizing to force Wal-Mart to shift tactics — perhaps a replay of 1937, when a courageous Detroit sit-in strike by young women at Woolworth's, the dominant retailer of the day, sparked a string of nationwide victories and substantial pay increases.
Wal-Mart Watch, though founded by Andy Stern, head of the Service Workers International, isn't ready to leap into an organizing fight. If and when it's ready, look for a struggle that shapes America's economy and character for the century.
Neal Peirce's column appears alternate Mondays on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is nrp@citistates.com
2005, Washington Post Writers Group
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Happy Thanksgiving
Nothing profound-- just wishing you all a very very happy holiday.
And a plug for "GOD", without who there would be little to be happy about.
Yodi and Mike
And a plug for "GOD", without who there would be little to be happy about.
Yodi and Mike
Monday, November 21, 2005
Why Bushs' Iraq Plan Is Doomed
I am sure that President Bush is feeling somewhat dazed these days. He came into office a mere 71 months ago full of determination and with his agenda still wet from the printers office tucked under is arm. What happened in such a short time?
Actually what happened to President Bush will continue to happen to politicians in our country until we deal with some of the following issues.
1. few common values among the divergent groups that make up our society.
2. a failure of immigrants to meld with in the American culture.
3. a loss of the American ideal and dream.
4. A loss of religion and its values within American society.
5. A loss of trust in each other and especially politicians.
Another factor that affects The President and all politicians is the ready availability of news, comment, and debate within society. This factor has not only left the politicians scratching their heads, but church leaders, busuiness leaders, and all formal institutions of American culture doing likewise. Even the American Red Cross is under serious scrutiny because of published accounts of how they respond to relief efforts in our country. And of couse this leads to fewer donations.
The two party political system and its ability to represent so many different communities and their priorities results in ineffectual leadership and continued stalemate on major issues facing America.
An example of the Presidents Iraq policy and its rapid disapproval ratings bear witness to the affects of our fractured society.
Right now approximately 35% of Americans agree that America should stay engaged in Iraq, yet four years ago, most Americans believed we needed to address our countries vulnerablility in the wake of the World Trade Center attack..
Politicians cannot afford to have such low poll numbers and therefore America will pull out of Iraq. The real reason that the numbers are low is rooted in one or more of the 5 items I listed above.
We are a country so divided after years of cultural breakdown, that no politician is able to mount a sustained agenda and at the same time can keep the public support high enough to be within their comfort zone, ie:--re-election zone.
If we were a united people, healthcare, social security, public education, energy, and transportation issues would already be solved with new vibrant united zeal. Instead there are so many self centered views about these issues, from so many communities with myopic vision, that no solution is available until we address the fractures within our people.
Compunding the Presidents agenda and all the political agendas is that politicians have lost their ability to control media and its content. Americans over 40 who use the internet for example, visit 6 sites on average. Younger Americans visit 29 sites on average. Now those sites can be news, entertainment, hobby related, blogs, forums, chat rooms,--all manner of sites. My point with these statictics is that no political party or politician can influence this many independant information sources. There are millions of individual sources to choose from. Here I am making comment on this subject and a few folks will read this and whether they agree or not--they will have been exposed to another view. So I can be considered a source [minor]--but none the less another published source. The ability to control propaganda has been lost.
What was once a television market controled by three major networks now has over 100 different channels each with their own content and view.
What was once radio with a few commentators such as Larry King is now a media with dozens of talking heads and their respective agendas.
The ability to manipulate and direct public attention and support in a broad scale through all media has been lost.
But our problems as a society still exist and still cry out for solutions.
President Bush and American politics have simply lost its ability to commander an agenda which is supported by the majority of Americans. We all feel disconnected from each other, our communities, and our country.
We have no common roots anymore. We have dozens if not humdreds of individual cultural communities with their own agendas.
If America had been this rootless and fractured in 1861, President Lincoln would have lost the civil war and we would have two distinct countries where one once was.
We were a country founded upon such deep roots and beliefs in our own sacred sociiety, that for most of our history we remained a people unto itself and content at isolation. Isolationism was the reason America was so late entering both world wars in the 20th century. A loss of those same deep roots can be viewed as a cause of us now being intent upon projecting our might and influence outside our borders.
Most of the fractured communities within our country feel that America needs to return to our roots and cultural heritage. To insist that new immigrants integrate into American culture and leave their old behind. Outside of an outright invasion by foreign powers onto our shores, Americans are ready to pull their collective horns in and revert their attention away from terrorist problems a half world away and 1,400 years old.
There is only one true unifying force that is capable of transcending all peoples.
Religion and faith is that force. and only a political system that embodes these same ideals can succeed in solving mankinds varied problems. We are all different and we are a fractured society--but when all these differences are set aside and we peel away the layers--we are united at our core by a common creator and a common basic conscience.
It is religion and faith that have been under the most vicious assault over the past four decades in America.
It is religious warfare that is behind the worlds problems.
President Bush has three more years in office. If he wants to have a succesful last term in office, he needs to re-direct the focus on his adminisration to uniting all the various communities under one mantra that can bring us back together as a nation.
"GOD"
I don't mean under a state religion or my "GOD"--I mean under programs that get back to the common nature we all share. America will only win wars such as the terrorist war when we win back our common roots. If we want to be a nation that projects its values--then those values that need projected are plainly layed out in the Christian bible. Lessons are shown throughout the Old Testament that can be applied to our own country. I'm sure that terrorist agents existed back in Noahs' time. People who twisted religion to become a brand of behavior completely foreign to our creators intent.
If the President wants to address the 5 points and move our country towards solving every groups concerns, then he must unite all the groups together. If he doesn't make strides to this end, then he will be left with a bald spot on his head from all the frustrated scratching and we will be left three more years away from solving not only terrorism--but all the other issues that are screaming for attention.
Come on Yodi, we need to pray for a change in fuzzy thinking going on in our nations leadership. The answer to their bald spots is right in front of their nose--right in front of their face in the mirror. It is believing that mankind alone can solve mankinds problems through political and military solutions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
Evidence of the affects the 5 pints I listed on politics can be found in the attached article. when reading it notice how many different polls and views the author used to support her article.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USA > Foreign Policy
from the November 21, 2005 edition
Why Iraq war support fell so fast
US public support has dropped faster than during the Vietnam and Korean wars, polls show.
By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – The three most significant US wars since 1945 - Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq - share an important trait: As casualties mounted, American public support declined.
In the two Asian wars, that decline proved irreversible. With Iraq, the additional bad news for President Bush is that support for the war in Iraq has eroded more quickly than it did in those two conflicts.
For Mr. Bush, low support for his handling of the war - now at 35 percent, according to the latest Gallup poll - has depleted any reserves of "political capital" he had from his reelection and threatens his entire agenda. Last week's bombshell political developments, both the bipartisan Senate resolution calling for more progress reports on Iraq and the stunning call for withdrawal by a Democratic hawk, Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, have not helped.
But the seeds of Bush's woes were planted early on. Just seven months into the Iraq war, Gallup found that the percentage of Americans who viewed the sending of troops as a mistake had jumped substantially - from 25 percent in March 2003 to 40 percent in October 2003.
In June 2004, for the first time, more than half the public (54 percent) thought the US had made a mistake, a figure that holds today.
With Vietnam, that 50-percent threshold was not crossed until August 1968, several years in; with Korea, it was March 1952, about a year and a half into US involvement.
Why did Americans go sour on the Iraq war so quickly, and what can Bush do about it?
John Mueller, an expert on war and public opinion at Ohio State University, links today's lower tolerance of casualties to a weaker public commitment to the cause than was felt during the two previous, cold war-era conflicts. The discounting of the main justifications for the Iraq war - alleged weapons of mass destruction and support for international terrorism - has left many Americans skeptical of the entire enterprise.
In fact, "I'm impressed by how high support still is," Professor Mueller says. He notes that some Americans' continuing connection of the Iraq war to the war on terror is fueling that support.
In addition, intense political polarization gives Bush resilient support among Republicans.
But among Democratic voters who supported the US-led invasion initially, most have long abandoned the president. In polls, independent voters now track mostly with Democrats. And, analysts say, once someone loses confidence in the conduct of a war, it is exceedingly difficult to woo them back.
"[Bush's] best option is bringing peace and security to Iraq," says Darrell West, a political scientist at Brown University. "If he can accomplish that, people will think the war's going well and that he made the right decision. But that's proving almost impossible to achieve."
Pollster Daniel Yankelovich, writing in the September/October 2005 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, states that "in my judgment the Bush administration has about a year before the public's impatience will force it to change course."
Not helping the president has been the modern phenomenon of 24/7 cable news coverage, which brings instant magnification to the daily death toll and the longstanding media practice of focusing on negative developments.
And there is the lingering public memory of Vietnam itself, which, in the Iraq war, may have made the public warier sooner of getting stuck in a quagmire.
Scholars like Mueller at Ohio State speak of an emerging "Iraq syndrome" that will have consequences for US foreign policy long after American forces pull out - particularly in Washington's ability to deal forcefully with other countries it views as threatening, such as North Korea and Iran.
"Iraq syndrome" seems to be playing out, too, with the American public. The just-released quadrennial survey of American attitudes toward foreign policy - produced jointly by the Pew Research Center and the Council on Foreign Relations - shows a revival of isolationism. Now, 42 percent of Americans say the US should "mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own" - up from 30 percent in 2002.
According to Pew Research Center director Andrew Kohut, that 42 percent figure is also similar to how the US public felt in the mid-1970s, at the end of the Vietnam War, and in the 1990s, at the end of the cold war.
SOURCE: THE GALLUP ORGANIZATION; RICH CLABAUGH - STAFF
Actually what happened to President Bush will continue to happen to politicians in our country until we deal with some of the following issues.
1. few common values among the divergent groups that make up our society.
2. a failure of immigrants to meld with in the American culture.
3. a loss of the American ideal and dream.
4. A loss of religion and its values within American society.
5. A loss of trust in each other and especially politicians.
Another factor that affects The President and all politicians is the ready availability of news, comment, and debate within society. This factor has not only left the politicians scratching their heads, but church leaders, busuiness leaders, and all formal institutions of American culture doing likewise. Even the American Red Cross is under serious scrutiny because of published accounts of how they respond to relief efforts in our country. And of couse this leads to fewer donations.
The two party political system and its ability to represent so many different communities and their priorities results in ineffectual leadership and continued stalemate on major issues facing America.
An example of the Presidents Iraq policy and its rapid disapproval ratings bear witness to the affects of our fractured society.
Right now approximately 35% of Americans agree that America should stay engaged in Iraq, yet four years ago, most Americans believed we needed to address our countries vulnerablility in the wake of the World Trade Center attack..
Politicians cannot afford to have such low poll numbers and therefore America will pull out of Iraq. The real reason that the numbers are low is rooted in one or more of the 5 items I listed above.
We are a country so divided after years of cultural breakdown, that no politician is able to mount a sustained agenda and at the same time can keep the public support high enough to be within their comfort zone, ie:--re-election zone.
If we were a united people, healthcare, social security, public education, energy, and transportation issues would already be solved with new vibrant united zeal. Instead there are so many self centered views about these issues, from so many communities with myopic vision, that no solution is available until we address the fractures within our people.
Compunding the Presidents agenda and all the political agendas is that politicians have lost their ability to control media and its content. Americans over 40 who use the internet for example, visit 6 sites on average. Younger Americans visit 29 sites on average. Now those sites can be news, entertainment, hobby related, blogs, forums, chat rooms,--all manner of sites. My point with these statictics is that no political party or politician can influence this many independant information sources. There are millions of individual sources to choose from. Here I am making comment on this subject and a few folks will read this and whether they agree or not--they will have been exposed to another view. So I can be considered a source [minor]--but none the less another published source. The ability to control propaganda has been lost.
What was once a television market controled by three major networks now has over 100 different channels each with their own content and view.
What was once radio with a few commentators such as Larry King is now a media with dozens of talking heads and their respective agendas.
The ability to manipulate and direct public attention and support in a broad scale through all media has been lost.
But our problems as a society still exist and still cry out for solutions.
President Bush and American politics have simply lost its ability to commander an agenda which is supported by the majority of Americans. We all feel disconnected from each other, our communities, and our country.
We have no common roots anymore. We have dozens if not humdreds of individual cultural communities with their own agendas.
If America had been this rootless and fractured in 1861, President Lincoln would have lost the civil war and we would have two distinct countries where one once was.
We were a country founded upon such deep roots and beliefs in our own sacred sociiety, that for most of our history we remained a people unto itself and content at isolation. Isolationism was the reason America was so late entering both world wars in the 20th century. A loss of those same deep roots can be viewed as a cause of us now being intent upon projecting our might and influence outside our borders.
Most of the fractured communities within our country feel that America needs to return to our roots and cultural heritage. To insist that new immigrants integrate into American culture and leave their old behind. Outside of an outright invasion by foreign powers onto our shores, Americans are ready to pull their collective horns in and revert their attention away from terrorist problems a half world away and 1,400 years old.
There is only one true unifying force that is capable of transcending all peoples.
Religion and faith is that force. and only a political system that embodes these same ideals can succeed in solving mankinds varied problems. We are all different and we are a fractured society--but when all these differences are set aside and we peel away the layers--we are united at our core by a common creator and a common basic conscience.
It is religion and faith that have been under the most vicious assault over the past four decades in America.
It is religious warfare that is behind the worlds problems.
President Bush has three more years in office. If he wants to have a succesful last term in office, he needs to re-direct the focus on his adminisration to uniting all the various communities under one mantra that can bring us back together as a nation.
"GOD"
I don't mean under a state religion or my "GOD"--I mean under programs that get back to the common nature we all share. America will only win wars such as the terrorist war when we win back our common roots. If we want to be a nation that projects its values--then those values that need projected are plainly layed out in the Christian bible. Lessons are shown throughout the Old Testament that can be applied to our own country. I'm sure that terrorist agents existed back in Noahs' time. People who twisted religion to become a brand of behavior completely foreign to our creators intent.
If the President wants to address the 5 points and move our country towards solving every groups concerns, then he must unite all the groups together. If he doesn't make strides to this end, then he will be left with a bald spot on his head from all the frustrated scratching and we will be left three more years away from solving not only terrorism--but all the other issues that are screaming for attention.
Come on Yodi, we need to pray for a change in fuzzy thinking going on in our nations leadership. The answer to their bald spots is right in front of their nose--right in front of their face in the mirror. It is believing that mankind alone can solve mankinds problems through political and military solutions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
Evidence of the affects the 5 pints I listed on politics can be found in the attached article. when reading it notice how many different polls and views the author used to support her article.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USA > Foreign Policy
from the November 21, 2005 edition
Why Iraq war support fell so fast
US public support has dropped faster than during the Vietnam and Korean wars, polls show.
By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – The three most significant US wars since 1945 - Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq - share an important trait: As casualties mounted, American public support declined.
In the two Asian wars, that decline proved irreversible. With Iraq, the additional bad news for President Bush is that support for the war in Iraq has eroded more quickly than it did in those two conflicts.
For Mr. Bush, low support for his handling of the war - now at 35 percent, according to the latest Gallup poll - has depleted any reserves of "political capital" he had from his reelection and threatens his entire agenda. Last week's bombshell political developments, both the bipartisan Senate resolution calling for more progress reports on Iraq and the stunning call for withdrawal by a Democratic hawk, Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, have not helped.
But the seeds of Bush's woes were planted early on. Just seven months into the Iraq war, Gallup found that the percentage of Americans who viewed the sending of troops as a mistake had jumped substantially - from 25 percent in March 2003 to 40 percent in October 2003.
In June 2004, for the first time, more than half the public (54 percent) thought the US had made a mistake, a figure that holds today.
With Vietnam, that 50-percent threshold was not crossed until August 1968, several years in; with Korea, it was March 1952, about a year and a half into US involvement.
Why did Americans go sour on the Iraq war so quickly, and what can Bush do about it?
John Mueller, an expert on war and public opinion at Ohio State University, links today's lower tolerance of casualties to a weaker public commitment to the cause than was felt during the two previous, cold war-era conflicts. The discounting of the main justifications for the Iraq war - alleged weapons of mass destruction and support for international terrorism - has left many Americans skeptical of the entire enterprise.
In fact, "I'm impressed by how high support still is," Professor Mueller says. He notes that some Americans' continuing connection of the Iraq war to the war on terror is fueling that support.
In addition, intense political polarization gives Bush resilient support among Republicans.
But among Democratic voters who supported the US-led invasion initially, most have long abandoned the president. In polls, independent voters now track mostly with Democrats. And, analysts say, once someone loses confidence in the conduct of a war, it is exceedingly difficult to woo them back.
"[Bush's] best option is bringing peace and security to Iraq," says Darrell West, a political scientist at Brown University. "If he can accomplish that, people will think the war's going well and that he made the right decision. But that's proving almost impossible to achieve."
Pollster Daniel Yankelovich, writing in the September/October 2005 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, states that "in my judgment the Bush administration has about a year before the public's impatience will force it to change course."
Not helping the president has been the modern phenomenon of 24/7 cable news coverage, which brings instant magnification to the daily death toll and the longstanding media practice of focusing on negative developments.
And there is the lingering public memory of Vietnam itself, which, in the Iraq war, may have made the public warier sooner of getting stuck in a quagmire.
Scholars like Mueller at Ohio State speak of an emerging "Iraq syndrome" that will have consequences for US foreign policy long after American forces pull out - particularly in Washington's ability to deal forcefully with other countries it views as threatening, such as North Korea and Iran.
"Iraq syndrome" seems to be playing out, too, with the American public. The just-released quadrennial survey of American attitudes toward foreign policy - produced jointly by the Pew Research Center and the Council on Foreign Relations - shows a revival of isolationism. Now, 42 percent of Americans say the US should "mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own" - up from 30 percent in 2002.
According to Pew Research Center director Andrew Kohut, that 42 percent figure is also similar to how the US public felt in the mid-1970s, at the end of the Vietnam War, and in the 1990s, at the end of the cold war.
SOURCE: THE GALLUP ORGANIZATION; RICH CLABAUGH - STAFF
Friday, November 18, 2005
When you have spent all you can spend..
Each of us in our own unique way are stubborn. Some are able to realize this and are willing to set their feelings aside and open their eyes to other points of view. We can at times have so much emotional investment or captial investment tied up in a position--that the pain is immense when we are faced with the real facts not the filtered variety that goes along with our stubborn traits.
I believe our President and some of his advisors are currently suffering from a severe case of stubborness when it comes to some of their pursuits. It takes a wise man to set aside his own feelings and listen to others views when the natural tendancy may be to stick his head in the sand to avoid all dissent.
America has had a captain at the helm who has just such a severe case of stubborness. It is up to the Congress now to find a way to pull the President feet first out of his hole and own up to the facts. His program may very well have sounded sound at one time. But there does come a time when a reasonable approach would be to consider other routes rather than continue the ship on a course where it most certainly will crash onto the rocks.
I'm willing to give the President a certain amount of rope--but I'm not willing to keep reeling out more until their is none left to give.
The fiscal policy that has resulted in extreme foolishness-- may very well end up extingquishing any hope we or future generations have for a comfortable standard of living for all citizens. If interest rates were ever to spiral as they did durung the Carter administration, the interest on the national dept alone would seriously disrupt hundreds of needed projects funded from the Treasury. We simply cannot go on creating artificial money and spend it until the presses run out of ink! I understand the concept of seeding the economy by lowering taxes. But there does come a point where the anticipated growth in the economy simply cannot be forthcoming due to reckless unfunded dept.
We admonish large corporations for failing to properly fund retiree pensions. 10's of billions of dollars of unfunded pension obligations are now being dumped at the taxpayers doorstep. I doubt whether all those companies planned to fail in their obligations. They too probably thought that they could grow their companie's and profits in the future enough to more than fund any short term deficits in the funds. Unfortunately for those reaching the golden years of retirement, something went wrong.
As a country we must now face up to the same facts as the Corporations. Deficits are REAL. And they cannot be wished away. How can we logically expect future generaations of Congressmen to act any different than todays model? Pork barrel is their mantra. To heck with tommorow.We must be realistic and assume they will come from the same mold.
So what do we do now when we have both Congress and the Administration refusing to deal with deficits and refusing any form of constraint. Sure--we hear of the few million here or their lobbed off some childcare program or senior program. This is all smoke and mirrors. The excess spending spree is in the TRILLIONS! Do we even grasp how many zeros that is? 8,000,000,000,000--it is twelve zeros? And rapidly approaching 13. Thirteen may very well be the unlucky number that brings the financial house of cards crashing down, along with the hopes and dreams of several generations into the future.
Mr. President. Please lift your head out of the sand. You have spent all you can spend. The well has long since ran dry. Please shut down the printing presses.
Ok Yodi, help me drag my soapbox back to the shade.
I believe our President and some of his advisors are currently suffering from a severe case of stubborness when it comes to some of their pursuits. It takes a wise man to set aside his own feelings and listen to others views when the natural tendancy may be to stick his head in the sand to avoid all dissent.
America has had a captain at the helm who has just such a severe case of stubborness. It is up to the Congress now to find a way to pull the President feet first out of his hole and own up to the facts. His program may very well have sounded sound at one time. But there does come a time when a reasonable approach would be to consider other routes rather than continue the ship on a course where it most certainly will crash onto the rocks.
I'm willing to give the President a certain amount of rope--but I'm not willing to keep reeling out more until their is none left to give.
The fiscal policy that has resulted in extreme foolishness-- may very well end up extingquishing any hope we or future generations have for a comfortable standard of living for all citizens. If interest rates were ever to spiral as they did durung the Carter administration, the interest on the national dept alone would seriously disrupt hundreds of needed projects funded from the Treasury. We simply cannot go on creating artificial money and spend it until the presses run out of ink! I understand the concept of seeding the economy by lowering taxes. But there does come a point where the anticipated growth in the economy simply cannot be forthcoming due to reckless unfunded dept.
We admonish large corporations for failing to properly fund retiree pensions. 10's of billions of dollars of unfunded pension obligations are now being dumped at the taxpayers doorstep. I doubt whether all those companies planned to fail in their obligations. They too probably thought that they could grow their companie's and profits in the future enough to more than fund any short term deficits in the funds. Unfortunately for those reaching the golden years of retirement, something went wrong.
As a country we must now face up to the same facts as the Corporations. Deficits are REAL. And they cannot be wished away. How can we logically expect future generaations of Congressmen to act any different than todays model? Pork barrel is their mantra. To heck with tommorow.We must be realistic and assume they will come from the same mold.
So what do we do now when we have both Congress and the Administration refusing to deal with deficits and refusing any form of constraint. Sure--we hear of the few million here or their lobbed off some childcare program or senior program. This is all smoke and mirrors. The excess spending spree is in the TRILLIONS! Do we even grasp how many zeros that is? 8,000,000,000,000--it is twelve zeros? And rapidly approaching 13. Thirteen may very well be the unlucky number that brings the financial house of cards crashing down, along with the hopes and dreams of several generations into the future.
Mr. President. Please lift your head out of the sand. You have spent all you can spend. The well has long since ran dry. Please shut down the printing presses.
Ok Yodi, help me drag my soapbox back to the shade.
Monday, November 14, 2005
The "HIV" community
I was not aware that the HIV sufferes had their own community. Were you?
Quote:[from article]
"A spokesman for the NHS trust said: "We urge him, for the sake of himself and the HIV community, to come in and get tested."
I know their is a large group of people ranging from babies to adults from every corner of the planet, every race,and every religion who have contracted this virus. I also no that there are many individual stories associated with this disease.
Nobody is born HIV positive.
There is a group of individuals who because of their loose morals and sinful actions have contracted this deadly scourge. I suppose that is one community.
Then there is a group of innocent individuals who contacted the virus by unwittingly being exposed through blood transfusions and the like. I suppose that is another community
But somehow the very word 'community" agitates me. The reason being, that the vast majority of HIV cases come from deviant sexual activity. And this activity is the result of adultrywhich is a mortal sin needing resolved--by these same people.
And--the innocent people who get infected as a result of this virus being spread around by there immoral people results in a death sentence to the victims.
I'm happy if the man in the attached article is in fact cured. That would truly be a grace deserving of tribute. But which community was he from?
Another thought crossed my mind when reading this article. Wouldn't it have been great if those in the innocent "community" had never been offered residence in such a horrible group. I doubt whether they appreciate being in such company.If asked, I'm sure their response would have been something like this. "Thanks--but no thanks, I believe I will just stay in my own community" "The one with a furture" "You know--"the community of life"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Cured' HIV man turns down more tests
By Nic Fleming, Science Correspondent
(Filed: 14/11/2005)
Doctors and scientists have urged a man reported to be the first to be cured of the HIV virus to come forward for further tests.
Andrew Stimpson, 25, was diagnosed as HIV-positive in August 2002, but tests carried out last year came back as antibody negative.
An investigation carried out by Chelsea and Westminster NHS trust found that both sets of tests were correct.
If true it would make Mr Stimpson the first known person to defeat the Aids virus and could potentially prove invaluable for researchers seeking a vaccine.
Mr Stimpson, a former hairdresser from Largs in Ayrshire who lives in London, told a Sunday newspaper: "I can't help wondering if I hold the cure for Aids. It is scary and confusing but makes me feel very special."
However some scientists were sceptical about the reports and a spokesman for Chelsea and Westminster Hospital said he had declined to come forward for more detailed tests.
Prof Jonathan Weber from the division of medicine at Imperial College, London, said: "There have been false reports of this phenomenon before. Very rarely a blood test can be falsely positive."
A spokesman for the NHS trust said: "We urge him, for the sake of himself and the HIV community, to come in and get tested."
Quote:[from article]
"A spokesman for the NHS trust said: "We urge him, for the sake of himself and the HIV community, to come in and get tested."
I know their is a large group of people ranging from babies to adults from every corner of the planet, every race,and every religion who have contracted this virus. I also no that there are many individual stories associated with this disease.
Nobody is born HIV positive.
There is a group of individuals who because of their loose morals and sinful actions have contracted this deadly scourge. I suppose that is one community.
Then there is a group of innocent individuals who contacted the virus by unwittingly being exposed through blood transfusions and the like. I suppose that is another community
But somehow the very word 'community" agitates me. The reason being, that the vast majority of HIV cases come from deviant sexual activity. And this activity is the result of adultrywhich is a mortal sin needing resolved--by these same people.
And--the innocent people who get infected as a result of this virus being spread around by there immoral people results in a death sentence to the victims.
I'm happy if the man in the attached article is in fact cured. That would truly be a grace deserving of tribute. But which community was he from?
Another thought crossed my mind when reading this article. Wouldn't it have been great if those in the innocent "community" had never been offered residence in such a horrible group. I doubt whether they appreciate being in such company.If asked, I'm sure their response would have been something like this. "Thanks--but no thanks, I believe I will just stay in my own community" "The one with a furture" "You know--"the community of life"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Cured' HIV man turns down more tests
By Nic Fleming, Science Correspondent
(Filed: 14/11/2005)
Doctors and scientists have urged a man reported to be the first to be cured of the HIV virus to come forward for further tests.
Andrew Stimpson, 25, was diagnosed as HIV-positive in August 2002, but tests carried out last year came back as antibody negative.
An investigation carried out by Chelsea and Westminster NHS trust found that both sets of tests were correct.
If true it would make Mr Stimpson the first known person to defeat the Aids virus and could potentially prove invaluable for researchers seeking a vaccine.
Mr Stimpson, a former hairdresser from Largs in Ayrshire who lives in London, told a Sunday newspaper: "I can't help wondering if I hold the cure for Aids. It is scary and confusing but makes me feel very special."
However some scientists were sceptical about the reports and a spokesman for Chelsea and Westminster Hospital said he had declined to come forward for more detailed tests.
Prof Jonathan Weber from the division of medicine at Imperial College, London, said: "There have been false reports of this phenomenon before. Very rarely a blood test can be falsely positive."
A spokesman for the NHS trust said: "We urge him, for the sake of himself and the HIV community, to come in and get tested."
Sunday, November 13, 2005
"Give a Serf a Chance"
In a nation of over 300,000,000 people-- [and 20,000,000 illegals], one would believe there would be more than a few families getting into the presidential race. Even though we whipped King George and cut the chains that bound us to his throne--it was only a matter of a few years before we clammored for our own royal family.
George Washington nearly ended up with "King" type authority and after he left office, we have had a string of families willing to bring forth dynasties. Adams, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Bush, and it is becoming more obvious every day that Her Majesty Queen Hillary [Clinton] will attempt to continue the Clinton dynasty.
But--wait--it now appears that the Presidents brother and Governor of the "Shire" known as Florida--may be entering the fray [see article].
Are Americans going to allow these two dynasties to clash in the elections for the prize of being out next "King", [or does Emporer sound better]?
I realize that it can cost a "King's " ransom to win a major state or national campaign. But isn't it about time we get some new family bloodlines into the mix?
Maybe their are some commoners out there who will actually bring some new ideas for solving our nations problems.Why not give them a chance for a change? "Give a serf a chance!"
The current royalty have already sat around the throne room with their family members and hashed out all the "family" ideas. All that Hillary or Jeb have to offer is family tradition re-packaged with a different colored bow.
Yodi likes the new mantra--"give a serf a chance!" It does have a refreshing ring to it. Don't you think?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeb Bush leaves open White House bid
Sunday, November 13, 2005; 10:31 AM
BERLIN (Reuters) - Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, the brother of U.S. President George W. Bush, ruled out running for president in 2008 but left open the possibility of a subsequent bid in an interview with a German magazine published on Sunday.
Jeb Bush, who is scheduled to visit Germany this week, told Focus weekly he had not thought much about running for the office held by his father and older brother except to rule out the next election at the end of George W. Bush's second term.
"You should never say never. But for the 2008 election, my answer is definitely no," he said, in comments translated into German by the magazine.
Asked whether his answer meant a later challenge was possible, he said: "Let's say there's a vague chance."
Bush, 52, said he spoke frequently with his brother and visited the White House whenever he was in Washington but he said the two mainly discussed family matters or sport.
George Washington nearly ended up with "King" type authority and after he left office, we have had a string of families willing to bring forth dynasties. Adams, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Bush, and it is becoming more obvious every day that Her Majesty Queen Hillary [Clinton] will attempt to continue the Clinton dynasty.
But--wait--it now appears that the Presidents brother and Governor of the "Shire" known as Florida--may be entering the fray [see article].
Are Americans going to allow these two dynasties to clash in the elections for the prize of being out next "King", [or does Emporer sound better]?
I realize that it can cost a "King's " ransom to win a major state or national campaign. But isn't it about time we get some new family bloodlines into the mix?
Maybe their are some commoners out there who will actually bring some new ideas for solving our nations problems.Why not give them a chance for a change? "Give a serf a chance!"
The current royalty have already sat around the throne room with their family members and hashed out all the "family" ideas. All that Hillary or Jeb have to offer is family tradition re-packaged with a different colored bow.
Yodi likes the new mantra--"give a serf a chance!" It does have a refreshing ring to it. Don't you think?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeb Bush leaves open White House bid
Sunday, November 13, 2005; 10:31 AM
BERLIN (Reuters) - Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, the brother of U.S. President George W. Bush, ruled out running for president in 2008 but left open the possibility of a subsequent bid in an interview with a German magazine published on Sunday.
Jeb Bush, who is scheduled to visit Germany this week, told Focus weekly he had not thought much about running for the office held by his father and older brother except to rule out the next election at the end of George W. Bush's second term.
"You should never say never. But for the 2008 election, my answer is definitely no," he said, in comments translated into German by the magazine.
Asked whether his answer meant a later challenge was possible, he said: "Let's say there's a vague chance."
Bush, 52, said he spoke frequently with his brother and visited the White House whenever he was in Washington but he said the two mainly discussed family matters or sport.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Artificial Intelligence Is Not For Me
Twice this week I have ran up against talking robots. And it sends chills up my back.I just don't like them.
On one of the forums I belong to, we now have a brand new chat room. I have always felt this was a valuable addition to the forum community, but this was the first time one has actually been started. No sooner did I join in for a chat then it became evident that I was chatting with a "fake" member by the name of Town Crier. "It" was actually a cyber form of artificial intelligence. And--it was trying to pick my brain. It all sounds silly to fear something like this. But--I do.
Yesterday, I called AOL to cancel my membership. I spent five minuted talking to a robot on the other end of the line. It wasn't until I had satisfied this other form of artificial intelligences requests that I was allowed to speak with a real person. Probably in India but at least real. She too asked me a bunch of questions. It didn't appear like AOL liked the idea of me quiting their realm. After turning down all the offers to modify my existing account--the phone call was suddenly cut off.
Now I have to call again and talk to the robot and jump through the hoops all over again. I'm waiting until tommorow. I needed a couple of days to recover from my last two conversations with cyber beings. Maybe I should let Yodi handle it for me. Do you think the robot will care? What kind of a world are we becoming?
On one of the forums I belong to, we now have a brand new chat room. I have always felt this was a valuable addition to the forum community, but this was the first time one has actually been started. No sooner did I join in for a chat then it became evident that I was chatting with a "fake" member by the name of Town Crier. "It" was actually a cyber form of artificial intelligence. And--it was trying to pick my brain. It all sounds silly to fear something like this. But--I do.
Yesterday, I called AOL to cancel my membership. I spent five minuted talking to a robot on the other end of the line. It wasn't until I had satisfied this other form of artificial intelligences requests that I was allowed to speak with a real person. Probably in India but at least real. She too asked me a bunch of questions. It didn't appear like AOL liked the idea of me quiting their realm. After turning down all the offers to modify my existing account--the phone call was suddenly cut off.
Now I have to call again and talk to the robot and jump through the hoops all over again. I'm waiting until tommorow. I needed a couple of days to recover from my last two conversations with cyber beings. Maybe I should let Yodi handle it for me. Do you think the robot will care? What kind of a world are we becoming?
Friday, November 04, 2005
Finacial disaster hits energy companies !!!!!!!
In a shocking new poll conducted by the Neighborhood Forum, nearly 50% of the respondants have dropped their fuel consumption by more than 10% and nearly 17% by more than 30%.
This non scientific poll , [if the figures hold up], shows that Americans are in the process of threatening the very existence of the energy companies they have come to rely on.
There has been no word coming from tight lipped energy executives yet about this turnaround in gasoline and diesel fuel use. We can only suspect that lobbyists for the industry are as I write, arm twisting the congress and executive branches of our government for relief. This is serious!!
I believe it is the duty of every American to reach into their pocketbooks and sacrifice in this time of need for these great pillers of American culture. I propose a telethon to be held in our nations financial capital Wall Street, USA, on behalf of these struggling energy providers.
First the were hit by hurrican damage that forced them to raise their prices more than 25%. And now the ungrateful consumers have kicked them while they are still reeling from this setback. A truly unpatriotic response by greedy fuel users.
Mother nature is against them and now the American consumer. Please give what you can--and then dig a little deeper. It is the Christian thing to do.
Thank you Yodi. I will make sure the president of Mobile Oil gets your chew toy.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
NEIGHBORHOOD FORUM POLL CONDUCTED 11-3-2005
Have higher prices reduced your usage?
No--I still use the same amount of fuel [ 5 ] [41.67%]
Yes--I have cut back 1% to 10% [ 1 ] [8.33%]
Yes--I have cut back 10% to 20% [ 3 ] [25.00%]
Yes--I have cut back 20% to 30% [ 1 ] [8.33%]
Yes--I have cut back more than 30% [ 2 ] [16.67%]
Total Votes: 12
This non scientific poll , [if the figures hold up], shows that Americans are in the process of threatening the very existence of the energy companies they have come to rely on.
There has been no word coming from tight lipped energy executives yet about this turnaround in gasoline and diesel fuel use. We can only suspect that lobbyists for the industry are as I write, arm twisting the congress and executive branches of our government for relief. This is serious!!
I believe it is the duty of every American to reach into their pocketbooks and sacrifice in this time of need for these great pillers of American culture. I propose a telethon to be held in our nations financial capital Wall Street, USA, on behalf of these struggling energy providers.
First the were hit by hurrican damage that forced them to raise their prices more than 25%. And now the ungrateful consumers have kicked them while they are still reeling from this setback. A truly unpatriotic response by greedy fuel users.
Mother nature is against them and now the American consumer. Please give what you can--and then dig a little deeper. It is the Christian thing to do.
Thank you Yodi. I will make sure the president of Mobile Oil gets your chew toy.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
NEIGHBORHOOD FORUM POLL CONDUCTED 11-3-2005
Have higher prices reduced your usage?
No--I still use the same amount of fuel [ 5 ] [41.67%]
Yes--I have cut back 1% to 10% [ 1 ] [8.33%]
Yes--I have cut back 10% to 20% [ 3 ] [25.00%]
Yes--I have cut back 20% to 30% [ 1 ] [8.33%]
Yes--I have cut back more than 30% [ 2 ] [16.67%]
Total Votes: 12
Thursday, November 03, 2005
My "not so pleasant" online purchase experience.
Last week after months of research, I made a decision to make a major purchase on-line from a company that I thought could be trusted. I grew up with their catalogs and dad swore by their tools and the fact that they had a lifetime guarantee. Something about the term "lifetime" associated with a company tends to bring up strong images of quality and trust. Every town in America probably had one of their stores or at least a catalog outlet.I must admit that over the years I have drifted more towards discount stores and this stores main competitor--Walmart. maybe it was nostalgia that made me choose to go with this stalwart of American retail history.
I visited the companies on-line site, picked out the item I wanted and before completing the order, I called their toll free number just to confirm that the product was in fact available and to pin down exactly when it would arrive, and what I needed to do. Sylvia, [I keep notes on who I talk to along with what they say]-the on-line representative answered all my questions with an air of confidence and cheer in her voice. She closed the deal for me. All I needed to do was follow the simple order form, fill in all the required lines, enter my card number, and today my purchase would arrive.
Monday, a computer generated voice called me at home. The voice rattled off my order information and confirmed my thursday delivery. I was excited. I had spent over $2,000, this to me was a major expenditure planned on for many months, and I was dealing with a company over 100 years old and known for quality and customer service.
At 12 noon today, I called the toll free number to check on my delivery. I was given the shipping companies number by Shelly.I called the number and after listening to elevator music for 10 minutes, Barb came on the phone. I gave Barb my order number----and at that point my experience went down hill. Barb announced that she had called my home phone yesterday at 9 AM. That she had left a message that I needed to call her back by 12 noon to confirm my delivery--and because I had not called back as required--it would be sometime in December before the delivery would be coming as they were booked up until then. I explained to Barb that I did not receive a call yesterday as I was home all day, and that my phone message machine did not have a message. Barb became huffy and told me that there was nothing more she could do and that was that. I asked to talk with her supervisor. I was put on hold and after 10 more minutes of elevator music, Barb informed me that a supervisor would call me by 9 PM toningt. And then my phone call was cut off.
I called the on-line number again and this time James answered. I explained to him my situation and felt that I had become the victim of poor company service. After he took down all my order info and putting me on hold--and about 5 minutes of elevator music--my phone call was cut off. I called again and this time Sylvia answered the call. I gave Sylvia all my info once again. I was put on hold and after another 5 minutes of elevator music---Sylvia informed me that there was nothing to be done. She was very apologetic. I asked Sylvia if I could speak with a supervisor. She put me on hold and after a few more minutes of elevator music, Donna came on the line. Donna informed me that the product I had ordered was in fact out of stock--and that was why my delivery date was sometime in December. I was confused. I asked her why the delivery company [Barb] had given me a false story about my delivery? I was apologized to. I asked Donna if there was any other way that I could recieve this item before sometime in December. She put me on hold and after a moment--the phone call was cut off.
At this point--many would wonder why I didn't simply cancel the order? The thought did cross my mind--but I decided to insist that this company live up to their end of the bargain. I had did everything I was supposed to-but they had failed me.Why should I be lied to and why should they get away with shoddy customer service? Besides---at this point I had already invested a lot of emotional energy into this purchase.
I called the number again. I had to go through this entire process again . First talking to the sales rep. [I forgot to write this ones name down], and eventually talking to Beth a different supervisor. Beth did some checking and informed me that the product was actually in stock, but that the delivery company only delivered in my area once a week. And--that the schedule was filled up until mid December. At this time I became upset. I had now been lied to several times and requested to talk to somebody in management. I was getting this straightened out today. Beth called Barb at the shipping company. She then informed me that Barb would call me back in a few minutes to further discuss my delivery status.
Barb called me back and after several tense moments, she arranged for my product to be delivered next tuesday. She told me that she would call on monday to confirm the delivery. I told Barb that as far as I was concerned she could consider the delivery date confirmed.
I don't feel so nostalgic about this company anymore.
So--we shall see on tuesday if my delivery arrives. Stay tuned.
I visited the companies on-line site, picked out the item I wanted and before completing the order, I called their toll free number just to confirm that the product was in fact available and to pin down exactly when it would arrive, and what I needed to do. Sylvia, [I keep notes on who I talk to along with what they say]-the on-line representative answered all my questions with an air of confidence and cheer in her voice. She closed the deal for me. All I needed to do was follow the simple order form, fill in all the required lines, enter my card number, and today my purchase would arrive.
Monday, a computer generated voice called me at home. The voice rattled off my order information and confirmed my thursday delivery. I was excited. I had spent over $2,000, this to me was a major expenditure planned on for many months, and I was dealing with a company over 100 years old and known for quality and customer service.
At 12 noon today, I called the toll free number to check on my delivery. I was given the shipping companies number by Shelly.I called the number and after listening to elevator music for 10 minutes, Barb came on the phone. I gave Barb my order number----and at that point my experience went down hill. Barb announced that she had called my home phone yesterday at 9 AM. That she had left a message that I needed to call her back by 12 noon to confirm my delivery--and because I had not called back as required--it would be sometime in December before the delivery would be coming as they were booked up until then. I explained to Barb that I did not receive a call yesterday as I was home all day, and that my phone message machine did not have a message. Barb became huffy and told me that there was nothing more she could do and that was that. I asked to talk with her supervisor. I was put on hold and after 10 more minutes of elevator music, Barb informed me that a supervisor would call me by 9 PM toningt. And then my phone call was cut off.
I called the on-line number again and this time James answered. I explained to him my situation and felt that I had become the victim of poor company service. After he took down all my order info and putting me on hold--and about 5 minutes of elevator music--my phone call was cut off. I called again and this time Sylvia answered the call. I gave Sylvia all my info once again. I was put on hold and after another 5 minutes of elevator music---Sylvia informed me that there was nothing to be done. She was very apologetic. I asked Sylvia if I could speak with a supervisor. She put me on hold and after a few more minutes of elevator music, Donna came on the line. Donna informed me that the product I had ordered was in fact out of stock--and that was why my delivery date was sometime in December. I was confused. I asked her why the delivery company [Barb] had given me a false story about my delivery? I was apologized to. I asked Donna if there was any other way that I could recieve this item before sometime in December. She put me on hold and after a moment--the phone call was cut off.
At this point--many would wonder why I didn't simply cancel the order? The thought did cross my mind--but I decided to insist that this company live up to their end of the bargain. I had did everything I was supposed to-but they had failed me.Why should I be lied to and why should they get away with shoddy customer service? Besides---at this point I had already invested a lot of emotional energy into this purchase.
I called the number again. I had to go through this entire process again . First talking to the sales rep. [I forgot to write this ones name down], and eventually talking to Beth a different supervisor. Beth did some checking and informed me that the product was actually in stock, but that the delivery company only delivered in my area once a week. And--that the schedule was filled up until mid December. At this time I became upset. I had now been lied to several times and requested to talk to somebody in management. I was getting this straightened out today. Beth called Barb at the shipping company. She then informed me that Barb would call me back in a few minutes to further discuss my delivery status.
Barb called me back and after several tense moments, she arranged for my product to be delivered next tuesday. She told me that she would call on monday to confirm the delivery. I told Barb that as far as I was concerned she could consider the delivery date confirmed.
I don't feel so nostalgic about this company anymore.
So--we shall see on tuesday if my delivery arrives. Stay tuned.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
"A Good Catholic Boy"
"A good Catholic boy"-- "And he doesn't believe in abortions" proclaimed CBS reporter Mike Wallace--as he described Judge Samuel Alito.
Somehow I feel a jab all the way into my ribs when I hear comments like that made.
Mr. Wallace, however has a habit of being biased and we should all note that whenever hearing anything that comes from his lips. He's the guy that CBS has banned from doing programs on gun control because of a lack for objectivity. Or should we just say--plain bias.One might have thought that CBS learned a lesson from the bised reporting done by EX news anchor Dan Rather"gate".
I wonder what would be amazing-- about Judge Alito's personal stance against butchering unborn babies? All Catholics in communion with the church teachings feel this way.
Boy-- it appears that the President has gotten this nomination right-- by the outcry from such organization as the Democrat Party website, and the ladies at NOW and NARAL. Are they concerned that some of the legislation they have gotten passed is somehow now in jeopardy. WAIT! Did I say legislation? I meant court rulings by the activist Justices on the Supreme Court.But alas--all good things must come to an end--and so do all unjust rulings.
I read one article this morning that stated "a majority of Americans think Judge Alioto's nomination should be filibustered. The poll was taken of 28 people!!
Yes Yodi, it appears from all the negative reactions from the left, that we might just have a good man coming to the court. psst! Another good Catholic boy.
Somehow I feel a jab all the way into my ribs when I hear comments like that made.
Mr. Wallace, however has a habit of being biased and we should all note that whenever hearing anything that comes from his lips. He's the guy that CBS has banned from doing programs on gun control because of a lack for objectivity. Or should we just say--plain bias.One might have thought that CBS learned a lesson from the bised reporting done by EX news anchor Dan Rather"gate".
I wonder what would be amazing-- about Judge Alito's personal stance against butchering unborn babies? All Catholics in communion with the church teachings feel this way.
Boy-- it appears that the President has gotten this nomination right-- by the outcry from such organization as the Democrat Party website, and the ladies at NOW and NARAL. Are they concerned that some of the legislation they have gotten passed is somehow now in jeopardy. WAIT! Did I say legislation? I meant court rulings by the activist Justices on the Supreme Court.But alas--all good things must come to an end--and so do all unjust rulings.
I read one article this morning that stated "a majority of Americans think Judge Alioto's nomination should be filibustered. The poll was taken of 28 people!!
Yes Yodi, it appears from all the negative reactions from the left, that we might just have a good man coming to the court. psst! Another good Catholic boy.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Republican leadership in shambles
In 2001, James Carville declared war on Conservative USA. Today, the Democrats soundly humiliated the Republican leadership. And Bill Frisk is mad. Boo Hoo!! Those mean spirited Democrats took over the senate and closed the doors.
The problem with the Republicans is--while they have been towing the mark by such pacifist regard for the Dems--THE DEMS HAVE BEEN PRESSING THE WAR THAT CARVILLE DECLARED?
After 10 years of congressional control---has there ever been a congress that has spent more money? Isn't this what the Democrats were always famous for?
How about the Supreme Court? The Democrats seem to have nearly pulled off the coup of the century with the Republican President's nomination of Harriet Miers.
Does our country have firm family values and morals that the conservative right has called for? If anything--things are even more secular now than in 2001.
And today---while Frisk stood in front of the camaras saying he can't trust Harry Reid--the Democrat MINORITY leader, it mattered not. The Dems won the day by controling the agenda on the Senate floor. And--they said they will do so again and again until they get their way. Talk about the tail wagging the dog.
Maybe somebody should warn the Republicans. While they may be operating in a cease fire mode--the Democrats never did call a halt to Carville's war. Psst! hey Bill---enemies cannot be trusted.
Can you believe this Yodi?
The problem with the Republicans is--while they have been towing the mark by such pacifist regard for the Dems--THE DEMS HAVE BEEN PRESSING THE WAR THAT CARVILLE DECLARED?
After 10 years of congressional control---has there ever been a congress that has spent more money? Isn't this what the Democrats were always famous for?
How about the Supreme Court? The Democrats seem to have nearly pulled off the coup of the century with the Republican President's nomination of Harriet Miers.
Does our country have firm family values and morals that the conservative right has called for? If anything--things are even more secular now than in 2001.
And today---while Frisk stood in front of the camaras saying he can't trust Harry Reid--the Democrat MINORITY leader, it mattered not. The Dems won the day by controling the agenda on the Senate floor. And--they said they will do so again and again until they get their way. Talk about the tail wagging the dog.
Maybe somebody should warn the Republicans. While they may be operating in a cease fire mode--the Democrats never did call a halt to Carville's war. Psst! hey Bill---enemies cannot be trusted.
Can you believe this Yodi?
Sunday, October 30, 2005
"Stare Decisis"-- Past Court Abuse Needs Remedy
Today I was reading a piece discussing who the President might choose for nomination to replace Sandra Day O'Connor as Associate Justice to the Supreme Court.
In the article, the term "Super stare decisis" was used in describing a term used by one of the perspective nominees is rendering an opinion on a case he was involved with as a judge.
We had stare decisis come up numerous times during Chief Justice Roberts recent confirmation hears, and now the term "super" has been applied in this article I read. I decided to look the term Stare Decisis up. Of course I know what the Latin words stand for--but I wanted a definition as to how it is applied in court decisions.
Here is what I found:
_____________________________________________________________________________________
STARE DECISIS - Lat. "to stand by that which is decided." The principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts.
To abide or adhere to decided cases. It is a general maxim that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from. The doctrine of stare decisis is not always to be relied upon, for the courts find it necessary to overrule cases which have been hastily decided, or contrary to principle. Many hundreds of such overruled cases may be found in the American and English books of reports.
An appeal court's panel is "bound by decisions of prior panels unless an en banc decision, Supreme Court decision, or subsequent legislation undermines those decisions." United States v. Washington, 872 F.2d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 1989).
Although the doctrine of stare decisis does not prevent reexamining and, if need be, overruling prior decisions, "It is . . . a fundamental jurisprudential policy that prior applicable precedent usually must be followed even though the case, if considered anew, might be decided differently by the current justices. This policy . . . 'is based on the assumption that certainty, predictability and stability in the law are the major objectives of the legal system; i.e., that parties should be able to regulate their conduct and enter into relationships with reasonable assurance of the governing rules of law.'" (Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 296.) Accordingly, a party urging overruling a precedent faces a rightly onerous task, the difficulty of which is roughly proportional to a number of factors, including the age of the precedent, the nature and extent of public and private reliance on it, and its consistency or inconsistency with other related rules of law.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
This brings up in my mind a "Alice In Wonderland" type of question--where everything that appears to be so--is in fact--not!
What I mean is--If the court eventually ends up with a majority of Justices that firmly and unwaveringly approach every case from a "super stare decisis" mentality--then how are the past decisions we must live with and were made by an activist Supreme Court ever going to be nullified?
Isn't that the reason we now need a srictly constructionist set of Justices? To form a Court more in line with the original intent of our founding fathers. An intent that meant for the Court to concern itself only with matters of law and not legislate their own prejudices into "defacto" law?
This brings me to another question. Do we now need an "affirmative action" approach in the Courts with respect to stare decisis?
Affirmative action has been ruled as just in the Michigan Law school entrance requirements-- as a solution to years of abuse and segregation within our society. Basically what it amounts to is setting aside equal rights and allowing "super admission rights" to the class of students who in the courts decision--were denied an equal footing in the community-- and therefore need special attention to right the wrong. They need their class to be treated unequally when competing with the white population-- who over time have enjoyed more favorable educatitional and resource advantage. I won't get into this can of worms--but I believe the principal needs applied now to other areas in our society.
Unborn babies and Christianity has been the victims of unjust treatment due to judicial activism.
Stare decicis would continue a biased treatment resulting in unjust cultural implications and life and death issues for these victims.These classes of citizens.
Will the "new court" made up of Justices that are not activists, recognize the past abuse, and apply remedies that revoke stare decisis-- in cases involving religion and the rights of the unborn? Will the Supreme Court take on new cases that involve the same issue which resulted in Roe vs Wade, as a vehicle to right a court induced wrong? Or will the Supreme Court ignore these past cases of Judicial activism?
Yodi thinks the Supreme Court should fix what it broke.
In the article, the term "Super stare decisis" was used in describing a term used by one of the perspective nominees is rendering an opinion on a case he was involved with as a judge.
We had stare decisis come up numerous times during Chief Justice Roberts recent confirmation hears, and now the term "super" has been applied in this article I read. I decided to look the term Stare Decisis up. Of course I know what the Latin words stand for--but I wanted a definition as to how it is applied in court decisions.
Here is what I found:
_____________________________________________________________________________________
STARE DECISIS - Lat. "to stand by that which is decided." The principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts.
To abide or adhere to decided cases. It is a general maxim that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from. The doctrine of stare decisis is not always to be relied upon, for the courts find it necessary to overrule cases which have been hastily decided, or contrary to principle. Many hundreds of such overruled cases may be found in the American and English books of reports.
An appeal court's panel is "bound by decisions of prior panels unless an en banc decision, Supreme Court decision, or subsequent legislation undermines those decisions." United States v. Washington, 872 F.2d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 1989).
Although the doctrine of stare decisis does not prevent reexamining and, if need be, overruling prior decisions, "It is . . . a fundamental jurisprudential policy that prior applicable precedent usually must be followed even though the case, if considered anew, might be decided differently by the current justices. This policy . . . 'is based on the assumption that certainty, predictability and stability in the law are the major objectives of the legal system; i.e., that parties should be able to regulate their conduct and enter into relationships with reasonable assurance of the governing rules of law.'" (Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 296.) Accordingly, a party urging overruling a precedent faces a rightly onerous task, the difficulty of which is roughly proportional to a number of factors, including the age of the precedent, the nature and extent of public and private reliance on it, and its consistency or inconsistency with other related rules of law.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
This brings up in my mind a "Alice In Wonderland" type of question--where everything that appears to be so--is in fact--not!
What I mean is--If the court eventually ends up with a majority of Justices that firmly and unwaveringly approach every case from a "super stare decisis" mentality--then how are the past decisions we must live with and were made by an activist Supreme Court ever going to be nullified?
Isn't that the reason we now need a srictly constructionist set of Justices? To form a Court more in line with the original intent of our founding fathers. An intent that meant for the Court to concern itself only with matters of law and not legislate their own prejudices into "defacto" law?
This brings me to another question. Do we now need an "affirmative action" approach in the Courts with respect to stare decisis?
Affirmative action has been ruled as just in the Michigan Law school entrance requirements-- as a solution to years of abuse and segregation within our society. Basically what it amounts to is setting aside equal rights and allowing "super admission rights" to the class of students who in the courts decision--were denied an equal footing in the community-- and therefore need special attention to right the wrong. They need their class to be treated unequally when competing with the white population-- who over time have enjoyed more favorable educatitional and resource advantage. I won't get into this can of worms--but I believe the principal needs applied now to other areas in our society.
Unborn babies and Christianity has been the victims of unjust treatment due to judicial activism.
Stare decicis would continue a biased treatment resulting in unjust cultural implications and life and death issues for these victims.These classes of citizens.
Will the "new court" made up of Justices that are not activists, recognize the past abuse, and apply remedies that revoke stare decisis-- in cases involving religion and the rights of the unborn? Will the Supreme Court take on new cases that involve the same issue which resulted in Roe vs Wade, as a vehicle to right a court induced wrong? Or will the Supreme Court ignore these past cases of Judicial activism?
Yodi thinks the Supreme Court should fix what it broke.
Are Jews testing Catholic Church on Nostra Aetate
Tonight I came across an article stating that we Catholics were not supposed to convert Jews. I nearly spit an entire mouth-- full off good beer onto my keyboard when I read this trash.
The Catholic Church has nobody blame but themselves [1e: Pope John Paul 11], for statemnts coming out of Jewish publications like this one which comes from the article in the Jewish Post which I have taken liberty to reference below.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
quote:
"Even though the Nostra Aetate says that no attempts should be made to convert Jews, many Catholics continue to express a hope for conversion," he told The Jerusalem Post from Rome during the Vatican's 40th anniversary celebration of the Nostra Aetate document, which revolutionized the Catholic Church's relations with Jews.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
If one reads "Nostra Aetate" in its entirety,you will find no mention of any proclamation that indicates Catholics will cease from converting Jews. One might however get the impression from the actions of the previous Pope--that he intended to roll over and play tricks for any and all religious organizations that allowed him into their places of worship.
I suspect that the Jews are willing to test how much the new Pope is willing to bend in "his" relations with other religious faiths.
Nostea Aetate for those unfamiliar, was the declaration on the relations of the Catholic Church to non-Christian religions issued October 28, 1962 by Pope Paul V1 as part of the second Vatican Council.
In my opinion, the more we must live with that councils proclamations, the further the church slides from it's true nature as founded by Jesus Christ. Jesus was a Jew--but that did not stop him from spreading the "good news" to everyone in his path--including fellow Jews.
Benedict XV1 has only been in office a few months and I await to see whether he intends to follow Jesus or follow Vatican 11. The church's attempt at modernization in my mind has failed miserably. It is just such fiascos like this document that distorts and confuses Christians. It is high time for the church leadership to return the church to its roots, quit being religious Emperors, and start being Vicars of Christ--as was intended.
The very idea that Catholics would cease welcoming into salvation those ouside the church is beyond comprehension. However it is easy to see why the Jews and others are confused about Christ's mission and the efforts of todays church leaders to follow his lead. There have simply been too many proclamations over the centuries that are the product of our church leaders egos--outside the sancity of the Holy Ghost.
Well Yodi--I see you are shaking your head in dis-belief too. It is time for some prayers on behalf of the Holy Mother Church---another crack has been uncovered.
Referenced article:
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Oct. 27, 2005 19:41 | Updated Oct. 27, 2005 19:59
AJC asks Catholics not to convert Jews
By MATTHEW WAGNER
The Catholic Church should categorically reject any attempts to convert Jews, the American Jewish Committee's Rabbi David Rosen said Thursday.
"Even though the Nostra Aetate says that no attempts should be made to convert Jews, many Catholics continue to express a hope for conversion," he told The Jerusalem Post from Rome during the Vatican's 40th anniversary celebration of the Nostra Aetate document, which revolutionized the Catholic Church's relations with Jews.
Rosen, the AJC's international director of interreligious affairs, has been involved in Vatican-Israeli negotiations for more than a decade.
He and Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger, a retired Paris Archbishop and Jewish convert, were to be the keynote speakers Thursday evening.
Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Holy See's Commission for Religious Relations with Jewry, is hosting the event.
The Nostra Aetate was one of the key documents to emerge from the 1962-65 Second Vatican Council meeting of Catholics and clergy that modernized the Catholic Church.
In it, the Vatican deplored anti-Semitism in every form and repudiated the deicide charge that blamed the Jews for Christ's death.
Rosen, commenting on the issue of Catholic proselytizing, said many
prominent Church theologians such as Kasper consider any attempts to convert Jews, even unobtrusive invitations, inappropriate and unnecessary.
"But some theologians, like Cardinal [Avery] Dulles interpret the Nostra Aetate differently," he said. "Although they eschew proselytizing, they hold that an open invitation to convert is permitted."
Rosen said differences of opinion on conversion of Jews might stem from varying theological positions on redemption for Jews.
Catholic theologians who hope for the conversion of Jews believe that although Jews are not condemned by God, they are not in His favor.
Therefore, it is legitimate to hope for Jews conversion to Catholicism.
Those who reject conversion as inappropriate and unnecessary would be more likely to accept the idea that Jews are eligible for spiritual redemption in the world to come, he said.
Notwithstanding his criticism on the issue of conversions, Rosen called the Nostra Aetate a "mind-boggling revolution in the Catholic Church's theology."
"This might sound like a hyperbole, but there is nothing quite comparable in the history of humankind," he said. "Imagine a billion followers who had been taught contempt for the Jews and Judaism, who had been inculcated with the idea that the Jew was in league with the devil, suddenly being taught that the Jews are the people of the covenant. Or as Pope John Paul II put it, the Jews are 'our dearly beloved older brother.'"
Rosen said the Nostra Aetate also opened the way for diplomatic relations between the State of Israel and the Vatican by recognizing the land of Israel as the ancestral home of the Jewish people.
"Thanksgiving to God is appropriate for the incredible turnaround in Church thought," he said.
Several ceremonies are scheduled for next week in Israel. The Center for the Study of Christianity at Hebrew University will sponsor a three-day conference on various aspects of the document. Rabbi Shear Yishuv Hacohen, president of the Bilateral Commission for Dialogue between the Vatican and the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, will speak at the AJC's headquarters in Jerusalem and there will be a special ceremony at Beit Hanassi.
Rosen will be honored with the Mount Zion Award 2005 on the occasion of the Nostra Aetate anniversary for his contribution to reconciliation between Jews and Catholics. The award will be presented by Kasper.
AP contributed to this report.
The Catholic Church has nobody blame but themselves [1e: Pope John Paul 11], for statemnts coming out of Jewish publications like this one which comes from the article in the Jewish Post which I have taken liberty to reference below.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
quote:
"Even though the Nostra Aetate says that no attempts should be made to convert Jews, many Catholics continue to express a hope for conversion," he told The Jerusalem Post from Rome during the Vatican's 40th anniversary celebration of the Nostra Aetate document, which revolutionized the Catholic Church's relations with Jews.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
If one reads "Nostra Aetate" in its entirety,you will find no mention of any proclamation that indicates Catholics will cease from converting Jews. One might however get the impression from the actions of the previous Pope--that he intended to roll over and play tricks for any and all religious organizations that allowed him into their places of worship.
I suspect that the Jews are willing to test how much the new Pope is willing to bend in "his" relations with other religious faiths.
Nostea Aetate for those unfamiliar, was the declaration on the relations of the Catholic Church to non-Christian religions issued October 28, 1962 by Pope Paul V1 as part of the second Vatican Council.
In my opinion, the more we must live with that councils proclamations, the further the church slides from it's true nature as founded by Jesus Christ. Jesus was a Jew--but that did not stop him from spreading the "good news" to everyone in his path--including fellow Jews.
Benedict XV1 has only been in office a few months and I await to see whether he intends to follow Jesus or follow Vatican 11. The church's attempt at modernization in my mind has failed miserably. It is just such fiascos like this document that distorts and confuses Christians. It is high time for the church leadership to return the church to its roots, quit being religious Emperors, and start being Vicars of Christ--as was intended.
The very idea that Catholics would cease welcoming into salvation those ouside the church is beyond comprehension. However it is easy to see why the Jews and others are confused about Christ's mission and the efforts of todays church leaders to follow his lead. There have simply been too many proclamations over the centuries that are the product of our church leaders egos--outside the sancity of the Holy Ghost.
Well Yodi--I see you are shaking your head in dis-belief too. It is time for some prayers on behalf of the Holy Mother Church---another crack has been uncovered.
Referenced article:
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Oct. 27, 2005 19:41 | Updated Oct. 27, 2005 19:59
AJC asks Catholics not to convert Jews
By MATTHEW WAGNER
The Catholic Church should categorically reject any attempts to convert Jews, the American Jewish Committee's Rabbi David Rosen said Thursday.
"Even though the Nostra Aetate says that no attempts should be made to convert Jews, many Catholics continue to express a hope for conversion," he told The Jerusalem Post from Rome during the Vatican's 40th anniversary celebration of the Nostra Aetate document, which revolutionized the Catholic Church's relations with Jews.
Rosen, the AJC's international director of interreligious affairs, has been involved in Vatican-Israeli negotiations for more than a decade.
He and Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger, a retired Paris Archbishop and Jewish convert, were to be the keynote speakers Thursday evening.
Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Holy See's Commission for Religious Relations with Jewry, is hosting the event.
The Nostra Aetate was one of the key documents to emerge from the 1962-65 Second Vatican Council meeting of Catholics and clergy that modernized the Catholic Church.
In it, the Vatican deplored anti-Semitism in every form and repudiated the deicide charge that blamed the Jews for Christ's death.
Rosen, commenting on the issue of Catholic proselytizing, said many
prominent Church theologians such as Kasper consider any attempts to convert Jews, even unobtrusive invitations, inappropriate and unnecessary.
"But some theologians, like Cardinal [Avery] Dulles interpret the Nostra Aetate differently," he said. "Although they eschew proselytizing, they hold that an open invitation to convert is permitted."
Rosen said differences of opinion on conversion of Jews might stem from varying theological positions on redemption for Jews.
Catholic theologians who hope for the conversion of Jews believe that although Jews are not condemned by God, they are not in His favor.
Therefore, it is legitimate to hope for Jews conversion to Catholicism.
Those who reject conversion as inappropriate and unnecessary would be more likely to accept the idea that Jews are eligible for spiritual redemption in the world to come, he said.
Notwithstanding his criticism on the issue of conversions, Rosen called the Nostra Aetate a "mind-boggling revolution in the Catholic Church's theology."
"This might sound like a hyperbole, but there is nothing quite comparable in the history of humankind," he said. "Imagine a billion followers who had been taught contempt for the Jews and Judaism, who had been inculcated with the idea that the Jew was in league with the devil, suddenly being taught that the Jews are the people of the covenant. Or as Pope John Paul II put it, the Jews are 'our dearly beloved older brother.'"
Rosen said the Nostra Aetate also opened the way for diplomatic relations between the State of Israel and the Vatican by recognizing the land of Israel as the ancestral home of the Jewish people.
"Thanksgiving to God is appropriate for the incredible turnaround in Church thought," he said.
Several ceremonies are scheduled for next week in Israel. The Center for the Study of Christianity at Hebrew University will sponsor a three-day conference on various aspects of the document. Rabbi Shear Yishuv Hacohen, president of the Bilateral Commission for Dialogue between the Vatican and the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, will speak at the AJC's headquarters in Jerusalem and there will be a special ceremony at Beit Hanassi.
Rosen will be honored with the Mount Zion Award 2005 on the occasion of the Nostra Aetate anniversary for his contribution to reconciliation between Jews and Catholics. The award will be presented by Kasper.
AP contributed to this report.
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Don't blow the call this time Mr. President
The President had the majority and he very near blew it. He was Notre Dame on the 1 yard line, leading by six with 45 seconds to go. All he needed to do was handoff to the right candidate-- [his nomination] and the senate would do the rest.The nomination conservatives have been waiting for the past quarter century---
BUT WAIT!
And he passes the ball. What!! He couldn't take the pressure or heat. He wasn't up for the fight. Instead--he drops back to throw the ball to Harriet Miers. The freshman who had never carried the ball let alone caught a pass.
90,000 conservatives who had been screaming and celebrating went silent--for about 20 seconds. And then in anger, stormed the field, took the ball out of his hands , and handed it off to the right player.
Either the President goes along with their play, or he is out of the line-up and will be sent to the sidelines where he will have little to do until his final three years of eligibility are up. yes, removed-- plain and simple-- out of the game along with any of his advisors who were too gutless to talk some sense into his head.
This weekend he is off to Camp David. If he does not want to ride the bench for the next three years--he had better make the right call this time.
BUT WAIT!
And he passes the ball. What!! He couldn't take the pressure or heat. He wasn't up for the fight. Instead--he drops back to throw the ball to Harriet Miers. The freshman who had never carried the ball let alone caught a pass.
90,000 conservatives who had been screaming and celebrating went silent--for about 20 seconds. And then in anger, stormed the field, took the ball out of his hands , and handed it off to the right player.
Either the President goes along with their play, or he is out of the line-up and will be sent to the sidelines where he will have little to do until his final three years of eligibility are up. yes, removed-- plain and simple-- out of the game along with any of his advisors who were too gutless to talk some sense into his head.
This weekend he is off to Camp David. If he does not want to ride the bench for the next three years--he had better make the right call this time.
Monday, October 24, 2005
The question of "Existence" and its meaning
I have noticed that the main question behind many discussions I get involved with boils down to one simple yet profound word,-- and four basic questions. "Existence" What does it mean to exist? Why do we exist? Where did our existence come from? What happens after we no longer exist?
When we look out through our eyes, listen with our ears, and touch the matter around us, it is through these senses that we claim existence. Once we become aware that we are in fact here--then the four questions I listed come into play.
The last question is the one most feared or anticipated and that is where many of the arguments and opinions come from. I divide this question into three distinct views: 1.we continue to live in a non physical environment, 2. we don't know what happens. 3. we simply cease to exist.
To me the most logical answer is that we continue to exist--but not in a physical form. That this is only a temporary "existence", and that this "life" is not the destination but simply part of the trip. It is a very important part of the trip if we believe that there is a creator and that our lives do have meaning and purpose.
Viktor Frankl touched on existence in his book regarding the meaning of life.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mans Search For Meaning"--Victor Frankl
On Discovering the Meaning of Life
"The meaning of our existence is not invented by ourselves, but rather detected." p.157
"What matters, therefore, is not the meaning of life in general, but rather the specific meaning of a person's life at a given moment." p.171
"We can discover this meaning in life in three different ways: (1) by doing a deed; (2) by experiencing a value; and (3) by suffering." p.176
_____________________________________________________________________________________
In this book, he discussed an existence foreign to most people. One of degradation and one reduced to the lowest form of survival. He was a prisoner during WW11 in a Nazi concentration camp. And--he was deprived of all but the base elements needed for physical life. He owned nothing more and expected nothing more. Life became one of moment to moment. When he said that life is not invented by us--but detected he was talking about awareness. Awareness of ones existence.
We are also aware of other things that our senses pick up externally such as each other and the stars overhead. What or who made all of this? Where was the beginning and what was before that?
This brings me to another point. Love.
Love can be used to describe how we feel about ourself and all that exists outside of ourself. I consider "love" to be the prime reason that all exists including me and you. We were "loved" into existence. Everything.
I believe that "GOD" loved everything into existence. The force of his creation was love and he created the purest form of expression when he created this term we call love.
It is through love that I can explain "GOD" and I can attest that he did become man through his "SON", the Lord Jesus Christ.
I prove "GODS" existence -- by loving others outside myself. And I explain "GODS" existence-- by loving "GOD". My faith becomes real when I expand outside my own existence by loving outside my existence. If what I am is an expression of "GODS" love then by me loving him and others--they too become real. It is out of my faith in him that I love --and it is through this love that I find him.
Jesus Christ taught me about love and it is the key to explaining the existence of everything from alpha to omega.The meaning of life's existence --is "LOVE". It is the glue that binds heaven and earth together. It is the substance that got us here and it is the substance that will get us home--to heaven. I call it substance because it can be experienced with all our senses.
Enough today Yodi. let's take a walk.
To be continued:
When we look out through our eyes, listen with our ears, and touch the matter around us, it is through these senses that we claim existence. Once we become aware that we are in fact here--then the four questions I listed come into play.
The last question is the one most feared or anticipated and that is where many of the arguments and opinions come from. I divide this question into three distinct views: 1.we continue to live in a non physical environment, 2. we don't know what happens. 3. we simply cease to exist.
To me the most logical answer is that we continue to exist--but not in a physical form. That this is only a temporary "existence", and that this "life" is not the destination but simply part of the trip. It is a very important part of the trip if we believe that there is a creator and that our lives do have meaning and purpose.
Viktor Frankl touched on existence in his book regarding the meaning of life.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mans Search For Meaning"--Victor Frankl
On Discovering the Meaning of Life
"The meaning of our existence is not invented by ourselves, but rather detected." p.157
"What matters, therefore, is not the meaning of life in general, but rather the specific meaning of a person's life at a given moment." p.171
"We can discover this meaning in life in three different ways: (1) by doing a deed; (2) by experiencing a value; and (3) by suffering." p.176
_____________________________________________________________________________________
In this book, he discussed an existence foreign to most people. One of degradation and one reduced to the lowest form of survival. He was a prisoner during WW11 in a Nazi concentration camp. And--he was deprived of all but the base elements needed for physical life. He owned nothing more and expected nothing more. Life became one of moment to moment. When he said that life is not invented by us--but detected he was talking about awareness. Awareness of ones existence.
We are also aware of other things that our senses pick up externally such as each other and the stars overhead. What or who made all of this? Where was the beginning and what was before that?
This brings me to another point. Love.
Love can be used to describe how we feel about ourself and all that exists outside of ourself. I consider "love" to be the prime reason that all exists including me and you. We were "loved" into existence. Everything.
I believe that "GOD" loved everything into existence. The force of his creation was love and he created the purest form of expression when he created this term we call love.
It is through love that I can explain "GOD" and I can attest that he did become man through his "SON", the Lord Jesus Christ.
I prove "GODS" existence -- by loving others outside myself. And I explain "GODS" existence-- by loving "GOD". My faith becomes real when I expand outside my own existence by loving outside my existence. If what I am is an expression of "GODS" love then by me loving him and others--they too become real. It is out of my faith in him that I love --and it is through this love that I find him.
Jesus Christ taught me about love and it is the key to explaining the existence of everything from alpha to omega.The meaning of life's existence --is "LOVE". It is the glue that binds heaven and earth together. It is the substance that got us here and it is the substance that will get us home--to heaven. I call it substance because it can be experienced with all our senses.
Enough today Yodi. let's take a walk.
To be continued:
Through lifes meaning we find "GOD"
I have noticed that the main question behind many discussions I get involved with boils down to one simple yet profound word,-- and four basic questions. "Existence" What does it mean to exist? Why do we exist? Where did our existence come from? What happens after we no longer exist?
When we look out through our eyes, listen with our ears, and touch the matter around us, it is through these senses that we claim existence. Once we become aware that we are in fact here--then the four questions I listed come into play.
The last question is the one most feared or anticipated and that is where many of the arguments and opinions come from. I divide this question into three distinct views: 1.we continue to live in a non physical environment, 2. we don't know what happens. 3. we simply cease to exist.
To me the most logical answer is that we continue to exist--but not in a physical form. That this is only a temporary "existence", and that this "life" is not the destination but simply part of the trip. It is a very important part of the trip if we believe that there is a creator and that our lives do have meaning and purpose.
Viktor Frankl touched on existence in his book regarding the meaning of life.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mans Search For Meaning"--Victor Frankl
On Discovering the Meaning of Life
"The meaning of our existence is not invented by ourselves, but rather detected." p.157
"What matters, therefore, is not the meaning of life in general, but rather the specific meaning of a person's life at a given moment." p.171
"We can discover this meaning in life in three different ways: (1) by doing a deed; (2) by experiencing a value; and (3) by suffering." p.176
_____________________________________________________________________________________
In this book, he discussed an existence foreign to most people. One of degradation and one reduced to the lowest form of survival. He was a prisoner during WW11 in a Nazi concentration camp. And--he was deprived of all but the base elements needed for physical life. He owned nothing more and expected nothing more. Life became one of moment to moment. When he said that life is not invented by us--but detected he was talking about awareness. Awareness of ones existence.
We are also aware of other things that our senses pick up externally such as each other and the stars overhead. What or who made all of this? Where was the beginning and what was before that?
This brings me to another point. Love.
Love can be used to describe how we feel about ourself and all that exists outside of ourself. I consider "love" to be the prime reason that all exists including me and you. We were "loved" into existence. Everything.
I believe that "GOD" loved everything into existence. The force of his creation was love and he created the purest form of expression when he created this term we call love.
It is through love that I can explain "GOD" and I can attest that he did become man through his "SON", the Lord Jesus Christ.
I prove "GODS" existence -- by loving others outside myself. And I explain "GODS" existence-- by loving "GOD". My faith becomes real when I expand outside my own existence by loving outside my existence. If what I am is an expression of "GODS" love then by me loving him and others--they too become real. It is out of my faith in him that I love --and it is through this love that I find him.
Jesus Christ taught me about love and it is the key to explaining the existence of everything from alpha to omega.The meaning of life's existence --is "LOVE". It is the glue that binds heaven and earth together. It is the substance that got us here and it is the substance that will get us home--to heaven. I call it substance because it can be experienced with all our senses.
Enough today Yodi. let's take a walk.
To be continued:
When we look out through our eyes, listen with our ears, and touch the matter around us, it is through these senses that we claim existence. Once we become aware that we are in fact here--then the four questions I listed come into play.
The last question is the one most feared or anticipated and that is where many of the arguments and opinions come from. I divide this question into three distinct views: 1.we continue to live in a non physical environment, 2. we don't know what happens. 3. we simply cease to exist.
To me the most logical answer is that we continue to exist--but not in a physical form. That this is only a temporary "existence", and that this "life" is not the destination but simply part of the trip. It is a very important part of the trip if we believe that there is a creator and that our lives do have meaning and purpose.
Viktor Frankl touched on existence in his book regarding the meaning of life.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mans Search For Meaning"--Victor Frankl
On Discovering the Meaning of Life
"The meaning of our existence is not invented by ourselves, but rather detected." p.157
"What matters, therefore, is not the meaning of life in general, but rather the specific meaning of a person's life at a given moment." p.171
"We can discover this meaning in life in three different ways: (1) by doing a deed; (2) by experiencing a value; and (3) by suffering." p.176
_____________________________________________________________________________________
In this book, he discussed an existence foreign to most people. One of degradation and one reduced to the lowest form of survival. He was a prisoner during WW11 in a Nazi concentration camp. And--he was deprived of all but the base elements needed for physical life. He owned nothing more and expected nothing more. Life became one of moment to moment. When he said that life is not invented by us--but detected he was talking about awareness. Awareness of ones existence.
We are also aware of other things that our senses pick up externally such as each other and the stars overhead. What or who made all of this? Where was the beginning and what was before that?
This brings me to another point. Love.
Love can be used to describe how we feel about ourself and all that exists outside of ourself. I consider "love" to be the prime reason that all exists including me and you. We were "loved" into existence. Everything.
I believe that "GOD" loved everything into existence. The force of his creation was love and he created the purest form of expression when he created this term we call love.
It is through love that I can explain "GOD" and I can attest that he did become man through his "SON", the Lord Jesus Christ.
I prove "GODS" existence -- by loving others outside myself. And I explain "GODS" existence-- by loving "GOD". My faith becomes real when I expand outside my own existence by loving outside my existence. If what I am is an expression of "GODS" love then by me loving him and others--they too become real. It is out of my faith in him that I love --and it is through this love that I find him.
Jesus Christ taught me about love and it is the key to explaining the existence of everything from alpha to omega.The meaning of life's existence --is "LOVE". It is the glue that binds heaven and earth together. It is the substance that got us here and it is the substance that will get us home--to heaven. I call it substance because it can be experienced with all our senses.
Enough today Yodi. let's take a walk.
To be continued:
Friday, October 21, 2005
Louisianna's disfunctional state government
My attention has been diverted from some other issues this morning by another Katrina fiasco underway in the great state of Louisianna.
With hundred of thousands of state residents spread throughout the country and living in shelters, the state money panel believes that a new sports complex and livestock facilities is a good use of taxpayer money.
[see article]
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Quote:
"Commissioner of Administration Jerry Luke LeBlanc, the governor's chief budget analyst and a member of the bond panel, said construction in other parts of the state can't grind to a halt because southern Louisiana was devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita."
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Well Jerry my friend, I doubt whether the rest of the nation that is funding your state's rebuilding efforts believe as you do. I'm sorry Jerry--but it appears that you and the other commission members along with Governor Blanco's staff need a reality check. Before you go off building any recreational facilities in your state--don't you think it would be wise to build some housing and facilities for your citizens who are staying at the Holiday Inn outside Houston, Texas?
[related article]_____________________________________________________________________________________
Bond Commission approves $45 million for construction work
BATON ROUGE — As Louisiana officials plead for federal hurricane relief aid, a state money panel agreed Thursday to spend nearly $45 million on construction projects ranging from health labs and water wells to a sports complex and livestock facilities.
A group of state senators not on the panel said the spending would damage Louisiana's attempts to secure federal cash for recovery efforts and would give the appearance that the state was focusing on nonemergency items while talking about employee layoffs and devastating health and education cuts.
"What you do in the next few minutes is going to reverberate throughout this country as to what Louisiana's priorities are," state Sen. Jay Dardenne, R-Baton Rouge, told the Bond Commission, a panel made of Gov. Kathleen Blanco's representatives, many of her legislative allies and others.
The state's tax base is decimated, Blanco has ordered a spending and hiring freeze on many parts of the budget, and officials are grappling with a deficit expected to reach $1.5 billion in tax income alone.
Despite the concerns, the Bond Commission shuffled state construction spending, taking money from items that wouldn't be able to start on time and — rather than holding the cash — unanimously agreed to move it to new projects. Blanco's office chooses which items in the state construction budget get funded, and the list of projects was drawn up by her staff.
Commissioner of Administration Jerry Luke LeBlanc, the governor's chief budget analyst and a member of the bond panel, said construction in other parts of the state can't grind to a halt because southern Louisiana was devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Sen. Charles "C.D." Jones, D-Monroe, said many projects are vital needs in parishes that have been flooded with evacuees and have facilities stretched beyond capacity. He said starting new projects would send a signal to the country that Louisiana hasn't shut down.
"You know there are some boondoggles in here that shouldn't even be considered in the face of the massive budget problems we have," said Sen. Robert Barham, R-Oak Ridge, pointing to a horse arena in Morehouse Parish, part of his district. "Don't think they're not going to see you in Washington, D.C."
Originally published October 21, 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Jerry--you really need to listen to some wise advice from state Senator Barham. I'm pretty sure that this news is going to reach nations capital as he duly noted--as it already has reached me in Arizona.
Louisianna can hardly expect a sympathetic ear when it comes to federal disaster funding if they lack any moral or common sense when it comes to stewarding state resources.When we read articles about corruption and outright illegal actions on the part of state and local authorities, actions like you are proposing only fuels the fires of suspicion.
The rest of the country is already concerned by your state and local governments actions and reactions up to this point in handling hurricane Katrina relief. By the way Jerry, has anybody rounded up and returned all those luxury cars stolen by the police from that New Orleans car dealer? Maybe your commission can come up with a post disaster plan for preventing future corruption rather than what you propose.
With hundred of thousands of state residents spread throughout the country and living in shelters, the state money panel believes that a new sports complex and livestock facilities is a good use of taxpayer money.
[see article]
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Quote:
"Commissioner of Administration Jerry Luke LeBlanc, the governor's chief budget analyst and a member of the bond panel, said construction in other parts of the state can't grind to a halt because southern Louisiana was devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita."
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Well Jerry my friend, I doubt whether the rest of the nation that is funding your state's rebuilding efforts believe as you do. I'm sorry Jerry--but it appears that you and the other commission members along with Governor Blanco's staff need a reality check. Before you go off building any recreational facilities in your state--don't you think it would be wise to build some housing and facilities for your citizens who are staying at the Holiday Inn outside Houston, Texas?
[related article]_____________________________________________________________________________________
Bond Commission approves $45 million for construction work
BATON ROUGE — As Louisiana officials plead for federal hurricane relief aid, a state money panel agreed Thursday to spend nearly $45 million on construction projects ranging from health labs and water wells to a sports complex and livestock facilities.
A group of state senators not on the panel said the spending would damage Louisiana's attempts to secure federal cash for recovery efforts and would give the appearance that the state was focusing on nonemergency items while talking about employee layoffs and devastating health and education cuts.
"What you do in the next few minutes is going to reverberate throughout this country as to what Louisiana's priorities are," state Sen. Jay Dardenne, R-Baton Rouge, told the Bond Commission, a panel made of Gov. Kathleen Blanco's representatives, many of her legislative allies and others.
The state's tax base is decimated, Blanco has ordered a spending and hiring freeze on many parts of the budget, and officials are grappling with a deficit expected to reach $1.5 billion in tax income alone.
Despite the concerns, the Bond Commission shuffled state construction spending, taking money from items that wouldn't be able to start on time and — rather than holding the cash — unanimously agreed to move it to new projects. Blanco's office chooses which items in the state construction budget get funded, and the list of projects was drawn up by her staff.
Commissioner of Administration Jerry Luke LeBlanc, the governor's chief budget analyst and a member of the bond panel, said construction in other parts of the state can't grind to a halt because southern Louisiana was devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Sen. Charles "C.D." Jones, D-Monroe, said many projects are vital needs in parishes that have been flooded with evacuees and have facilities stretched beyond capacity. He said starting new projects would send a signal to the country that Louisiana hasn't shut down.
"You know there are some boondoggles in here that shouldn't even be considered in the face of the massive budget problems we have," said Sen. Robert Barham, R-Oak Ridge, pointing to a horse arena in Morehouse Parish, part of his district. "Don't think they're not going to see you in Washington, D.C."
Originally published October 21, 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Jerry--you really need to listen to some wise advice from state Senator Barham. I'm pretty sure that this news is going to reach nations capital as he duly noted--as it already has reached me in Arizona.
Louisianna can hardly expect a sympathetic ear when it comes to federal disaster funding if they lack any moral or common sense when it comes to stewarding state resources.When we read articles about corruption and outright illegal actions on the part of state and local authorities, actions like you are proposing only fuels the fires of suspicion.
The rest of the country is already concerned by your state and local governments actions and reactions up to this point in handling hurricane Katrina relief. By the way Jerry, has anybody rounded up and returned all those luxury cars stolen by the police from that New Orleans car dealer? Maybe your commission can come up with a post disaster plan for preventing future corruption rather than what you propose.
When friends pass on
The prayers are said, the journey complete and the friend I have shared so many laughs with lays silent in the coffin. No more jokes, no more walks under the stars wondering and contemplating the mysteries of the universe.
Just silence. My thoughts wander back 35 years to a time filled with magic and wonder. We were both going to solve the worlds spiritual problems. There were no wrinkles or balding heads. We could talk for hours on end. Just two friends enjoying each others company.
Cathy his siter called early tuesday morning. I have known her since she was three years old. She is friends with my sister so I figured she was calling me about Christmas plans. I didn't expect to hear that my friend Gary had suddenly died of a heart attack.
I can't attend the wake or funeral because of practical considerations. Gary knows how I am and will fully understand.
I read a story about a guy who used to talk to Jesus in an empty chair. So tonight I talked to Gary. I told him how sad I was that he was gone and how much i will miss those phone calls and long winded conversations. Those that know me here and elsewhere would have liked Gary. Please pray for my good friend. They don't make them any better. Save a place for me Gary.
Just silence. My thoughts wander back 35 years to a time filled with magic and wonder. We were both going to solve the worlds spiritual problems. There were no wrinkles or balding heads. We could talk for hours on end. Just two friends enjoying each others company.
Cathy his siter called early tuesday morning. I have known her since she was three years old. She is friends with my sister so I figured she was calling me about Christmas plans. I didn't expect to hear that my friend Gary had suddenly died of a heart attack.
I can't attend the wake or funeral because of practical considerations. Gary knows how I am and will fully understand.
I read a story about a guy who used to talk to Jesus in an empty chair. So tonight I talked to Gary. I told him how sad I was that he was gone and how much i will miss those phone calls and long winded conversations. Those that know me here and elsewhere would have liked Gary. Please pray for my good friend. They don't make them any better. Save a place for me Gary.
Saturday, October 15, 2005
"VALUES" lost
Today in all the papers were articles about people lining up at bankruptcy courts filing petitions in order to skate free from their financial responsibilities. Within each article were stories of those caught up in disability and bad luck. And then there are just the ones who carelessly abused debt. yes--everybody has a story. Behind every story of the disabled is the story of families who won't help their own members who are sick and can't work. Behind every deadbeat debtor is failed parenting and school systems. People learn character. Behind every church leader who has invited Satan into his house is the story of a people who have lost touch with their Savior and the meaning of the phrase--"in this earth but not of it"
Intuitively-- most of us feel that decline of character displayed among those of our society has something to do with “values.”
But the very word “values” is part of the barrier to understanding our predicament. For the word “values” means all things to all people. So that any discussion of “values” is likely to be as productive as eating jelly with our fingers.
Had I been writing this blog one hundred and twenty years ago I would not have used the word “values” because the word had not then been invented.
Up until the 1880s the word “value” was used only in the singular to mean-- to hold in high regard -- “I value the opportunity to post a message on the Neighborhood forum regarding the value of human dignity or human life or-- “The “value” of farm land in Pima Country is increasing.”
One man-- the German philosopher Nietzsche, introduced the plural “values” to the vocabulary of the Western World.
Nietzsche believed that the classical and Judaic – Christian virtues imprisoned people and that people should be free to choose their own virtues.
These new personal virtues he called “values.”
Nietzsche was so excited about his invention that he considered it to be the greatest event in human history. At last people would be free from the shackles of virtues.
There would be no good or evil-- no virtue or vice. There would only be personal “values” and through them a “new” person and a “new” society.
About fifty years later-- C.S. Lewis, one of the greatest minds of the twentieth century-- undertook an exhaustive study of cultures and civilizations. He included the Ancient Egyptian, Old Norse, Ancient Jewish, Babylonian, North American Indian, Hindu, Ancient Chinese, Roman, Christian, Greek, Australian Aboriginal, Anglo-Saxon, Stoic and Ancient Indian -- and identified eight objective “values” [virtues] which they all held in common.
Lewis concluded that these objective “values” – such things as – honesty, beneficence, duty, justice, mercy and magnanimity -- are part of creation and that society ignored them at its peril.
He illustrated the importance of these objective “values” in society by likening their absence to the removal of the person’s heart with the expectation that the other organs -- the brain, the liver, the stomach -- would continue to function as if the heart was still pumping.
Lewis was making the case that if we fail to pass on to the next generation specific standards of right and wrong -- of what is worthwhile or worthless -- admirable or ignoble then we must share the blame for the consequences in our communities.
When writing of this in 1943 C. S. Lewis penned my favourite passage about education.
“And all the time -- such is the tragicomedy of our situation -- we continue to clamour for those very qualities we are rendering impossible. You can hardly open a newspaper social commentary without coming across the statement that what our civilization needs is more “drive”-- or dynamism, or self-reliance, or “creativity.” In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.Is there any wonder that we have spys in our very highest government offices as recently reported? We castrate-- and bid the gelding be fruitful.”
These men, Nietzsche and C. S. Lewis, represent the two faces of the modern word “values.”
“Values” as we now know them -- can be either preferences or principles, which are the opposite ends of the moral spectrum. Both have consequences and they too are opposites.
While we Americans can be justly proud of many of our achievements-- the truth is that over recent decades we have not been replenishing those traits of character that build a just, caring and civil society.
Unfortunately, the solution to our predicament is not as simple as identfying the reason behind our societal "character rot"--but nor is it as complex as we may think.
We have to rediscover that "character" counts!
That the solution to our predicament will not come from on high through legislation or regulation but from the grass roots. The solution will be rediscovered person by person, family by family, school by school, community by community.
For a start each of us must accept some responsibility and commit ourselves to do something. As adults we can not condemn the behaviour of young people if we are unwilling to model and commit ourselves to allowing young people experience and observe good character.
After all -- adults teach by what they are.
We must rediscover that the best “values” teaching makes young people keenly aware that it is their own character that is at stake.
The solution is not to try and reclaim some mythical golden age when things were supposedly simpler and more honest.
Responsible adults know that we can’t turn the clock back. We can’t be old fashioned.
But we can refashion what our forebears understood better than our generation.
They understood that character counts!
They understood that character determines behaviour just as behaviour demonstrates character.
They understood that there is a connection between such objective “values” as honesty and truthfulness, kindness, care and concern for others, compassion, obedience, respect, responsibility, duty – and character.
Such values are the cornerstones of character. In fact we might label them "conerstone values"
Cornerstone values are principles that are consistent, universal and transcultural.
They work in three parts.
Take for example, compassion.
If I am to be compassionate I must first know what compassion is and what compassion requires of me in my relationship with others. But knowledge of compassion does not make me compassionate.
I must also care about compassion. I must be emotionally committed to compassion and have the capacity for appropriate guilt when I behave without compassion and be capable of moral indignation when I see others victims of injustice.
I must have the desire to be compassionate.
But knowledge plus desire does not make me compassionate.
I must behave compassionately in my personal relationships and carry out my obligations as a citizen to help build a just and caring society.
Compassion, like all "cornerstone values"-- involves the head – knowledge, the heart – desire [attitude], and the hand – behaviour.
That explains why many well intention and well-funded education programs don’t work.
These three parts of a cornerstone value – knowledge, desire and behaviour – are inextricably linked to character. Good charcter is the excellence of such "cornerstone values"-- as honesty and truthfulness, kindness, consideration and concern for others, compassion, obedience, responsibility, respect and duty.
Character is “Who we are when no one sees.”
I find that a wheel is a helpful illustration of the relationship between values and character.
The rim of the wheel represents character. The spokes -- all of equal length and spacing -- represent the "cornerstone values". They give the wheel form -- its shape and strength. The hub -- which holds the spokes in place at the center-- is a unique cornerstone value – duty.
In todays secularized society--people have problems with duty. We have lost most of its meaning and tend to think of duty only in terms of war memorials.
But duty is much more -- duty is obligation. Duty, as the hub of character -- is the obligation to be honest and truthful, kind, considerate and caring -- in one’s relationship with others.
Duty is as much about child abuse, right to life, family "values" -- as it is about war memorials or flags -- it is our obligation to others.
Without question -- parents are the first and most important teachers of character. Nothing can ever replace the home as the place where character is taught and observed. There -- with or without parents’ help -- children during their earliest years begin developing character. This is both a conscious and unconscious process that takes places simply by watching parents “being.”
Historically -- schools also saw character education as a primary responsibility.
Until recent decades -- schooling had two main objectives -- to help young people master the skills of literacy and numeracy and to help young people to be good.
That aim of helping young people to be good went back through the generations to Plato who observed that we educate people to make them good because good people behave nobly.
Anybody who has viewed my writings, posts, or picked up on my passion concerning various subjects have been a witness to my transformation from cloitered priest to outright warrior against what I view as Satanci evil permeating throughout society. I spent too much time arguing and trying reason with others to change from a culture of death to one of reason. the errosion of these "values" and "character are a direct result of free will in action and a move away from christ. It exists everywhere and even as the previous post suggests--to the very core of the Holy Mother church's highest leadership. Evil is everywhere and has influenced great thinkers and those that lead to move away from natural law and "values" --away from "GOD" and down the slippery slope to the fires of hell.
It is time to take stock of where "values" are and how to reclaim them before it is too late and salvation becomes just another word in need of re-clarifying for todays modern man.
Maybe the reason I trust and love my puppy Yodi so much is that "values" still exist in the animal kingdom and have remained constant where as in humanity it has become a lost art needing rebuilt--not re-defined.
Whew! Now this has been a mouthful today--but I always feel good getting these matters off my chest and out on the screen. Time to take a nap. If only I can get a small corner of the couch. Move over Yodi.
Intuitively-- most of us feel that decline of character displayed among those of our society has something to do with “values.”
But the very word “values” is part of the barrier to understanding our predicament. For the word “values” means all things to all people. So that any discussion of “values” is likely to be as productive as eating jelly with our fingers.
Had I been writing this blog one hundred and twenty years ago I would not have used the word “values” because the word had not then been invented.
Up until the 1880s the word “value” was used only in the singular to mean-- to hold in high regard -- “I value the opportunity to post a message on the Neighborhood forum regarding the value of human dignity or human life or-- “The “value” of farm land in Pima Country is increasing.”
One man-- the German philosopher Nietzsche, introduced the plural “values” to the vocabulary of the Western World.
Nietzsche believed that the classical and Judaic – Christian virtues imprisoned people and that people should be free to choose their own virtues.
These new personal virtues he called “values.”
Nietzsche was so excited about his invention that he considered it to be the greatest event in human history. At last people would be free from the shackles of virtues.
There would be no good or evil-- no virtue or vice. There would only be personal “values” and through them a “new” person and a “new” society.
About fifty years later-- C.S. Lewis, one of the greatest minds of the twentieth century-- undertook an exhaustive study of cultures and civilizations. He included the Ancient Egyptian, Old Norse, Ancient Jewish, Babylonian, North American Indian, Hindu, Ancient Chinese, Roman, Christian, Greek, Australian Aboriginal, Anglo-Saxon, Stoic and Ancient Indian -- and identified eight objective “values” [virtues] which they all held in common.
Lewis concluded that these objective “values” – such things as – honesty, beneficence, duty, justice, mercy and magnanimity -- are part of creation and that society ignored them at its peril.
He illustrated the importance of these objective “values” in society by likening their absence to the removal of the person’s heart with the expectation that the other organs -- the brain, the liver, the stomach -- would continue to function as if the heart was still pumping.
Lewis was making the case that if we fail to pass on to the next generation specific standards of right and wrong -- of what is worthwhile or worthless -- admirable or ignoble then we must share the blame for the consequences in our communities.
When writing of this in 1943 C. S. Lewis penned my favourite passage about education.
“And all the time -- such is the tragicomedy of our situation -- we continue to clamour for those very qualities we are rendering impossible. You can hardly open a newspaper social commentary without coming across the statement that what our civilization needs is more “drive”-- or dynamism, or self-reliance, or “creativity.” In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.Is there any wonder that we have spys in our very highest government offices as recently reported? We castrate-- and bid the gelding be fruitful.”
These men, Nietzsche and C. S. Lewis, represent the two faces of the modern word “values.”
“Values” as we now know them -- can be either preferences or principles, which are the opposite ends of the moral spectrum. Both have consequences and they too are opposites.
While we Americans can be justly proud of many of our achievements-- the truth is that over recent decades we have not been replenishing those traits of character that build a just, caring and civil society.
Unfortunately, the solution to our predicament is not as simple as identfying the reason behind our societal "character rot"--but nor is it as complex as we may think.
We have to rediscover that "character" counts!
That the solution to our predicament will not come from on high through legislation or regulation but from the grass roots. The solution will be rediscovered person by person, family by family, school by school, community by community.
For a start each of us must accept some responsibility and commit ourselves to do something. As adults we can not condemn the behaviour of young people if we are unwilling to model and commit ourselves to allowing young people experience and observe good character.
After all -- adults teach by what they are.
We must rediscover that the best “values” teaching makes young people keenly aware that it is their own character that is at stake.
The solution is not to try and reclaim some mythical golden age when things were supposedly simpler and more honest.
Responsible adults know that we can’t turn the clock back. We can’t be old fashioned.
But we can refashion what our forebears understood better than our generation.
They understood that character counts!
They understood that character determines behaviour just as behaviour demonstrates character.
They understood that there is a connection between such objective “values” as honesty and truthfulness, kindness, care and concern for others, compassion, obedience, respect, responsibility, duty – and character.
Such values are the cornerstones of character. In fact we might label them "conerstone values"
Cornerstone values are principles that are consistent, universal and transcultural.
They work in three parts.
Take for example, compassion.
If I am to be compassionate I must first know what compassion is and what compassion requires of me in my relationship with others. But knowledge of compassion does not make me compassionate.
I must also care about compassion. I must be emotionally committed to compassion and have the capacity for appropriate guilt when I behave without compassion and be capable of moral indignation when I see others victims of injustice.
I must have the desire to be compassionate.
But knowledge plus desire does not make me compassionate.
I must behave compassionately in my personal relationships and carry out my obligations as a citizen to help build a just and caring society.
Compassion, like all "cornerstone values"-- involves the head – knowledge, the heart – desire [attitude], and the hand – behaviour.
That explains why many well intention and well-funded education programs don’t work.
These three parts of a cornerstone value – knowledge, desire and behaviour – are inextricably linked to character. Good charcter is the excellence of such "cornerstone values"-- as honesty and truthfulness, kindness, consideration and concern for others, compassion, obedience, responsibility, respect and duty.
Character is “Who we are when no one sees.”
I find that a wheel is a helpful illustration of the relationship between values and character.
The rim of the wheel represents character. The spokes -- all of equal length and spacing -- represent the "cornerstone values". They give the wheel form -- its shape and strength. The hub -- which holds the spokes in place at the center-- is a unique cornerstone value – duty.
In todays secularized society--people have problems with duty. We have lost most of its meaning and tend to think of duty only in terms of war memorials.
But duty is much more -- duty is obligation. Duty, as the hub of character -- is the obligation to be honest and truthful, kind, considerate and caring -- in one’s relationship with others.
Duty is as much about child abuse, right to life, family "values" -- as it is about war memorials or flags -- it is our obligation to others.
Without question -- parents are the first and most important teachers of character. Nothing can ever replace the home as the place where character is taught and observed. There -- with or without parents’ help -- children during their earliest years begin developing character. This is both a conscious and unconscious process that takes places simply by watching parents “being.”
Historically -- schools also saw character education as a primary responsibility.
Until recent decades -- schooling had two main objectives -- to help young people master the skills of literacy and numeracy and to help young people to be good.
That aim of helping young people to be good went back through the generations to Plato who observed that we educate people to make them good because good people behave nobly.
Anybody who has viewed my writings, posts, or picked up on my passion concerning various subjects have been a witness to my transformation from cloitered priest to outright warrior against what I view as Satanci evil permeating throughout society. I spent too much time arguing and trying reason with others to change from a culture of death to one of reason. the errosion of these "values" and "character are a direct result of free will in action and a move away from christ. It exists everywhere and even as the previous post suggests--to the very core of the Holy Mother church's highest leadership. Evil is everywhere and has influenced great thinkers and those that lead to move away from natural law and "values" --away from "GOD" and down the slippery slope to the fires of hell.
It is time to take stock of where "values" are and how to reclaim them before it is too late and salvation becomes just another word in need of re-clarifying for todays modern man.
Maybe the reason I trust and love my puppy Yodi so much is that "values" still exist in the animal kingdom and have remained constant where as in humanity it has become a lost art needing rebuilt--not re-defined.
Whew! Now this has been a mouthful today--but I always feel good getting these matters off my chest and out on the screen. Time to take a nap. If only I can get a small corner of the couch. Move over Yodi.
Friday, October 14, 2005
Examining Fatima--discovering evil
Evil within the Fatima prophecy?
"Miracle" is a word that gets passed around rather loosely and therefore does not get considered much in todays society. In the bible however we are literally confronted on every page with the miracle of Christianity. We have prophecy, we have a man risen from the dead, we have virgin birth, we have the establishment of "GOD'S" church on earth and so forth until we reach Revelations. The last chapter in the bible.
Have their been miracles outside those told in the bible? I believe there have.
Fatima is one of those "miracle" that come about from time to time-- that are biblical in nature. The Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to three children in Fatima, Portuagal and over a course of six visitations revealed three prophetic messages to mankind.
The secrecy surrounding the third message and the frency that developed around it-- had many within and out of the church sitting on pins and needles from the time Lucy the last surviving child revealed the message in written form 45 years ago. The message was forwared to Rome and until Rome released it to the public was one of the great mysteries of the 21st century.
But---did Rome really realease the true message?
I was asked to comment on my forum "The Neighborhood" what my thoughts were about Lucy and the "cult" that surrounds Fatima. I gave it a couple days thought and decided that my true impression is one of lies, deceit, cover up and imprisionment.
Lucy was drawn into a convent by this experience and I believe spent the majority of her life living a religious life obeying her superiors and remaining faithful to the church. The church however spent years sending secret envoys to interogate Lucy and try to get her to change her account of the third message. Why one might say would they desire to do that?
PEELING THE ONION TO GET AT THE TRUTH.
The church is much like an inverted onion. The Pope recides in the center. In order to get to the truth one must peel back each layer and endure the tears that follow.
I will never be able to include all their is about the "Fatima" cult or Lucy in one post here.I have personally talked to one person who was close enough to smell the smoke of hell on this subject. I know what he has reveled to me and I have put other sources together which weave a web that pretty much sums up my thoughts here on this post.
I will continue to frequently say what I believe to be true and only because it ties into my battle against Satan and evil.
I believe the third secret actually pointed directly at the apostasy that recides in the church at its highest levels. That Satan had succeeded in influencing the Papacy. That Satan and his helpers are intertwined with the bishops and that there is a war going on behind closed doors and is spilling into the church over every continent. The message was a clear call for mankind to repent as the end times are in fact upon us. Read chapters 8-14 of Revelations for a reference of where we stand.
I will leave this post with one example of the deceit surrounding the third secret.
The current Pope, Benedict XV1 himself gave two conflicting statements regarding the content of the this third prophecy. Once in 1984 and again in 2003. Both times before he was to succeed John Paul 11.In fact every single higher up that has been questioned have been vague or offered up some clues that simply contradict what others have said. I will post more remarks later--but be a detective . The clues are everywhere and in the case of Radzinger/Benedict XV1---the interviews are in print like many others.
Interesting huh? And this coming from me a priest and one who has always championed the church and its mission of salvation. well---it is not the church that is gone evil--it is those within that control matters who are rotten to the core with evil and poison directly influenced by the enemy of mankind. Satan resides within the Vatican.
Stay tuned. this is enough to digest at one sitting. I'm taking Yodi for a walk on the sunny side of the street.
"Miracle" is a word that gets passed around rather loosely and therefore does not get considered much in todays society. In the bible however we are literally confronted on every page with the miracle of Christianity. We have prophecy, we have a man risen from the dead, we have virgin birth, we have the establishment of "GOD'S" church on earth and so forth until we reach Revelations. The last chapter in the bible.
Have their been miracles outside those told in the bible? I believe there have.
Fatima is one of those "miracle" that come about from time to time-- that are biblical in nature. The Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to three children in Fatima, Portuagal and over a course of six visitations revealed three prophetic messages to mankind.
The secrecy surrounding the third message and the frency that developed around it-- had many within and out of the church sitting on pins and needles from the time Lucy the last surviving child revealed the message in written form 45 years ago. The message was forwared to Rome and until Rome released it to the public was one of the great mysteries of the 21st century.
But---did Rome really realease the true message?
I was asked to comment on my forum "The Neighborhood" what my thoughts were about Lucy and the "cult" that surrounds Fatima. I gave it a couple days thought and decided that my true impression is one of lies, deceit, cover up and imprisionment.
Lucy was drawn into a convent by this experience and I believe spent the majority of her life living a religious life obeying her superiors and remaining faithful to the church. The church however spent years sending secret envoys to interogate Lucy and try to get her to change her account of the third message. Why one might say would they desire to do that?
PEELING THE ONION TO GET AT THE TRUTH.
The church is much like an inverted onion. The Pope recides in the center. In order to get to the truth one must peel back each layer and endure the tears that follow.
I will never be able to include all their is about the "Fatima" cult or Lucy in one post here.I have personally talked to one person who was close enough to smell the smoke of hell on this subject. I know what he has reveled to me and I have put other sources together which weave a web that pretty much sums up my thoughts here on this post.
I will continue to frequently say what I believe to be true and only because it ties into my battle against Satan and evil.
I believe the third secret actually pointed directly at the apostasy that recides in the church at its highest levels. That Satan had succeeded in influencing the Papacy. That Satan and his helpers are intertwined with the bishops and that there is a war going on behind closed doors and is spilling into the church over every continent. The message was a clear call for mankind to repent as the end times are in fact upon us. Read chapters 8-14 of Revelations for a reference of where we stand.
I will leave this post with one example of the deceit surrounding the third secret.
The current Pope, Benedict XV1 himself gave two conflicting statements regarding the content of the this third prophecy. Once in 1984 and again in 2003. Both times before he was to succeed John Paul 11.In fact every single higher up that has been questioned have been vague or offered up some clues that simply contradict what others have said. I will post more remarks later--but be a detective . The clues are everywhere and in the case of Radzinger/Benedict XV1---the interviews are in print like many others.
Interesting huh? And this coming from me a priest and one who has always championed the church and its mission of salvation. well---it is not the church that is gone evil--it is those within that control matters who are rotten to the core with evil and poison directly influenced by the enemy of mankind. Satan resides within the Vatican.
Stay tuned. this is enough to digest at one sitting. I'm taking Yodi for a walk on the sunny side of the street.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Meirs nomination causing raw nerves to erupt
My second dispatch in one day. I couldn't keep my mouth shut after stewing some more about this nomination
"Where there is smoke there is fire" is an old saying I picked up from dad and I still use it because it always seems to have some validity to it.
What brings that phrase to mind is the recent exchange between White House Press Sec. Scott McClellan and the press today.
The subject of Harriet Meirs withdrawing her nomination came up [see article below] and off went Scott on the reporter. Obviously this nomination isn't going as scripted and probably even Harriot has suggested just that scenario-- behind closed doors of course.
It seems that no matter how badly the President wants to put a shine on his chosen Justice--he has been unable to rally much support outside the usual party talking heads. Another saying of dad's was "you can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear" Unfortunately this applies to this lady and with all fairness--the president did her a dis-service by choosing her as his candidate.
What bothers me about our President is that whenever he makes a mistake--he absolutely refuses to back down or change direction. It takes a strong person to admit error and do what is right.And this man will not own up to mistakes.
Social Security reform, border protection, weapons of mass destruction,Iraq war, energy, tax cuts--a whole slew of issues that are very much still up in the air--and some that are in place and have yet to bear fruit.And now we have this fiasco.
Poor Harriet is facing so much conservative backlash that even if she wins confirmation--she will be held so closely to a microscope while on the court that her every decision will be subject to scrutny above the normal second guessing.
Will she need to excuse herself from every case that suggests a religious bias--after the President has made it clear that he "knows" her. That sounds to me like he wants a puppet not an independent Justice. And now it is suggested by him and his talking heads that it is her "qualifications" that were considered --and the reason she was picked!! What qualification are you referring to Mr. President?
Ann Coulter, Peggy Noonan, George Wills, Pat Buchannan, are some print columnists up in arms-- while a whole host of conservative blogs and other media personalities are outraged by this pick. Need I mention the religious right--including me who are feeling outright deceived.
If ever there was a time for G W to do what is right it is now. He needs to step forward, admit this mistake, and offer up a qualified applicant. We are still living with his daddies appointment- Justice Breyers. We don't need a seperate Bush to make a "supreme" mistake. When their terms end they go off fishing and we end up with the shaft.
This is my second post on this subject and I pray that before I make another post on this that harriet will be back running the Lottery in Texas or some other job more to her qualifications.
OK Yodi, help me pull the stump back off the sidewalk.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WND AT THE WHITE HOUSE
McClellan gets testy
over Miers questions
Reference to her possible withdrawal elicits accusations from spokesman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 13, 2005
By Les Kinsolving
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
White House press secretary Scott McClellan today got a bit impatient with reporters asking him about the possibility of Harriet Miers withdrawing her nomination to the Supreme Court, asking rhetorically at one point, "Isn't it my right to talk and say what I want to?"
The verbal jousting began as a reporter asked about a possible withdrawal by Miers, President Bush's choice to fill the seat of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
"Some conservatives have suggested this week, or speculated, that while President Bush would never withdraw Miers' nomination, that she might decide that she can't weather the storm and withdraw. Can you give us just some idea of her tenacity to be able to withstand all this fire from the right and the left?" asked one reporter, according to the official transcript.
McClellan bristled at the suggestion, saying, "Those who know Harriet Miers are strongly supportive of her nomination, and strongly support her being confirmed to the United States Senate [sic]."
The spokesman then challenged the reporter, saying he had not reported on Miers' qualifications.
Said McClellan: "I haven't seen you out there reporting about some of her qualifications and her record, and I see by the tone of your question that you want to get into some of these side issues."
A charge then came back to McClellan: "You divided your own party," referring to the many GOP senators who have not committed to supporting Miers.
Later, the spokesman responded again to the possibility of a Miers withdrawal, saying, "Anyone that knows her record and experience wouldn't be making such a suggestion. … Some of you all wanted to focus more on religion. We focused on her qualifications and record."
Indeed, WND asked McClellan earlier about Miers' religion, receiving a response devoid of the subject. Said McClellan: " The President believes that a Supreme Court justice should strictly interpret our Constitution and laws and not try to legislate from the bench, and that's what Harriet Miers is committed to doing."
At one point during the fracas, McClellan was asked, "Scott, isn't the idea we ask the questions and you provide the answers?"
Responded the spokesman: "Yes, and I was providing the answer. Can I not say what I want to say? … Isn't it my right to talk and say what I want to?"
By the end of the briefing, several reporters became defensive, with one claiming McClellan had "attacked" him.
Another reporter, referring to McClellan's desire that the Miers confirmation be a "dignified process," asked, "Scott, you used the term 'dignified process.' Is it dignified to pejoratively characterize the motives or tactics of a reporter who is trying to cover a story?"
Speaking of dignity, McClellan earlier refused to answer a question WND posed about the lack of response by homosexual interest groups to Oprah Winfrey's child-molester-locator reward program – in which the TV host pays $100,000 to those who turn in wanted criminals.
"I'm not going to dignify that [question]," McClellan said, before moving on to another reporter's question.
Les Kinsolving is WorldNetDaily's White House correspondent and a talk-show host for WCBM in Baltimore. His show can be heard on the Internet at www.wcbm.com 8-10 p.m. Eastern each weekday.
"Where there is smoke there is fire" is an old saying I picked up from dad and I still use it because it always seems to have some validity to it.
What brings that phrase to mind is the recent exchange between White House Press Sec. Scott McClellan and the press today.
The subject of Harriet Meirs withdrawing her nomination came up [see article below] and off went Scott on the reporter. Obviously this nomination isn't going as scripted and probably even Harriot has suggested just that scenario-- behind closed doors of course.
It seems that no matter how badly the President wants to put a shine on his chosen Justice--he has been unable to rally much support outside the usual party talking heads. Another saying of dad's was "you can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear" Unfortunately this applies to this lady and with all fairness--the president did her a dis-service by choosing her as his candidate.
What bothers me about our President is that whenever he makes a mistake--he absolutely refuses to back down or change direction. It takes a strong person to admit error and do what is right.And this man will not own up to mistakes.
Social Security reform, border protection, weapons of mass destruction,Iraq war, energy, tax cuts--a whole slew of issues that are very much still up in the air--and some that are in place and have yet to bear fruit.And now we have this fiasco.
Poor Harriet is facing so much conservative backlash that even if she wins confirmation--she will be held so closely to a microscope while on the court that her every decision will be subject to scrutny above the normal second guessing.
Will she need to excuse herself from every case that suggests a religious bias--after the President has made it clear that he "knows" her. That sounds to me like he wants a puppet not an independent Justice. And now it is suggested by him and his talking heads that it is her "qualifications" that were considered --and the reason she was picked!! What qualification are you referring to Mr. President?
Ann Coulter, Peggy Noonan, George Wills, Pat Buchannan, are some print columnists up in arms-- while a whole host of conservative blogs and other media personalities are outraged by this pick. Need I mention the religious right--including me who are feeling outright deceived.
If ever there was a time for G W to do what is right it is now. He needs to step forward, admit this mistake, and offer up a qualified applicant. We are still living with his daddies appointment- Justice Breyers. We don't need a seperate Bush to make a "supreme" mistake. When their terms end they go off fishing and we end up with the shaft.
This is my second post on this subject and I pray that before I make another post on this that harriet will be back running the Lottery in Texas or some other job more to her qualifications.
OK Yodi, help me pull the stump back off the sidewalk.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WND AT THE WHITE HOUSE
McClellan gets testy
over Miers questions
Reference to her possible withdrawal elicits accusations from spokesman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 13, 2005
By Les Kinsolving
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
White House press secretary Scott McClellan today got a bit impatient with reporters asking him about the possibility of Harriet Miers withdrawing her nomination to the Supreme Court, asking rhetorically at one point, "Isn't it my right to talk and say what I want to?"
The verbal jousting began as a reporter asked about a possible withdrawal by Miers, President Bush's choice to fill the seat of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
"Some conservatives have suggested this week, or speculated, that while President Bush would never withdraw Miers' nomination, that she might decide that she can't weather the storm and withdraw. Can you give us just some idea of her tenacity to be able to withstand all this fire from the right and the left?" asked one reporter, according to the official transcript.
McClellan bristled at the suggestion, saying, "Those who know Harriet Miers are strongly supportive of her nomination, and strongly support her being confirmed to the United States Senate [sic]."
The spokesman then challenged the reporter, saying he had not reported on Miers' qualifications.
Said McClellan: "I haven't seen you out there reporting about some of her qualifications and her record, and I see by the tone of your question that you want to get into some of these side issues."
A charge then came back to McClellan: "You divided your own party," referring to the many GOP senators who have not committed to supporting Miers.
Later, the spokesman responded again to the possibility of a Miers withdrawal, saying, "Anyone that knows her record and experience wouldn't be making such a suggestion. … Some of you all wanted to focus more on religion. We focused on her qualifications and record."
Indeed, WND asked McClellan earlier about Miers' religion, receiving a response devoid of the subject. Said McClellan: " The President believes that a Supreme Court justice should strictly interpret our Constitution and laws and not try to legislate from the bench, and that's what Harriet Miers is committed to doing."
At one point during the fracas, McClellan was asked, "Scott, isn't the idea we ask the questions and you provide the answers?"
Responded the spokesman: "Yes, and I was providing the answer. Can I not say what I want to say? … Isn't it my right to talk and say what I want to?"
By the end of the briefing, several reporters became defensive, with one claiming McClellan had "attacked" him.
Another reporter, referring to McClellan's desire that the Miers confirmation be a "dignified process," asked, "Scott, you used the term 'dignified process.' Is it dignified to pejoratively characterize the motives or tactics of a reporter who is trying to cover a story?"
Speaking of dignity, McClellan earlier refused to answer a question WND posed about the lack of response by homosexual interest groups to Oprah Winfrey's child-molester-locator reward program – in which the TV host pays $100,000 to those who turn in wanted criminals.
"I'm not going to dignify that [question]," McClellan said, before moving on to another reporter's question.
Les Kinsolving is WorldNetDaily's White House correspondent and a talk-show host for WCBM in Baltimore. His show can be heard on the Internet at www.wcbm.com 8-10 p.m. Eastern each weekday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)