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.
Sunday, October 30, 2005
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.
Church gearing up to confront Satan
For most of the 20th century, or at least for the part I know about, the church has played down the need to confront Evil and the deceiver behind it Satan. Many bishops felt that there was no need to waste diocese resources towards exorcism or those that are knowledgeable in evil and its infestations among man.So although some diocese had an exorcist on staff--they were nearly always denied authorization to involve themselves with this line of work.
But times have changed and there is movement afoot to train priests and laity in this vocation. I copied the article here from Reuters which involves just such a school.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
First Day of School for Aspiring Vatican Exorcists
ROME -- It was the first day of school, so some students were understandably nervous. But then again, they were not taking just any course, but one run by a Vatican university to teach aspiring demonologists and exorcists.
"There is no doubt that the devil is intervening more in the life of man these days," Father Paolo Scarafoni told the students, most of them priests who want to learn how to tackle the demon if they should ever encounter him.
"Not all of you will become exorcists but it is indispensable that every priest knows how to discern between demonic possession and psychological problems," he said.
The four-month course, called "Exorcism and the Prayer of Liberation," is being offered for the second year by Pontifical Regina Apostolorum University on Rome's outskirts.
The about 120 students from around the world will hear lectures on topics such as the pastoral, spiritual, theological, liturgical, medical, legal and criminological aspects of Satanism and demonic possession.
One planned lecture is called: "Problems related to exorcism and correlated issues."
One priest, who asked not to be identified, said he decided to take the course after a "very unsettling experience" while hearing the confession of one young member of his parish.
"Her voice changed, her face was transformed and she started speaking in a language that she did not know," he said. "I've met people who are suffering from this problem and it is not as rare as we might imagine."
So, will he be ready to wrestle with demons of the kind who may have possessed his parishioner in the confessional box?
"If, after this course, my superiors decide that it will be useful for me to become an exorcist, I will do it," he said.
REAL-LIFE EXORCISTS
Interest in the devil and the occult has been boosted by films such as this year's "The Exorcism of Emily Rose," and last year's "Exorcist: The Beginning," which was the sequel to the original "The Exorcist" in 1973.
But forget the films. The students will have several real-life and well known exorcists to teach them.
One is Father Gabriele Nanni, who attended Thursday's opening class and spoke to Reuters during a break.
"First thing is the priest has to know if the devil is at work in a person or if the problem is somewhere else," he said.
Nanni said there are four sure signs that pointed to demonic possession rather than psychological problems.
He listed them as:
"When someone speaks or understands languages they normally do not; when their physical strength is disproportionate to their body size or age; when they are suddenly knowledgeable about occult practices; when they have a physical aversion to sacred things, such as the communion host or prayers."
According to some estimates, as many as 5,000 people are thought to be members of Satanic cults in Italy with 17-to 25-year-olds making up three quarters of them.
In 1999, the Vatican updated its ritual for exorcism.
It starts with prayers, a blessing and sprinkling of holy water, the laying on of hands on the possessed, and the making of the sign of the cross.
The formula begins: "I order you, Satan..." It goes on to denounce Satan as "prince of this world" and "enemy of human salvation." It ends: "Go back, Satan."
Source: REUTERS/By Philip Pullella
_____________________________________________________________________________________
My ministry was not one where I came directly in touch with evil in a way that I ever focused on a need to confront it. I have always seen the affects but never the one behind the affects.
Since entering a retirement mode from active priesthood, my focus has been one of communication and involvement on many many topics and with many many folks who I know only as an internet "nickname" . And because I now have more time to study and research, I also have had more time to ponder the "whys" behind some of the evil I have uncovered. Satan operates through many sources and his ugly head cannot stay out of sight for long whenever efforts such as mine are devoted toward rooting him out in confrontation.
Abortion, crime, corruption, pornography, abuse, neglect--all are symptoms of his influence.
I'm glad the church is finally coming to its senses and arming those in the front lines with a proper education and tools to deal with the evil around us.
On another note:
Yesterday I succeeded in nearly destroying this blog. i was meddling with the html code trying to add some more bells and whistles. the result was that I needed to re-load the entire blog onto the template anew. Of course this resulted in me losing the counter, and two links which I had previously painstakenly added. I need a good tutorial on code. If anybdy knows one readily available in the internet. Please drop me a message including the information.
Yodi says hi to any viewers that were denied access here while I had the blog down. Me--well-I say sorry.
But times have changed and there is movement afoot to train priests and laity in this vocation. I copied the article here from Reuters which involves just such a school.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
First Day of School for Aspiring Vatican Exorcists
ROME -- It was the first day of school, so some students were understandably nervous. But then again, they were not taking just any course, but one run by a Vatican university to teach aspiring demonologists and exorcists.
"There is no doubt that the devil is intervening more in the life of man these days," Father Paolo Scarafoni told the students, most of them priests who want to learn how to tackle the demon if they should ever encounter him.
"Not all of you will become exorcists but it is indispensable that every priest knows how to discern between demonic possession and psychological problems," he said.
The four-month course, called "Exorcism and the Prayer of Liberation," is being offered for the second year by Pontifical Regina Apostolorum University on Rome's outskirts.
The about 120 students from around the world will hear lectures on topics such as the pastoral, spiritual, theological, liturgical, medical, legal and criminological aspects of Satanism and demonic possession.
One planned lecture is called: "Problems related to exorcism and correlated issues."
One priest, who asked not to be identified, said he decided to take the course after a "very unsettling experience" while hearing the confession of one young member of his parish.
"Her voice changed, her face was transformed and she started speaking in a language that she did not know," he said. "I've met people who are suffering from this problem and it is not as rare as we might imagine."
So, will he be ready to wrestle with demons of the kind who may have possessed his parishioner in the confessional box?
"If, after this course, my superiors decide that it will be useful for me to become an exorcist, I will do it," he said.
REAL-LIFE EXORCISTS
Interest in the devil and the occult has been boosted by films such as this year's "The Exorcism of Emily Rose," and last year's "Exorcist: The Beginning," which was the sequel to the original "The Exorcist" in 1973.
But forget the films. The students will have several real-life and well known exorcists to teach them.
One is Father Gabriele Nanni, who attended Thursday's opening class and spoke to Reuters during a break.
"First thing is the priest has to know if the devil is at work in a person or if the problem is somewhere else," he said.
Nanni said there are four sure signs that pointed to demonic possession rather than psychological problems.
He listed them as:
"When someone speaks or understands languages they normally do not; when their physical strength is disproportionate to their body size or age; when they are suddenly knowledgeable about occult practices; when they have a physical aversion to sacred things, such as the communion host or prayers."
According to some estimates, as many as 5,000 people are thought to be members of Satanic cults in Italy with 17-to 25-year-olds making up three quarters of them.
In 1999, the Vatican updated its ritual for exorcism.
It starts with prayers, a blessing and sprinkling of holy water, the laying on of hands on the possessed, and the making of the sign of the cross.
The formula begins: "I order you, Satan..." It goes on to denounce Satan as "prince of this world" and "enemy of human salvation." It ends: "Go back, Satan."
Source: REUTERS/By Philip Pullella
_____________________________________________________________________________________
My ministry was not one where I came directly in touch with evil in a way that I ever focused on a need to confront it. I have always seen the affects but never the one behind the affects.
Since entering a retirement mode from active priesthood, my focus has been one of communication and involvement on many many topics and with many many folks who I know only as an internet "nickname" . And because I now have more time to study and research, I also have had more time to ponder the "whys" behind some of the evil I have uncovered. Satan operates through many sources and his ugly head cannot stay out of sight for long whenever efforts such as mine are devoted toward rooting him out in confrontation.
Abortion, crime, corruption, pornography, abuse, neglect--all are symptoms of his influence.
I'm glad the church is finally coming to its senses and arming those in the front lines with a proper education and tools to deal with the evil around us.
On another note:
Yesterday I succeeded in nearly destroying this blog. i was meddling with the html code trying to add some more bells and whistles. the result was that I needed to re-load the entire blog onto the template anew. Of course this resulted in me losing the counter, and two links which I had previously painstakenly added. I need a good tutorial on code. If anybdy knows one readily available in the internet. Please drop me a message including the information.
Yodi says hi to any viewers that were denied access here while I had the blog down. Me--well-I say sorry.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Inflation is hitting my home--your's too !
I'm out on the stump today reading through data that has to do with consumer inflation. Although I'm not a high flying spender, I still need to forcast what my expenses are going to be in the coming year. I don't have a magic wand that I can wave over my bills every month and make them go away.
So today I googled up the latest consumer price index. It was for August 2005 and does not take into account hurricanes and other factors that will affect the September index.
So let's take a look at what it says:
Seasonally adjusted Un-
Compound adjusted
Expenditure Changes from preceding month annual rate 12-mos.
Category 2005 3-mos. ended ended
Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Aug. '05 Aug. '05
All Items .4 .6 .6 -.1 .0 .6 .6 4.9 3.8
Food and beverages .1 .2 .6 .1 .0 .2 .1 .8 2.0
Housing .4 .3 .3 .2 .2 .4 .2 3.0 3.1
Apparel -.1 .5 -.7 .1 -.8 -.6 .8 -2.3 -.3
Transportation .8 2.1 1.8 -1.0 -.1 1.6 2.4 17.3 9.7
Medical care .6 .4 .3 .4 .2 .4 .0 2.1 4.0
Recreation -.2 .0 .1 .4 -.4 .0 .3 -.4 .7
Education and
communication .3 .1 .4 .0 -.1 .2 -.2 -.4 1.1
Other goods and
services .4 .0 .0 .3 .0 .7 .3 4.1 3.2
Special Indexes
Energy 2.0 4.4 4.6 -2.1 -.6 4.1 5.1 39.7 20.7
Food .1 .2 .7 .1 -.1 .2 .1 .8 2.0
All Items less
food and energy .3 .2 .1 .2 .1 .2 .2 1.4 2.2
Consumer Price Index data for September are scheduled for release on
Friday, October 14, 2005, at 8:30 A.M. (EDT).
As I suspected--things are going up in price faster than wages are.
In yesterdays "The Dallas Morning News", there was an article entitled "Consumers feeling bite of soaring cost of living". And by the way--why doesn't the index talk about cost of living in real terms. Ones that we can relate to as we get the items scanned at the checkout counter.
Tina Franco, a nurse was interviewed for the article. She says that she is spending $100 more per month now for auto gas compared to earlier this year. I would call that larger than the 20.7 % increase for the year in energy costs as shown in the index. Gas was $164.9 per gallon earlier this year and is now $3.00. I call that a near 50% increase in that energy area. I wonder what energy areas added up to the 20.7% increase?
The article went on to discuss other areas of consumer price inflation. Health care insurance premiums went up 9.2% this year and that was on top of the 11.2% last year. It has risen 73% since 2000. Only 60% of employers now offer healthcare insurance to their workers so we need to add this cost into our inflation in some form. Even of those employers who offer coverage [it has fallen 6% since last year], they still on average make the employee pay 26% of the premium. So the average worker now pays $2,713 for healthcare premiums. Medicine has also skyrocketed for those having prescriptions filled.I can attest to this.
In another report I read, home heating will go up 90% this winter. So either turn off the heat or dig deep into your pockets. Electricity rates are also climbing.
I always thought that fertilizer came from oil. If that is true, then food prices are bound to go up more than the 2% shown in the index. In fact due to transportation expenses, everything will go up because it costs more to get it here.
The index shows housing going up only 3.1%. How can that be. The cost of buying houses, apartment buildings, duplexes--are all going through the ceiling. Are they saying that the guy who just spent 2.5 million on an apartment building that was worth 1.5 milliom five years ago is not going to raise the rent!! Ridiculous.
The problem these indexs have is they don't offer up a forecast that goes down the line a year. If we need to plan our expenses, it would be nice to know what bread will cost next april! This brings me to an important point. With consumer confidence falling from 89.1 to 76.9 on the Michigan index [the largest monthly decline since 1978 [Jimmy Carter days]--I'm sure Walmart doesn't want the government issuing reports that will scare off holiday shoppers. By the way--what is a confidence index?
So as I sit on the stump here compiling all these figures, I'm convinced that I need to take some drastic action if I'm going to want to eat next april. That means keeping the heater off, walking more, fewer trips in the car, reading by candle light, and cutting back on holiday gifts.
I will all have to cut back my standard of living in order to pay for these higher prices. With wages raising at an annual rate of 2.3%--they are not going to cut the bacon.
I don't know how I'm going to break the news to Yodi that the heat will not be rising from the vent he has been lounging on. And that the snacks will be fewer and farther apart than normal.I also hope he likes pinto beans. There will be a lot more beans in the daily meals and less meat and cheese. We'll make it. We just need to plan and take steps to conserve what we use.Time to get out the sweaters and lap blankets. I also need to practice typing on a laptop using gloves.
Aren't "indexes" fun?
I wish I could solve my budget problems the same way the Feds do. If I could only print up money and offer an IOU to pay for it--I could then forget all these reports and go on pretending everything is rosy in the "Land Of OZ"
OK. Enough daydreaming about yellow brick roads. I'm doing one even better--praying more.
So today I googled up the latest consumer price index. It was for August 2005 and does not take into account hurricanes and other factors that will affect the September index.
So let's take a look at what it says:
Seasonally adjusted Un-
Compound adjusted
Expenditure Changes from preceding month annual rate 12-mos.
Category 2005 3-mos. ended ended
Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Aug. '05 Aug. '05
All Items .4 .6 .6 -.1 .0 .6 .6 4.9 3.8
Food and beverages .1 .2 .6 .1 .0 .2 .1 .8 2.0
Housing .4 .3 .3 .2 .2 .4 .2 3.0 3.1
Apparel -.1 .5 -.7 .1 -.8 -.6 .8 -2.3 -.3
Transportation .8 2.1 1.8 -1.0 -.1 1.6 2.4 17.3 9.7
Medical care .6 .4 .3 .4 .2 .4 .0 2.1 4.0
Recreation -.2 .0 .1 .4 -.4 .0 .3 -.4 .7
Education and
communication .3 .1 .4 .0 -.1 .2 -.2 -.4 1.1
Other goods and
services .4 .0 .0 .3 .0 .7 .3 4.1 3.2
Special Indexes
Energy 2.0 4.4 4.6 -2.1 -.6 4.1 5.1 39.7 20.7
Food .1 .2 .7 .1 -.1 .2 .1 .8 2.0
All Items less
food and energy .3 .2 .1 .2 .1 .2 .2 1.4 2.2
Consumer Price Index data for September are scheduled for release on
Friday, October 14, 2005, at 8:30 A.M. (EDT).
As I suspected--things are going up in price faster than wages are.
In yesterdays "The Dallas Morning News", there was an article entitled "Consumers feeling bite of soaring cost of living". And by the way--why doesn't the index talk about cost of living in real terms. Ones that we can relate to as we get the items scanned at the checkout counter.
Tina Franco, a nurse was interviewed for the article. She says that she is spending $100 more per month now for auto gas compared to earlier this year. I would call that larger than the 20.7 % increase for the year in energy costs as shown in the index. Gas was $164.9 per gallon earlier this year and is now $3.00. I call that a near 50% increase in that energy area. I wonder what energy areas added up to the 20.7% increase?
The article went on to discuss other areas of consumer price inflation. Health care insurance premiums went up 9.2% this year and that was on top of the 11.2% last year. It has risen 73% since 2000. Only 60% of employers now offer healthcare insurance to their workers so we need to add this cost into our inflation in some form. Even of those employers who offer coverage [it has fallen 6% since last year], they still on average make the employee pay 26% of the premium. So the average worker now pays $2,713 for healthcare premiums. Medicine has also skyrocketed for those having prescriptions filled.I can attest to this.
In another report I read, home heating will go up 90% this winter. So either turn off the heat or dig deep into your pockets. Electricity rates are also climbing.
I always thought that fertilizer came from oil. If that is true, then food prices are bound to go up more than the 2% shown in the index. In fact due to transportation expenses, everything will go up because it costs more to get it here.
The index shows housing going up only 3.1%. How can that be. The cost of buying houses, apartment buildings, duplexes--are all going through the ceiling. Are they saying that the guy who just spent 2.5 million on an apartment building that was worth 1.5 milliom five years ago is not going to raise the rent!! Ridiculous.
The problem these indexs have is they don't offer up a forecast that goes down the line a year. If we need to plan our expenses, it would be nice to know what bread will cost next april! This brings me to an important point. With consumer confidence falling from 89.1 to 76.9 on the Michigan index [the largest monthly decline since 1978 [Jimmy Carter days]--I'm sure Walmart doesn't want the government issuing reports that will scare off holiday shoppers. By the way--what is a confidence index?
So as I sit on the stump here compiling all these figures, I'm convinced that I need to take some drastic action if I'm going to want to eat next april. That means keeping the heater off, walking more, fewer trips in the car, reading by candle light, and cutting back on holiday gifts.
I will all have to cut back my standard of living in order to pay for these higher prices. With wages raising at an annual rate of 2.3%--they are not going to cut the bacon.
I don't know how I'm going to break the news to Yodi that the heat will not be rising from the vent he has been lounging on. And that the snacks will be fewer and farther apart than normal.I also hope he likes pinto beans. There will be a lot more beans in the daily meals and less meat and cheese. We'll make it. We just need to plan and take steps to conserve what we use.Time to get out the sweaters and lap blankets. I also need to practice typing on a laptop using gloves.
Aren't "indexes" fun?
I wish I could solve my budget problems the same way the Feds do. If I could only print up money and offer an IOU to pay for it--I could then forget all these reports and go on pretending everything is rosy in the "Land Of OZ"
OK. Enough daydreaming about yellow brick roads. I'm doing one even better--praying more.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Word Verification Now Turned On
I was forced to mess with the settings here in order to keep spam from being posted via the comment area of each post.
I was not ammused to find out that the spam crowd can even infest my little place. Now when somebody wants to comment they must fill out a word verification in order to do so.
So readers--you will not be subjected to comments suggesting you join a swingers club or buy swamp land in Louisianna. and--Yodi has threatened to nip at the heals of any spammer who ventures this way again. On note: they have even invaded my personal e-mail account. Where do these intruders come from?
I was not ammused to find out that the spam crowd can even infest my little place. Now when somebody wants to comment they must fill out a word verification in order to do so.
So readers--you will not be subjected to comments suggesting you join a swingers club or buy swamp land in Louisianna. and--Yodi has threatened to nip at the heals of any spammer who ventures this way again. On note: they have even invaded my personal e-mail account. Where do these intruders come from?
When fools are at play
As a sidenote to my last dispatch here on the "stump"--I would like to clarify a matter. Not all priests, bishops, cardinals and popes have lost their way. There are some and have been many who followed in Jesus footsteps.There have also been many who haven't.
Why is it that words and directions can become confused with the actions needed to fulfill a goal? There are many who get caught up in study, interpretation , and meaning without ever actually doing something. The universities are full of former students who simply transistioned into a teaching possitions without any practical knowledge about their chosen field. How can somebody teach business for example--without having ever been in a business of their own?
This same pecular event seems to be present throughout our society.
Another situation that mirrors this one was defined in a book titled "The Peter Principal". In this principal, there seems to be a condition where those in a chosen field get promoted beyond their competence to the detriment of the organization. You end up with no cream at the top. These rising duds seem to be skilled at getting promoted but that is about it. They are all sparkes but no bang. Once they have succeeded in rising above their heads, they fool nobody below them but everybody above them--until their folly catches up with both them and their organization.
It is wonder that anything ever gets accomplished in universities or business with these two elements at play. I suppose it shows just how resilient society can be. The foundations and roof totally rotted out but the walls still standing. Held up from within by those being taught or those being led.
It takes a true "fool" to play these games. Do they not realize that if the ship sinks, they too will drown? Well--no they don't. fools just like to play and never consider their consequences.
Even Yodi allows more space than normal when one of these Peacocks comes strutting by.
Why is it that words and directions can become confused with the actions needed to fulfill a goal? There are many who get caught up in study, interpretation , and meaning without ever actually doing something. The universities are full of former students who simply transistioned into a teaching possitions without any practical knowledge about their chosen field. How can somebody teach business for example--without having ever been in a business of their own?
This same pecular event seems to be present throughout our society.
Another situation that mirrors this one was defined in a book titled "The Peter Principal". In this principal, there seems to be a condition where those in a chosen field get promoted beyond their competence to the detriment of the organization. You end up with no cream at the top. These rising duds seem to be skilled at getting promoted but that is about it. They are all sparkes but no bang. Once they have succeeded in rising above their heads, they fool nobody below them but everybody above them--until their folly catches up with both them and their organization.
It is wonder that anything ever gets accomplished in universities or business with these two elements at play. I suppose it shows just how resilient society can be. The foundations and roof totally rotted out but the walls still standing. Held up from within by those being taught or those being led.
It takes a true "fool" to play these games. Do they not realize that if the ship sinks, they too will drown? Well--no they don't. fools just like to play and never consider their consequences.
Even Yodi allows more space than normal when one of these Peacocks comes strutting by.
Monday, October 10, 2005
The contradiction in Catholism
The contratiction--in one extended sentence---more-more-more
The more the Catholic church puts herself forward as the seat of infallible authority, the more insistent her demands for allegiance, the more she points to her priesthood as the one by which men are saved, the more she claims by powers unique to herself to lay hold on the saints or to trade in the merits of Christ, the more she appropriates of the kingdoms of this world and the glory thereof, the more majestic her dress and bearing, the more lordly her tone, even when expressed in all humility or in the voice of the servant of the servants of Christ-- (that is, in the lordliest tones of all), the more she insists that she is the arbiter of men's salvation, the more emphatically she asserts that no congregation is valid except as a tributary of herself, the more she equates the actuality of her existence with the Church that is the Bride of Christ and ground and pillar of truth, then the more she looks like an imposter, the more demonic her aspect, the more she appears to be an earthly wraith claiming to be the heavenly reality, the more she looks like a false church, the less she (or Mary magnified within her) looks like our Mother -- the more charity one must exercise to love her -- and the more one must look within her instead of upon her to find the Church.
Therein lies the great contridiction.--or more-more-more---more of man and less of who he represents! It is within the church not upon the leaders where one finds the church.
When Jesus Christ handed the keys to his kingdom to Saint Peter and left this earth to sit at his Fathers side -- the church itself was doomed to an existance of impossible comparisom. Who amongs us --dependant upon mortal senses have ever understood exactly what the kingdom of heaven is? None. It is impossible to grasp with human means. Every word, evey song, every symbol of our faith is at best a very dirty, impure reflection of that which was promised.
And what of protestants and all their various creeds? I believe that those who first rejected Catholism have tried themselves in vain to find a more perfect reflection of that to come --and themselves been even more disatisfied with the results of their protest.
The truth of the matter is--you cannot find perfection reflected from a priest, bishop, cardinal, or pope. Tis irony is one that i n itself breeds discontent. They dress in flowery robes, wear all manner of jewels and symbols, have for the most part a demeaner intended to suggest power, humility, and spirituality.The error in their plight-- is that Catholism is not about a mans spirituality at all--it is a reflection of our Savior's spirituality which is impossible to duplicate, replicate, or imbode in ones mortal being.We get there by living as we were instructed--not through another.
This same problem exists to a larger degree within non-Catholic Christian churches. No minister can truly represent that which is un-representable by man.
We get even more uneasy when these mere mortals begin errecting cathedrals and bureaucracy of a secular nature within the hallways of that which has been sacredly placed in trust!! The true hallways of faith are within the man not outside.
The "true" purpose of a priest, bishop, cardinal, or pope is to lead by example as Christ did and taught. And when the followers see the hypocracy within the priesthood--that too drives them into the waiting arms of non-Catholic churches who are quick to blame-- and themselves offer up a ministry of false pretense.
When Christ took his disciples on the road with him, he was instilling teachings and behavior to those who would be handed the keys of his church. They were to lead by example and build his church in HIS image not theirs! The Catholic church is not the church of Peter, Paul, or Mark--but the church of Jesus Christ himself. "GOD"! incarnate.
I know these things because I have lived them in the past--and with quite a contradiciton within my own soul. I can not represent what I do not have--but I can live and lead by example. And--no--I do not possess anything but a flawed character which I'm constantly at odds with. If I can assist one through sacramants-- attain a place where they can then seek "GOD", then I have succeeded. Not by authority of the church--but by the humility of a shepherd.True hurch leaders [as I'm convinced Jesus envisioned] teach through example not through words. The bible is made up of exammples, the church traditions are stories of examples, Christ's life as told-- is one of example.
One cannot threaten another into heaven.Fear does not uplift a soul. Worthiness to attain salvation comes through living this life by example. A priest is to teach a father, who teaches a mother, who teaches his children -- by example.
Priests and ministers should leave their cathedrals and live among their flock. How can a shepard teach through mere words and costumes? If you wonder why a mistrust exists between the flock and the shephard--this is not hard to grasp. In a world ruled by evil, the sheep reconginize when they have a wolf among them. They can sense this and run away.
The Catholic church is true, its sacramants true, its mission one of truth, but its practice one of contradiction. So charge me with apostasy--render my words those of a madman bent on heresy.I no longer seek to please a hiarchy on earth. I know the secret that exists in all of those within the priesthood. Late at night as they lay in bed with only their thoughts for company--they all know that their present practice is a very poor imitation of who they represent. And if they are honest with themselves they will change.One cannot teach or give what one does not have themselves.
I pray that the leaders come down off their man made thrones and enter the streets and villages where their flocks reside. And quit pretending they know what is beyond all of mankind to grasp. We were commanded to follow Jesus our Savior. It is through our faith and trust in him that we will reach our just reward. And we must all await our final judgement before we experience that which their are no words to describe.
Ok Yodi, help me drag this stump off the srreet. We have said enough for a day. Now comes the hard part--we must live it.
The more the Catholic church puts herself forward as the seat of infallible authority, the more insistent her demands for allegiance, the more she points to her priesthood as the one by which men are saved, the more she claims by powers unique to herself to lay hold on the saints or to trade in the merits of Christ, the more she appropriates of the kingdoms of this world and the glory thereof, the more majestic her dress and bearing, the more lordly her tone, even when expressed in all humility or in the voice of the servant of the servants of Christ-- (that is, in the lordliest tones of all), the more she insists that she is the arbiter of men's salvation, the more emphatically she asserts that no congregation is valid except as a tributary of herself, the more she equates the actuality of her existence with the Church that is the Bride of Christ and ground and pillar of truth, then the more she looks like an imposter, the more demonic her aspect, the more she appears to be an earthly wraith claiming to be the heavenly reality, the more she looks like a false church, the less she (or Mary magnified within her) looks like our Mother -- the more charity one must exercise to love her -- and the more one must look within her instead of upon her to find the Church.
Therein lies the great contridiction.--or more-more-more---more of man and less of who he represents! It is within the church not upon the leaders where one finds the church.
When Jesus Christ handed the keys to his kingdom to Saint Peter and left this earth to sit at his Fathers side -- the church itself was doomed to an existance of impossible comparisom. Who amongs us --dependant upon mortal senses have ever understood exactly what the kingdom of heaven is? None. It is impossible to grasp with human means. Every word, evey song, every symbol of our faith is at best a very dirty, impure reflection of that which was promised.
And what of protestants and all their various creeds? I believe that those who first rejected Catholism have tried themselves in vain to find a more perfect reflection of that to come --and themselves been even more disatisfied with the results of their protest.
The truth of the matter is--you cannot find perfection reflected from a priest, bishop, cardinal, or pope. Tis irony is one that i n itself breeds discontent. They dress in flowery robes, wear all manner of jewels and symbols, have for the most part a demeaner intended to suggest power, humility, and spirituality.The error in their plight-- is that Catholism is not about a mans spirituality at all--it is a reflection of our Savior's spirituality which is impossible to duplicate, replicate, or imbode in ones mortal being.We get there by living as we were instructed--not through another.
This same problem exists to a larger degree within non-Catholic Christian churches. No minister can truly represent that which is un-representable by man.
We get even more uneasy when these mere mortals begin errecting cathedrals and bureaucracy of a secular nature within the hallways of that which has been sacredly placed in trust!! The true hallways of faith are within the man not outside.
The "true" purpose of a priest, bishop, cardinal, or pope is to lead by example as Christ did and taught. And when the followers see the hypocracy within the priesthood--that too drives them into the waiting arms of non-Catholic churches who are quick to blame-- and themselves offer up a ministry of false pretense.
When Christ took his disciples on the road with him, he was instilling teachings and behavior to those who would be handed the keys of his church. They were to lead by example and build his church in HIS image not theirs! The Catholic church is not the church of Peter, Paul, or Mark--but the church of Jesus Christ himself. "GOD"! incarnate.
I know these things because I have lived them in the past--and with quite a contradiciton within my own soul. I can not represent what I do not have--but I can live and lead by example. And--no--I do not possess anything but a flawed character which I'm constantly at odds with. If I can assist one through sacramants-- attain a place where they can then seek "GOD", then I have succeeded. Not by authority of the church--but by the humility of a shepherd.True hurch leaders [as I'm convinced Jesus envisioned] teach through example not through words. The bible is made up of exammples, the church traditions are stories of examples, Christ's life as told-- is one of example.
One cannot threaten another into heaven.Fear does not uplift a soul. Worthiness to attain salvation comes through living this life by example. A priest is to teach a father, who teaches a mother, who teaches his children -- by example.
Priests and ministers should leave their cathedrals and live among their flock. How can a shepard teach through mere words and costumes? If you wonder why a mistrust exists between the flock and the shephard--this is not hard to grasp. In a world ruled by evil, the sheep reconginize when they have a wolf among them. They can sense this and run away.
The Catholic church is true, its sacramants true, its mission one of truth, but its practice one of contradiction. So charge me with apostasy--render my words those of a madman bent on heresy.I no longer seek to please a hiarchy on earth. I know the secret that exists in all of those within the priesthood. Late at night as they lay in bed with only their thoughts for company--they all know that their present practice is a very poor imitation of who they represent. And if they are honest with themselves they will change.One cannot teach or give what one does not have themselves.
I pray that the leaders come down off their man made thrones and enter the streets and villages where their flocks reside. And quit pretending they know what is beyond all of mankind to grasp. We were commanded to follow Jesus our Savior. It is through our faith and trust in him that we will reach our just reward. And we must all await our final judgement before we experience that which their are no words to describe.
Ok Yodi, help me drag this stump off the srreet. We have said enough for a day. Now comes the hard part--we must live it.
Friday, October 07, 2005
"Carnie" scam artists at play" ? --Louisianna Politics
In the wake hurricane Katrina, I like the rest of the country view scenes of devastation, scratch our heads, and wonder how much it's going to cost fix up the mess. Heck--I have no idea--do you?
I was watching C-SPAN yesterday-- and with interest and a wary eye watched Senator Mary Landreau spin her states woes before the rest of the Senate. She reminded me of a begger with a soup can in hand --able to turn on the tears at just the right moment--to get the best return from her latest "mark"
My vocation has put me in front of much grief and tragedy. I'm all for everybody coming together and taking care of the citizens--our brothers and sisters in Louisianna. Obviously there is a need for the government to step up and help get these people back on their feet--right along with the privare charities and church based organizations. But when does needed help cross the line to just plain greed?
Senator Landreau had a potforlio of pictures showing damage and people walking through flood waters.I had already seen plenty of these over the last few weeks. But she needed these props, I guess, to hammer her points across. It reminded me of the slick TV adds tugging at the hearts of people to give money to some half baked charity that is supposed to help feed starving children in Africa. Studies show that 95% of this money never reached the intended victims.I suspect the same percentages in this case.
Now dear reader--please read an excerpt from an interview with the Governer of Mississippi. His state actually received the brunt of the hurricane. He says that his state can probably fix up the mess for 30 billion dollars. Louisianna wants 250 billion dollars.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Hurricane Katrina
Exclusive HUMAN EVENTS Interview
Gov. Haley Barbour Says Mississippi Won’t Try to Gouge U.S. Taxpayers
by Terence P. Jeffrey
Posted Oct 7, 2005
Louisiana Senators Mary Landreu and David Vitter have proposed a $250 billion federal aid package, which, if I understand it correctly is money that they want to go only to Louisiana and not to Mississippi. Is that correct?
BARBOUR: I don’t much about their proposal. However, I don’t think the cost of relief, recovery and rebuilding will be anything like that amount. That seems to me very excessive. We are trying to project what the costs would be here and it is a small fraction of that.
Do you think that the relative damage in Mississippi is not that much less than in Louisiana?
BARBOUR: In many ways it is far worse.
Do you have a general idea of how much the total federal cost of rebuilding Mississippi’s damaged areas?
BARBOUR: It will be well under $50 billion. Well under. Our best estimates right now are in the low thirties. I don’t want anybody to think we are trying to compare Mississippi to anyone else. We’ll stand on our own two feet. We need the federal government’s help. At the same time, we are going to be good stewards of the taxpayers’ money, and we are not going to try to use this as a way to gouge the taxpayers. The American people have been incredibly generous to us—private philanthropy, corporate philanthropy, the enormous number of volunteers who have come down here from all over the country. Our sister states have been fabulous in sending us National Guard, highway patrol, investigators, resources of all types. North Carolina sent us a whole hospital, with two operating rooms, which, by the way, was financed by FEMA, I might add. But everybody has been so generous to us, and the federal government has put hundreds of millions of dollars in here already that we are obligated and we will be good stewards of the American taxpayers’ money. That is the least we can do.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
It is my opinion that we are being "snookered" by Senator Landreau. It doesn't help when the State of Louisianna has a reputation of being the most corrupt state in the Union.
You have the Governor of Mississippi praising and being thankful for the help they have received and telling us he wants Mississippi to "stand on its own two feet"
You have the Senator, Governor, and Mayors of Louisianna blaming, pointing fingers and DEMANDING that the Federal government fix up their whole state.
What a contrast.
But getting back to the money issue---why can Mississippi fix their mess [which is worse] for 1/8 of the amount that Louisianna demands?? This smells very bad--worse than the rotten shrimp left at the fish market for days after the storm.
Louisianna runs their state like a Carnival back lot. Anybody that ventures into the dark recesses of this meca of corruption will be fleeced. And that includes the rest of us Americans if we allow them to pick our pockets like they intend.
The sad part of this whole affair is our President opening his big mouth and telling them what they wanted to hear. He has picked up the three balls and thinks our treasury can knock down those bowling pins in the carnie game with a couple hundred billion dollars. Before Mary and her gang of operators are through, G W. Bush will be thrown off the carnival lot with his pockets turned inside out. Just like the rest of the suckers who have ventured into Louisianna over the years expecting a fair game.
when we read what the Governor of Mississippi says and hear what Louisianna says--are we even talking about the same hurricane? Yes friends--the "marks" have entered the carnival.
I was watching C-SPAN yesterday-- and with interest and a wary eye watched Senator Mary Landreau spin her states woes before the rest of the Senate. She reminded me of a begger with a soup can in hand --able to turn on the tears at just the right moment--to get the best return from her latest "mark"
My vocation has put me in front of much grief and tragedy. I'm all for everybody coming together and taking care of the citizens--our brothers and sisters in Louisianna. Obviously there is a need for the government to step up and help get these people back on their feet--right along with the privare charities and church based organizations. But when does needed help cross the line to just plain greed?
Senator Landreau had a potforlio of pictures showing damage and people walking through flood waters.I had already seen plenty of these over the last few weeks. But she needed these props, I guess, to hammer her points across. It reminded me of the slick TV adds tugging at the hearts of people to give money to some half baked charity that is supposed to help feed starving children in Africa. Studies show that 95% of this money never reached the intended victims.I suspect the same percentages in this case.
Now dear reader--please read an excerpt from an interview with the Governer of Mississippi. His state actually received the brunt of the hurricane. He says that his state can probably fix up the mess for 30 billion dollars. Louisianna wants 250 billion dollars.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Hurricane Katrina
Exclusive HUMAN EVENTS Interview
Gov. Haley Barbour Says Mississippi Won’t Try to Gouge U.S. Taxpayers
by Terence P. Jeffrey
Posted Oct 7, 2005
Louisiana Senators Mary Landreu and David Vitter have proposed a $250 billion federal aid package, which, if I understand it correctly is money that they want to go only to Louisiana and not to Mississippi. Is that correct?
BARBOUR: I don’t much about their proposal. However, I don’t think the cost of relief, recovery and rebuilding will be anything like that amount. That seems to me very excessive. We are trying to project what the costs would be here and it is a small fraction of that.
Do you think that the relative damage in Mississippi is not that much less than in Louisiana?
BARBOUR: In many ways it is far worse.
Do you have a general idea of how much the total federal cost of rebuilding Mississippi’s damaged areas?
BARBOUR: It will be well under $50 billion. Well under. Our best estimates right now are in the low thirties. I don’t want anybody to think we are trying to compare Mississippi to anyone else. We’ll stand on our own two feet. We need the federal government’s help. At the same time, we are going to be good stewards of the taxpayers’ money, and we are not going to try to use this as a way to gouge the taxpayers. The American people have been incredibly generous to us—private philanthropy, corporate philanthropy, the enormous number of volunteers who have come down here from all over the country. Our sister states have been fabulous in sending us National Guard, highway patrol, investigators, resources of all types. North Carolina sent us a whole hospital, with two operating rooms, which, by the way, was financed by FEMA, I might add. But everybody has been so generous to us, and the federal government has put hundreds of millions of dollars in here already that we are obligated and we will be good stewards of the American taxpayers’ money. That is the least we can do.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
It is my opinion that we are being "snookered" by Senator Landreau. It doesn't help when the State of Louisianna has a reputation of being the most corrupt state in the Union.
You have the Governor of Mississippi praising and being thankful for the help they have received and telling us he wants Mississippi to "stand on its own two feet"
You have the Senator, Governor, and Mayors of Louisianna blaming, pointing fingers and DEMANDING that the Federal government fix up their whole state.
What a contrast.
But getting back to the money issue---why can Mississippi fix their mess [which is worse] for 1/8 of the amount that Louisianna demands?? This smells very bad--worse than the rotten shrimp left at the fish market for days after the storm.
Louisianna runs their state like a Carnival back lot. Anybody that ventures into the dark recesses of this meca of corruption will be fleeced. And that includes the rest of us Americans if we allow them to pick our pockets like they intend.
The sad part of this whole affair is our President opening his big mouth and telling them what they wanted to hear. He has picked up the three balls and thinks our treasury can knock down those bowling pins in the carnie game with a couple hundred billion dollars. Before Mary and her gang of operators are through, G W. Bush will be thrown off the carnival lot with his pockets turned inside out. Just like the rest of the suckers who have ventured into Louisianna over the years expecting a fair game.
when we read what the Governor of Mississippi says and hear what Louisianna says--are we even talking about the same hurricane? Yes friends--the "marks" have entered the carnival.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Arrogant or Stupid
Arrogant--1. full of or due to pride. 2. haughty
Stupid--1. lacking normal intelligence. 2. foolish, silly 3. dull and boring
This is what my Websters New World Dictionary gives for the meaning of those two words.
Whether you would agree or not, President Bush fully embodies those two words. A person can be raised in a good home, attend the finest university, rise to power and still be stupid and arrogant. And I believe this sums up this man rather well.
An intelligent man would portray this mode through manner and deed. So far all I have seen is a man incapable of speaking clearly in public and unable to grasp what the reality of things really are. He seems out of it whenever confronted with problems one would expect low level management to fully understand. It is apparent that he depends totally on a cadre of advisors to make every single decision. Then he comes before the public and mumbles incoherantly that decision. I was watching him give a speech introducing his political hack nominee for Supreme Court Justice. The way he fumbled the words--I thought I was back at St. James elementary school listening to a third grade student give a presentation on the concept of the Virgin Mary. Not quite grasping it.
An arrogant man is haughty as the dictionary says. Full of pride and lacking any humility when faced with a personal mistake. G W Bush has failed to grasp many many issues that are a great concern of Americans. He understands the problem only from what his inner circle allows and he is out of touch with the public he serves.
The latest muff on his part is the recent nomination of his "inner circle" advisor Harriet Miers to be Supreme Court Justice. After his failings in Iraq, unbridled deficit spending, hurrican Katrina flubs, border immigration catastrophe,--just to mention a few--he has now managed to turn even his own party Congressional members against him. Even worse than that--the news pundits such as Hannity, Wills Coulter, and a string of others are in an uproar over this latest gaff. He has finally managed to turn the right wing press against him
I can only surmise that the man is arrogant and stupid. A few folks probably are still in his corner. We still have over two more years for even them to have had their full. Anyway--this is how I see it.
Stupid--1. lacking normal intelligence. 2. foolish, silly 3. dull and boring
This is what my Websters New World Dictionary gives for the meaning of those two words.
Whether you would agree or not, President Bush fully embodies those two words. A person can be raised in a good home, attend the finest university, rise to power and still be stupid and arrogant. And I believe this sums up this man rather well.
An intelligent man would portray this mode through manner and deed. So far all I have seen is a man incapable of speaking clearly in public and unable to grasp what the reality of things really are. He seems out of it whenever confronted with problems one would expect low level management to fully understand. It is apparent that he depends totally on a cadre of advisors to make every single decision. Then he comes before the public and mumbles incoherantly that decision. I was watching him give a speech introducing his political hack nominee for Supreme Court Justice. The way he fumbled the words--I thought I was back at St. James elementary school listening to a third grade student give a presentation on the concept of the Virgin Mary. Not quite grasping it.
An arrogant man is haughty as the dictionary says. Full of pride and lacking any humility when faced with a personal mistake. G W Bush has failed to grasp many many issues that are a great concern of Americans. He understands the problem only from what his inner circle allows and he is out of touch with the public he serves.
The latest muff on his part is the recent nomination of his "inner circle" advisor Harriet Miers to be Supreme Court Justice. After his failings in Iraq, unbridled deficit spending, hurrican Katrina flubs, border immigration catastrophe,--just to mention a few--he has now managed to turn even his own party Congressional members against him. Even worse than that--the news pundits such as Hannity, Wills Coulter, and a string of others are in an uproar over this latest gaff. He has finally managed to turn the right wing press against him
I can only surmise that the man is arrogant and stupid. A few folks probably are still in his corner. We still have over two more years for even them to have had their full. Anyway--this is how I see it.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Assisted suicide
The Supreme Court will be hearing a case that challenges the Oregon assisted Suicide law. I watched a lady with terminal cancer at a press conference on C-SPAN. I was moved by the ladies plight. She wishes to die with her family present and as she say's "not unconscious and in diapers" In other words on her terms and with what she perceives as with dignity and control.
I have my own beliefs that would counsel against suidide--whether assisted or not.
As far as assisting a oerson to take their own lives I don't think that should ever be legal. I have read some legal briefs that addressed physician assisted suicieds and how the practice evolved in Nazi Germany. I suggest those interested to Google this subject and read for yourself the briefs. It is clear that we educate, and license physicians to help preserve life--not assist in its destruction.
We also have educated and licensed Pharmacists who are charged with providing legal drugs designed to cure, help heal, and affect pain management among other duties.
Society never intended for Doctors and Pharmacists to help people kill themselves. They are trained to counsel and if necessary refer desperate people to seek professional and clerical help for their mental anquish when it is apparent somebody wants to commit suicide.
With laws like the one in Oregon State, it leaves these professionals in a quandry. Some physicians will prescribe the drugs and some Pharmacists will fill the prescriptions, but even this arms length approach designed to shield them from actual participation is wrong in my opinion.
When society and its professionals begin participting in the art of death, it opens a crack that will only expand over time. Anybody that has followed the Dutch assisted program can read in detail how they have moved from serving conscious adults with terminal conditions--to babies who are not capable of making their own choice. This will happen here too.
People who wish to step off the cliff of no return have always existed. Society has always tried to prevent them. But society should never become a partner in taking anothers life even if they request. This is a matter of free will and an individual should not expect others to join in their willful life ending process. Life has a process it goes through from birth to death. We will all die and most will be in some pain prior to its conclussion.
The lady I saw today was perfectly capable of moving around, thinking , reasoning, and going about her own business. If she wants to kill herself she can figure that out on her own without the need of me or you becoming part of the process.
I'm sure some here have an opinion on this case. Do you think the state should be involved in assisted suicide?
I have my own beliefs that would counsel against suidide--whether assisted or not.
As far as assisting a oerson to take their own lives I don't think that should ever be legal. I have read some legal briefs that addressed physician assisted suicieds and how the practice evolved in Nazi Germany. I suggest those interested to Google this subject and read for yourself the briefs. It is clear that we educate, and license physicians to help preserve life--not assist in its destruction.
We also have educated and licensed Pharmacists who are charged with providing legal drugs designed to cure, help heal, and affect pain management among other duties.
Society never intended for Doctors and Pharmacists to help people kill themselves. They are trained to counsel and if necessary refer desperate people to seek professional and clerical help for their mental anquish when it is apparent somebody wants to commit suicide.
With laws like the one in Oregon State, it leaves these professionals in a quandry. Some physicians will prescribe the drugs and some Pharmacists will fill the prescriptions, but even this arms length approach designed to shield them from actual participation is wrong in my opinion.
When society and its professionals begin participting in the art of death, it opens a crack that will only expand over time. Anybody that has followed the Dutch assisted program can read in detail how they have moved from serving conscious adults with terminal conditions--to babies who are not capable of making their own choice. This will happen here too.
People who wish to step off the cliff of no return have always existed. Society has always tried to prevent them. But society should never become a partner in taking anothers life even if they request. This is a matter of free will and an individual should not expect others to join in their willful life ending process. Life has a process it goes through from birth to death. We will all die and most will be in some pain prior to its conclussion.
The lady I saw today was perfectly capable of moving around, thinking , reasoning, and going about her own business. If she wants to kill herself she can figure that out on her own without the need of me or you becoming part of the process.
I'm sure some here have an opinion on this case. Do you think the state should be involved in assisted suicide?
Sunday, October 02, 2005
The stench of moral relativism
Moral Relativism - What's It All About?
Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice. We can all decide what is right for ourselves. You decide what's right for you, and I'll decide what's right for me. Moral relativism says, "It's true for me, if I believe it." So if I feel that I would like to break into your house, murder your children, and enslave your wife it is ok. Sure I would have broken a few civil laws along the way--but morality would be simply what I believe it to be for myself. Your truth is yours mine is mine.
Moral Relativism -- Is It Really Neutral?
Moral relativism has steadily been accepted as the primary moral philosophy of modern society, a culture that was previously governed by a--- "Judeo-Christian" view of morality. While these "Judeo-Christian" standards continue to be the foundation for civil law-- most people hold to the concept that right or wrong are not absolutes-- but can be determined by each individual. Morals and ethics can be altered from one situation, person, or circumstance to the next. Essentially, moral relativism says that anything goes, because life is ultimately without meaning. Words like "ought" and "should"-- are rendered meaningless. In this way-- moral relativism makes the claim that it is morally neutral.And so chaos begins. We throw out our inherant natural law and create our own consciousness.
In describing her view on morality-- the President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America once stated-- "teaching morality doesn't mean imposing my moral values on others. It means sharing wisdom, giving reasons for believing as I do -- and then trusting others to think and judge for themselves." She claims to be morally neutral, yet her message is clearly intended to influence the thinking of others… an intention that is not, in fact, neutral. And thus we have the Dover Intelligent Design case being actually a struggle by teachers to influence the thoughts and ideals of their students along evolutionary reasoning--.
Evidence that moral relativism is seen as more "fair" or "neutral"-- than a "hardline" stance on morality is seen in a 2002 column from Fox News analyst Bill O'Reilly-- who asked-- "Why is it wrong to be right?" In his article, O'Reilly cites recent Zogby poll findings regarding what is being taught in American universities. Studies indicate -- 75% of American college professors currently teach that there is no such thing as right and wrong. Rather, they treat the questions of good and evil as relative to "individual values and cultural diversity." The problem with this, according to O'Reilly, is that "they see the world not as it is, but as they want it to be. And annoying questions about moral absolutes and unacceptable behavior are usually left unanswered."
So if thre quarters of our professors truly believe that, then if the Nazi's re-imerged and di infact take over the world--then their cultural affects would be ok because it ties in with "cultural diversity". I suppose also if pirates took over a community-and set up a heathen society where rape and pillage was normal--then the weak among us would simply have to make do. Since there is no right ot wrong involved--it becomes survival of the fittest.
Moral Relativism -- Where Do You Stand?
Moral Relativism is a worldview. To determine for yourself which position to hold where morality is concerned -- you must first determine what you believe about the origin of life. Do you believe life evolved or do you believe life was created? Evolution and moral relativism go hand-in-hand -- for evolution teaches that life is accidental -- without meaning or purpose. Therefore -- anything you do is OK -- because it ultimately doesn't matter. If you believe we are created, however -- moral relativism cannot work. Creation implies a Creator. All things created are subject to a set of laws -- whether natural or divine. Moral relativism says anything goes --ut does it? Is it better to torture a child -- or to hug that child?
C.S. Lewis points to the nature of most quarrels as a clue to what we truly believe. Inherent in those quarrels is a concept of fairness -- as in "how would you like it if someone did that to you?" When we make that statement, we are appealing "to some kind of standard of behavior [we] expect" the other person to know about. Where do you think that standard originates? The pirates didn't bring it with them!!
In his September 19, 1796 Farewell Address to the nation, George Washington stated-- "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars." William McGuffey, author of the McGuffey's Readers, which were the mainstay of America's public school system from 1836 till the 1920's, wrote: "Erase all thought and fear of God from a community, and selfishness and sensuality would absorb the whole man." Where do you think the world is heading today?
I'm "relativley speaking" engaged in several conversations involving Intelligent design, atheism, marriage --all im prtant conversations regarding humanity our origin, and the institutions within. I believe there is a "GOD", that he designed us to have a set of natural laws and conscience, that he provided us with written and oral teachings to help keep us within the bounds of those natural laws, and that he provided for instituions such as marriage for procreation and companionship. All of this in an orderly fashion that just--makes--sense.
I can smell the rotting bodies that those pirates would leave behind in the name of moral relativism. And the stench I hope will bring those professors back to theior senses.
Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice. We can all decide what is right for ourselves. You decide what's right for you, and I'll decide what's right for me. Moral relativism says, "It's true for me, if I believe it." So if I feel that I would like to break into your house, murder your children, and enslave your wife it is ok. Sure I would have broken a few civil laws along the way--but morality would be simply what I believe it to be for myself. Your truth is yours mine is mine.
Moral Relativism -- Is It Really Neutral?
Moral relativism has steadily been accepted as the primary moral philosophy of modern society, a culture that was previously governed by a--- "Judeo-Christian" view of morality. While these "Judeo-Christian" standards continue to be the foundation for civil law-- most people hold to the concept that right or wrong are not absolutes-- but can be determined by each individual. Morals and ethics can be altered from one situation, person, or circumstance to the next. Essentially, moral relativism says that anything goes, because life is ultimately without meaning. Words like "ought" and "should"-- are rendered meaningless. In this way-- moral relativism makes the claim that it is morally neutral.And so chaos begins. We throw out our inherant natural law and create our own consciousness.
In describing her view on morality-- the President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America once stated-- "teaching morality doesn't mean imposing my moral values on others. It means sharing wisdom, giving reasons for believing as I do -- and then trusting others to think and judge for themselves." She claims to be morally neutral, yet her message is clearly intended to influence the thinking of others… an intention that is not, in fact, neutral. And thus we have the Dover Intelligent Design case being actually a struggle by teachers to influence the thoughts and ideals of their students along evolutionary reasoning--.
Evidence that moral relativism is seen as more "fair" or "neutral"-- than a "hardline" stance on morality is seen in a 2002 column from Fox News analyst Bill O'Reilly-- who asked-- "Why is it wrong to be right?" In his article, O'Reilly cites recent Zogby poll findings regarding what is being taught in American universities. Studies indicate -- 75% of American college professors currently teach that there is no such thing as right and wrong. Rather, they treat the questions of good and evil as relative to "individual values and cultural diversity." The problem with this, according to O'Reilly, is that "they see the world not as it is, but as they want it to be. And annoying questions about moral absolutes and unacceptable behavior are usually left unanswered."
So if thre quarters of our professors truly believe that, then if the Nazi's re-imerged and di infact take over the world--then their cultural affects would be ok because it ties in with "cultural diversity". I suppose also if pirates took over a community-and set up a heathen society where rape and pillage was normal--then the weak among us would simply have to make do. Since there is no right ot wrong involved--it becomes survival of the fittest.
Moral Relativism -- Where Do You Stand?
Moral Relativism is a worldview. To determine for yourself which position to hold where morality is concerned -- you must first determine what you believe about the origin of life. Do you believe life evolved or do you believe life was created? Evolution and moral relativism go hand-in-hand -- for evolution teaches that life is accidental -- without meaning or purpose. Therefore -- anything you do is OK -- because it ultimately doesn't matter. If you believe we are created, however -- moral relativism cannot work. Creation implies a Creator. All things created are subject to a set of laws -- whether natural or divine. Moral relativism says anything goes --ut does it? Is it better to torture a child -- or to hug that child?
C.S. Lewis points to the nature of most quarrels as a clue to what we truly believe. Inherent in those quarrels is a concept of fairness -- as in "how would you like it if someone did that to you?" When we make that statement, we are appealing "to some kind of standard of behavior [we] expect" the other person to know about. Where do you think that standard originates? The pirates didn't bring it with them!!
In his September 19, 1796 Farewell Address to the nation, George Washington stated-- "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars." William McGuffey, author of the McGuffey's Readers, which were the mainstay of America's public school system from 1836 till the 1920's, wrote: "Erase all thought and fear of God from a community, and selfishness and sensuality would absorb the whole man." Where do you think the world is heading today?
I'm "relativley speaking" engaged in several conversations involving Intelligent design, atheism, marriage --all im prtant conversations regarding humanity our origin, and the institutions within. I believe there is a "GOD", that he designed us to have a set of natural laws and conscience, that he provided us with written and oral teachings to help keep us within the bounds of those natural laws, and that he provided for instituions such as marriage for procreation and companionship. All of this in an orderly fashion that just--makes--sense.
I can smell the rotting bodies that those pirates would leave behind in the name of moral relativism. And the stench I hope will bring those professors back to theior senses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)