I'm at a crossroads in my ministry. Many Christians and "non" resent my passion and furor against the unjust and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq--that has managed to uncork Islamism from its bottle.
There is no question in my mind that for the Christian-- history is not an endless cycle of meaningless events going nowhere-- nor the clash of subjective parallel universes which begin and end in the futility of human discourse and language, as the postmodernists would have it.
For the Christian, history is the drama of the clash between good and evil-- between the utilitarian paganism of Pontius Pilate with Rome's {that eternal symbol of pagan decadence and brutal hubris} will to power--and the revelation of all goodness in Jesus Christ, who girded Himself with a towel to wash the feet of the meek and the simple of heart.
For the Christian-- history is the existential unfolding of the inevitable consequences-- {both for individuals and for nations}-- of the moral, philosophical, and political choices which all intersect in human lives and thus in history. Our current clash with Islam is just such an unfolding.
Both good and evil have their own weight. And both will play out in history until their respective fruits are ripened in the fullness of time. Neither mankind nor their elected or appointed leaders can will a victory in this war.
The revelation of "GOD" in Christ, climaxing at the end of history, is not some myth relegated to a shelf of the History of Religions School-- but the revelation of the Creator of all contingent being and the meaning of history itself.
One thing is certain from the Christian revelation-- error must fall of its own weight in time. In Romans 1 & 2 St. Paul says "GOD" withdraws his graces from persons and nations which turn away from His natural and moral laws and who choose instead to behave like {or worse than}-- red-toothed conscienceless animals exercising sheer power and lust over others, and indulging the Seven Deadly Sins {envy, sloth, gluttony, wrath, pride, lust and greed... } as a freemarket index of success.
When "GOD" in judgement withdraws his graces from human beings and nations, the deepest darkness falls on the earth and even the righteous must suffer in consequence. This is why I have counseled a withdrawl from Iraq and a return to the moral teachings of our Savior.
Romans 1:18-25-- "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Isa 5:20
Tremendous choices are ours to make as free beings.Will America or it's individual citizens choose darkness or will the return to the light? I pray the later--but free will will reign.
The fathers-- both in the East and West-- tell us there are three major signs signaling the end of human history. according to scripture and the fathers, they are: 1. The Gospel is preached to all the world 2. Worldwide apostasy from Christian morals and natural law in favor of what John Paul II called "the Antiword," or the enforced inversion of Christian teaching and 3. Wars and rumors of wars and natural disasters on an unprecedented scale culminating in the revelation of Antichrist, whether that is a person or a system of the Antiword.
In light of this understanding of history wherein both good and evil are involved in the most titanic struggle which ever was, but which will crescendo in time, it is up to Christians tocontinue as we are. We cannot turn our heads from our Savior and his teachings simply for the sake of some perverted logic that implies we are traitors or cut and run artists-- if we deny the will of leadership gone astry.
Following our Savior the Lord Jeus Christ means bearing witness to the truth which of necessity involves the prophetic criticism of all powers, earnestly seeking to correct them in good faith, even as we point to and seek to nurture and encourage the residual good which still exists in the world because, as St. Paul says-- "where sin abounds grace does much more abound"-- Romans 5:20. For Christ is the Light which the darkness cannot quench--John 1:3 and the world will never entirely be bereft of His goodness, beauty and truth!
We must turn our backs on unwise counsel that denies goodness and -- continue in the spiritual and corporal works of mercy-- teaching the Sermon on the Mount, peacemaking, calling all to the Eucharist, walking as Jesus the Healer and Good Shepherd, walked--1 John 2:6-- wherein love illuminates the darkness wherever the darkness exists.
Every judgement of "GOD" is intended to be an atonement--[the Hebrew word for both judgement and atonement is the same: kippur]. Cleary it is time for the world to repent, lest great chastisements continue to befall us, in ever increasing intensity--2 Peter 3, Matt 24).
A proper understanding of the Christian view of history lends no support to the bug-eyed bunker mentality of the Bush Doctrine or those who cleave to it in desperation. Quite frankly i am shocked that this President chose the old ways of American diplomacy and warfare when he has proclaimed to all his own born again Christianity.
I have insulted some and chastised others in a vain attempt to interject these thoughts and teachings as of late and all I have to show for it is red ears and frustration. Lest I too loose my good will and humility for ever, I must either continue to shout from the rooftops as I believe my Creator expects or turn away from discussing this topic, wipe my shoes of the collective dust, and remain forever silent to the discourses posted about. How can I maintain humility when I see unfolding the very end times taught in the bible and alluded to by the church bishops? How can I not cry out for the dignity and sancity of life?
Recognizing evil when it unfolds Satans wings and begins to soar, as is presently unfolding in the middle east--and getting this message across to those who resist the very warning signs foretold in the bible is exasperating. Denying my countries leaders their vain ammoral actions cloaked in patriotism has resulted in closed minds and tarnished friendships. I find myself at times so emotionally drained that I can barely but words to sentences and sentences to a paragraph. I'm often reduced to mumbling in print! Enough said. I'm through. I'm spent for a time on this topic. For I have truly said all I can at present. In good faith I have taught and counseled as demanded by my Savior. Forgive me for any ill feelings and distress my discourses have wrought. It has only been in love that I have so fervantly advocated my stance.
As Yodi looks up and cdatches my gaze, I will pray that those meant to heed "GOD'S" message do and that those who don't-- receive what mercy and grace "GOD" bestows on their soul.
I leave the reader with this final thought.
Love will never cease loving. "GOD" is love. As Josef Pieper said so truly-- "We understand nothing about the Antichrist if we do not see him, despite all his power within history, as one who is fundamentally already defeated".
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Anniversary Of The Holocaust
This marks the 33rd anniversary of a death sentence that has now consumed the lives of over 40,000,000 unborn American children.
If you read this story, you will see how the entire effort to legalize abortion "infantcide" in our country was a carefully orchestrated event.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42462
In {Lk 13:25-27} we are reminded that many believe they will enter the gates of heaven and enjoy the company of the Saints and Prophets who share a place at the table with the Lord. But hardly will be the case-- as we know already how much Jesus loves the children and despises those who would harm a single hair on ones head. Or stand as witness but do little or nothing to prevent such harm.
"After the master of the house has arisen and locked the door, then will you stand outside knocking and saying "Lord, open the door for us." He will say to you in reply, "I do not know where you are from ". And you will say , "We ate and drank in your company and you taught in our streets." Then he will say to you, "I do not know where [you] are from. Depart from me, all you evildoers!"
Over 40,000,000 unborn childrens heads have not only had a hair harmed--but they have been wracked with pain as their tiny bodies were torn apart, and discarded as so much garbage.
I come to you through this blog begging that you take up the cross of these children's cause and do all you can to save as many of their precious lives as possible. Offer up different solutions to the women who feel that they must kill their babies because of no other choice. Not only may you save the babies life--but also the eternal lives of the women and yourself. Sitting on the sideline and watching the train wreck without lifting a finger or tongue to help will not get anyone through that narrow needle.
Our Savior spent his mission on earth saving our lives. The least we can do is save the lives he holds most precious in return. Think real hard on this one. Read the linked article several times. And I pray that you will do something to help end all celebrations of this evil anniversary. Find a black arm band and wear it this week. If someone asks you you mourn--speak up.
Yodi will be joining you --wearing a black band around his neck.
If you read this story, you will see how the entire effort to legalize abortion "infantcide" in our country was a carefully orchestrated event.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42462
In {Lk 13:25-27} we are reminded that many believe they will enter the gates of heaven and enjoy the company of the Saints and Prophets who share a place at the table with the Lord. But hardly will be the case-- as we know already how much Jesus loves the children and despises those who would harm a single hair on ones head. Or stand as witness but do little or nothing to prevent such harm.
"After the master of the house has arisen and locked the door, then will you stand outside knocking and saying "Lord, open the door for us." He will say to you in reply, "I do not know where you are from ". And you will say , "We ate and drank in your company and you taught in our streets." Then he will say to you, "I do not know where [you] are from. Depart from me, all you evildoers!"
Over 40,000,000 unborn childrens heads have not only had a hair harmed--but they have been wracked with pain as their tiny bodies were torn apart, and discarded as so much garbage.
I come to you through this blog begging that you take up the cross of these children's cause and do all you can to save as many of their precious lives as possible. Offer up different solutions to the women who feel that they must kill their babies because of no other choice. Not only may you save the babies life--but also the eternal lives of the women and yourself. Sitting on the sideline and watching the train wreck without lifting a finger or tongue to help will not get anyone through that narrow needle.
Our Savior spent his mission on earth saving our lives. The least we can do is save the lives he holds most precious in return. Think real hard on this one. Read the linked article several times. And I pray that you will do something to help end all celebrations of this evil anniversary. Find a black arm band and wear it this week. If someone asks you you mourn--speak up.
Yodi will be joining you --wearing a black band around his neck.
Friday, January 20, 2006
The Catholic Church And the Death Penalty
My recent posts on this subject were intended to be the beginning of a series of posts concerning the sancity and dignity of life--itself. But my posts have brought some response to me in the form of e-mails and comments here, which evolved to the church and its interference with the publics right to execute people under their sovereign secular laws. Or at least that appears to me to be a valid question posed to me.
What does the church {Catholic Church} say about the death penalty? Well actually the thought process has evolved over time as society has evolved. Morality evolves as we humans become more capable of grasping "GOD'S" desire on these subjects.
Concerning capital punishment--the Church has asked whether society may take the life of the guilty? In answering-- the Church has always turned first to what "GOD" reveals to us in Sacred Scripture and Tradition. Yet Scripture alone is not conclusive on the matter. In the Old Testament-- the first murderer's punishment is not death. "GOD" cursed and banished Cain for slaying Abel-- but also threatened a sevenfold vengeance on anyone who harmed him (Gen 4:15). However, when Noah leaves the Ark-- the Lord blesses him and says to him: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for "GOD" made man in his own image."(Gen 9:6).
When "GOD" gives Moses the Ten Commandments, the prohibition against killing is not absolute. The ordinances given to Moses in conjunction with the commandments prescribe death for murderers and others. Despite this-- "GOD" occasionally calls for restraint and mercy. As He says to Ezekiel: "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn back from his ways and live"(Ez 33:11).
Like the Old Testament, the New Testament is not conclusive about capital punishment. On one hand-- Jesus certainly stresses the need to be merciful. Consider the parable of the wheat and the tares (Mt 13:24-30). In this parable, the wheat and the tares represent the righteous and the evildoers. Both are allowed to coexist. Unrepentant evildoers will be punished only at the end of time. The point is that ultimately "GOD" alone punishes grave offenders.
On the other hand-- Jesus seems to tolerate the practice of capital punishment. When Pilate tells Jesus he has the power to release him or have him crucified, Jesus answers: "You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above."(Jn 19:11) Jesus refers only to the divine basis of civil power, and does not judge the morality of capital punishment. Nor does he contradict the good thief crucified next to him: "We are receiving the due reward of our deeds---"(Lk 23:41)
St. Paul addresses the issue of capital punishment in his Letter to the Romans. He writes: "Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer." (Rom 13:3-4, emphasis added) Here St. Paul simply tolerates a ruler's authority to carry out capital punishment, without commenting on its morality. Certainly his toleration need not imply his approval.
Neither does the Church in the post-apostolic age establish a clear consensus regarding capital punishment. The views of this period range from accommodation to limited acceptance to outright prohibition of the practice. St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215) was the first Christian teacher to attempt to devise a theory accommodating capital punishment. He justified his position from the standpoint of self-defense. He suggested that one could become evil beyond any expectation for reform or "cure." In this case the evildoer may be removed by death to prevent further evildoing. He was the first to argue that an evildoer is like an infected limb that plagues the body. If it cannot be cured, the physician (the judge and executioner) must remove it to prevent the infection from harming the rest of the body (society). Others like Tertullian (c.160-220) and Origen (c.185-220) accepted capital punishment as a civil reality-- but condemned Christian participation in it. St. John Chrysostom (349-407) and St. Augustine (354-430) recognized the Christian emperor's "power of the sword," even while they thought its application severe on occasion. Still others like Lactantius (d.317) believed that the Fifth Commandment's prohibition against killing allowed no exceptions, even civil.
By the Middle Ages, Christians widely accepted the civil power's right to put evildoers to death. Even so-- the Church was quick to condition this right. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), for example-- points out that only a public authority may judge and execute a serious offender where the society's defense is at stake, and where the offender's reform is not expected. St. Thomas leaves no room for private vigilantism.
Following St. Thomas, Catholic moral theologians down to our own day continued to qualify the situations where the death penalty may be applied. Eventually, they formulated three general prerequisites:
For the defense of society, only a public authority may impose capital punishment. This condition excludes both individual and mob acts of vengeance.
Capital punishment may be imposed only if it corresponds to the gravity of the crime. In peacetime, capital punishment is chiefly reserved for the crime of murder.
Capital punishment may be imposed only if the accused person's guilt is morally certain. In normal circumstances this means the accused has the right to a fair trial and a reasonable defense.
The Church Asks: Should We?
Up to this point, we have only examined whether-- according to Catholic teaching-- society has the right to impose capital punishment. There is another pertinent question Catholic teaching considers, namely-- "Should society exercise that right?" Those answering in the affirmative traditionally appeal to three arguments:
Capital punishment as retribution. It restores the balance of justice by inflicting punishment in exchange for the harm done to an individual and society. Opponents of this argument criticize it for being vindictive. They argue capital punishment cannot be applied in degrees. Yet a convict's culpability for a capital crime often does admit of degrees.
Capital punishment as deterrence. The threat of death discourages someone from committing heinous acts against individuals and society. Critics dispute the deterrent capability of capital punishment. They say capital punishment may even harden a criminal, who-- to avoid arrest and the prospect of execution-- is driven to further acts of desperation. Nor will capital punishment effectively deter murders committed "in the heat of passion"--or by the mentally ill or those under the influence of drugs. Finally, critics wonder how executions performed in the presence of just a few witnesses can publicly deter potential wrongdoers.
Capital punishment as reform. The threat of imminent death can spur the conversion and repentance of the convicted-- aptly preparing him or her for the next life. Yet, execution poignantly eliminates a converted criminal's period of earthly grace and penitence-- since one's lifetime is the only period of "probation" one can enjoy.
Authoritative Catholic teaching draws upon all that has been discussed thus far. It distinguishes between society's right to inflict capital punishment-- and the need to do so. While the Church does not deny the death penalty's proper legitimacy under certain conditions, she does oppose its modern application, given the particular circumstances of our culture.
Various national conferences of Catholic bishops have defended this teaching. The U.S. bishops have observed how the abolition of capital punishment would reaffirm the Church's teaching on "the unique worth and dignity of each human person from the moment of conception, a creature made in the image and likeness of God" (U.S. Bishops Statement on Capital Punishment, Nov. 1980). Along this line, the Filipino bishops have rejected the classic notion comparing a criminal execution to the removal of a diseased organ. They note that a "human being is not only a member of society as an organ is a member of a living body---". A human being has a value in himself/herself and is not---.a limb or organ---." ("Restoring the Death Penalty: 'A Backward Step,'" Catholic International, 15-31 Oct. 1992, Vol. 3 No. 18, pp. 886-887).
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, published during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II-- remains a definitive source of recent authoritative Catholic teaching on capital punishment. It states that the "defense of the common good requires that the unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm"(CCC 2266). The Catechism is clear about what this implies: "Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor" (CCC 2267).
Thus-- the right of civil society to inflict the death penalty is affirmed. In explaining the right, however-- the Catechism adds an important caveat: "If...non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person" (CCC 2267).
Papal teaching also plays a most instructive role in elaborating Catholic teaching on capital punishment. In Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul writes:
The nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: In other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare if not practically nonexistent (Evangelium Vitae, 56, emphasis added).
According to the Holy Father, a society's inability to protect itself by any other means is the determining factor in the decision to execute a criminal. Since our society can remove those guilty of serious offenses by means of life imprisonment, the Holy Father judges as negligible society's need to use the death penalty. Inflicting capital punishment when it is not necessary would transgress Catholic teaching. The pope's opposition to the use of the death penalty is therefore a legitimate exercise of his pastoral leadership as the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Finally-- Catholic teaching on capital punishment is an opportunity to examine our own attitudes. While we must show compassion for the victims of crime and support society's legitimate and just self-defense-- in Christ we are not free to direct revenge or hate toward anyone. This includes those guilty of criminal wrongdoing. To aid the new evangelization in the new millennium-- we must take the words of the American bishops' 1999 Good Friday Appeal to End the Death Penalty to heart:
Increasing reliance on the death penalty diminishes all of us and is a sign of growing disrespect for human life. We cannot overcome crime by simply executing criminals, nor can we restore the lives of the innocent by ending the lives of those convicted of their murders. The death penalty offers the tragic illusion that we can defend life by taking life--. Through education, through advocacy, and through prayer and contemplation on the life of Jesus-- we must commit ourselves to a persistent and principled witness against the death penalty-- against a culture of death, and for the Gospel of Life.
In my orginal post on this subject which did not include nor consider my church's position, I gave my own thoughts on this subject, as I do on all matters of life. I--after decades of thought and study have determined that it is best to always defer to life. That "GOD" is the ultimate judge and keeper of life and death. but i felt it is important to include this post from my soapbox --so that the subject can be contemplated from not only my point of view--but my church's point of view as well.
And it is now time for me to stumble off to bed and see if Yodi has left me any room for my weary body. He decided to take advantage of my late night musings to grab as much covers as possible.
Blessings my friends--
What does the church {Catholic Church} say about the death penalty? Well actually the thought process has evolved over time as society has evolved. Morality evolves as we humans become more capable of grasping "GOD'S" desire on these subjects.
Concerning capital punishment--the Church has asked whether society may take the life of the guilty? In answering-- the Church has always turned first to what "GOD" reveals to us in Sacred Scripture and Tradition. Yet Scripture alone is not conclusive on the matter. In the Old Testament-- the first murderer's punishment is not death. "GOD" cursed and banished Cain for slaying Abel-- but also threatened a sevenfold vengeance on anyone who harmed him (Gen 4:15). However, when Noah leaves the Ark-- the Lord blesses him and says to him: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for "GOD" made man in his own image."(Gen 9:6).
When "GOD" gives Moses the Ten Commandments, the prohibition against killing is not absolute. The ordinances given to Moses in conjunction with the commandments prescribe death for murderers and others. Despite this-- "GOD" occasionally calls for restraint and mercy. As He says to Ezekiel: "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn back from his ways and live"(Ez 33:11).
Like the Old Testament, the New Testament is not conclusive about capital punishment. On one hand-- Jesus certainly stresses the need to be merciful. Consider the parable of the wheat and the tares (Mt 13:24-30). In this parable, the wheat and the tares represent the righteous and the evildoers. Both are allowed to coexist. Unrepentant evildoers will be punished only at the end of time. The point is that ultimately "GOD" alone punishes grave offenders.
On the other hand-- Jesus seems to tolerate the practice of capital punishment. When Pilate tells Jesus he has the power to release him or have him crucified, Jesus answers: "You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above."(Jn 19:11) Jesus refers only to the divine basis of civil power, and does not judge the morality of capital punishment. Nor does he contradict the good thief crucified next to him: "We are receiving the due reward of our deeds---"(Lk 23:41)
St. Paul addresses the issue of capital punishment in his Letter to the Romans. He writes: "Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer." (Rom 13:3-4, emphasis added) Here St. Paul simply tolerates a ruler's authority to carry out capital punishment, without commenting on its morality. Certainly his toleration need not imply his approval.
Neither does the Church in the post-apostolic age establish a clear consensus regarding capital punishment. The views of this period range from accommodation to limited acceptance to outright prohibition of the practice. St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215) was the first Christian teacher to attempt to devise a theory accommodating capital punishment. He justified his position from the standpoint of self-defense. He suggested that one could become evil beyond any expectation for reform or "cure." In this case the evildoer may be removed by death to prevent further evildoing. He was the first to argue that an evildoer is like an infected limb that plagues the body. If it cannot be cured, the physician (the judge and executioner) must remove it to prevent the infection from harming the rest of the body (society). Others like Tertullian (c.160-220) and Origen (c.185-220) accepted capital punishment as a civil reality-- but condemned Christian participation in it. St. John Chrysostom (349-407) and St. Augustine (354-430) recognized the Christian emperor's "power of the sword," even while they thought its application severe on occasion. Still others like Lactantius (d.317) believed that the Fifth Commandment's prohibition against killing allowed no exceptions, even civil.
By the Middle Ages, Christians widely accepted the civil power's right to put evildoers to death. Even so-- the Church was quick to condition this right. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), for example-- points out that only a public authority may judge and execute a serious offender where the society's defense is at stake, and where the offender's reform is not expected. St. Thomas leaves no room for private vigilantism.
Following St. Thomas, Catholic moral theologians down to our own day continued to qualify the situations where the death penalty may be applied. Eventually, they formulated three general prerequisites:
For the defense of society, only a public authority may impose capital punishment. This condition excludes both individual and mob acts of vengeance.
Capital punishment may be imposed only if it corresponds to the gravity of the crime. In peacetime, capital punishment is chiefly reserved for the crime of murder.
Capital punishment may be imposed only if the accused person's guilt is morally certain. In normal circumstances this means the accused has the right to a fair trial and a reasonable defense.
The Church Asks: Should We?
Up to this point, we have only examined whether-- according to Catholic teaching-- society has the right to impose capital punishment. There is another pertinent question Catholic teaching considers, namely-- "Should society exercise that right?" Those answering in the affirmative traditionally appeal to three arguments:
Capital punishment as retribution. It restores the balance of justice by inflicting punishment in exchange for the harm done to an individual and society. Opponents of this argument criticize it for being vindictive. They argue capital punishment cannot be applied in degrees. Yet a convict's culpability for a capital crime often does admit of degrees.
Capital punishment as deterrence. The threat of death discourages someone from committing heinous acts against individuals and society. Critics dispute the deterrent capability of capital punishment. They say capital punishment may even harden a criminal, who-- to avoid arrest and the prospect of execution-- is driven to further acts of desperation. Nor will capital punishment effectively deter murders committed "in the heat of passion"--or by the mentally ill or those under the influence of drugs. Finally, critics wonder how executions performed in the presence of just a few witnesses can publicly deter potential wrongdoers.
Capital punishment as reform. The threat of imminent death can spur the conversion and repentance of the convicted-- aptly preparing him or her for the next life. Yet, execution poignantly eliminates a converted criminal's period of earthly grace and penitence-- since one's lifetime is the only period of "probation" one can enjoy.
Authoritative Catholic teaching draws upon all that has been discussed thus far. It distinguishes between society's right to inflict capital punishment-- and the need to do so. While the Church does not deny the death penalty's proper legitimacy under certain conditions, she does oppose its modern application, given the particular circumstances of our culture.
Various national conferences of Catholic bishops have defended this teaching. The U.S. bishops have observed how the abolition of capital punishment would reaffirm the Church's teaching on "the unique worth and dignity of each human person from the moment of conception, a creature made in the image and likeness of God" (U.S. Bishops Statement on Capital Punishment, Nov. 1980). Along this line, the Filipino bishops have rejected the classic notion comparing a criminal execution to the removal of a diseased organ. They note that a "human being is not only a member of society as an organ is a member of a living body---". A human being has a value in himself/herself and is not---.a limb or organ---." ("Restoring the Death Penalty: 'A Backward Step,'" Catholic International, 15-31 Oct. 1992, Vol. 3 No. 18, pp. 886-887).
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, published during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II-- remains a definitive source of recent authoritative Catholic teaching on capital punishment. It states that the "defense of the common good requires that the unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm"(CCC 2266). The Catechism is clear about what this implies: "Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor" (CCC 2267).
Thus-- the right of civil society to inflict the death penalty is affirmed. In explaining the right, however-- the Catechism adds an important caveat: "If...non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person" (CCC 2267).
Papal teaching also plays a most instructive role in elaborating Catholic teaching on capital punishment. In Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul writes:
The nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: In other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare if not practically nonexistent (Evangelium Vitae, 56, emphasis added).
According to the Holy Father, a society's inability to protect itself by any other means is the determining factor in the decision to execute a criminal. Since our society can remove those guilty of serious offenses by means of life imprisonment, the Holy Father judges as negligible society's need to use the death penalty. Inflicting capital punishment when it is not necessary would transgress Catholic teaching. The pope's opposition to the use of the death penalty is therefore a legitimate exercise of his pastoral leadership as the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Finally-- Catholic teaching on capital punishment is an opportunity to examine our own attitudes. While we must show compassion for the victims of crime and support society's legitimate and just self-defense-- in Christ we are not free to direct revenge or hate toward anyone. This includes those guilty of criminal wrongdoing. To aid the new evangelization in the new millennium-- we must take the words of the American bishops' 1999 Good Friday Appeal to End the Death Penalty to heart:
Increasing reliance on the death penalty diminishes all of us and is a sign of growing disrespect for human life. We cannot overcome crime by simply executing criminals, nor can we restore the lives of the innocent by ending the lives of those convicted of their murders. The death penalty offers the tragic illusion that we can defend life by taking life--. Through education, through advocacy, and through prayer and contemplation on the life of Jesus-- we must commit ourselves to a persistent and principled witness against the death penalty-- against a culture of death, and for the Gospel of Life.
In my orginal post on this subject which did not include nor consider my church's position, I gave my own thoughts on this subject, as I do on all matters of life. I--after decades of thought and study have determined that it is best to always defer to life. That "GOD" is the ultimate judge and keeper of life and death. but i felt it is important to include this post from my soapbox --so that the subject can be contemplated from not only my point of view--but my church's point of view as well.
And it is now time for me to stumble off to bed and see if Yodi has left me any room for my weary body. He decided to take advantage of my late night musings to grab as much covers as possible.
Blessings my friends--
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
The Death Penalty ---Some Answers To The Readers Comments
I have had some e-mails and PM's regarding yesterdays blog concerning captital punishment. The one comment left here brings up the arena of the Holy bible and questions whether i believe "GOD" is a sinner or whether Paul covered this topic in detail.
So the question at hand would be--how can the Bible enlighten this profound dilemma?
Often we hear the Bible quoted as a justification for capital punishment: "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth" (from Leviticus 24:20; also Exodus 21:24). This follows a more direct passage: "Whoever takes the life of any human being shall be put to death" (Leviticus 24:17).
Numerous problems, however, arise from such an appeal to Scripture. Those who emphasize these passages conveniently ignore other similar passages in which death is decreed for one who works on the sabbath (Exodus 31:15) or for one who curses one's parent (Exodus 21:17) or even for a rebellious teenager (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).
More significant problems exist, including the proper understanding and interpretation of both texts and contexts. The well-known "eye for eye" passage was originally intended to limit violence by reducing the escalation of violence. In {Matthew 5:38-42}, Jesus disallows even that limited violence. This example reminds us that culture and historical setting influenced the biblical texts and that some biblical passages reflect an earlier moral perspective no longer acceptable.
Let us take another biblical passage that all of us are intimately familiar with. It is commonly referred to as "The Lords Prayer". It is found in Matthew 6 and let us dwell on verse 12--"and forgive us our depts as we forgive our deptors". what was our Lord thinking when he said that? To forgive! Yes--our Lord Jesus christ taught forgiveness throughout his life. Turn now to {Mark 10:45}. Jesus himself states that he has not come to be served but to give his life for the ransom of many. Once again his teaching concerns forgiveness.
My church has spoken out repeatedly against the death penalty--but in actuality nobody can speak for you or me when it comes to our personal values and application of faith in our daily lives. I personally believe in the dignity and value of the human life. It is why I so object to wars between nations and why I object to socities war against the individual who commits crimes and end up executed at the hands of society. I have chosen to emulate my Lord Jesus Christ in my life to the best of my ability. This requires that I respect the sancity of life--not because my church or others insist--but because I follow the example of my Savior. I must drop everything of human nature and take on the aspects of divine traits if I am to follow him as he commanded. Love, forgiveness, turning my cheek, humility, compassion, wisdom, and understanding are all traits that lead to divine justice here on earth.
I know that I can find passages within scripture to justify evil as well as good. Evil in the sense of taking anothers life for revenge sake cloaked however I may to resemble punishment. I will leave the punishment of death to "GOD" while living and teaching my Saviors Beatitudes found in Matthew 5 and remembering the parable of the weeds in {Matthew 13:24-30}. I recognize that evil exists and I'm content in removing those expressing it to prison and allowing "GOD" to separate the weeds at harvest time.
This is an emotional topic Yodi, but I do believe that Love and Forgiveness will win in the end. By the wagging tail it appears you agree.
So the question at hand would be--how can the Bible enlighten this profound dilemma?
Often we hear the Bible quoted as a justification for capital punishment: "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth" (from Leviticus 24:20; also Exodus 21:24). This follows a more direct passage: "Whoever takes the life of any human being shall be put to death" (Leviticus 24:17).
Numerous problems, however, arise from such an appeal to Scripture. Those who emphasize these passages conveniently ignore other similar passages in which death is decreed for one who works on the sabbath (Exodus 31:15) or for one who curses one's parent (Exodus 21:17) or even for a rebellious teenager (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).
More significant problems exist, including the proper understanding and interpretation of both texts and contexts. The well-known "eye for eye" passage was originally intended to limit violence by reducing the escalation of violence. In {Matthew 5:38-42}, Jesus disallows even that limited violence. This example reminds us that culture and historical setting influenced the biblical texts and that some biblical passages reflect an earlier moral perspective no longer acceptable.
Let us take another biblical passage that all of us are intimately familiar with. It is commonly referred to as "The Lords Prayer". It is found in Matthew 6 and let us dwell on verse 12--"and forgive us our depts as we forgive our deptors". what was our Lord thinking when he said that? To forgive! Yes--our Lord Jesus christ taught forgiveness throughout his life. Turn now to {Mark 10:45}. Jesus himself states that he has not come to be served but to give his life for the ransom of many. Once again his teaching concerns forgiveness.
My church has spoken out repeatedly against the death penalty--but in actuality nobody can speak for you or me when it comes to our personal values and application of faith in our daily lives. I personally believe in the dignity and value of the human life. It is why I so object to wars between nations and why I object to socities war against the individual who commits crimes and end up executed at the hands of society. I have chosen to emulate my Lord Jesus Christ in my life to the best of my ability. This requires that I respect the sancity of life--not because my church or others insist--but because I follow the example of my Savior. I must drop everything of human nature and take on the aspects of divine traits if I am to follow him as he commanded. Love, forgiveness, turning my cheek, humility, compassion, wisdom, and understanding are all traits that lead to divine justice here on earth.
I know that I can find passages within scripture to justify evil as well as good. Evil in the sense of taking anothers life for revenge sake cloaked however I may to resemble punishment. I will leave the punishment of death to "GOD" while living and teaching my Saviors Beatitudes found in Matthew 5 and remembering the parable of the weeds in {Matthew 13:24-30}. I recognize that evil exists and I'm content in removing those expressing it to prison and allowing "GOD" to separate the weeds at harvest time.
This is an emotional topic Yodi, but I do believe that Love and Forgiveness will win in the end. By the wagging tail it appears you agree.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Death Penalty---Justice Or Revenge?
California coreection authorities executed a blind, deaf, wheelchair bound prisoner by the name of Clarence Ray Allen. If anything proves that the death penalty is a monumental error on the part of our society it is this case.
Yes--He was convicted of horrible crimes. Yes--be was not a model example of human behavior. Yes--anytime a person is murdered it causes a hole in the victims family along with much grief and sorrow. Is grief and sorrow a reason for revenge? I don't believe they are.
As a society we need penal institutions to protect us from those who would prey on us and harm us. We need to have the ability to separate out those incapable of conforming to just laws of human behavior. Sometimes a stint in the pokey will be enough for a person to re-habilitate themselves. Nobody and no system can do this for a person. All behavior changes come from within.
There are some like Mr. Allen who commit savage and brutal attacks which require special attention. We have the modern means to remove them forever from society and eliminate their ability forever to afflict others with more harm.
Taking their lives however is not a just or moral action. Many probably feel like wringing the neck of a person who causes so much grief. This anger however-- if reduced to legal action through legislative laws can morph into the same type of activity with which Mr. Allen stands guilty of. Murder. The willfull taking of anothers life.
Life belongs to "GOD". He breathes us each into life and he takes this life back at in his own time. We live this life and all its laughter and sorrow from beginning to end. We must deal with grief as well as we do with happiness. They are both parts of the human experience--lifes mystery. Suffering and murder are a part of this fallen state we live in. We must learn to deal with it. And in the case of people like Mr. Allen--putting him permanently away where he can ponder his crimes, rehabilitate or not his own being, and await his final judgement is moral and just. Certainly Mr. allen was not a threat to human life yesterday while confined to his wheelchair unable to see or hear.
Executing Mr. Allen did not remove a threat nor fill the hole created by his actions. Instead it now made us all agents of revenge. Revenge itself is a grievious sin. So now we get to deal the sin society has visited us each with. The sin of taking anothers life. I don't know what "GOD" will say to me over Mr. Allens death. Or the death of so many more executed prisoners. But I feel he will view it as a failure on my part and yours to deal with lifes mystery of grief and angerby intruding into his domain of life and death.
Justice is taking legal action to prevent a person from continuing illegal activity through fines and incarceration. Revenge accomplishes none of this. Revenge is a sin.
OK Yodi, help me pull in the soapbox and we can now go for a walk.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calif. Executes Oldest Death Row Inmate
SAN QUENTIN, Calif. (AP) - California executed its oldest death row inmate early Tuesday, minutes after his 76th birthday, despite arguments that putting to death an elderly, blind and wheelchair-bound man was cruel and unusual punishment.
Clarence Ray Allen was pronounced dead at 12:38 a.m. at San Quentin State Prison. He became the second-oldest inmate put to death nationally since the Supreme Court allowed capital punishment to resume in 1976.
Allen, who was blind and mostly deaf, suffered from diabetes and had a nearly fatal heart attack in September only to be revived and returned to death row, was assisted into the death chamber by four large correctional officers and lifted out of his wheelchair.
His lawyers had raised two claims never before endorsed by the high court: that executing a frail old man would violate the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, and that the 23 years he spent on death row were unconstitutionally cruel as well.
(AP) Death penalty opponent Linda Avalos gives the peace sign as she holds a sign in front of San...
Full Image
The high court rejected his requests for a stay of execution about 10 hours before he was to be put to death. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger denied Allen clemency Friday.
Allen went to prison for having his teenage son's 17-year-old girlfriend murdered for fear she would tell police about a grocery-store burglary. While behind bars, he tried to have witnesses in the case wiped out, prosecutors said. He was sentenced to death in 1982 for hiring a hit man who killed a witness and two bystanders.
"Allen deserves capital punishment because he was already serving a life sentence for murder when he masterminded the murders of three innocent young people and conspired to attack the heart of our criminal justice system," state prosecutor Ward Campbell said.
Allen expressed his love for family, friends and the other death-row inmates in a final statement read by Warden Steve Ornoski. Allen ended his statement by saying, "It's a good day to die. Thank you very much. I love you all. Goodbye."
The family of one of Allen's victims, Josephine Rocha, issued a statement saying that "justice has prevailed today."
"Mr. Allen abused the justice system with endless appeals until he lived longer in prison than the short 17 years of Josephine's life," the statement said.
Last month in Mississippi, John B. Nixon, 77, became the oldest person executed in the United States since capital punishment resumed. He did not pursue an appeal based on his age.
Allen's case generated less attention than last month's execution of Crips gang co-founder Stanley Tookie Williams, whose case set off a nationwide debate over the possibility of redemption on death row, with Hollywood stars and capital punishment foes arguing that Williams had made amends by writing children's books about the dangers of gangs.
There were only about 200 people gathered outside the prison gates before Allen's execution, about one-tenth of the crowd that came out last month.
Yes--He was convicted of horrible crimes. Yes--be was not a model example of human behavior. Yes--anytime a person is murdered it causes a hole in the victims family along with much grief and sorrow. Is grief and sorrow a reason for revenge? I don't believe they are.
As a society we need penal institutions to protect us from those who would prey on us and harm us. We need to have the ability to separate out those incapable of conforming to just laws of human behavior. Sometimes a stint in the pokey will be enough for a person to re-habilitate themselves. Nobody and no system can do this for a person. All behavior changes come from within.
There are some like Mr. Allen who commit savage and brutal attacks which require special attention. We have the modern means to remove them forever from society and eliminate their ability forever to afflict others with more harm.
Taking their lives however is not a just or moral action. Many probably feel like wringing the neck of a person who causes so much grief. This anger however-- if reduced to legal action through legislative laws can morph into the same type of activity with which Mr. Allen stands guilty of. Murder. The willfull taking of anothers life.
Life belongs to "GOD". He breathes us each into life and he takes this life back at in his own time. We live this life and all its laughter and sorrow from beginning to end. We must deal with grief as well as we do with happiness. They are both parts of the human experience--lifes mystery. Suffering and murder are a part of this fallen state we live in. We must learn to deal with it. And in the case of people like Mr. Allen--putting him permanently away where he can ponder his crimes, rehabilitate or not his own being, and await his final judgement is moral and just. Certainly Mr. allen was not a threat to human life yesterday while confined to his wheelchair unable to see or hear.
Executing Mr. Allen did not remove a threat nor fill the hole created by his actions. Instead it now made us all agents of revenge. Revenge itself is a grievious sin. So now we get to deal the sin society has visited us each with. The sin of taking anothers life. I don't know what "GOD" will say to me over Mr. Allens death. Or the death of so many more executed prisoners. But I feel he will view it as a failure on my part and yours to deal with lifes mystery of grief and angerby intruding into his domain of life and death.
Justice is taking legal action to prevent a person from continuing illegal activity through fines and incarceration. Revenge accomplishes none of this. Revenge is a sin.
OK Yodi, help me pull in the soapbox and we can now go for a walk.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calif. Executes Oldest Death Row Inmate
SAN QUENTIN, Calif. (AP) - California executed its oldest death row inmate early Tuesday, minutes after his 76th birthday, despite arguments that putting to death an elderly, blind and wheelchair-bound man was cruel and unusual punishment.
Clarence Ray Allen was pronounced dead at 12:38 a.m. at San Quentin State Prison. He became the second-oldest inmate put to death nationally since the Supreme Court allowed capital punishment to resume in 1976.
Allen, who was blind and mostly deaf, suffered from diabetes and had a nearly fatal heart attack in September only to be revived and returned to death row, was assisted into the death chamber by four large correctional officers and lifted out of his wheelchair.
His lawyers had raised two claims never before endorsed by the high court: that executing a frail old man would violate the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, and that the 23 years he spent on death row were unconstitutionally cruel as well.
(AP) Death penalty opponent Linda Avalos gives the peace sign as she holds a sign in front of San...
Full Image
The high court rejected his requests for a stay of execution about 10 hours before he was to be put to death. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger denied Allen clemency Friday.
Allen went to prison for having his teenage son's 17-year-old girlfriend murdered for fear she would tell police about a grocery-store burglary. While behind bars, he tried to have witnesses in the case wiped out, prosecutors said. He was sentenced to death in 1982 for hiring a hit man who killed a witness and two bystanders.
"Allen deserves capital punishment because he was already serving a life sentence for murder when he masterminded the murders of three innocent young people and conspired to attack the heart of our criminal justice system," state prosecutor Ward Campbell said.
Allen expressed his love for family, friends and the other death-row inmates in a final statement read by Warden Steve Ornoski. Allen ended his statement by saying, "It's a good day to die. Thank you very much. I love you all. Goodbye."
The family of one of Allen's victims, Josephine Rocha, issued a statement saying that "justice has prevailed today."
"Mr. Allen abused the justice system with endless appeals until he lived longer in prison than the short 17 years of Josephine's life," the statement said.
Last month in Mississippi, John B. Nixon, 77, became the oldest person executed in the United States since capital punishment resumed. He did not pursue an appeal based on his age.
Allen's case generated less attention than last month's execution of Crips gang co-founder Stanley Tookie Williams, whose case set off a nationwide debate over the possibility of redemption on death row, with Hollywood stars and capital punishment foes arguing that Williams had made amends by writing children's books about the dangers of gangs.
There were only about 200 people gathered outside the prison gates before Allen's execution, about one-tenth of the crowd that came out last month.
Monday, January 09, 2006
------"so help me God"
Finally something happened to inspire me to add a few words to this blog.
Today I spent time listening too and watching the beginning Senate confirmation hearings for Sam Alito to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court
Just after the Senators had given their opening remarks and as Mr. alito was about to sit down and begin his opening remarks--he was stopped in his tracks by the Senator in charge of the proceedings. Why? Well because the oath of truth had not been given to Mr. Alito.
With all the warnings I had just been given by some Senate Democrats concerning seperation of church and state, not a peep of protest did I hear when these words were given while Sam Alito stood with his right hand raised.
"DO YOU PROMISE TO TELL THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SO HELP YOU---"GOD"
Yes, before Sam Alito could testify at all he had to swear to tell the truth with the assistance of "GOD"
How is that Yodi for a twist to todays events?
Today I spent time listening too and watching the beginning Senate confirmation hearings for Sam Alito to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court
Just after the Senators had given their opening remarks and as Mr. alito was about to sit down and begin his opening remarks--he was stopped in his tracks by the Senator in charge of the proceedings. Why? Well because the oath of truth had not been given to Mr. Alito.
With all the warnings I had just been given by some Senate Democrats concerning seperation of church and state, not a peep of protest did I hear when these words were given while Sam Alito stood with his right hand raised.
"DO YOU PROMISE TO TELL THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SO HELP YOU---"GOD"
Yes, before Sam Alito could testify at all he had to swear to tell the truth with the assistance of "GOD"
How is that Yodi for a twist to todays events?
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Americans Desreve Better Politicians In Washington?
In a recent article titled "Americans Deserve Better Politicians In Washington, Dr. Thomas Sowell, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute suggested that we pay our Congressmen and Senators a million dollars a year in salary. Why? Because according to him we deserve a lot better people in Congress than what we have.
He goes on to say that:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
"The cost of paying every member of Congress a million dollars a year is absolutely trivial compared to the vast amounts of the taxpayers' money wasted by cheap politicians doing things to get themselves re-elected"
And he says:
quote:
"The cost of paying every member of Congress a million dollars a year is absolutely trivial compared to the vast amounts of the taxpayers' money wasted by cheap politicians doing things to get themselves re-elected"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The real problem we have in our elected politics is not corruption--it is the demise of the concept of "service" as a worthy ideal in our society. We have become a self serving and self obsorbed population. And our elected politicians mirror this back to us by their self centered actions. Unless we are willing to pad their pocket books, we don't have a voice in our "elects" agenda. I recently read where one high ranking congressman from California was caught accepting bribes. He had been a former war hero and had gained the publics trust. With tear filled eyes he stood before news camaras aplogizing for his mis-deeds. One has to wonder how many of those tears were actually being shed because he had been caught not because he was sorry and repentant.
George Washington, who took pride in his self-control, lost his temper completely when someone told him that a decision he was going to make could cost him re-election as President. He blew up at the suggestion that he wanted to be President, rather than serving as a duty when he would rather be back home.
Power is such a dangerous thing that ideally it should be wielded by people who don't want to use power, who would rather be doing something else, but who are willing to serve a certain number of years as a one-time duty, preferably at the end of a career doing something else.
Yes--Yodi, I'm afraid we are stuck with what we have until we change the image in the mirror of what society looks like. Until then, we will reap what we sowed.
He goes on to say that:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
"The cost of paying every member of Congress a million dollars a year is absolutely trivial compared to the vast amounts of the taxpayers' money wasted by cheap politicians doing things to get themselves re-elected"
And he says:
quote:
"The cost of paying every member of Congress a million dollars a year is absolutely trivial compared to the vast amounts of the taxpayers' money wasted by cheap politicians doing things to get themselves re-elected"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The real problem we have in our elected politics is not corruption--it is the demise of the concept of "service" as a worthy ideal in our society. We have become a self serving and self obsorbed population. And our elected politicians mirror this back to us by their self centered actions. Unless we are willing to pad their pocket books, we don't have a voice in our "elects" agenda. I recently read where one high ranking congressman from California was caught accepting bribes. He had been a former war hero and had gained the publics trust. With tear filled eyes he stood before news camaras aplogizing for his mis-deeds. One has to wonder how many of those tears were actually being shed because he had been caught not because he was sorry and repentant.
George Washington, who took pride in his self-control, lost his temper completely when someone told him that a decision he was going to make could cost him re-election as President. He blew up at the suggestion that he wanted to be President, rather than serving as a duty when he would rather be back home.
Power is such a dangerous thing that ideally it should be wielded by people who don't want to use power, who would rather be doing something else, but who are willing to serve a certain number of years as a one-time duty, preferably at the end of a career doing something else.
Yes--Yodi, I'm afraid we are stuck with what we have until we change the image in the mirror of what society looks like. Until then, we will reap what we sowed.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Remaining Firm In The Face of Temptation
In times of stress we learn how loyal we are to our personal integrity. Are we willing to abandon our faith and moral values for the gratification of others or our mental and physical needs?
Stress plays out for me than it does for others. We all have had life experiences which we can blame for the failure to live up to our own values.This failure which involve the lowering of our standards may result in a relief grom the tension brought on by the stress but will result in a damaged character and tear in the fabric of our soul.
Faith, moral values, character, and soul make up who we are. It is the imprint we bring to the terestrial environment--our temporary home.
There will be an abundance of situations in our lives where stress will tempt us to choose the easy way out. to abandonwho we are in favor of temporary relief. We must always consult our conscience for guidance. It is the compass that guides us toward righteous behavior. Pray that this compass sings out so loudly that all voices of dissent are drowned out while allowing for the voice of "GOD" to win the day.
That's right Yodi, always stay the course.
Stress plays out for me than it does for others. We all have had life experiences which we can blame for the failure to live up to our own values.This failure which involve the lowering of our standards may result in a relief grom the tension brought on by the stress but will result in a damaged character and tear in the fabric of our soul.
Faith, moral values, character, and soul make up who we are. It is the imprint we bring to the terestrial environment--our temporary home.
There will be an abundance of situations in our lives where stress will tempt us to choose the easy way out. to abandonwho we are in favor of temporary relief. We must always consult our conscience for guidance. It is the compass that guides us toward righteous behavior. Pray that this compass sings out so loudly that all voices of dissent are drowned out while allowing for the voice of "GOD" to win the day.
That's right Yodi, always stay the course.
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Medical researchers make me sick!
Here we go again. Another diet myth exposed and one has to wonder what next is on the list that will soon be proven false.
The belief that a high-fibre diet will keep your colon healthy and cancer-free -- a popular medical theory since the 1960s -- does not appear to be correct, according to a new study.
Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health, who analyzed a number of long-term studies on the issue, said they "could not find support" for the notion that the risk of colorectal cancer is reduced by regular consumption of fibre.
Still-- they said there are plenty of good reasons to eat the recommended five to 10 servings daily of fruits and veggies-- along with plenty of whole grains.
"It's still important to eat a high-fibre diet," said Yikyung Park, a postdoctoral fellow at the U.S. National Cancer Institute in Washington and a member of the team whose research is published in today's edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
"Even though our study didn't find a reduction in colorectal cancer, other studies show that high-fibre diets reduce the risk of heart disease and diabetes."
Other researchers also cautioned that this is far from the final word on the topic.
From as far back as I can remember, medical scientists have been telling me to quit eating my favorite foods for health benefits. Hey--I'm all in favor of doing what is right if it means I can get a few more miles out of this carcass. But---and it is a "big but"--I'm getting a little annoyed when one of these proven dietary links to disease becomes dis-proven.
Bacon, cows milk, coffee, tea, beef, catsop, butter, alcohol, cigars, and fast food have all been favorites of mine over the years. Why? Because they taste good and I like to eat what tastes good.
So now the researchers are telling me that all the fiber that I have choked down was for naught. I hate rabbit food but felt my colon needed it in abundance.
I'm going to pledge right now to eat exactly what I want and when i want it for the rest of my natural life. And I'm also letting Yodi do the same.
Please pass the capsop and I think I will have another cup of coffee--and a donut too. And anybody that doesn't agree--? I'll eat your donuts too!
The belief that a high-fibre diet will keep your colon healthy and cancer-free -- a popular medical theory since the 1960s -- does not appear to be correct, according to a new study.
Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health, who analyzed a number of long-term studies on the issue, said they "could not find support" for the notion that the risk of colorectal cancer is reduced by regular consumption of fibre.
Still-- they said there are plenty of good reasons to eat the recommended five to 10 servings daily of fruits and veggies-- along with plenty of whole grains.
"It's still important to eat a high-fibre diet," said Yikyung Park, a postdoctoral fellow at the U.S. National Cancer Institute in Washington and a member of the team whose research is published in today's edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
"Even though our study didn't find a reduction in colorectal cancer, other studies show that high-fibre diets reduce the risk of heart disease and diabetes."
Other researchers also cautioned that this is far from the final word on the topic.
From as far back as I can remember, medical scientists have been telling me to quit eating my favorite foods for health benefits. Hey--I'm all in favor of doing what is right if it means I can get a few more miles out of this carcass. But---and it is a "big but"--I'm getting a little annoyed when one of these proven dietary links to disease becomes dis-proven.
Bacon, cows milk, coffee, tea, beef, catsop, butter, alcohol, cigars, and fast food have all been favorites of mine over the years. Why? Because they taste good and I like to eat what tastes good.
So now the researchers are telling me that all the fiber that I have choked down was for naught. I hate rabbit food but felt my colon needed it in abundance.
I'm going to pledge right now to eat exactly what I want and when i want it for the rest of my natural life. And I'm also letting Yodi do the same.
Please pass the capsop and I think I will have another cup of coffee--and a donut too. And anybody that doesn't agree--? I'll eat your donuts too!
Medical researchers make me sick!
Here we go again. Another diet myth exposed and one has to wonder what next is on the list that will soon be proven false.
The belief that a high-fibre diet will keep your colon healthy and cancer-free -- a popular medical theory since the 1960s -- does not appear to be correct, according to a new study.
Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health, who analyzed a number of long-term studies on the issue, said they "could not find support" for the notion that the risk of colorectal cancer is reduced by regular consumption of fibre.
Still-- they said there are plenty of good reasons to eat the recommended five to 10 servings daily of fruits and veggies-- along with plenty of whole grains.
"It's still important to eat a high-fibre diet," said Yikyung Park, a postdoctoral fellow at the U.S. National Cancer Institute in Washington and a member of the team whose research is published in today's edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
"Even though our study didn't find a reduction in colorectal cancer, other studies show that high-fibre diets reduce the risk of heart disease and diabetes."
Other researchers also cautioned that this is far from the final word on the topic.
From as far back as I can remember, medical scientists have been telling me to quit eating my favorite foods for health benefits. Hey--I'm all in favor of doing what is right if it means I can get a few more miles out of this carcass. But---and it is a "big but"--I'm getting a little annoyed when one of these proven dietary links to disease becomes dis-proven.
Bacon, cows milk, coffee, tea, beef, catsop, butter, alcohol, cigars, and fast food have all been favorites of mine over the years. Why? Because they taste good and I like to eat what tastes good.
So now the researchers are telling me that all the fiber that I have choked down was for naught. I hate rabbit food but felt my colon needed it in abundance.
I'm going to pledge right now to eat exactly what I want and when i want it for the rest of my natural life. And I'm also letting Yodi do the same.
Please pass the capsop and i think I will have another cup of coffee--and a donut too. And anybody that doesn't agree--? I'll eat your donuts too!
The belief that a high-fibre diet will keep your colon healthy and cancer-free -- a popular medical theory since the 1960s -- does not appear to be correct, according to a new study.
Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health, who analyzed a number of long-term studies on the issue, said they "could not find support" for the notion that the risk of colorectal cancer is reduced by regular consumption of fibre.
Still-- they said there are plenty of good reasons to eat the recommended five to 10 servings daily of fruits and veggies-- along with plenty of whole grains.
"It's still important to eat a high-fibre diet," said Yikyung Park, a postdoctoral fellow at the U.S. National Cancer Institute in Washington and a member of the team whose research is published in today's edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
"Even though our study didn't find a reduction in colorectal cancer, other studies show that high-fibre diets reduce the risk of heart disease and diabetes."
Other researchers also cautioned that this is far from the final word on the topic.
From as far back as I can remember, medical scientists have been telling me to quit eating my favorite foods for health benefits. Hey--I'm all in favor of doing what is right if it means I can get a few more miles out of this carcass. But---and it is a "big but"--I'm getting a little annoyed when one of these proven dietary links to disease becomes dis-proven.
Bacon, cows milk, coffee, tea, beef, catsop, butter, alcohol, cigars, and fast food have all been favorites of mine over the years. Why? Because they taste good and I like to eat what tastes good.
So now the researchers are telling me that all the fiber that I have choked down was for naught. I hate rabbit food but felt my colon needed it in abundance.
I'm going to pledge right now to eat exactly what I want and when i want it for the rest of my natural life. And I'm also letting Yodi do the same.
Please pass the capsop and i think I will have another cup of coffee--and a donut too. And anybody that doesn't agree--? I'll eat your donuts too!
Friday, December 16, 2005
Torture --Why is this a subject of debate?
I should not have to use a quote such as the one pasted below in order to determine whether it is alright to torture and abuse others in order to extract information. This fact should already be present in my own conscience as well as the reader's here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:At a news conference about the peace message, Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Vatican's pontifical council on peace and justice, was asked if torture could be a legitimate tool to gain information that might prevent terror attacks.
The prelate replied that there was no justification for using torture, which is the "humiliation of the human person, whoever he is."
"The church does not allow torture as a means to extract the truth," Martino said. Terror suspects "sometimes say what the torturers want to hear. ... There are other ways to obtain the truth."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there is still a question in your mind, then ponder this:
Imagine for a moment that your mother, wife, or child was being held captive by an opposing force of soldiers. And--that this loved one held critical intelligence information needed by their enemy. How would you like them to be treated? Remember--they are being held captive and are not a threat to their captors.
Now picture yourself as a member of the apposing force and your own mother was seated across from you. You are the chosen interigator. How would you treat her?
I realize these are extreme questions and that your own loved ones will probably never be threatened as a captive nor will you ever be assigned to interigate your own dear mother.
But now answer my question.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:At a news conference about the peace message, Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Vatican's pontifical council on peace and justice, was asked if torture could be a legitimate tool to gain information that might prevent terror attacks.
The prelate replied that there was no justification for using torture, which is the "humiliation of the human person, whoever he is."
"The church does not allow torture as a means to extract the truth," Martino said. Terror suspects "sometimes say what the torturers want to hear. ... There are other ways to obtain the truth."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there is still a question in your mind, then ponder this:
Imagine for a moment that your mother, wife, or child was being held captive by an opposing force of soldiers. And--that this loved one held critical intelligence information needed by their enemy. How would you like them to be treated? Remember--they are being held captive and are not a threat to their captors.
Now picture yourself as a member of the apposing force and your own mother was seated across from you. You are the chosen interigator. How would you treat her?
I realize these are extreme questions and that your own loved ones will probably never be threatened as a captive nor will you ever be assigned to interigate your own dear mother.
But now answer my question.
Monday, December 05, 2005
Bogged down means time for a re-charge
Sometimes my brain and emotions outrun my normal reserved demeaner. It has happened more frequently lately which tells me it is time for a breather. To take some quiet reflective time away from the news and everyday problems that drag me down.
Evidence of this neededd break is all around me. I spend more time fretting and less time doing. I have neglected this blog and I have become less focussed on other important issues.
So in light of the fact that this is the season remembered for a re-birth of mankind through the birth of its savior. It is fitting to spend some time re-birth and renewal in my own life.
The next post here will be from a re-charged me. Yodi and I wish you all a Merry Christmas.
Evidence of this neededd break is all around me. I spend more time fretting and less time doing. I have neglected this blog and I have become less focussed on other important issues.
So in light of the fact that this is the season remembered for a re-birth of mankind through the birth of its savior. It is fitting to spend some time re-birth and renewal in my own life.
The next post here will be from a re-charged me. Yodi and I wish you all a Merry Christmas.
Monday, November 28, 2005
Wal-Mart ripping off stockholders through low wages
Admittedly I know very little about running companies or stockholder relations with management. But even with my limits, finding out that a company is mismanaging its employment practices to a point of costing the stockholders approximately--
$41,728,000 dollars a year in profits catches my attention.
Wal-Mart is the company and it happens to be the worlds largest corporation let alone the largest retailer. How can this be? I have been led to believe over the years that the way Sam Walton wanted things, his practices were going to affect overall consumer prices for the better-- of us all. But when his low wage a benefit plan is put to the test and compared to companies that are also large, he is all hat and no cow.
As the article below indicates, Walmart pays $4.45 per hour less in wages, $1,875 less in employee benefits, covers fewer employees with healthcare and yet rips off the stockholders in the amount of $2,608 per year in --profit per employee.
That's right! For every employee [all 1,600,000 of them] Walmart earns $2,608 less per year profit per employee than Costco [another large retailer]. In fact--the head of Costco claims it just makes good business sense to pay their employees more!
Of course it does if it means you end up with another $42,000,000 per year profit by paying more. Why aren't the Wal-Mart stockholders up in arms. That is a substantial amount of profit being lost do to management employee practices.
And now I'm upset. If Walmart is needing to make up that profit shortfall, then I'm being asked to come up with the extra money through higher prices! Companies still need to make a certain return on investment in order to attract investors[stockholders].
Yodi's pet toys and my underwear prices are higher because Wal-Mart wages are lower. If Sam knew this he would probably be doing something about it. He always claimed to be a friend to his customers. Maybe not as friendly as I thought.
Now I wish I knew even less about business and profit. This is another one of those little know facts that I now know but have little if any control over. But those stockholders sure do.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, November 28, 2005 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
Neal Peirce / Syndicated columnist
Wal-Mart's low-road model
The Wal-Mart Watch campaign, a labor-environmental group highly critical of America's mega-mega retailer, recently launched more than 1,000 events nationwide for its "Higher Expectations Week."
A scathing documentary by independent filmmaker Robert Greenwald with a focus on Wal-Mart's business tactics and treatment of workers began to play to audiences across the country.
Wal-Mart is fighting its critics with waves of television ads celebrating happy workers and the company's gifts to local charities.
But the action goes much further. Across state capitals, legislators are into spirited debates over whether Wal-Mart should be forced to pay adequate health benefits or leave it to the states to subsidize its low-paid workers through Medicaid and other public benefits.
In one sense, all of this is predictable: With annual sales of $288 billion and 1.6 million employees, Wal-Mart is now the world's biggest corporation. Its footprint on American communities and retailing is so vast that some opposition to its tactics is virtually inevitable.
But something even bigger seems to be occurring. Wal-Mart has become the poster child for an era of unfettered globalized corporate operations — "a destabilizing business model, a dangerous detriment to America's local and national economies and to the middle class," in the words of critic Leo Hindery Jr., former CEO of the telecom carrier Global Crossing and an active figure in Democratic Party politics.
Hindery, at a recent Washington conference organized by the Center for American Progress, noted that as recently as 1992 (the year of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton's death), the Business Roundtable of top business leaders was asserting that corporations had a major responsibility not just to stockholders but to their employees, society at large and the nation's economy. But now, Hindery asserts, the Business Roundtable — indeed, most of the corporate world — focuses almost exclusively on profits for stockholders.
Wal-Mart leads and embodies the trend, he asserts, in three ways: the "clobbering" of Main Streets when Wal-Mart moves to one of its usual edge-of-town locations, "the miserable wage and benefits package offered by Sam Walton's creation," and Wal-Mart's buying strategy, focused on cheaply produced foreign goods, a total reversal of Walton's "Buy America" advocacy.
The reply of economists friendly to Wal-Mart is based — like the company's promotions — almost exclusively on low prices and efficiency. According to a Wal-Mart commissioned study by Global Insight, a respected economic-forecasting firm, low Wal-Mart prices saved consumers $263 billion last year. Wal-Mart defenders say that's "progressive" because the benefits flow principally to low-income families who shop at discount stores.
But the real choice, says Harry Holzer, former chief economist for the U.S. Labor Department, is between "lower-road" employer strategies focused, like Wal-Mart, on low wages regardless of high employee turnover, versus a "higher road" strategy by employers focused on higher worker productivity that's supported by higher wages and benefits as well as training and promotion ladders.
The mass-retailer Costco, which competes directly with Wal-Mart's Sam's Club warehouse chain, has emerged as the high-road model. While Wal-Mart fights aggressively to stop any union organizing whatever, Costco has agreements with the Teamsters for 16 percent of its employees and has extended most of the benefits to its entire work force.
Indeed, a Business Week analysis shows Costco's average hourly wage is $15.97, far above the Wal-Mart (Sam's Club) $11.52 figure (even excluding the 25 percent of Wal-Mart workers who are low-paid part-timers). The yearly employer contributions to health care — Costco, $5,735; Wal-Mart, $3,500. Of Costco employees, 82 percent are covered by the health plan; Wal-Mart, 47 percent. Employee turnover at Wal-Mart is three times higher than Costco's.
And then comes the clincher, suggesting the low-road approach may not be so clever after all: Costco's profit per employee is $13,647; Wal-Mart's, $11,039.
Paying good wages and benefits, says Costco CEO Jim Sinegal, "is not altruistic; this is good business."
Still, if history is any measure, it will take energetic union organizing to force Wal-Mart to shift tactics — perhaps a replay of 1937, when a courageous Detroit sit-in strike by young women at Woolworth's, the dominant retailer of the day, sparked a string of nationwide victories and substantial pay increases.
Wal-Mart Watch, though founded by Andy Stern, head of the Service Workers International, isn't ready to leap into an organizing fight. If and when it's ready, look for a struggle that shapes America's economy and character for the century.
Neal Peirce's column appears alternate Mondays on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is nrp@citistates.com
2005, Washington Post Writers Group
$41,728,000 dollars a year in profits catches my attention.
Wal-Mart is the company and it happens to be the worlds largest corporation let alone the largest retailer. How can this be? I have been led to believe over the years that the way Sam Walton wanted things, his practices were going to affect overall consumer prices for the better-- of us all. But when his low wage a benefit plan is put to the test and compared to companies that are also large, he is all hat and no cow.
As the article below indicates, Walmart pays $4.45 per hour less in wages, $1,875 less in employee benefits, covers fewer employees with healthcare and yet rips off the stockholders in the amount of $2,608 per year in --profit per employee.
That's right! For every employee [all 1,600,000 of them] Walmart earns $2,608 less per year profit per employee than Costco [another large retailer]. In fact--the head of Costco claims it just makes good business sense to pay their employees more!
Of course it does if it means you end up with another $42,000,000 per year profit by paying more. Why aren't the Wal-Mart stockholders up in arms. That is a substantial amount of profit being lost do to management employee practices.
And now I'm upset. If Walmart is needing to make up that profit shortfall, then I'm being asked to come up with the extra money through higher prices! Companies still need to make a certain return on investment in order to attract investors[stockholders].
Yodi's pet toys and my underwear prices are higher because Wal-Mart wages are lower. If Sam knew this he would probably be doing something about it. He always claimed to be a friend to his customers. Maybe not as friendly as I thought.
Now I wish I knew even less about business and profit. This is another one of those little know facts that I now know but have little if any control over. But those stockholders sure do.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, November 28, 2005 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
Neal Peirce / Syndicated columnist
Wal-Mart's low-road model
The Wal-Mart Watch campaign, a labor-environmental group highly critical of America's mega-mega retailer, recently launched more than 1,000 events nationwide for its "Higher Expectations Week."
A scathing documentary by independent filmmaker Robert Greenwald with a focus on Wal-Mart's business tactics and treatment of workers began to play to audiences across the country.
Wal-Mart is fighting its critics with waves of television ads celebrating happy workers and the company's gifts to local charities.
But the action goes much further. Across state capitals, legislators are into spirited debates over whether Wal-Mart should be forced to pay adequate health benefits or leave it to the states to subsidize its low-paid workers through Medicaid and other public benefits.
In one sense, all of this is predictable: With annual sales of $288 billion and 1.6 million employees, Wal-Mart is now the world's biggest corporation. Its footprint on American communities and retailing is so vast that some opposition to its tactics is virtually inevitable.
But something even bigger seems to be occurring. Wal-Mart has become the poster child for an era of unfettered globalized corporate operations — "a destabilizing business model, a dangerous detriment to America's local and national economies and to the middle class," in the words of critic Leo Hindery Jr., former CEO of the telecom carrier Global Crossing and an active figure in Democratic Party politics.
Hindery, at a recent Washington conference organized by the Center for American Progress, noted that as recently as 1992 (the year of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton's death), the Business Roundtable of top business leaders was asserting that corporations had a major responsibility not just to stockholders but to their employees, society at large and the nation's economy. But now, Hindery asserts, the Business Roundtable — indeed, most of the corporate world — focuses almost exclusively on profits for stockholders.
Wal-Mart leads and embodies the trend, he asserts, in three ways: the "clobbering" of Main Streets when Wal-Mart moves to one of its usual edge-of-town locations, "the miserable wage and benefits package offered by Sam Walton's creation," and Wal-Mart's buying strategy, focused on cheaply produced foreign goods, a total reversal of Walton's "Buy America" advocacy.
The reply of economists friendly to Wal-Mart is based — like the company's promotions — almost exclusively on low prices and efficiency. According to a Wal-Mart commissioned study by Global Insight, a respected economic-forecasting firm, low Wal-Mart prices saved consumers $263 billion last year. Wal-Mart defenders say that's "progressive" because the benefits flow principally to low-income families who shop at discount stores.
But the real choice, says Harry Holzer, former chief economist for the U.S. Labor Department, is between "lower-road" employer strategies focused, like Wal-Mart, on low wages regardless of high employee turnover, versus a "higher road" strategy by employers focused on higher worker productivity that's supported by higher wages and benefits as well as training and promotion ladders.
The mass-retailer Costco, which competes directly with Wal-Mart's Sam's Club warehouse chain, has emerged as the high-road model. While Wal-Mart fights aggressively to stop any union organizing whatever, Costco has agreements with the Teamsters for 16 percent of its employees and has extended most of the benefits to its entire work force.
Indeed, a Business Week analysis shows Costco's average hourly wage is $15.97, far above the Wal-Mart (Sam's Club) $11.52 figure (even excluding the 25 percent of Wal-Mart workers who are low-paid part-timers). The yearly employer contributions to health care — Costco, $5,735; Wal-Mart, $3,500. Of Costco employees, 82 percent are covered by the health plan; Wal-Mart, 47 percent. Employee turnover at Wal-Mart is three times higher than Costco's.
And then comes the clincher, suggesting the low-road approach may not be so clever after all: Costco's profit per employee is $13,647; Wal-Mart's, $11,039.
Paying good wages and benefits, says Costco CEO Jim Sinegal, "is not altruistic; this is good business."
Still, if history is any measure, it will take energetic union organizing to force Wal-Mart to shift tactics — perhaps a replay of 1937, when a courageous Detroit sit-in strike by young women at Woolworth's, the dominant retailer of the day, sparked a string of nationwide victories and substantial pay increases.
Wal-Mart Watch, though founded by Andy Stern, head of the Service Workers International, isn't ready to leap into an organizing fight. If and when it's ready, look for a struggle that shapes America's economy and character for the century.
Neal Peirce's column appears alternate Mondays on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is nrp@citistates.com
2005, Washington Post Writers Group
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Happy Thanksgiving
Nothing profound-- just wishing you all a very very happy holiday.
And a plug for "GOD", without who there would be little to be happy about.
Yodi and Mike
And a plug for "GOD", without who there would be little to be happy about.
Yodi and Mike
Monday, November 21, 2005
Why Bushs' Iraq Plan Is Doomed
I am sure that President Bush is feeling somewhat dazed these days. He came into office a mere 71 months ago full of determination and with his agenda still wet from the printers office tucked under is arm. What happened in such a short time?
Actually what happened to President Bush will continue to happen to politicians in our country until we deal with some of the following issues.
1. few common values among the divergent groups that make up our society.
2. a failure of immigrants to meld with in the American culture.
3. a loss of the American ideal and dream.
4. A loss of religion and its values within American society.
5. A loss of trust in each other and especially politicians.
Another factor that affects The President and all politicians is the ready availability of news, comment, and debate within society. This factor has not only left the politicians scratching their heads, but church leaders, busuiness leaders, and all formal institutions of American culture doing likewise. Even the American Red Cross is under serious scrutiny because of published accounts of how they respond to relief efforts in our country. And of couse this leads to fewer donations.
The two party political system and its ability to represent so many different communities and their priorities results in ineffectual leadership and continued stalemate on major issues facing America.
An example of the Presidents Iraq policy and its rapid disapproval ratings bear witness to the affects of our fractured society.
Right now approximately 35% of Americans agree that America should stay engaged in Iraq, yet four years ago, most Americans believed we needed to address our countries vulnerablility in the wake of the World Trade Center attack..
Politicians cannot afford to have such low poll numbers and therefore America will pull out of Iraq. The real reason that the numbers are low is rooted in one or more of the 5 items I listed above.
We are a country so divided after years of cultural breakdown, that no politician is able to mount a sustained agenda and at the same time can keep the public support high enough to be within their comfort zone, ie:--re-election zone.
If we were a united people, healthcare, social security, public education, energy, and transportation issues would already be solved with new vibrant united zeal. Instead there are so many self centered views about these issues, from so many communities with myopic vision, that no solution is available until we address the fractures within our people.
Compunding the Presidents agenda and all the political agendas is that politicians have lost their ability to control media and its content. Americans over 40 who use the internet for example, visit 6 sites on average. Younger Americans visit 29 sites on average. Now those sites can be news, entertainment, hobby related, blogs, forums, chat rooms,--all manner of sites. My point with these statictics is that no political party or politician can influence this many independant information sources. There are millions of individual sources to choose from. Here I am making comment on this subject and a few folks will read this and whether they agree or not--they will have been exposed to another view. So I can be considered a source [minor]--but none the less another published source. The ability to control propaganda has been lost.
What was once a television market controled by three major networks now has over 100 different channels each with their own content and view.
What was once radio with a few commentators such as Larry King is now a media with dozens of talking heads and their respective agendas.
The ability to manipulate and direct public attention and support in a broad scale through all media has been lost.
But our problems as a society still exist and still cry out for solutions.
President Bush and American politics have simply lost its ability to commander an agenda which is supported by the majority of Americans. We all feel disconnected from each other, our communities, and our country.
We have no common roots anymore. We have dozens if not humdreds of individual cultural communities with their own agendas.
If America had been this rootless and fractured in 1861, President Lincoln would have lost the civil war and we would have two distinct countries where one once was.
We were a country founded upon such deep roots and beliefs in our own sacred sociiety, that for most of our history we remained a people unto itself and content at isolation. Isolationism was the reason America was so late entering both world wars in the 20th century. A loss of those same deep roots can be viewed as a cause of us now being intent upon projecting our might and influence outside our borders.
Most of the fractured communities within our country feel that America needs to return to our roots and cultural heritage. To insist that new immigrants integrate into American culture and leave their old behind. Outside of an outright invasion by foreign powers onto our shores, Americans are ready to pull their collective horns in and revert their attention away from terrorist problems a half world away and 1,400 years old.
There is only one true unifying force that is capable of transcending all peoples.
Religion and faith is that force. and only a political system that embodes these same ideals can succeed in solving mankinds varied problems. We are all different and we are a fractured society--but when all these differences are set aside and we peel away the layers--we are united at our core by a common creator and a common basic conscience.
It is religion and faith that have been under the most vicious assault over the past four decades in America.
It is religious warfare that is behind the worlds problems.
President Bush has three more years in office. If he wants to have a succesful last term in office, he needs to re-direct the focus on his adminisration to uniting all the various communities under one mantra that can bring us back together as a nation.
"GOD"
I don't mean under a state religion or my "GOD"--I mean under programs that get back to the common nature we all share. America will only win wars such as the terrorist war when we win back our common roots. If we want to be a nation that projects its values--then those values that need projected are plainly layed out in the Christian bible. Lessons are shown throughout the Old Testament that can be applied to our own country. I'm sure that terrorist agents existed back in Noahs' time. People who twisted religion to become a brand of behavior completely foreign to our creators intent.
If the President wants to address the 5 points and move our country towards solving every groups concerns, then he must unite all the groups together. If he doesn't make strides to this end, then he will be left with a bald spot on his head from all the frustrated scratching and we will be left three more years away from solving not only terrorism--but all the other issues that are screaming for attention.
Come on Yodi, we need to pray for a change in fuzzy thinking going on in our nations leadership. The answer to their bald spots is right in front of their nose--right in front of their face in the mirror. It is believing that mankind alone can solve mankinds problems through political and military solutions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
Evidence of the affects the 5 pints I listed on politics can be found in the attached article. when reading it notice how many different polls and views the author used to support her article.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USA > Foreign Policy
from the November 21, 2005 edition
Why Iraq war support fell so fast
US public support has dropped faster than during the Vietnam and Korean wars, polls show.
By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – The three most significant US wars since 1945 - Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq - share an important trait: As casualties mounted, American public support declined.
In the two Asian wars, that decline proved irreversible. With Iraq, the additional bad news for President Bush is that support for the war in Iraq has eroded more quickly than it did in those two conflicts.
For Mr. Bush, low support for his handling of the war - now at 35 percent, according to the latest Gallup poll - has depleted any reserves of "political capital" he had from his reelection and threatens his entire agenda. Last week's bombshell political developments, both the bipartisan Senate resolution calling for more progress reports on Iraq and the stunning call for withdrawal by a Democratic hawk, Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, have not helped.
But the seeds of Bush's woes were planted early on. Just seven months into the Iraq war, Gallup found that the percentage of Americans who viewed the sending of troops as a mistake had jumped substantially - from 25 percent in March 2003 to 40 percent in October 2003.
In June 2004, for the first time, more than half the public (54 percent) thought the US had made a mistake, a figure that holds today.
With Vietnam, that 50-percent threshold was not crossed until August 1968, several years in; with Korea, it was March 1952, about a year and a half into US involvement.
Why did Americans go sour on the Iraq war so quickly, and what can Bush do about it?
John Mueller, an expert on war and public opinion at Ohio State University, links today's lower tolerance of casualties to a weaker public commitment to the cause than was felt during the two previous, cold war-era conflicts. The discounting of the main justifications for the Iraq war - alleged weapons of mass destruction and support for international terrorism - has left many Americans skeptical of the entire enterprise.
In fact, "I'm impressed by how high support still is," Professor Mueller says. He notes that some Americans' continuing connection of the Iraq war to the war on terror is fueling that support.
In addition, intense political polarization gives Bush resilient support among Republicans.
But among Democratic voters who supported the US-led invasion initially, most have long abandoned the president. In polls, independent voters now track mostly with Democrats. And, analysts say, once someone loses confidence in the conduct of a war, it is exceedingly difficult to woo them back.
"[Bush's] best option is bringing peace and security to Iraq," says Darrell West, a political scientist at Brown University. "If he can accomplish that, people will think the war's going well and that he made the right decision. But that's proving almost impossible to achieve."
Pollster Daniel Yankelovich, writing in the September/October 2005 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, states that "in my judgment the Bush administration has about a year before the public's impatience will force it to change course."
Not helping the president has been the modern phenomenon of 24/7 cable news coverage, which brings instant magnification to the daily death toll and the longstanding media practice of focusing on negative developments.
And there is the lingering public memory of Vietnam itself, which, in the Iraq war, may have made the public warier sooner of getting stuck in a quagmire.
Scholars like Mueller at Ohio State speak of an emerging "Iraq syndrome" that will have consequences for US foreign policy long after American forces pull out - particularly in Washington's ability to deal forcefully with other countries it views as threatening, such as North Korea and Iran.
"Iraq syndrome" seems to be playing out, too, with the American public. The just-released quadrennial survey of American attitudes toward foreign policy - produced jointly by the Pew Research Center and the Council on Foreign Relations - shows a revival of isolationism. Now, 42 percent of Americans say the US should "mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own" - up from 30 percent in 2002.
According to Pew Research Center director Andrew Kohut, that 42 percent figure is also similar to how the US public felt in the mid-1970s, at the end of the Vietnam War, and in the 1990s, at the end of the cold war.
SOURCE: THE GALLUP ORGANIZATION; RICH CLABAUGH - STAFF
Actually what happened to President Bush will continue to happen to politicians in our country until we deal with some of the following issues.
1. few common values among the divergent groups that make up our society.
2. a failure of immigrants to meld with in the American culture.
3. a loss of the American ideal and dream.
4. A loss of religion and its values within American society.
5. A loss of trust in each other and especially politicians.
Another factor that affects The President and all politicians is the ready availability of news, comment, and debate within society. This factor has not only left the politicians scratching their heads, but church leaders, busuiness leaders, and all formal institutions of American culture doing likewise. Even the American Red Cross is under serious scrutiny because of published accounts of how they respond to relief efforts in our country. And of couse this leads to fewer donations.
The two party political system and its ability to represent so many different communities and their priorities results in ineffectual leadership and continued stalemate on major issues facing America.
An example of the Presidents Iraq policy and its rapid disapproval ratings bear witness to the affects of our fractured society.
Right now approximately 35% of Americans agree that America should stay engaged in Iraq, yet four years ago, most Americans believed we needed to address our countries vulnerablility in the wake of the World Trade Center attack..
Politicians cannot afford to have such low poll numbers and therefore America will pull out of Iraq. The real reason that the numbers are low is rooted in one or more of the 5 items I listed above.
We are a country so divided after years of cultural breakdown, that no politician is able to mount a sustained agenda and at the same time can keep the public support high enough to be within their comfort zone, ie:--re-election zone.
If we were a united people, healthcare, social security, public education, energy, and transportation issues would already be solved with new vibrant united zeal. Instead there are so many self centered views about these issues, from so many communities with myopic vision, that no solution is available until we address the fractures within our people.
Compunding the Presidents agenda and all the political agendas is that politicians have lost their ability to control media and its content. Americans over 40 who use the internet for example, visit 6 sites on average. Younger Americans visit 29 sites on average. Now those sites can be news, entertainment, hobby related, blogs, forums, chat rooms,--all manner of sites. My point with these statictics is that no political party or politician can influence this many independant information sources. There are millions of individual sources to choose from. Here I am making comment on this subject and a few folks will read this and whether they agree or not--they will have been exposed to another view. So I can be considered a source [minor]--but none the less another published source. The ability to control propaganda has been lost.
What was once a television market controled by three major networks now has over 100 different channels each with their own content and view.
What was once radio with a few commentators such as Larry King is now a media with dozens of talking heads and their respective agendas.
The ability to manipulate and direct public attention and support in a broad scale through all media has been lost.
But our problems as a society still exist and still cry out for solutions.
President Bush and American politics have simply lost its ability to commander an agenda which is supported by the majority of Americans. We all feel disconnected from each other, our communities, and our country.
We have no common roots anymore. We have dozens if not humdreds of individual cultural communities with their own agendas.
If America had been this rootless and fractured in 1861, President Lincoln would have lost the civil war and we would have two distinct countries where one once was.
We were a country founded upon such deep roots and beliefs in our own sacred sociiety, that for most of our history we remained a people unto itself and content at isolation. Isolationism was the reason America was so late entering both world wars in the 20th century. A loss of those same deep roots can be viewed as a cause of us now being intent upon projecting our might and influence outside our borders.
Most of the fractured communities within our country feel that America needs to return to our roots and cultural heritage. To insist that new immigrants integrate into American culture and leave their old behind. Outside of an outright invasion by foreign powers onto our shores, Americans are ready to pull their collective horns in and revert their attention away from terrorist problems a half world away and 1,400 years old.
There is only one true unifying force that is capable of transcending all peoples.
Religion and faith is that force. and only a political system that embodes these same ideals can succeed in solving mankinds varied problems. We are all different and we are a fractured society--but when all these differences are set aside and we peel away the layers--we are united at our core by a common creator and a common basic conscience.
It is religion and faith that have been under the most vicious assault over the past four decades in America.
It is religious warfare that is behind the worlds problems.
President Bush has three more years in office. If he wants to have a succesful last term in office, he needs to re-direct the focus on his adminisration to uniting all the various communities under one mantra that can bring us back together as a nation.
"GOD"
I don't mean under a state religion or my "GOD"--I mean under programs that get back to the common nature we all share. America will only win wars such as the terrorist war when we win back our common roots. If we want to be a nation that projects its values--then those values that need projected are plainly layed out in the Christian bible. Lessons are shown throughout the Old Testament that can be applied to our own country. I'm sure that terrorist agents existed back in Noahs' time. People who twisted religion to become a brand of behavior completely foreign to our creators intent.
If the President wants to address the 5 points and move our country towards solving every groups concerns, then he must unite all the groups together. If he doesn't make strides to this end, then he will be left with a bald spot on his head from all the frustrated scratching and we will be left three more years away from solving not only terrorism--but all the other issues that are screaming for attention.
Come on Yodi, we need to pray for a change in fuzzy thinking going on in our nations leadership. The answer to their bald spots is right in front of their nose--right in front of their face in the mirror. It is believing that mankind alone can solve mankinds problems through political and military solutions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
Evidence of the affects the 5 pints I listed on politics can be found in the attached article. when reading it notice how many different polls and views the author used to support her article.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USA > Foreign Policy
from the November 21, 2005 edition
Why Iraq war support fell so fast
US public support has dropped faster than during the Vietnam and Korean wars, polls show.
By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – The three most significant US wars since 1945 - Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq - share an important trait: As casualties mounted, American public support declined.
In the two Asian wars, that decline proved irreversible. With Iraq, the additional bad news for President Bush is that support for the war in Iraq has eroded more quickly than it did in those two conflicts.
For Mr. Bush, low support for his handling of the war - now at 35 percent, according to the latest Gallup poll - has depleted any reserves of "political capital" he had from his reelection and threatens his entire agenda. Last week's bombshell political developments, both the bipartisan Senate resolution calling for more progress reports on Iraq and the stunning call for withdrawal by a Democratic hawk, Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, have not helped.
But the seeds of Bush's woes were planted early on. Just seven months into the Iraq war, Gallup found that the percentage of Americans who viewed the sending of troops as a mistake had jumped substantially - from 25 percent in March 2003 to 40 percent in October 2003.
In June 2004, for the first time, more than half the public (54 percent) thought the US had made a mistake, a figure that holds today.
With Vietnam, that 50-percent threshold was not crossed until August 1968, several years in; with Korea, it was March 1952, about a year and a half into US involvement.
Why did Americans go sour on the Iraq war so quickly, and what can Bush do about it?
John Mueller, an expert on war and public opinion at Ohio State University, links today's lower tolerance of casualties to a weaker public commitment to the cause than was felt during the two previous, cold war-era conflicts. The discounting of the main justifications for the Iraq war - alleged weapons of mass destruction and support for international terrorism - has left many Americans skeptical of the entire enterprise.
In fact, "I'm impressed by how high support still is," Professor Mueller says. He notes that some Americans' continuing connection of the Iraq war to the war on terror is fueling that support.
In addition, intense political polarization gives Bush resilient support among Republicans.
But among Democratic voters who supported the US-led invasion initially, most have long abandoned the president. In polls, independent voters now track mostly with Democrats. And, analysts say, once someone loses confidence in the conduct of a war, it is exceedingly difficult to woo them back.
"[Bush's] best option is bringing peace and security to Iraq," says Darrell West, a political scientist at Brown University. "If he can accomplish that, people will think the war's going well and that he made the right decision. But that's proving almost impossible to achieve."
Pollster Daniel Yankelovich, writing in the September/October 2005 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, states that "in my judgment the Bush administration has about a year before the public's impatience will force it to change course."
Not helping the president has been the modern phenomenon of 24/7 cable news coverage, which brings instant magnification to the daily death toll and the longstanding media practice of focusing on negative developments.
And there is the lingering public memory of Vietnam itself, which, in the Iraq war, may have made the public warier sooner of getting stuck in a quagmire.
Scholars like Mueller at Ohio State speak of an emerging "Iraq syndrome" that will have consequences for US foreign policy long after American forces pull out - particularly in Washington's ability to deal forcefully with other countries it views as threatening, such as North Korea and Iran.
"Iraq syndrome" seems to be playing out, too, with the American public. The just-released quadrennial survey of American attitudes toward foreign policy - produced jointly by the Pew Research Center and the Council on Foreign Relations - shows a revival of isolationism. Now, 42 percent of Americans say the US should "mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own" - up from 30 percent in 2002.
According to Pew Research Center director Andrew Kohut, that 42 percent figure is also similar to how the US public felt in the mid-1970s, at the end of the Vietnam War, and in the 1990s, at the end of the cold war.
SOURCE: THE GALLUP ORGANIZATION; RICH CLABAUGH - STAFF
Friday, November 18, 2005
When you have spent all you can spend..
Each of us in our own unique way are stubborn. Some are able to realize this and are willing to set their feelings aside and open their eyes to other points of view. We can at times have so much emotional investment or captial investment tied up in a position--that the pain is immense when we are faced with the real facts not the filtered variety that goes along with our stubborn traits.
I believe our President and some of his advisors are currently suffering from a severe case of stubborness when it comes to some of their pursuits. It takes a wise man to set aside his own feelings and listen to others views when the natural tendancy may be to stick his head in the sand to avoid all dissent.
America has had a captain at the helm who has just such a severe case of stubborness. It is up to the Congress now to find a way to pull the President feet first out of his hole and own up to the facts. His program may very well have sounded sound at one time. But there does come a time when a reasonable approach would be to consider other routes rather than continue the ship on a course where it most certainly will crash onto the rocks.
I'm willing to give the President a certain amount of rope--but I'm not willing to keep reeling out more until their is none left to give.
The fiscal policy that has resulted in extreme foolishness-- may very well end up extingquishing any hope we or future generations have for a comfortable standard of living for all citizens. If interest rates were ever to spiral as they did durung the Carter administration, the interest on the national dept alone would seriously disrupt hundreds of needed projects funded from the Treasury. We simply cannot go on creating artificial money and spend it until the presses run out of ink! I understand the concept of seeding the economy by lowering taxes. But there does come a point where the anticipated growth in the economy simply cannot be forthcoming due to reckless unfunded dept.
We admonish large corporations for failing to properly fund retiree pensions. 10's of billions of dollars of unfunded pension obligations are now being dumped at the taxpayers doorstep. I doubt whether all those companies planned to fail in their obligations. They too probably thought that they could grow their companie's and profits in the future enough to more than fund any short term deficits in the funds. Unfortunately for those reaching the golden years of retirement, something went wrong.
As a country we must now face up to the same facts as the Corporations. Deficits are REAL. And they cannot be wished away. How can we logically expect future generaations of Congressmen to act any different than todays model? Pork barrel is their mantra. To heck with tommorow.We must be realistic and assume they will come from the same mold.
So what do we do now when we have both Congress and the Administration refusing to deal with deficits and refusing any form of constraint. Sure--we hear of the few million here or their lobbed off some childcare program or senior program. This is all smoke and mirrors. The excess spending spree is in the TRILLIONS! Do we even grasp how many zeros that is? 8,000,000,000,000--it is twelve zeros? And rapidly approaching 13. Thirteen may very well be the unlucky number that brings the financial house of cards crashing down, along with the hopes and dreams of several generations into the future.
Mr. President. Please lift your head out of the sand. You have spent all you can spend. The well has long since ran dry. Please shut down the printing presses.
Ok Yodi, help me drag my soapbox back to the shade.
I believe our President and some of his advisors are currently suffering from a severe case of stubborness when it comes to some of their pursuits. It takes a wise man to set aside his own feelings and listen to others views when the natural tendancy may be to stick his head in the sand to avoid all dissent.
America has had a captain at the helm who has just such a severe case of stubborness. It is up to the Congress now to find a way to pull the President feet first out of his hole and own up to the facts. His program may very well have sounded sound at one time. But there does come a time when a reasonable approach would be to consider other routes rather than continue the ship on a course where it most certainly will crash onto the rocks.
I'm willing to give the President a certain amount of rope--but I'm not willing to keep reeling out more until their is none left to give.
The fiscal policy that has resulted in extreme foolishness-- may very well end up extingquishing any hope we or future generations have for a comfortable standard of living for all citizens. If interest rates were ever to spiral as they did durung the Carter administration, the interest on the national dept alone would seriously disrupt hundreds of needed projects funded from the Treasury. We simply cannot go on creating artificial money and spend it until the presses run out of ink! I understand the concept of seeding the economy by lowering taxes. But there does come a point where the anticipated growth in the economy simply cannot be forthcoming due to reckless unfunded dept.
We admonish large corporations for failing to properly fund retiree pensions. 10's of billions of dollars of unfunded pension obligations are now being dumped at the taxpayers doorstep. I doubt whether all those companies planned to fail in their obligations. They too probably thought that they could grow their companie's and profits in the future enough to more than fund any short term deficits in the funds. Unfortunately for those reaching the golden years of retirement, something went wrong.
As a country we must now face up to the same facts as the Corporations. Deficits are REAL. And they cannot be wished away. How can we logically expect future generaations of Congressmen to act any different than todays model? Pork barrel is their mantra. To heck with tommorow.We must be realistic and assume they will come from the same mold.
So what do we do now when we have both Congress and the Administration refusing to deal with deficits and refusing any form of constraint. Sure--we hear of the few million here or their lobbed off some childcare program or senior program. This is all smoke and mirrors. The excess spending spree is in the TRILLIONS! Do we even grasp how many zeros that is? 8,000,000,000,000--it is twelve zeros? And rapidly approaching 13. Thirteen may very well be the unlucky number that brings the financial house of cards crashing down, along with the hopes and dreams of several generations into the future.
Mr. President. Please lift your head out of the sand. You have spent all you can spend. The well has long since ran dry. Please shut down the printing presses.
Ok Yodi, help me drag my soapbox back to the shade.
Monday, November 14, 2005
The "HIV" community
I was not aware that the HIV sufferes had their own community. Were you?
Quote:[from article]
"A spokesman for the NHS trust said: "We urge him, for the sake of himself and the HIV community, to come in and get tested."
I know their is a large group of people ranging from babies to adults from every corner of the planet, every race,and every religion who have contracted this virus. I also no that there are many individual stories associated with this disease.
Nobody is born HIV positive.
There is a group of individuals who because of their loose morals and sinful actions have contracted this deadly scourge. I suppose that is one community.
Then there is a group of innocent individuals who contacted the virus by unwittingly being exposed through blood transfusions and the like. I suppose that is another community
But somehow the very word 'community" agitates me. The reason being, that the vast majority of HIV cases come from deviant sexual activity. And this activity is the result of adultrywhich is a mortal sin needing resolved--by these same people.
And--the innocent people who get infected as a result of this virus being spread around by there immoral people results in a death sentence to the victims.
I'm happy if the man in the attached article is in fact cured. That would truly be a grace deserving of tribute. But which community was he from?
Another thought crossed my mind when reading this article. Wouldn't it have been great if those in the innocent "community" had never been offered residence in such a horrible group. I doubt whether they appreciate being in such company.If asked, I'm sure their response would have been something like this. "Thanks--but no thanks, I believe I will just stay in my own community" "The one with a furture" "You know--"the community of life"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Cured' HIV man turns down more tests
By Nic Fleming, Science Correspondent
(Filed: 14/11/2005)
Doctors and scientists have urged a man reported to be the first to be cured of the HIV virus to come forward for further tests.
Andrew Stimpson, 25, was diagnosed as HIV-positive in August 2002, but tests carried out last year came back as antibody negative.
An investigation carried out by Chelsea and Westminster NHS trust found that both sets of tests were correct.
If true it would make Mr Stimpson the first known person to defeat the Aids virus and could potentially prove invaluable for researchers seeking a vaccine.
Mr Stimpson, a former hairdresser from Largs in Ayrshire who lives in London, told a Sunday newspaper: "I can't help wondering if I hold the cure for Aids. It is scary and confusing but makes me feel very special."
However some scientists were sceptical about the reports and a spokesman for Chelsea and Westminster Hospital said he had declined to come forward for more detailed tests.
Prof Jonathan Weber from the division of medicine at Imperial College, London, said: "There have been false reports of this phenomenon before. Very rarely a blood test can be falsely positive."
A spokesman for the NHS trust said: "We urge him, for the sake of himself and the HIV community, to come in and get tested."
Quote:[from article]
"A spokesman for the NHS trust said: "We urge him, for the sake of himself and the HIV community, to come in and get tested."
I know their is a large group of people ranging from babies to adults from every corner of the planet, every race,and every religion who have contracted this virus. I also no that there are many individual stories associated with this disease.
Nobody is born HIV positive.
There is a group of individuals who because of their loose morals and sinful actions have contracted this deadly scourge. I suppose that is one community.
Then there is a group of innocent individuals who contacted the virus by unwittingly being exposed through blood transfusions and the like. I suppose that is another community
But somehow the very word 'community" agitates me. The reason being, that the vast majority of HIV cases come from deviant sexual activity. And this activity is the result of adultrywhich is a mortal sin needing resolved--by these same people.
And--the innocent people who get infected as a result of this virus being spread around by there immoral people results in a death sentence to the victims.
I'm happy if the man in the attached article is in fact cured. That would truly be a grace deserving of tribute. But which community was he from?
Another thought crossed my mind when reading this article. Wouldn't it have been great if those in the innocent "community" had never been offered residence in such a horrible group. I doubt whether they appreciate being in such company.If asked, I'm sure their response would have been something like this. "Thanks--but no thanks, I believe I will just stay in my own community" "The one with a furture" "You know--"the community of life"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Cured' HIV man turns down more tests
By Nic Fleming, Science Correspondent
(Filed: 14/11/2005)
Doctors and scientists have urged a man reported to be the first to be cured of the HIV virus to come forward for further tests.
Andrew Stimpson, 25, was diagnosed as HIV-positive in August 2002, but tests carried out last year came back as antibody negative.
An investigation carried out by Chelsea and Westminster NHS trust found that both sets of tests were correct.
If true it would make Mr Stimpson the first known person to defeat the Aids virus and could potentially prove invaluable for researchers seeking a vaccine.
Mr Stimpson, a former hairdresser from Largs in Ayrshire who lives in London, told a Sunday newspaper: "I can't help wondering if I hold the cure for Aids. It is scary and confusing but makes me feel very special."
However some scientists were sceptical about the reports and a spokesman for Chelsea and Westminster Hospital said he had declined to come forward for more detailed tests.
Prof Jonathan Weber from the division of medicine at Imperial College, London, said: "There have been false reports of this phenomenon before. Very rarely a blood test can be falsely positive."
A spokesman for the NHS trust said: "We urge him, for the sake of himself and the HIV community, to come in and get tested."
Sunday, November 13, 2005
"Give a Serf a Chance"
In a nation of over 300,000,000 people-- [and 20,000,000 illegals], one would believe there would be more than a few families getting into the presidential race. Even though we whipped King George and cut the chains that bound us to his throne--it was only a matter of a few years before we clammored for our own royal family.
George Washington nearly ended up with "King" type authority and after he left office, we have had a string of families willing to bring forth dynasties. Adams, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Bush, and it is becoming more obvious every day that Her Majesty Queen Hillary [Clinton] will attempt to continue the Clinton dynasty.
But--wait--it now appears that the Presidents brother and Governor of the "Shire" known as Florida--may be entering the fray [see article].
Are Americans going to allow these two dynasties to clash in the elections for the prize of being out next "King", [or does Emporer sound better]?
I realize that it can cost a "King's " ransom to win a major state or national campaign. But isn't it about time we get some new family bloodlines into the mix?
Maybe their are some commoners out there who will actually bring some new ideas for solving our nations problems.Why not give them a chance for a change? "Give a serf a chance!"
The current royalty have already sat around the throne room with their family members and hashed out all the "family" ideas. All that Hillary or Jeb have to offer is family tradition re-packaged with a different colored bow.
Yodi likes the new mantra--"give a serf a chance!" It does have a refreshing ring to it. Don't you think?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeb Bush leaves open White House bid
Sunday, November 13, 2005; 10:31 AM
BERLIN (Reuters) - Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, the brother of U.S. President George W. Bush, ruled out running for president in 2008 but left open the possibility of a subsequent bid in an interview with a German magazine published on Sunday.
Jeb Bush, who is scheduled to visit Germany this week, told Focus weekly he had not thought much about running for the office held by his father and older brother except to rule out the next election at the end of George W. Bush's second term.
"You should never say never. But for the 2008 election, my answer is definitely no," he said, in comments translated into German by the magazine.
Asked whether his answer meant a later challenge was possible, he said: "Let's say there's a vague chance."
Bush, 52, said he spoke frequently with his brother and visited the White House whenever he was in Washington but he said the two mainly discussed family matters or sport.
George Washington nearly ended up with "King" type authority and after he left office, we have had a string of families willing to bring forth dynasties. Adams, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Bush, and it is becoming more obvious every day that Her Majesty Queen Hillary [Clinton] will attempt to continue the Clinton dynasty.
But--wait--it now appears that the Presidents brother and Governor of the "Shire" known as Florida--may be entering the fray [see article].
Are Americans going to allow these two dynasties to clash in the elections for the prize of being out next "King", [or does Emporer sound better]?
I realize that it can cost a "King's " ransom to win a major state or national campaign. But isn't it about time we get some new family bloodlines into the mix?
Maybe their are some commoners out there who will actually bring some new ideas for solving our nations problems.Why not give them a chance for a change? "Give a serf a chance!"
The current royalty have already sat around the throne room with their family members and hashed out all the "family" ideas. All that Hillary or Jeb have to offer is family tradition re-packaged with a different colored bow.
Yodi likes the new mantra--"give a serf a chance!" It does have a refreshing ring to it. Don't you think?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeb Bush leaves open White House bid
Sunday, November 13, 2005; 10:31 AM
BERLIN (Reuters) - Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, the brother of U.S. President George W. Bush, ruled out running for president in 2008 but left open the possibility of a subsequent bid in an interview with a German magazine published on Sunday.
Jeb Bush, who is scheduled to visit Germany this week, told Focus weekly he had not thought much about running for the office held by his father and older brother except to rule out the next election at the end of George W. Bush's second term.
"You should never say never. But for the 2008 election, my answer is definitely no," he said, in comments translated into German by the magazine.
Asked whether his answer meant a later challenge was possible, he said: "Let's say there's a vague chance."
Bush, 52, said he spoke frequently with his brother and visited the White House whenever he was in Washington but he said the two mainly discussed family matters or sport.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Artificial Intelligence Is Not For Me
Twice this week I have ran up against talking robots. And it sends chills up my back.I just don't like them.
On one of the forums I belong to, we now have a brand new chat room. I have always felt this was a valuable addition to the forum community, but this was the first time one has actually been started. No sooner did I join in for a chat then it became evident that I was chatting with a "fake" member by the name of Town Crier. "It" was actually a cyber form of artificial intelligence. And--it was trying to pick my brain. It all sounds silly to fear something like this. But--I do.
Yesterday, I called AOL to cancel my membership. I spent five minuted talking to a robot on the other end of the line. It wasn't until I had satisfied this other form of artificial intelligences requests that I was allowed to speak with a real person. Probably in India but at least real. She too asked me a bunch of questions. It didn't appear like AOL liked the idea of me quiting their realm. After turning down all the offers to modify my existing account--the phone call was suddenly cut off.
Now I have to call again and talk to the robot and jump through the hoops all over again. I'm waiting until tommorow. I needed a couple of days to recover from my last two conversations with cyber beings. Maybe I should let Yodi handle it for me. Do you think the robot will care? What kind of a world are we becoming?
On one of the forums I belong to, we now have a brand new chat room. I have always felt this was a valuable addition to the forum community, but this was the first time one has actually been started. No sooner did I join in for a chat then it became evident that I was chatting with a "fake" member by the name of Town Crier. "It" was actually a cyber form of artificial intelligence. And--it was trying to pick my brain. It all sounds silly to fear something like this. But--I do.
Yesterday, I called AOL to cancel my membership. I spent five minuted talking to a robot on the other end of the line. It wasn't until I had satisfied this other form of artificial intelligences requests that I was allowed to speak with a real person. Probably in India but at least real. She too asked me a bunch of questions. It didn't appear like AOL liked the idea of me quiting their realm. After turning down all the offers to modify my existing account--the phone call was suddenly cut off.
Now I have to call again and talk to the robot and jump through the hoops all over again. I'm waiting until tommorow. I needed a couple of days to recover from my last two conversations with cyber beings. Maybe I should let Yodi handle it for me. Do you think the robot will care? What kind of a world are we becoming?
Friday, November 04, 2005
Finacial disaster hits energy companies !!!!!!!
In a shocking new poll conducted by the Neighborhood Forum, nearly 50% of the respondants have dropped their fuel consumption by more than 10% and nearly 17% by more than 30%.
This non scientific poll , [if the figures hold up], shows that Americans are in the process of threatening the very existence of the energy companies they have come to rely on.
There has been no word coming from tight lipped energy executives yet about this turnaround in gasoline and diesel fuel use. We can only suspect that lobbyists for the industry are as I write, arm twisting the congress and executive branches of our government for relief. This is serious!!
I believe it is the duty of every American to reach into their pocketbooks and sacrifice in this time of need for these great pillers of American culture. I propose a telethon to be held in our nations financial capital Wall Street, USA, on behalf of these struggling energy providers.
First the were hit by hurrican damage that forced them to raise their prices more than 25%. And now the ungrateful consumers have kicked them while they are still reeling from this setback. A truly unpatriotic response by greedy fuel users.
Mother nature is against them and now the American consumer. Please give what you can--and then dig a little deeper. It is the Christian thing to do.
Thank you Yodi. I will make sure the president of Mobile Oil gets your chew toy.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
NEIGHBORHOOD FORUM POLL CONDUCTED 11-3-2005
Have higher prices reduced your usage?
No--I still use the same amount of fuel [ 5 ] [41.67%]
Yes--I have cut back 1% to 10% [ 1 ] [8.33%]
Yes--I have cut back 10% to 20% [ 3 ] [25.00%]
Yes--I have cut back 20% to 30% [ 1 ] [8.33%]
Yes--I have cut back more than 30% [ 2 ] [16.67%]
Total Votes: 12
This non scientific poll , [if the figures hold up], shows that Americans are in the process of threatening the very existence of the energy companies they have come to rely on.
There has been no word coming from tight lipped energy executives yet about this turnaround in gasoline and diesel fuel use. We can only suspect that lobbyists for the industry are as I write, arm twisting the congress and executive branches of our government for relief. This is serious!!
I believe it is the duty of every American to reach into their pocketbooks and sacrifice in this time of need for these great pillers of American culture. I propose a telethon to be held in our nations financial capital Wall Street, USA, on behalf of these struggling energy providers.
First the were hit by hurrican damage that forced them to raise their prices more than 25%. And now the ungrateful consumers have kicked them while they are still reeling from this setback. A truly unpatriotic response by greedy fuel users.
Mother nature is against them and now the American consumer. Please give what you can--and then dig a little deeper. It is the Christian thing to do.
Thank you Yodi. I will make sure the president of Mobile Oil gets your chew toy.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
NEIGHBORHOOD FORUM POLL CONDUCTED 11-3-2005
Have higher prices reduced your usage?
No--I still use the same amount of fuel [ 5 ] [41.67%]
Yes--I have cut back 1% to 10% [ 1 ] [8.33%]
Yes--I have cut back 10% to 20% [ 3 ] [25.00%]
Yes--I have cut back 20% to 30% [ 1 ] [8.33%]
Yes--I have cut back more than 30% [ 2 ] [16.67%]
Total Votes: 12
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)