The Evil Bush Administration and the Vast Conspiracy Surrounding Dick Cheney!!!!

Click on the title to read the mindless incessently regurgitated dribble from the pen of one Roger Webb. Its worth reading simply for entertainment value. Perhaps it should be made into a movie - think "Enemy of the State" or "Conspiracy Theory."

I don't even know where to start with something that is so wild, yet posed as something... academic? Serious?

The first lie in this idiotic piece came from the second sentence. Webb writes:

Why did we invade Iraq, a country that had no connection to al-Qaida, that had no weapons of mass destruction and that posed no threat to our security?

In addressing the contention that Iraq and al Qaeda were not connected, which was found false by a political scientist by the name of Christopher Carney, read the below site for links between Saddam Hussein and his government to members of al Qaeda. (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp) Please read the article to educate yourself. It debunks the first idea of the painfully repetitious drum beat of Bush-haters.

The second lie is also in the second sentence - that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, that is to say biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. It is well known that Iraq had and used chemical weapons on numerous occasions. It is well known that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons. All of the sudden, Saddam Hussein, an aggressive and wildly defiant leader just decided to give up all those weapons and even the nuclear program. But he was still defiant in letting inspectors in to any place they felt necessary to go. But hey, if you hate Bush, just give Hussein, or hell, even al Qaeda the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, many others on the opposite side of the political spectrum have repeated Bush's claims to WMD's in Iraq. (http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp) Did they lie or was the intelligence bad? They have access to as much intelligence as Bush does. If thats the case, then all sides lied or the intelligence was flawed. Or maybe the intelligence wasn't flawed. There have been reports of some chemical weapons being found, albeit a very small amount. That does not mean that Hussein did not hide them or ship them out of the country. How about that for a conspiracy theory, since thats all we are talking about anyway.

Webb contends that Iraq was no threat to our national security. Iraq waged two wars on countries that supply oil to the United States - Kuwait, a friendly nation, and Iran, after a deterioration of relations the prior two years, not so friendly. Furthermore, Iraq attempted these invasions in order to place itself as the leading Arab nation and largest power base in the Gulf. In addition to this, Saddam used chemical warfare, a crime against humanity. Saddam routinely attacked his own people, mostly the Kurds. Iraq, at the very least, was developing nuclear technology. If you really think this Mr. Webb, then with what little respect you deserve, You're wrong. And not just wrong, dangerously short sighted. In fact, horse with blinders comes to mind.

"The real powers at Halliburton." Okay, with this short statement I immediately know that Mr. Webb does not like corporations, since they are the "real powers." Furthermore, he thinks Bush and Cheney are just puppets for the Halliburton Puppetmaster. Please. This is so painful to read, simply because of the idiocy dripping from each ill-concieved notion.

This is the next and probably the most incessantly ignorant phrase that Bush-haters just love to tout. "Cheney... was a lot smarter than Dubya." There are no stupid men or women who can make it to the White House. None. That means any president at all has to have at least a passing intelligence to make it. If you show the kind of ignorance that these people attribute to Bush, people will brow beat you out of the PRIMARIES. There is this equally ignorant idea that Bush has surrounded himself with smart people who can carry him and catch (most) of his idiotic moments or ideas. Again, use the mushy gray mass, it will serve you well even if it hasn't thus far. It can. I promise. Bush got to be the president because he surrounded himself with competent people who could take up much of the workload so that he could be free to deal with the issues. Yes, the man is inarticulate. Stupid? No.

Webb then goes on to spout yet another lie about Cheney. "It is generally agreed that Cheney is the most powerful and influential VP ever," he says. Maybe in the lunatic conspiracy theory circles he travels in. The Vice President's ONLY power is the ability to vote as a tie breaker in the Senate, if that ever even happens. And if he's there. Perhaps there is a second power. He inherits the presidency if something happens to Bush. Other than that, what power does he have? He goes around and makes speeches. So what? That sounds to me like "the most powerful and influential VP ever." This is pure insanity, and that it made it into the Newsleader says a lot about the paper. Webb is so factually inept its disgusting. And... there's more.

Webb thinks that it is reasonable to assume that Dick Cheney offered himself to the Vice Presidency because those in Haliburton had some interests and he wanted to fulfill those interests. Oh yeah, and Bush didn't actually choose Cheney. He just had to accept him. Cheney pushed and shoved his way against a presidential candidate and poor old Bush just didn't have the backbone to choose someone else. Garbage. And, I'm sorry Mr. Webb. It isn't quite as reasonable as you would think. Remember that old addage about assuming?

Cheney was given severence pay of 35 million for being a productive person. He ran his job effectively and was given that money. He grew the business, made himself valuable. It's not as if Haliburton knew that we would be in Iraq and they would make all that money back by their puppets Dick and George... or is it??? Hmmmmm.... Oh yeah, and we also never went to the moon. Bah.

"We were not greeted as liberators," says Webb. Thats why they keep asking for us to stay until the job is done? No, no one likes another country's people, much less military showing up and running the show. No one. Its obvious. Perhaps, and I'm only speculating, but if we continue and succeed in winning, we will be seen as liberators later on.

"We have lost the respect of most nations," proclaims Webb. Lets first start off thinking about how this world is organized. The international system is anarchic, which is to say that there are no real rules. That means that states or certain organizations are individualistic players seeking their own interests and their own survival. If there is resources enough for some allies (or other "individuals" who see things our way or us theirs), then they can help out. That means when some countries have differing goals or differing allies, then there is potential for conflict. That also means that we never had the respect of anyone accept our allies. And allies switch and change as often as interests and problems arise. Did France ever really like us? Insofar as we had the same interests. Come the Iraq War, did France respect us? No, they had interests in Iraq, namely the Oil for Food program. Same for Russia, same for Germany. So lets remember that 35 nations followed, yes followed, us into Iraq because it was in their best interests. That is all that the world works on, and we would be wise to remember that. The world is made up of people but not a united people and certainly not a whole people. The world is also made up of factions that have become "countries" or groups that try to fight for a better life. Just like individual people, some win, some lose. These countries still respect our military, or they would stop us, don't you think? That is all the respect we will ever gain from another country. Respect for our military.

"The National Debt is staggering," says Webb. I agree. Sometimes there are things more important than money, and we are certainly in very little danger of hurting ourselves.

"3,700 soldiers and Marines have been killed, tens of thousands have lost limbs or suffered other life-altering injuries and we cannot calculate the cost of the serious consequences resulting from the disruption in the lives of the spouse and children of every person serving in Iraq", states Webb. So the moral of the story is to just let other nations be aggressive and fight for what they need or what they believe in, but we shouldn't, because after all, the costs of war are incalculable. Again, sometimes sacrifices must be made and if we decide (like Republicans AND Democrats did) to go to war, then we must make those sacrifices as small as possible. And we have done that here. 3,700 lives lost in a war over 4 years? Its a minuscule amount of American sacrifices in comparison to any other war in our history.

Of course, typical of a conspiracy theorist, Mr. Webb has to reminisce about what could have been if those people down in Florida hadn't been so stupid that they couldn't figure out how a ballot worked. They ignored the arrows in favor of "the second candidate" on the left. I have a link to a diagram and explanation of what happened, though I will say that it is a biased explanation. The diagram shows all. (http://www.asktog.com/columns/042ButterflyBallot.html)

All in all, Mr. Webb has a serious problem with associating reality with dreams and conspiracies revolving around everything he hates most. It makes for a good thriller, but at the very least an unlikely reality. Try using some common sense, Mr. Webb. Try thinking these things out before writing into a supposedly respected newspaper. And last but not least, try to dissociate the world of secret, smoke-filled rooms, shadow government, and political pawns from the real world. Real conspiracy theories of the proportions you propose, are extremely unlikely and that you pose it as serious commentary says volumes about your politics and objectivity.

10 Tips From the Religion of Climate Change: How Best To Sin No More

1. Move only if you absolutely have to and if you have to move, do not drive an SUV (John Edwards http://www.wlos.com/template/inews_wire/wires.regional.nc/22b7034c-www.wlos.com.shtml). Also, do not walk to the place you need to go (Chris Goodall http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece).

2. If you have to eat, eat veggies because meat productions is worse for emissions (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1856817). In addition, try not to eat too many veggies to save for ethanol (http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2007/07/ethanol_and_foo.html).

3. Instead of flipping on the AC or turning on the heater, try doing without. The less coal or natural gas you use, the better the environment gets (http://environment.about.com/od/faqglobalwarming/f/globalwarming.htm).

4. Try building a house out of less wood, or halting your use of paper by writing in the dirt or on walls. Deforestation hurts the Earth's ability to absorb carbon emissions (http://environment.about.com/od/faqglobalwarming/f/globalwarming.htm).

5. Instead of using a toilet, try burying waste. This will save an enormous amount of water (http://nyc.gov/html/dep/html/ways_to_save_water/dodont.shtml).

6. Because of the large amount of chemicals and toxins involved in some cleaning supplies, use environmentally friendly cleaning supplies only if absolutely necessary (http://www.freemoneyfinance.com/2007/07/downgrading-you.html)

7. Compact Flourescent Bulbs are better for the environment, but its even better to simply not use electricity (http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/page.cfm?tagID=608)

8. To cut down on harmful emissions, try not belching, passing gas, or releasing any form of excrement because methane, a gaseous component which is harmful to the atmosphere, is released (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1590/is_8_58/ai_82554146).

9. Recycle everything you can. For example, a used diaper (look to #8 to save even more!) could fertilize your lawn. Reclaim the water from urine by creating a still. Also, try reusing old cereal boxes and the like for paper.

10. To make the supreme sacrifice, simply choose not to breed in order to end your line of carbon emissions with you (http://www.vhemt.org/)

Is Anyone Else Tired of Talking About Michael Vick?

For the past few weeks (a few weeks too long) we've been talking about Michael the awful and horrendous, he-should-be-jailed--FOREVER Vick. I'm so sick of hearing about the guy. I almost wish our justice system would just sentence the guy so all this crap would be over. Yes, he tortured dogs. Yes, they are innocent (not to be confused with human innocence). Yes, he should be jailed. But let's use a little perspective.

It is estimated that in 2001, there were 875,475 abortions performed in the United States (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm). These are innocent humans. Where is the outrage? Who is going to demand the death penalty (yes, I have heard this suggested for Vick) or even a year in prison for those that kill humans? I know what some will be thinking. "Aww, c'mon Rage, why do you not believe in a woman's right to choose? Why do you want to control women's bodies? They aren't actually humans until "x" amount of time has passed. You're a bigot that hates women and women's rights. Chauvinist pig."

Some will think that, but they will be wrong. And they are wrong because the Pro-Choice (Pro-Death) crowd has done an amazing job shifting the debate around. Framing it in such a way as to distract from the one tiny little truth that they will never admit. Women's choice, women's bodies, time at which "humanity" begins, or anything else has absolutely nothing to do with the abortion debate. Here's why:

Its all about whether or not the parent(s) want the child or not. That's it. Simple, quick, easy truth. When parents find out that they are pregnant, what do they say? "I have a parasite!!! YES!!! Or perhaps they prefer "We are having an embryo." No. It's preposterous to even think of someone saying that. They say "We are having a baby." They get ultrasounds to look at fingers and limb movement, and they start looking for names and baby clothes.

What do parents say when they do not want the child? It's an embryo. It's a mistake. It's not really a human until "x" time. They spend no time on ultrasounds or to see what the baby looks like and maybe they try not to think about names or clothing. Something, anything, to justify what they are going to do. It's understandable. Its what people do to justify killing other people all the time. Cock Roach, Vermin, and any racial slur to bring people down to something less than people.

Try taking the "embryo" or "fetus" from a mother that wants it. Take for example the people who get charges on double homicide because the mother wanted it. Or even who get homicide charges because they killed the baby while assaulting the mother. We understand those who want the baby to be having a baby. Those that don't want it, well then its just a "fetus, parasite, embryo, bunch of cells."

What do women who have miscarriages say? "I lost the baby." Shouldn't they just shrug and say, oh well, that fetus wasn't human yet, thank god. No. That would be unthinkable to that mother who lost her baby.

Prove me wrong. I dare you to try. In every instance that people think of the baby as something less than what it is, for any reason, are justifying the right to murder because they do not want the baby. Its as simple as that. Birth control. Abortion is the murder of babies who are not wanted. That's both sad and disgusting at the same time. Maybe someday Americans will see the current debate for what it is: a distraction from an easy truth.

So next time we have a fit over Michael Vick brutalizing and killing dogs, lets remember how many babies we kill every year and how many more we're going to kill before that awful practice gets outlawed.

Ad Council and ONDCP Target Youth?

(http://www.mediacampaign.org/mg/radio.html)

Hello again, I have been thinking of writing this blog for several weeks now simply because it irks me to hear it over and over again. The above link (and the name of this blog), with one simple click, will take you to the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) website. This is not a home page but a set of different commercials that they are aiming towards "youth." Please listen (or read) a few of them. My particular favorites (:::Sarcasm:::) are "Cell Phone" and "MP3 Player."

I am going to post "Cell Phone" here because it is simply the best example of what I am about to do a tirade on. Brought to you by the "ONDCP and The Partnership For a Drug Free America"

SFX - CELL PHONE RINGS
Father: Hello.
Son's Cell Phone's Voice: Mr. Johnson, this is Greg's cell phone calling.
Father: My son Greg?
Son's Cell Phone's Voice: Yeah. I'm with him all the time. I know what's up.
Father: Yeah? What's up?
Son's Cell Phone's Voice: The other night Greg was at this cat's crib and he was smoking a blunt.
Father: What?! I'll put the fear into that kid.
Son's Cell Phone's Voice: No, I meant the other dude. Greg passed.
Father: Still, if he was there. Let me talk to Greg.
Son's Cell Phone's Voice: Hold up. G's taking a test right now. I'm turned off.
Father: Then how...
Son's Cell Phone's Voice: Try us back after school... that's prime time.
ANNCR: Talking. The Anti Drug.

Whew... Where to start? Okay, lets all first admit that we all know that some people speak differently than others. Lets further admit that there is a dialect (I'm no linguist) in which black people tend to speak. That does not mean all and it is in no way a judgment, simply a fact. The ONDCP created this advertisement and it is important to point out that this is "The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy..., a component of the Executive Office of the President." That means the Executive branch.

With those important assumptions out of the way, this commercial uses such words and phrases, simply reading them, as "cat's crib, blunt, G's, that's prime time." Furthermore, if you have actually listened to the commercials, the "Son's Cell Phone's Voice" has a clear accent and a few more of the words they use are pulled into that same type of vocal inflection or pronunciation. Again, I have no problem with any of those words, though I will admit that they are different than the ones I would use and I would certainly not speak them, since I do not fit the bill.

My problem with the whole deal is that the government says its targeting youth. With a commercial like this and actually taking the initiative to have the "Son's Cell Phone's Voice" use the same type of dialect, they must not be targeting all youth. So who are they targeting? It would seem to me that they are targeting a single section of society for Anti-Marijuana commercials. And they feel that for some reason, if they use this dialect, then it will help some kid to listen. Could there be another reason? Sure, but probably not.

I contend that the government's targeting of one specific group, based on skin color, is pejorative. They think that targeting the way someone speaks will help them connect? I'm not in advertising but it seems belittling that they feel as if they need to change the way they present their message to fit into how a group in society speaks. Let me explain, because this may be a little murky, and I would hate for someone to take this the wrong way.

Last election, as always we were inundated with campaign commercials. Over and over I would hear commercials in my area that used (awkwardly, I might add) "Missourah, Missouran," and even worse "Missourah - an." They felt that they could win my vote and my trust simply by trying to change the way they spoke to fit my word choice and dialect. All they did was offend me because they thought I was stupid enough to connect with a candidate or cause because they talked the way I was supposed to talk.

Does the government speak in a North Eastern dialect? British? Southern? I don't really see it, unless they are targeting my vote or in the above case, my choices. I would urge them to be themselves and let the message speak for itself. Do not belittle Americans because they speak differently than you and you feel that you can reach them better with a little "accenting," if you will. Certainly do not target a race group with "accenting" and call it a "Youth Campaign." What do you take us for?

I apologize if I have offended anyone with this opinion, it just rubs me the wrong way. That is all.

Affirmative Action : Corrective as Discrimination : Just

I recently read an article from my favorite person to disagree with, Brian Lewis, of the local paper. It was about affirmative action. Simply click on the title of this post to be redirected to that story. I strongly suggest reading it - for context to what I will say henceforth. I decided to write the Newsleader to offer another view and refute some of the, frankly, ridiculous dismissals Lewis makes about opposition to Affirmative Action. This is my letter, which I will go into more detail after:
A response to Brian Lewis' "Which Path to define affirmative action."

Do not fear. Missouri's Civil Rights Initiative still conjures images of Martin Luther King Jr. and an integrated society. Instead of voter rights and an "end to segregated restaurants, public restrooms, water fountains and swimming pools" it will be citizen's rights and equality. It will be an end to segregated selections for universities and jobs and discrimination by separating people into groups, qualified simply by their skin color.

As to the majority complaining about being victimized by the minority, have you ever heard of "tyranny of the minority?" Its one of the things the Founders hoped to protect against.

When a certain group of people gets a special priviledge based on something so fundamentally unfair as skin color, it tends to generate some disaffection, pushing already parted people even farther.

The only fair way to level the playing field is to base the system on merit. I'm not saying that it doesn't lower some groups back down due to other problems before the university or the job. Affirmative action is simply the incorrect way of fixing our problems.

AA discriminates against one group, the majority, in favor of another based only on skin color. "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." There's my image of Mr. King.

AA is also incorrect for minorities. It sets up a system where quotas must be filled no matter about merit. So what does that teach the minorities? That its okay to "just get by" or do alright instead of pushing them, and the majority, to do exceptional work. And why? They will be guaranteed a spot in college or a spot in a job.

Affirmative Action simply does not do what its supposed to do, which is create equality. Integrate our society by fixing our problems; by ending discrimination, not sustaining it.

The second paragraph is a little vague for those that have not read the other story, so I will explain myself, plus its an excellent point, if I do say so myself (and I do). Lewis writes,

"Still, the complaint that scholarships and affirmative-action programs such as this one victimize and discriminate against people who aren't minorities rings hollow to me. If the definition of discrimination is stretched to include such programs, and I believe that's a stretch, it still pales in comparison to the discrimination that minorities experienced for the first two centuries of American history."

I point out in the second paragraph that the Founders wanted to prevent tyranny of the minority. Basically, tyranny of the minority is what it sounds like, its a few people, due to certain rules or privelege of power who force the rest of the people into doing what they want, at the majority's expense. A quick scan of Google on this topic will turn up anything from the minority in the Senate pushing a filibuster to Christian lawyers trying to "legislate morality." There is something intrinsically wrong about letting a few people or a group (smaller than the majority) dictate what everyone else should do. I will at this point say that the Founders also wanted to protect against tyranny of the majority, which could be exampled by the treatment of black people before the civil rights era (Segregation, poor schools and equipment, etc).

As I say in the letter, it is fundamentally wrong to place some above others, majority or not. It was wrong for people to keep the minority pushed down before, and it's wrong for the minority to do it to the majority. I also acknowledge that there are problems that are keeping minorities held back such as poor schools, bad neighborhoods, etc. The right way to fix this is not to hold up a group of people (and thus hold another down), but to FIX the problems that cause this. Fix the schools, patrol the neighborhood or create helpful programs for children. I do not claim to know how to fix it or even the complexities of these problems. What I do know, what we all know deep inside, is that its wrong to lift some above others in a place where law is supposed to see us all the same. I added the King comment at this point. I do not believe that Martin Luther King would approve of these programs and would readily point out that they create inequality.

Minorities would suffer under this program as well. Instead of studying hard and working hard, all they have to do is be reminded (again) of their skin color and get a free pass into a university or a job. What does that do to create excellence in our citizens? The majority now resents someone being elevated above them for no good reason (yes. No Good Reason). The minority doesn't have to earn anything. Is this really the system we want?

Mr. Lewis says that he doesnt believe that these programs actually work to benefit minorities and hurt the majority. A family member of mine worked at a business that sent around a memo saying that it was impossible for anyone other than minorities to be promoted above mid management point. Very fair for those that worked for a long time and had the experience necessary to earn their promotion. I'm speaking of all the employees who deserved this, not simply my family.

Say no to Affirmative Action, which is to say Legal Discrimination. Think back to your days in school. How fair is it for authority to play favorites? Did you not work just as hard, or did you slack because you were a favorite?

Christian Nation?

(http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070809/OPINIONS03/708090329/1069)

Jack Charchol, the author of the letter to the editor "Congress, court established religion" (linked above) has taken a step in a worrisome direction. He cites the Northwest Ordinance and the court case Church of the Holy Trinity vs. The United States as a "proof" that the United States is around to "legislate, propagate, and secure Christianity." Essentially that this is a Christian nation ordered by the Founders to do Christ's work.

First, Charchol props up his argument with a very narrow quote in the Northwest Ordinance.

"Religious liberty is the basis whereon these republics, their laws and constitutions are erected and that, being necessary to good government, religion, morality, and knowledge shall forever be encouraged."

I say "narrow," but perhaps a better description exists. He pulls several narrow sections out and has thrown them together into meaning what he hopes they meant. Let me give you the way it reads in the Northwest Ordinance. (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/5.htm)

And, for extending the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty, which form the basis whereon these republics, their laws and constitutions are erected; to fix and establish those principles as the basis of all laws, constitutions, and governments, which forever hereafter shall be formed in the said territory

Okay. This is important. Charchol leaves out "the fundamental principles of civil AND religious liberty. Onward!

Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

Alright, so the members of Congress thought that religion, morality and knowledge are necessary for good government. I'm not sure too many would disagree. This does not mean that Christianity is the sole basis or sole religion for the task. Furthermore, morality is not necessarily religious, and can be gained elsewhere. That also includes knowledge. Keep in mind that the members of Congress also wrote several times in this Ordinance about "religious liberty."

Charchol goes on to say that these member of Congress "even defined religion, morality, and knowledge. Religion meant Christianity, morality meant Christian character, and knowledge meant a biblical worldview." I don't know how else to put this, but he's vastly mistaken. There is not one thing suggesting God, Christ, Jesus, Bible, biblical worldview, christian character, etc. Not one. Maybe if you fill in the blanks with what you feel they should be (which were obviously left blank for that "religious liberty"). Charchol should give the Northwest Ordinance another read before citing it, because it clearly and repeatedly speaks of "religious liberty." Religious liberty really doesn't mean much if it really means just Christianity, does it?

Charchol moves on to the famous (or infamous depending on which side of the table you sit) Church of the Holy Trinity vs. The United States of 1892. (Found at http://home.aol.com/TestOath/HolyTrinityOp1-2.htm) There is a passage in the write-up that Charchol clearly pulls some verbiage from.

We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of His Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God, and may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in those parts, to human Civility, and to a settled and quiet Government; DO, by these our Letters-Patents, graciously accept of, and agree to, their humble and well-intentioned Desires."

King James I wrote that on Virginia's Charter in 1606. The verbiage I was referring to is "propagating." That Charchol would give credence to this passage by the use of "propagate" in his article is frankly a little backward. The English gave Virginia the charter in part to propagate Christianity to the miserably ignorant, infidels, and savages that lived here at that time. Is this how Charchol views the world today? He uses it to make his point, so I can only assume this.

Charchol writes that the Holy Trinity vs U.S. states that "Our laws and institutions must necessarily be based on the teachings of the redeemer of mankind." No where in this opinion does it say those words. Redeemer is never used, and mankind is used once in a quotation of the Northwest Ordinance. I'm not sure where Mr. Charchol managed to pull that little gem from, but it wasn't the Northwest Ordinance or the court case mentioned above.

The court case does however, use the words "this is a Christian Nation" which is why its so famous/infamous. But it also says:

There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people

and

These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.

Also, it is important to note that this case is noted for its "87 precedents" which the Joint Baptist Committee says "were not case decisions but mainly examples of our undisputed religious roots from pre-Constitutional documents, historical practice, colonial charters and the like." The court case is an obscure one "that has never been cited as precedent in the modern era", according to Rob Boston on the website http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9471.htm. Yeah, I know, not exactly free of bias, but check out the data and run the searches. Furthermore, the Joint Baptist Committee writes that the court case's comments about religion are a "dicta -- that is, it is a gratuitous statement that is not essential to the Court's holding. The Court had already decided the issue before venturing its opinion as to the religious character of the country." Susan Batte writes: (http://members.tripod.com/~candst/trinity.htm)

The rationale of the case contains the different reasons why the Court decided a case the way that it did. Contained within these reasons can be comments by the Court which do not have any bearing on the specific rule of law and are not binding on future cases with similar facts. These non-essential comments are called dictum, and unlike the holding of the case, dictum carries no precedential value. The essential comments, or the holding, becomes precedent which can then be applied to subsequent cases with similar facts.

Alright, the point is, this court case is hardly anything to base the supposed duty of the United States of America to "legislate, propagate, and secure Christianity. So what we have here, is a few sentences strewn together from the Northwest Ordinance, that somehow come to mean that the United States is a Christian nation with Christianity as its religion, Christian character as the official character of the nation, and the Bible as the sole source of knowledge. Then we move on to a highly disputed and obscure court case, which has seemingly never been cited by another court in over 100 years.

Beyond Mr. Charchol's flawed and misleading interpretations of misleading and flawed citations, respectively, what would be so wrong about accepting that the United States is a Christian nation and, to beat that drum once more, has a duty to "legislate, propagate, and secure Christianity?" I would suggest reading the writings of the Founders and others who actually experienced a state enforcing an official religion.

But for my own gratification, I wish to give my own reasons. Any time a State and a Religion mix together, whether it be the State sticking its nose into Religion or Religion into the State, it leads to a corruption of both. A State that gets into a Religion almost necessarily turns the Religion into politics. Religions are already very clear and solid about sin and politicians are experts at bending truths and playing word games that insinuate less than pure qualities to less than pure people, which is to say everyone. When a Religion gets into a State, the Religion begins to try to enforce itself on its people or others. First through laws, then through police power. Look at any theocracy. That is what happens when States and Religions mix.

Furthermore, I would like to examine what Charchol desires the United States to do. Dictionary.com defines each word following.

Legislate : to exercise the function of legislation; make or enact laws.
Propagate:to spread (a report, doctrine, practice, etc.) from person to person; disseminate. OR to cause to increase in number or amount.
Secure: firmly established, as a relationship or reputation OR make certain of

Alrighty. Mr. Charchol wants to make or enact laws using Christianity as a sole basis. So that means that Agnostics, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, some versions of Christianity, etc. will have to abide by laws of the accepted Christianity (maybe even Mr. Charchol's, if he's lucky).

Mr. Charchol wants to spread, disseminate, or increase in number the amount of Christians. Okay, that's pretty standard in terms of evangelical religions. But lets remember legislate. He wants to, by force of law, spread Christianity.

Now, the really important one. Secure. He wants the United States to firmly establish or make certain of Christianity. This is the one that takes the United States out of the United States and into the world. Legislate has to do with our laws and such. Propagate ties into both Legislation and Security. He would like to see the United States secure and propagate Christianity throughout the world.

Mr. Charchol forgets that Christianity is a choice. It must be chosen for someone to accept it. Legislation and security are solid concepts of enforcement. Can religion really be enforced? Can you shove religion down some one's throat and make them accept it? Not only is Mr. Charchol so blatantly advocating the ignorance of the Constitution, but also one of the things that Christianity requires. Acceptance. Not force.

-Rage

Late Great Ché Guevara

Larry Pratt, taken from newswithviews.com exposes some of the apparently little known facts about Che Guevara. I say "little known" in reference to pop culture's adoring approval of Che Guevara. That man's face is all over America, showing itself on t-shirts, buttons, and anything else large enough to hold a likeness. Pratt writes that it "seems to be intended as a statement that it is good to be free of the crushing norms of a civilization tricked up by dead white men." He goes on to say that Che Guevara is hailed as a man looking past material possessions and on to something more or better. Carlos Santana, as Pratt points out, says that "Che is all about love and compassion." This is the idealized Late Great Che Guevara.

The real Che Guevara is something else as well as something less. Lets take these one at a time, as Pratt describes them.

1. Pratt writes that Guevara seized a sizeable mansion (one of the biggest in Cuba) and lived lavishly for as long as he was allowed to stay. But the guy probably just had a whole lot of friends and family that needed a place to stay, thus making the mansion a necessity. Right? Right?
2. Che became the Minister of the Economy and "drove Cuba into the ground." Pratt writes, "This was not a failure in socialist terms." Maybe just in life terms. But who am I to judge?
3. "Che began his tenure in power by signing his name as Stalin II." And we all know how great a man Stalin was...
4. Pratt writes that Guevara "carried out executions on a daily basis." He also borrows a passage from Humberto Fontova's Exposing the Real Che Guevara, who quoted Che as saying, "I don’t need proof to execute a man ­ I only need proof that it's necessary to execute him."
5. Che "lead" two, notably failed, attempts to overthrow foreign governments. In the Congo, the Africans stopped listening to his directions and even began avoiding the man (Pratt).
   
6. In Bolivia, after he had sent his men to fight to the death, he was caught by the Bolivian army and "threw his guns down and pled for his life."

Che's story is one of materialism, war, inadequacy, brutality, and cowardice. Makes for a good story, but only if the good guy(s) get to take him down. It stands to say that Che was not what many people believe that he was and stood for much different ideas than most hold dear. The next time you see his image remember that this glorified man was just that glorified. I don't want suggest anything childish or immature, but maybe draw a Hitler 'stache, a "Hello - I'm Stalin II sticker, or some horns and an eyepatch. It would be a closer version to the truth.

Giuliani : Not to Be Or Not to Be?

(http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1346135671802682033&hl=en)

I found this video on google's video site. It's something that is very telling about Republican candidate for the Presidency, Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani states,

"If I weren't running for president, I would be supporting him. If for some reason I decided not to run, he would be my candidate"

If you have read any amount of my writing, I make it pretty clear that McCain is probably not going to be getting my vote or even much of a nod of approval. Sadly, this sinks whatever foundering view I had of RINO Giuliani. Its very telling about what Giuliani is okay with. He is okay with McCain's staunch views against interrogation, McCain-Feingold, and McCain's soft and weak solution to our immigration problems.

This was just too revealing to let pass. Enjoy.

-Rage

How Does This Happen?

What I am about to write is not for the faint of heart. And if you've been desensitized to it, SHAME ON YOU. Everyone has been talking about those darn earmarks (Pork). Whether you like the bill or not, perhaps its better if you get a little more acquainted with some of the truly ridiculous amounts of money that the Congress of the United States is sending back home - for votes. Yes, I meant what I said, for votes. Do you want to know how I know this? I'm sure you do, it is after all a judgement and definitely should be backed up. What I've got is a disclaimer. Its put on the White House website's OMB (Office of Management and Budget) page.

This database is not designed, and cannot accurately be used, to identify the congressional sponsors of earmarks. In addition, the recipient listed in the database may not in all cases represent the ultimate beneficiary of the earmark.

Okay, lets break this down, for my benefit. The database on the OMB website does not "accurately" point out which member of Congress sponsored the earmark. Oh yeah, and the people who the database says is getting the money, might not be the "ultimate beneficiary of the earmark." May not be the ultimate beneficiary? Doesn't point out who sponsored the earmark (pork)? Thats pretty suspicious, in my humble opinion. These Congress members are not identified in their reports. Its just a calculation of earmarks. I think its safe to say that protection was the driving force behind that one. Protection against what, you say? Votes. Bad Publicity. Anger. Tossing their sorry butts back on the street for an honest job.

Alright, now to the scary stuff. The OMB reports that there were a total of 13,496 individual earmarks (pork). I wish that that was the number of dollars, too, but alas. 13,496 earmarks add up to no less than $19,037,681,000 in 2005. Lets see, carry the two... Thats 19.03 (B)illion Dollars. That's Billion with a "B." This is how much money our Congress has seen fit to send back to the rest of the states and territories and even overseas. This is how much the Congress felt it should get to spend instead of us. I'm sure some of it was necessary, I'm not denying that. Let me illustrate my incredulity.

Congress voted to allow $412,000 to be spent on "exhibits and educational programs" in the James Ford Bell Museum of Natural History at the University of Minnesota. All when the structure of the nations bridges are under question, because of the bridge collapse in Minnesota.

What about the $866,000 the Federal government sent to the city of Minneapolis? It was for "combined sewer overflow." The Federal government is funding the cities of states? I'm not sure I read in the Constitution that the Federal government is supposed to be supporting cities. I understand catastrophe, like Hurricane Katrina and the bridge collapse. But c'mon, couldn't Minneapolis' "combined sewer overflow" been paid by, oh, I dunno Minnesotans? Or better yet, citizens of Minneapolis? Why did Missouri's citizens pay for some project for Minneapolis? It doesn't make any sense, especially with our states taxing us to take care of running the state (including its cities). It doesn't make any sense for the Federal government to fund cities that also tax citizens to run themselves.

It is past time for the Congress of the United States to bug out of state affairs and allow the cities and states to handle their own problems (except defense, infrastructure, etc.). This money that Congress feels it can just blow away is our money. They have so much money in Washington that they have no idea where it all goes. Maybe more of that money should be distributed among the states by giving that money back to citizens (or never collecting it in the first place) and letting the states tax as they need, or cities. Congress has no business funding projects in our nation's cities, save for Washington, D.C. To add insult to injury, there is no accurate way of finding out who sponsored these pet projects or who the "ultimate beneficiary" was. Maybe a little more sunshine in Washington would scare away the monsters from under our bed. Maybe a little more sunshine would help member of Congress to remember that its our money they are spending.

(Here is that White House page : http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/earmarks/preview-public-site/statesc49e.html?source=APP&mode=agencies)

The Self Titled Sicko

It seems that we are on the brink of proving Senator Rockefeller right when he said that Americans would get Hillarycare even if they "had to stuff it down their throats." An interesting visual, to say the least. Canada's health care system and Cuba's health care system are being touted as the end-all be-all of health care systems. Are their systems better than ours?

I remember a chapter title in a book by John McMillan called Reinventing the Bazaar. The title of the chapter was "He who can't pay dies." This is the first time I ever heard that phrase, and it made me think. It says so much about how health care is organized. If you are poor, sorry, no health care. If you just can't afford to pay the outrageous prices for operations, sorry, no health care. The phrase also makes it clear that in this type of system, health care is not a right, but a privilege earned through wealth. When we are speaking about human lives and the quality of life, it seems almost inhumane to even begin to subscribe to this type of system where the poor are left behind, and as far as health care pricing goes, the middle class is also left behind. That is until the alternative is examined.

I recently came upon a website, which has been linked to in this post. Its freemarketcure.com. The article that I read there was called Socialized Medicine is Sicko by Stuart Browning. He writes about the Canadian system. Here are just a few facts, yes facts, about their system.

1. Canadians are waiting (due to rationing) for about 800,000 procedures
2. The median wait time for health care procedures in Canada is 17.8 weeks
3. Stuart writes," It is not hard to find Canadians who have waited months to get an MRI"
4. Waits for health care in Canada go like this : "the wait to see a specialist, the wait to get a diagnostic test, the wait to get surgery - and then the wait for rescheduled surgery after one's initial surgical appointment has been cancelled - sometimes multiple times - a routine phenomenon."
5. "Lindsay McCreith, a Canadian with a suspected brain tumor... had to wait four months for an MRI. Instead, he crossed the border to the U.S and got it in two days."
6. "Janice Fraser who, unable to urinate, needed to have a pacemaker-type device implanted to control her bladder. Unfortunately, the hospital arbitrarily rationed the operation by doing only one per month. Janice was number 32 on the list - nearly a three year wait. She ended up waiting so long that she developed life-threatening infections, had to have her bladder removed in an emergency procedure, and will now wear a urine bag for the rest of her life."
7. "In May, the Toronto Star ran a story about an Ontario man with a fist-sized hole in his head - due to an car accident - who had to wait one year for surgery to close it."
8. In Britain, Doctors at Glasgow University published a study claiming that, "464,000 deaths had been caused over the last 30 years by the NHS in Scotland and that "the vast majority of people - around 250,000 - who died due to inadequate or delayed treatment were heart or stroke patients."

These are just a few examples but they signify the widespread problems with a nationalized health care system. Lets look at some of the problems that are facing our own system - as told by Michael Moore (http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070713/ENTERTAINMENT01/707130346/1005/ENTERTAINMENT)
(http://www.eurekareporter.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?ArticleID=25979)
(http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11208212)

1. An 18-month-old girl dies of cardiac arrest because a hospital refuses her care because her mother's insurance company isn't valid at that hospital.
2. A single mother raising children on $1,000 a month is paying $240 a month for two inhalers.
3. An elderly woman with fresh stitches in her scalp is left at curbside by a taxi because she's run out of time at the hospital.
4. 50 million people in the U.S. without health insurance.
5. An accident victim who has to choose which finger to have reattached because he can't afford to pay for both.

Okay, so now there are horror stories from both sides here. What are we to do?

Before we take that plunge and decide where we might go with our health care system, lets look at a few of these above examples.

1. The first example is the 18 month child that has a cardiac arrest and dies because the mother's health insurance is not valid at that hospital. Is it not against the law for that hospital to refuse service for emergencies, let alone dire emergencies? I wonder what the backstory is for this unfortunate child.
2. The second is a mother that earns $1,000 a month but pays $240 for two inhalers. Not to be cruel... BUT $1,000 bucks a month comes out to $6.25/hour for 40 hours a week or $8.33/hour for 30 hours a week. My first job's starting wage was $5.75. After I getting raises putting me up to 6.25, I have never earned anything less than that since 5 years have passed. Just a consideration. Next, what are the inhalers for? I am near sighted. I do not need to have lasek surgery, though I would like it. Is it the same for the inhalers?
3. Maybe I'm misunderstanding this one, but is this an example about a woman that took a cab to the hospital and it left her because she took too long in the hospital? If so... makes sense... Call another cab?
   
4. Read the freemarketcure.com - it provides another view of the claimed 50 million.
5. I personally do not believe that the hospital refused to put back on a guys finger because he couldn't pay. Hospitals have to treat your medical problem by law. That means if you have the fingers, they have to put them back on. What a foolish story. Imagine a doctor standing there asking the guy, can you pay for me to put back on your fingers? Oh no, just one of them. I think I'd like to keep the index one, if thats alright. If the man can afford to pay for one, the hospital will set up a payment plan for him to get the second one. So stupid. So unbelieveable.

I have some further points on this issue. There are a lot of questions about the aims of our health care system. The most popular is that the doctors and hospitals are in it to make money. What that means is that they get you in rush you out, without really caring about you and your problem, but your money. You get to make the decision now about what kind of insurance you want and the treatments you want to have, up to the point at which you can afford said treatments. You can also get your treatments done quickly, though the critics claim without the right care.

In other places, the critics of our system say their doctors and hospitals are in the business to help the patients. There is a disconnect here, though. Do doctors and hospitals not make money in Canada or wherever? Surely the doctors do. But they get paid the same no matter who they see or who they treat. This means that they can go as slow as they need to in order to give you exactly the right amount of care for your problem. Or maybe they just aren't in any rush because they make the same anyway. What is the incentive in this system for creating new and better treatments? It can't be money, since that is not a driving factor in the system. Maybe its just feeling good. Or fame? Instead of your insurance company choosing what they will cover, its the government choosing. Instead of being limited to the treatments you can afford, everyone is limited to the treatments that the government can afford. That means essentially the same thing as it does here. You save your money (the government saves its money (ha)) and you get the treatment when you have enough (the government sets a waiting time for you to get your treatment, or in other words, saves the money for that time). I see no difference except that now everyone has to have the same limited treatment, no matter what they can afford. And the government tells you what kind of treatment you can have, despite what you want to get. Also, its illegal to get private insurance or look for a cheaper policy. The young, who most likely will not be plagued by old age type medical problems are treated the same as those that are more likely to have those medical problems. That means their money (tax money) is taken from them despite their need or lack of need.

Do you really get better care? Doctors still are in the business to make money, right? They have to live just like the rest of us and they surely don't work for free. Someone is still limiting the care you can get, whether its yourself and your pocket book or its the government and its pocketbook.

I will admit that our system needs fixing. I'm just very distrusting of the government's ability to handle the problem better than I can handle it myself. And I'm more afraid of the the slogan "We who can't pay, die" than I am "He who can't pay dies."