Sunday, April 14, 2013

MARGARET THATCHER: The Iron Lady?





I was disappointed that in Britain, upon Margaret Thatcher’s death (she was the Prime Minister there 1979-1990) crowds were seen gathering in London celebrating her death with the ditty “Ding, Dong, the queen is dead”; the song shot up to number one in the charts.

Thatcher was definitely controversial but in my reading of history, she basically saved Britain from economic collapse and put Britain on a road to recovery that serves it well to this day albeit new kinds of economic problems have arisen.

Britain in 1979 was so socialist that the government controlled everything and everyone and even wiped your arse for you.

To some, that form of socialism bordering on Communism, suited them well after all why bother with individual responsibility when the government took care of you birth to death.

While this was appealing to the public, it was economically unsustainable as evidenced by the collapse of the Soviet Union and other centrally controlled and planned economic systems.

To nurse the Brits off the government teat, she had to yank the teat and you should have heard the shrieking, screaming and gnashing of teeth.

She deregulated and sold off many state-owned companies (the government owned practically everything) and, and this is probably where all the cheering at her death comes from, she castrated the unions; the Russians called her THE IRON LADY.

Her Conservative (Tory) Party is the largest in Britain and is in power under Cameron today.

You may rejoice at the death of an 87 year-old woman who died of a stroke, but history will mark her time on earth as quite influential and remarkable. 

Enhanced by Zemanta

NEW GUN CONTROL PROPOSAL: A first step!






I was watching some of the Sunday morning news shows and the issue of gun control and the new proposal was talked about on all the shows.

The debate has become more and more absurdist as the proposal only seeks to have background checks to include gun show sales and internet sales (?) but not sales between private individuals. To object to such a minor point in the whole gun debate is beyond comprehension, and yet they do.

Many keep citing the Second Amendment which I have argued in the past, does not grant anyone a Constitutional right to bear arms but only to a well-regulated militia. But the Supreme Court decided against a literal reading of the Amendment and voted to interpret the amendment as “individual’s right to bear arms”.

Even as I disagree with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment I cannot disagree that the American culture has gun ownership as a right of every American; so be it, but that does not mean a “right” without any boundaries or limitations; is there a right to own a tank?

I recently bought two “coach” shotguns for home protection; one for basement and one for upstairs bedroom. These are 12 gauge shotguns with shorter barrel lengths.

I bought them at Dick’s Sporting Goods and was subjected to some intense background checks. Did I mind, hell no…what do I have to fear but I would feel much better if everyone was subjected to these checks because I fear criminals and loony birds getting their hands on guns…which they will anyway but maybe some will be stopped.

The shotguns turned out to be a little too heavy for my wife and I will be forced to get her a revolver.

I am not getting these guns because I believe gun ownership will somehow be banned in the near future but because our society is becoming so violent and dangerous that I think households will be forced into getting some form of home protection; we already have an alarm system.

The dilemma here is that even though most Americans do not want to ban gun ownership, many demand more regulation as in something like getting a license to drive a car while the NRA radicals want absolutely NO regulations.

To me the NRA stance is absurd and the fact that the NRA is so powerful in Congress is also absurd.

I was happy to see a bi-partisan attempt at introducing a background check law, that even if not universal background checks, is still a step in the right direction.

I think that Republicans that object even to this watered down attempt at gun control should be identified to the general public and ridiculed in the media for their stupidity just like the Republicans that said some rapes are not really rapes, rapes.

The parents of a boy killed in the Newtown massacre were in Congress to plead the case for some gun control. Their son’s name was Ben and he was 6; my grandson’s name is Ben and he is 6.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, April 11, 2013

NO COMMUNION TO: supporters of gay marriage...so there!!!






Catholic professor Edward Peters of Detroit and Detroit archbishop Allen Vigneron have stated that Catholics that support gay marriage should not really be receiving communion since they are acting contrary to Catholic law.

This was reported in the Detroit Free Press by Niraj Warikoo in an article titled: GAY MARRIAGE REVIVES CATHOLIC DEBATE…4/9/2013.

Nancy Kaffer of the same paper responded with her article: CHURCH STANCE ON COMMUNION, GAY MARRIAGE IS NO REVELATION.

This is not a new argument as Catholic bishops in the past have tried to deny communion to public figure Catholics who espouse pro-choice positions and support gay marriage rights. Among those are Nancy Pelosi, Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, Andrew Cuomo, governor of New York and former governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm.

The divide and disconnect between Catholic leaders and the Catholics they are supposedly leading is because normal Catholics are evolving socially way faster than the stodgy old church.

Statistics show that 86% of Catholics find birth control measures as morally acceptable in total disagreement with church pronouncements. Normal Catholics cannot understand why condoms should be banned even in areas like Africa where HIV/AIDS is running rampant.

And many normal Catholics are asking how dare the church hand down  all these moral “absolutes” while struggling with a catastrophic priestly pedophile scandal that church leaders tried to cover up; the current church does not have a moral leg to stand on.

Nancy Kaffer asks if it is normal to be a member of a religion with which you have some strong moral disagreements. Well obviously American Catholics have huge disagreements with church teachings but they keep going to church because they somehow by pass church leadership and use their time in church to speak directly to their god as my most Catholic mother told me she does.

So the Vatican and Catholic leadership, at least in the United States, are becoming irrelevant in the greater religion scene here. I have even read about priests and bishops that are grumbling about the Vatican ordering them to support teachings that are insupportable because those teachings clash with basic reason as in the condom use prohibition; something has to give.

As far as keeping communion, the central theme of the Catholic faith away from Catholics that do not agree with church teachings; I have heard that is a minority position among priests and bishops in the U.S.; they are losing too many members as it is, they cannot alienate anymore; who would drop coins in the collection baskets?



Enhanced by Zemanta

THE NEW REPUBLICANS: Not the party of stupid anymore?


I was pleased to read an article by Nolan Finley of the Detroit News entitled: AGEMA BIGOTRY OPENS DOOR TO NEW GOP VOICES / April 11, 2013.

Finley is a conservative writer and thinker but he is also a realist and that is why I like reading his comments.

I have been remarking for years that if the Republicans would get the hell out of social issue positions that show them as Neanderthals (cave men) way out of touch with what Americans think and feel; I would become a Republican since I agree with their Libertarian approach to the economy and general governance…but that seemed very unlikely in my lifetime…till now…a glimmer of hope.

Republicans have been embarrassing themselves by going public with stupid remarks about rape, etc. and in the case of Michigan national committeeman Dave Agema, posting on his Facebook anti-gay rantings by a white supremacist and refusing to apologize since he agreed with those idiotic rantings.

Agema was attacked by other Republicans as not representing the GOP in today’s climate on the ground in the United States.

Many are now saying that it is OK to be Republican and pro-choice or pro-gay marriage. To me this means that the Republicans are kind of abandoning the politics of the religious right wing and their obsession with family values. Finley now says that the GOP wants to be known as a party for economic freedom and individual liberty; not telling you how to live your life.

Now let’s be realistic about this. Republicans have been losing political clout and power because they are so backward on social issues and know that if they want to return to power they have to change.

I questioned how one could abandon long held principles so easily but I guess in politics there are no principles, just positions that win elections.

It still seems strange because of the speed of the change. Just in the last election, Romney had to become a fundamentalist Christian moron just to get nominated and espouse positions and views that he did not personally agree with but hey, that was the only way…and now, who needs those religious jerks to get nominated!


It certainly is a fast about face but I think they got tired of being called the party of stupid.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, April 02, 2013

THE HISTORY CHANNEL has no history: The Bible





I finished watching History Channel’s THE BIBLE and its last episode, conveniently showing on Easter Sunday, and I was a little disturbed.

I acknowledge that a preface to the series stated that the Bible stories in the TV series were “loosely” based on the Gospel stories contained in the Bible.

The problem with that disclaimer is since the Gospels are our ONLY sources for the life of Jesus; anything not matching up with the Gospels is the writers’ attempt to re-write the Bible stories to match their own religious agenda…and they did just that.

Roma Downey (plays Mary) and Mark Burnett (creator of Survivor) produced this series which they describe as their “calling” to bring Bible literacy to the masses but actually ended up misrepresenting the Bible.

Does that matter?

The fact that over 11 million people tuned in to see the last days of Jesus on the “history” channel and since a majority of viewers probably believe what they see on the “history” channel is fact, hell yes it matters because they were deceived and will now spread that misinformation as fact.

One attempt to deceive was having the resurrected Jesus advocate and promote the missions of St. Paul to his apostles.

Paul never met Jesus and did not spread the message of Jesus but used Jesus’ resurrection in his new religion called Christianity which advocated the end of times (the apocalypse is nigh).

Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet but he dealt strictly with the Jews; the idea of bringing in the gentiles (non-Jews) was a Pauline idea which was rejected and opposed by the apostles of Jesus (as written in the Bible).

There were many other issues in this made for TV series where the writers deliberately misrepresented the stories as told in the Bible and the question is why.

Bible scholars have already chimed in with why Downey and Burnett produced the series called The Bible the way that they did and many of those scholars, at least the ones that commented, said that their agenda was basically to show that all the Bible stories they decided to show (and they left out a lot), pointed or led to Jesus as in prophesying or predicting.

I hope more Bible scholars come out and review this TV presentation because it needs honest review and criticism even though the damage has been done and many people were brainwashed already.



Enhanced by Zemanta

CONFEDERATE MONUMENTS: Stay or Go...

Another subject that I feel needs some clarification because it is so divisive among us is the issue of Confederate Monuments, why they ...