DIVIDE IRAQ NOW!!!

The U.S. Senate passed a non-binding resolution last week calling for the division of Iraq along sectarian lines in a system that would control and distribute oil revenues equally among the three sectors: Kurd, Shiite and Sunni.

This is the plan I have recommended as the only plan that would work for Iraq. Well the Bush Administration opposed any thoughts of dividing the country and Maliki’s government, both Shiite and Sunni followed suite in opposing the plan – predictable.

We expected the Bush reaction; he is a total lunatic at this point with dreams that his plan for a democratic Iraq will somehow succeed. We should not expect any sane plans from his administration; he will leave office screaming that he needed just a little more time for his plan to work.

The Shiite and Sunni reaction is also predictable. They fear that the Kurds have already stabilized Northern Iraq and are now rolling in wealth from oil; if you allow them to form a separate national entity; they will keep the wealth for themselves.

The Sunnis and Shiite may hate each other but they both hate the Kurds even more and hate the fact that they have organized themselves into a peaceful sector that is working and prospering.

We have said that oil revenues would be distributed on a per-capita basis – per person which is as fair as you can get it but the Shiite and Sunni are not about fair; they want it all and they can get it all if they control the central government.

Our government has always rejected the reality on the ground in Iraq and has held on to an impossible dream that is now being exploited by the shrewd Iraqis (non Kurds).

If Bush had any balls and a mind to go with them he would have told them “We will divide you, distribute oil revenues and make sure no one invades anyone OR we will leave Iraq and you will then divide yourselves by killing each other – which way do you prefer”.

I am happy that more and more people are joining the “divide Iraq” camp but we need to put some muscle behind it and not wait for a new president to do what is necessary.

ATHEISTS ARE TOO RUDE?

This was a response to a column in the Home Life magazine in the Detroit News. Marney Rich Keenan talks about how the atheist Christopher Hitchens really lets religious people have it between the eyes without any regards how the world regards these people; he does not play nice-nice. His now famous quote: "The absence of evidence is the evidence of absence" - wow!



Sunday, September 30, 2007

Re: “Mother Teresa’s letters shake up faithful, but atheist goes to far”, Sept. 29.


My wife pointed out your column to me since she knows I like religious issues. I agree that Christopher Hitchens is a little over the top but after centuries of having to acquiesce to everything religious, the atheists and agnostics feel the need to let off a little steam and not play nice-nice like they have in the past.

I have even read articles in the Wall Street Journal where people decry the new rudeness of secularists but if you really feel deeply about the insult to your intelligence that religion represents than you can kind of empathize a little.

Anyway my point in writing you is actually the statement that struck my wife which is at the end of your piece and talks about the “selfless concept of faith” and the inspiration for Mother Teresa’s “works of love”.

To me, religious orders that dedicate their lives to helping the dregs of humanity are not selfless. These people want and pursue God’s blessing and hopefully a better place in heaven.

The truly selfless person dedicates his or her life to helping fellow humans in need because it is the “human” thing to do. Secular Humanists recognize the innate “humanness” inside of all humans and practice it. They do not seek rewards or praise especially from a supernatural being which they do not believe in.

I do agree that “faith” does inspire people to do good works; I just don’t call it selfless.

Good, though-provoking column.

Regards,

SCHIP- A socialist takeover plan!

Sunday, September 30, 2007

To: The Detroit Free Press
Re: “Don’t cut off health plan for poor kids”, Reader Forum section, Sept. 30.


Although your pleading headline “Don’t cut off health plan for poor kids”, Sept. 30, and the accompanying letters seem to paint President Bush as a heartless scrooge, the reality of the situation seems to suggest otherwise.

The original SCHIP (State Children’s health Insurance Program) legislation provided health coverage for millions of children whose parents were low-income but not poor enough to qualify for Medicare. The plan was well thought out and did exactly what the plan sponsors intended; help poor kids.

The Democrats took that well intentioned legislation and instead of just re-authorizing it, turned it into a socialized medicine monster. The plan no longer is about “poor kids” but now resembles a health welfare program for the many.

This issue is obviously being spun in a way as to totally confuse what really is at stake here and Americans need to get through the emotional populist nonsense and get to the facts before it’s too late.

BACK FROM A GREAT TIME!

Hey I'm back from a great trip to Hilton Head Island, South Carolina just outside Savannah, Georgia.

Great place to eat, drink and be merry and enjoy the Atlantic and what is left of the Summer.

Now on with the show...

RELIGION FOR DUMMIES!

A little more on ignorance, this time ignorance of the Bible in the nation that is the MOST religious nation in the developed world and also the most religiously IGNORANT nation in the developed world.

This bit of knowledge comes from a new book RELIGIOUS LITERACY: WHAT EVERY AMERICAN NEEDS TO KNOW – AND DOESN’T by Stephen Prothero, the chair of the religion department at Boston University.

Only half of those polled could name even one of the Four Gospels. Only one in three knew who delivered the Sermon on the Mount. Less than half of the people polled could identify the first book of the Bible.

Interestingly, about 75% of those polled believe that the Bible teaches that “God helps those that help themselves” – actually that was Benjamin Franklin that said that.

The author of the book noted that Evangelical Christians, those that really study the Bible did not do markedly better than the rest.

The poll also recorded that as little as Americans know about the Bible they know even less about any other religion especially Islam, Buddhism, Confucianism or Hinduism.

To add a little humor to this dismal picture, the author found that more than 10% of people polled believed that Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife.

I guess this is not so funny but actually pretty pitiful. What it says about our society, the society that is so full of religion; in your face religion, is that those that blow all this religious hot air are just that, full of hot air; dumb hot air.

The bad thing is that you cannot realistically argue nor have an intelligent conversation about religion with people that are basically sheep that recite whatever they are taught at Sunday school or at Catechism class and never put any serious thought behind any of their beliefs.

The author of the article about this book also notes, as I did, the “general decline in the public’s cultural and civic knowledge” but did not speculate as to the reasons for the decline.

Are we an empire in decline?

MORE MISCONCEPTION & IGNORANCE

Continuing my battle against misconceptions of history or shall we just say ignorance in America, I would like to report on American’s idea about Christianity and our Constitution.

An annual poll is conducted by a group called the “First Amendment Center”, a non-partisan educational group to measure attitudes towards the freedom of religion, speech and the press in this country.

They found that 55% thought that the Founding fathers wrote Christianity into the Constitution thus establishing a Christian nation.

Another 58% thought that public school teachers should be allowed to lead prayers. This feeling is rising annually.

Only 56% of the people thought that freedom of religion applies to everyone no matter how extreme their beliefs. The shocking thing is that this is down from 72% in the year 2000.

One person reviewing the results of this poll found it very ironic that Bush is sending our troops to their deaths to establish a “secular” democracy in Iraq while the bozos here, including Bush, want to establish a Christian state in the U.S. – duh?

The poll clearly shows that the American population is getting dumber and dumber when it comes to historic “truths” and this is why we are experiencing such an unprecedented surge of, what I consider, un-American feelings towards others and towards our country in general.

These people do not know what America stands for!

Why is that? Do our schools just not teach the facts? Do we just gloss over subjects like the Civil War with easy but not totally correct answers like “the civil war was about slavery” – next subject.

I have intelligent friends that still ask where the “Separation of Church and State” comes from; it is not in our Constitution. Where does it say “freedom FROM religion…” etc?

Why doesn’t the public know that our Founding Fathers were “deists?” They did not believe in “man made religions”, they just believed that a god or supernatural power, started the whole shebang but then nature took its course.

Our Founding fathers also knew that religion and politics did not mix and they put that into our Constitution so they would NEVER mix but why do people of today want it to mix and become one doing everything opposite of what our Founding Fathers prescribed..

It all boils down to religious kooks trying to take over our nation and turn it into an IRAN. Iran is a theocracy - EVEN though these kooks are against Muslim theocracies – but if it is a Christian theocracy it is OK.

I have a feeling that Americans listen to people that pretend to know – demagogues – and do not know themselves or care to do any research themselves to learn the FACTS. They are becoming sheep but obnoxious sheep; sheep that think they know everything.

I will admit, on the other hand, that the this subject of Church & State and the original intent of our Founding Fathers needs to be revisited every so often just to remind people where our Founders stood and what our Constitution stands for. President Bush is violating the spirit if not the letter of our Constitutional law with his federal support of "faith based" groups. What is a common citizen on the street to think when his president is ignoring the Constitution.

I am not going to get into a whole discourse on the subject (maybe later) but lets make a few things quite clear. In the "Article of the Treaty of Tripoli" signed by John Adams and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the opening line is: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion...". These are the dudes that should know what the hell they had in mind with the Constitution, OK?

Also, religious sects escaping prosecution from state religions in Europe like the Pilgrims and Puritans, ironically passed laws in their own states baring other sects from freely practicing their own religions - can you believe it?

Anyway, our Founders eliminated all that by stipulating in the Constitution as Amendment I: "Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".

Thomas Jefferson, one of the authors of the Constitution was asked to clarify the above amendment as it pertains to religion replied that it is meant to specifically create a WALL OF SEPARATION between Church and State. This is plain and clear and from one of the authors so quit trying to interpret what they meant.

All I can say is do not put up with historical inaccuracies. If you see or read something that you know is inaccurate; stamp it out by challenging it, otherwise lies will just be propagated until people will take them for truths.

More on ignorance…

MORE HISTORICAL MISCONCEPTION!

Another letter writer wrote that Bush is trying to democratize the Middle East and give those people freedom and once they will taste freedom like we have, they will renounce terrorism and be nice, nice.

I had to point out that democracy is not for everyone and in the case of Iraq it’s not ever going to work and we were stupid and naïve for ever trying to make them into a democracy.

The letter writer continued by compare our setting the Iraqi people free to our setting the Negro free from slavery during the American Civil War. He pointed out that many of our local boys gave their lives during the Civil War just to win them their freedom.

Well this is a sore point with me going all the way back to college days in the late 1960s and early 1970s. My teacher in American History was an old man that kept insisting that the American Civil War was primarily a war for or against slavery.

I challenged the old man and was joined by a fellow classmate that happened to be black. He obviously did his homework and could not abide by the teaching of revisionist history. This is what they do in Japan. Their textbooks gloss over WWII and the atrocities committed by the Japanese soldiers.

I realize that many in the United States were taught and believe that the War Between the States was mainly and in some cases, only about slavery but that does not make it OK in my eyes. Just because our text books created this false impression does not mean we have to let it continue.

I told the letter writer that it was naïve to think our civil war was fought just because of slavery. I also mentioned that the northern boys were not risking their lives to free Negroes from slavery; they were risking their lives to preserve the union (central government) and to continue the expanding northern industrial economy.

The southern rural boys were also not risking their lives just to keep slavery legal in the south; they were fighting for their independence from the overbearing (tariffs) North and to preserve their way of life (State’s Rights).

I am not saying that slavery was not a factor; it was but mostly as an economic tool (slave labor) without which the South could not prosper and in fact, economically perish. In fact, the South did economically perish and it has taken quite a while for the South to rise again, economically that is.

Both North and South were racist. Some in the North as well as in the South despised the institution of slavery but did not consider the races equal or that they could ever co-exist.

My friend from Texas sent me an “Address on Colonization to a Committee of Colored Men”, Abraham Lincoln, Washington, D.C. (1862). In this address, Lincoln is urging the freed slaves to emigrate to Central America and there start a fresh life since Lincoln felt the two races could not and should not live side by side in the United States.

I will have more comments on the Lincoln attitude towards race in a separate blog.

You may call this nit-picking but if a person is basing their thinking on some historic event they may as well know what really happened and how people at that time really felt instead of basing their thinking on another misconception!

FIGHT BUSH LIES!

I have been on a kind of a mission lately. Every time I read a letter to the editor in our local paper that is full of historical misinformation, I take it upon myself to correct the individual. I don’t do it in a nasty way; I try to be as gentle as possible.

My rationale for doing this is to not only educate the individual that is misinformed but hopefully to reach many other individuals that may be similarly misinformed.

I don’t consider myself an expert but I feel very confident with certain subjects and I also research and confirm my positions.

The amount of basic ignorance in this country is staggering and if more people would challenge this ignorance in public, maybe some will get a dose of enlightenment.

In the two (2) letters to the editor that I posted recently, the first letter has to do with the misinformation that still abounds about the Iraq war. Bush has done a great job of bamboozling Americans into believing his version of things which are NOT TRUE or NOT FULLY TRUE.

A good example was his most recent speech where he hammered at the need to fight al-Qaeda before they come here and kill us. He makes it seem like that is what the war is about. He forgets to tell us that Iraq had NO al-Qaeda terrorists before Bush’s invasion and that Saddam Hussein hated al-Qaeda and would never permit them to operate from Iraqi soil.

Bush went on to say that he wants Iraq to be able to repel al-Qaeda and deny them a home in Iraq and he will keep our troops there until that is possible. Well hell, all Bush had to do is NOT invade Iraq and al-Qaeda would NEVER have been able to enter Iraq,

To you this may seem like a minor point but to me it IS THE POINT, the jackass caused the problem in the first place and now uses it as a reason for the war in Iraq.

Some of my friends and relatives watch the FOX NEWS NETWORK exclusively and so do many people in this country and that is why there is so much misconception about the war in Iraq; they are fed bullshit by Bush and his lackeys at FOX.

So I will continue to challenge publicly (as in a letter to the editor) any letter writer that is misguided when it comes to the facts; let them know how naïve and wrong they are and maybe, just maybe, we can make a difference.

More on ignorance…

PETRAEUS REPORT MY ASS!

The long awaited report by general Petraeus is in. This is the report Bush said he would abide by and do whatever the general advised. Congress agreed to wait for the September report and in so doing fell for another Bush trick to buy himself MORE TIME IN IRAQ.

Did you really think Petraeus would report something that the president did not want to hear? He said we need to stay till next summer and then review the situation. Is this another trick for MORE TIME IN IRAQ? I think so and this will go on until Bush leaves office and the poor Democratic president that will replace him will be blamed for the disaster in Iraq after he has to pull the troops out because the situation has gotten worst.

I cannot believe we are having this absurd conversation.

Petraeus said that the “Surge” is working because “attacks” are down slightly. Shit, you can have a U.S. soldier in every house in Baghdad and the attacks will go to zero BUT WHAT IN THE HELL HAVE YOU ACCOMPLISHED WITH THAT? That is not a military victory; as soon as the U.S. soldier leaves the house, the attacks will resume – you have not solved a damn thing.

Petraeus was asked if all this action in Iraq is making the United States safer, he said he did not know; that is not his job to know. His job is to reduce the violence in Baghdad and he has done that but on the other hand, we are losing more American soldiers than we ever had, but his mission was not to reduce American casualties just the violence in Baghdad.

Congress wanted a troop withdrawal; Petraeus said he will order a troop withdrawal right away but it is a pittance and only involves the EXTRA troops called up for the “Surge”. By next summer he may be down to 130,000 from the current 160,000 but that is getting back to the original number of troops before the “Surge” so in fact, he has not reduced the number of troops at all; this is all spin or bullshit however you want to characterize this.

President Bush will speak to the nation tomorrow night and he will say that he is taking general Petraeus’ advice and gradually reducing troop levels to possibly pre-surge levels by next summer; see I am doing what I said I would do.

Since a military victory in Iraq is impossible, what about political progress, you know, making Iraq into a democratic and free country? U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker hemmed and hawed but had to admit that progress is ZERO and maybe things have gotten worst AFTER ALL THESE FUCKING YEARS AND ALL THOSE AMERICAN LIVES?

Petraeus and Crocker were asked if after a year from now, there is no political progress; what will they do. They said that looking that far ahead is not wise or realistic – somebody slap these assholes – please!

Some of my friends expressed their desire to see a victory with honor for the U.S. in Iraq and not have another Vietnam. They believe that a victory was possible in Vietnam. I agree that a MILITARY victory was possible in Vietnam; we could have bombed the shit out of North Vietnam, napalmed the whole country, killed every Vietcong hiding in his underground tunnel and lost another 50,000 U.S. soldiers doing that BUT WE WOULD STILL NOT HAVE HAD A POLITICAL VICTORY.

We would still be in Vietnam today because you cannot be in the middle of a civil war and expect to somehow win because it is NOT OUR WAR!

The same applies to Iraq. We are in the middle of a civil war and therefore a MILITARY VICTORY IS IMPOSSIBLE as is painfully clear to anyone with half a brain.

A political victory as envisioned by Bush is also impossible as evidenced by a civil war in progress; one side has to win and dominate the other side, that is how civil wars work – look it up!

The only possible semblance of a “victory” is to split the country into sectors and let them govern themselves. Oil revenues would be distributed on a per capita basis by a central agency under our control.

In time, these sectors or new countries could reach a level of success as shown by Kurdistan in the north of Iraq. They have peace and are putting up shopping malls. Hey, these small countries may eventually become somewhat democratic; who knows.

Unfortunately, the U.S. would have to maintain a presence for quite some time there. Currently we are building a base on the Iran / Iraq border and the soldiers at that base would be charged with keeping any foreign power, Iran in particular, out of Iraq but hey, the killing would stop!

I am afraid that is as close to a “victory” as we can come. Part of our victory would be to undo the terrible damage we have already done to the people there. If we do for them what we did for Japan after WWII, we may have made up some for the grievous sin we committed by invading them in the first place.

If we want this whole nightmare to end well we better start making our voices heard. Bush is not going to hear them; he is deaf and dumb, but Democrats and Republicans that want our votes in 2008 should be made to listen to us!

Note: Senator McCain continue to make a total fool and jackass out of himself by supporting all the war bullshit coming out of the White House – get out of the race now, you are starting to be a pain in the collective ass of the American people and you are also embarrassing to even listen to.

MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUND IN MICHIGAN

To: The Canton Observer
Re: “Freedom the key”, Letter to the Editor, Sept. 9.


In the letter “Freedom is the key”, Sept. 9, the author believes that President Bush’s plan to democratize the Middle East and in so doing, stabilize the area, eliminate terrorism and finally bring freedom to all, is a plan we should all support. The goals of such a plan may be noble but to assume that democracy is for everyone is naïve and in the case of Iraq; deadly and without a chance of success.

As far as the American Civil War is concerned, to think that slavery was the only reason for the war is also naïve. Northern soldiers did not risk their lives to free Negroes from slavery; they did it to preserve the union and northern industrial prosperity. Confederate soldiers from the rural south risked their lives not to preserve slavery but to preserve their independence and their way of life from the ever dominating and encroaching north.

THE RESULT OF TERM LIMITS

To: Detroit Free Press
Re: “It’s time for leaders to step up and lead”, Ron Dzwonkowski, Sept. 8.

After reading Ron Dzwonkowski’s call for Michigan leaders to lead because the state is close to a government shutdown, I can only remind Michigan voters that they and only they created this leadership vacuum. Term Limit legislation made it impossible to maintain knowledgeable, savvy veteran legislators that knew how to get things done. We now have child-like legislators just learning how to walk and as soon as they learn; out the door. You made your bed Michigan, now sleep in it!

PAVAROTTI, CARUSO, MY DAD AND ME!

I was saddened to hear that Luciano Pavarotti had finally succumbed to his pancreatic cancer; he was 71.

I am a fan of the tenor voice especially in operatic arias. I became a fan because of my father. He was in the Italian campaign (Monte Cassino) during WWII. He loved Italy and totally fell in love with opera.

My father was a tenor and sang all the time. I grew up listening to records by Enrico Caruso, Beniamino Gili and of course Mario Lanza. I too had a tenor voice and sang in high school choirs and shows.

I still remember our favorite popular Italian song called “Return to Sorrento” which my father sang in Polish many, many times and which Pavarotti sang very, very well in Italian.

I remember my father-in-law, who worked for Ford buying tickets for me and my wife to attend a Ford sponsored evening featuring Luciano Pavarotti. Tickets were ~ $500 and that was and is a lot! We also had to dress up in evening wear; what a night!

I am not really a fan of opera per se just the arias but when a favorite aria is sung right – I get Goosebumps. Have you heard “Nessum Dorma”? If you have, you know what I mean.

They say that the first great tenor was Enrico Caruso and the last was Pavarotti. Really no one has come close to matching their natural vocal talents and may never.

I guess I associate opera and opera arias with my father and it brings happy memories of him when he was alive and I will always think of my dad whenever I hear an aria sang by a great tenor.

HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE BIBLE?

I stumbled upon some information I have been looking for while doing something else. I was watching a lecture by Bart Ehrman on the Gospel of Thomas. If you know your Gospels, this was the one found in Egypt as part of the Nag Hammadi cache in ~ 1946.

The Gospel, not part of the New Testament canon but originally written in Greek and translated into Coptic (Egyptian – Greek dialect) during the formative years of Christianity, was a collection of Jesus sayings. The Gospel is partly Gnostic. Gnostic Christianity is a heretical form of Christianity that was popular at the time the Gospel of Thomas was written.

One saying was especially interesting. Actually it is the very last saying of the book: number 114. Simon Peter said to them, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life”. Jesus answered, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.”

You must admit that this is a strange one. Using the historical-critical method of reading ancient texts, Professor Ehrman tried to explain the perplexing Jesus saying.

For you who don’t know about the “historical – critical” method of reading and understanding ancient texts, it has to do with who the author was, when was he writing, to whom he was writing, why was he writing (his purpose) and what his words would actually mean to the people living in that era; not to us in 2007.

This “historical – critical” method has been endorsed by mainstream Protestantism and Catholicism. Opponents of this method are fundamentalists that believe the Bible literally; every word written by god or inspired by god with literal meaning for all ages, including ours.

This is an indefensible position bordering on the absurd. It refuses to deal with the reality of historical knowledge and is best avoided because sensible dialogue is not possible with these people.

Anyway, Professor Ehrman tried to explain the different way that ancient man looked at gender. Today, we see the human being (part of the animal kingdom) as either male or female; two kinds of human being.

In ancient times, including the time the Bible stories were written which included all the non-canonical Christian texts, gender was looked on as two (2) degrees of a human being; not two (2) kinds. The female was just not a developed male.

I know this is a little hard to grasp so hold on. They looked at nature in a straight line. On the left you had rocks, soil or dead stuff. Further on you came upon plants, then animals, humans and eventually ended up in the realm of the gods.

The male was closest to the gods and the female came before the male. Simply put, the female was an unformed male in the continuum of nature. This imperfect male had no penis (inverted penis = vagina), was soft (no muscles), no body hair, high voice, weaker; a human being that just did not make it far enough to become a male.

So going back to the Gospel of Thomas, for women to enter the kingdom of heaven (gods) they first had to become males since that was the order of things – kapish? And that is what Jesus meant with that saying – at least it is one explanation.

This way of thinking is described as the “Ideology of Dominance” and was the prevalent mode of looking at life throughout the ancient world.

Basically, it was OK for the strong and powerful to dominate the weak. For this reason slavery is tolerated and accepted as normal. St. Paul even cautions slaves to obey their masters in the New Testament.

Women were of course weaker and therefore dominated by the stronger males. We have seen this throughout history and even to this day in some of the more primitive Islamic societies. Well maybe even in the more civilized (Saudi Arabia) societies; they still subscribe to the ideology of dominance as did their forbearers.

On a sexual level (ancient sexual ethics) the men were the “penetrators” and the women were the “penetrated”- the dominator and the dominated.

Taking this further into ancient Greece and the accepted homosexuality in their social model (this is the information I was looking for) the adult male could have sexual relations with a “boy” an unformed adult male, but could not have sexual relations with another adult male (at least it was considered taboo).

An adult male could have sex with an adult male slave due to the domination principle.

After a military victory the male winners raped the male losers as the ultimate humiliation.

I am taking this long route to make a point about homosexuality and the Bible. We know that today right wing Christians condemn homosexuality because it is condemned in the Bible.

My point is that homosexuality as we know it today, did not exist in the days of the Bible. Homosexual acts obviously existed and were practiced by the Greeks as well as Romans in perfectly accepted pederasty. Who was condemned was the adult male that allowed himself to be penetrated by another adult male; the penetrating adult male was not condemned.

I know this is a little hard to grasp but I posit that Bible translators who knew about our concept of homosexuality but not about ancient sexual ethics translated parts of the Bible incorrectly, i.e. if homosexuality as we know it did not exist in the ancient world, how can the ancient Biblical text condemn it – plain and simple.

DEMOCRATS - DON'T BE JACKASSES!

In the upcoming election, the Democrats have the upper hand since most Americans cannot stomach Republicans anymore BUT the Democrats could still blow it!

I am talking about “primaries”, the way they were and the way they should be.

All these years, candidates spent millions on Iowa and New Hampshire; the two earliest primaries. Iowa doesn’t really have a primary only a caucus or straw poll.

Historically, candidates who did badly in either or both states usually dropped out of the race which gave voters in Iowa and New Hampshire the extremely important role of picking the candidates for the rest of the country to vote for.

Michigan and Florida said bullshit, we don’t want some hicks in Iowa or stuck up Easterners in New Hampshire picking our candidates for us; so they moved their primaries up to compete with the historically first and second primary states.

Well upsetting the apple cart is not sitting well with the National Democratic Party; they like things the way they were but Michigan and Florida do not and want change – period.

I have to note here that money is involved. Candidates spend millions to win primaries, especially the first few primaries – keep that in mind.

The National Democratic Party is threatening to disqualify primary votes from states that do not follow their rules, maybe even not seating their delegates at the national convention. Candidates also said they were NOT going to campaign in those rebellious states.

And it is here that the Democrats can blow their national edge.

I absolutely agree that the way we conduct primaries needs to change. I think larger states with diverse populations need a voice in deciding what candidates appear on the November ballot and not a bunch of farmers in Iowa or independents in New Hampshire; let’s make the early primaries statistically significant since only the welfare of the country is at stake!

Michigan is sticking to its guns, Florida will probably follow suit and dare the Democrats to invalidate their votes or the candidates to skip campaigning there. I would suggest that the Democrats not piss these people off.

BUSH CHANGES IRAQ STRATEGY?

The Wall Street Journal reported today that the U.S. strategy in Iraq is finally changing while the GAO (Government Accounting Office) released a totally dismal report on progress or the lack of, in Iraq.

How is the U.S. strategy changing? Well, remember when I and many others were screaming that the only possible end to our horrendous involvement in Iraq was to divide the country into sectarian areas? Bush is starting to finally see the light or at least his generals are.

It appears that commanders on the ground have been supporting and encouraging LOCAL sector leaders and by-passing the Iraqi government in Baghdad which they view as worthless.

Imagine, the commanders on the ground in Iraq know what needs to be done but the dip-shits in Washington don’t have a clue. Bush famously stuck to his guns, supporting a plan that many said would NEVER work but now, at the end of his presidential term, the twit is willing to listen to reason.

Bush now is ready to allow his commanders to conduct the war in Iraq. That is all well and good but it does not abate my raging anger at him, the Republicans that support him and all the Americans that continue to support him.

Look at the pictures I have posted above. Those are dead Americans that should be alive and enjoying Labor Day with their families. We cannot FORGET or FORGIVE those that started this senseless war, those that supported it after it was clear we were lied to and those that support it even today.

I am not a Democrat; far from it, but I strongly feel we need to kick some ass in this country to send a strong message to future politicians that this can NEVER happen again. In fact, I am all for impeaching Bush; he did a lot more damage than Clinton did having his yazooski sucked – no one died!

Should be an interesting election...more on that later.

FAMILY VALUES MY ASS!

I am sorry but I still feel the need to point out the hypocrisy of some Republicans who spout about how holy and perfect they are and how Jesus is their personal guide through life so they really deserve your vote.

I need to keep doing this to show those voters that actually bought into the Karl Rove Republican Christian family values nonsense exactly what they bought into: hypocrisy!

It is no secret that televangelists have been raking in big bucks pleading in the name of Jesus while screwing their secretary and building mighty zillion dollar mansions - that’s to be expected and if you are stupid enough to give them your money more power to them.

Politicians I hold to higher standards strangely enough. I relish not in catching them in a lie but in pointing the lie out to the voter that voted for him or her because of that lie.

Senator David Vitter (R- Louisiana) is an old story. He was the clean-cut Senator that was oh so Christian it hurt. He was also the Senator whose phone number was published by a Washington, D.C. madam as a favorite and long time customer. I felt bad for his wife and kids.

The latest is Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho) staunch defender of the moral way of life and against sinners such as gays, etc.: caught in a Minneapolis Airport bathroom looking for some quickie sex with his next stall mate. I feel bad for his wife and kids also.

These guys are part of a long list of Republicans caught violating their own moral precepts. I am not saying Democrats are any better but at least they don’t pass themselves off as holier-than-thou.

I hope the American voter considers this a lesson learned but I am quite sure they will fall for the same line again and again and again.

MOTHER TERESA - WHO KNEW!

Today, I have a new sense of respect for Mother Teresa. Today, letters she wanted destroyed after her death were revealed.

The letters disclose that she doubted her faith, apparently till the day she died. She worried she was a hypocrite. She stopped praying.

She worked in the bowels of this world with the dregs of humanity, the unwanted, the unloved, the diseased, and the poor. She looked into the children’s bleak and tortured eyes and kept telling them God loves you.

Yet she could not feel this loving God or his love, she could only feel emptiness, darkness and silence.

Christians will say that having a crisis of faith is normal; we all get it but we get over it. Well, too bad you get over it because the voice that was trying to get out was your voice of reason and you squelched it.

There is a philosophy movement called SECULAR HUMANISM that upholds reason, ethics and justice but without supernaturalism. It stresses the need to work towards a better world for ourselves, our children, our fellow man and the earth we inhabit. Mother Teresa would have made a great secular humanist.

She obviously wanted to help the least of her fellow humans because she thought God wanted her to. As a humanist, she would help her fellow man because it was the right thing to do; no heavenly rewards, no sainthood.

I can understand why the light of her faith grew dark and then was gone. The idea of a personal God is appealing. The idea that a good God listens to all prayers is appealing but oh so dumb. We still don’t understand that the reason this God is so appealing is because WE created him. This is what we want in a god; we would not create a god we didn’t like!

Religious brains have been trying for centuries to reconcile the all good God with the very bad evil that plagues us; how can he allow it!

Reminds me of the recent story about a bus full of Polish pilgrims who were returning from a holy pilgrimage to a shrine somewhere in the Swiss Alps. They spend days praying their asses off. On their way back, the bus fell over a mountain side and all the pilgrims were killed.

Their families rushed to the site to offer more prayers. I thought shouldn’t you be cursing god for the terrible trick he played on them; what type of scoundrel is he. No god keeps poking us in the eye and we keep thanking him for it.

Mother Teresa had noble religious intentions but it appears that she also had a brain. I think she realized that this personal god we created did not exist because he resided only in our imaginations and in the stories our religious clerics spun. If there was some kind – any kind of superior power out there, he was not responding to her prayers.

I feel sad for Mother Teresa not because she realized her god did not exist but because she couldn’t see or feel that the good she was doing was so humanistic with its own rewards but maybe I am on to another quest to find what we really need as a reward for doing the right thing – interesting?

Anyway, I am told this revelation about her will only enhance her quest for sainthood – huh? I guess the struggle with one’s faith is somehow seen as good but I thought only if you conquered and squelched your voice of reason and she did not – at all – she died in doubt. Go figure…

BIRTH OF CHRISTIANITY CONTINUES...

Continuing my exploration of early Christianity, the hot topic in religious academia today, I may have been a little too eager to accept the reason for the split between Pauline Christianity and Jewish Christianity (Jesus and his Apostles) or maybe not.

The initial indication of why the two Christianities split pointed to the insistence by the Jewish Church that people wanting to join the Jesus or shall I say, the Jesus the Christ movement needed to first become Jewish in all aspects including circumcision; something Paul’s Gentiles just were not going to do.

This turns out to be maybe only partially true. After the death of Jesus, his followers were spreading throughout Israel (as instructed), trying to turn their fellow Jews into Jewish Christians by getting them to buy into Jesus being the Messiah and about to bring into being the new Kingdom – prepare!

The question of gentiles joining the movement did not come up at first because the Apostles were not addressing non-Jews. St. Paul, the non-Apostle, brought up the question of gentiles joining the movement to the Jerusalem Church; the group Paul considered as the official Jesus Apostle group.

A quick reminder that the word “Christianity” does not mean the Christianity of today but a belief that Jesus was the Messiah and about to come back – that’s all!

In listening to a lecture by James Tabor, professor of Christian Origins and Ancient Judaism at the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte, I was reminded that yes, the Jerusalem group insisted on the gentiles becoming Jewish but only at the beginning. Actually, some in the group never relented from that stance but were eventually overridden by James, the leader of the group according to the account in the New Testament Book of ACTS by Luke.

The justification in ACTS for allowing Gentiles to join the Christian movement without becoming Jews first was the NOAHIDE LAWS or sometimes called the SEVEN LAWS OF NOAH.

I first became aware of these laws when a friend pointed out to me that the U.S. Congress has officially recognized these laws as “…the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization…”

I wondered how come I never heard of them. Well I guess there are many important facts about our world’s history that I am totally ignorant of and that happens to be one of them.

Anyway, these laws are found in the Jewish Talmud in the story about Noah. We all know the story and we agree that according to the story we are all Noah’s children or better yet, the children of Noah refers to all of mankind since all others were destroyed by God in the flood; only Noah, his family and the animals survived and repopulated the earth.

According to this story, God then gave Noah a list of seven moral imperatives which applied to all of mankind (the Jews later had their own set of laws from God). According to Judaism, non-Jews that abide by these moral precepts are held to be “Righteous Gentiles”, right with God and afforded salvation after death or at least a good place in the afterlife.

The laws basically forbid:

Idolatry
Murder
Theft
Adultery
Blasphemy
Cruelty to animals
The last one is a requirement to set up a form of government that will police adherents to keep the above laws.

The way ACTS 15 tells it, the Council in Jerusalem (James the Just) the leader of Jewish Christianity, issued a directive that if gentiles follow the Noahide Laws, they can join the Jewish Christian movement without having to become Jews and observing all Jewish laws.

We know that the purpose of ACTS was to give Paul legitimization to convert people to Christianity as a “true” apostle of Jesus even though he never met Jesus (just in his dreams). Luke had to connect Paul to Jesus through the Apostles or make Paul appear as an Apostle appointed by Jesus himself; the new, risen Jesus and not the old Jesus. Luke’s purpose is quite clear and therefore problematic from a historical standpoint; he probably made some things up to fit his end purpose.

Even though there was a documented way to accept Gentiles into the movement without having them become Jews (Apostolic Decree) I feel if it did happen it was under duress. Paul was bribing the Jerusalem Council with money, lots of money. Since Jesus told his followers to sell everything for the Kingdom is at hand, many were probably poor and in need; remember one name for the group was the Ebionites (the poor).

I think the split between the two Christianities still had something to do with being Jewish but also about the divinity of Jesus, etc.

This concentration on the “true” birth of Christianity is absolutely fascinating to me but it is hard to keep up with all the material being published on the subject; I will try.