May 9, 2008
Please wait, your request is processed...
rixhex56
Recent comments by this user
Hillary Clinton On Southern Working Class Whites In 1995: "Screw 'Em"
You blame Enron on a Dem? posted 04/16/2008 at 17:31:21
Good job, tbone99. This is critical thinking. Too bad so many others can't seem to do it. posted 04/16/2008 at 16:06:02
Do you believe EVERYTHING you read? It seems that could get a little confusing... posted 04/16/2008 at 16:03:28
SeriousBlack,
If you can't discern the distinction between the two different headlines by simply reading them, I doubt that you will get it from someone trying to point it out to you. posted 04/16/2008 at 15:56:04
If you can't discern the distinction between the two different headlines by simply reading them, I doubt that you will get it from someone trying to point it out to you. posted 04/16/2008 at 15:56:04
PaMIke,
Good point. I clicked on this article ONLY to see how misrepresentative the headline was. This is what I expect from these articles, now, regardless to whether they are about Obama or Clinton. Clearly, the headline indicates a VERY different issue that what is actually presented in the article.
Southern White Dems (Reagan Dems) are Dems in name only -- they are conservatives in reality. And I, for one, do not believe in ceding ANYTHING to conservatives. There is no "reaching across the aisle" with these people. Total resistance is required until THEY cede a point. You have to crush a rock to break it. posted 04/16/2008 at 15:47:42
Good point. I clicked on this article ONLY to see how misrepresentative the headline was. This is what I expect from these articles, now, regardless to whether they are about Obama or Clinton. Clearly, the headline indicates a VERY different issue that what is actually presented in the article.
Southern White Dems (Reagan Dems) are Dems in name only -- they are conservatives in reality. And I, for one, do not believe in ceding ANYTHING to conservatives. There is no "reaching across the aisle" with these people. Total resistance is required until THEY cede a point. You have to crush a rock to break it. posted 04/16/2008 at 15:47:42
McCain: We'll Look Back On Iraq As An 'Academic Argument'
This is precisely the problem with conservatives, AND religious nuts; they separate suffering from morality. In some strange way they are able to think an act is moral regardless of whether or not it causes suffering, death and destruction. I can think of no better criteria to determine morality than to determine how my actions affect others.
An ACADEMIC ARGUMENT? That is truly immoral. To reduce the suffering, death and destruction of this worst mistake in U.S. history to a brush-off remark like that is truly astounding. But this is what we have grown to expect from conservatives. To think that we someone like this running for president is truly an indicator of how far our nation has fallen -- I might have thought we could do better than this after the lessons of the past 8 years, but, clearly, I would have been wrong. posted 04/16/2008 at 15:26:23
An ACADEMIC ARGUMENT? That is truly immoral. To reduce the suffering, death and destruction of this worst mistake in U.S. history to a brush-off remark like that is truly astounding. But this is what we have grown to expect from conservatives. To think that we someone like this running for president is truly an indicator of how far our nation has fallen -- I might have thought we could do better than this after the lessons of the past 8 years, but, clearly, I would have been wrong. posted 04/16/2008 at 15:26:23
The Man Who Would Be Bush
The Republican Party of today is beneath Lincoln's views. Here is a post-Civil War quote from Lincoln:
"We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end.
It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood. . . .
It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but
I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes
me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war,
corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places
will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong
its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth
is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.
I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety
of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war.
God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."
The passage appears in a letter from Lincoln to (Col.) William F. Elkins, Nov. 21, 1864.
For a reliable pedigree, cite p. 40 of The Lincoln Encyclopedia, by Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY). That traces the quote's lineage to p. 954 of Abraham Lincoln: A New Portrait, (Vol. 2) by Emanuel Hertz (Horace Liveright Inc, 1931, NY).
http://www.ratical.org/corporations/Lincoln.html
Lincoln's concerns were not merely justified, but his Party became the conveyor of the product of his concerns. Truly disgraceful. posted 04/16/2008 at 17:01:26
"We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end.
It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood. . . .
It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but
I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes
me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war,
corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places
will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong
its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth
is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.
I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety
of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war.
God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."
The passage appears in a letter from Lincoln to (Col.) William F. Elkins, Nov. 21, 1864.
For a reliable pedigree, cite p. 40 of The Lincoln Encyclopedia, by Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY). That traces the quote's lineage to p. 954 of Abraham Lincoln: A New Portrait, (Vol. 2) by Emanuel Hertz (Horace Liveright Inc, 1931, NY).
http://www.ratical.org/corporations/Lincoln.html
Lincoln's concerns were not merely justified, but his Party became the conveyor of the product of his concerns. Truly disgraceful. posted 04/16/2008 at 17:01:26
On what do you base your conclusion that Jefferson would have "detested" a national healthcare system? There is absolutely nothing I know of to support that conclusion.
And Jefferson saw France as an ally. posted 04/16/2008 at 16:46:15
And Jefferson saw France as an ally. posted 04/16/2008 at 16:46:15
I wonder what solutions they see. Can you explain? posted 04/16/2008 at 16:36:09
Do you know the difference between "than" and "then"? Just askin'... posted 04/16/2008 at 16:35:04
Jenna Bush Tries Not To Flash Pope Benedict XVI: Video
I had the same thought -- why do we care about this? posted 04/15/2008 at 19:45:05
People who recognize religion for what it is... posted 04/15/2008 at 19:44:21
Confessions of an Elitist
ReVan,
"Elitist is an Attitude".
True enough; there is a common misunderstanding that elitist refers to monetary status. However, there is a strong vein of elitism among those who are wealthier than most, and this is likely what preatorius referred to. posted 04/15/2008 at 22:15:03
"Elitist is an Attitude".
True enough; there is a common misunderstanding that elitist refers to monetary status. However, there is a strong vein of elitism among those who are wealthier than most, and this is likely what preatorius referred to. posted 04/15/2008 at 22:15:03
Why Wall Street Socialism Will Fail
Well, the idea I have expressed is that the ONLY "people" who matter are corporations, which have acquired the status of persons. Let's face it: you and I really have no say in things at this point. If we did, Gore would have moved into the White House in 2001, and we would never have invaded Iraq. posted 04/16/2008 at 03:43:35
I think you have confused human nature with responses to a savage system that is set up to pit one against another for their livelihoods. Capitalism -- as practiced -- is purely based on greed, self-interest, and opportunism. In other words, it is a system that is practiced solely to benefit self-serving, greedy individuals or organizations rather than the greater good of the society in which it functions. In evolutionary terms, it is maladaptive.
While those responses (greed, selfishness) are, as you say, part of human nature, the system to which those responses occur is not natural, not part of human nature, and not a good system. In a good system, human nature responds in a better fashion.
Friedman's ideas are rubbish (merely my opinion based on the historical evidence that supports that opinion). Ayn Rand's ideas were better, but she was too extreme in her reverence for greed and selfishness as the basis for a social system. When scrutinized, the idea of basing a social system purely on greed and self-interest makes about as much sense as basing a social system on backstabbing. It simply doesn't work. And it is NOT compatible with DEMOCRACY. posted 04/16/2008 at 03:33:48
While those responses (greed, selfishness) are, as you say, part of human nature, the system to which those responses occur is not natural, not part of human nature, and not a good system. In a good system, human nature responds in a better fashion.
Friedman's ideas are rubbish (merely my opinion based on the historical evidence that supports that opinion). Ayn Rand's ideas were better, but she was too extreme in her reverence for greed and selfishness as the basis for a social system. When scrutinized, the idea of basing a social system purely on greed and self-interest makes about as much sense as basing a social system on backstabbing. It simply doesn't work. And it is NOT compatible with DEMOCRACY. posted 04/16/2008 at 03:33:48
Viper,
You make solid points. Also, there was a sort of socialistic element to the New Deal, which also helped America prosper by supporting the "little man", the commoners without whom nothing gets done. Conservatives have had fair success in recent decades at destroying the last remaining remnants of the New Deal. posted 04/15/2008 at 21:22:22
You make solid points. Also, there was a sort of socialistic element to the New Deal, which also helped America prosper by supporting the "little man", the commoners without whom nothing gets done. Conservatives have had fair success in recent decades at destroying the last remaining remnants of the New Deal. posted 04/15/2008 at 21:22:22
I think they shut off their brains around the age of kindergarten or the first grade. posted 04/15/2008 at 21:10:26
Good analogy. Thanx... posted 04/15/2008 at 20:56:47
vipersdad,
Actually, they resort to much more than "name-calling".
There is a deep-seated myth in America that socialism and capitalism cannot coexist in the same social structure, that we must have one or the other. Of course, there are other countries that practice, very successfully, a mixture of these two systems. Some services and products are better served if and when the profit motive is removed from their distribution or creation. But there are some situations where profitability based on quality of service is warranted, or at least acceptable. posted 04/15/2008 at 20:51:05
Actually, they resort to much more than "name-calling".
There is a deep-seated myth in America that socialism and capitalism cannot coexist in the same social structure, that we must have one or the other. Of course, there are other countries that practice, very successfully, a mixture of these two systems. Some services and products are better served if and when the profit motive is removed from their distribution or creation. But there are some situations where profitability based on quality of service is warranted, or at least acceptable. posted 04/15/2008 at 20:51:05
Soulsurfer,
I think what you have described here is not truly what Friedmanites believe, but rather what they use as a marketing campaign to sell this line of bullshit to people. They truly have NO qualms about government intrusion -- it just has to be government intrusion for the benefit of corporations, not for the benefit of people, workers, etc. They are perhaps the biggest hypocrites on the planet. posted 04/15/2008 at 20:31:25
I think what you have described here is not truly what Friedmanites believe, but rather what they use as a marketing campaign to sell this line of bullshit to people. They truly have NO qualms about government intrusion -- it just has to be government intrusion for the benefit of corporations, not for the benefit of people, workers, etc. They are perhaps the biggest hypocrites on the planet. posted 04/15/2008 at 20:31:25
azphil,
I am glad someone else said, "By the way this is not socialism, it is fascism." However, I think this is the Wall Street definition of democracy; government of coprorations, by corporations, for corporations. posted 04/15/2008 at 20:24:00
I am glad someone else said, "By the way this is not socialism, it is fascism." However, I think this is the Wall Street definition of democracy; government of coprorations, by corporations, for corporations. posted 04/15/2008 at 20:24:00
Obama: "Hope And Anger Go Hand And Hand"
Your version of things is distorted. Perhaps it is not your fault that you believe the TV talking heads when they issue these misrepresentations. What Obama's campaign actually said was that his anti-NAFTA points were not going to damage trade with Canada. A good source to update on this is:
http://www.slate.com/id/2185753/entry/0/
I am as frustrated with corporations (I say eliminate them) and NAFTA as anyone, but I also recognize that trade with other nations is important --- but it requires regulation which NAFTA undermines. Obama was not saying two different things --- the media just presented it that way. posted 04/15/2008 at 15:42:37
http://www.slate.com/id/2185753/entry/0/
I am as frustrated with corporations (I say eliminate them) and NAFTA as anyone, but I also recognize that trade with other nations is important --- but it requires regulation which NAFTA undermines. Obama was not saying two different things --- the media just presented it that way. posted 04/15/2008 at 15:42:37
rvme,
Your post reveals clearly that you simply have no idea what Obama actually said. You probably wouldn't understand what he said even if you DID know what he actually said. posted 04/15/2008 at 15:23:09
Your post reveals clearly that you simply have no idea what Obama actually said. You probably wouldn't understand what he said even if you DID know what he actually said. posted 04/15/2008 at 15:23:09
Obama Would "Immediately Review" Potential Of Crimes In Bush White House
Oh, uh, speakingtruth2power, who said 'hope is not valid"? I didn't. posted 04/15/2008 at 19:56:57
Jtt,
I challenge you to show where I said anything you say I said. You can't. I didn't.
I didn't say anyone's opinion doesn't matter.
I didn't say I have seen and done it all.
I didn't say I know their conclusions are not valid.
Finally, the opinion stated did not present any facts to support itself. Simply put, I said nothing you say I said. This is a perfect example of an opinion on your part. Your view expressed in your post is based on speculation and fabrication, and no facts of any kind. posted 04/15/2008 at 18:57:38
I challenge you to show where I said anything you say I said. You can't. I didn't.
I didn't say anyone's opinion doesn't matter.
I didn't say I have seen and done it all.
I didn't say I know their conclusions are not valid.
Finally, the opinion stated did not present any facts to support itself. Simply put, I said nothing you say I said. This is a perfect example of an opinion on your part. Your view expressed in your post is based on speculation and fabrication, and no facts of any kind. posted 04/15/2008 at 18:57:38
Jtt,
Opinions are not necessarily based on facts; they can be, but that is not a requisite feature of an opinion. More specifically to the issue at hand, the specific "opinion" expressed in the post to which I responded is NOT based on facts, but purely on speculation on the part of the author of that post, as there is simply no way that person can know with certainty that what he "believes" about anyone is true. That is a fact that is not in dispute.
Jtt, speakingtruth2power,
If, after the past 8 years, you are not cynical about politicians and what they say, then I must confess that my "opinion" is that neither of you is very bright. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Pelosi, Reid, etc.
If either of you thinks I am singling out Obama for cynicism, I am not -- I am cynical about all politicians, and so should you be. I support Obama with reservation because I cannot know, and neither can either of you, what he will or will not do if he gets into office. posted 04/15/2008 at 18:43:08
Uh..., you have misinterpreted my actions -- I am not a Hillary supporter. I merely respect accuaracy and knew this to be inaccurate. Of the 2 Dems, I lean towards Obama. posted 04/15/2008 at 15:03:47
bridgeworker,
Cynicism is the product of a healthy mind when it comes to politics. I think you present yourself as being a bit pompous here, persenting your opinion as if it were something unique and of higher value than opinions of others. An opinion is an opinion is an opinion...
And your points about the obstacles to passing legislation or taking any specific actions are valid, which means they are also valid reasons to be cynical about what any candidate says he/she will do once in office. posted 04/15/2008 at 14:53:53
Cynicism is the product of a healthy mind when it comes to politics. I think you present yourself as being a bit pompous here, persenting your opinion as if it were something unique and of higher value than opinions of others. An opinion is an opinion is an opinion...
And your points about the obstacles to passing legislation or taking any specific actions are valid, which means they are also valid reasons to be cynical about what any candidate says he/she will do once in office. posted 04/15/2008 at 14:53:53
IntelligentDesign,
You speak the simple truth of the matter. It won't just go away. The only to move towards anything might remotely resemble "bi-partisanship" is to make these scoundrels pay for their crimes so that future representatives know their is a price to pay for unilateral actions like those committed by these people. posted 04/15/2008 at 14:42:27
You speak the simple truth of the matter. It won't just go away. The only to move towards anything might remotely resemble "bi-partisanship" is to make these scoundrels pay for their crimes so that future representatives know their is a price to pay for unilateral actions like those committed by these people. posted 04/15/2008 at 14:42:27
Jtt, EyeWantOneNation,
It is UNINFORMED criticism of Clinton. posted 04/15/2008 at 14:36:49
It is UNINFORMED criticism of Clinton. posted 04/15/2008 at 14:36:49
patriotscholar,
Perhaps you are not "scholar" enough.
Regarding this "pledge":
Candidate Responses
http://www.americanfreedomcampaign.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=63&Itemid
DEMOCRATS
Senator Joe Biden (D-DE)
Senator Joe Biden provided the American Freedom Campaign with a signed letter on September 25, detailing his commitment to defending the Constitution.
Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
Senator Hillary Clinton provided the American Freedom Campaign with a signed letter on October 4, detailing her commitment to defending the Constitution.
(see PDF here: http://www.americanfreedomcampaign.org/storage/afagenda/documents/Clinton%20response.pdf )
Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT)
Senator Dodd signed the pledge on August 31.
Senator John Edwards (D-NC)
Former Senator John Edwards provided the American Freedom Campaign with a signed letter on September 13, detailing his commitment to defending the Constitution.
Senator Mike Gravel (D-AK)
Former Senator Mike Gravel made a verbal commitment to sign the pledge on September 17. A signature on the pledge was received on October 4.
Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
Representative Kucinich signed the pledge on September 6.
Senator Barack Obama (D-IL)
Senator Obama signed the pledge on October 2.
Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM)
Governor Richardson signed the pledge on August 30.
REPUBLICANS
Representative Ron Paul (R-TX)
Representative Paul has not replied to the American Freedom Campaign, but signed the presidential pledge of the American Freedom Agenda on March 20, 2007. posted 04/15/2008 at 14:33:22
Perhaps you are not "scholar" enough.
Regarding this "pledge":
Candidate Responses
http://www.americanfreedomcampaign.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=63&Itemid
DEMOCRATS
Senator Joe Biden (D-DE)
Senator Joe Biden provided the American Freedom Campaign with a signed letter on September 25, detailing his commitment to defending the Constitution.
Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
Senator Hillary Clinton provided the American Freedom Campaign with a signed letter on October 4, detailing her commitment to defending the Constitution.
(see PDF here: http://www.americanfreedomcampaign.org/storage/afagenda/documents/Clinton%20response.pdf )
Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT)
Senator Dodd signed the pledge on August 31.
Senator John Edwards (D-NC)
Former Senator John Edwards provided the American Freedom Campaign with a signed letter on September 13, detailing his commitment to defending the Constitution.
Senator Mike Gravel (D-AK)
Former Senator Mike Gravel made a verbal commitment to sign the pledge on September 17. A signature on the pledge was received on October 4.
Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
Representative Kucinich signed the pledge on September 6.
Senator Barack Obama (D-IL)
Senator Obama signed the pledge on October 2.
Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM)
Governor Richardson signed the pledge on August 30.
REPUBLICANS
Representative Ron Paul (R-TX)
Representative Paul has not replied to the American Freedom Campaign, but signed the presidential pledge of the American Freedom Agenda on March 20, 2007. posted 04/15/2008 at 14:33:22
First, there is NO doubt that crimes have been committed. They are documented at this point.
Second: What bi-partisanship? There is none.
Third: Such a prosecution would be unprecedented only because such a criminal regime is unprecedented. Past presidents may have had some shady dealings, but they have been nothing like what these people have done.
And one of the best ways to undo some of what Bush and his cronies have done, in fact the ONLY way to undo SOME, is to make these criminals accountable for their actions. If the U.S. doesn't do that, return of credibility will be so slow as to be almost non-existent. posted 04/15/2008 at 14:20:40
Second: What bi-partisanship? There is none.
Third: Such a prosecution would be unprecedented only because such a criminal regime is unprecedented. Past presidents may have had some shady dealings, but they have been nothing like what these people have done.
And one of the best ways to undo some of what Bush and his cronies have done, in fact the ONLY way to undo SOME, is to make these criminals accountable for their actions. If the U.S. doesn't do that, return of credibility will be so slow as to be almost non-existent. posted 04/15/2008 at 14:20:40
Male Sex Hormone May Affect Stock Trades
Simplicity is good. It helps balance out female complexities. ;-) posted 04/15/2008 at 03:49:52
The link between testosterone and risk-taking is not news. ANYTHING that creates exhilaration increases testosterone production, which in turn leads to more risk-taking. Old studies exist attesting to this. If this shows anything, it is merely that some people are MORE exhilarated by the stock market, or money-making, than are others, even among those who work on Wall Street.
It makes sense that more aggressive personality types would be better suited to the cut-throat atmosphere of money-making, while others, even some who work on Wall Street, might be more dispirited by that atmosphere. Exhilaratoin increases testosterone, being dispirited increases cortisol. I hate anything related to money; I avoid dealing with money matters as much as possible. When forced to do so, I become despondent.
The idea that emotions influence financial decisions is not exactly a revelation, either. What decision is not affected by emotions? Contrary to what most believe, evidence shows that emotions occur first, and rational thought is a response to emotions. We do not have thoughts first and then respond emotionally. Since emotions are primarily controlled by hormones, I don't really see this current study as all that revealing. But I have a hard time arguing against its conclusion that more women and fewer men in the markets might make them more stable and less volatile. posted 04/15/2008 at 03:40:51
LOL!!! OMG! Do you mind if I "borrow" this??? |;-) posted 04/15/2008 at 02:59:48
I agree -- we definitely should be able to see nipples. And asses, and ... posted 04/15/2008 at 02:55:51
US Military to Free AP Photographer
More national embarrassment. Where does it end? November? I guess we'll see... posted 04/15/2008 at 01:33:08
Michelle Obama To Go On The Colbert Report
If they're "facing off" in the ring, my money's on Michelle... posted 04/14/2008 at 20:16:53
Clinton Heckled, Obama Cheered Over 'Bitter' Remarks
"So the American voter is so unsophisticated..."
Yep. That about sums it up. Have you already forgotten that about half the voters voted for Bush --- TWICE!? As for the media, you must remember that those outlets are owned by the very corporations that benefit the most from globalization etc.
The place is definitely a lot less bright... posted 04/14/2008 at 15:07:39
Yep. That about sums it up. Have you already forgotten that about half the voters voted for Bush --- TWICE!? As for the media, you must remember that those outlets are owned by the very corporations that benefit the most from globalization etc.
The place is definitely a lot less bright... posted 04/14/2008 at 15:07:39
I Was There: What Obama Really Said About Pennsylvania
I have nothing in particular against Obama and I support him more than Hillary. But, honestly, what this article describes is just the status quo for anyone who runs for office in America. And what's worse is that people actually fall for this sort of misrepresentation of facts. Case in point: the run up to the Iraq war, and all the misrepresentations given then, as well as all the misrepresentations that have been given since to downplay what was actually said, by whom, when, where, and how many times.
It seems that Obama's comments were primarily sociological in nature and pointing to the well known (at least in other countries) fact that poverty is one the major promoters of criminal activity in most societies. It is not the ONLY motivator, clearly, but a major one. Sadly, many Americans who say they recognize that fact still don't get it. They will defend globalization unwaveringly never realizing that it really is a method of spreading inequality, and perpetuating the domination of wealth over opportunity. It is a form of fascist global coup de tat that promotes the welfare of corporations over that of all other entities.
Naturally, people who are victimized or ostracized by that coup are going to be marginalized and that will lead to resentment, bitterness, and in many cases, criminal activity. But the corporate powers-that-be must sway attention away from those points however possible, and the American public is just dumb enough to buy their pitch. posted 04/14/2008 at 14:56:05
It seems that Obama's comments were primarily sociological in nature and pointing to the well known (at least in other countries) fact that poverty is one the major promoters of criminal activity in most societies. It is not the ONLY motivator, clearly, but a major one. Sadly, many Americans who say they recognize that fact still don't get it. They will defend globalization unwaveringly never realizing that it really is a method of spreading inequality, and perpetuating the domination of wealth over opportunity. It is a form of fascist global coup de tat that promotes the welfare of corporations over that of all other entities.
Naturally, people who are victimized or ostracized by that coup are going to be marginalized and that will lead to resentment, bitterness, and in many cases, criminal activity. But the corporate powers-that-be must sway attention away from those points however possible, and the American public is just dumb enough to buy their pitch. posted 04/14/2008 at 14:56:05
JayInDallas says, "There are those who prefer to actually get facts, all the facts before they decide to comment or take issue."
Unfortunately, those people are in the minority in America. Perhaps they are a minority everywhere. posted 04/14/2008 at 14:53:09
Unfortunately, those people are in the minority in America. Perhaps they are a minority everywhere. posted 04/14/2008 at 14:53:09
Bill Maher's New Rule About Catholicism "The Cult" And The Pope
dben, OneWoman,
Boy, you two have really muddled things here. In the context Maher used the term "queer" he was referring specifically to males attracted to males. In the context used, including the humorous aspect, it made sense.
As for the homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual issue, even pedophiles often have a sexual preference, male or female, while some are "AC/DC". So, in that context, the terms apply.
Homosexual: of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex. (No reference to adults only) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homosexual
Heterosexual: Sexually oriented to persons of the opposite sex. (No reference to adults only) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heterosexual
Bisexual: Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of either sex. (No reference to adults only) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bisexual posted 04/15/2008 at 01:13:48
Boy, you two have really muddled things here. In the context Maher used the term "queer" he was referring specifically to males attracted to males. In the context used, including the humorous aspect, it made sense.
As for the homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual issue, even pedophiles often have a sexual preference, male or female, while some are "AC/DC". So, in that context, the terms apply.
Homosexual: of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex. (No reference to adults only) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homosexual
Heterosexual: Sexually oriented to persons of the opposite sex. (No reference to adults only) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heterosexual
Bisexual: Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of either sex. (No reference to adults only) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bisexual posted 04/15/2008 at 01:13:48
NicoleAnonymous,
In another post further down the thread you say, "I think Bill Maher has some major issues about religion that only a trained professional and some medication can solve..."
That prescription would better serve reglious people. Sending someone who is in touch with reality to "a trained professional" and clouding his/her mind with drugs would only perpetuate the problem.
Religion serves no purpose for society at large. posted 04/14/2008 at 23:58:33
In another post further down the thread you say, "I think Bill Maher has some major issues about religion that only a trained professional and some medication can solve..."
That prescription would better serve reglious people. Sending someone who is in touch with reality to "a trained professional" and clouding his/her mind with drugs would only perpetuate the problem.
Religion serves no purpose for society at large. posted 04/14/2008 at 23:58:33
Yeah, "It's all bullshit, people, and it's bad for ya." posted 04/14/2008 at 23:47:51
NicoleAnonymous,
You said, "It doesn't make them bad people." That is only partly true. It may be true in one case, and not in another. Religious piety can, and does, make some people do bad things. posted 04/14/2008 at 23:45:46
You said, "It doesn't make them bad people." That is only partly true. It may be true in one case, and not in another. Religious piety can, and does, make some people do bad things. posted 04/14/2008 at 23:45:46
"Joke" is in the eye, or the ear, of the beholder or listener... posted 04/14/2008 at 23:37:00
As I was reading through the posts on this page I was mildly amused by those who still try to defend religion on some level. They can't come up with anything that actually DOES defend religion, because religion has so solidly been shown to be a scam that there simply is no defense of religion.
Perhaps they are nervous because society is ever-so-slowly beginning to marginalize religion. A greater percentage of Americans appear to consider themselves religious than do not, but many of them recognize the fallibility of organized religion. They pick and choose from dogma rather than swallowing the entire line.
This particular New Rule comically-poignantly points out the horrible double standard that allows some ORGANIZED religious nuts to get away with all manner of crimes, while simultaneously oppressing smaller religious organizations that do the exact same things, only on a smaller scale. These are, of course, pure, irrefutable facts, and therefore clear evidence that society is better off WITHOUT organized religion.
More and more we will see religion exposed for the scam that it is, and so those who actually DO believe it, naturally feel threatened. It is well known that there are few things that threaten someone more, or as much, as when their BELIEF SYSTEM is proven false.
The only thing not funny about this New Rule is that it is too true. If you are not threatened by that, it is funny; for others, it is not. Carry on, Bill. posted 04/14/2008 at 23:25:34
Perhaps they are nervous because society is ever-so-slowly beginning to marginalize religion. A greater percentage of Americans appear to consider themselves religious than do not, but many of them recognize the fallibility of organized religion. They pick and choose from dogma rather than swallowing the entire line.
This particular New Rule comically-poignantly points out the horrible double standard that allows some ORGANIZED religious nuts to get away with all manner of crimes, while simultaneously oppressing smaller religious organizations that do the exact same things, only on a smaller scale. These are, of course, pure, irrefutable facts, and therefore clear evidence that society is better off WITHOUT organized religion.
More and more we will see religion exposed for the scam that it is, and so those who actually DO believe it, naturally feel threatened. It is well known that there are few things that threaten someone more, or as much, as when their BELIEF SYSTEM is proven false.
The only thing not funny about this New Rule is that it is too true. If you are not threatened by that, it is funny; for others, it is not. Carry on, Bill. posted 04/14/2008 at 23:25:34
Atom-Smasher Could Open Black Hole, Reveal Secrets Of Science
Heh, heh...,
It just dawned on me that the bar has been set so low in America at this juncture that I'm just happy to see that there are at least 2 pages of responses to this article. Heh, heh, heh... posted 04/14/2008 at 15:49:10
It just dawned on me that the bar has been set so low in America at this juncture that I'm just happy to see that there are at least 2 pages of responses to this article. Heh, heh, heh... posted 04/14/2008 at 15:49:10
Sometimes you have to take things apart to know how they are put together. posted 04/13/2008 at 16:27:45
Bill Clinton Flashback: "All These Economically Insecure White People...Are Scared To Death"
ClevelandTom,
As I said, "One can hope." And I do.
History, however, supports what I said above. You can look back at past campaigns and more often than not, the guy preaching the bullshit wins, while the guy presenting reality loses. The guy saying he "can't legislate his beliefs" loses, while the guy saying he will legislate his beliefs wins. This is the truth. There have been those occasional exceptions, and one can hope this is one of them, but I am not holding my breath. The extent of the stupidity of the American public never ceases to amaze me. posted 04/14/2008 at 16:28:16
As I said, "One can hope." And I do.
History, however, supports what I said above. You can look back at past campaigns and more often than not, the guy preaching the bullshit wins, while the guy presenting reality loses. The guy saying he "can't legislate his beliefs" loses, while the guy saying he will legislate his beliefs wins. This is the truth. There have been those occasional exceptions, and one can hope this is one of them, but I am not holding my breath. The extent of the stupidity of the American public never ceases to amaze me. posted 04/14/2008 at 16:28:16
Interestingly, ignorance IS a lifestyle choice that has a cure. posted 04/14/2008 at 16:01:06
Talking to the American public "like an adult" has not worked out well for those doing so for a long time, my friend. It seems that Dems have tried this, and it always fails. The simplistic "us-and-them" approach is an underlying social tenet of our culture; it always has been.
And while it may seem like a stretch to some, the very core of "capitalism" lends itself to, encourages and perpetuates, this tenet. Greed, self-interest, and the monotheistic idea that "God put all of this here for OUR use" are underlying causes of much of this approach, and capitalism as practiced in the U.S. feeds on them.
One can hope that some lessons have been learned over the past 8 years and that there is a larger percentage of "adults" in America willing to listen to someone talking to them as adults. I haven't seen much evidence to support this hope, though. posted 04/13/2008 at 16:43:32
And while it may seem like a stretch to some, the very core of "capitalism" lends itself to, encourages and perpetuates, this tenet. Greed, self-interest, and the monotheistic idea that "God put all of this here for OUR use" are underlying causes of much of this approach, and capitalism as practiced in the U.S. feeds on them.
One can hope that some lessons have been learned over the past 8 years and that there is a larger percentage of "adults" in America willing to listen to someone talking to them as adults. I haven't seen much evidence to support this hope, though. posted 04/13/2008 at 16:43:32
Wesley Clark for VP!
robXdion says, "You guys are going by appearance and what "looks" like a vice-president."
Well, that's the way we ended up with both Dem presidential contenders; picking them by their "appearance". So what else would you expect?
However, I think Clarke would make a great V.P. posted 04/13/2008 at 15:14:47
Well, that's the way we ended up with both Dem presidential contenders; picking them by their "appearance". So what else would you expect?
However, I think Clarke would make a great V.P. posted 04/13/2008 at 15:14:47
'Crushed,' the U.S. Soldier Wrote -- and Then He Was Dead
When we see these events on an individual level like this, it puts a more in-depth humanity on the entire situation in Iraq. Then, in his most casual and dismissive, evil demeanor, Cheney has the gaul to say, "The volunteered."
What he, and others seem to forget so often, is that THIS war, this ILLEGAL war of aggression against a nation posing NO THREAT to our nation, was NOT what they volunteerd for. They volunteered as PROTECTORS of our nation, not as agressors towards other non-threatening nations.
These Republican politicians who sent these men into this war should all be seen as the criminals they are for causing the sort of human catastrophe demonstrated in this young Army Spc. Jeremiah Hughes' writing, and in his unnecessary death, and in the ongoing suffering of his surviving family members and all those whose lives have been destroyed by this senseless crime committed in our nation's name.
Where is the outrage?! posted 04/13/2008 at 15:26:44
What he, and others seem to forget so often, is that THIS war, this ILLEGAL war of aggression against a nation posing NO THREAT to our nation, was NOT what they volunteerd for. They volunteered as PROTECTORS of our nation, not as agressors towards other non-threatening nations.
These Republican politicians who sent these men into this war should all be seen as the criminals they are for causing the sort of human catastrophe demonstrated in this young Army Spc. Jeremiah Hughes' writing, and in his unnecessary death, and in the ongoing suffering of his surviving family members and all those whose lives have been destroyed by this senseless crime committed in our nation's name.
Where is the outrage?! posted 04/13/2008 at 15:26:44
Alberto Gonzales Finding It Tough To Land A New Job
Well, as others on this thread have noted, hopefully this is a sign of positive change in public awareness about this group of criminals who were installed into our government in the most unAmerican, non-democratic fashion ever. I still scratch my head, though, at the constant references to doubt about the illegality of their actions. It just baffles... posted 04/13/2008 at 19:21:02
George Bush: I Was Aware Of Harsh Tactics Meetings
Numbness... fuck-up fatigue. posted 04/12/2008 at 00:55:23
Perhaps I'm wrong. I thought they were both adults by now... posted 04/12/2008 at 00:53:08
If the last two "elections" are an indication, you are probably right. Democracy? What democracy? posted 04/12/2008 at 00:46:52
Bush, Cheney, et al are disgraceful, criminal, but this is about what we might expect from Repugs. At this point, what digusts me MORE, is the fact that the Dems in congress won't do anything about this. What the fuck do they think is their JOB????!!!!
They investigate Halloween constumes and steroids in baseball, and ignore THIS?!
America is finished if this is the best we have... posted 04/12/2008 at 00:44:17
They investigate Halloween constumes and steroids in baseball, and ignore THIS?!
America is finished if this is the best we have... posted 04/12/2008 at 00:44:17
Perhaps, but I know no children who would condone torture. Out of the mouths of babes..., as the saying goes. posted 04/12/2008 at 00:37:09
Jesus Idol: Contestants Ask WWJD? I Ask WTF???
This is, of course, one of the oldest, and weakest, forms of defensiveness against the anti-religious backlash that derives from the centuries of religious interference in societies' efforts to progress towards a better humanity. This is an argument that says, intolerance of intolerance is still nothing more than intolerance of the same sort. It is much like saying persecution of those who persecute is no better than the original persecution.
What non-religious people rail against is the fact that orgainzed religion is one of the greatest impediments to human progress that has ever been divised. History bears this out beyond refute, and those who insist that society cannot survive without religion, or that religion is somehow essential to society, are simply part of the problem. For religion to have any value at all, it must be solely on an individual level, and it should be kept on that level, and out of the greater social institutions. posted 04/12/2008 at 15:48:12
What non-religious people rail against is the fact that orgainzed religion is one of the greatest impediments to human progress that has ever been divised. History bears this out beyond refute, and those who insist that society cannot survive without religion, or that religion is somehow essential to society, are simply part of the problem. For religion to have any value at all, it must be solely on an individual level, and it should be kept on that level, and out of the greater social institutions. posted 04/12/2008 at 15:48:12
Phoenixfire089,
You say that you don't care "...where your morals come from so long as you have some".
Part of the problem is what a person defines as "morals". Unfortunately, what most religious people equate with morals are approaches to the world that are destructive and divisive. The problem is that they separate morals from human suffering. They do not recognize that causing the suffering of others is immoral. One great example is the Christian tenet that other species do not have souls and are less worthy than our own species.
Unlike you, I do not respect these organized religions -- they are a plague upon the earth. All mankind would benefit from eradication of dogmas that do nothing for letting societies PROGRESS, but rather hinder that achievement, and in some cases aid the regression of society, as witnessed in our own nation over the past 20 or more years.
I am an ANTI-theist. Belief in a god is a backward, destructive tool used by some to control others. Society at large has no real use for such a belief. Humans have at our disposal the tools needed to improve the world, but there are forces that hinder that process, one of which is organized religion.
It's a nice PC gesture extending the proverbial "olive branch", but we've done that for far too long; it is time for thinking people to start moving religion to the fringes where it belongs. Get it out of our daily societal discourse. posted 04/12/2008 at 15:32:34
You say that you don't care "...where your morals come from so long as you have some".
Part of the problem is what a person defines as "morals". Unfortunately, what most religious people equate with morals are approaches to the world that are destructive and divisive. The problem is that they separate morals from human suffering. They do not recognize that causing the suffering of others is immoral. One great example is the Christian tenet that other species do not have souls and are less worthy than our own species.
Unlike you, I do not respect these organized religions -- they are a plague upon the earth. All mankind would benefit from eradication of dogmas that do nothing for letting societies PROGRESS, but rather hinder that achievement, and in some cases aid the regression of society, as witnessed in our own nation over the past 20 or more years.
I am an ANTI-theist. Belief in a god is a backward, destructive tool used by some to control others. Society at large has no real use for such a belief. Humans have at our disposal the tools needed to improve the world, but there are forces that hinder that process, one of which is organized religion.
It's a nice PC gesture extending the proverbial "olive branch", but we've done that for far too long; it is time for thinking people to start moving religion to the fringes where it belongs. Get it out of our daily societal discourse. posted 04/12/2008 at 15:32:34
Report: Spy Photos Reveal 'Secret Launch Site' For Iran's Long-Range Missiles
Of course, at this point, NOTHING our government asserts is viewed with any credibility. That is one of the greater dangers this Bush administration has created for our nation. posted 04/12/2008 at 15:06:41
Uh, I forgot, you will need to paste the coordinates, given in the posts below, into the lower left corner search box at the Web site, and then click on the little magnifying glass icon in that same search box. posted 04/12/2008 at 15:00:26
For those who may find it difficult to find the satellite image with only the coordinates, try this link:
http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=0&lon=0&z=1.5&r=0&src=ggl
As I look at this image, I do not see what would constitute a missile launching facility, but then, I am not an expert in these matters. Perhaps someone who knows more could suggest something in the photo that would represent such a facility... posted 04/12/2008 at 14:55:30
http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=0&lon=0&z=1.5&r=0&src=ggl
As I look at this image, I do not see what would constitute a missile launching facility, but then, I am not an expert in these matters. Perhaps someone who knows more could suggest something in the photo that would represent such a facility... posted 04/12/2008 at 14:55:30
American Idol "Shout to the Lord" Controversy and Results
kristineIA,
Uh..., I don't really know what to make of this post of yours. Your comment about the word 'god' being that much closer to "genital warts" was pretty funny, and clever, I thought, however...
The quandary was that in some cases it is okay to not censor the word "damn", as in the cases where someone says "goddamn" and only the word "god" is bleeped out leaving the word "damn" still audible, while in other cases when someone only says "damn", that word is bleeped out. Personally, I don't see why any of it should be bleeped out. posted 04/12/2008 at 16:21:47
Uh..., I don't really know what to make of this post of yours. Your comment about the word 'god' being that much closer to "genital warts" was pretty funny, and clever, I thought, however...
The quandary was that in some cases it is okay to not censor the word "damn", as in the cases where someone says "goddamn" and only the word "god" is bleeped out leaving the word "damn" still audible, while in other cases when someone only says "damn", that word is bleeped out. Personally, I don't see why any of it should be bleeped out. posted 04/12/2008 at 16:21:47
No, Binea, it is you who misses the point. Believing that the men who wrote the Bible were merely taking dictation from some omniscient man living in the clouds is not comparable to considering the writings of Plato as worthy of reading. Additionally, NOBODY tries to force the writings on Plato on society. Also, there is no orgainzed religion based on Plato because Plato is not considered a god, but rather a philosopher, a man, not an imaginary spirit in the sky.
I have a question for you: if all the "gospels" were dictated by your "God", then why were some excluded from the Bible by the fabricators fo the New Testament, and ordered destroyed? posted 04/12/2008 at 16:14:17
I have a question for you: if all the "gospels" were dictated by your "God", then why were some excluded from the Bible by the fabricators fo the New Testament, and ordered destroyed? posted 04/12/2008 at 16:14:17
RIMR,
"Teaching kids to critically analyze for themselves"...
What a novel concept. I think there were some ancient civilizations that valued that concept -- back BEFORE the advent of monotheism. posted 04/12/2008 at 16:06:02
"Teaching kids to critically analyze for themselves"...
What a novel concept. I think there were some ancient civilizations that valued that concept -- back BEFORE the advent of monotheism. posted 04/12/2008 at 16:06:02
Boy, I'm sure glad to know that god does not forbid my anti-theism. What a relief. posted 04/12/2008 at 15:55:24
indoctrination = brain-washing posted 04/11/2008 at 19:24:48
Binea ,
In addition to how others have responded to this particular post of yours, I would add that Plato has never been worshipped as some magical, mystical man in the sky. He is clearly a human being, a man, just like all those who actually wrote what you worship as something written by that magical, mystical man in the sky (with a beard, I might add), who has, of course, NEVER written ANYTHING.
The differences between Plato's writings and the Bible are so numerous that this could quite possibly be one of the worst comparisons in an argument that I have ever seen. posted 04/11/2008 at 19:11:37
In addition to how others have responded to this particular post of yours, I would add that Plato has never been worshipped as some magical, mystical man in the sky. He is clearly a human being, a man, just like all those who actually wrote what you worship as something written by that magical, mystical man in the sky (with a beard, I might add), who has, of course, NEVER written ANYTHING.
The differences between Plato's writings and the Bible are so numerous that this could quite possibly be one of the worst comparisons in an argument that I have ever seen. posted 04/11/2008 at 19:11:37
The evidence is inferred through the points made in this article. posted 04/11/2008 at 18:51:15
It is always fascinating how the RELIGIOUS infuse the word "together" or "togetherness" into conversation by immediately excluding someone. posted 04/11/2008 at 18:48:14
Binea,
How would you react if you were a contestant on the show and you were forced to sing a song that worshipped Satan? posted 04/11/2008 at 15:27:22
How would you react if you were a contestant on the show and you were forced to sing a song that worshipped Satan? posted 04/11/2008 at 15:27:22
ranchobob,
You say, "...I have to wonder to what depth all these starry eyed video adherents of the Lord know or care about the real bible and its real content."
I would expand on what you wonder by wondering also how much they know about the actual beginnings of their RELIGION, how it came into being, what its goals were, the manner in which books of the New Testament were selected and others, equally valid, were excluded. The vast majority of them know nothing of these things and merely blindly accept what they are told without questioning any of it in the least. posted 04/11/2008 at 15:25:44
You say, "...I have to wonder to what depth all these starry eyed video adherents of the Lord know or care about the real bible and its real content."
I would expand on what you wonder by wondering also how much they know about the actual beginnings of their RELIGION, how it came into being, what its goals were, the manner in which books of the New Testament were selected and others, equally valid, were excluded. The vast majority of them know nothing of these things and merely blindly accept what they are told without questioning any of it in the least. posted 04/11/2008 at 15:25:44
Yeah, I've wondered the exact same thing before. The censorship methods in this country make absolutely no sense. If you haven't seen it, you should check out the documentary called, "This Film is Not Yet Rated". It is interesting and revealing, indeed. posted 04/11/2008 at 15:19:55
AP Poll: Bush Public Approval at New Low
It isn't an appropriate comparison. Bush is one man, fully responsible for his actions, while congressional Dems are saddled with a large percentage of some of those Republican permanent idiots who continue to block progress of any kind. Apples and oranges, my friend, apples and oranges... posted 04/10/2008 at 23:26:27
did you read the article -- where it says, "Congress was rated positively by 23 percent"? posted 04/10/2008 at 23:23:06
Cheney, Others OK'd Harsh Interrogations
I think they got precisely what they wanted from the war -- richer. posted 04/11/2008 at 17:28:04
hydethesalami, -- is that hidden salami where you "hyde" your brain? I am just kidding -- I just couldn't pass that one up. Sorry. I'm sure you're a bright enough fellow. ;-) posted 04/10/2008 at 23:39:46
The Corporate Criminals' Immunity from Prosecution Act of 2008
I guess this all ties into the legal definition of "client", just as it ties into the legal definition of "person", which gives corporations all the legal protections of individuals without any of the responsibilities individuals must uphold. As Edwards advocated, it is way past time to start repealing some of the bogus status and protections these corporations have accrued in the past century.
It seems that corporate lawyers, who "represent" companies, provide all the same confidentialities to those corporations, even though doing so is a clear conflict of interest between different entities within those companies. If a married couple has an attorney, and they decide to divorce, that attorney is barred from representing both parties.
That appears a sound approach that is NOT used in situations involving CEOs, or other corporate entities, who are defrauding other entities within the corporation. Clearly, attorney-client privilege should not attach regarding corporations and their attorneys, who should be allowed ONLY to advise and argue for these clients, but not to protect them from exposure to other corporate parties whose interests these same attorneys also represent. A shareholder deserves the same protection as the corporation itself, and one attorney, or even group of attorneys, clearly encounters a conflict of interest if the top executives engage in something that ultimately defrauds shareholders.
In the end, what is required is repealing the ruling that gave corporations the status of "personhood" in the first place. There are few examples, if any, of more ridiculous rulings. posted 04/10/2008 at 15:43:13
It seems that corporate lawyers, who "represent" companies, provide all the same confidentialities to those corporations, even though doing so is a clear conflict of interest between different entities within those companies. If a married couple has an attorney, and they decide to divorce, that attorney is barred from representing both parties.
That appears a sound approach that is NOT used in situations involving CEOs, or other corporate entities, who are defrauding other entities within the corporation. Clearly, attorney-client privilege should not attach regarding corporations and their attorneys, who should be allowed ONLY to advise and argue for these clients, but not to protect them from exposure to other corporate parties whose interests these same attorneys also represent. A shareholder deserves the same protection as the corporation itself, and one attorney, or even group of attorneys, clearly encounters a conflict of interest if the top executives engage in something that ultimately defrauds shareholders.
In the end, what is required is repealing the ruling that gave corporations the status of "personhood" in the first place. There are few examples, if any, of more ridiculous rulings. posted 04/10/2008 at 15:43:13
Homeland Security Official Accused Of Trying To Erase Racist Costume Photos
You have not addressed my point at all. And you seem to be forgetting that this event -- you know the one where the guy dressed up in a costume -- occurred at a party.
The issue that I have raised is that what is inappropriate is not necessarily "racist". Is it possible that you might consider that point?
Racism: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism
My question to you is this: how did this costume profess the above definition? posted 04/10/2008 at 19:44:18
The issue that I have raised is that what is inappropriate is not necessarily "racist". Is it possible that you might consider that point?
Racism: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism
My question to you is this: how did this costume profess the above definition? posted 04/10/2008 at 19:44:18
It is a weak argument to simply dismiss a valid point as being invalid. Offer some proof as to why the example presented is invalid. The accusation being levied here, by you and most, is that the costume was racist and, therefore, inappropriate. I'm offering the argument that it was inappropriate, but not racist. Is there anything you can offer that solidly refutes my position? You have failed to do so up to this point, as has everyone else claiming racism here. posted 04/10/2008 at 16:08:00
NDUBB,
"pretty sure" doesn't cut it. I saw the manual. It actually defined a time limit of either 5, or 10, seconds (it was too long ago now for my failing memory), which if exceeded, provided grounds for the employee being looked at below the neck to file a complaint.
Companies can define their own codes of conduct. Often people lose their jobs because they meet someone on the job, strike a romance, fall in love, and then find out there is a "non-fraternization clause" in thier contracts, which bars them from this very behavior. The obvious reason for this, I suppose, is fear of sexual harrassment suits.
I personally know a couple who was forced, after being married, to choose between one of them resigning, or being transferred to another location, which happened to be in another city altogether. There has to be a point at which we just say, "Enough is enough, already." Inappropriate and RACIST are not one and the same, and we need to start wising up to the real difference there. posted 04/10/2008 at 16:02:52
"pretty sure" doesn't cut it. I saw the manual. It actually defined a time limit of either 5, or 10, seconds (it was too long ago now for my failing memory), which if exceeded, provided grounds for the employee being looked at below the neck to file a complaint.
Companies can define their own codes of conduct. Often people lose their jobs because they meet someone on the job, strike a romance, fall in love, and then find out there is a "non-fraternization clause" in thier contracts, which bars them from this very behavior. The obvious reason for this, I suppose, is fear of sexual harrassment suits.
I personally know a couple who was forced, after being married, to choose between one of them resigning, or being transferred to another location, which happened to be in another city altogether. There has to be a point at which we just say, "Enough is enough, already." Inappropriate and RACIST are not one and the same, and we need to start wising up to the real difference there. posted 04/10/2008 at 16:02:52
As I stated, it was inappropriate because it belittled the plight of these individuals, but it was not "racist". It seems you cannot discern the difference. Regardless, the difference exists. posted 04/10/2008 at 15:52:11
NDUBB,
I know of a company whose employee manual defines sexual harrassment as looking at your co-worker below the neck. Sounds reasonable, right? posted 04/09/2008 at 23:05:01
I know of a company whose employee manual defines sexual harrassment as looking at your co-worker below the neck. Sounds reasonable, right? posted 04/09/2008 at 23:05:01
conscioushope,
"It is simply beyond me that anyone cannot see it..."
Well, it could be that the only way to "see it" is to be looking for it. It may or may not be there, but since you are looking to "see it", you "see it".
This is no more "racist" than when Eddie Murphy dressed up in white-face and imitated an old Jewish man in one of his movies.
Racism is largely predicated upon keeping certain members of society on the fringe. When comedy caricatures those groups, it is actually a sign that assimilation is well on its way, which necessarily begins the process of ending racism. Caricature makes fun of all sorts of sub-groups, and it is not necessarily "racism" I can't speak to the intentions of the individual who dressed up in this particular costume, but I also can't say with any certainty, and neither can you, that it was absolutely "racism".
I still think this costume was inappropriate because it belittles the serious plight of those it portrays, but there is simply no certainty to the "racist" claim. posted 04/09/2008 at 20:53:37
"It is simply beyond me that anyone cannot see it..."
Well, it could be that the only way to "see it" is to be looking for it. It may or may not be there, but since you are looking to "see it", you "see it".
This is no more "racist" than when Eddie Murphy dressed up in white-face and imitated an old Jewish man in one of his movies.
Racism is largely predicated upon keeping certain members of society on the fringe. When comedy caricatures those groups, it is actually a sign that assimilation is well on its way, which necessarily begins the process of ending racism. Caricature makes fun of all sorts of sub-groups, and it is not necessarily "racism" I can't speak to the intentions of the individual who dressed up in this particular costume, but I also can't say with any certainty, and neither can you, that it was absolutely "racism".
I still think this costume was inappropriate because it belittles the serious plight of those it portrays, but there is simply no certainty to the "racist" claim. posted 04/09/2008 at 20:53:37
MoralMirror,
Using this approach, you must have found it offensive when Eddie Murphy put on a white face, and pretended to be an old Jewish man?
Like I said, the REAL issue here should be making light of the plight of the detainees, not the fact that the impersonator attempted to look as much as possible like those he was impersonating.
Racism is largely predicated upon keeping certain members of society on the fringe. When comedy caricatures those groups, it is actually a sign that assimilation of those groups is well on its way, which necessarily begins the process of ending racism. Caricature makes fun of all sorts of sub-groups, and it is not necessarily "racism". I can't speak to the intentions of the individual who dressed up in this particular costume, but I also can't say with any certainty, and neither can you, that it was absolutely "racism". posted 04/09/2008 at 20:41:15
Using this approach, you must have found it offensive when Eddie Murphy put on a white face, and pretended to be an old Jewish man?
Like I said, the REAL issue here should be making light of the plight of the detainees, not the fact that the impersonator attempted to look as much as possible like those he was impersonating.
Racism is largely predicated upon keeping certain members of society on the fringe. When comedy caricatures those groups, it is actually a sign that assimilation of those groups is well on its way, which necessarily begins the process of ending racism. Caricature makes fun of all sorts of sub-groups, and it is not necessarily "racism". I can't speak to the intentions of the individual who dressed up in this particular costume, but I also can't say with any certainty, and neither can you, that it was absolutely "racism". posted 04/09/2008 at 20:41:15
Yep, you can't get more "sexist" than that... posted 04/09/2008 at 20:32:05
In a sociological context, I find this interesting. When I read the story, I did not think the costume was inappropriate because it was "racist" (it wasn't), but rather because it made light of a serious situation -- that of the detainees being held. Maybe we should send both, the constume-wearer and the presenter of the prize, to one of those detainee camps for a year, and then see if they still think it is something to be made into a joke. posted 04/09/2008 at 14:56:21
Pelosi to Block Vote on Colombia
Navy26Yrs,
Pelosi is not the wrong person to blame, although I would agree that she is not the ONLY person to blame. She is Speaker of the House, which entitles her to certain privileges that others do not have. She made the announcement. The big question is WHY are there not enough votes? There simply SHOULD BE. And announcing "impeachment is off the table" was giving up the only viable bargaining chip the Dems had coming into congress after the 2006 elections. It was like a poker player laying his cards on the table BEFORE making any bets. How stupid is that? posted 04/10/2008 at 16:39:39
Pelosi is not the wrong person to blame, although I would agree that she is not the ONLY person to blame. She is Speaker of the House, which entitles her to certain privileges that others do not have. She made the announcement. The big question is WHY are there not enough votes? There simply SHOULD BE. And announcing "impeachment is off the table" was giving up the only viable bargaining chip the Dems had coming into congress after the 2006 elections. It was like a poker player laying his cards on the table BEFORE making any bets. How stupid is that? posted 04/10/2008 at 16:39:39
ReasonIsMyReligion,
I, for one, definitely share your OUTRAGE that no action has been taken in our own country against these criminals, enemies of our nation who have taken over.
There is always speculation about why no action has been taken -- it would distract from more important matters (clearly the weakest argument); it would cause a backlash of support for the neo-cons (another weak argument); the Dems want to keep all of this administration's crimes alive for campaign issues (the argument that makes sense to me); or the Dems fear revealing their own complicity in these crimes (an argument that may be true for some Dems).
I suppose there are other theories, too, but nothing really holds up under scrutiny in terms of explaining the dereliction of duty to which you refer. I hope voters turn out in November and replace some of these current Dems with BETTER DEMS who will not be complicit, and who will do what is right, what is needed, if we are to right this sinking ship that is our nation -- that would be to hold these criminals responsible for their crimes. posted 04/09/2008 at 16:02:50
I, for one, definitely share your OUTRAGE that no action has been taken in our own country against these criminals, enemies of our nation who have taken over.
There is always speculation about why no action has been taken -- it would distract from more important matters (clearly the weakest argument); it would cause a backlash of support for the neo-cons (another weak argument); the Dems want to keep all of this administration's crimes alive for campaign issues (the argument that makes sense to me); or the Dems fear revealing their own complicity in these crimes (an argument that may be true for some Dems).
I suppose there are other theories, too, but nothing really holds up under scrutiny in terms of explaining the dereliction of duty to which you refer. I hope voters turn out in November and replace some of these current Dems with BETTER DEMS who will not be complicit, and who will do what is right, what is needed, if we are to right this sinking ship that is our nation -- that would be to hold these criminals responsible for their crimes. posted 04/09/2008 at 16:02:50
Baghdad Orders Lockdown As Petraeus Testifies
Of course, you are correct about WHO SHOULD be making the decisions. Congress is asking these men, however, instead of those whom should be asked, what should be done, what the conditions are on the ground, etc. It seems that if these men have no real context from which to JUDGE those conditions, why even ask them? The context they lack is a definition of success, or a definition of failure, or a definition of what works and what does not.
Biden wanted them to describe conditions under which these men would recommend leaving Iraq, and they could not even do that. Of course, his point was that things are bad enough NOW to validate leaving, but these men do not seem to get it -- what they are doing is a disastrous game of "wac-a-mole" where you hit it in one place and it pops up in another with no end in sight.
Congress should simply step up and take control, but there are too many in congress who seemingly do not truly want to take control of this disaster. posted 04/09/2008 at 13:38:05
Biden wanted them to describe conditions under which these men would recommend leaving Iraq, and they could not even do that. Of course, his point was that things are bad enough NOW to validate leaving, but these men do not seem to get it -- what they are doing is a disastrous game of "wac-a-mole" where you hit it in one place and it pops up in another with no end in sight.
Congress should simply step up and take control, but there are too many in congress who seemingly do not truly want to take control of this disaster. posted 04/09/2008 at 13:38:05
It's really sad to see good men crashing and burning for the likes of George W. Bush, war criminal, worst president in U.S. history, failure as a man, as a human being, successful only at failing, causing death and destruction, boozing, and imbecility. Of course, some would argue that if these were truly "good men" in the first place, they would not lie for Bush. Perhaps they would be right. posted 04/08/2008 at 20:27:41
I have this deep-seated fear that you are right. It makes me queasy just thinking about it. But I don't think they WANTED to "BLUFF GWB into quitting......". I think they wanted this war to continue up to the election so they can use it as a campaign issue. Then, once in office, they will start making their excuses for why they cannot responsibly pull out, and just stay in Iraq. Nothing will change substantially after next January... posted 04/08/2008 at 20:20:13
I watched a little of this on TV today. It was very frustrating watching Petreus and most of the Republicans playing games with this. I thought Biden had a pretty good question for Petreus to which Biden got no answer, merely dancing around the question by both Petreus and Crocker. Biden wanted to know what circumstances, or new developments would have to occur for these guys to say we should pull out of Iraq. Neither had an answer.
It seems pretty clear what the problem is. They simply have no idea what "disaster" looks like because it is not really affecting them as such. They are just doing a "job" and it doesn't matter whether it is accomplishing anything or not. They can't describe what "success" would be, and they can't describe what it would take to make them admit we should pull out of Iraq -- If they can't define any of the parameters constituting their goals, how can they make any valid decisions about the big picture??? posted 04/08/2008 at 20:12:44
It seems pretty clear what the problem is. They simply have no idea what "disaster" looks like because it is not really affecting them as such. They are just doing a "job" and it doesn't matter whether it is accomplishing anything or not. They can't describe what "success" would be, and they can't describe what it would take to make them admit we should pull out of Iraq -- If they can't define any of the parameters constituting their goals, how can they make any valid decisions about the big picture??? posted 04/08/2008 at 20:12:44
General Petraeus Iraq Hearings: Updates Here
I am as cognizant of Petraeus's obfuscation as is the next person, but I am wondering how you arrive at, "Petraeus sounded a lot like he was saying he would not be willing to advise a President Obama or a President Clinton on withdrawal", based on this:
"'I would back up,' he said, 'and ask what's the mission, what's the desired endstate. And then you advise on resources... My response would be dialogue on what the risks would be. And, again, this is about risk.'"
It seems a huge jump, a virtually impossible jump, from that statement to the conclusion drawn here. posted 04/09/2008 at 21:10:02
"'I would back up,' he said, 'and ask what's the mission, what's the desired endstate. And then you advise on resources... My response would be dialogue on what the risks would be. And, again, this is about risk.'"
It seems a huge jump, a virtually impossible jump, from that statement to the conclusion drawn here. posted 04/09/2008 at 21:10:02
Separate And Unequal: U.S. Health Care and the Republican Response
Government-run healthcare systems exist in many countries, and those systems are far more efficient, and provide better overall care, than the profit-based-insurance-company-favoring system in the U.S. In fact, virtually all services run by governments are MORE efficient than for-profit organizations because of the absence of the profit motive. Social Security, Medicare, Meidcaid, Armies, Police forces, Fire Departments, etc, all perform better when there is no profit motive involved.
This is the nature of their goal -- to provide GOOD SERVICE to people, you must necessarily eliminate the greed and serf-interest quotient from the equation. Providing for others based on your own greed and self-interest is an absurd approach -- the two are mutually exclusive and in direct conflict with each other. posted 04/08/2008 at 15:17:27
This is the nature of their goal -- to provide GOOD SERVICE to people, you must necessarily eliminate the greed and serf-interest quotient from the equation. Providing for others based on your own greed and self-interest is an absurd approach -- the two are mutually exclusive and in direct conflict with each other. posted 04/08/2008 at 15:17:27
CBS Considering Outsourcing Some Newsgathering To CNN
This is the next trend in consolidating information? Why even have a news show if your broadcast consists of someone else's reports?
Man, we are in worse shape than I thought! posted 04/07/2008 at 23:43:38
Man, we are in worse shape than I thought! posted 04/07/2008 at 23:43:38
Number of Innocents on Death Row Mandate Moratorium
There is one simple fact that irrefutably discredits your deterrence argument. The United States, being the only industrialized nation with a death penalty, has a murder rate significantly higher than countries without death penalties, many of which have the lowest murder rates.
"For example the western (post) industrial countries (USA, EU, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Monaco and Liechtenstein) have all abolished the death penalty, except USA, and still, for example, murder rates are much higher in USA than in any of these other, similar, countries. [¦] There has been no remarkable increase in murder rates in those US states which have abolished death penalty. [¦] FBI data show that 10 of the 12 states without capital punishment have homicide rates below the national average (source: Amnesty USA)."
http://www.indiatogether.org/combatlaw/vol2/issue2/deathmyth.htm
The fact is that social problems, which lead to murder, are not affected by the presence of a death penalty, and this fact is beyond refutation. You present two questionable studies to refute many studies from around that world, as well as statistics from law enforcement. That is weak. Basically, the death penalty debate is over, except in ignorant corners of the U.S. where revenge is still encouraged, and other parts of the world. posted 04/07/2008 at 23:35:33
"For example the western (post) industrial countries (USA, EU, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Monaco and Liechtenstein) have all abolished the death penalty, except USA, and still, for example, murder rates are much higher in USA than in any of these other, similar, countries. [¦] There has been no remarkable increase in murder rates in those US states which have abolished death penalty. [¦] FBI data show that 10 of the 12 states without capital punishment have homicide rates below the national average (source: Amnesty USA)."
http://www.indiatogether.org/combatlaw/vol2/issue2/deathmyth.htm
The fact is that social problems, which lead to murder, are not affected by the presence of a death penalty, and this fact is beyond refutation. You present two questionable studies to refute many studies from around that world, as well as statistics from law enforcement. That is weak. Basically, the death penalty debate is over, except in ignorant corners of the U.S. where revenge is still encouraged, and other parts of the world. posted 04/07/2008 at 23:35:33
Popular Stories on HuffPost
INDIANA RESULTS - 99% Reporting Clinton 638,192 51% Obama 615,753 49% NORTH CAROLINA RESULTS - 99% Reporting Obama 889,513 56% Clinton 657,616 42% See
The New York Post's Michael Starr reports that Jodi...
A senior campaign official and Clinton confidante has told me that there will be...
Hillary Clinton, who for seven weeks has crawled, kicked and bitten her way back into contention, suffered a blow...
On a day when it appears that the Michigan controversy may be resolved in a way...
She has ruled it out, but a prompt withdrawal from the contest for the Democratic...
Did Rush Limbaugh actually impact the Democratic primary? The loud-mouthed radio...
Ben Smith of Politico reported Tuesday night that Hillary Clinton might have made...
WASHINGTON — Barack Obama pocketed the support of at least four Democratic...
CBS caught Senator Obama on Capitol Hill in a swarm of...
The way the McCain camp has reacted to my revelation about his...
