The good, the bad, and the thin line

Cut, Thrust and Christ - Newsweek Society - MSNBC.com

There seems to be a fine line between "right" and "correct" (or even just plain wrong) when it comes to politics mixing with evangelicism. I have high respect for anyone who can effectively debate their issues, especially Christians who seem to have earned a special stigma in the country today (how often have I heard things like "religious right nuts"). I believe in the Word of God; I also believe that God would choose more than one vehicle for His message. It probably is the only way I can rationalize the myriad of religions and spiritual schools of thought found not just today but throughout human history. So it is refreshing to see young, bright minds debate issues that correspond to both politics and morality.

However, even though I find it "refreshing," and may agree with some of their issues, I find it unnerving that, based off of how I understand this article, there is a movement to FORCE people to behave a certain way based solely off of one book (the Bible). I live by the rules in the Bible; but there are those who do not (Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc). Should US law therefore put these people at a disadvantage? Some people would probably say, right now, "well, the First Amendment establishes the separation of church and state." That's not what I'm looking at. The line of the Constitution I'm looking at is: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." This includes legislation based off of a religious doctrine. But then, I guess this is why evangelical debaters are trying to (someday) make it to such esteemed offices like the Supreme Court, where THEY can interpret the Constitution the way THEY want to.

When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, and had the First Amendment in mind, they weren't aiming to separate church and state, per se...they wanted to avoid an "official" religion for the US. If you take a look at recent history and think about the countries that DO have an "official" religion--so official that it is law--then you know why I'm reluctant to have any laws in the US based solely off of religious doctrine. The problem is finding that line between what is right and what is correct; and even then, "right" and "correct" is relevant to each and every person's way of thinking. What is the best litmus test for a law to determine its intent: to protect our citizens, or to infringe on rights based on religious point-of-view, or even a little of both? How can we not only reject gay-rights laws, but do our damnest to enact anti-gay laws (or laws that single gays out); while at the same time criticize Muslim countries for the way they treat women? Didn't the US, at one time, treat women pretty much as second-class citizens? Could they ever hold office back in the 1700s or 1800s? They couldn't even VOTE until the 20th century, based off of (you guessed it) what the people of the time thought the Bible said was right and wrong.

Times change. Many of the rules and guidelines in the Bible are still quite relevant today; but many are not. To assume that God also doesn't realize this, and to constrain His law based upon something that MAN wrote (God-inspired nonetheless) hundreds of years ago, is asinine. This is MY litmus test: "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." And this is the only law from the Bible that never changes.

Any law that violates these two commandments are not only incorrect but flat-out WRONG. The 14th Amendment definitely follows in line with second of these great Commandments. Anti-gay legislation automatically signifies--in my mind--that there is reason to think gays to be unworthy of equal treatment in some way, and tells me what is in the minds and hearts of the men (and women) who form these laws.

Evangelical debaters should probably stay behind the pulpit if they intend on using their powers to pass laws and "make an impact in the field of law on abortion and gay rights, to get back to Americans' godly heritage" (for example). They can USE their beliefs (specifically the two Greatest Commandments) to help them guide themselves when it comes to legislation; but they should not embody strict religious beliefs in legislation, lest we one day turn into a Christian Iran.

And that is why they call it "going postal."

7 dead, including shooter, in postal shooting - Crime & Punishment - MSNBC.com

I couldn't help but point that out. I wonder why postal employees have this kind of stereotype... Is it because, back in "the day," it was primarily postal workers (or formal postal workers) who went psycho? Is being a postal worker that stressful?

If it is that stressful, the USPS should consider having counselors (read: shrinks) to help reduce the chance of this kind of tragedy from happening. Maybe they do.

A must-read.

Palace Revolt - Newsweek Politics - MSNBC.com

This link is here for the benefit of my many readers. ... ha ha... many... Seriously. If you wanted a more in-depth look into the "domestic surveillance" issue, this article is a good start.

Spying and the Constitution

Bush defends domestic surveillance program - U.S. Security - MSNBC.com

President Bush defended anew his program of warrantless surveillance Thursday, saying "there’s no doubt in my mind it is legal."

Maybe he's right. Well, partially, at least.

As I always understood it, the Constitution's protections via the Bill of Rights (etc) only applies to US citizens. Now, if the NSA is only wiretapping people who are NOT US citizens, then these people have no recourse through any protections offered by our laws.

Now, if President Bush made it so that this "domestic surveillance" could be done without warrants ONLY for non-citizens, then that'd be just fine by me.

Two things that bug me here...

What's next for the Palestinians? - Mideast/N. Africa - MSNBC.com

Item 1: "...Hamas will now be able to use its position to reject any suggestion that it should disarm its militants, a process that is meant to start under a U.S.-backed peace 'road map.'" On one hand, I agree that "militants" should "disarm." What I mean by that, is that "militants" should be spending their time fighting military targets; not blowing up innocents at a cafe. Which leads to "the other hand:" every nation should have the right to defend itself, which includes having a military. So these "militants" should, in word as well as spirit, become a "military."

Item 2: "Washington rules out any talks until Hamas changes. The European Union has said it would only work with a government that uses peaceful means. Western aid is vital to running the Palestinian Authority and both the United States and Europe have suggested it could be cut if Hamas won." So... we'll support democracy only if it goes our way? That is asinine. I can begin to understand why the Muslims of the Middle East hold a special hatred in their hearts for the West. I, also, hate hypocrisy. The US has done a lot of good things for the world, but this is a ridiculous provision. Instead, the EU and US should threaten to cut aid if Hamas ...well, misbehaves. Doesn't act like a responsible political body should. I mean, that Hamas continues to use tasteless actions to further its agenda, namely using suicide bombers. I'm sure that was what was in the US and EU's minds when they made a blanket threat to cut funding. But it still smacks of hypocrisy.

It all comes down to this, though: if the Palestinians want to be treated like a responsible sovereign nation, they need to behave like one.

Most notable "notable"

�Idol� hopefuls leave Simon in a fog - American Idol - MSNBC.com

It was the third season in a row the auditions came to San Francisco, with the most notable finds there being La Toya London, Nadia Turner and William Hung.

William Hung? Willie Hung????? Insert Beavis and Butthead (c) laugh here. I'm picturing how that must look in the phone book.

...And may you live in interesting times.

Countdown to a Showdown - Newsweek Politics - MSNBC.com

Who had thought the French would be the first to say publicly they’d use limited nuclear strikes to retaliate against terror attacks and protect access to vital natural resources?

Yup. I guess I'm not the only one who saw the significance of this.

This article goes on to list the evidence found that completely demolish Iran's credibility and believability. They say they just want the uranium for power production? Then what's up with all the bomb-making documents? I call shenanigans.

Here's something else to give you pause: ElBaradei doesn't want to jump the gun and have Iran dragged before the security council until he has finished his report and held the IAEA meeting on March 6. He's hoping that Iran will comply? But then there's this:

We keep hearing that the Iranians are ready to negotiate. As far as I can tell from my conversation with ElBaradei, there’s nothing much left to talk about. The IAEA either gets credible answers to all of its questions in the next few weeks, or it submits a damning report on March 6.

If the author of this article has been talking with ElBaradei, and this statement is accurately based on said conversation(s), then it would seem to me that ElBaradei has already made up his mind. The US is most likely to pick up on this. Hell, I--an "average Joe"--picked up on it...the braintrust in Washington should be able to. And, looking for THEIR own excuse(s), will be most likely to find and exploit it.

We are living in interesting times, folks. I don't think we've been this close to the edge since the early 60's.

It could happen to you.

Man exonerated by DNA is freed after 24 years - Crime & Punishment - MSNBC.com

DNA has been used to clear at least 172 people wrongly convicted of crimes in 31 states since 1989, according to the Innocence Project.

172 people over 16 years (not 17...2006 just started) is about 10 3/4 people a year. As there are about 240 million adults in the US, that means that, approximately, for every Powerball winner, there is a person who is wrongfully sent to jail.

Sounds horrible, right?

Well, considering the prison population in the US is about 3 million at any given time (and increasing, sadly enough), that means out of every 279,000 people put in prison, one of them is innocent. 1 in 279,000. That is equivalent to about 0.0003% of all inmates.

That is a pretty good track record.

Still, us having such a huge prison population, and one of the highest prisoner to free citizen ratios in the civilized world, indicates a DIFFERENT set of problems.

Credibility; and Those feisty French.

Tehran raises threat in nuclear standoff - Mideast/N. Africa - MSNBC.com

Separately, Merkel, speaking at a news conference with President Jacques Chirac, defended the French leader’s threat last week that France might use its nuclear weapons against state-sponsored terrorism or to thwart an attack involving weapons of mass destruction — comments that drew criticism from elsewhere in Europe and from Iran.

I saw that and went, "WHOAH!" I'll bet even President Bush shit his pants when he heard that. I don't think THAT sabre's been rattled since the Cold War. Dude!

But back to my original topic: credibility. I can't see how Iran can expect the rest of the global community to honestly believe they're only enriching uranium for power production. They don't have very much credibility with (at least) the West. Members of their regime took hostages in 1980, they've all but threatened Israel...I mean, come on. Unless, of course, they're HOPING we bring Iran up to the security council so they feel JUSTIFIED to pursue their nukes. They can go, "See?? The UN made us do it!"

Which, of course, is bullshit. Nobody put a gun to the Ayatollah's head and said, "build nukes." Iran is pulling a bin Laden. What I mean by that is, they're justifying their actions because we (the West) won't play by THEIR rules. Wah, wah, wah.

The fact of the matter is, if THEY don't play by OUR rules, it's going to end badly for everyone. Oh wait, that's right... Muslims don't fear death, let alone annihilation. They'll all be martyrs. Yeah. Right. Ask the average Muslim on the street about that one, buttheads. An entire culture martyred? Uh-huh. Just how stupid do they (bin Laden and his ilk) think we are?

Now this one gets a "10" on the Cool-O-Meter(tm)

African-American cop infiltrates the KKK - The Abrams Report - MSNBC.com

A black police officer infiltrates the KKK? How f**king cool is that!? This one almost made me laugh out loud:

STALLWORTH: I talked to David Duke once or twice a week over the year that this investigation took place. And David did tell me that he could tell I had a little fun. I asked him one time. I said, “Aren't you afraid of being infiltrated by the police or maybe some black person trying to get information on the group?” He said, no, he never worried about that.

And I asked him why. He said, “I can always tell when I'm talking to a black man because they pronounce words and letters a certain way.”

And he said, “I can tell that you're a pure-blooded white man, because you don't pronounce your words in that manner.” And from that point on, I started pronouncing those words in that manner just to play with him.

Hoo hoo! According to the article, his work in investigating the KKK in Colorado helped prevent a number of racist crimes (i.e. cross burning). That is SO cool!

Speaking of jeans...

Police halt annual "No Pants Subway Ride" - Peculiar Postings - MSNBC.com

This is ludicrous. The police arrest 8 people for being in their underwear? It's not like anyone's schlong was hanging out. Why don't these cops go stop some muggers or arrest rapists, instead of harassing these decent hard-working people? I hope the judge has more sense than the cops.

Mr. Man, go get a donut and leave us alone.

Fava beans in your genes

Cannibals in the Closet? - Newsweek Technology - MSNBC.com

I just wanted to post that witty little title, that's all.

Well, people always DID tell me that I need to beam back up to the mothership!

UFOPALS Home

No. Seriously. People HAVE told me that. Would explain a few things...

Prediction 2006

Iran's ambitions could roil America's elections - Tom Curry - MSNBC.com

Iran will get their nukes. This will spur our government to recognize the increased potential for terrorists being able to bring a nuke into the US. Because of this, the government will not only step up its domestic spying policy, but will also find a way to identify every single person in America. There has already been talk of a National ID card. Expect it to be put into full force within one year after Iran has a nuke.

When this day comes, the government will have a finger on the pulse of every single person in this country. Expect civil liberties to be restricted even more. If (and when) Iran decides to launch a nuke at Israel, and/or the US takes action against Iran, which precipitates a war larger than the one in Iraq (think: global scale), you can expect the US to become a police state. Anyone without this National ID will be denied government services, and even rounded up into camps.

I'm thinking of a number, between 665 and 667...

BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!

Google rebuffs feds over access to search data - Tech News & Reviews - MSNBC.com

As soon as Google caves to government pressure, it will be official. The government will know whatever it wants about you, what your interests are, and how you think; and be able to take steps to "correct" behavior it finds "ungood"...or, even, "doubleplusungood."

And nobody's doing anything about it. We'd much rather watch the Superbowl, Latest Moronic Reality TV Show, or waste our lives in some other way.

For shame.

Health care, and...

CNN.com - State of the Union address will focus on health care frustrations - Jan 19, 2006

Some comments on this article:

Democrats are challenging Bush's intentions and point to the billions of dollars in proposed cuts to Medicaid...

$5 billion to be precise. Out of hundreds of billions ($250 I believe...I have a link from an earlier post). They make it sound like Bush is gutting Medicaid. Maybe he is. But let's state the actual amounts, please.

Hubbard said Bush's proposals arise from a belief that controlling health care costs requires choices to be driven more directly by a price-conscious, informed patient-shopper than by employers, insurers and others. The hope is that consumer demands will then drive the market into providing better and cheaper services.

So...Bush believes in personal self-responsibility (self-responsibility?? whassat??), while Democrats (it seems to me) believe that the average American citizen is too stupid to decide for itself and should have the government do all the work.

I believe this is a fundamental contention in a particular plank for both parties: the whole small government/big government argument.

I find it more and more interesting that as I actually research some of these issues, I find myself supporting Bush just a little more. Not totally, for sure...but he (or at least his advisors) are thinking.

Case 1 for today is the above argument in health care. If anyone who is anyone has been reading my blog, you'll know I'm big on self-responsibility and independence, which this aspect of Bush's ideas on healthcare seem to support.

Case 2 for today is my previous post on "Proportional Response" from the West Wing. Americans SHOULD be able to walk across the face of the Earth, safe in knowing what retribution will (not may, but WILL) befall anyone who chooses to molest our citizens. Otherwise, what's the point in being a superpower? ... Frankly, ANYONE should be able to go through life unmolested, but that's another story.

Case 3 is in this quote from the article relevant to this post: "An effort [by the Bush administration] to simplify tax laws, already pushed into 2006 by the Social Security drive, has been postponed again until 2007 to avoid a potentially explosive debate in an election year." Why should this be a problem? Simplifying tax laws is BAD!? Hell, if Bush pushed this issue, with the backing of Republicans, I'd imagine the Republicans would not only manage to hold on to Congress, but even increase its presence there.

But that's just my opinion.

This explains our society's woes in so many ways.

Men get a bigger kick from revenge - Science - MSNBC.com

Quote:

LONDON - Germans have a word for it — schadenfreude — and when it comes to getting pleasure from someone else’s misfortune, men seem to enjoy it more than women. Such is the conclusion reached by scientists at University College London, in what they say is the first neuroscientific evidence of schadenfreude.

Using brain-imaging techniques, they compared how men and women reacted when watching other people suffer pain.

If the sufferer was someone they liked, areas of the brain linked to empathy and pain were activated in both sexes. Women had a similar response if they disliked the person experiencing the pain, but men showed a surge in the reward areas of the brain.

That would explain why, in our--or any--phallocentric society, we have such things as a death penalty, among other things.

Quandary

Mother pleads for kidnapped reporter's release - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com

I realize this may be a callous thing to say, but they cannot barter for this person's release. Short and simple: we would set a precedent. I really feel for this person's family.

What we *really* should do (you're hearing this from a guy who doesn't support the death penalty generally, but I'm deviating from my normal stance) is tell these people that for every American they kill, we kill 10 of their people. Of course, this is just the Angry Me (tm) talking.

I remember an episode of "West Wing" (seems I refer to that TV show a lot) called "Proportional Response," where President Bartlett has to decide how to respond to Syria's attack on a peaceful target (they shot down a plane full of doctors). He wants to wipe Syria off the face of the earth, but his advisors warn against it.

Ultimately, at the end, Bartlett talks about how during the days of the Roman Empire, all you had to do was claim to be a Roman citizen and you could walk across the face of the known world unharmed. This is because Rome didn't believe in "proportional response."

Why the United States doesn't follow this philosophy is ... well, interesting. I *know* why: the international community would frown upon it. But I really think that the *only* way we're going to ensure our national security is to make this world where all you have to say is "I am an American citizen," and people leave you the fuck alone.

Of course, we know what kind of drastic measures this entails.

Now, why would someone who opposes the death penalty support something as wholescale war aginst ... whomever? Isn't it still killing? Yes, but it's the purpose. When you kill a guy on death row, it does nothing except maybe give a family closure. It doesn't bring anyone back from the dead, and people are still going to kill. We have probably one of the highest murder rates in the "civilized" (read: Westernized) world. But when you're waging a war for the security of our own people, THAT has a purpose. We did it against the Kaizer, we did it against Hitler. Nobody wanted to fuck with us after that...at least, for a while.

With that having been said, I think about what President Bush is doing in Iraq...

A quick word...

Tell-tale parrot exposes cheating girlfriend - Peculiar Postings - MSNBC.com

First quote: "'I’m not proud of what I did but I’m sure Chris would be the first to admit we were having problems,' said Collins, a call-center worker. 'We had spoken about splitting up several times and I think it was inevitable.'"

I'm sure that justifies everything.

Another quote: "[Collins, the ex-girlfriend] added: 'I’m surprised to hear he’s got rid of that bloody bird; he spent more time talking to it than he did to me.'"

Hmmm... you think you should've probably mentioned that to him? Are you using this as an excuse for your inappropriate behavior? Should I go around to every single person who can't take responsibility for their actions and beat them in the head with a crowbar? Would that throw me in jail? Or would the judge say, "Good on ya, mate!" and I'd be given a million dollars and high accolades by people WHO FUCKING KNOW BETTER!?

Why didn't you just say you found the other guy you were boinking sexier, or had a bigger shlong, or had more money than Taylor? Be honest, for crying out loud!

They say that you can't judge a person until you've walked a mile in their shoes. Well, I've been on both sides of this fence; had made and received lame excuses. Now that I'm several years' older and wiser, I think this time I'm free to judge someone; especially when they make such transparent excuses as "it was inevitable."

Is this too much?

Sex offender poses as noble English teenager - Peculiar Postings - MSNBC.com

A while back, I posted on how I thought some applications of sex offender laws were at the very least wierd. For example, an 18 year old having relations with a 14 year old. That's only four years. It would be akin to a 28 year old and a 24 year old. Now, some people will say "well, they're 14, they don't know any better" or some shit like that. Sorry, but once you reach some stage of sexual maturity, NOBODY knows any better. Believe me.

This article links to (let's face it) a wierdo (Fifth Duke of Cleveland???) who had a 14-year old girlfriend when he was 18. Apparently, the kid never heard the term "jail bait" before (quote: "Gardner said he didn’t know that their age difference made having sex with the girl illegal."). But I digress.

Now, am I saying that what he did wasn't wrong? No. In my opinion, sex is something to be shared with someone special. ... well, maybe he thought his 14-year old girlfriend WAS "special." But I digress. What I find remarkable is that, because of being a typical teenage boy, who just *happened* to have a 14-year old girlfriend, he's marked for life and now is lumped into a group of people that include honest-to-God pedophiles (40-year olds with 9-year olds, for example), rapists and other such scum.

Nobody sees anything *wrong* with that?? Should he be punished? Well, he *did* break the law. But to label him like that (having to register and the whole she-bang) is WAY OVERBOARD. He is even sent to jail for crying out loud. Quote:

He was booked into jail Jan. 9 for allegedly violating terms of his parole by not always registering his changes of address, not observing restrictions on his Internet access, not getting counseling and for having unsupervised contact with minors.

That is just ridiculous. Enough said.

Something to hide?

In nuke feud, Iran warns it may halt inspections - Mideast/N. Africa - MSNBC.com

As I understand it, Iran is claiming that their uranium-enrichment program is solely for reactors. But enriched uranium can also be used for nuclear weapons. I was going to say that if Iran is defying the IAEA while at the same time saying they're only enriching uranium for electricity, then Iran is trying to pull a slight-of-hand trick and should not be trusted.

However, I found this piece at the very end of the article. Quote: "Iran also described an earlier proposal to enrich uranium on Russian territory and ship it back to Iran to fuel nuclear power as a good starting point for negotiations."

Now, if Russia were to enrich the uranium, or Iran were to use Russian facilities, this seems less likely that they're using them for weapons, as Russia would get a better chance to see what's really going on. That doesn't stop Iran from putting the uranium in missiles once back in Iran, I suppose. This kind of supposed concession may also be slight-of-hand; they offer this proposal as proof that their intentions are good, while they take their uranium back into Iran and put them in nukes.

Things to think about.

Did I say things couldn't get any weirder?

I vant to get your vote! - Peculiar Postings - MSNBC.com

Here's a man--a self-proclaimed Satanist and vampire--who is running for governor of Minnesota. He will post the 10 Commandments and the Wicca Reed in public places, and execute murderers and child molesters by impaling them on wooden pikes.

I need a STIFF drink. And I'm not looking at getting a Bloody Mary this time.

This is what happens...

Is It Over Yet? - Newsweek Politics - MSNBC.com

This is what happens when *any* political party--Democrat or Republican--decides to focus on posturing instead of the actual issues. Grilling Alito to simply make him look bad backfired. Why people can't just stick to the issues to get what they want done is beyond me. If politicians can't argue their issues, and they HAVE to resort to smear tactics; then perhaps their issues are without merit.

It's more than just about Medicaid...

Groups survey 20 "meanest" cities for homeless - U.S. Life - MSNBC.com

...Cities aren't getting any help from the federal government, Stoops said, citing legislation passed in December by the House and Senate that is meant to slash Medicaid funding by $4.8 billion and trim Supplemental Security Income assistance by more than $700 million over the next five years.

Bah, Humbug! I guess homeless people aren't a large enough bloc of voters for the politicians to care.

But seriously. I found this link. It is a transcript of what Senator Gregg's view is on this Medicaid cut. In it, he is essentially saying (as I understand it) that these cuts are for the children--that he does not want to see the children of today being burdened by the amount of taxation required "to support this entire generation, which is so huge." So, old folks, you're being bumped by little Baby Billy.

Sad thing is, the senator's right. We can't afford to cover *everyone*. There is no good answer. Even boosting taxes isn't going to help. Take a look at his chart, on that same link, regarding Medicaid spending. $40 billion in 1990. $192 billion in 2006. $152 billion in 16 years!? That's almost a $10 billion a year INCREASE. $5 billion over 5 years is nothing. By 2030, another 24 years, that's MORE than $300 billion in Medicaid spending alone, and that's if the graph is LINEAR. In 2010, the "Baby Boomer" generation starts retiring. So this graph will no longer be linear. We could be looking at half a trillion dollars or more. Can we handle that? You'll have a huge amount of the population with little or no disposable income...which means less tax revenue from the retirees. Where else is the government going to get tax revenue?

Senator Gregg paints a bleak picture for working Americans and--yes--today's children.

What is the GOOD answer? Is there some way to rein in the costs of medical treatment? That's really the only thing that's going to stop this potential nightmare.

I realize I've been talking about retirees and children, in regards to Medicaid. The fact of the matter is, if there's less money for these groups of people, there's less for homeless people. To rectify that situation, the government needs to eliminate homelessness. To do that, they need to get these people meaningful jobs. You can still have a job and be homeless. Do you think a person making $7 to $8 an hour at McDonalds in New York City can afford an apartment!? If so, I have a bridge to sell you. No. The government needs to funnel money into education and treatment.

I haven't done the research on it yet, but I do know that President Bush (and Congress I'm assuming) have cut funds to Vocational Rehabilitation (VR): a service designed to help people handicapped either on the job or by nature's design find new, meaningful work. I know that funds were cut because my VR counselor TOLD me funds were cut.

How can we get homeless people GOOD jobs and therefore off the street, while at the same time take away money from training programs that can help these people get the jobs they need?

The problem of homeless people and Medicaid goes way beyond just Medicaid. And people need to understand that. The entire social system is interlinked. You make changes to one part of the system, and it can throw everything out of whack.

Liver and chianti, anyone?

Just when you thought it was safe to go and read the news...

German cannibal returns to courtroom - Europe - MSNBC.com

One word: SHUDDER!!!!! I swear, the world is getting wierder by the minute.

15 minutes of fame

Internet site with Farrell sex tape shut down - Celebrity News - MSNBC.com

Quote:

Farrell argued that the [15-minute sex tape] was made more than two years ago on the understanding that it never would be made public and releasing it would harm his career.

Well, I can see why this tape would be damaging to his career...every woman in the world would know he can only last 15 minutes. So much for that fantasy, right?

Right versus correct, part 2

Confidence Game - Newsweek: International Editions - MSNBC.com

The above article discusses Iran's nuclear program and the United States' options. It reflects on issues in the past that are similar to our situation with Iran: namely, the "unknown unknown" threats in Iraq of 2003. It is evident what Iran wants: at the very least, a nuclear program that supplies electricity to their populace (the article cites Iran's need to IMPORT refined oil--namely gasoline--which indicates they have a bit of an energy crisis on their hands, despite having the second largest reserves of oil in the Mideast). At the very worst, they want the bomb. The US does not want Iran to have the bomb. Apparently, neither does the rest of the world. However, what is NOT stated is how the global community can get a handle on this situation before it spirals out of control and the US eventually decides to act as it did in 2003 with Iraq.

How do we avoid this? In my opinion, each government needs to sit down and write a Wish List. Instead of preaching from the pulpit, as it were, and saying what they think the rest of the world should hear; or what their own citizenry wants to hear (to get re-elected or stave of coups, whatever); they need to write down what they honestly think is the RIGHT thing to do and NOT the correct thing to do. What does each government want to see happen? Does the United States *really* want to invate Iran? They should write that down. They should NOT write down "UN sanctions" if they honestly think it's not going to work. What does Russia want? If they think beating the stuffing out of Iran is the right thing to do, then they need to write THAT down. If they think it is the WRONG thing to do, and will, in the end, lend whatever support to Iran they can if the US DOES invade, they should write THAT down.

In the end, these Wish Lists will be very, very ugly. But if everyone knows exactly what the other is thinking, then maybe some progress can be made to a real solution. Or, at least, each government will have fewer of these "unknown unknowns" to deal with.

Treasure

waiterrant.net - Treasure

It baffles me why people SEEM to find it so hard to be civil to one another...especially people they are SUPPOSED to love, cherish and honor...or however those marriage vows go. I wouldn't know. Tried twice to go down that road. The last time, I lost her because I didn't tell her every fucking feeling that was going on in my head; and I couldn't satisfy her. Despite the fact that I did everything I could to treat her like a queen, I ended up feeling unappreciated, frustrated, and--in the end--unloved.

I don't understand why people have to fucking treat other people so horribly. God damn it. I've gone from depressed to furious in a heartbeat. I think about shit like this and I want to go break something. Must be the primal male in me.

I don't know how many of my many readers (all two or three of you) have ever seen the Pixar movie, "The Incredibles;" but at the end, Mr. Incredible has to fight the evil robot alone because "he's not strong enough." It's not about being macho, or about proving himself. He's not strong enough to lose his wife again. Why can't I find someone with whom I could have that close of a bond? And, how ironic is it that these are two fictional animated characters?

I'm smart. I make pretty good money. And I sure the hell ain't ugly. I deserve more.

And, I think the lady in Waiter Rant's article deserves more, too.

"Was Paris Hilton in an altered state?"

Was Paris Hilton in an altered state? - Gossip: The Scoop - MSNBC.com

Yes. Silicone lip injections, breast implants... definitely altered.

Ok, ok, that may not be for sure.

Evil endures.

It seems to me that there is more to the Iraq issue than meets the eye. Every other day we hear about militants blowing up things in Iraq, including their own people (that last part is most definitely in question, as a lot of these militants come from across the border). The US, in an attempt to be the world's big brother, tries to keep problems like this from happening. We even go so far as to topple evil regimes, such as the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein in Iraq.

And yet, evil endures.

It seems to me that there is more chaff in the world than wheat. You may say, "but most people are powerless to resist evil dictators, etc." To which I say, "Bullshit." If people REALLY wanted to, even if the government in power had all the guns, they could still stock up weapons and explosives and do kamikaze-style tactics designed to overthrow their government. These insurgents in Iraq are a prime example of what extent people are willing to go for a cause, as misdirected (or evil in this case) it may be.

Which makes me wonder.

Nothing like this happened under Hussein...at least, nothing like this was reported. But now that Hussein is gone, people are blowing themselves up. It makes me wonder if, despite the admonishments countries like Saudi Arabia may have made in public in regards to Hussein; in reality, they were saying, "Good job, Saddam, buddy, ole pal."

Considering that (allegedly) a lot of these insurgents come from Saudi Arabia, this would not surprise me.

I have to give this much to President Bush: he's an idealist. We actually need more of that kind of people in this world. But, I suppose, leaders of fundamentalist movements are idealists, also. Just the wrong ideals.

If Moses and Howard Stern were to have a baby...

...it would look an awful lot like this guy.

I honestly think there are only 2 reasons why this nut job would spout such idiocy:

1. He's trying to be a Christian "shock jock" (hence the Moses/Stern reference), or...
2. He's insane, or...
3. All of the above.

What a freak.

Something to watch...

Italian court to decide whether Jesus lived - Europe - MSNBC.com

Hmm. Well. This brings up a whole string of thoughts. First, it will be very interesting to see how this trial pans out. If the courts decide that Jesus did NOT live, what kind of implications would that have, worldwide? Second, many Christians would argue the fact that Jesus did not ONCE live, but LIVES. Now. But the court isn't deciding whether the Crucifixion and Resurrection took place. I guess that's a bridge to be crossed later on.

Third, you'd think this guy (Cascioli, an atheist) would have more productive things to do with his life than to debate the validity of historical figures. Why not pick on Alexander the Great, whom a lot of historians are coming to believe to be a composite of a few different people of the time? Or King Arthur? Or even Moses? Or why not use that time and energy doing things like helping the poor and needy in this guy's neighborhood? God forbid anyone would want to do that. Some people would debate that Cascioli's decision to debate Jesus' existance over helping humankind would be a prime example of his godlessness. But, of course, Cascioli doesn't believe in God.

Bi? Asexual? Gay? Who cares? - Sexploration - MSNBC.com

Bi? Asexual? Gay? Who cares? - Sexploration - MSNBC.com:

We’re strapping guys in lab chairs, putting electric devices on their weenies and asking them to watch porn.

Sign me up! Uh, except for the electric device. Thankyouverymuch.

If you have a full moon twice in one month...

The ruling that opens a crack in the door - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com

What I find really hilarious is this bit:

Mooning can be a ceremonial, community ritual. For the last quarter century, there has been a day of the "Annual Mooning of Amtrak," across the street from a bar in Orange County, Calif. Hundreds of people gather along a chain-link fence to moon because it's wacky and fun.

I find it strangely ironic that this event is held in a bar. ( | )

There's a full moon out tonight in Maryland...

Mooning deemed 'disgusting' but legal in Md. - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com

I thought I'd start the new year off with a bit of ... cheeky news. Heck, only an ass would pass up a story like this. No butts about it.