10.21.2005

Resemblance?


I kept saying Alfred G. Newman...it is Alfred "E." Newman...
Tom and Alfred E., definitely related, and both absolutely MAD...

http://www.colbertnation.com/colbertnation/

10.20.2005

Litmus Test

Litmus test...to hold a person up to a standard...possibly from past actions to foreshadow future actions...What do you stand for? Not a simple yes or no question. I don't have a problem with a justice that is pro-life if they are steadfast to letter of the law. Why are standards a bad thing?
Will you render judgement according to the law and not to personal ideology?I don't think we can find anyone with no opinion, but maybe we can look for individuals that do their jobs and keep their personal opinions to themselves...

Tabula Rosa justices...I found an example on Google

Amun

I am Amum according to The Mythological God Test ...I had always thought, Pan or Loki...but it was not to happen...I found test via skippy the bush kangaroo post.

Amun was a mysterious God indeed. His very name basically means "what is hidden", "what is not seen", "what cannot be seen", and though even his form was said to be “unknown”, he was depicted as a man with the head of a uraeus (cobra), or a man seated on a throne and holding in one hand the sceptre, and in the other the ankh. All secrets aside, what we do know is that Amun was the Egyptian King of the Gods, not unlike his counterparts Zeus (Greek mythology) and Odin (Norse mythology). With his ruling might over the Gods, Amun soon became associated with the Pharaohs. Being responsible for the creation of the world, it is not surprising that he was also the God of fertility, reproduction, and sexual power, and thus also the God of agriculture. With the combined powers of regeneration and royalty, Amun became linked to the sun and the great God Ra, becoming known as Amun-Ra, which pretty much consolidated his status as Supreme God. In spite of Amun's political ascension, he also enjoyed popularity among the common people of Egypt, who came to call him the vizier of the poor, the protector of the weak, and an upholder of justice.

10.19.2005

380 troops..

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1227341&page=1

"The Americans are really helping us a lot," one earthquake survivor, whose family was evacuated by U.S. troops, told ABC News. "A lot of people don't understand they are really not that bad."

In the past week, the United States has delivered more than 400,000 pounds of relief supplies — more than any other country.

It isn't just a mission of mercy. It is also a concerted effort to win the hearts and minds of the Pakistanis and people across the Muslim world. Some wonder, however, if it will work."

I saw this on ABC News last night, and my reaction to it was as follows: Wow, 380 troops, that is so many to help out over 500,000 people that have not received any aid 10 days after the fact. Ridiculous, if we wanted to actually help, we could, we have several thousand troops all ready there. It is just another photo-op.

Will it work? No.

Could it have worked? Yes, we could have made an honest effort and helped out these people as well as our standing in the Muslim world.

No reply from the Christian Communication Network

"You asking nothing more than to have your religion imposed upon other. You are losing this fight, primarily because it is being fought on your side by bigots."

This was my reply:

"I am asking for that government institutions that are paid for via tax dollars not be a promoter of religion. I don't want any religions imposed on anyone, just the contrary, I want people to free feel to follow their belief system.

My side is 'constitutionalist'."


Re: Re: American Daily Feedback

Just about the entire legal community has endorsed her legal qualifications, across the aisle. She has 30 years of real world experience with an impeccable record according to everyone who has ever worked with, for or around her. She certainly has the proper education. So what is your real objection?

My real objection is: she is not qualified. Compare Roberts and Miers resumes. Big difference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Roberts_Jr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers


These alternatives do exist, we simply must insist upon them and not fall into the same ideology game employed by most people involved in the process.

How? I would suggest the process is broken via money.

This issue has nothing to do with "civil rights". The same laws and definitions that apply to me as a heterosexual, apply to every homosexual. The same requirements for obtaining a marriage license applied to members of the gay community, also apply to members of the heterosexual community. As you know, this is a financial benefits debate, not a civil rights debate. Over the years, laws, rules and programs have been designed to promote a traditional family unit, or at least, not penalize the traditional family unit. Members of the gay community seek to tap into those financial benefits, even though they were never designed for them. Since they can't do it any other way, they call it a "civil right" to have access to those programs and benefits. But reality is, I am no more "qualified" to apply for funding designed to help the black community that they are for programs designed to support the traditional family unit. I can't get a job under "affirmative action" programs because they were never designed for me. Same goes for homosexuals seeking access to funds not designed for them...

The simple truth is, they don't seek equality, they have that and it isn't what they desire. They seek special treatment for their special circumstances... Which is why this has nothing to do with civil rights.

Why shouldn't a "couple" not be entitled to same legal protections as other "couples"? Should not gay couples have family insurance? Should not gay couples have spousal rights? Should not gay couples be able to have families? Should not both individuals of a gay couple have parental rights? It is discrimination. The discrimination has many different rationales, one is financial, insurance companies, government don't want to deliver services and save dollars, another is religious reasons, homosexuality is a sin in their eyes, lastly is plain bigotry, some people are just homophobes.

Do you believe in affirmative action?

The simple truth is, they want the same rights as everyone else. Equal rights.

10.18.2005

Re: American Daily column feedback

Does Harriet Miers have qualifications that other court justices have? No.

Wrong... As a matter of fact, she does. She has one very important qualification. She has the confidence of the one man in this country charged with the responsibility of naming the next Supreme Court Justice. Other's might have his confidence too, but clearly not as much confidence. That is the one qualification she has that nobody else has...and it's a very
important qualification, since republican does not equal conservative...

She does have one then...I am still waiting on any others...

What others are necessary?

Experience, education...

"Did GW nominate her? Yes. His judgements are dubious at best."

You are entitled to your opinion. But my opinion is that GWB will be eventually written into history as a President who made many some unpopular decisions at a very difficult time, that turned out to be the right ones...Reagan is still today one of our most "popular" Presidents. But during his time in office, he was like GWB, one of our most unpopular Presidents, also accused of being a cowboy, full of false bravado and black and white vision... It wasn't until much later that people were forced to recognize his brilliance, once the fruit of his labor became visible to all...

Yep, entitled to opinions...GW Bush, Nixon, Cleveland, Hoover, Harding, Grant will be linked together as worst presidents in US History...

People liked Reagan, and you are correct they still like him, but his policies aren't the most popular...the only one that is favorable towards Reagan is "ending the cold war". No Mr. Reagan, ketchup is not a vegetable...

Actually, Reagan was called all the same names Bush has been called and accused of all the same things Bush has been accused of. It wasn't until much later that his hard-headed tough-talk policies became respected, after the fruits of his efforts were obvious to even his opponents. The same will happen to Bush as history is written...in my opinion.

We are definite violent disagreement about this one, it will be interesting to see...

"GW said they never discussed abortion. Obvious lie."

Very likely... not obvious...but very likely.

Yep, very...


GW nominated her because she is an unknown quantity. Harder to look at a record, if you don't have one.

A sure way to avoid the litmus test that isn't supposed to exist in the first place.

I said nothing of a "litmus test"...I said a record, as in being qualified to be a supreme court justice..there are better qualified individuals in America...

Don't be cute... We both know the reason behind today's search for a "record" relates to ones ability to guess what position they will take on the key issues of the day. This is by definition, a litmus test. The reason for wanting to know how Miers "feels" about abortion is to guess how she might "rule" on abortion. Yet this litmus test is not the grounds upon which we are supposed to appoint nor confirm judges to the bench.

I don't think litmus tests are necessary because judges are interpeters of the law(supposedly)...but a record on her judgement would be great going toward to see that she is the "strict constitutionalist" we both are advocating instead of a "crony"...I agree that judge appointments are politicized by both parties...


Activist judges? This phrase-ology just shows a partisan belief by persons who choose to use it. The reasoning is this, a judge that makes a decision that the forementioned agrees with, the judge ceases to be "an activist judge

Not true... not true at all. Example: An activist judge is one who makes "legal" judgments on the basis of their personal political ideologies. Like seeing a right to an abortion hidden in the IV Amendment clearing relating to criminal investigations and illegal search and seizures. Or like making a "legal" judgment regarding a "separation" clause that is written nowhere in our founding documents, even at odds with what is written in those founding documents. This is an activist judge... Forcing his or her political ideology upon the masses via judicial fiat. If I were in search of an activist judge from my side of the ideological aisle, I'd be searching for a judge with an imagination geared more to my personal liking, like a judge who would simply call for a review of these prior decisions for the sole purpose of reversing them on the grounds that there were no "legal" grounds for the decisions. As it is, I simply seek a judge who can "uphold" the
Constitution as it was written, leaving the Amendment and law making process to the legislative branch as was intended by the founders.


Uphold the constitution...I agree, I would like a "strict constitutionalist" but in today's climate it is doubtful we will find a judge that doesn't use their political ideology in their renderings...Under your idea of "activist judges", most of justices are activists, whether that be conservative or liberal...the reasoning being it has to do with who "votes" them in, or
nominates them...

When it comes to judges, there are only three ideological options. (1) A liberal leaning ideologue, as in Ginsberg (2) A conservative leaning ideologue, as in Thomas or (3) A "constitutionalist" ideologue, as in one that will rule strictly on the basis of constitutionality, as it is written, not as it might be imagined by either option (1) or (2). I prefer option (3) as it is the only one that protects ALL Americans equally.

When it comes to upholding the constitution, there are only two options. (1) Upholding the written constitution, or (2) upholding the imaginary constitution, the unwritten, the one subject to individual ideological interpretations instead of legal interpretations. I prefer option (1)...

I don't think your picks exist, so what is the alternative?

The will of the people on the abortion issue? Do you realize that polls show that a majority of Americans are pro-choice? If you make it a state issue, then still a majority of states are in favor of choice.

This statement is simply not true. However, if you believe it is true, lets put it to a nationwide referendum via the Amendment process, or pass a law legalizing abortion via the legislative branch. If you are so sure that this is the will of people, why do you seek to circumvent the voice of the people by using activist courts to pass laws you know would never pass the legislative branch or the Amendment process? Never forget, polls are meaningless except those cast by the people on a ballot day. Ask John Kerry...all polls had him winning by a landslide, but he lost by almost 4 million votes, making every poll wrong... Make it a state issue, and less than 5 states nationwide would pass legislation legalizing abortion. Lets do it! Lets let the people speak...

Either way, the abortion would remain legal...I do agree it would be close, but if it comes up to a national referendum, it would get out the moderate/liberal votes of this country like "civil union/marriage" referendums of last election did for the Christians...If goes to the states,
it would each individual state voting on if it would be legal in that individual state (Texas votes for Texas, Massachusetts votes for Massachusetts), women would have to travel for legal abortions...

Actually, I'll bet my last dollar that the same people that showed up to re-elect Bush by almost 4 million votes, would show up to block legalizing abortion. While many people claim understanding and tolerance (publicly) in front of their friends, when it comes time to step into a voting booth and pull the lever for killing more innocent unborn children, they will err on the side of moral convictions (privately). Then return to public and behave tolerant...

I'm willing to put it to a vote. Same goes for gay marriage, put it to a vote, let the people decide. I'll bet my last dollar on the outcome...will you? I'll even give you 5 to 1 odds that both would go down in flames...which is why you seek an activist judge.

I agree gay marriage would not win in a national referendum, civil unions would be closer, but probably wouldn't win as well...civil unions is a subject that most politicans will not touch, last election showed that...the popular rhetoric was "it was a state issue"...so under that guise, civil
unions will pass in some states and not in others...so it is an activist judge that says that gay marriage is an equal rights issue? Is it an activist judges that says that gay marriage isn't an equal rights issue as well?

Gay marriage has no chance at all and according to the fact that 40 some of the 50 states have already passed state laws blocking not only gay marriage, but gay unions as well, I'd say its a dead issue as well, with the exception of probably three states, CA, NY and MA, all three of which are also working to outlaw both at present, but have serious opposition.

Good for states' rights. At least the civil rights do exist in some states for gay individuals.

Be careful with the pragmatic tag-line, it has been linked with Darwin through William James."

Pragmatism was around long before Darwin, and it will be around long after
JB.... Thanks for the warning


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism
Pragmatism was founded by William James(friend & contempary of Darwin), his
work was in conjunction with Darwins' findings...What existed pre-pragmatism that could be attributed/contributed to pragmatism is buddhism and the idea of karma according to James' writings...
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/shaw2.htm

I enjoy the conservation...

No matter our differences, I always enjoy an honest respectful exchange of ideas. Be well!


JB Williams
Political Writer
www.JB-Williams.com

Regards,
(BBP)


*This correspondence is reference to below link*
http://www.americandaily.com/article/9544

A & E's Top 10/Top 100 Americans

Top 10 greatest Americans
1 Ronald Reagan
2 Abraham Lincoln
3 Martin Luther King
4 George Washington
5 Benjamin Franklin
6 George W Bush
7 Bill Clinton
8 Elvis Presley
9 Oprah Winfrey
10 Franklin D Roosevelt

Reagan doesn't belong in the top 10, maybe top 50...GW Bush, Clinton belong in "bottom 100" list, if there ever was one...Elvis and Oprah don't belong in the top 100, nothing against them, but greatness is more than celebrity...

Bigotry

big·ot Audio pronunciation of "bigot" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bgt)
n.One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

bigot n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

bigot

n. [common] A person who is religiously attached to a
particular computer, language, operating system, editor, or other
tool (see religious issues). Usually found with a specifier;
thus, `cray bigot', `ITS bigot', `APL bigot', `VMS bigot', `Berkeley
bigot'. Real bigots can be distinguished from mere partisans or
zealots by the fact that they refuse to learn alternatives even when
the march of time and/or technology is threatening to obsolete the
favored tool. It is truly said "You can tell a bigot, but you can't
tell him much." Compare weenie, Amiga Persecution Complex.


Source: Jargon File 4.2.0

Christian Communication Network

:
You asking nothing more than to have your religion imposed upon other. You are losing this fight, primarily because it is being fought on your side by bigots.


Gary McCullough, Director
Christian Communication Network
2020 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20006

www.ChristianWireService.com

202.546.0054

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 11:18 AM
Subject: Neither...

Religious, or the empty placeholder of non-religious belong in our public
institutions. Christmas, Winter Solice, or any other tradition of worship
belong in our public institution paid for by taxpayer dollars...

If Christians want to see Christian traditions, go to church, celebrate in
non-taxpaid institutions.
Same applies to Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, etc...

If either side makes an issue of putting their beliefs in a tax funded
arena, then they are trying to push their beliefs upon others...simply put,
it is wrong...

Regards,