"My Karma ran over your Dogma"

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

State of the Union?


Some mental deficiency due to lack of SUBSTANCE and repetitive meeting of wall and head.


Sunday, January 29, 2006

Nothing to hide . . .

. . . except the truth of course.

Hat tip to Carl

Jan. 26, 2006, 9:21PM
Bush defends Abramoff photos
He says images showing him with disgraced lobbyist won't be released to the public

Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - The photographs Democratic strategists would love to send to potential contributors — of President Bush gripping and grinning with now-disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff — will remain in the White House private collection, Bush said Thursday.

Under dogged questioning at a press briefing, Bush dismissed the photographs as routine shots taken at public receptions and denied any close relationship with Abramoff.

Can someone please explain why if there is nothing to hide . . . the photos can't be published? When is this administration going to be held accountable for it's actions?

FUCKryin out loud.

Thursday, January 26, 2006

"Dissent is the highest expression of patriotism."

At least it USED to be, back when Tommy Jefferson said it.

Now though, the neocon fascist warmongers claim dissent is equal to treason and aids and comforts the enemy. How quickly they forget what they did to Clinton. Oy.

Why can't we find anyone who thinks like this anymore (emphasis mine):
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more imporant to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

- Theodore Roosevelt, "The Kansas City Star," May 7, 1918


Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away. That only works with teeth.

I found that quote while perusing the comments over at Media Matters under an article about Flush Limpballs and his latest idiotic meanderings. How long till that idiot just implodes?

Anyway, my aimless wandering post does have a conclusion. I think Media Matters is arguably the best debunker of media bull-shizit out there. I challenge anyone to find a right-wing debunk site that comes anywhere close to doing the same.

And dissent? I do.

Thursday, January 19, 2006

How Conservatives Argue.

Do yourself a favor and check out this post if you haven't already. I was rollin half way thru.

Christian Values in Action . . . or is that Inaction?

I cut this letter-to-the-editor out of my Sunday paper. I was going to respond to it when I had some free time from family and schoolwork.

Liberate U.S. from Christianity
Let's adhere to the statement "separate church and state."
Liberate us from all aspects of Christian principles derived from the Christian resource, the Bible.
No more Christmas, a Christian holiday.
Truth is a Christian principle. Let us be free to lie.
Not to steal is a Christian principle. Free those convicted of stealing.
Not to murder is a Christian principle. Free those imprisoned for murder.
Helping others is a Christian principle. No more donations to help the less fortunate.
Did you know that to not offend someone is a Christian principle? Offend!
Expose the many hidden Christian principles within our society and be rid of them.
No more Golden Rule, trust, love, faithfulness, etc. These are all Christian principles.
Wake up, America.
Separate church and state?


I sat down at my puter, went to the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle and proceeded to the opinion page. I did not write a response to Ms. Avril Asswood. Two others did it for me and not too shabby either.

Christians don't own morality

The Jan. 15 letter "Liberate U.S. from Christianity" implies that Christians are the only people who follow ethical principles.
People of all faiths tell the truth, help their neighbors and refrain from stealing and murder because it is the right thing to do.
The Bible and Christians don't have a monopoly on morality. I'm proud of our secular government, which provides security for all people to live their lives according to their own faiths.
Speaking as a Christian, I am appalled at the movement in this country to legislate opinions and foist the Bible on everyone else. Did the "Show respect for others" Sunday school class forget that "others" includes everybody, not just Christians?


AMEN SISTAH!! And my favorite (emphasis mine):

Liberate U.S. from religious biases

Regarding the Jan. 15 letter "Liberate U.S. from Christianity":
How full of himself must the writer be to think that his religion is the only way to live a moral and ethical life.
When you make decisions every day, if you base them on the happiness of others or on easing the suffering of others, then you live by a positive moral code.
If on the other hand you think that only people who adhere to the teachings of the Bible are moral, then I suggest you meditate on the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch trials and the molestation of children by Catholic priests.
What we really need to be liberated from is all narrow-minded thinking and conflict that is inevitably wrought from religion in any form.



Saturday, January 14, 2006

How about a little truthiness?

Our friendly RIGHTeous Christian VVarrior has posted yet another inanity. He posted this entire article which ends by comparing Iran to Iraq. His own comments are limited to the title - "Yet, Noone is Acting." Well DUH. Did you read any of the article? Or did you just get the heads up from Newsmax or one of your talking point memos about it?

Lets get real for a second, OK? Here is my short list of why "Noone is Acting."
From the article:
The Europeans and US could face difficulties in referring Iran to the UN Security Council for breaking a moratorium which was voluntary in the first place, and without the IAEA declaring Iran to be in breach of its obligations.

Athough it doesn't matter if Iran does get referred to the S.C. because the US didn't wait for their support or approval when it invaded Iraq.

Oh wait, we don't have enough troops left to invade Iran. Gee, you don't think Iran already thought of that do ya?

Oh well. We'll just let Israel take care of it. Oh wait, Israel? That might not go over very well with the other Arab countries. Can you say Nukular parking lot? Cuz, that is what the whole area could become if Israel decides to act.

Finally, the UK is terrified that their troops will be the ones getting the worst of any retaliation, and maybe rightly so. You see, Iran and England don't get along very well, there's a history there. And, being that the UK is our greatest ally right now, it's not likely that we will be able to do anything without risking the loss of their support.

Then who do we have? Poland? Sheesh.

Obviously something has to be done, but I think the guys in charge have to think before acting. Plus, there isn't any "Revenge for Daddy" factor this time.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Why doesn't our govt support the troops?

According to a secret PENTAGON study, the deaths 74 of 93 Marine could have been prevented as well as another 340 soldiers, if they had had the right armor.

Such armor has been available since 2003, but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.

This kind of hypocrisy makes me sick.


Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Dawkins, Rhea and WND, OH MY

I decided to swipe a page from the Vesti-book and take a gander over at WND's Email to the Editor page, when I stumbled on this little inanity:

Regarding "Dawkins': Religion equals 'child abuse'," this guy doesn't know what he's saying. Perhaps Mr. Dawkins is perplexed about the definition of child abuse?

I come from a home that was a cesspool of promiscuous sex, real child sex abuse, child pornography, lesbian experimentation, bisexuals, and drug use. I survived. Looking back, I strongly believe that parents who deny God and the moral teachings of the Ten Commandments to their children are raising them to be hopeless. I believe that parents must show them Christianity because there is hope in the gospels and no where else!

Nina Rhea

I followed the link to find WND mangling quotes by applying straw man tactics (emphasis mine):

In part two, "The Virus of Faith," Dawkins attacks the teaching of religion to children, calling it child abuse.

"Innocent children are being saddled with demonstrable falsehoods," he says. "It's time to question the abuse of childhood innocence with superstitious ideas of hellfire and damnation. Isn't it weird the way we automatically label a tiny child with its parents' religion?"

Two things come to mind:

First, does anyone actually read anything for themselves anymore? Dawkins did not claim it was child abuse. I will explain it for the mentally deficient WNDers. Dawkins was saying that the scary images of fear taught by religion was an abuse to the innocence, the happiness, of childHOOD.

Which brings me to point number two where MiseRhea contradicts herself. How did she survive "real child abuse" without that "hope of Christianity" from her own parents? Especially if you consider hope to truely exist "in the gospels and no where else!"

Maybe I too am perplexed.

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

The fish is owned by:

I don't want to spoil the puzzle for anyone that doesn't WANT to know the answer. See the comments for the solution.

I found the "Einstein Puzzle" here. The solution is also there with explanations.

Puzzle of Redemption

There are 5 houses in 5 different colors. In each house lives a man with a different nationality. The 5 owners drink a certain type of beverage, smoke a certain brand of cigar, and keep a certain pet. No owners have the same pet, smoke the same brand of cigar or drink the same beverage.

The question is: "Who owns the fish?"


* The Brit lives in the red house.
* The Swede keeps dogs as pets.
* The Dane drinks tea.
* The green house is on the left of the white house.
* The green house's owner drinks coffee.
* The person who smokes Pall Mall rears birds.
* The owner of the yellow house smokes Dunhill.
* The man living in the center house drinks milk.
* The Norwegian lives in the first house.
* The man who smokes Blends lives next to the one who keeps cats.
* The man who keeps the horse lives next to the man who smokes Dunhill.
* The owner who smokes Bluemasters drinks beer.
* The German smokes Prince.
* The Norwegian lives next to the blue house.
* The man who smokes Blends has a neighbor who drinks water.

Carl cannot answer. One winner per household per visit per whatever. May the Schwarz be with you.