The Miracle of Free Will

I am actually surprised that I didn’t get this answer from my challenge to the sighting of a modern day miracle. I believe that Free Will could be marked in the column of miracle based on what I proposed.

Let us use the following gedanken experiment. Put a person in a room with a stack of CDs and a CD player. Let him sit there for a while. Have a sign on the wall that says “please don’t play the music above 10.” Many people will choose to play a song or more. Invite the same person back to the same room a week later with the same stack of CDs and the same sign. Will the person play the same song? I believe that no matter how similar the situation the person will be more likely to choose another song the second time. This illustrates the miracle of Free Will. The selection of a song does not follow the laws of the universe. This miracle is somehow given to us and it is one of the few miracles that we are sure of.

I suggest that we should preoccupy ourselves with miracles that may or may not have happened in ancient times when we don’t even deal with the one miracle we do know about.

Bush Haters and Clinton Haters

All I ever hear on the conservative talk radio since the Abu Ghraib scandal is about "Bush Haters." I hear how "Bush Haters" are showing these pictures on TV. How "Bush Haters" would do anything to have Bush thrown out of office.

Talk about hypocrisy, the "Clinton Haters" of the 90s sought to impeach the president for a crime that wasn't part of any investigation. They went off on a open ended investigation looking for any dirt they could dig up. They ended up forcing Clinton into a position of protecting his family or lying. Honorable conservatives hold family above government, so he did what any honorable conservative would do, as far as the lying was concerned. Everyone agrees that having a blowjob out of marriage isn't a great idea, but it wasn't illegal either. It is nothing like Bush causing the deaths of over 800 Americans in a needless war. Even Powell says this was a needless war and he is ashamed of the UN speech he gave last year.

So, all you "Clinton Haters" out there from 4 years back, think about your hatred before condemning the "Bush Haters" of today.

Excepting Miracles as Reality

Miracles are by definition supernatural phenomena. Therefore, a miracle goes against the laws of nature. So, the question becomes how can miracles be performed? Many different religions offer the myth of the miracle as a proof for the strength of their religion. Witches by legend can perform supernatural acts. Voodoo tells of ways to cause ill to others by the use of magic. Buddhists tell stories of Buddha performing mystical acts. Jesus has miracles recorded in the Bible. Moses parted the Red Sea. Saints are attributed with miracles. In fact in the Catholic Church at least three miracles need to be attributed to a person before they can be proclaimed a Saint.

So, this means that miracles are common place. They must be happening all around us everyday. Mother Teresa, a soon to be Saint has at least three miracles pending attribution. So, the fundamental laws of the universe are being broken at least yearly if not daily.

But, no scientist has ever documented the breaking of the laws of the universe. Not one event has been documented. Surely with the advent of handheld video cameras we will surely soon enough see a real miracle documented by a skeptical person somewhere.

But, until that day happens I would suggest that we concentrate on the study of the laws of the Universe. At least we know that they are reproducible and predictable.

New Iraqi Prime Minister

Iyad Allawi has been nominated to be the new Iraqi Prime Minister. I guess it’s a good thing to get someone who is a buddy with the CIA like Ahmad Chalabi, now that Chalabi is no longer in with the CIA. This part doesn’t bother me very much. However, when the story broke a US representative was telling a reporter how he thought that Iyad Allawi was well qualified among other things, because his cousin is Iraqi defense minister. Then he said, “so that makes him well qualified on the defense side.”

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/00120 0405281808.htm" title="http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/00120 0405281808.htm" target="_blank"http://www.hinduonnet.com/the...

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2721321" title="http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2721321" target="_blank"http://www.economist.com/agen...

What the …? I don’t get it. Since when is having your cousin qualified suddenly make you qualified? My brother is an artist, does that make me a talented artist? My sister is a mother, does that make me a qualified mother? My daughter dances, does that make me a dancer?

Driver’s Licenses

Back in the 1950s the government was concerned about the Soviet threat. There was concern about spies and how the government could be sure who was and who wasn’t a spy. There was a proposal for a national identity card. This would be a simple card that could be used to track individuals so that anyone could be sure that people were who they said they were. The proposal went down to defeat, because lawmakers believed that the identity card would take away Americans freedom and it would make the country more like the dreaded Soviet threat.

At the same time the automobile had become extremely popular. Because of the potential danger of driving an automobile the governments of each state required drivers to be licensed. The requirements for a license began with just registration, then included taking a test and finally verification of age. Once the verification of age became part of the process the driver’s license became more than just a driver’s license. It was now a defacto identity card. Businesses began to use the driver’s license to verify the identity of the person for check purchases and orders. Soon almost every business and government agency was using the driver’s license as an identity card.

Fast forward to 2003 and California decided to grant the ability to qualify for a driver’s license to illegal immigrants. In principle it shouldn’t matter. A driver’s license should be used to verify that the person is capable of driving a car. The government should have been honest in the first place and create a national identity card. Then the question of driver’s licenses for immigrants wouldn’t be an issue. However, it is an issue, because illegal aliens are out there driving cars and causing accidents that they have no insurance to pay for the damage. There is no way to control these drivers. Taking away their license is not an option, they will just go out and drive again until they are caught or cause another accident.

The solution is to create the national identity card system and allow illegal aliens to register for driver’s licenses, take tests and drive safer on the roads.

This is a great speech by John Kerry. The first of hopefully many more truely excellent speeches.



SEATTLE, May 27 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following are remarks, as prepared for delivery, by Sen. John Kerry today:

Thank you all for being here.

Over the next ten days, our nation will come together to honor the bravery and sacrifice of past generations of Americans. On Saturday, in our nation's capital, we will dedicate a memorial to the heroes of the Greatest Generation who won World War II. On Memorial Day, we will salute all those who for more than two centuries made the ultimate sacrifice when America's freedom was on the line.

And on June 6th, we will mark the 60th anniversary of D-Day by remembering the brave young men who scaled the cliffs on beaches called Omaha and Utah -- and brought the light of liberty from the New World to the Old.

To me, and to millions of Americans, the days ahead will be filled with the pride of families, the sadness of loss and a renewed commitment to service. But that is not enough. We must pay tribute.

We must hear and heed the lessons of the Greatest Generation.

Our leaders then understood that America drew its power not only from the might of weapons, but also from the trust and respect of nations around the globe. There was a time, not so long ago, when the might of our alliances was a driving force in the survival and success of freedom -- in two World Wars, in the long years of the Cold War -- then from the Gulf War to Bosnia and Kosovo. America led instead of going it alone. We extended a hand, not a fist. We respected the world -- and the world respected us.

More than a century ago, Teddy Roosevelt defined American leadership in foreign policy. He said America should walk softly and carry a big stick. Time and again, this Administration has violated the fundamental tenet of Roosevelt's approach, as he described it: "If a man continually blusters, if he lacks civility, a big stick will not save him from trouble."

But that is precisely what this Administration has done. They looked to force before exhausting diplomacy. They bullied when they should have persuaded.

They have gone it alone when they should have assembled a team. They have hoped for the best when they should have prepared for the worst. In short, they have undermined the legacy of generations of American leadership. And that is what we must restore.

Today, there is still a powerful yearning around the world for an America that listens and leads again. An America that is respected, and not just feared.

I believe that respect is an indispensable mark of our nation's character -- and an indispensable source of our nation's strength. It is the indispensable bond of America's mighty alliances.

I'm running for president because, abroad as well as at home, it's time to let America be America again. By doing so, we can restore our place in the world and make America safer.

It's time for a new national security policy guided by four new imperatives: First, we must launch and lead a new era of alliances for the post 9-11 world. Second, we must modernize the world's most powerful military to meet the new threats. Third, in addition to our military might, we must deploy all that is in America's arsenal -- our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas. Fourth and finally, to secure our full independence and freedom, we must free America from its dangerous dependence on Mideast oil.

These four imperatives are a response to an inescapable reality: War has changed; the enemy is different -- and we must think and act anew.

Today, we are waging a global war against a terrorist movement committed to our destruction. Terrorists like al Qaeda and its copycat killers are unlike any adversary our nation has faced. We do not know for certain how they are organized or how many operatives they have. But we know the destruction they can inflict.

We saw it in New York and in Washington; we have seen it in Bali and in Madrid, in Israel and across the Middle East; and we see it day after day in Iraq.

This threat will only be magnified as the technology to build nuclear and biological weapons continues to spread. And we can only imagine what would happen if the deadly forces of terrorism got their hands on the deadliest weapons in history.

Everyone outside the Administration seems to understand that we are in deep trouble in Iraq. Failure there would be a terrible setback. It would be a boon to our enemies, and jeopardize the long-term prospects for a peaceful, democratic Middle East -- leaving us at war not just with a small, radical minority, but with increasingly large portions of the entire Muslim world.

There is also the continuing instability in Afghanistan, where al Qaeda still has a base, and Osama bin Laden is still at large, because the Bush Administration didn't finish him off at the battle of Tora Bora. And in East Asia, North Korea poses a genuine nuclear threat, while we have begun to strip American troops to relieve the overburdened forces in Iraq.

In the coming week, I will also offer specific plans to build a new military capable of defeating enemies new and old, and to stop the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. But first, here today, I want to set out the overall architecture of a new policy to make America stronger and respected in the world.

The first new imperative represents a return to the principle that guided us in peril and victory through the past century -- alliances matter, and the United States must lead them.

Never has this been more true than in the war on terrorism.

As president, my number one security goal will be to prevent the terrorists from gaining weapons of mass murder. And our overriding mission will be to disrupt and destroy their terrorist cells.

Because al Qaeda is a network with many branches, we must take the fight to the enemy on every continent -- and enlist other countries in that cause.

America must always be the world's paramount military power. But we can magnify our power through alliances. We simply can't go it alone - or rely on a coalition of the few. The threat of terrorism demands alliances on a global scale -- to find the extremist groups, to guard ports and stadiums, to share intelligence, and to get the terrorists before they get us. In short, we need a "coalition of the able" -- and in truth, no force on earth is more able than the United States and its allies.

We must build that force -- and we can. We can be strong without being stubborn. Indeed, that is ultimately the only way we can succeed.

Building strong alliances is only the first step. We cannot meet the new threats unless our military is adapted for new missions. This is my second new imperative.

As president, on my first day in office, I will send a message to every man and woman in our armed forces: This commander-in- chief will ensure that you are the best-led, best-equipped and most respected fighting force in the world. You will be armed with the right weapons, schooled in the right skills, and fully prepared to win on the battlefield. But you will never be sent into harm's way without enough troops for the task, or asked to fight a war without a plan to win the peace.

And you will never be given assignments which have not been clearly defined and for which you are not professionally trained.

This Administration has disregarded the advice, wisdom, and experience of our professional military officers. And often ended the careers of those who dared to give their honest assessments. That is not the way to make the most solemn decisions of war and peace. As president, I will listen to and respect the views of our experienced military leaders -- and never let ideology trump the truth.

In the past, when our leaders envisioned the use of force, they had in mind the unleashing of massive numbers of American troops, battleships and aircraft in confrontation with the uniformed military of an enemy nation. Of course, a conventional war to halt conventional aggression still remains a possibility for which we must prepare. But there are other urgent challenges.

I will modernize our military to match its new missions. We must get the most out of new technologies. We must reform training and update the way we structure our armed forces -- for example, with special forces designed to strike terrorists in their sanctuaries, and with national guard and reserve units retooled to meet the requirements of homeland defense.

This strategy focuses not only on what we must do, but on what we must prevent. We must ensure that lawless states and terrorists will not be armed with weapons of mass destruction.

This is the single gravest threat to our security. Any potential adversary should know that we will defend ourselves against the possibility of attack by unconventional arms. If such a strike does occur, as commander-in-chief, I will respond with overwhelming and devastating force. If such an attack appears imminent, as commander-in-chief, I will do whatever is necessary to stop it. And, as commander-in-chief, I will never cede our security to anyone. I will always do what is necessary to safeguard our country.

The Justice Department said yesterday that terrorists may be planning to attack the United States again this summer -- some believe that al Qaeda would use an attack to try and influence the outcome of the November election.

I have a message today for al Qaeda or any terrorist who may be harboring these illusions: We may have an election in here in America. But let there be no doubt -- this country is united in its determination to destroy you. And let me be absolutely clear: As commander-in-chief, I will bring the full force of our nation's power to bear on finding and crushing your networks. We will use every available resource to destroy you.

But not all problems should be viewed through a military lens. We should never wait to act until we have no other choice but war. That brings me to my third new imperative.

In this new world, beyond military power, we must deploy all the power in America's arsenal.

We need to employ a layered defense to keep the worst weapons from falling into the worst hands. A strategy that invokes our non-military strength early enough and effectively enough so military force doesn't become our only option.

As President, I will launch a global initiative to fully secure the materials needed for nuclear weapons that already exist and sharply limit and control future production.

This initiative will include changes in international treaties, sharing of intelligence, and setting conditions for economic sanctions and the interdiction of illegal shipments. The key is for America to lead: to build an international consensus for early preventive action, so that states don't even think of taking the nuclear road, and potential traffickers in nuclear and biological technology fear the consequences of getting caught.

We must also have the best possible intelligence capabilities. Nothing is more important than early warning and specific information when dangerous technologies are being developed or sold. Whether it was September 11th or Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, we have endured too many intelligence failures. That is why I will do what this President has failed to do: reform our intelligence system by making the next director of the CIA a true director of national intelligence, with true control over intelligence personnel and budgets all across the government.

All the levers of power will be deployed to overcome the 21st century dangers we face. I intend to discuss this initiative in detail early next week.

Finally, a new national security policy demands an end to our dependence on Mideast oil. That is my fourth new imperative. For too long, America has lost its voice when talking about the policies and practices of some governments in the Persian Gulf.

We have been constrained by their control over the oil that fuels too large a part of our economy. This is a weakness that this Administration has ignored -- and one that must be addressed.

I have proposed a plan for energy independence from Mideast oil in the next ten years. It invests in new technologies and alternative fuels. It provides tax credits to help consumers buy and manufacturers build fuel efficiency cars. It will tap America's initiative and ingenuity to strengthen our national security, grow our economy, and protect our environment.

If we are serious about energy independence, then we can finally be serious about confronting the role of Saudi Arabia in financing and providing ideological support of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. We cannot continue this Administration's kid- glove approach to the supply and laundering of terrorist money. As President, I will impose tough financial sanctions against nations or banks that engage in money laundering or fail to act against it. I will launch a "name and shame" campaign against those that are financing terror. And if they do not respond, they will be shut out of the U.S. financial system.

The same goes for Saudi sponsorship of clerics who promote the ideology of Islamic terror. To put it simply, we will not do business as usual with Saudi Arabia. They must take concrete steps to stop their clerics from fueling the fires of Islamic extremism.

Let me now turn to a subject that I know is on the minds of all Americans - the situation in Iraq.

The stakes in Iraq couldn't be higher. Earlier this week, the President again said he wanted to create stability and establish a representative government in Iraq. He did acknowledge what many have known all along -- that we would be far better off if our allies were with us. What's important now is to turn these words into action.

In the coming weeks, President Bush will travel to Europe and meet with the members of the G-8 here in the United States. There will be speeches, handshakes and ceremonies. But will our allies promise to send more troops to Iraq? Will they dedicate substantially more funding for reconstruction there? Will they pledge a real effort to aid the transformation of the Middle East. That is what we need. But the day is late and the situation in Iraq is grim.

Attracting international support in a situation like Iraq is a clear test of presidential leadership. It is what capable and confident presidents do. I urge President Bush to make a sustained effort. He should start at the Summit in Istanbul by persuading NATO to accept Iraq as an alliance mission, with more troops from NATO and its partners. He should seek help in expanding international support for training Iraq's own security forces, so they can safeguard the rights and well-being of their own people.

And he should propose the creation of an International High Commissioner to work with Iraqis in organizing elections, drafting a constitution, and coordinating reconstruction.

Over the last year, we've heard from the President that our policy should simply be to stay the course. But one thing I learned in the Navy is that when the course you're on is headed for the shoals, you have to change course.

If President Bush doesn't secure new support from our allies, we will, once again, feel the consequences of a foreign policy that has divided the world instead of uniting it. Our troops will be in greater peril, the mission in Iraq will be harder to accomplish, and our country will be less secure.

I have spoken today about the architecture of a new national security policy. But at issue here is not just a set of prescriptions; at stake is a vision of an America truly stronger and truly respected in the world. This is not a partisan cause. Patriotism doesn't belong to any one Party or President. And if I am President, I will enlist the best among us, regardless of party, to protect the security of this nation.

And I will call on the whole nation to let America be America again.

My father was a pilot during World War II. A year before Pearl Harbor, he was on active duty and he later served in the South Pacific.

And for the rest his life, he served in one capacity or another - whether nationally or locally, by vocation or as a volunteer.

He told me shortly before he died that the "human conscience, when it works is the most divine thing in our small segment of the universe."

In today's world, conscience marks the difference between tolerance and terror.

In an earlier era, it was the difference between honor and holocaust.

Much has been written about the Greatest Generation.

The question before us now is what will be said about our own.

Because, for better or worse, as Abraham Lincoln once said, we cannot escape the judgment of history.

We do not have to live in fear or stand alone. We don't have to be a lonely "watchman on the walls of freedom." We can, once again, lead a great alliance. That is how we can honor the legacy of the Greatest Generation and restore respect to the greatest country - the United States of America.

Thank you and God bless America.

--

Recording Industry Cheats Artists

The news that the New York attorney general found that the record companies are cheats isn�t news to most recording artists. In fact, it is common practice that big name artists routinely hire an accountant to go over the record company�s books. Why is this? Isn�t the RIAA trying to help the artists from people who are downloading mp3s on the web? Well, it looks like the RIAA only has self-interest in the mp3 issue. It doesn�t make them look very honest in the eyes of the public when they don�t pay the artists. Hopefully the Internet will enable artists to sell their music directly and the middleman (RIAA) will be put out of business. One can only dream�..

http://www.soundgenerator.com/news/index.cfm?articleid=3624" title="http://www.soundgenerator.com/news/index.cfm?articleid=3624" target="_blank"http://www.soundgenerator.com...

Foundations of Truth

What are the universal foundations of truth?

As humans we are limited in our understanding of the Universe. We have the perspective of the places we have visited and the sensory organs we are equipped with. As primitive humans we had only these ways of understanding the universe. However, with the dawn of Aristotle we were taught that we could better understand our universe by observation and experimentation. Things did not happen by random chance, but instead there are universal laws that all things follow. If you do an experiment, then when it is repeated the results will be the same. By changing parameters we can discover the affect of these changes and we can learn how the laws of the universe behave. We can predict the future by methods other than the stars. We can construct new materials based on the behavior of materials.

We have also learned about the world in other ways. We have learned the history of the Universe, because the Universe leaves evidence behind as it changes. We know how old the Earth is, and what forms of life lived on the earth. We can ask questions about how life came to be and how it evolved. We may not know all the answers because we haven�t asked all the questions, but we know a great deal about the universe and we are bound to know more as we ask more questions. But, in order to make any progress in science at all we need to believe that the universal laws are reproducible, not random.

Now, in order to believe anything other than these fundamental truths we need to make an assumption that God or some external force interacted with the universal laws of the universe. He could have suspended universe laws. He could have modified the world in another way, which has never been observed before. So, if he did then he should have had a good reason. But, not only that but if he did he had to hide his evidence of tampering with the Universal laws in some way. For example, if he created the Universe in seven days 5000 years ago he would have needed to plant the fossils of other animals and given them false aging and ordered the ages of the fossils in such a way to give the appearance of evolution. Why would He do such a thing? We can say that questioning the mind of God is heresy, but that only stops the questioning and leaves us wondering. In fact, if God were to manipulate the world to give it the appearance of aging when it was only 5000 years old, you need to question the honesty of God. How can a person believe in a dishonest God? If God is good how can he lie? Is it OK for God to be deceptive, but not man? If God were not honest what is he hiding? What truth is so horrible that God would want to hide it from us?

We can go back to Plato and believe that everything can not be known except through reminiscence. But then the foundation of science falls apart. I would suggest that for anyone who believes that there is a God you must believe that Gods creation happened 12 billion years ago when he created the matter in the universe, the energy in the universe and the laws of the universe. He set everything in motion at that moment allowing the evolution of beings with free will that can make choices for themselves and are no longer bound by the predictable laws of the universe.

Bush Doesn�t Care Enough to Learn

In 2000 George W Bush was asked whom the leaders were in the principle countries then taking part on the world stage at the time. At the time General Pervez Musharraf, suspended Pakistan's constitution and took over control of the government. This was a significant development because Pakistan had just exploded a nuclear weapon. If a government were subject to a coup de tat then terrorists or a terrorist-backed faction could also do the same and have access to nuclear weapons. Of course Bush knew that �That General guy,� was in charge in Pakistan. The American people should have realized then and there that this guy, George W. Bush, shouldn�t be trust with our national security. But if there was any doubt then there certainly shouldn�t be any doubt now.

Now, in one of the most important speeches of the president where he is laying out the new Iraq strategy George W Bush can not even say the name of the prison: Abu Ghraib. Surely he should have learned how to pronounce the name. Surely the name has come up in conversation at one time or another behind closed doors where he could have practiced it a few times. What the hell is going on in this administration if they aren�t even discussing this issue?

Amnisty International tells us that the Bush administration has eroded our rights:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5876 7-2004May26.html" title="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5876 7-2004May26.html" target="_blank"http://www.washingtonpost.com...

In the build up to the war the New York Times repeatedly said that there were verified WMDs in Iraq. Of course this was wrong, as we all know. So, the New York Times now admits that it was wrong in the way it presented its stories.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18797" title="http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18797" target="_blank"http://www.alternet.org/story...

Not only this, but it also admits that the Newspaper took a point of view on the build up to war. This of course is a problem, because a newspaper isn't supposed to have a point of view, instead it is supposed to present the facts and let the people form their own opinion.

The War on Drugs is Working

It looks like the war on drugs is working. Only 19% of Americans are on crack as opposed to the 22% last week.

http://www.rasmussenreports.c...%20with%20Iraq%20Bush%20R atings.htm http://www.rasmussenreports.c...; title=";http://www.rasmussenreports.c...; target="_blank";http://www.rasmussenreports.c...%20with%20Iraq%20Bush%20R atings.htm

Unbelievable but true:

President Bush is pushing a lifetime judgeship for Defense Department lawyer William Haynes, who helped create radical detention policies and standards for treatment of prisoners at the Iraqi prison. Bush says he'll raze Abu Ghraib as a symbolic gesture, but he wants to saddle us with Haynes for life.

As General Counsel to the Department of Defense, Haynes:

* Was responsible for ensuring U.S. military compliance with the laws of war, the Geneva Convention, and federal law.

*Dismissed and scolded human rights groups raising allegations of prisoner abuse in February 2003.

* Helped make it harder for the officers with the military's own Judge Advocate General Corps to observe interrogations. Haynes' actions were so alarming that some JAG officers warned of "a disaster waiting to happen" and sought outside intervention.

*Haynes misled a U.S. Senator who had specifically asked about policies for detention and treatment of prisoners. (William J. Haynes, General Counsel, Department of Defense, Letter to U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy, June 25, 2003.)

*He has signed off on the legality of withholding Geneva Conventions protections from hundreds of persons detained at Guantanamo, defined as prisoners of war.

*He helped develop the Defense Department's military tribunal plan, which has been condemned by human rights organizations and our nation's closest allies.

*He supports the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens by the Executive Branch without legal counsel or meaningful judicial review.

*Mr. Haynes has been nominated to one of the most influential appellate courts in the country, but he has almost no in-court trial experience and no direct appellate experience at all.

Fear Mongering Republicans

Fear mongering Republicans seek to scare the voters for support. I don�t think that it is a coincidence that the Bush administration is telling everyone that there may be another terrorist attack in the US over the summer. If you have been watching the news, listening to the radio or reading the paper you already know these things. The administration didn�t tell us anything new and didn�t raise the �terror alert� level. So, the only explanation for this announcement is scare tactics. The administration is looking for higher numbers in the polls and this is going to get it for them. This is because when people are afraid they put their trust in their leadership.

Bad Guys � Remove Them or NOT?

The Iraq war as currently described by the Bush administration does not fit with Conservative values. Conservatives have pride in the fact that they believe in slow steady change. However, the Bush administration now believes in the policy of getting rid of bad guys and getting out. If this is true, then where is Bush on the Sudan issue. People are being starved to death. The government is keeping food away from a group in southern Sudan in order to commit a genocidal starvation plan. It wouldn�t take much for the Bush administration to break the blockade and drop food to these starving people. Why doesn�t Bush use his bad guy removal policy to fix Sudan? The truth is that he wanted to invade Iraq in January 2001 or before and nothing was going to stop him. He did it and now he no longer cares about removing bad guys.

Free Thinkers to Control Freaks

In the first century AD Christians made a break with the hypocritical Jewish religion of the time. Jesus showed the people how the list of rules did not make sense. Old time conservatives like Ronald Reagan and Teddy Roosevelt made it clear that government was not the solution, government was the problem. To many regulations made government impossible to comply with. This was the same problem that Jesus faced in the first century. The Pharisees wanted to control every aspect of Jewish life. When Jesus began to tell everyone that the rules weren�t as important as the people were, the Pharisees saw Jesus as a threat. If the rules weren�t followed the people might not choose to tithe to the temple.

It took 300 years before the revolutionary Christians could be accepted as religion. This happened because the Roman Emperor converted to Christianity. When this happened, the Roman Emperor became an influence in Christianity. Christianity benefited from this conversion, because Christianity was no longer persecuted, but the Christians were now subject to the Emperor�s whims. He could wield religion as a policy tool. This is when Paul and his philosophy of Plato became much stronger through Saint Augustian�s writing. Gospels and religious writings referring to personal beliefs and personal religious exploration were destroyed. The church took control away from free thinkers and imposed control just as the Roman Emperor imposed his control over his subjects.

Generals Encourage Abuse

It looks like the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison goes higher up. How long before Bush and Rumsfeld are implicated?


http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml" title="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml" target="_blank"http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...;jsessionid=F4P1IATS3KGPW CRBAEOCFFA?type=topNews&s toryID=5256574

Dynamics of Religion

I hope that over my last three blogs on religion that I have been able to demonstrate that there is a dynamic in religion. One force is the need for leadership to keep the people in control. They use religion as a hammer to threaten wrong doers with damnation. The other side of religion is man�s need to find answers to what he doesn�t understand. Primitive man had fears of nature and religion was used to alleviate those fears.

Some religions have used the search for inner peace as one way to conquer fear. The answer they tell you is within yourself. You need to find it to find peace. There are many ways that this goal is accomplished.

At this point I�d like to talk about the meaning of Jesus and his effect on religion. I am sure many of you won�t agree, but I�ll put this forward anyway.

The Jews at the time of Jesus had the Jewish community under strict rules and laws. The Romans controlled the people�s everyday life and the religion controlled their spiritual life. There are many reasons why this was an important structure. There was also a fear that loss of control could be disastrous to society. Just because a structure exists to control people doesn�t mean that everyone involved in the structure understands the structure fully. Most people went along with the rules and regulations, maybe complaining a little, but over all conforming.

Jesus was a person that would be called a free thinker in later history. This means that he didn�t take the rules as fact. Instead he questioned the greater good against the bureaucratic regulations of the religious community. People found his insight into religion intriguing. He was very communicative which enabled him to simplify his ideas into metaphors and stories, therefore bringing his ideas down to the level of the common man.

Jesus told us that the strict rules of the Jewish religion didn�t make sense on the human scale. Not doing work on the Sabbath was taking the rules to the fundamentalist extreme. Are there not times when doing work on the Sabbath furthers God�s work better than resting? The standards for clean and unclean were taken to extreme measures. Yes, society was protected but many healthy people suffered needlessly. Finally, the issue of sinners being put outside of society destroyed the society. People could not come back into the society very easily once they gave up their sinful ways. The sins of the fathers effected the children and grandchildren. Society could never be healed until this was corrected.

These ideas to improve society butted up against fundamentalist rules. Fundamentalists are unwilling to listen to ideas for reform and Jesus was able to rile up the population. The Fundamentalist leaders didn�t care much about Jesus when he was out in the countryside, but when he brought the mass of people following him to Jerusalem they could no longer look the other way. The culmination of these events of course is when the leaders put Jesus to death in order to protect the laws of the religion.

Fortunately, the followers of Jesus got a spark of enlightenment and they continued to think about the relationship of people to God. But, unfortunately Paul came along and re-instituted many laws in order to control the people again.

Religion is Man’s Response to Not Knowing.

People have also made the statement: “Religion is man’s response to God.” If you believe that there is a God this makes perfect sense. If you don’t know, then you have faith. Religion soon becomes circular reasoning and there is no proof of anything. So, you can’t look at religion as a rational or logical behavior. What you are left with is: “ Religion is man’s response to not knowing.”

People who do not know have always used methods for trying to know more.

Primitive cultures in the South American rain forest have used psychoactive substances to alter their consciousness in order to become closer to God. Eastern cultures use meditation to bring themselves closer to God by blocking out distractions and becoming one with the universe. Jews have used religious laws to create social order in an attempt to bring a little bit of peace to earth. Nearly all religions have created rituals and prayers to bring themselves closer to God. (And, I should say that every religion has ideas about what or who God is, but the truth is no one has absolute proof of the exact nature of God. Rather we have myths and metaphors to help us understand what God might be like.)

Many religions have developed along side technology. When writing was developed many teachings were written down with the myths and metaphors needed to explain what is not known. When logic, philosophy, mathematics were invented by the ancient Greeks religions developed to incorporate these ideas.

None of these things mean that God doesn’t exist. But none of these things mean that he does for certain either. Hence, you need to have faith in order to believe. But, humans by nature want to have answers – even if they don’t want to spend any effort thinking about these basic mysteries of nature.

Race and Culture

There is a major confusion in America between race and culture. People see you and attempt to determine your race from your appearance. From your race they use stereotypes to assess more about you. If they see you as an African American they would not assume that you work in a bank, play chess or read literature. All of these things could be true for a particular person, but it isn�t the norm. These activities, chess, literature and banking are part of they culture in which you are raised.

The main confusion in this type of discussion comes from the fact that there are both cultures and races. Culture is a set of values that are passed down from generation to generation, but are also modified by personal experience. Race, of course, is only due to genetic material being passed down from generation to generation. Therefore, to like the aspect of different cultures doesn�t necessarily have to do with someone�s specific race. As most people recognize, Rap music isn�t racial music, many people listen to it regardless of race. However, since a large portion of one race has adopted a type of music as part of their culture doesn�t mean that you have to be African American or Asian to enjoy it.

However, when you choose to hang out with a group of people you usually tend to choose to hang out with people you have things in common with. For example, if you are an athlete you will tend to hang around with other athletes. If you smoke pot, you�ll hang around with others who like to party. So, it is just natural that since people of your race have learned similar values from their parents you will share interests with other people with the same background. You may have grown up Irish Dancing because of your heritage, and you can share your experience Irish Dancing with others who have done the same. Or, maybe your sister did the dancing and you played the tin whistle. You can still share the experience of the ethnic festivals with others that had attended.

Of course this goes on and on with people of all cultural backgrounds. However, there are many places where these cultures cross over. The phenomenon of anima has grasped my children. They are not Japanese, but they are learning the language so they can watch cartoons with out subtitles. But, it doesn�t mean that they hang around with Japanese kids because they like other aspects of the Japanese culture. They have a group of friends who like particular cartoons, so not all Japanese kids are attracted to their group.

John McCain is a REAL American Hero

The Republican Party still has some hope, because they still have John McCain. The majority of the Republicans ran over and jumped on the Fundamentalist Christian Bandwagon. John McCain resisted the illusion of power behind this movement. He was the second in his party to stand up against this venture into Religion and Government. Senator Jeffers of course was the first. But John McCain has chosen the more difficult row to hoe. He has decided to remain in the Republican Party and fight for saneness.

When your whole party is going the wrong way and you know it, it takes real courage to put your foot down and say, �wait one minute!� The question remains, will it be too late?

Like most things in politics, it will take the results of the election in November to resolve anything. But, mark my words: John McCain will challenge John Kerry in 2008. Hopefully by this time the Republican Party will manage to get the Fundamentalist Christians in control.

Sunday Religion

Its Sunday, a day dedicated to religion in America. It is a Christian day to praise God. So, I thought I would write a little bit more about religion. More, because I started a little blog about religion here:

http://www.tblog.com/templates/index.php?bid=drforbush&static= 178075" title="http://www.tblog.com/templates/index.php?bid=drforbush&static= 178075" target="_blank"http://www.tblog.com/template...

In this blog I said that religion evolved as a tool of leadership used to control the members of a tribe. However, there are many different ways in which religion was used to control behavior. It ranges from the chief religious leader telling the tribe that the gods would be angry if the rules weren�t followed to the chief religious leader telling the people that the leader was a god and his orders should be followed without question.

Since the earliest times religion was used both to explain to the people why things are the way they are as well as what rules people should follow today. The earliest traditions had myths to explain why things were the way they were. These myths are tied to history and to the will of the current leadership. It doesn�t mean that the current religions don�t offer explanations that help people to understand the world and give meaning to their lives. But, religion needs to be taken in context with the times and history in order for it to have meaning.

For example, all religions tell us about things no one really knows. No one knows what happens to our consciousness after we die. Religions use this unknown to weave action into the people. When I say �weave action� I mean instruct people to act in a certain way without commanding the action explicitly.

Religions tell their followers to act in a certain way in order to obtain a reward in the afterlife. Muslim fundamentalists tell their followers to be suicide bombers in order to have 70 virgins in the afterlife. Catholics tell their followers to endure their suffering in the current world in order to have peace in the afterlife. Fundamentalist Christians speak of being saved in Jesus so they can be in Heaven in the afterlife.

The point is that no one knows anything about the afterlife for sure. No one has gone there and come back to tell you exactly what to expect. Even if Jesus truly did die and rise again it is only one person�s view of the afterlife. Imagine listening to someone�s description of his or her trip to Hawaii. Was it paradise or a trip to hell? I�m sure you have heard both versions. Who was the person who experienced the 70 virgins, the eternal peace, or the �being saved and gone to Heaven�?

I think society would be better served if people worried about making society better without the illusion of an afterlife, but who am I.

To be continued�..

Did anyone see that it is now illegal to take pictures or video in the New York Subway?

The reporter interviewed several people illegally taking pictures. One Swedish tourist said, “ I didn’t know that it was illegal, we come from a free country.”

I love it.

Stay the Course Republicans

Isn�t it great that we have all of these stay-the-course Republicans. They are staying the course as the drive the country right off a cliff. Can Bush stay the course and win the election? I don�t think so. So what is the stay-the-course guy going to do? Is he going to flip-flop? Will he change the course? Will he realize that he was wrong? I don�t think so.

Stay the course George! That�s the best way to drive the middle of the road people away from you!

Fundamentalist Christians can stay with you, George. You can both stay the course while the country changes their course.

Bush Conservative � Kerry What?

Rasmussen Reports has released an interesting survey. There are two questions.

1) Do you think George W. Bush is Conservative, Moderate or Liberal?
2) Do you think John F. Kerry is Conservative, Moderate or Liberal?

The results can be viewed at:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush" title="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush" target="_blank"http://www.rasmussenreports.c...%20Kerry%20May%2020.htm

The interesting thing is that John Kerry is seen by 40% of those polled as being Moderate and 45% see him as being Liberal. But even more telling is the fact that Democrats see him as being Moderate. Republicans see him as being Liberal.

I believe this is the effect of the lies being told by talk radio. Rush, Sean, Bill, Michael and the rest continue to call John Kerry Liberal in a derogatory tone, even though Kucinich and Shapton were clearly the Liberal side of the political spectrum. Apparently anyone to the left of Bush is Liberal.

International Court

The US doesn�t want to be convicted of war crimes. Let�s face it, no body does. However, the US isn�t like everyone else. Most people don�t do the crime if they don�t want to do the time. The US instead wants an exemption so the can continue to use torture as they like.

Check out the hard to find story on this subject. Apparently the liberal media is protecting the Bush administration by not publishing this story very widely.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&s toryID=5217990" title="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&s toryID=5217990" target="_blank"http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...

Bush and Hitler

Many people on the right don�t believe there are any ties between Bush and Hitler. People don�t realize that Hitler was praised for pulling Germany out of an enormous depression. The unfathomable inflation in the 1930s Germany caused enormous problems. Hitler was able to turn on the German economy, build roads and cars and industry in general. So, even if you think that Bush did something that you think was good doesn�t mean that there are no similarity between Bush and Hitler.

One thing that Bush and Hitler have in common is the use of nationalism to promote themselves. They identify themselves with their country and they promote the country. Some portion of the population mentally ties the leader to the identity of the country. This enables the leader to do whatever he wishes with impunity. An attack on the leader becomes an attack on the country. The fear of reprisal for criticism becomes a tool to be used against political enemies.

You may agree with me that Bush has not done all the evil deeds that Hitler had done, but we should compare the 1939 Hitler to the 2004 Bush. Hitler had 6 more years to accomplish his evil deeds. If we re-elect Bush we give him the strength to become the 1943 Hitler.

Military Size

The US Military now has 1.45 Million Men and Women. Under Clinton we had 2.2 Million men. The Republicans are so excited about cutting taxes that they are making the Military smaller in order to do more things. If we are in a War on Terror, why is the size of the Military reduced? If Bush says that Clinton is responsible for making the Military smaller, why hasn’t he increased the size of the Military after 9/11, while the moral and patriotism was at it’s peak?

Good Leader vs. Fascist Leader

It's funny how Fascist leaders use personality to become leaders. Look at Hitler. Great leaders use logic, reason and personality to rule. Look at FDR, or Churchill. Unfortunately there are few Great leaders. A Good leader uses reason and logic to lead, but may not have the personality. Hopefully people will be able to tell a Good leader from a Fascist leader.

CIA Agent Berg

As more information of Nicholas Berg is coming out the evidence is pointing to Nicholas Berg being a CIA agent. It is suspicious that Nicholas Berg is wandering around Iraq, “looking for work.” He claimed to be an independent contractor installing electronic equipment. There aren’t many people who are willing to go to Iraq to install electronic equipment, but even if you were you would need to have connections in Iraq. This has been my suspicion for a while, but John Dean has made this allegation in a radio interview recently. But, the clincher was that while Berg was in the US he was held for questioning in the 9/11 attacks because he had shared a laptop computer with the terrorist that was claimed to be the 20th hijacker.

What are the odds of that? This raises all kinds of questions. Was Berg an undercover CIA agent? If he was, how close was he to breaking the 9/11 plot. Did the terrorists think he was a sympathizer? How close was the CIA to breaking the 9/11 plot? Did the CIA know more than they are letting on?

Saddam Saleh

Saddam Saleh was an Iraqi prisoner in the Abu Ghraib prison. He claims that he is one of the prisoners in the popular photos being show in the media and on the Internet. He describes his horror in the media around the world, but his story is not being told in the mainstream media. You can do a Goggle search on his name and you will find the majority of stories are in languages other than English.

He tells a story of American abuse and torture. But, what he also says is that he was a prisoner in Saddam Hussein’s prisons as well. He tells us that the US prison treatment was much worse than the torture under Saddam Hussein. Apparently this is a story the mainstream American media is not ready to tell the American public. Otherwise, why is it that his story is being told around the world, but not in the US?

Civil Rights

Today is the fiftieth anniversary of Brown v. the Board of Education. This ruling put an end to the Plessy v. Ferguson �separate but equal� law that had been used up to then. The sad thing is that even with this ruling education around the country is not equal. I believe most of the unequal education around the country is economic instead of racial today, but the education system is still unequal. What difference does this make? It makes all the difference in the world, because our democracy is based on having an educated population that has the facts. An educated population can take the facts and determine the right way to vote. The population can then decide to improve the system or to leave it be.

By restricting education a group of one interest can manipulate the decisions the population can make.

Isn�t it appropriate that the Massachusetts same sex marriage law has come to fruition on the fiftieth anniversary of this historic ruling. One more step to a more free society!

Now that they found a Sarin Gas bomb in Iraq the pro-war side will start telling us that we were right for attacking Iraq. Well, they found a Sarin Gas bomb in the Tokyo subway and we didn�t think that we should attack Japan. The point is that Saddam did not have WMD. But the attack in Iraq was a major recruitment tool for terrorists who are now occupying many cities in Iraq. Terrorists without supervision will develop their own weapons of mass destruction. This just means that the terrorists in Iraq are now one stage more organized. This is because we do not have enough troops in Iraq to stem the violence and apprehend the terrorists. This does not justify out illegal invasion of Iraq.

Coalitions

We are currently in a situation where a multi-party political system would serve the people in the United States much better than the current system. We have a president that believes in the ideology of Christian Fundamentalists and has used his power to hold the rest of the Republican Party hostage. John McCain, is one of the only outspoken Republicans. This is because he has conservative values, without the religious overtone. In the current system he is stuck to voice his opposition to the president but he also gets shunned by his own party for his speech. John McCain has strong support in his state, but other Republicans who feel the same way are too wimpy to voice opposition.

In a multi-party political system there would be a Fundamentalist Christian party and a Conservative Party. They could form a coalition on some issues, but if one party gets out of hand the other party is free to leave the coalition. When this happens the government needs to call for an election and the people can choose which party to support. So John McCain and his group of non-fundamentalists could form the coalition initially, but when Bush began to go nuts McCain could choose to leave the coalition and the situation would go to the voters.

1972

In 1972 the war in Vietnam was still alive. The people wanted an end to it, but Richard Nixon couldn’t give into the majority opinion about the war. But, it didn’t matter because Richard Nixon won re-election. He won by cheating. He broke into the Democratic Headquarters at the Watergate hotel. He got information that he was able to use to discredit the Democratic candidate George McGovern. Nixon won in a landslide in November, but he resigned in 1974 because this scandal was broken and the people were upset.

2004 is shaping up to be the same race replayed. Bush is conducting one of the dirtiest campaigns since 1972. I wouldn’t be surprised if illegal election tactics are being used, but it may be two years before we know for sure. We also have the war in Iraq that the people no longer support. But, Bush is holding his own in the polls regardless of the war opinions. Hopefully 1972 doesn’t replay itself, because that would be a horrible embarrassment that would damage the US political system.

Dixie Chicks

In light of the current Iraq situation and the lies that have been told by the Bush administration I believe that we should honor the Dixie Chicks as being patriotic heroes. They stood up to Bush and told him the truth when the polls said that people were blindly supporting the needless invasion of an innocent country. We need to make sure that those who put them down apologize for the slander they told against these true American Heroines.

They were right to be embarrassed to have Bush claim to be a Texan.

Pro-Life?

On Friday, President Bush gave a speech at Concordia University. Instead of coming out and saying the truth President Bush said that everyone one should be pro-life. Not anti-abortion, but pro-life. This is a method the right uses to try not to alienate voters when it isn’t a true statement of his position.

If Bush is pro-life, how could he justify killing more prisoners on death row in Texas than any other governor? This was during the same time when the Illinois put a moratorium on putting prisoners to death because of so many murder trials being overthrown because of DNA evidence. This is not a pro-life stance!

Then, as president Bush needlessly went to Iraq and allowed 777 US soldiers get killed. More than that, in revenge for 3000 American deaths on 9/11 Bush invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and killed 15,200 civilians at latest count. This is not a pro-life person. When Bush says pro-life he does not mean pro-life. He means anti-woman. He doesn’t want a woman to decide for herself whether she wants to bring a new life into the world.

Scholarships

I thought that I should write about this to give some insight into the process for those who may apply for scholarships in the future.

I was recently on a scholarship selection committee. It wasn�t a large scholarship, but it is a way for our group to help encourage young college students to pursue their dream. In today�s environment of high college costs there are also many grants and scholarships available for students to attend college.

We had six applications for our scholarship. We required three recommendations, an autobiography, a standard form, grades and an essay. Maybe because of the requirements our applicant pool was small, but our attitude is that we want to give the money to someone who cares.

Of course there are many ways to decide how to award money to people. One could put the applications in order of Grade Point Average and pick the one with the highest. One could read the autobiography and decide who was the most needy. One could read the essay and determine who wrote the best one. Since we had five people on our committee, everyone had their personal favorite set of requirements. Having five people with different ideas actually makes the process fair. Why ask for all the requirements if you aren�t going to use it?

The first part of selecting the winner was to read the applications. As we read the applications most of us took notes of important things to remember about each application. Then we ranked our selections. Of course everyone didn�t pick the same person for first place, otherwise the selection would be simple. Instead we went around the table discussing each persons number one choice. Everyone who didn�t have the same choice offered up the reasons why they hadn�t chosen that person to be number one applicant. The discussion was quite interesting and enlightening into how each person thought both about the applicant and what they expected the idea recipient to be like.

On my turn I presented whom I thought was the best applicant, but also whom I thought was the person who deserved the scholarship the most. This was the second best applicant in my pile, but there was a special something in her autobiography that made me feel that she would appreciate the award more than the first person.

One of the most interesting aspects of this whole process was how people saw more into the applications than was actually written. Other people at the table continually corrected other people, saying that we don�t know for sure what the person meant by different comments.

In the long run, I thought the process went really well. With all the discussion I believe that every applicant had a good shot at the scholarship, but in the end only one could win. It was such a positive experience that I�ll do it again next year.

Economics

There is a major problem with how the government makes laws and the reality of economics. I don�t believe any of you thought that the previous sentence was a surprise, but somehow lawmakers of both parties ignore it.

Economics is a dynamic system. This means that the value of companies, products, services, and currency change with respect to each other. This being true lawmakers continue to use constant dollar values for long term planning and long term laws. Inflation is a fact of life. The rate of inflation may change, but inflation will continue to change the overall value of commodities. So, when lawmakers say that people making over $100,000.00 in 1962 are considered wealthy and the $100,000.00 is written in the law, then wealthy people will be able to afford different things as time marches on.

This is a major problem with the tax code. There is a definition of wealthy in the tax code based on a strict amount of yearly income. If you make more than this amount of money you may be required to pay the alternative minimum tax. This may sound good except that it means that you will not be able to deduct mortgage interest and state income taxes. Every year more and more people are being caught unexpectedly by this and they are required to pay a much higher tax bill.

I believe that fixing this one problem will not fix the entire problem, because this is only one example of a much deeper problem. Take for example the simple budget problems that we have. Since taxes are based on income and sales, the collection of taxes results in more money in good years and less money in poor years. Since governments assign cash values based on income estimates there is never enough money to pay all the bills except in extremely good years. So, fund an absolute amount of money for a project should instead be a percentage of the collection of taxes. Schools, Universities, roads, and other infrastructure projects would receive money based on the amount of money collected. So, in bad years roads wouldn�t all be able to be repaired, but in good years the agencies could but the extra cash into the bank to be saved for this poor years. If we don�t do something like this we are doomed to continue to spend more money than we have based overly optimistic expectations.

There seems to be sluggishness in the tblog systems today. This has caused me to accidentally post a blog three times, then delete two of them. A bit bizarre, but par for the course.

Iraq or Sex

No, you don�t have to choose between the two.

A couple of days back someone posted a blog with Iraq in the title. The blog said, �watch, I�ll put Iraq in the title and my hits will go up 10-15%. Then I noticed that some of the blogs on the Hot Blog list talk a great deal about sex. So, I thought that since Iraq and Sex seem to be hot topics I thought that I would ask the following question:

What made you click to read this blog: Iraq or Sex in the title?

Of course, you may have clicked on the blog just because my name was on it, but I doubt that.

BUSH-CHENEY AD FACT CHECK

AD TITLE: �Accountability�

DATE: 5/12/04

NARRATOR: �Better Education is about accountability. For years, low standards and poor accountability plagued our schools. Then President Bush signed the most sweeping education reforms in 35 years. John Kerry praised the President�s reforms. Even voted for them.�

THE FACTS:

Bush Shortchanged Own Education Law by $9.4 Billion in 2005. Bush proposed $9.4 billion less for his No Child Left Behind Act than was authorized by the act in his 2005 budget. Bush has shortchanged NCLB by a total of $33.2 billion in his last four budgets. [Department of Ed Budgets 2001-2005,] http:// www.ed.gov

Bush Terminated Dropout Prevention Programs. Bush cut dropout prevention programs entirely out of his 2005 budget. In explanation of the cut, OMB called the programs �unnecessary,� saying that other funding was available for this purpose. [Budget of the United States, ; Major Reductions and Terminations in the 2005 Budget, OMB] http://www.omb.gov

Half of All Hispanics Drop Out by High School. According to a study released in February 2004 by The Urban Institute, only 53 percent of all Hispanic students got a high school diploma in 2001. [The Urban Institute, Who Graduates, Who doesn�t,, 2/25/04] http://www.urban.org

The Evolution of Religion

Evolution doesn�t only mean the change of species over generations as Darwin proposed it. Evolution means the slow change of anything over time. Most everything changes over time, including Religion. The Religions that exist today, no matter how they try to conform to the teachings of yesteryear must change to conform to the realities of today.

So, if we look at Religions of primitive man we can look at both the details and the purpose of the religions. Most people consider the details of the religion and largely ignore the purpose of the religion. The details of the religion are the names of the gods and the purpose of each god. Also the methods and celebrations of each god are studied considerably. However, in these ancient tribes the religion�s purpose is more important than the details of the religion. This is because the leader of the tribe uses the teachings of the religion to enforce the will of the leader. If the leader has the cooperation of the religious leader the tribe functions as a unit. However, human nature being what it is the tribe and the religious leaders don�t always agree with each other.

When a problem between the leaders occurs, a smart religious leader can use the accepted religious teachings to find a way to get what he wants accomplished. A smart tribe leader can keep the religious leader in check. Since there are hundreds of ancient tribes that have existed over time the details of the religions were modified over time to assist the tribe leader or the religious leader. Over time the details of these religions became cumbersome and since they were not written down the details were able to change.

We all know about Abraham, the ancient Jewish religious leader. He obviously knew of the concepts of the multiple gods to which the tribal people in the area around Ur prayed. Being a wise person he realized the simplicity of the single God responsible for all the aspects of each of the individual gods. This concept proved important not only to the Jews but also to the gentiles in the area. One strong God proved to be an important psychological advantage over the multi-god concept. The strong single god could be strong enough to defeat the lesser specific gods of old.

For us today this seems obvious, because of the culture that we were raised in, but at that time the concepts fought for acceptance in the minds of the people. Some people may have thought, �Lots of gods is better than one God.� Another person may have thought, �One all powerful God is better than a group of semi-powerful gods.�

We all know what happened over history, but we also have to think about the evolution of religions in relationship to the evolution of the governments in which the religions operated.

I will continue later with that part of the story.

The Evolution of Religion

Evolution doesn�t only mean the change of species over generations as Darwin proposed it. Evolution means the slow change of anything over time. Most everything changes over time, including Religion. The Religions that exist today, no matter how they try to conform to the teachings of yesteryear must change to conform to the realities of today.

So, if we look at Religions of primitive man we can look at both the details and the purpose of the religions. Most people consider the details of the religion and largely ignore the purpose of the religion. The details of the religion are the names of the gods and the purpose of each god. Also the methods and celebrations of each god are studied considerably. However, in these ancient tribes the religion�s purpose is more important than the details of the religion. This is because the leader of the tribe uses the teachings of the religion to enforce the will of the leader. If the leader has the cooperation of the religious leader the tribe functions as a unit. However, human nature being what it is the tribe and the religious leaders don�t always agree with each other.

When a problem between the leaders occurs, a smart religious leader can use the accepted religious teachings to find a way to get what he wants accomplished. A smart tribe leader can keep the religious leader in check. Since there are hundreds of ancient tribes that have existed over time the details of the religions were modified over time to assist the tribe leader or the religious leader. Over time the details of these religions became cumbersome and since they were not written down the details were able to change.

We all know about Abraham, the ancient Jewish religious leader. He obviously knew of the concepts of the multiple gods to which the tribal people in the area around Ur prayed. Being a wise person he realized the simplicity of the single God responsible for all the aspects of each of the individual gods. This concept proved important not only to the Jews but also to the gentiles in the area. One strong God proved to be an important psychological advantage over the multi-god concept. The strong single god could be strong enough to defeat the lesser specific gods of old.

For us today this seems obvious, because of the culture that we were raised in, but at that time the concepts fought for acceptance in the minds of the people. Some people may have thought, �Lots of gods is better than one God.� Another person may have thought, �One all powerful God is better than a group of semi-powerful gods.�

We all know what happened over history, but we also have to think about the evolution of religions in relationship to the evolution of the governments in which the religions operated.

I will continue later with that part of the story.

Immigrants

John Steinbeck wrote the �Grapes of Wrath,� a novel about the people in Oklahoma immigrating to California during the dust bowl of the 1930s. Farmers who owned land in Oklahoma could no longer farm the land, so they packed up their families and moved them across the country to the Central Valley in California. This is the American story for many of us. When the Okies arrived in California they found that others already owned the land and these former landowners were now reduced to being farm hands for the rich landowner. Bad luck for the Okies, right? People in California no longer use the word Okie as a derogatory term. This is because they have new immigrants to do the chore of farming the land.

An artist I know spent time in a collaboration to produce a work based on the �Grapes of Wrath.� The piece was tremendously successful and the Artist wanted to elaborate on the work. So, what is the logical continuation of this work? The artist determined that the work would be continued to describe the current immigration of Mexican workers from Mexico to fill the same jobs.

It turned out that one member of the collaboration could not see how the Okies plight was related to the Mexican plight. �These issues are completely different,� he told us. He ceased being part of the collaboration.

Personally, I thought that the two historical events are too similar. Wouldn�t it be boring to see such a similar piece with only the names and the language changed? As it turns out, many people don�t see the similarity, and that makes the two pieces together more powerful than either of them alone.

That's the only explanation for the following poll that says that 22% of Americans say Bush is doing an excellent job in Iraq.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/War" title="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/War" target="_blank"http://www.rasmussenreports.c...%20with%20Iraq%20Bush%20R atings.htm

Immigrants

John Steinbeck wrote the �Grapes of Wrath,� a novel about the people in Oklahoma immigrating to California during the dust bowl of the 1930s. Farmers who owned land in Oklahoma could no longer farm the land, so they packed up their families and moved them across the country to the Central Valley in California. This is the American story for many of us. When the Okies arrived in California they found that others already owned the land and these former landowners were now reduced to being farm hands for the rich landowner. Bad luck for the Okies, right? People in California no longer use the word Okie as a derogatory term. This is because they have new immigrants to do the chore of farming the land.

An artist I know spent time in a collaboration to produce a work based on the �Grapes of Wrath.� The piece was tremendously successful and the Artist wanted to elaborate on the work. So, what is the logical continuation of this work? The artist determined that the work would be continued to describe the current immigration of Mexican workers from Mexico to fill the same jobs.

It turned out that one member of the collaboration could not see how the Okies plight was related to the Mexican plight. �These issues are completely different,� he told us. He ceased being part of the collaboration.

Personally, I thought that the two historical events are too similar. Wouldn�t it be boring to see such a similar piece with only the names and the language changed? As it turns out, many people don�t see the similarity, and that makes the two pieces together more powerful than either of them alone.

Will the Voters Forget?

It is six months until the presidential election. George W Bush is at an all time low in the polls as far as his economic and war policy goes. This is mainly because of the pictures of abuse of Iraqi prisoners. Congressmen viewed over 1000 more pictures today saying that they were horrid examples of man�s inhumanity toward man. But, will the voters remember this in November. If Bush follows previous election strategy he will make promises that he never intend to keep. Everyone should remember in 2000 when he promised that he was a uniter and not a divider. How many people today believe that the nation is more united than it was in 2000? Remember in 2000 when Bush called himself a compassionate conservative. How many people believe that he really is compassionate? Remember when George W Bush said that he would gives us tax cuts. He did this by taking money away from the states. So, the states raised taxes zeroing out tax cuts, except for the extremely wealthy who had their taxes on stock dividends cut in half.

I certainly hope the voters will not forget.

Bush Failed as Education President

In 2000 Bush told us how he was going to be the education president. He still touts the �No Child Left Behind� Program in his stump speeches. But he refuses to fund this program. Apparently fighting needless wars in Iraq against a non-threat to the US is more important than funding this program. What is bothersome about this is that Bush continues to claim that he supports reform in education but he will not commit the money to this program. Republicans in congress refuse to pass a reasonable budget for this program, so it is effectively shut down, and it exists in name only. Bush likes this, because he can claim that he is the �Education President,� because he signed this bill into law. But, he keeps the money away from this program so that it actually doesn�t do anything.

How much more stupidity can the Bush administration accomplish before the American public recognize it for what it is?

On the economy Bush chose to cut the tax on dividends to spur growth. Economists including former Treasury secretary Robert Reich told the Bush administration that this tax cut would do very little to stimulate the economy. An alternative plan to stop withholding Social Security deductions for 6 months to a year would be more likely to stimulate the economy. This tax cut would put money into the pockets of people who would spend it. The Social security tax is withheld on your first $80,000.00 dollars, and then it is no longer withheld. So, people getting the cut would be proportionally given to lower income people who would likely spend the money into the local economies. The money would be spent and spent many times, multiplying the effect of the tax cut. The administration however, decided that the tax cut should go to their constitutes � the wealthy stock holders. And, since the cut is on dividends from stock, which means the more stock you, own the higher your tax cut. It is clear that this is a tax cut is for the wealthy and does not effect the working class.

The Bush administration worried about the release of pictures of flag draped coffins returning from Iraq. Now they are worried about pictures of torture coming home from Iraq. Some there will be a video of a soldier telling us how she hated the prisoners in the prison. She is proud of the fact that the prisoners fear her.

This is the truth about Iraq no matter what the administration wants you to know. The American people need to look at this, these pictures, and read the words of those who were in Iraq and have seen even more. The administration is all about lying. From a year ago when the created the fictional story of Jessica Lynch to the present day when they continue to try to hide any negative aspect of the war while the tout any positive aspect that they can find.

When the Iraqis see the lies of the administration they can�t help but tell themselves that the American occupation isn't any different than the Bathist administration they had just been under.

The Americans have killed almost 20,000 Iraqis. How many Iraqis did Saddam Hussein kill in 2002 � the year before the war? How many would have died if we had never invaded? Was the Iraq war worth the cost of human life? Was the Iraq war worth the cost of American life? Was it worth the price we paid? The price our children will continue to pay?

All of this and we haven�t even fixed Afghanistan. War Lords still govern most town in Afghanistan and heroin production is at an all time high.

Kerry is a Liberal

I don�t understand how Americans fall for the Republican War Machine�s tactics. During the Democratic primary season Republicans advertised the fact that Howard Dean for a far left Liberal. Democrats panicked and voted for Kerry instead, because they thought that Kerry was �electable.� Kerry did have more moderate views than Howard Dean, Denis Kucinich and Al Sharpton. His views were about the same as Joe Liberman and Westly Clark. So, once Kerry won the nomination Republicans again started the spread the fear by saying that John Kerry was a Liberal. Not only that, but a Massachusetts Liberal.

When will Americans learn that the Republican Party is all about fear mongering. This is the method they use to strong arm themselves into power positions. This is a main reason why people just give up and don�t vote. They don�t agree with Republican values, and they hear the fear mongering and believe it. Then they just don�t vote. Not voting helps the Fundamentalist Christians in the Republican Party continue to control our government.

Suicide

In 1998 a friend of mine killed himself. At the time we hadn�t spoken for about 15 years, so I wasn�t really that close to him at the time. However, for five or six years in our lives we had been quite close. I also know for a fact that I changed his life at two specific times and I always wonder if those effects somehow lead him to taking his own life.

In High School my friend was one of the top three students in our class. He knew what he wanted and he pursued it voraciously. Looking back on it now, I don�t know how much of that was internal drive and how much of it was external pressure. He father was an immigrant engineer who was driven to succeed. My grandfather had emigrated from the same country, so we had our family culture in common. Bill had everything that anyone could want and he could go to any University that he wanted to. He chose a Technical School and decided to major in Physics. I chose a Liberal Arts School and also decide to major in Physics. I had reason for my decision: I just didn�t think that I knew enough about the world around me to specialize in one subject. I wanted to take Philosophy, History, Music and Literature classes as well as Science. Bill on the other hand had heard that this Technical School was one of the best schools for solid state physics and he attended.

After one year of college the two of us compared notes. At my school I found a job in the Physics department doing research on fiber optic systems. I was very excited about my philosophy and history classes. Bill was not happy about his school. He had not found a research position. He was frustrated with some of the students in the school. He came up with many negative aspects of his last year of school.

To my surprise he transferred schools for the following year. At the time I didn�t worry about it. But, as time went on he wasn�t happy at my school as well. I felt like I had sold him a bill of goods. Obviously, it was part of his personality; he may not have been satisfied with much in general. But he didn�t make it any better. One of the professors was looking for a lab student. Bill didn�t even apply to work in the lab even though it was a solid state physics lab and he had told me that he had wanted to do some lab work.

So that was one way that I had changed Bill�s life; I convinced him to change schools.

Bill wasn�t a very social person. I wasn�t a very social person in those days, but Bill was even less social than I was. I had found a group of friends and we tended to do things together on the weekends. Our group organized three or four parties a year. They were theme parties. In our senior year we organized a 1960s party were we dressed the part, played 60s music, and smoked a little dope. Bill came to the party, but he was worried about the marijuana. He was going to leave the party, but I convinced him that he shouldn�t leave. I told him that he didn�t have to smoke any weed, but in the end he did smoke some. I believe that the peer pressure from the party was the main influence, but if I had let him go home he never would have smoked that joint.

Well, after that party Bill told me that it was my fault that he had smoked that joint. He now saw the world in a whole different light. He said that nothing could be the same. I didn�t know what he meant, because it was just one joint. How was he effected? I will never know. I don�t know if it was for the positive or the negative. But, now that he has killed himself I assume it wasn�t good.

Well, Bill graduated top in our college class. He went to graduate school in Illinois and I went to graduate school in Texas. Our paths never crossed again. Although I knew what he was doing, because I talked to his sister, and some of the professors at my school. I found out that he had changed majors to Electrical engineering, because it had more rules. Apparently Bill needed structure in his life.

It was a shock when I learned of his death. It turned out that he electrocuted himself. So, I guess it was a shock to him as well.

If you disagree with me about whether Rumsfeld should resign, then you can sign a petition to have him resign at:

http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/rumsfeld.php" title="http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/rumsfeld.php" target="_blank"http://www.johnkerry.com/peti...

Rumsfeld Should Not Be Fired

Democrats have been calling for Rumsfeld to resign, but this is mistake. It is quite obvious that Rumsfeld is a lightning rod for criticism. Regardless of whether Rumsfeld ordered the humiliation of Iraqi prisoners or if he didn�t know what was going on he should have. This is a systemic problem with this administration. Everyone selects plausible deniability. Bush claims he doesn�t know anything about anything, because he has delegated everything to everyone else. He has delegated the administration to Dick Cheney who make the decisions and tells Bush what he decided. He has delegated the Commander and Chief role to Rummy. And, Rummy claims he delegated everything to the Generals and contractors. So, when Rummy gives the order: � we need information.� He can say that he knew nothing about how the information was or wasn�t obtained.

So, the Democrats need to keep this guy in office, because those who are middle of the road will see what this administration is doing. And they can see it over and over and over again.

=http://img29.photobucket.com/... WIDTH="450" HEIGHT="300"



US Napalms children in Vietnam




=http://img29.photobucket.com/... WIDTH="450" HEIGHT="300"



US Tortures Iraqis in Iraq




When will the US understand that they don’t always have God on their side? Sometimes it’s the Devil. Bush said “…we will rid the world of evil.” He went to Iraq to do it. Like they said in the “Good Book:” Luke 6:41 - Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

Wealthy Republicans vs. Wealthy Democrats

Most people know that they Republican Party has its recent roots in the protection of property. While, the Democratic Party has its recent roots in the support of the labor movement. So, the question becomes why Wealthy Democrats exist at all? There are many reasons for this. As we all know, protection of personal property is not the only issue in American Politics. Therefore, each person on a personal level decides which issues are most important and rank them. Then, they look at the Political Party platforms that each Party writes every four years at the presidential election year conventions. (At least this is how people who care decide which Political Party to support.) So, those who are wealthy and believe that the protection of their wealth is the most important or it is higher on their list will join the Republican Party. Those who believe that labor rights, education of their children, a clean environment, multiculturalism or other Democratic Values are more important than protecting their wealth would be attracted to the Democratic Party.

Stem Cell Research

Well, Nancy Reagan finally broke ranks with the Religious Right of the Republican Party. She is making a plea to remove the arbitrary limits on stem cell research. Of course, after seeing the horrible effects of the terrible Alzheimer�s Disease she understands that there are reasons to use stem cells to do research.

But, why is the Christian Right so opposed to scientific research? It all comes down to what is a stem cell. A stem cell is a cell that can easily become any other type of cell. This is because a stem cell has some genes turned on and other genes turned off in order for the cells to multiply, but not yet become a specialized cell. Although we do not yet know how it happens, stem cells begin to distinguish themselves into specialized cells such as nerve cells, organ cells, and tissue cells of all types. Since human nerve cells do not multiply in adults, it would be very nice to know how apply some stem cells and have them multiply and change into nerve cells. If these nerve cells could fill the gap in people with spinal cord injuries we would be going a long way toward repairing these injuries.

The Bush administration has limited research in stem cells to stem cell lines established before some arbitrary date. The federal government will not fund research on any new stem cell lines. This is a ridiculous standard, because most of the lines established before this date could not be used for many reasons. Some of the remaining established cell lines are not made public, therefore many scientists can not do research on stem cells at all.

But, worst of all, if one of these stem cell lines actually pans out and nerve cells for example could be used to repair spinal cord injuries there would still be a problem. Any recipient would reject any stem cells created by these stem cell lines. The only cells that would not be rejected would need to come from the recipient him or her self. This means that a new line of stem cells would need to be created for each recipient before they could be implanted without the need for rejection drugs. A stem cell line could be created for each patient, but under current law this research could not get federal funding.

However, creating these stem cell lines could soon be illegal. Why? This is because the Christian Fundamentalists who don�t understand science want to ban it. They want to ban creating stem cells from the potential recipient, because the technique to create these stem cell lines is called cloning. Since the first step in cloning a human would be to create a stem cell that would begin to multiply.

Think about it. If the DNA from a cell of yours were put into an egg cell and it began to multiply. Then stem cells are created. These stem cells could be used to repair your body, be it a new organ, new nerve cell, even new skin. But, it is not being funded as research and it could soon be illegal because of the non-scientific thinking of the Christian Fundamentalists now running our government.

Two Americas

In the last few years I have seen the divide in America grow and grow. I don�t understand it, but I have observed it. In the 1970s no young person would express conservative views, because the social stigma associated with it was horrid. Conservatives didn�t have fun! Conservatives were �squares,� they were from your parent�s generation. But many of my parents� friends believed in the triumph of unions and the labor movement. They believed that sticking together was a way of preventing the corporations from taking advantage of the working guy.

But in the 1970s people began to search for a deeper meaning in life. Everything was possible! People studied Eastern religions, Islam, New Age, and cults. During this time the Tele Evangelicals began to attract huge audiences because people could be exposed to religion without actually going to church. This was an amazing business move for many of these preachers who made millions of dollars preaching on TV and living opulent lifestyles off TV. Jimmy Swaggart, Tammy Faye Baker and others were caught stealing millions and paid the price. However, many other preachers had good accountants and lawyers and never got caught.

These Christian Preachers filled the airwaves with hypocrisy. Sending money to them would save you and being a good Christian was about sending more and more money to these preachers.

We all know that the Republican Party is the party of the wealthy. And, these preachers wanted their wealth protected. So, they began to preach about how only the Republican Party could save this country. Since wealth isn�t a major concern for these Christians (since they didn�t have any), preachers told them that Republicans would change the social fabric of the country and make it more conducive to raising a Christian family. They told people how Jesus didn�t really mean to love one another. Instead you should love rich straight white men the most. Then love rich white straight women the next most.

Little by little the Christians took over the Republican Party, and then the White House and the Congress. And now these Fundamentalist Christians are destroying the society we live in. First by destroying the education system. They water down science by teaching that the Christian Bible tells us more about the world we live in than the observations made by scientists. They change history by saying that the accomplishments of white Europeans are more important than any other people�s accomplishments. They water down math by telling us addition and multiplication are more important than critical thought. They water down testing by insisting that essay questions reveal to much about the test taker.

I could go on, but I think that the main point here is to be on the guard of the Christian Hypocrisy. They want to change America, and if they have their way we will be back in the dark ages is no time at all.

Christian Hypocrisy

In the last few years I have seen the divide in America grow and grow. I don�t understand it, but I have observed it. In the 1970s no young person would express conservative views, because the social stigma associated with it was horrid. Conservatives didn�t have fun! Conservatives were �squares,� they were from your parent�s generation. But many of my parents� friends believed in the triumph of unions and the labor movement. They believed that sticking together was a way of preventing the corporations from taking advantage of the working guy.

But in the 1970s people began to search for a deeper meaning in life. Everything was possible! People studied Eastern religions, Islam, New Age, and cults. During this time the Tele Evangelicals began to attract huge audiences because people could be exposed to religion without actually going to church. This was an amazing business move for many of these preachers who made millions of dollars preaching on TV and living opulent lifestyles off TV. Jimmy Swaggart, Tammy Faye Baker and others were caught stealing millions and paid the price. However, many other preachers had good accountants and lawyers and never got caught.

These Christian Preachers filled the airwaves with hypocrisy. Sending money to them would save you and being a good Christian was about sending more and more money to these preachers.

We all know that the Republican Party is the party of the wealthy. And, these preachers wanted their wealth protected. So, they began to preach about how only the Republican Party could save this country. Since wealth isn�t a major concern for these Christians (since they didn�t have any), preachers told them that Republicans would change the social fabric of the country and make it more conducive to raising a Christian family. They told people how Jesus didn�t really mean to love one another. Instead you should love rich straight white men the most. Then love rich white straight women the next most.

Little by little the Christians took over the Republican Party, and then the White House and the Congress. And now these Fundamentalist Christians are destroying the society we live in. First by destroying the education system. They water down science by teaching that the Christian Bible tells us more about the world we live in than the observations made by scientists. They change history by saying that the accomplishments of white Europeans are more important than any other people�s accomplishments. They water down math by telling us addition and multiplication are more important than critical thought. They water down testing by insisting that essay questions reveal to much about the test taker.

I could go on, but I think that the main point here is to be on the guard of the Christian Hypocrisy. They want to change America, and if they have their way we will be back in the dark ages is no time at all.

Kerry Says Bush Must Do More to Lower Oil Price

What is Kerry doing here? What a goof! He is asking Bush to do something about oil prices, and Bush will just call up his buddy in Saudi Arabia and oil production will go up and prices will come down. Bush will be a hero.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&s toryID=5078918" title="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&s toryID=5078918" target="_blank"http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...

Finally, maybe the pieces are beginning to fit into place. We should remember the contractors that were burned and hung from bridges in Falluja. We still don�t know what their jobs were. But, we do know that some of the contractors were hired to be interrogators. And, other contractors were hired to be prison guards. So, it could very well be that those burnings and hangings were acts of revenge for the abuses at the prisons. Many of the people were detained, abused and then released. We should find out what those contractors did in Iraq.

Beer

I meant to write this beer blog a while back, but I got distracted with all the politics of this election year. Since this is Friday I thought that it would be a good time to write it.

We now have some good beers brewed in America, but these good beers just don�t have a very large market share. This is very confusing to me, being the good American capitalist that I am. We have the phenomena of microbreweries. This means that some guy decided that he could brew beer using a recipe his grandfather brought over from the old country. He brews the beer and sells it to a small region near where he lives. The beer from these breweries is priced above the average price, because the quality is much higher. However, some of the larger breweries have jumped on the bandwagon and bought up some of the small breweries and they now sell their own �micro-brew.�

Everyone argues that with the capitalist society we have competition and therefore only the best survives. This is the key to the American Society and why America is the greatest country in the world.

If this is true, then how could Budweiser, Miller or Coors even be in business? This beer just tastes horrid. There are so many choices in America and these beers remain up on top. Why? I believe that there must be a flaw in the capitalist economic system and this proves it.

There are many other examples of this that I won�t go into now, but the beer market and the rise of the micro-brew should be held up as an example of a flaw in the capitalist system of economics.

Rumsfeld Does Not Get It

While listening to the Senate Armed services committee hearings today I am coming away with the following impression:

Rumsfeld thinks that the fact that there were abuses is a minor issue. The only thing that makes this a major problem is that the pictures got out into the public. When he is asked about the abuses, specifically, are there any more abuses going on in the system. Rumsfeld responds with the fact that there are many more pictures and videos that could possibly be released. What? That wasn�t the question. The question was: are there any more abuses going on in Iraq, Afghanistan or Guantanamo Bay. Rumsfeld is focused on the exposure of past evidence instead the fact that there is abuse going on.

Like I said in a previous post. They solved the problem by making sure that everyone knows that photography is prohibited. This just shows that there is a major misunderstanding of the problem, and these interrogation procedures will continue. It is just that photographs will not be taken. That�s the problem � don�t let the world know what we are doing in Iraq.

Bush Apologizes for Iraqi Prison Abuse

Hey, its about time POTUS!

Funny how this idiot tried to do everything he could to keep from apologizing. He must have thought, hey the Arabs are just as stupid as the Americans, I can just say some stuff that sounds like I�m sad about this but I don�t actually have to say I�m sorry. But the Iraqis called him on this, and he finally took responsibility. How sad that he had to be forced into taking such an obvious step. It just goes to show how stubborn this guy is. Really Really sad!

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml" title="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml" target="_blank"http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...;jsessionid=MNTW0RJFOBBMK CRBAEZSFEY?type=topNews&s toryID=5064767§ion=ne ws

Michael Savage Makes Me Puke

Listening to Michael Savage yesterday just made my blood boil. He has determined that the media was to blame for the release of the damning photos from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. He plays loose with the facts and has determined that we don�t know what was happening in those prisons and these photos don�t mean anything. He lessens the importance of these photos by claiming that these were not torture rooms, but humiliation rooms. And, he claims, humiliation is a very good way to treat these terrorists that were being held in the prisons. These people were terrorists, after all, because they were arrested and that proves that they are guilty. They could be holding vital intelligence that the US needs. And, after all, the US was not pulling out finger nails or putting people in iron maidens so all this is OK.

Wait a minute! These people were rounded up in broad raids in which the US admits that 60% of the people were not a threat. Supported by the following link:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/" title="http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/" target="_blank"http://www.newyorker.com/fact...

Of course, 100% of the people are innocent until proven guilty, or is military law less just than American law. Where is the due process here? This is like saying that we should round up the people in Idaho, because there are white supremacists living there. Then torturing them with sleep deprivation and humiliation until they give up their neighbors. These people were not terrorists and, even if a few of them were � they were not proven guilty. Americans believe people are innocent until proven guilty. How can we be spreading democracy to this country (our only remaining goal in this country) if we don�t use our democracy as an example for them to see.

But, blaming the media for publicizing these photos is not taking responsibility for the action of these warriors that represent the US in Iraq.